Facelifted RX8 revealed!!!!
01-19-2008, 06:31 AM
#977
Eccentric Shafting
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 4,649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php...&postcount=812
01-19-2008, 01:59 PM
#978
stop flooding ur engines
I've driven the RX-8 many times. My opinion stands and by no means is it ridiculous. The 4.44:1 ratio is far too aggressive now. It needs a 4.10:1. It doesn't have one. That's what is ridiculous. What's even worse is the people that feel it needs more!!!
The reason I state this is precisely because I have driven them on multiple occasions and I do know what they feel like. You have to shift WAY too often. It runs out of gear too fast. There are too many damn gearshifts. I even skip a gear most of the time. It doesn't need all of them. At the very least they are too close together. At freeway speeds you feel like there needs to be a 7th and even an 8th gear. It's like driving any other car out of overdrive on the freeway. It's just wrong. Suddenly you realize that both of these issues could be taken care of with a less aggressive rear end ratio. You wouldn't need to shift as often when accelerating (the car has enough pickup anyways) and the engine rpm wouldn't be as high on the freeway. If your engine is spinning faster than 3000 rpm at 80 mph, it's going too fast. Lower would be even better. It's got the power to hold you there with plenty of reserve on tap.
The reason I state this is precisely because I have driven them on multiple occasions and I do know what they feel like. You have to shift WAY too often. It runs out of gear too fast. There are too many damn gearshifts. I even skip a gear most of the time. It doesn't need all of them. At the very least they are too close together. At freeway speeds you feel like there needs to be a 7th and even an 8th gear. It's like driving any other car out of overdrive on the freeway. It's just wrong. Suddenly you realize that both of these issues could be taken care of with a less aggressive rear end ratio. You wouldn't need to shift as often when accelerating (the car has enough pickup anyways) and the engine rpm wouldn't be as high on the freeway. If your engine is spinning faster than 3000 rpm at 80 mph, it's going too fast. Lower would be even better. It's got the power to hold you there with plenty of reserve on tap.
i dont kno if anyone else argued against this post but i feel i should. i disagree about ur comments on wanting a 4.10 in the rx8. assuming the trans gears stayed the same, the car would be slower. and its slow enuff for 26 thousand doallrs. yes, the highway rpm would be lower. but if a 4.77 had a taller 6th that would even that issue out.
the shorter final drive will reduce top speed and fuel economy, sure. assuming the trans stays the same, which it didnt....
as for shifting too often, id agree with you, so skip gears. u said u skip gears bc u dont need to shift as often, i agree. so whats the problem. we all know the renesis needs to rev to high heaven to get it to move, and u want it to have a taller final drive? that would make it even longer bc it got to high rpm.
that would worsen its already problem of not being competitive. i understand the fuel economy would increase and the need to shift would lessen. but....IF UR BUYING A ROTARY, HOW CONCERNED ARE YOU ABOUT FUEL ECONOMY?
imo there should be different packages. ones to cater to ppl like you...a 4.10 and soft suspension with a 4 speed auto matic.....and packages to cater the rest of us, short final drives that produce actual acceleration....
01-19-2008, 02:03 PM
#979
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have and posted pics from a friend pages back.
https://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php...&postcount=812
https://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php...&postcount=812
01-20-2008, 05:12 AM
#982
Drive the Revolution
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-20-2008, 07:21 AM
#983
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Altspace!
Actually i saw the pics u posted already.
Really small pics!
But it's quite nice and i think the old rims do look really good on this car, IMO.
I reckon the fog lamps need to be in place coz the side vents look way too big w/o the fogs.
What i meant is that: mazda has not released the non-rs pics officially and nothing here is known in SG.
Post more higher res pics if u have any. thankS!
Actually i saw the pics u posted already.
Really small pics!
But it's quite nice and i think the old rims do look really good on this car, IMO.
I reckon the fog lamps need to be in place coz the side vents look way too big w/o the fogs.
What i meant is that: mazda has not released the non-rs pics officially and nothing here is known in SG.
Post more higher res pics if u have any. thankS!
01-20-2008, 02:08 PM
#984
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Great handling, great looking" versus "1/4 mile queen" is a false choice. There are other cars that look cool, handle great, and run low 13s in the 1/4 mi. It 's just that Mazda is PW'ed by Ford or can't figure out how to turbocharge a rotary any more.
It is *totally* lame that the RX-8 is slower in a straight line than the FD. What makes it even worse is the lack-o-torque at <WOT makes an NA RX-8 feel like an 80s econobox in a straight line.
Mazda can do better than this. They have done so in the past. Why they chose to go half-assed on the RX-8 remains a mystery to me.
It is *totally* lame that the RX-8 is slower in a straight line than the FD. What makes it even worse is the lack-o-torque at <WOT makes an NA RX-8 feel like an 80s econobox in a straight line.
Mazda can do better than this. They have done so in the past. Why they chose to go half-assed on the RX-8 remains a mystery to me.
I would never give up the price point, reliability, handling or balance just to shave a little time off in a straight line - but that's me. I get my fun in the corners, and I enjoying being able to wind the engine out a bit without going stupid fast.
