they should offer turbo as an option

 

Well, if you do your homework and research the continuous development done on the rotary engine by Mazda you'll realize that they've been increasing power, torque and reliability while at the same time improving fuel economy. Starting with the 10A, 12A and all the different 13B versions all the way up to the RENESIS (same size engine) there's no denying that the rotary engine has come a long way. Also, you're getting 250hp / 159lb-ft on a 1.3L naturaly aspirated engine that can rev to 10000rpm!! What else can you ask for? :D

 

it's funny that you should list the Accord there... i did some research, sparked by FamilyGuy's post about the TSX...
the 3.0L V6 Accord has 240hp (less than the RX-8), 212lbft of torque ('bout 52 more lbft of force at peak, which is about 33% more), weighs 3200lbs-ish (only 200 more than the RX-8), and does the 0-60 sprint in 6.57s (from Motortrend, sited on vtec.net), which as you know is 0.6s slower than the RX-8... hmmm... strange.

also consider that the TSX, which as FamilyGuy put it, would be the closest Honda competitor with the RX-8 (if you needed to have the rear seats) has no more torque (166lbft, i think) and less horsepower (200hp) than the RX-8, while weighing more (about 3100??)... and still you complain about torque.
i know your point was about improvement in utilization of some amount of displacement (which is definitely not related to engine size or mass very linearly, both of which are far more important), and that you think Mazda should be doing better than 159lbft in a 1.3L motor that has a 10mm stroke (about 1/9th of most piston poppers)... it's a marvel.

...also, i thought you were an Integra/VTEC guy?? i know that revhappy is, but weren't/aren't you too?? if so, how could you complain about these numbers?? *shrug* whatever. i'm just saying, stating that "159lb ft ain't nothing" is not only a double negative, but a fairly ignorant comment as well...

 

The Renesis is a big achievement of the Rotary development. Fuel economy alone shows it. Mazda's effort in the Rotary refinement shows their technology stands above other manufactures that failed to refine the Rotary!

As for the 159lbft torque, different people will have different opinions against it. There are many ways to look at the adequatcy of this amount of output.

1. When the RX-8 is seated with 4 passengers (as the RX8 is designed to do so), could it still perform well?

2. For a 3000lb car, 159lbft torque is enough or not? How much passing power there is and how it will perform on steepy hill?

3. C&D and R&T recently tested the RX8. C&D editors said the car doesn't have enough mid-range punch, assuming 3000rpm-4000rpm. So the RX8 needs to be revved at high RPMs. But, both magazines posted 0-60mph in 5.9s when launched at high 7000rpm, and Automobile Mag got 6.2s. Then the horsepower might offsetted the torque?!

Anyway! It's just so good to have the Rotary back again. Don't push our luck!

 

That's your (ignorant) opinion, not fact.

First of all, the s2000 has about the same tq/weight ratio as the 8, and it's regarded as one of the best "pure" sports cars today. Second, the 8 still has faster acceleration that many cars with more torque.

There are two ways of making power: a bigger, heavy engine with lots of torque, or a small light higher-revving engine. It's a matter of taste, and there are tradeoffs in both cases. If revving and shifting is such a problem for you, then I'm sure there's a nice disposable Pontiac out there with your name on it.

 

I agree, it's not enough for a PERFORMANCE car. However, I do believe it's plenty for a SPORTS car.

 

The S2000 has less horsepower than the RX8 and more torque, but the S2000 goes 0-60 a bit faster than the 8. "C&D once got 0-60mph in 5.8s and the RX8 in 5.9s." Race car drivers will know how much difference does a 0.1s or 0.2s make.

And for your (ignorant) information, the S2000 is a 2-seater, whereas the RX8 is a 4-seater. Another example would be the 2003 4-Runner, the V6 has more horsepower and less torque than the V8, but the V8 is faster than the V6, why? Can you stand seeing the Rx-8 unable to catch up a Camry or others just because the 8 doesn't have enough torque when seated 4 people?

For the "pure" sports car thing, do you suppose you drive your car in traffic and rev to 7000rpm+ all the time? And if shifting is such fun for you, please watch the engine temp. gauge often. Gas stations and auto mechanics should be very happy to have customers like you.

We are not saying the RX8 doesn't have enough torque, but for a 4-passenger performance car, is it too much to demand a bit more torque??? None of us here says the 159lbft torque is a joke, but we are just saying a bit more torque would be preferable.

 

ugh.

*beating a dead horse*

 

Finally someone who gets it.

 

Wrong. The 8 has more torque than the stook.

Quote:

Can you stand seeing the Rx-8 unable to catch up a Camry or others just because the 8 doesn't have enough torque when seated 4 people?

