I drove a Mazda RX8 the other day. Six speed manual. RX8 is SLOW for a sports car. There are plenty of 4 door sedans that could blow it's doors off. No wonder these don't sell good for Mazda. RX8 simply lacks power.
|
|
|
|
|
Drove an RX8 the other day.
I drove a Mazda RX8 the other day. Six speed manual. RX8 is SLOW for a sports car. There are plenty of 4 door sedans that could blow it's doors off. No wonder these don't sell good for Mazda. RX8 simply lacks power.
Yeah well were you shifting as early as a GTP does?Gotta wring it out to 7000 + then you get the horses. Wankel engines fun, very smooth, easy to overrev and if you do no big deal - no camshafts. I remember the RX-7's with the little buzzer to remind you...
The Wankel's saving grace is it's "rotaryness" which allows it to turn very fast, without breaking anything. Since horsepower is just a function of torque multiplied by r/min, just increase the r/min and then HP increases.
Wankel works very well with a turbocharger, as we saw from the old RX-7. Adds a lot more low-end and midrange torque which is where the Wankel lacks by design. Mazda didn't seem to want to put a turbo on this "new generation" Wankel, probably for emissions reasons.
Mind you I'm used to upshifting at ~1700-2000 r/min also. But I drive a Saab not a Mazda rotary.
It's just not fast. I looked up the specs and you are right its lacking some serious torque and it seems horsepower too. Horse power 232 @ 8,500 rpm with Torque at 159 @ 5,500 rpm :shock: On a SPORTS CAR that starts at $27,000 USD? No thanks. So many better sports cars in the 27k starting range.
Yeah but there is more to a car than mere numbers on a piece of fancy semi-laminated paperOriginally Posted by stealthJamal
Eh I don't really know if I want an RX-8 either. I wouldn't buy one new that's for sure. I don't like the look of the body, particularly the funky rear doors, I like my cars with two doors thank you very much
Mazda got burned too, they were saying they were 255 hp before they got caught...
Also I don't know if an RX-8 is really a "sports car". Sports cars, for me at least, conjure up images of cantankerous, slow, oil-leaking quick-rusting, cramped and tiny British convertibles from the 1960's. Like a TR6. I want a TR6.
Spot on SMS!Yeah well were you shifting as early as a GTP does?
The Wankel's saving grace is it's "rotaryness" which allows it to turn very fast, without breaking anything. Since horsepower is just a function of torque multiplied by r/min, just increase the r/min and then HP increases.
Wankel works very well with a turbocharger, as we saw from the old RX-7. Adds a lot more low-end and midrange torque which is where the Wankel lacks by design. Mazda didn't seem to want to put a turbo on this "new generation" Wankel, probably for emissions reasons.
Mind you I'm used to upshifting at ~1700-2000 r/min also. But I drive a Saab not a Mazda rotary.
The RX-7 Gen-3 (Series 6/7/8 )(R1,RS,RZ)... especially 8 though were amazing cars. The Twin sequential mixed with the Rotary Wankel allowed for that 1.3Litre to make some series skid-pad numbers... mixed with the ability of the car to handle (lets not forget the dynamic fluid filled suspension)... truely one of the 4-Asian Supercars of the time.
The RX-8 on the other hand, well you summed up those StealthJamal. I mean look at what happened with the HP numbers, they overrated the car (It was set on a dyno)... and the result was Mazda had to buy back the RX-8...
The RX-7 (on the other hand) was so popular there are even thoughts of its return. :shock: :shock:
In the 90's Mazda was bleeding red for some time rather badly. That's why as you can see, all the Mazdas made during the late 1990's sucked ass
Now they are a little more fluid with the 6 and the 3 sales...
The RX-7 last generation was a good car, it took a much more "finessed" approach when compared to the 300 ZX and the Supra contemporaries. Smaller, lighter, much lighter and more compact engine, same performance
I want to get myself an original RX-7... like an 81-85 model... preferably the GSL-SE with the "1,3 litre" (technically, 2,6 :P )... they used to be everywhere and a dime a dozen now they are vapourized :roll: Oh well.
Yea the Gen-3 RX-7 took the opposite way to the 3 other Asian supercars (3K GT VR-4, MKIV Supra, 300ZX)... instead of going big and bulky, they trimmed down everything they could... and came out with an amazing car... even with less HP the weight difference was something to be reckoned with.The RX-7 last generation was a good car, it took a much more "finessed" approach when compared to the 300 ZX and the Supra contemporaries. Smaller, lighter, much lighter and more compact engine, same performance
Yeah the first generation (1978/79-1985) are all but extinct now... its sad really they were AMAZING cars for their day... 7,000RPM redline, with a buzzer (not because of how loud the car was... but rather because how smooth and silent it was). :shock: :shock:
Hosh-Posh the 2.6, they were listed as a 1.3, even though since its a W-Rot engine is acts as a "2.6"... its still listed in the 1.3 class... those sneaky people
I would never buy a Mazda. Who would pay almost 30 grand for this ****? I got my g35 coupe for 32 grand and its fast and luxurious.
Well Dr. Wankel would say it's a 2.6 :wink:Yeah the first generation (1978/79-1985) are all but extinct now... its sad really they were AMAZING cars for their day... 7,000RPM redline, with a buzzer (not because of how loud the car was... but rather because how smooth and silent it was). :shock: :shock:
Hosh-Posh the 2.6, they were listed as a 1.3, even though since its a W-Rot engine is acts as a "2.6"... its still listed in the 1.3 class... those sneaky people
Wankel motors are inherently high-revving and smooth, since, well, as the 1970's Mazda commercials "Piston engines go boing-boing-boing, but the Mazda goes huuuuummmm"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks