HAHHAHA........so true :D...the car is gonna be a absolute pig with 4 people in the car!

 

So with 4 people in the 8 and the air conditioning on and some in town spirited driving....... maybe we'll be getting about 5 - 10 mpg :D

damn I hope not....

 

I was under the impression that curb weight was given as a fully loaded car. As in, there are 4 185 pound people in that weight.

 

hell no.......curb weight is with no passengers........there goes your zoom zoom :D

 

... oh well

 

I've never seen anyone autocross or race in any fashion with 4 people with them. If you have four people, any car is a pig.

 

I posted this in the tech section and can't figure out how to link to it...well maybe I did figure it out, but just in case:

The following info comes from CarTest2000, an interesting program available at cartest2000.com that calculates and predicts car performance. I plugged in the info that I could find & from MazdaUSA.com and ran the performance tests for the MT, then reconfigured the info for an AT test, as well as a fully loaded (4 occupants)MT, with 540 lbs of family and friends (the weight of your family and friends may vary). In my configurations I feel confident, even proud of my AT torque curve, but not so fond of my MT curve; I just got tired of tweaking it. All speed measures are mph. I also included a 310hp MazdaSpeed version. The performance of the loaded MT isn't as bad as I thought it would be. As these are software projections they should be considered theoretical rather than factual.

Test.....RX8-MT.....RX8-AT.....RX8-w/4.....MSP-RX8
0-30.....2.14.........2.45.........2.45...........1. 73 sec
0-40.....2.91.........3.49.........3.34...........2. 35 sec
0-60.....6.11.........7.42.........6.78...........4. 89 sec
0-70.....7.35.........9.56.........8.41...........5. 99 sec
0-100..14.44........20.41.......16.65.........11.63 sec

¼ mile..14.4.........15.5..........15.1..........13. 4 sec
.......@100mph....@90mph...@96mph.......@105mph

Top
Speed...156mph...134mph.....155mph......167mph

Fuel Economy
City......20.4mpg....28.2mpg.....19.3mpg....18.5mp g
Hiway...28.6mpg....36.4mpg!....28.6mpg....27.1mpg

 

I like those numbers... the only one that is troubling is the amount of time from 70-100. Double the ammount of time? That doesn't seem right.... Well, maybe it is because at that point you somewhere in the end/begining of 3rd/4th gear. Hm... Nice work.

 

Very interesting. Very honest. [(the weight of your family and friends may vary)]! One question: Did you include a driver as part of the 5MT base calculation? If so, how much did said driver weigh without that varying family/friends? If you didn't include a driver, could you sell me one of those remote controls? ;-)

 

Yes, IIRC the program has a default value of 180lb that is included in the performance calculations. It also includes fuel weight.

 

I hate to bring up the "T" word, but in a car with sufficient T, the extra weight will not make as much difference. When my G35 has four people in it, it is not as fast, but it still feels quite fast and responsive, sufficiently fast to scare the passengers pretty good! With the RX-8's paucity of T, the effects of extra weight will be much more pronounced and it will be harder to scare the passengers.

I was just thinking about the extra passengers today, and what the extra weight will do to the feel of the car. It will be interesting to see how the RX-8 handles Pittsburgh's hills with three extra people aboard.

At any rate, think of the rear seats as a bonus. I suspect most RX-8 buyers will not be buying the car to replace an Accord or a Civic, but has enough extra practicality to make the purchase easier to justify.

Actually, I find the total concept with the neat rear doors, stylish and spacious rear seat, rotary power, and knockout interior imeensely cool! I really think the car will be as much of a hit, if not more so, than the Audi TT was for its concept and style.

My Z4 salesman called and I told him I would not be getting the Z4 but an RX-8 instead, and he seemed taken aback and sighed... then he said, "nice car". You could hear a measure of respect in his voice, like he thought highly of the RX-8 and considered it a worthy competitor.

 

almost brings a tear to the eye

i like those z4's...bit pricy for me tho

 

This is consistent with similar and tested vehicles.

CARTEST 2000 (software simulation)
.........2003.......2003.......2001
.........Mustang..350Z.....BMW M3...RX-8
.........SVT
0-60.....5.27.....5.54.....5.14.....5.95 sec
0-70.....6.4......7.67.....7.16.....7.35 sec
0-80.....8.35.....9.31.....8.75.....9.86 sec
0-90.....9.98....11.28...10.52....11.93 sec
0-100...11.8....14.33...12.6......14.44 sec

Actual Car tests

.........Car & Driver..................Road&Track
.........Mustang..G35.....RX-8....RX-8
.........SVT........Coupe
0-60......4.6.......5.5......5.9.....5.9 sec
0-100...10.6.....14.2....15.8....15.9 sec
0-130...18.4.....26.8....33.5

Automobile Magazine
...........RX-8....330i....350Z
0-60.....6.2.....6.5.....5.6 sec
0-100..16.7...17.4....14.4 sec

 

Sounds like you're BMW salesman knew more about the RX-8 than some Mazda salesmen.

 

When did you change your mind? I thought that you were really set on the Z4. Also, it seems like you wouldn't need a "practical" sportscar if you already have a G35 sedan...

