The torque on the Rx-7's 13B-REW engine is pretty decent even when it's off boost. The new 13B engine in the 8 has better torque anyway, under NA. Plus, the car we're talking about isn't very heavy. In addition, bringing the car to 5000 rpm isn't that big of a deal since the engine is so smooth.
Anyhow, the torque on the 7 off boost is more potent than what I found on the 99 Impreza 2.5RS, which is supposed to be a pretty torquey car.
Lastly, the mileage reported by Randycat is likely not the case. We know a few things for certain: 1) RX-8 has better mileage than RX-7 and (2) I get 30mpg on the highway. For the power concerns, it's nothing that can't be fixed in a recall, but I suspect that the issues are centered on the fact that the engine comes in an 189hp flavor and a 250hp flavor. The engine is capable of 276hp with computer tuning.
Mazda worked for a long time to make sure the RX-8 wasn't going to be a dud. I don't expect for there to be any serious problems in the first year.
And alliance: I don't think the next 7 is going to look like any car that exists today. I am waiting. There is some rumor that it will have a 2.0L 3 rotor with no turbo.
Plus, the car we're talking about isn't very heavy.
How heavy is it? It was my impression that it was heavier than the 7. Not by a lot, but still heavier by a notch. 2900-3000 lbs, maybe? That's still quite a lot of heft for 140-ish ft-lbs of torque to get moving w/o having to cook it with some serious rpms- thus the S2000 comparison.
Quote:
Anyhow, the torque on the 7 off boost is more potent than what I found on the 99 Impreza 2.5RS, which is supposed to be a pretty torquey car.
Yeah, for a 4-cylinder engine it might be called "torquey". That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a degree of "not enough torque" to the setup.
Quote:
Lastly, the mileage reported by Randycat is likely not the case.
I didn't report any mileage. You did. 18-28 mpg, I believe it was?
Quote:
We know a few things for certain: 1) RX-8 has better mileage than RX-7...
An RX8 has better mileage than a turbo RX7. Not that great a feat to out-mileage a turbo. It's 18 vs. 16 on the low end, so that really isn't a great case for "better" if you like to drive enthusiastically. Anything in the sub-20 is just not in the "astounding mileage" group. For 250 hp, it would be about average. For a physical 1.3 L displacement engine, sub-20's would be firmly "horrid". I'll completely grant that physical displacement for a rotary isn't exactly fair, so that is why I bring up 2.6 L as a more representative figure for functional displacement wrt a 4-cycle piston engine. In that sense, sub-20 mpg is still not that great for a 2.6 L engine, more towards mediocre. That's all I was saying.
The high end is cited at 28 vs. 26. Certainly a notch better, but is it really the new and improved engine or just a taller overdrive gear for highway use? A taller gear to enhance mileage really isn't rocket science.
Quote:
...and (2) I get 30mpg on the highway.
A good point, but that isn't exactly proof that the RX8 will necessarily be better. Might be the same. Might even be less. Other drivers may experience entirely different results, altogether. You can't really say for sure until you actually drive the RX8 and get those numbers. If it were the 2 engines dropped into literally the same body and chassis, then I'd say your claim might have some creedence. However, the RX8/7 are not really the same kind of vehicle. They are just both kind of sporty as far as "sameness".
I certainly respect your enthusiasm over the car, the company, and rotary technology, but I think there is room in this topic for some objectivity and counterpoint, as well. I'm not trying to trash the RX8, at all. I could be far more abrasive and unforgiving, but I did not. I was just offering some innocuous counterpoint.
I suppose at this point the forum is dead, but regardless, I think I need to get something across to Randycat.
I know a lot about Rx-7s and 8's, rotary engines, and cars in general. I've driven a lot of cars, worked on a lot of cars, and have an engineer's knowledge of how they work. It's not wrong to bring up counterpoints by any means, but it isn't good practice to refute a source of greater wisdom.
With that said, The Rx-8 is torqueier than you think. 164+ ft lbs if I'm correct. (Mazda improved the torque on the engine since the early prototypes) The Impreza makes good torque, period. What do you drive? There aren't a lot of cars on the road with a lot of torque by your definitions. Most 2900-3000 pound cars don't have more 164lbs of torque. The BMW 3 series, Audi A4's, etc, come to mind. Granted there are versions of these cars with big engines, the ones in the same price range as the RX-8 are generally inferior cars. Mazda fields particularly good race teams without much money. In fact, they are so successful that most European lead racing organizations ban rotaries now.