Um, how about if you try revving the engine into its powerband?

Quote:

For the "pure" sports car thing, do you suppose you drive your car in traffic and rev to 7000rpm+ all the time? And if shifting is such fun for you, please watch the engine temp. gauge often. Gas stations and auto mechanics should be very happy to have customers like you.

Show me ONE example of an NA rotary that broke because it was revved too much.

 

You should not have to REV the crap out of a "Sports" car to pass a Camry. "OH, Oh Camry up ahead gotta pass; Let me downshift to get in the power band and rev the hell out of the engine". Pardon my ignorance, but passing a Camry should be an effortless affair.
Rotary or no rotary shifting at 6K-7K RPM everyday, in every gear is not my idea of fun. What ever happened to engine flexibility? It's either everything or not enough in regards to the RX-8's "power band", which really seems to be quite narrow.

 

Spoonie,

I agree there is a torque issue that I wish could have been addressed. I don't think I should ever have to downshift to pass some joker in a Camry.

However, I have had two RX-7's previous to the Miata I drive now and perhaps it is just how I drive, but unless I am doing a 4th - 5th gear shift, I would say 90% of the time I shift right about red line into the next gear.... I am not actively trying to REV the engine or anything that is just the way I shift.

Personally I am hoping that something will be done about the whole torque issue aftermarket. Nissan in conjunction with Nismo will be offering aftermaket performance mods at the dealerships that will NOT void your warranty on a 350Z. I am hoping that Mazda will do the same with MazdaSpeed or something like that. I think that will make A LOT of people a little more satisfied with the power issue the car has.

Just my dumb opinion.

 

Does "effortless" mean without shifting? I think you're confusing muscle cars with sports cars. A Mustang AT or a Dodge RAM pickup should pass a Camry effortlessly. Get those if you want muscle without shifting. If you want something with a rev-happy responsive engine, a snickety-snick shifter and great handling, you want a sports car; get a Miata, S2k, or an RX-8.
Have you ever owned a rotary? Shifting at 6-7k is not work by any stretch of my imagination and undeniably fun to me. Engine flexibility/grunt is replaced with driver flexibility, ie, shifting to the best gear. If that's too much work for you than you need to stay away from sports cars.

 

No I'm not confusing muscle cars with sports cars. Is the 350Z a sports car or a muscle car? The 350z has decent Low to midrange grunt. And what about the Subaru WRX? The S2000 and the RX8 are good sports cars but by any means they do not define how a sports car engine should operate. There are different options available to attain the same goal. I just prefer cars that have decent thrust throughout its rev range not just the top-end. What's wrong with that?

 

You're thinking of muscle cars, not sports cars. Miata, s2k, RX-8 and even the FD all need to be revved to be effective, and they are all sports cars. Get a Cadillac if you don't want any involvement in the driving process.

Quote:

Rotary or no rotary shifting at 6K-7K RPM everyday, in every gear is not my idea of fun. What ever happened to engine flexibility? It's either everything or not enough in regards to the RX-8's "power band", which really seems to be quite narrow.

You've obviously never actually driven a rotary. While pushing my daily driver to 4k can be a chore, 6k is nothing in my FD. Pretty much every review has mentioned that the redline buzzer is needed because it was so easy to redline the car without even realising it. Maybe you should read some of the reviews.

 

Not only that, but Ferrari's, Lambo's, Porsche's, NSXs, Supras, etc, and even race cars need to be revved to get into the power band. It's the nature of most high-revving sports car engines.

Engines in something like a Mustang or Camaro are not the "norm" for sports cars in the world. It might be something that Americans consider more "sporty", because most of what we see and equate "sports" with is a Mustang or Camaro (or Corvetter, which frankly is an expensive, higher class muscle car).

As far as keeping the revs in the 6-7k band, that's not necessary either. If you just want to sit back, press the gas, and pass everyone, then the RX8 might not be for you.

---jps

 

any engine anywhere works better at high rpm than low, unless it's built to only be efficient at low rpms, which would be stupid anyways (some kind of comprimize is needed: rpms are nothing but good if you can run them without worry).

the RENESIS is BUILT and DESIGNED to be REVVED!! it is SUPPOST to be driven that way... if you "don't" or "can't" drive an engine that way, whatever, don't get an RX-8...

but quicks8, you OWN a maita and have had several (FC??) RX-7's as past cars: the dynamic of the RX-8 won't be very different, and in fact has a lot more torque than your Miata or an NA FC (with more than a TII before the turbo's really hit the sweet spot... ie, below 2.5k, normal driving range), why would you be worried?? it's understandable that more torque is nice, but with an engine and a car like this, especially one so obviously quick, why would it still be a concern??