 

1384kg for a 6MT? Oh it is very fat... my DC2 is only 1080kg

 

That is where aerodynamics really start causing most of the force you are overcoming. It is a squared relationship to the velocity with the drag overcoming rolling friction and whatnot after around 45 mph, but it really starts showing up in the above 70 side of things.

 

ya know i was thinking... i think i remembered reading somewhere that they did that test in 6th gear, which is your over drive gear... hell 5th gear has a higher top speed than 6th. 6th is just a gas saving gear. if the 8 had a regular 5 spd w/o the 6th gear i think it would fare a lot better. or, i could just be on crack or something and they did it in 5th gear, at any rate, it's just a number on a page =)

 

It is? How so? I cruise on the interstate at about 80mph, at which I'm doing ~3200rpms in my 86 GXL. The Rx-8 will be turning at ~4000rpms to do 80mph. Why is the "overdrive" gear shorter than the one on a car with one less gear? Imagine if they had lengthened sixth gear so that the rx-8 will do 3200rpms at 80 mph instead of 4000. That's 20% less fuel used. What's the EPA estimate for highway? 24? So with a lengthened sixth, the EPA should be around 28?

My girlfriend's 1991 Volkswagen Cabriolet does 80mph at 4000, with only THREE gears.

I know that I've brought this up in a few other threads, but I really think they screwed the pooch on this one. The '8 is still at the top of my list for new cars next year, since fuel economy isn't my main factor, but as someone mentioned before, you can't even hit top speed in sixth gear anyway. It really should've been a true overdrive.

 

[but I really think they screwed the pooch on this one. The '8 is still at the top of my list for new cars next year, since fuel economy isn't my main factor, but as someone mentioned before, you can't even hit top speed in sixth gear anyway. It really should've been a true overdrive.]
IMHO: any car that can't reach the speed in the top gear of the previous gear (in 6th can't reach the top speed of 5th, or in 5th of 4th,etc) has a 'overdrive' gear. I can tell you've never owned a rotary engined car, probably never driven one, and if so not for a very long time. A rotary is just humming along, almost literally, below 6K - especially at 4000. And if I were to say I 'normall cruise' at 100MPH, that doesn't mean the manufacturer should have designed my car to do that at 2500RPM, if you get my drift.
The 70-100 timing done in top gear if not how I'd typically try to get from 70-100 - I'd drop a gear, or two. I think most of us here would / will. Maybe often. If anyone is a newbie to the rotary world and can't get past the higher revs of the engine compared to what they are used to (which is often a V8)- they should probably stay away from the RX-8. I'd almost suggest putting paper over the tach[or otherwise ignoring it) and just listening for the buzzer indicating the time to shift is nearing. If you shift anywhere from 8000 to 10,000 you'll be in good shape. If you only pay attention to the speed in most circumstances you'll never know that it's doing 4K or 7K or 9K. (unless you listen to the exhaust sound)

 

heh heh heh... uh, no not exactly. throttle angle, and the amount of force (at the wheels) an engine can generate per revolution at a given speed all come into play here: throttle angle, revs, velocity... it's not that simple a picture, otherwise they'd just gear 6th to do 100mph per 1000rpm, or more... there are always comprimizes to be made.

btw, how could you call a 0.768 gear not a "true" overdrive?? it's just the final drive ratio of 4.444 that is a little short, but that's what helps it get to 60 in 6 seconds.

 

if u guys car about it so much then get a diet plan so ur car could run faster

 

Sorry, I should've specified in my earlier post. I drive an 86 Rx-7 GXL with 192,000 miles. I'm perfectly aware that rotaries have no problems revving high, and that's why I'd have no objection to downshifting if I need to accelerate.

Yes, you are right that mazda doesn't (and shouldn't) design the gearing for my personal cruise speed, but I was using it as an example. I probably should've used the common interstate speed limit of 70 mph. In either case, my car with one less gear is using 20% less rpms to cruise at the same speed. I don't think that's right.

You're probably right; 20% less rpms may not exactly correspond to a 20% reduction in fuel consumption, but there still would be an improvement.

It may or may not be a "true overdrive" gear I guess, but I don't understand how a car with 100 more hp (247 vs 146), 20 more ft-lb of torque (159 vs 138), and one more gear than my car needs more rpms to cruise. Nor do I understand how sixth gear has anything to do with 0-60 times.

The only thing that I can think of is that there's not enough torque down low to reasonably cruise (without lugging) 4 adults at 70mph, since the total weight would be around 3600 lbs.

 

The top gear isn't used to get to 60mph... I believe it was done by 3rd gear.

 

I should have noticed the 86 GXL part of your post. That's interesting. I'm pretty sure my 84s would hit close to 1/2 the speed (*100) in 5th - say 4100 at 80. So it didn't surprise me to see RX-8 numbers. It may be the possible extra weight though at 80 I think w/ 4 people it could still cruise at 3200 rpm. It may just be the amount of fuel being given at 80 in the RX-8 will more or less be the same or a little less then required to push your 86 at 3200RPM. What is the final drive ratio on the GXL?