I'm not saying all RWD cars have a 17% drivetrain loss, but it's pretty well accepted that it's pretty close to the norm for modern cars. I don't disagree with everything you've said Gord, it's not a set % and most likely certainly not once a car is heavily modfied but the % doesn't change in a dramatic manner. As for your Miata example, give me a break, Mazda screwed up the numbers on those just like they did the RX-8. Also, the numbers I've seen corespond more with what DMP claims rather than what you claim Gord. Show me a link where there is any proof that the Miata is losing 22.5% in the drivetrain, because I'm certainly not digging through the forums to find it. If Mazda is designing RWD cars with 22.5-30% drivetrain loss then they have bigger problems than if the Renesis just isn't putting out 239hp. You and others have got a far out/unlikely answer for just about everything regarding the output of this engine.

People dyno their cars far lower than they should be dynoing with 238chp, so it's the dynos fault, the ECUs fault, the gear you were in during the dyno, the ABS sensors fault, or the trannys fault because you're losing 25-30% from the drivetrain. Not the simple explanation which would be the dynos are accurate.

The trap speeds and times are a bit off for a car with 238hp and weighing 3k lbs, not quite sure how you guys explain away this one other than claiming again the tranny is eating up 25-30% of the engines power.

RB dynos and engine and comes up with about 215hp to the crank, but it doesn't count because it wasn't done with SAE regulations so your conclusion is the car really does make 238hp even though that number was not settled on as a result of SAE dyno testing.

Now we have Mrwiggles with his G-tech getting 218whp, cause we all know how accurate those are.

You guys are right, it traps the same as 210chp and 175whp cars just because it does, but it really has more horsepower than those numbers would ever elude to.


Which seems more likely to you guys, all those factors coming into play, or that the renesis just isn't making the power that's advertised? This is like arguing with someone about the existense of god, no matter what you'll never win because with blind faith rather than logical analysis of evidence you will always have a way to easily disregard hard evidence.

I'm going to walk away from this argument now, you guys are willing to come up with just about anything to show the RX-8 makes 238hp, when the simplest explanation is that it just doesn't make 238hp. I bid you adue with this final thought, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate".

 

Whoops, one last thing.

1.) Lower rotational mass due to the use of lighter materials.

2.) Close ratio gearing.

 

not only is it clear they never did so - they said they didnt! in ( i believe- someone can check it or dan or bern could chime in here) the statement they made to rotarynews.com way back then they said they did not pull any engines and run them on engine dynos for the new rating. they dyno some cars on chasis dynos and ran them at some tracks(for which time slips were supplied) and then decided on 238. so they must have come to the conclusion of 238 based on the testing they did and what ever drive train loss number they decided was accurate. sound familiar? i said that 2 pages ago.

 

Ike, you not only misunderstand, you don't understand. First off - I'm not insisting the Renesis makes 238 - I said right upfront that it didn't matter if Mazda claimed 250 or 247, that number became completely irrelevant after Mazda published the revised rating, especially since they compensated or made whole every singer buyer of an RX-8 before the 238 rating revision. Further, I said for legal purposes, Mazda only has to show that the Renesis makes 226 hp to have any lawsuit thrown out. Got that, 226? You, of course, conveniently decide to ignore those arguments that make sense and discredit your bogus arguments, and focus on minutae that are completely off the point. I explain how your "standard drivetrain loss" is false, and all you can do is focus on the example numbers I used (note "example", nobody threaten to sue me if the numbers are off by 5 or 10 hp, they were used for illustrative purposes to discredit Ike and are completely valid for that purpose ), completely ignoring the fact that I proved your claim of a standard drivetrain loss to be bogus.

Speaking of which, to your above misunderstandings...

1) The driveshaft could be made of iron, steel, aluminum, carbon fiber, spider webs, oak... and it wouldn't make 0.0001 hp difference to the power ratings or 0.00001% difference to the drivetrain losses. The rotational mass doesn't affect power output or loss in the slightest, a solid driveshaft is 100% efficient no matter it's composition. There will be losses in u-joints, CV joints, and dependencies on driveshaft alignment for those joints - but the driveshaft material is a complete non-factor. Yes, the material makes a big difference to the rotational inertia and acceleration - but neither of those is a factor in a horsepower rating or drivetrain efficiency. That's an engineering fact, no argument possible. If you don't understand it, that doesn't mean it's wrong.

2) Gear ratios have nothing to do with the mechanical losses in a transmission! Do you even understand the difference between close-ratio and wide-ratio gearboxes? 6 gearsets instead of 5 mean more rotating gearsets and bearings, increasing internal friction. That's all - the difference in the gear ratios between 3rd and 4th on a 5 speed box vs. 3rd and 4th on a 6 speed box (ie your close ratio gearing argument) is completely immaterial, again.

Regards,
Gordon

 

Still -eventhough I've the slightless clue here- there's relatively small variation in power output from a relatively higher % change on gear ratios. So small, that I would ignore it.

I wish they would have taught me this is mech. physics.....

