Facelifted RX8 revealed!!!!
01-22-2008, 08:21 PM
#1001
Putting 19s on (especially on the R3 option) really shows where Mazda was going with the "update". Although this was discussed, predicted and expected the whole thing still leaves a very cynical/bitter taste.
19s, Recaros and a cosmetic refresh: They are clearly saying, our hands are tied from both engineering and financial standpoints...
I don't know what the future holds for a rotary powered sports car but it does not look any brighter after this excepted and now fulfilled update/refresh.
19s, Recaros and a cosmetic refresh: They are clearly saying, our hands are tied from both engineering and financial standpoints...
I don't know what the future holds for a rotary powered sports car but it does not look any brighter after this excepted and now fulfilled update/refresh.
01-22-2008, 09:49 PM
#1002
Sorry, but no, R&T wasn't being sarcastic when they said "New styling, same great rotary engine." Like most auto magazines, R&T likes the Renesis. A lot. Not only do they like it, they consider it to be, along with sublime handling, the main draw of the car.
Duh.
Duh.
Last edited by New Yorker; 01-23-2008 at 08:18 AM.
01-22-2008, 11:11 PM
#1005
Prove it
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 196
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.
01-23-2008, 12:12 AM
#1006
Vegas rx8!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putting 19s on (especially on the R3 option) really shows where Mazda was going with the "update". Although this was discussed, predicted and expected the whole thing still leaves a very cynical/bitter taste.
19s, Recaros and a cosmetic refresh: They are clearly saying, our hands are tied from both engineering and financial standpoints...
I don't know what the future holds for a rotary powered sports car but it does not look any brighter after this excepted and now fulfilled update/refresh.
19s, Recaros and a cosmetic refresh: They are clearly saying, our hands are tied from both engineering and financial standpoints...
I don't know what the future holds for a rotary powered sports car but it does not look any brighter after this excepted and now fulfilled update/refresh.
K im done....too much thinking on a school night lol =P
01-23-2008, 12:52 AM
#1007
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.
01-23-2008, 10:28 AM
#1010
What's next?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SE Mass
Posts: 1,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wheels, yes, are said to be lighter also. Even if they were the same weight as the 18's, saving 1lb at each corner of unsprung weight is a savings that I'd happily accept (for a stock tire... once it's replaced with something else all bets are off unless that replacement tire is also lighter).
The tires I'd compete on are 4lbs lighter at each corner.
--kC
01-23-2008, 12:05 PM
#1011
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 19" Bridgestone RE050A tires are lighter than the comparable 18" by about 1 lb each.
The wheels, yes, are said to be lighter also. Even if they were the same weight as the 18's, saving 1lb at each corner of unsprung weight is a savings that I'd happily accept (for a stock tire... once it's replaced with something else all bets are off unless that replacement tire is also lighter).
The tires I'd compete on are 4lbs lighter at each corner.
--kC
The wheels, yes, are said to be lighter also. Even if they were the same weight as the 18's, saving 1lb at each corner of unsprung weight is a savings that I'd happily accept (for a stock tire... once it's replaced with something else all bets are off unless that replacement tire is also lighter).
The tires I'd compete on are 4lbs lighter at each corner.
--kC
If they're lighter that's good...but it still means they're heavier towards the ouside of the wheel, which is bad for performance.
01-23-2008, 05:26 PM
#1012
Now watch me yuuuuaaaaaa!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
235/35/19 tires for example, are lighter than stock 225/45/18's.. and also smaller than a few mm in diameter.
the whole thing will still depend on the weight of the new rims..
but from the way i see it 4.77 + 19" rims which are equal to or lighter than stock and a few mm smaller in diameter = faster acceleration off-the-line.
as for mpg.. it will suck
the whole thing will still depend on the weight of the new rims..
but from the way i see it 4.77 + 19" rims which are equal to or lighter than stock and a few mm smaller in diameter = faster acceleration off-the-line.