For those that want some extra power, they can choose to spend more money, and possibly sacrifice reliability/balance/etc - thereby skewing the characteristics to be more favorable to them. Nothing wrong with this at all. If it makes the car more fun for you - go for it. Just don't make the mistake in thinking that what you deem to be more fun makes the car better or worse.
My comment was only trying to illustrate to the poster the other side of his very narrow minded argument. You apparently share his view. If you want a different set of characteristics, look elsewhere or pull out your wallet. Just don't be so self centered as to think your list is the best or what the car should be for everyone else.
Last edited by Mobile; 01-20-2008 at 02:21 PM.
01-20-2008, 02:38 PM
#985
Registered RX-8 User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: PA/MD
Posts: 718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure its not because they cant figure out how to turbo and 8, but it would fall into the same problems that the 7 had...the PRICE would be too high again and hurt sales (not getting into reliability, depends on too many factors in FI). Then to build another model of the 8 with a turbo option would prolly cost too much in tooling to make a profit on a small production run.
01-20-2008, 04:46 PM
#986
Stuck in a love triangle
I pity the fool who would seriously consider selling/trading in their current 8 for this. Wait at least a year when it's worth nothing like ours that way you're not wasting as much money.
01-20-2008, 10:37 PM
#987
<3 Rotary
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Great handling, great looking" versus "1/4 mile queen" is a false choice. There are other cars that look cool, handle great, and run low 13s in the 1/4 mi. It 's just that Mazda is PW'ed by Ford or can't figure out how to turbocharge a rotary any more.
It is *totally* lame that the RX-8 is slower in a straight line than the FD. What makes it even worse is the lack-o-torque at <WOT makes an NA RX-8 feel like an 80s econobox in a straight line.
Mazda can do better than this. They have done so in the past. Why they chose to go half-assed on the RX-8 remains a mystery to me.
It is *totally* lame that the RX-8 is slower in a straight line than the FD. What makes it even worse is the lack-o-torque at <WOT makes an NA RX-8 feel like an 80s econobox in a straight line.
Mazda can do better than this. They have done so in the past. Why they chose to go half-assed on the RX-8 remains a mystery to me.
Cost wise, the RX-7 and RX-8 are on similar levels. The cash you save from the 8 can buy you a nice turbo kit, a nice suspension kit, and a bunch of other small mods. In the end, you get a similar package.
01-21-2008, 09:46 AM
#989
rotary courage
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: :uoıʇɐɔoן
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...ight=inflation
Yeah, if you compare the 8 to the last non-turbo, 4-seater RX-7 (FC), it is a massive improvement in every way, and about the same price (adjusted for inflation).
The FD was way more expensive.... a different car for a different market....
Yeah, if you compare the 8 to the last non-turbo, 4-seater RX-7 (FC), it is a massive improvement in every way, and about the same price (adjusted for inflation).
The FD was way more expensive.... a different car for a different market....
01-21-2008, 10:08 AM
#990
Registered
....IF UR BUYING A ROTARY, HOW CONCERNED ARE YOU ABOUT FUEL ECONOMY?
imo there should be different packages. ones to cater to ppl like you...a 4.10 and soft suspension with a 4 speed auto matic.....and packages to cater the rest of us, short final drives that produce actual acceleration....
imo there should be different packages. ones to cater to ppl like you...a 4.10 and soft suspension with a 4 speed auto matic.....and packages to cater the rest of us, short final drives that produce actual acceleration....
People like me? What the hell does that mean? I only drive standard transmissions. I hate autos. I think all cars should be manual transmission equipped and that people should learn how to drive.
How about that 999:1 rear end ratio? It's more! It's better! It would appeal to "people like you" that don't understand that the lack of the power to weight ratio that would give the performance that you want can not be compensated for even with a gear ratio that is more aggressive than most race cars.
01-21-2008, 03:31 PM
#992
Power!!
Road and track article. May be a repost but thought it would be useful here.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6361
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6361
01-21-2008, 05:53 PM
#993
01-22-2008, 06:42 AM
#994
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've probably owned rotaries longer than you've even known what they are so I'm not too concerned with fuel economy on one. I am concerned about the crappy gear and rear end ratios the car comes with though and it just so happens that my view also would help those who do understand that they are driving cars that get worse mileage than a fully loaded Perterbuilt going up a hill.
People like me? What the hell does that mean? I only drive standard transmissions. I hate autos. I think all cars should be manual transmission equipped and that people should learn how to drive.
How about that 999:1 rear end ratio? It's more! It's better! It would appeal to "people like you" that don't understand that the lack of the power to weight ratio that would give the performance that you want can not be compensated for even with a gear ratio that is more aggressive than most race cars.
People like me? What the hell does that mean? I only drive standard transmissions. I hate autos. I think all cars should be manual transmission equipped and that people should learn how to drive.
How about that 999:1 rear end ratio? It's more! It's better! It would appeal to "people like you" that don't understand that the lack of the power to weight ratio that would give the performance that you want can not be compensated for even with a gear ratio that is more aggressive than most race cars.
01-22-2008, 12:46 PM
#997
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Renesis_8; 09-11-2011 at 02:26 PM.
01-22-2008, 01:55 PM
#998
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion 19" wheels for the R3 package is just dumb...i hate that customers still think that having bigger wheels equals better performance...sometimes capitalism can be dumb, real dumb.