 

Oh what a wonderful thread!
Ike, you've made many great points as usual. I don't beleive you have some evil intent here as some seem to think (Trolling.) However it is my humble opinion that Gord has risen to the top in this debate with the most undeniable statements.
Horsepower losses don't have fixed percentages in a certain drivetrain type and as he demonstrated they don't even stay remotely the same in the same car with modifications. If today's argument is related to whether there is grounds for a law suit then someone would have to prove that this motor does not produce 226 under ideal conditions.
All in all I think that most people here agree that it probably makes about 220 as supported by RB's engine dyno run, which is of course more than an RSX.
I just wish Mazda would stop making questionable power claims. They're at it again with the Mazdaspeed 6, talking about target hp. I don't want to hear anything about target hp from my favorite auto manufacturer ever again. It's like a drunk saying he's changed but continuing to hang out at bars.
So Ike and Gord I think you have more agreement than you even realize.

 

i love the rx8, and i dont care one bit if it is 220 hp... but i wish if that was the truth, that mazda just started out with 220 in the first place... not a big deal overall with the performance the way it is and the overall package..

btw- dont know if anyone cares... but i do have the July 2003 issue of Stuff with kelly hu on the cover and their big fold out ad still has the 250 hp on it. that issue came out in late may or june...

 

Isn't this thread supposed to be about a lawsuit? Has anyone seen the lawsuit?

 

I don't think that Ike is trying to upset people.

I find the zealotry towards the RX-8 here a little bit annoying sometimes. Getting upset because people are trying to refute what mazda claims is counterproductive.

Mazda should have used facts when making press releases and selling cars. It is called lying when you don't. People trying to refute mazda's claims don't affect you, it makes mazda more honest, if successful. It doesn't make your beautiful car any less beautiful.

I don't think the rx-8 makes 238 horsepower, but I bought one the day before yesterday because it is just an awesome car (I even traded my wrx in for it!). Looking at it makes me happy. Driving it and watching the revs climb while the angry buzzing sounds emanate from beneath the bonnet make me happy. It is a fine car.

This forum would be a good case study for blind love of products. Just because a product is insanely great, doesn't mean the corporation behind that product is perfect.

Take a trip over to a macintosh forum some time and then come back over here... there will be some alarming parallels. I like macintosh, and apple computers, but I can accept the fact that they aren't perfect, and that apple is fallible.

I just wanted to get that off my chest. You may now go back to your regularly scheduled program.

Moo

 

Bleh, I said I was going to walk away, but I'm going to go back on my word (you all knew I would :p). I've understand all along that Mazda would only have to prove 226hp, something they could probably pull off even though I think the engine makes a little less. I understand your drivetrain loss explanatain and don't disagree, however I still believe that most RWD cars produced today have in the area of 17% drivetrain loss. I've never really thought it's a set in stone standard number that remains constant, but it's a pretty good starting point and will be close to accurate on most modern RWD cars IMO.

I was argueing that the Renesis doesn't make 238hp, a tad bit off topic maybe, but certainly not by much considering the topic. This is the statement that you made that got me started on the debate in the first place "The issue is that a few people think that Mazda still misrepresents the power output of the engine. There's been absolutely zero hard proof or evidence offered that this is true". A statement that I totally disagree with, I think there is plenty of evidence.

The 247 and 250 number only became irrelevant LEGALLY once people signed waivers basicly giving up their rights to take legal action on the issue. However it was relevant to me because when I testdrove the car I thought to myself that there was no way in hell the car had 247hp, I loved the car but was unimpressed with the acceleration. I'm not mad or I didn't whine about it, I just gave up on the idea of buying one. I would imagine it would also relevant to some owners that just wanted what they paid for rather than some free oil changes and a 500 dolar giftcard, or giving back the car altogether.

I think my hypothesis as to how Mazda came up with the 238hp number is a pretty good one. Could I be wrong, absolutely. Could Mazda have picked a more random number if in fact I am wrong, I doubt it. It's clear they didn't have any hard evidence to support that 238 number, and it just seems to me that it was a number that would help avoid possible legal problems. Your argument about SAE testing is silly to me, there is no agency that witnesses the testing, it's done by the manufacturers so who is it that is keeping Mazda honest and why does whether it was or wasn't SAE testing really mean anything? The HP numbers for the Miata and the RX-8 with 247hp was SAE, we all know how well that worked out...

As for your thoughts on drivetrain loss regarding the CF driveshaft and 6speed you very well may be correct. I know a lot about cars, but certainly don't claim to know everything. My comments on those two factors were just an afterthought and just popped into my head and seemed to make sense.

My argument for the RX-8 having less transmission loss may be bunk, but it's about as sound as your argument for the Miata having 22.5% and the RX-8 possibly having a very high drivetrain loss of up to 30%.

Regards,
Ike

 

In light of all this, don't be so shocked if a lawsuit doesn't come to fruition at some point, and don't think for a second that Mazda wouldn't fudge some numbers in order to keep that from happening. Just take a look at what happened to Hyundai. I don't think it will happen, but it wouldn't be the first time.

http://www.autoblog.com/entry/6166397863117263
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-hyundai_x.htm
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...ettlement.html

 

If necessary, Mazda will not have any problem proving the car can put out 226+ peak HP because it does.