as for mpg.. it will suck
01-23-2008, 08:16 PM
#1013
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
235/35/19 tires for example, are lighter than stock 225/45/18's.. and also smaller than a few mm in diameter.
the whole thing will still depend on the weight of the new rims..
but from the way i see it 4.77 + 19" rims which are equal to or lighter than stock and a few mm smaller in diameter = faster acceleration off-the-line.
as for mpg.. it will suck
the whole thing will still depend on the weight of the new rims..
but from the way i see it 4.77 + 19" rims which are equal to or lighter than stock and a few mm smaller in diameter = faster acceleration off-the-line.
as for mpg.. it will suck
01-23-2008, 08:20 PM
#1014
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 589
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.
The car may not have all the power you want, but it certainly has more than you need. The car is geared more to adults, and that's fine.
01-24-2008, 07:03 AM
#1016
What's next?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SE Mass
Posts: 1,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
--kC
01-24-2008, 09:10 AM
#1017
Now watch me yuuuuaaaaaa!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
edit: i haven't mentioned it on this thread yet.. but that facelift suck. that side vent suck! no corners = suck
Last edited by superdon2; 01-24-2008 at 09:17 AM.
01-24-2008, 01:57 PM
#1020
It's crazy how 15 years ago the acceleration of the 91 Turbo2 was still considered quite quick. The RX8 which is easily it's equal is now considered slow. Amazing! I guess it's all relative.
Paul.
Paul.
01-24-2008, 02:05 PM
#1021
Administrator
iTrader: (7)
01-24-2008, 04:11 PM
#1022
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your results may vary.......
From Rotary News:
We at RotaryNews have been following the threads on the RX-8 forum about the fact that the RX-8 was not making advertised horsepower on the dyno. We have also been in contact with some of the folks in Mazda about the issue. They were fully aware of the issue, and researched it fully. They have released their findings today.
As of today, August 22nd, 2003, the revised US-Spec Horsepower Rating of the RX-8 is 238 HP for the Manual 6port RENESIS, and 197 HP for the 4port Automatic RENESIS. The performance numbers advertised ARE NOT CHANGING. They have done many tests, in house, with magazines, and outside third parties, and they are still observing RX-8's that will do 0-60 in 5.9-6.0 seconds and quarter mines in 14.5 (best observed 1/4 mile run at Pomona Raceway was 14.48 at 96.1 MPH)
From an Edmunds recap:
The third RX-7 did generate some astounding numbers. Road & Track had an R1 blitzing from zero to 60 in 5.5 seconds with the quarter being consumed in 14.0 seconds at 98.5 mph. Motor Trend had it doing those same tricks in 5.3 seconds and 13.9 seconds at 99.7 mph. This was one seriously fast car.
But rough-riding, high-performance, close-coupled two-seaters (even the less brutal "Touring" model was still ultrastiff) weren't big sellers in the '90s as insurance rates on such vehicles went up and the market's preference for SUVs became obvious. "Pound for pound, dollar for dollar," wrote Road & Track, "the new RX-7 shines with some of the brightest sports cars in the world. Mazda is sticking its corporate neck out here, coming to market with a more specialized, higher-priced car at a time when two-seater sales — not to mention automotive sales in general — are feeble. Let's hope this lightweight rotary rocket can send that trend packing."
All in all, I would stop pining away like a dog that lost it's owner for the RX-7. And at a cost of over $10,000 more in 1995 dollars, well, let's just say there's a reason the car has much better demand used than it did new. Help yourself.
01-24-2008, 05:20 PM
#1023
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your results may vary.......
From Rotary News:
We at RotaryNews have been following the threads on the RX-8 forum about the fact that the RX-8 was not making advertised horsepower on the dyno. We have also been in contact with some of the folks in Mazda about the issue. They were fully aware of the issue, and researched it fully. They have released their findings today.
