First of all, I'm still waiting for my car. It was supposed to be here 3 weeks ago. The latest is that it was loaded on the truck on Friday (8/8) and will be here next Monday or Tuesday. It's a 300 mile drive!!! Meanwhile, the sales manager got his demo on wednesday (except for color, the same as mine), and in a moment of pity, said I could have his demo on Friday afternoon until my car arrives. He mentioned that he got it quickly up to 100, to see how it performed. So, I didn't think it would hurt to do a few 0-60 runs. I have a Passport GT2 Vehicle Performance Computer. On the 1st run (with A/C on) I got 9.3 seconds. With A/C off, I got 9.2 and 9.0 on the next 2 runs. Now, this is with 200 miles on the odo - not quite broken in yet. Also, I had it in the auto mode, and it shifted @ 7000 rpm. I didn't try the manual mode because I did not want to over-rev it. The problem is slow take-off, because peak power is @ 7200, peak torque @ 5000. So, the answer is to left foot brake, right foot bring revs to 3000 or 4000, and sidestep the brake. Also, in the manual mode, I should be able get to 7500 rpm or more. After I get my car and break it in, I'll do some more tests. I really think I can get 8.0 seconds with some experimenting with take-offs. I never did believe the 9.5 seconds in THE BOOK.

 

Does that one has DSC and Traction Control? If it does, then turning them completely off (hold button down for some seconds) may improve your acceleration times even more.

 

I did not think of that. I'll try that next time.

 

Do you actually think low to mid 8s is acceptable for a "peformance car" and you have to break torque to get that time... I'm sorry but that is such nonsense and so typical of Mazda. I don't care if the damn thing handles like an F1 racer and has all the amenities of a suite at the 4 seasons, I don't want to drive a car that is going to have a hard time passing and outrunning a Kia.

The other side of me thinks it's a good thing, it's a crime to buy a performance car in auto and you should be punished for doing so :p

Ike

 

According to you, for those who have no other option other than driving an AT (say because a little disability), we should be punished?

NICE!

 

why do you think that only a few of the RX-8's are auto's? Why do you think Mazda gave the manual more power? They don't want people buying this car in a manual, they made the auto's for a select few. They, and I, know one thing for sure: The person who buys this car in an automatic isn't an enthusiast who demands great acceleration performace. The one who demands this performace, the enthusiast, is the one who buys a 6-speed manual. There are exceptions, but for the most part, this is a fact. Think about it.

 

Omega made a good point, but keep in mind, Omega, this is an 'exception' and a minority.

 

You're putting words into my mouth... 9 out of 10 people that will buy the AT buy it for the most part out of laziness and ease of use. By no means am I wishing ill will on anyone with a disability or even with an AT RX-8 it's, was a joking statement for the most part hence the smiley that followed the statement. I just thought Mazda would have wanted to lose their image for making underpowered cars, and they just dug a deeper hole with the AT RX-8 and perhaps even the MT.

Regards,
Ike

 

I don't think this apply's to the Manual Transmission. I think most people would agree that it does apply to the auto, but to say that about the MT is wrong in my opinion. According to road and track the mt X-8 does a 5.9 0-60 only 2/10ths sec. slower than the fastest Nissan 350Z, which does a 5.7 0-60. Unless one is to think that the 350Z is underpowered or 'too slow', one cannot say that the RX-8 is, when it is this close in performance.

 

I think every time I have made this argument about any performance car someone has pulled the disability card. If you have a disability I am very sorry Omega and I wish you could drive a car the way it's meant to be driven with the rest of us. If you don't then I'm sorry you feel the need to point out very unlikely circumstances just to make someone making a valid point feel bad.

Ike

 

It's not slow by any means, and I don't want to get to deep into it since I won't be driving the car til later in the week and don't want to play benchracer too much. But if you look at the car acceleration wise it's prettymuch at the bottom of the barrel compared to other cars in the same price category and even some that are much lower in price. Other automakers are upping the bar, and Mazda seems to be content to come in just under the bar in most of their cars. I think Mazda has a great line of cars, but in this day and age where we're having power wars and it seems like the second coming of the muscle car days Mazda is only turning heads with their looks and not their guts.

Take a look on other sites and you will see the rumbling in the car community about how the RX-8 is just another typical underpowered Mazda. I think people are disappointed as a whole, they had such high hopes for the RX-8 and it didn't live up to expectations. It would be like Toyota hyping up a new Supra only to have it be a low 6 sec 0-60 high 14 low 15 sec 1/4 mile car. There would be a lot of disappointed people out there, and also a lot of other car people going right for the jugular to bash the almight Supra.