The RX8 isn't the first hi-revver to be criticized for feeling slower than its peak-power rating implies. Because of its narrow power band, it makes less HP (as a percentage of peak power) after upshifting than typical cars (as a percentage of their peak power after they upshift). Having a close ratio 6-speed helps, but only so much. So when comparing cars for straight-line acceleration, a more meaningful power number is the average power in the RPM range used.

Then there's its engine management, which probably has the RX8 putting out its max output at some speeds/situations, but not for others.

Who cares? The RX8 can do the 1/4 in 14.5-14.7 (some have reported 14.3-14.4, but I haven't seen any timeslips). If you bought this car for drag racing, you're an idiot. If you bought it without a test drive, you're an idiot. IkeWRX may be a troll with an unhealthy fixation (3000 posts in a year-and-a-half at a forum dedicated to a car he doesn't want), but he was smart enough to drive it and decide it didn't have enough acceleration for his tastes.

 

Cheers to you Deslock for successfully cutting through all the crap in both a refreshing and consise matter and pretty much summing up every RELEVANT point being discussed. My hat is off to you. These are my sentiments exactly in each and EVERY area.

 

it's actually pretty refreshing to see someone give Ike a run for his money like Gord is doing. Kudos, Gord!

 

Deslock, I wasted so much time and effort on this posts and you pretty much summed things up very nicely in a few simple sentences. Great job indeed!

Now if you can only get yourself up to Toronto immediately and mediate for the NHL and players association meeting taking place today, we could be watching hockey this Saturday night!

 

So, is the 239 Horsepower the adjust number, or the misrepresented number?

Early in 2003, I heard that the RX8 was to have about 255 H/P. That also may have been the turbo version.

Anyway... I love my 8, and I have excellent power. I hadn't heard anything regarding a lawsuit pending. I wanted to check with this group. Thanks for the feedback.

RadioFreq

 

So... bottom line... no problem.

I just drove my old Celica for 2 days due to ice/snow and stock tires on the 8. Today it was clear enough to drive the 8. After driving the Celica, the 8 threw me back in my seat when I hit the gas.

So... bottom line... no problem.

 

In my opinion they misrepresented both numbers. The marketing and add info was originally 250hp, then it was revised to 247hp for release, then it was changed to 238 a month or two after release.

There was never a turbo version nor any other version of the RX-8 making 255hp that I'm aware of.

 

^ what he said^

 

Anyone who's read my posts know that I am hard on this car and mazda. I believe we all in our heart of hearts beleive that the 8 isn't making 238 hp. To me it not just about the numbers. I think the car is underpowered period and I don't like the way Mazda handleed the situation. They went from 250 to 247 to 238 and most everyone agrees it's not making that. It's like this, supposed there was a job listing that you applied for that paid 50 grand a year. Right before you received the job they told you you can only get 47 grand a year. Then after starting your told your'e only to be paid 38 grand (horsepower issue). Then you find out that the job entails you working overtime a lot, but you don't get paid for it, (high revs to get to power). Upon that, the government is going to tax you extra because of the overtime (gas mileage issue) which you don't get paid for even though they take extra tax. That's how I feel regarding this car. I don't like the way Mazda handle the issue.
Do I wanna sue Mazda? No! Do I believe WE SHOULD UPON CONSIDERING ALL FACTORS REGARDING THIS VEHICLE LET MAZDA KNOW WE AREN'T HAPPY WITH OUR MPG AND HP? YES. We should be banning together to pressure mazda into doing something. We don't owe them our allegiance. Mazda reads these posts. If they thought that the average 8 owner let alone the type of person who buys this car thought that it was underpowered then they might get off their buts and do something.

 

We should all be saying... Mazda, you did well with this car but it has issues that we aren't happy about that can hurt the rep of the car and mazda.
Almost everyone I know who's into cars cracks on how the car isn't making 238 hp and that I get worse gas mileage than a Lamborghini (in their words).

 

Gee, this thread again...oh wait, it's a new thread on an old tired topic....(YAWN)


Think I will just go to bed.

 

I'm surprised that no one brought this up...

A few years ago Ford upgraded all of the Cobras because owners were claiming that the hp did not meet the advertised rating. The customer complaints were based on chassis dyno results. I don't believe this went through the courts. Ford made good with the customers by retro repairs - my buddy received a revised cam, ported & polished heads, revised intake manifold and PCM. He was perfectly happy before the repairs and even more happy afterwards. Ford has a customer for life.

Personally, I don't really care what the actual HP numbers are because I am happy with the car. BUT, I would like to see Mazda provide everyone with high temp cats so that the maps can be leaned out. If it improves the power great. If it improves the mileage, even better. I'd just be happy to not have to clean the exhaust tips every two days.

 

[QUOTE=*** If you bought it without a test drive, you're an idiot.***.[/QUOTE]

I resent that. I preordered the car on January 9, 2003 without even seeing one other than pictures. Took delivery July 2003 and could not be happier. Harping on the horsepower issue is really getting boring.

 

Yes it has been discussed. To death. Tthe search button is our friend... :p