As of today, August 22nd, 2003, the revised US-Spec Horsepower Rating of the RX-8 is 238 HP for the Manual 6port RENESIS, and 197 HP for the 4port Automatic RENESIS. The performance numbers advertised ARE NOT CHANGING. They have done many tests, in house, with magazines, and outside third parties, and they are still observing RX-8's that will do 0-60 in 5.9-6.0 seconds and quarter mines in 14.5 (best observed 1/4 mile run at Pomona Raceway was 14.48 at 96.1 MPH)
From an Edmunds recap:
The third RX-7 did generate some astounding numbers. Road & Track had an R1 blitzing from zero to 60 in 5.5 seconds with the quarter being consumed in 14.0 seconds at 98.5 mph. Motor Trend had it doing those same tricks in 5.3 seconds and 13.9 seconds at 99.7 mph. This was one seriously fast car.
But rough-riding, high-performance, close-coupled two-seaters (even the less brutal "Touring" model was still ultrastiff) weren't big sellers in the '90s as insurance rates on such vehicles went up and the market's preference for SUVs became obvious. "Pound for pound, dollar for dollar," wrote Road & Track, "the new RX-7 shines with some of the brightest sports cars in the world. Mazda is sticking its corporate neck out here, coming to market with a more specialized, higher-priced car at a time when two-seater sales — not to mention automotive sales in general — are feeble. Let's hope this lightweight rotary rocket can send that trend packing."
All in all, I would stop pining away like a dog that lost it's owner for the RX-7. And at a cost of over $10,000 more in 1995 dollars, well, let's just say there's a reason the car has much better demand used than it did new. Help yourself.
From Rotary News:
We at RotaryNews have been following the threads on the RX-8 forum about the fact that the RX-8 was not making advertised horsepower on the dyno. We have also been in contact with some of the folks in Mazda about the issue. They were fully aware of the issue, and researched it fully. They have released their findings today.
As of today, August 22nd, 2003, the revised US-Spec Horsepower Rating of the RX-8 is 238 HP for the Manual 6port RENESIS, and 197 HP for the 4port Automatic RENESIS. The performance numbers advertised ARE NOT CHANGING. They have done many tests, in house, with magazines, and outside third parties, and they are still observing RX-8's that will do 0-60 in 5.9-6.0 seconds and quarter mines in 14.5 (best observed 1/4 mile run at Pomona Raceway was 14.48 at 96.1 MPH)
From an Edmunds recap:
The third RX-7 did generate some astounding numbers. Road & Track had an R1 blitzing from zero to 60 in 5.5 seconds with the quarter being consumed in 14.0 seconds at 98.5 mph. Motor Trend had it doing those same tricks in 5.3 seconds and 13.9 seconds at 99.7 mph. This was one seriously fast car.
But rough-riding, high-performance, close-coupled two-seaters (even the less brutal "Touring" model was still ultrastiff) weren't big sellers in the '90s as insurance rates on such vehicles went up and the market's preference for SUVs became obvious. "Pound for pound, dollar for dollar," wrote Road & Track, "the new RX-7 shines with some of the brightest sports cars in the world. Mazda is sticking its corporate neck out here, coming to market with a more specialized, higher-priced car at a time when two-seater sales — not to mention automotive sales in general — are feeble. Let's hope this lightweight rotary rocket can send that trend packing."
All in all, I would stop pining away like a dog that lost it's owner for the RX-7. And at a cost of over $10,000 more in 1995 dollars, well, let's just say there's a reason the car has much better demand used than it did new. Help yourself.
Having raced EVO's and 8's on the track, I can tell you that the EVO is dramatically faster than the rx-7 between 100mph and 155mph. And the rx-7 is dramatically faster than the 8 between 100mph and 155.
01-24-2008, 06:26 PM
#1024
Registered
exactly... specs are not the only thing that make a car... the feel of it, the way it rides and handles, the way you drive it make you love or hate the car... people are too spec oriented now n days..