Further investigation specs the RX-8's mileage at 20/27. My guess is that 20/32 is more accurate, and that makes it just as good or better than the cars in it's category. . . small displacement german engines get notoriously bad mileage.
Further investigation specs the RX-8's mileage at 20/27. My guess is that 20/32 is more accurate, and that makes it just as good or better than the cars in it's category. . .
You know, I find it disturbing that Mazda doesn't report highway mileage correctly, or would be that wrong. So, why does Mazda list 27 instead of 32? That's almost a 20% difference in highway mileage.
With that said, The Rx-8 is torqueier than you think. 164+ ft lbs if I'm correct.
...not if they don't get that tertiary intake port issue ironed out. I recall seeing a dyno plot of a production RX8 with torque topped-out at 131 ft-lb at the rear wheel. Take it FWIW. I know you won't believe it and will demand proof, but the truth is out there.
Quote:
(Mazda improved the torque on the engine since the early prototypes) The Impreza makes good torque, period. What do you drive?
I drive an Achieva SC that weighs in at 2750 lbs and has 185 ft-lbs of torque. I don't have any delusions of grandeur to think I could take out an RX8, but this shouldn't be about a pissing match, should it? You asked. The cars do exist, and they have a powerful "feel" to them that transcends a simple hp spec. "164 ft-lbs" was fitting for a 4-banger, 2800 lbs Achieva back in the 90's (no one would be raving over an Achieva, of course). IMO, a 2800-3000 lbs car should be hitting the 200-220 ft-lb to really impress me as a "sporty" car. That's really hitting the domain of Altima/Maxima/I35's, for example. Even then, it still doesn't feel that torquey because so much emphasis has been placed on hitting hp specs over low-midrange pull.
Quote:
There aren't a lot of cars on the road with a lot of torque by your definitions.
That would be consistent with my belief that a lot of new cars are "missing the beef" in exchange for lofty hp figures which are naturally more fun to talk about. Did you not see how I semi-slagged-off a 350Z earlier? That's 270 ft-lbs of torque, but it sure doesn't feel like it until you're revving the piss out of it. That seems to be the cruxt of the matter these days. You have to rev the piss out of cars these days to get anything out of them. Others may think boundless rpms are all the rage, but after a point, I think it just gets obnoxious. Gimme the beef! A little less "bark", and a bit more bite, please. The cliches could never end...
Quote:
Most 2900-3000 pound cars don't have more 164lbs of torque. The BMW 3 series, Audi A4's, etc, come to mind.
...and it's a damn shame. Basically, you got all these cars that pull like a 4-banger Achieva from the 90's, except with considerably extended redlines. That's about it.
... Computer control over both the engine's construction and operation brought a long-sought breakthrough: By moving the engine's exhaust ports around—in a way that, without computer-aided design and assembly, Felix Wankel couldn't have—Mazda engineers vastly improved the flow of combusting gases swirling through the engine. The new design both increased the Wankel's efficiency and eliminated the noxious backwash of exhaust that had flowed into the incoming mix of fuel and air. The change enabled the redesigned engine not only to limbo under the latest government smog limits but also to generate a whopping 247 horsepower from a 1.3 liter engine.
... Freed of excess pounds and overhanging length, the tiny RENESIS responded to the motion of my right foot on the pedal as tightly as an old Singer sewing machine, revving uninhibitedly up to 9,000 rpm before I needed to shift. That's 50 percent to 100 percent more rpm than most six- or eight-cylinder engines of comparable power. And unlike most of those engines, the rotary feels eager to rev higher and higher until you back off the gas.
... But until electric cars get up to speed, Mazda's rotary provides a nerdy alternative to the aging piston engine. It lacks the muscular rumble and tire-shredding torque of a Dodge V10, but it has an I'm-different whirr that makes the Wankel-powered RX-8 seem smarter, if not faster, than other sports coupes. And it takes up half the under-the-hood space of its competitors. Cute, peppy, compact, different: Call it the Mac OS X of engines.
