Did C&D weigh the vehicles? What were the curb weights?

Not that it changes anything for me but it's interesting to see that the 8 WILL require high rpm launches to get good acceleration times, dare I say just like the S2000? :p The one with the "peaky" engine and a "narrow" powerband? I remember a lot of people here, I'm sure Hercules was one of them :p , telling me how the 8 would NOT exhibit these characteristics for maximum acceleration.. hmm.. Sadly this does not seem to be the case.
Like I said, this article does not change anything for me, the 8 is still no 1 on my list for next spring, it just reaffirms what I thought this car would feel like, a high rpm performance machine with great handling dynamics. Let's not kid ourselves, the Renesis HAS to be revved to 9K rpm to get good performance, especially off the line and unfortunately this trait might sway some buyers away from this car....

 

thank you. i did actually have a nice day.

i don't dislike V8's, i just think that there are simply better solutions for speed than "more 'cubes". when i first got into cars (i was 14 or 15) i thought that the grunt of the big block was what it was all about... then i got into F1, and lurked around the www.f1mech.com forum (which sadly deceased a while back) and learned things, serious things, about engineering, power, and overall performance (they're all eng. grad students in Brittain who race, and congregate to improve their cars... the guy who started it WORKS in F1).

as a V6 with two cylinders tacked on the back, i think they're just plain ugly... similar to using a sledge hammer to remove a car door a la Red Green. Also, i find that they only advantage they have over the rotary is that they have customarilly long strokes (distance from centre of rotation on the crank to the centre of the crank journal) allowing them to have really good amounts of torque. That is it. They don't even have more internal displacement (and ESPECIALLY capacity), or make more power per any metric you can think of. if you do come up with one, i'll chalk up another one for the heavy iron. and no, sound doesn't count, 'cause that's subjective anyways (listen to the 787B in this SevenStock movie ).

Sorry i was upset, but to me there is a lot more to a car than having a big engine, looking "better", or going faster... generally not about "keeping up with the Jone's", for me (i know that my ***** is big enough, thanks).
To say that this car "doesn't have enough power" seems completely insane to me: it's a bloody passenger vehicle. you wanna race it?? sure, fine, okay... i don't care. this thing is unargueably fast, makes gobs of torque for the engine it does have (i drive a 20 year old propane powered 2 ton forklift occasionally at work: don't talk to me about "lack of torque"), is geared aggresively, and comfortably, luxuriously, and affordably seats four in high style. yeah yeah, all in my opinion, but this is why i disagree.

so, like i said: you can go ahead and put a V8 in it, but i wouldn't.

 

I made some assumptions looking at the torque curve.. I guess you will get a 10th or two off from the 5.9 if you decide to launch from a lower yet safer 3500-4500

 

lol, seriously, how many times a day do conditions require a 5.9 0-60?
________
California dispensaries

 

If you are a teenager it's nearly every day.

Testosterone and hormones... as well as just being stupid.

NOTE: THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL TEENS, JUST THE MAJORITY :D

 

touche... however, that statement was towards MOST of you, the more matured (generally) group of 24-whatever.

nonetheless, well played.....well played indeed.......although i dont think CONDITIONS require, just stupid illusions,but than again, isnt everything just an illusion after all?
________
Lesbian live

 

nah, the three chambers is like having three cylinders: the process is still the Four Stroke Otto Cycle, it just happens once every rotation of the e-shaft per rotor.

...can't remember what else i was gonna say.

 

That's what I meant when I said that a lot of people will not consider the 8 because of the launch characteristics.. Which is sad because the beauty of this car will shine once you get some momentum.. Just like the S2000 dare I say. Heck even my Prelude requires a 5,000+ rpm launch to get a 15.0 1/4 mile time.. I didn't really want to do that and launched around 4K and got a 15.2.. I can live with that, I'm not a 1/4 mile racer.