 

I have read the reviews. Here is a quote from Car and Driver (April 2003) G35coupe vs. RX-8 vs. Mustang SVT Cobra comparison test:

"Despite these handling advantages, the RX8 is the slowest on the racetrack, and that because of a shortage of midrange grunt in its rotary engine. Peak power decent at 250 horsepower, but it's developed at 8500 rpm. Torque, however, is a mere 159lbft, down 111 and 231pound-feet on the other two cars, and that comes at 5,500 rpm, which is nearly as high as the other engines peaks. Think Honda S2000 Power band, and you get the idea.

To get the most out of this car, you must be willing to use it's 9000 rpm redline and maybe even the additional 500 rpm to the engines rev limiter. As usual with Rotaries that's no hardship. The engine gains rpm so smoothly and freely that a tone sounds at 8500 rpm to remind you that the redline is approaching.

With the help of an 8000-rpm clutch drop and the engine buzzing like a flock of angry hornets, the RX-8 scooted to 60 in 5.9 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 14.5 seconds at 96 mph. But that performance falls off considerably without the tire-frying launch. In our street-start test from 5 to 60 mph, the RX-8 needed 7.5 seconds, 1.6 seconds longer than the hard-launch time, which is twice the deficit we found with either of the other cars. And despite its trim weigh and short gearing (20 mph per 1000 rpm in sixth), the RX-8 also had the slowest top-gear acceleration times by a wide margin."

Unlike you, I see the complete picture.

 

So let me get this straight, you cut and paste the two paragraphs that criticize the 8 out of a comparo article where the RX-8 actually comes in first place. Then you call that the "complete picture". Oh, the irony.

Also, nobody can answer my challenge of finding just ONE rotary that broke due to revving, and NONE of the detractors here have ever actually driven a rotary-powered car. Who's not looking at the complete picture here?

 

Since we're talking sports cars and not just drag racers, not considering the handling advantages is more than misleading - that's what differentiates a sports car from an econobox with a hot engine, right?

Throw back in this paragraph from the C+D review:So in every other performance measure beyond straight line acceleration, the RX-8 easily bests the competition. How inadequate, right?

(As for "think Honda S2000 power band" - C+D should think again. While the RX-8 torque peak is high at 5.5K rpm, it's nowhere near as high as the S2K torque peak at 7.5K rpm!)

It's most interesting that even with a 111 hp deficit, the RX-8 was only slower than the Cobra on the test track (the one that included curves, not just a straight line) by about 1 second per lap. If C+D had tested a Mustang Mach 1 rather than the Cobra (with only 53 hp more than RX-8), the RX-8 would have trounced it on the track. Is the RX-8 really lacking that much power, when a Cobra needs a 111 hp advantage just to stay slightly ahead on a twisty track???

Here's another quote from C+D:Would you rather have an RX-8 with 50 more lb-ft of torque and 50 more hp, that weighed 300 lbs more? You'd gain a bit of acceleration, and lose the responsiveness of the handling... There's no way I'd take that trade-off.

Regards,
Gordon

 

I thought most people downshifted when performing the "sports car pass"- I know that when I drove my dad's first generation SHO, which had PLENTY of torque at the time it came out, I always downshifted when I was trying to blow by someone- it was just the nature of the beast. I've also noticed in our '95 SHO, which is an automatic, anytime you REALLY step on it when you're already moving, it seems to downshift to get more power. I suppose I could be wrong, but isn't that what's supposed to happen? Unfortunately, those two cars, and my husbands BMW, are really my only experiences with any type of performance vehicles.

I still think this whole torque argument is rather silly. Just don't buy the car if you don't like it. Don't try to convince everyone else you're right and they're wrong- it won't happen.

Perhaps I am missing something?

 

nope! thats it in a nutshell

 

I didn't cut and paste it. I hand typed it. I included some good points and some not so good points. For some strange reason you and several other folks will not acknowledge that not so good points exists with the RX-8. The car is not perfect. "A mere 159 lbft" I guess thats opinion. The RX-8 won the comparison not for its engine but for its handling. Bottom line: The RX8 is a great car with strong points and weak points.

And don't forget fuel mileage. Having to shift at 6000 rpm all the time does not help fuel efficiency. The RX8's mediocre fuel economy proves that.

This is my last post. I'm not buying the RX8 because it is "gutless" in the low to mid rev ranges. The RX8 may be a perfect car for you, but it is far from perfect for me.

 

Promise?

 

we don't need any goading... just let him leave.