Ike

 

OK. OK. It's just that I get tired of reading the same thing over and over again (ie - who would drive an AT? ATs suck! etc, etc). Forgetting my problems, there are many, many reasons & circumstances why other people can't drive stick. Reading replies that that (for the thousandth time) get to me sometimes....

On a side note: according to some of the members of this site, Mazda will be releasing an SMT version of the 8 sometime in the near future (2006?). When they do, I'll trade mine in and upgrade and then we'll see who's 0-60 times are faster! The SMT's will be of course! Hee hee!

 

I swear to god, if I ever meet anyone who bought an automatic RX-8, I will knock him to the ground and beat him to a bloody ******* pulp!






Just kidding, folks. I'm mocking the "MT bullies".

 

My previous response was made BEFORE I read the above reply!!!

Geez! Some people. I wouldn't have brought up my personal business if someone didn't bring up the old AT argument again and again (by his own admission). I guess its OK for YOU to make AT owners feel bad, eh? (my initial reply was NOT to make anyone feel bad, just to prove that there are many reasons why people drive ATs, that being one).

What the heck does the "meant to be driven" statement mean? Who the heck are YOU to tell anyone how a car is meant to be driven?" In case you're wondering, a car's main purpose is for TRANSPORTATION. That being said, MY CAR will be driven the way it was MEANT TO BE: to transport me from point A to point B and (as a side bonus) to look good while doing it!

IMO, your MT vs AT views are selfish, one sided and inconsiderate.

Mazdabob: really sorry to hijack this thread. I'll just ignore this thread from this point on.

 

But seriously though, is 0-60 the only measure of performance? It's entirely appropriate for racing from red lights, but what about for passing on the highway?

I test drove an automatic this week (dealer demo) and I have no doubt that it would kick many other cars' collective ***.

 

Can we have a separate discussion group for "Automatics Only"? We are a bunch of losers and pretenders, and of course, lazy. We apologize for corrupting the web site of all you "speed racers". Seriously, I was just pointing out that THE BOOK was incorrect in saying the 0-60 was 9.5 seconds. I know it's not as fast as your car, but I find the paddle shifters to be quite entertaining. You don't really need 6 gears, do you? Anyway, it's faster than the VW Passat I traded in.:p

 

I'll be the first to admit I'm a snob when it comes to AT vs. MT. I learned to drive in a 5 speed, I've always owned a MT, and I've always loved fast cars. I grew up racing 100+ MPH shifter Karts as well as racing just about anything else I could get my hands on. My Kart could beat any of my and any of your cars around a track with ease so it takes a lot of me to be impressed with performance. I know the average person out there will think that the RX-8 is fast enough, but I don't think this car was meant for the average consumer...


Ike

 

Just a side note... book and predicted times for cars are almost always inflated by car manufacturers, they know it's much better to to beat predictions than to fall short.

Ike

 

I think I would spill a lot more starbucks on me riding to work in your cart, even if it is faster than my, your or anyone elses cars...

ie: I dont think there's much point in making the comparison at all.

Actually most of the AT bashing has been of little constructive value I think.

I've driven both MT and AT cars and so far my preference is MT. I don't think AT is "lazy" or anything like that, it's just not my preference. Nor do I think that MT is the essence of driving blah blah etc. Your car's transmission (or your computer's operating system, etc.) should probably not be something to get personally involved (or upset with anyone) about.

Simon.

 

I'm not trying to bash or make anyone feel bad, and I admit maybe I came across as harsh, I'm sorry for that.

I just look at an AT sportscar like someone with a 160 IQ that works at the local Quickie Mart their entire life. It's a waste of something that had great potential. Is the Quickie Mart guy happy, maybe, but I bet he knows there's something he's missing out on that he could have had :p

I'll shut up now and I promise to never bring up the AT vs. MT thing again :D


Ike

 

Out of curious what % of the production is AT and MT? I know that Mazda blew it with the 5MT M6S and they are having a hard time meeting demand while the ATs are trickling off the lot.


Ike

 

Mazda probably won't produce the new RX-7 if the RX-8 does not do well. So, they need to sell as many as possible to all kinds of people, even lazy ones! :D

 

That's sort of what I'm getting at with the post I just made, and some of my points in here. I really want to see the Mazdaspeed version or the RX-7, but I think Mazda dropped the ball. A little low on power and they they go and make it even worse by putting a smaller engine on the MT, on a Honda or Toyota this might fly, but on a niche' car from Mazda it's gonna be tough.

Ike

 

Define "average."

Mazda is a major manufacturer, not a niche player. They do not build cars for enthusiasts only. They build cars for the masses. As in, they want a massive number of people to buy their car.

 

But a massive number of people don't buy their cars <shrugs>