As for the articles top gear acceleration numbers, they do this by leaving the tranny in 6th and mash the throttle from 50mph? This clearly will NOT favour the Renesis or any other low torque/displacement engine.. Thank God I have the ability/knowledge how to downshift to 4th gear in those situations.. :p

 

Amen

 

So a V6 is simply a V6 with two cylinders tacked on to the back??? hahaah! LMAO! You really dont know too much about engines do you? I have built more than a couple racing engines in my life.... and know a thing or two when it comes to V8s, and engines in general, as I used to be a tech. Your above logic is somewhat confusing and doesnt really make all that much sense... I'd really love to tell you that there is a replacement for displacement, but sadly, there isnt. And dont even try to go off about Vtech and such things as that. It's a simple fact that at a certain displacement you're only going to make so much power, through boost o spray or whatever means... and there will come a point where the only way to make more power is to increase displacement. And dont even try to use the arguement about "hp per liter".. that's ricer arguement and one often used by a car owner that just got the **** kicked out of him by a car with a higher displacement. And you keep talking about torque.... yeah, they do have that easily, but they also have horsepower, and tons of it. and dont argue weight, if my engine weighs 100 pounds more than yours, but produces 100hp more, I tihnk the trade off is a mute point. I'm not about to try to convince all you rotary-heads about the piston engine, but when it comes dow to it, there's a reason 99.9999% of cars ever manufactured use piston engines. And FYI guys, there are piston engines that make more power, get better fuel economy, and emission less than even the newest renesis. I'm sure many of you wouldnt bitch if mazda put in a high winding I-6 (ala M3) or possibly a charged V6.

 

That M3 engine is only 3.2L, unlike the monster engines that reside in almost all the Japanese/American cars. They just get bigger and bigger.

I think what we are all waiting patiently for is the RX-7 that will have 300+ horses in a TEEENY rotary engine. That's the key here.. Sure the power can come from a bigger engine but the entire concept Mazda works on is taking the small rotary and making the car have handling advantages that others car simply DO NOT HAVE.

The FD is a great example of this... The RX-8 is going to be in the middle as it's a 'compromise' car for a family that can't afford to have a Miata to get some thrills in

We *will* argue about weight, because it's not the POWER it makes, but the MASSES moving side to side on turns. That's what makes the rotary great and unique. If you can't see that then I feel sorry for you and your limited vision of things outside of displacement.

 

Great article....!!!
I wonder why the latest C&D issue was missing in the library...haha....luckily i can still read this online, but the words are way to small for my eyes can hardly read it...especially late at night...
I wonder if this article will increase the demand for RX8 which could lead to jacked up price for the RX8...!!!
Hope Mazda well make sure the dealer is selling what it promised affordtable price....

 

I dont see a small I-6 or boosted I-4 weighing much more than the renesis, certainly not enough to alter the handling characteristics of the car greatly. Just saying that there are other ngine options of little weight and bigger power, and let's face it, a boosted rotary just doesnt have a good history of reliability.

 

first, boosted iron block I6's and 4's can easily tip the scales at more than an aluminum small block... second, the RENESIS weighs less than the S2000's F20C, which is an unboosted and fairly compact DOCH I4. uh, what was it Buger, 240lbs??

secondly, it's not just the mass, but the size of the engine which can influence vehicle dynamics, and you CAN NOT get more compact than the rotary, or much bigger than an engine with an FI system with all the trimmings.

thirdly, the boosted rotaries aren't go-forever workhorses, but they do last a good long time if cared for (in the 13BT, no one disputes that there were flaws in the early 13BREW designs). If Mazda was going to go for boost in the next RX-7 (which they're not), they obviously wouldn't make the same HUGE mistake twice.

 

*sigh* again, huh?? fine... i'm staying up late anyways...



you obviously don't know much about American engineering, do you?? the firing order is the same as that statement would suggest, not to mention that is exactly how many of the first pushrod OHV V8's were designed (to save on parts, R+D, and machining costs... makes sense). you see it in boats and cars both. this is not so anymore for all of them (with guys like the LS6), but i digress: it is a fundamentally crappy layout due to the wonderful imbalance the "extra" two cylinders make. 'nuff said.

btw: i mean not to suggest that the entire engine is the same, plus two pistons; the blocks (and ingeral moving bits) are simply longer/shorter versions of each other.



i'm happy for you. no, i've not built an entire engine (helped a little on some), and no i'm not employed at the shop i work at as a tech (just "the kid"), but i've read manuals, SAE papers, discussed ad nauseum many different design characteristics and principles with a good many smart people, and do know a thing or two about them myself.
by the way, why aren't you still a tech?? you walk and talk like a young guy...??



