BTW, I am a little concerned about the "auxilliary port" / "tertiary port" (there you go wakeech you have another half a supporter :D ) issue, but hopefully Mazda had enough time to take care of it BEFORE final production as opposed to starting out the debut of the RX-8 with a recall.

 

We used the word "tertiary" all the time in my biochemistry classes back in high school. I always thought it was a widely used/accepted term.

 

It is in certain circles / diciplines such as sciences, technology, engineering, etc. You just don't hear the average joe saying "I finished in the tertiary position" or "take a left hand turn at the tertiary light" as opposed to "I came in third place" or "make a left at the third light for example.....

 

All this talk of auxillary ports, tertiary ports should have its own thread. (can a thread around here ever stay on subject?!)

Consider this: those of us that had 2nd Gen N/A RX-7 FC3s's know them as 6-ports. I recommend if you want to better communicate with existing RX owners, esp. FC 6-port owners, everyone call the ports that open at high RPM's "The 6-ports."

(back on subject) That is a good point. The cars on the track, at least (my my recolection) had a flat torque curve all the way up. Further leading me to beleive the problem developed after the cars were given the the journalists.

 

Nah, the article said it was specifically a software bug. As an embedded programmer, that just strikes me as a very dumb mistake. All I can think of is that maybe they fitted the 'low power' motor ecu to the 'high power' cars. Because you can get 'low power' & manual somewhere in the world cant you?

So can we say then that NOBODY has timed a properly working rx-8 yet then?

-pete

 

We can say that when a final version is released and tested... then if the numbers are somewhat lower.. we know the culprit

 

i honestly don't see how more ports would help... please elaborate. the way i see it, there is a finite area you carve out of the side housing before you cut into the compression stroke and/or start letting apex seals slide out. to me, more ports = more closed ports = less air

 

Ok, so I read here in the US Sport Compact Car, which also has the car down some 40 horsepower. And reference was made that the other magazines that tested 0-60 times, which was done in 5.9 secs, did their testing with the horsepower deficit.

So it stands to reasons that with the additional power, 0-60 should be in the mid 5 second range.

Don't get me wrong, I am satisfied with the performance as it is currently reported. However, if I can get the extra performance from the missing 40 hp, I will never complain.

I think black with the red and black interior with every possible option. Yeah!!

 

If it took Mazda this long then a little longer well not hurt after all I like to have a vehicle that is as free of glitches as possable. And I think Mazda well deliver:D

 

but realize that there is more to cut than just the side housing, there is also the intermediate housing, and the (perhipheral) rotor housing as well... there's a lot more space (staying within the cycle timing restrictions) which could be opened up for even-higher rpm breathing....
but this isn't exactly what i meant: more ports equals more variability... even if it was just a 4th (quarternary, yes i looked it up) port on the intermediate housing (above the secondary port) it'd make a huge difference to the dynamics of the engine, allowing it to take it hard up to ten grand... with a third (central) bearing (which would be really spiffy, and sort of go well in a beefier intermediate housing to make room for those quarternary ports) stock rpm limits of 10.5k rpm could be achieved (at costs of weight, complexity, money, etc)... it COULD be

 

Something to wait for with the 15(D,E?) maybe?