Comments
The torque on the Rx-7's 13B-REW engine is pretty decent even when it's off boost. The new 13B engine in the 8 has better torque anyway, under NA. Plus, the car we're talking about isn't very heavy. In addition, bringing the car to 5000 rpm isn't that big of a deal since the engine is so smooth.
Anyhow, the torque on the 7 off boost is more potent than what I found on the 99 Impreza 2.5RS, which is supposed to be a pretty torquey car.
Lastly, the mileage reported by Randycat is likely not the case. We know a few things for certain: 1) RX-8 has better mileage than RX-7 and (2) I get 30mpg on the highway. For the power concerns, it's nothing that can't be fixed in a recall, but I suspect that the issues are centered on the fact that the engine comes in an 189hp flavor and a 250hp flavor. The engine is capable of 276hp with computer tuning.
Mazda worked for a long time to make sure the RX-8 wasn't going to be a dud. I don't expect for there to be any serious problems in the first year.
And alliance: I don't think the next 7 is going to look like any car that exists today. I am waiting. There is some rumor that it will have a 2.0L 3 rotor with no turbo.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Plus, the car we're talking about isn't very heavy.
How heavy is it? It was my impression that it was heavier than the 7. Not by a lot, but still heavier by a notch. 2900-3000 lbs, maybe? That's still quite a lot of heft for 140-ish ft-lbs of torque to get moving w/o having to cook it with some serious rpms- thus the S2000 comparison.
Quote:
Anyhow, the torque on the 7 off boost is more potent than what I found on the 99 Impreza 2.5RS, which is supposed to be a pretty torquey car.
Yeah, for a 4-cylinder engine it might be called "torquey". That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a degree of "not enough torque" to the setup.
Quote:
Lastly, the mileage reported by Randycat is likely not the case.
I didn't report any mileage. You did. 18-28 mpg, I believe it was?
Quote:
We know a few things for certain: 1) RX-8 has better mileage than RX-7...
An RX8 has better mileage than a turbo RX7. Not that great a feat to out-mileage a turbo. It's 18 vs. 16 on the low end, so that really isn't a great case for "better" if you like to drive enthusiastically. Anything in the sub-20 is just not in the "astounding mileage" group. For 250 hp, it would be about average. For a physical 1.3 L displacement engine, sub-20's would be firmly "horrid". I'll completely grant that physical displacement for a rotary isn't exactly fair, so that is why I bring up 2.6 L as a more representative figure for functional displacement wrt a 4-cycle piston engine. In that sense, sub-20 mpg is still not that great for a 2.6 L engine, more towards mediocre. That's all I was saying.
The high end is cited at 28 vs. 26. Certainly a notch better, but is it really the new and improved engine or just a taller overdrive gear for highway use? A taller gear to enhance mileage really isn't rocket science.
Quote:
...and (2) I get 30mpg on the highway.
A good point, but that isn't exactly proof that the RX8 will necessarily be better. Might be the same. Might even be less. Other drivers may experience entirely different results, altogether. You can't really say for sure until you actually drive the RX8 and get those numbers. If it were the 2 engines dropped into literally the same body and chassis, then I'd say your claim might have some creedence. However, the RX8/7 are not really the same kind of vehicle. They are just both kind of sporty as far as "sameness".
I certainly respect your enthusiasm over the car, the company, and rotary technology, but I think there is room in this topic for some objectivity and counterpoint, as well. I'm not trying to trash the RX8, at all. I could be far more abrasive and unforgiving, but I did not. I was just offering some innocuous counterpoint.
I know a lot about Rx-7s and 8's, rotary engines, and cars in general. I've driven a lot of cars, worked on a lot of cars, and have an engineer's knowledge of how they work. It's not wrong to bring up counterpoints by any means, but it isn't good practice to refute a source of greater wisdom.
With that said, The Rx-8 is torqueier than you think. 164+ ft lbs if I'm correct. (Mazda improved the torque on the engine since the early prototypes) The Impreza makes good torque, period. What do you drive? There aren't a lot of cars on the road with a lot of torque by your definitions. Most 2900-3000 pound cars don't have more 164lbs of torque. The BMW 3 series, Audi A4's, etc, come to mind. Granted there are versions of these cars with big engines, the ones in the same price range as the RX-8 are generally inferior cars. Mazda fields particularly good race teams without much money. In fact, they are so successful that most European lead racing organizations ban rotaries now.
