I love A and B.
I like A more than B.
Majority prefer B.
B would help win race easier than A.
B will sell more car because majority don't realise the benefits of A

 

B, plus more torque. 280WHP would be better than 280 flywheel.

However, as I've said in another post -
Mazda could do this rather easily, IMHO, by simply going to a 3-rotor, using the same technologies they already have in the Renesis:

238HP / 2 rotors = 119hp per rotor
119HP x 3 rotors = 350 flywheel hp (a little less due to parasitic losses).

And for those of you who will inevitably whine about balance, place the battery in the trunk and, TAA DAA, balance is restored to the kingdom.

 

Skillmaker,

Wouldn't 3 rotors kill us on gas though? According to your logic, if HP can be divisible by 2 (rotors) then...logically, MPG could as well, no?! So, using your formula--18MPG divided by 2 rotors is 9 MPG/rotor. Adding an additional rotor should be the same in reverse...So, then 3 rotors would give us about 9MPG!

The balance issue could easily be compesnated for by your idea of placing the battery in the trunk and by increasing the fuel tank from 15.9 gallons to 55 gallons! That way, we could make it to the next Rest Area before refueling! But hey, at least then we could say that we've got 350HP right?!

 

Booost!!!

 

Better visors.

 

From the list - B and E

But I like the last comment on better visors. They don't really bother me, but it makes the point that there are some "attention to detail" things. Less rattles, easier access dipstick, better quality stock single cd player, better/more sensitive auto dim rear view....

I love my car - and am not knocking it. But those silly little details shouldn't be problems.

 

A-b

 

I'd want B and C 1st, then C and B 2nd.
I figure E is already better then a Z car since I can get 96 pmpg average on my freeway driving !

Def: pmpg= people miles per gallon
Calc= mpg x number of total people carried in your car.

Only my ford Excursion gets better numbers when all 8 seats are occupied with 168 pmpg

 

E

but I would like to see B

 

I like my 8 just fine, more power better less weight better still, however less speed limits and more curvy roads to enjoy it as it is would be best ever

 

3) Torque. Im fine with the 8 but if I could add one thing, that would be to match the torque to the HP. Maybe research into different seal designs can provide some improvement in that department.

 

Seal...designs?


A rotary engine is geared to spin at 1/3 the RPM you see at the flywheel (tachometer). When you see 3000rpm, the engine is only spinning at 1000rpm. Most V8's make peak torque between 2500-3000.

The rotary, at 2500-3000rpm, is around 7500-9000rpm. Where we make peak torque.

It all makes sense..

The Renesis produces less torque by design..basically no way to correct it. Peri-port exhaust is where the torque was at in the older 13B's...and Mazda should've stuck with them, if they wanted torque.

But rather, they decided to go the "pansy" route..

Put a big cat on, throw a ton of fuel at it, and let it run to 9000RPM. Sacrifices...all to say we rev the highest? Not to mention, the 2000-2004 S2000 made higher numbers...and went to 9000RPM, too.


Oh BTW, I do love my RX8. I just feel Mazda should've stuck with a peri-port exhaust...its so much more accessible to turbo-charging...and a rotary just isn't a rotary, if it isn't turbo'd or peri-(intake)ported...

 

A for me.

and possibly some lithium for CarAndDriver

 

Lose 250 lbs..... the gas mileage would increase and the power to weight ratio would as well...


ALSO ITS THE ONLY PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE THING TO DO!!!

 

B, I'll eat more ramen noodles inorder to feed the rx8

 

Yes. Just do a search on this topic.

 

I'd vote for the torque as well

 

one of my pet peeves is that you can't use the 8's armrest when u have drinks in the cupholders. mazda could learn a thing or two from honda or bmw on this one.

 

A & E

I can always add a turbo for power and torque but you can't really reduce weight much. Weight has a effect on every aspect of performance (acceleration, handling, breaking, MPG) killing weight is one of the best performance increase you can do.

 

I will say for me "A"! Losing some weight as mentioned before will give the 8 some nice improvements in multiple areas of performance! That amount of weight loss would drop us below the weight of an S2000 which would definitely work out for our acceleration. It would also be less weight to slow down.

For Mazda to sell more cars "B" would be to the 8's benefit! It's been said time and time again that a lot of the buyers in this country look at HP very much when buying a performance car!