in fact there is, and you obviously didn't understand what i meant when i said "capacity". due to the wankel's unique mechanics, there is (as i've said before) one power stroke per rev per rotor. this means that there is also one full inspiration, and expiration cycle per revolution as well, per rotor. this means that the 1.3L RENESIS breathes as much as a 2.6L 4-stroke piston engine per revolution, ingoring inefficiencies.
there are also other wankel specific advantages, like a 270degree power stroke which really helps the motor use full advantage on its mere 10mm stroke. that mega short stroke, as it implies, also means the engine is naturally insanely oversquare(bore would be something like +5" if you calculated that for a piston), which definitely helps in the revs and power department. there are other things, but i've got much more to write.

actually, i will go off on "things like Vtech", because they do help engine of any displacement make better power, through increasing efficiency (and thus torque and thus power). why do you think that the greats of engine builders like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, and Honda (don't laugh) all use overhead cams?? just to have less reciprocating/rotating mass in the valve train?? that's one reason, but not the only one. being able to put more valves in a head means that you can have a greater oriface for better breathing at higher rates of flow, allowing for better power when the pedal is down and the revs are high. does the lower velocity of incoming air hurt efficiency, and thus torque, at the low end?? yes, but that's the tradeoff for more power, no matter the displacement. Also, now with cams that can advance or retard their timing, and even amount of lift ( ), efficiency is again enhanced, allowing for better torque and power no matter the displacement.
does that mean i think a Civic's 1.6L honda is gonna outdrag an old 302?? hell no, but the NSX's 3.2L Honda might (290hp, 224 lb.ft.), depending on the gearing.
as an aside, few engines can rival the wankel's inherent volumetric efficiency at a wide range of rpm, giving it a pretty flat torque curve (meaning it's pretty close to max torque it can make all the time).

the arguement about horsepower per litre isn't an excuse for having less overall power (and i'm not contesting that the RX-8 is going to outdrag anything with serious iron in it), but not a bad way to judge the effectiveness of a design; this is why engines are limited by it in top-flight racing, to promote better engineering, not to see who can bore bigger holes in a chunk of metal.
but no, i do not dispute that having a bigger volume of air and fuel burning at once isn't going to give you more power, it's just an inarticulate way of accomplishing it.



i never said they didn't, i'm saying that there are other (probably better) ways to get that power... albeit without the low end torque.



mass is an extremely important metric, and depending upon what your marginal benefits of gaining both 100hp and 100lbs of mass would be your benefit; for instance, if you had a 500lb, 1200hp motor, you'd probably rather keep the extra 100lbs. off. if you had a 45lb 9.9hp motor (like an outboard), you'd probably be okay with a 100lb deficit for 100 more horses. but still, this issue grows more complex as you have to judge whether or not this heavier and more powerful motor will suit your needs in its intended application (ie: sled pulling versus karting). so no it's not a "mute" (by which i assume you mean moot) point.

there are many reasons that wankels aren't more widely developped, one being that very few car makers could get the apex seals to work well. Mazda did it first in a production car, much to the chagrin of GM, Daimler-Benz, and others.
another reason is that they were previously very bad on HC emissions (although wankels have inherently very low NO2/N2O4 emissions), which is not the case anymore.
also, the wankel is a highly undevelopped concept, with far more potential than has been extracted thus far. that potential lying in wait will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in R+D for manufacturers, and is not guaranteed to be found no matter what.
it's a risk, it's difficult, it's expensive, it's "too" different. there are many reasons, none of which are "piston engines are better in every way". seldom will you find one engineering solution which is not a comprimise: i happen to believe that the rotary is just a far better comprimise for a performance engine than a piston type.

oh, there is?? do tell. in my favourite comparison, the F20C (again, the motor in the S2000) which is highly comparable in application, intention, and size is inferior to the RENESIS in nearly every way. the RX-8's rotary makes more torque (and thus power) at ALL rpm, weighs less, is dimentionally smaller, consumes very close to equal amounts of fuel, and is as good if not better on emissions.
if you don't know, the F20C is widely regarded as one of the most advanced small piston engines in the world.

and yes, if Mazda ever put anything but a wankel in an RX model, i would abadon my love for cars entirely, and really question if life were worth living... a sell out of that magnitude would really suffer my confidence in humanity a terrible blow.

tribal: could i bother you to post a TASTEFUL "owned" pic for me?? thanks

 

Well if it is going to help solve any disputes or calm any of you guys down I have an S2000 and get my RX-8 next month so I'll do a comparison then. I can't believe all of the reviews so far have failed to compare it against the most similar car. If you look at the Mazda brochures all the weight/power curves and charts are so similar.

As for dropping the clutch at 8000rpm or whatever...you have to be joking. I've never done that in my S as I've never wanted to destroy the car. Where it is fun (and the RX-8 I think) will be in the 50-70 range blasting past people when you're on the high revs in a gear. That, plus the twisties where not many people can keep up with either.

 

I do not think the 8000 rpm launch is a big deal. Higher rpm
shift points and launches are inherent in the rotary engine.
The engine will be running quite smoothly at 8000 rpm. Notice
the position of the 0 on the tach. It is moved for a reason. There
are a lot of good threads in the tech section that discuss
the engine basics. Piston engine drivers will be amazed at the
smooth acceleration in this car. It is so smooth that most drivers
thus far are actually surprised to hear the limiter buzzer!

 

I don't think the concern is with the engine handling 8000 rpm but with the clutch when those 8000k are dropped on (repeatedly)

 

I'm sure that will wind up being precisely the worry...however, I also wonder if you'll really lose that much off your time dropping it lower, like around 3-4k where it is a little safer. Personally, any time you dump the clutch you are going to ruin it faster than if you hadn't...so let's just hope Mazda realized that the clutch in this car will be taking some extra abuse for it to be "fun" and gave us a relatively high performance clutch. Otherwise, that'll probably be the first thing that ends up failing on mine...pity that's an expensvie fix too.

 

I think the fact that c&d used a Mustang in the RX-8 comparo article simply highlights the difficulty in categorizing the 8. I still think the RX-8 is a sports car with four seats. The reviews we have seen so far simply confirm this. Great, handling, high revving car with sophisticated technology that involves the driver completely in the experience of driving.

On the other hand, my Mustang GT (my second one now) is a big unsophisticated powerplant stuffed into an aged chassis, sporting an interior design that is 10 years old. Did I mention the questionable exterior styling?

Yet I love it as an everyday driver. Gotta get around the lady in the Buick that mistakenly pulled up to the light next to you in the left turn only lane...and is now drifting over towards you? No problem, the big V-8 shrugs and yawns while making the move. Trying to merge in to the interstate, but about to get blocked by two semis? 40 - 80 happens mighty quickly with over 300 lb/ft of torque in a 3200 lb. car. Not sure I always want to have to downshift a gear or two in tight situations.

My Miata is the most satisfying car I have ever owned. Yet I drive it only on the weekends.

Finally, reading through this thread reminds me of the arguments my friends used to get into about Ford vs. Chevy. More than one of these arguments turned into a fistfight - and they were talking pick-up trucks!

I'm pretty sure there is room on the road for everyone...

 

The 1st and 2nd gen RX-7s were very reliable cars. However, for those who can rememer with me, Consumer Reports always warned to stay away from the manual tranny version of the car.
What other reason could there be than this exact situation - lots of clutch action to make the car move. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe by the late 2nd gen and through the 3rd gens the clutch became less of a problem.

Another thing to keep in mind:

The RX-7 continued to be produced and sold in Japan until the recent end of it's run last year - help here! - I think the last special edition came out in August 2002 - so it's not like Mazda has forgotten any of the lessons learned from the RX7s.

 

The tranny is thoroughly tested by the Japan RX7 and
the testing of the RX8.The presale 0-60 6.0sec. estimate by
Mazda was based on hundreds of tests on their proving grounds.
The biggest risk is an amateur driver attempting to do what is
best left to the pro test drivers.

 

Yeah, you sure owned me bud, I am feeling the pain for sure. I'm done trying to convince people that have a die-hard love for an engine that just isnt........ all it has is uniqueness, and that's it. Give me an engine that has more power and weighs 100 pounds more and I'll make it quicker at any autocross. BTW wakeech, I have been racing professionally for years, and I started in sprint karts at age 13. And BTW man, you really dont have anything to do, do you? I am no longer a tech because I decided I didnt want to go that route, I am currently going through the application process for the Colorado State Patrol.

 

Well this article is just great!
I am currently driving a 3rd Gen RX-7 for the past 6 years.
I am currently looking the RX-8 or the 2004 Mustang, (new body style) as potential buys.
Although it is not the same Mustang, I am sure it wont be that different.
May have to wait for a super-charged RX-8?

 

Welcome to the forum DVanditmars.

No offense but these two cars are miles apart! If you are looking for a good straight line fast car with lots of torque I suggest that you get the Mustang. However, if you are looking for a good handling lightweight car your search has ended.