Further investigation specs the RX-8's mileage at 20/27. My guess is that 20/32 is more accurate, and that makes it just as good or better than the cars in it's category. . . small displacement german engines get notoriously bad mileage.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Further investigation specs the RX-8's mileage at 20/27. My guess is that 20/32 is more accurate, and that makes it just as good or better than the cars in it's category. . .
You know, I find it disturbing that Mazda doesn't report highway mileage correctly, or would be that wrong. So, why does Mazda list 27 instead of 32? That's almost a 20% difference in highway mileage.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
With that said, The Rx-8 is torqueier than you think. 164+ ft lbs if I'm correct.
...not if they don't get that tertiary intake port issue ironed out. I recall seeing a dyno plot of a production RX8 with torque topped-out at 131 ft-lb at the rear wheel. Take it FWIW. I know you won't believe it and will demand proof, but the truth is out there.
Quote:
(Mazda improved the torque on the engine since the early prototypes) The Impreza makes good torque, period. What do you drive?
I drive an Achieva SC that weighs in at 2750 lbs and has 185 ft-lbs of torque. I don't have any delusions of grandeur to think I could take out an RX8, but this shouldn't be about a pissing match, should it? You asked. The cars do exist, and they have a powerful "feel" to them that transcends a simple hp spec. "164 ft-lbs" was fitting for a 4-banger, 2800 lbs Achieva back in the 90's (no one would be raving over an Achieva, of course). IMO, a 2800-3000 lbs car should be hitting the 200-220 ft-lb to really impress me as a "sporty" car. That's really hitting the domain of Altima/Maxima/I35's, for example. Even then, it still doesn't feel that torquey because so much emphasis has been placed on hitting hp specs over low-midrange pull.
Quote:
There aren't a lot of cars on the road with a lot of torque by your definitions.
That would be consistent with my belief that a lot of new cars are "missing the beef" in exchange for lofty hp figures which are naturally more fun to talk about. Did you not see how I semi-slagged-off a 350Z earlier? That's 270 ft-lbs of torque, but it sure doesn't feel like it until you're revving the piss out of it. That seems to be the cruxt of the matter these days. You have to rev the piss out of cars these days to get anything out of them. Others may think boundless rpms are all the rage, but after a point, I think it just gets obnoxious. Gimme the beef!
Quote:
Most 2900-3000 pound cars don't have more 164lbs of torque. The BMW 3 series, Audi A4's, etc, come to mind.
...and it's a damn shame. Basically, you got all these cars that pull like a 4-banger Achieva from the 90's, except with considerably extended redlines. That's about it.
The Little Engine That Could
Why Mazda's RX-8 is the sports car for nerds.
By Paul Boutin
... Computer control over both the engine's construction and operation brought a long-sought breakthrough: By moving the engine's exhaust ports around—in a way that, without computer-aided design and assembly, Felix Wankel couldn't have—Mazda engineers vastly improved the flow of combusting gases swirling through the engine. The new design both increased the Wankel's efficiency and eliminated the noxious backwash of exhaust that had flowed into the incoming mix of fuel and air. The change enabled the redesigned engine not only to limbo under the latest government smog limits but also to generate a whopping 247 horsepower from a 1.3 liter engine.
... Freed of excess pounds and overhanging length, the tiny RENESIS responded to the motion of my right foot on the pedal as tightly as an old Singer sewing machine, revving uninhibitedly up to 9,000 rpm before I needed to shift. That's 50 percent to 100 percent more rpm than most six- or eight-cylinder engines of comparable power. And unlike most of those engines, the rotary feels eager to rev higher and higher until you back off the gas.
... But until electric cars get up to speed, Mazda's rotary provides a nerdy alternative to the aging piston engine. It lacks the muscular rumble and tire-shredding torque of a Dodge V10, but it has an I'm-different whirr that makes the Wankel-powered RX-8 seem smarter, if not faster, than other sports coupes. And it takes up half the under-the-hood space of its competitors. Cute, peppy, compact, different: Call it the Mac OS X of engines.