I think the 6-speed trannys are suited best to the bigger engine gas guzzlers like the vette. You use your first 5 gears to use the meaty part of the power curve as you accelerate, then you drop it into 6th for highway cruising so you're not getting 7 mpg at 5k rpm at 80 mph. 6th gear should not be your top speed gear, but it's nice to have when you want to actually pass a gas station or two. What 6th will do for the rx-8 remains to be seen.
If the RX-8 is geared anything like the Honda S2000, I think a 6-speed will be a perfect match for the engine. The S2000's 6-speed transmission takes full advantage of it's power curve. At 75 mph, I'm at 4,000+ rpm in 6th, getting 30+ mpg on the highway and still having the rpms high enough to allow decent acceleration. It truly is a "close ratio" gearbox. Sixth gear is the top speed gear for the S2000, not that I've ever taken it to 150.
I doubt the torque/power curve for the S2000 is anything like the RX8. A rotary engine has very unique characteristics that a piston engine cannot duplicate. The fact that the max torque and horsepower ratings are similar for these two cars is no reason to conclude that they should be geared the same. My guess is that people who buy this car will find themselves routinely skipping a gear or two on the way up to cruising speed.
Since torque = horsepower at 5252 RPM, any engine with high horsepower and low torque is, by definition, going to have a peaky powerband.
In the case of the RX-8, peak torque is 159 lb-ft at 5500 RPM. So we know the torque at 5252 RPM is going to be no greater than 159 lb-ft, meaning the power at 5252 RPM is also no greater than 159 HP.
At the same time, max power is 250 HP @ 8500 RPM. Any way you look at it, the power curve between 5252 RPM and 8500 RPM is going to be pretty steep.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. I drive a Prelude, which has similar torque characteristics (156 lb-ft @ 5250 RPM), but "only" a 7400 RPM redline.
Given that the Prelude has almost exactly the same weight as the RX-8 (Prelude 2954 lbs, RX-8 2940 lbs), I'd expect the RX-8 will accelerate like a Prelude -- with 1600 RPM more of a high-end rush and one extra gear.
That's a pretty entertaining ride, and with the extra gear, it should be easier to stay in the power band when shifting -- especially if you're willing to push the engine to redline.
And if you don't think driving at 9000 RPM sounds like fun (sounds like fun to me!), then I think this car would be wasted on you...
Not sure what you mean by a peaky powerband. What you feel is torque not horsepower. To me, a peaky powerband would be one with a relatively sharp slope to the torque curve on either side of the peak. 250 hp at 8500 rpm is 154 ft-lbf of torque at that speed. I would call that a very flat powerband from 5500 to 8500. I have no idea what the curve looks like below 5500.
>>And if you don't think driving at 9000 RPM sounds like fun (sounds like fun to me!), then I think this car would be wasted on you..
Explain to me how having more gears facilitates driving at 9000 RPM.
Somehow my point is being missed. When you upshift there is a drop off in RPMs. If this drop off is too great you will find yourself outside the peak powerband. The Renesis rotary allows for a relatively huge drop off in RPMs without a significant decrease in power, ie there is no need for the gears to be as close to one another. Now if you like shifting every time your RPMs increase by 2000 then maybe you should stick with the Prelude. But a rotary goes from 4000 to 9000 RPMs as easily as most cars go from 4000 to 6000. This is the characteristic that I like most about the engine. To break that up with unnecessary shifts seems to defeat the purpose.
Have you ever driven a rotary engine? If you have I'm not sure why you are comparing it to Honda's VTech, they are not even close to being same. I have driven the Prelude and several RX7s and it is definitely apples and oranges.
Despite your driving experience, you may be misinformed about the torque characteristics of rotary engines. They do their best "work" at high RPMs, and skipping shifts is a sure-fire way to get laggy response and tepid acceleration.
The numerous, tight ratios in the RX-8 gearbox serve to keep the engine on constant boil (like a VTEC motor), so that you're never far away from the power peaks. Falling into a "rev-hole" with a rotary -- or a VTEC engine, for that matter -- takes considerable time to climb out of.
In my experience, I'd compare a rotary engine to a DC motor -- the more juice you put in, the greater its output. The higher you let it rev, the more power you get.
Keep in mind that the 210-hp Renesis in the RX-8 Auto is the same engine as the 250-hp version, it just doesn't rev as high (to protect the torque converter). If it did rev as high, the output would be the same 250 hp.
"Keep in mind that the 210-hp Renesis in the RX-8 Auto is the same engine as the 250-hp version..."
Just out of curiousity, how is it that the 210hp version has slightly higher torque output (164@5000 vs 159@5500). Is this just a slight difference in the design of the intake or are there some internal differences? Are there any differences in the compression ratio between the two motors?
It's all in the tuning. The complex intake runner system in both engines is electronically controlled. In the 210-hp motor, it's tuned to optimize mid-range output. That same intake system is tuned for high-RPM breathing in the 250-hp version.
I'd bet you're right on the money about the exhaust. Given its small displacement, the Renesis should see real benefits from a larger-diameter exhaust with lower backpressure.
A friend of mine had an RX7 that I could drive on occasion. I remember being able to get up to highway speed while still in 2nd gear. What is the driver suppose to do now? Visit 3rd and 4th gear just because they're there? Granted, I revved the engine pretty high in order to accomplish this but isn't that what we're talking about, that this is an engine that likes to be revved? Would this car have been better if the gears were so closely spaced that it would have required an extra shift to get up to highway speed? IMO, absolutely not.
A while back someone posted the torque curve for the RX8. If that person could provide that link again I will try to track down a torque curve for the S2000. You will see that there is no comparison. Power peaks and rev holes are far less of an issue for a rotary engine. Rotarys do operate best above 3500 RPMs but since they also rev freely up to 9000 it doesn't require many gears to keep the engine spinning in this range.
I remember seeing something in one of the mags (SCI?) regarding intake ports. What I remember was that the 250hp version had 3 intake ports vs. 2 in the 210hp version. Aren't the intake ports intergral to the end plates? In other words, I don't think you could just swap intakes (or re-tune the intake) to convert a 210hp motor to the higher output 250hp version.
If this is not the case, if it IS possible to simply re-tune the intake, I can see a large market for owners of the 210hp version.......and possibly a few fried torque converters.....
If acceleration is the intent, taller gear ratios do nothing to support the cause.
rorr -- you may be correct about the number of ports being different. My interepreation was that the number of ports is consistent between the engines, but that the 3rd ports were not used in the 210-hp motor. I will do some fact-checking.
I am somewhat surprised at how little activity there is in Edmunds RX8 topics. When the Z was in the prerelease phase the boards were jumping.
This car seems like a fantastic vehicle to me and I wonder if part of the reason is simply an over abundance of exciting vehicles in the market right now.
Or maybe many people are simply not attracted to the 4 door sports car idea with a rotary engine.
Well I hope that there is little interest in the car initially so I can negotiate a great price.
I think a big reason for the relative lack of interest is that this car is arguably not as good as its predecessor. Yeah I know it has 4 doors and a back seat but that describes most cars on the road today, certainly nothing to get all that excited about. The new Z on the other hand is considered by many, if not most, to be the best Z ever.
Hey, snap, the RX-8 DOESN'T HAVE A PREDECESSOR!!! When Mazda releases a new RX-7, THAT car can be compared to the old RX-7 (just as the 3rd gen. RX-7 was compared to the 2nd and 1st gen. cars). I don't remember people whining that the 1st gen. RX-7 compared unfavorably to it's "predecessors" the RX-3's and RX-4's.
Would you complain that BMW's 840i and 850i coupes don't compare to their "predessors" the 740i and 750iL???? The RX-7 and RX-8 are DIFFERENT CARS! I know that whole "RX" thing has you confused.
"Yeah I know it has 4 doors and a back seat but that describes most cars on the road today, certainly nothing to get all that excited about."
Well, as a BMW 3-series owner, you of all people should understand what the new RX-8 offers: RWD and spirited performance, coupled with excellent handling, in a car capable of transporting 4 in reasonable comfort, at a price most enthusiasts can afford.
Of course, if the RX-8 succeeds, the resale value on used BMW 3-series cars may take a beating......hmmmmmm....things are becoming much clearer now....
"Of course, if the RX-8 succeeds, the resale value on used BMW 3-series cars may take a beating......hmmmmmm....things are becoming much clearer now.... " LOL, rorr.
>>Would you complain that BMW's 840i and 850i coupes don't compare to their "predessors" the 740i and 750iL???? The RX-7 and RX-8 are DIFFERENT CARS! I know that whole "RX" thing has you confused
I'm not that familar with BMW's 7 or 8 series but if BMW is going to a scheme of even numbers for coupes then I suspect that the 8 should live up to or excede its 7 coupe predecessor. For instance, if the Z4 had been inferior to the Z3 then I think that would definitely have been a legitimate complaint. If BMW would have defended this complaint by saying that these are two different models and the public shouldn't be confused by the Z then I think that would have been somewhat bogus.
Do you really think there will be a lot of cross shopping between the 3 series and the RX8? I think 3 series sales might be pressured a little from cars like the the G35s but definitely not the RX8. The 3 series is a sports coupe/sedan not a sports car. It accomplishes its objective very well. The RX8 is trying to be a morphing of a sports car and a sports sedan and I think it will end up being fairly mediocre in both regards. While 30k isn't all that much to spend for a car these days I personally would expect more than mediocrity for that price.
Out of curiousity. What do you think the interest in this car would be if it came with a traditional piston engine rather than a rotary . Let's say it was similar to the S2000 VTech so performance/revving characteristics would be somewhat similar. My feeling is that interest would be way down. If you agree then a lot of people are looking at this car because of the gee whiz/novelty factor of the Renesis rotary. And I wonder how many S2000 owners are wishing they had two more doors and a back seat.
Does anyone know what Mazda's sales goals are for this vehicle. While I'm sure there will initially be very high demand as is typical of many new models I think if Mazda wants to sustain this demand/price then they need to seriously limit production, <15k units/year.
Literally every article I have read on the RX-8 specifically mentions how it successfully combines a sports car's performance and driving experience with a useful passenger space.
Given the price and performance differential between the two, I think the 3-series will be cross-shopped with the RX-8. For someone who doesn't want the more formal, upright appearance of the 330i, and is interested in a more overtly sport-oriented machine, the RX-8 looks to be a good choice.
If my geographic location warranted a RWD vehicle year-round, the RX-8 would be at the top of my list of potentials.
Personally, I would have been absolutely THRILLED if Honda had released a small RWD sedan with the S2000 engine. I've always liked small, high revving engines in small light-weight cars BUT due to family obligations, I need 4 seats. How many people with families own 2-seater cars? And of those people, how many do you think have that 2-seater as their 3rd (or 4th) vehicle?
Personally, I don't give a rat's [non-permissible content removed] whether the car is powered by a rotary or an I4, V6, or small V8. But I DO want decent performance, excellent handling (read: RWD), and a manual transmission. I NEED the capacity to carry 4 real humans and affordability.
I think there will be a LOT more cross shopping between the RX-8 and the 3-series than you may think. Mediocrity? Compared to the old RX-7 (which you seem to be fixated on), the new car doesn't have the same punch due to a relative lack of torque; but the handling (from all accounts I've seen) is BETTER. Better handling than the old RX-7 in a car capable of carrying 4 real adults in relative comfort. At a price substantially cheaper than the old RX-7.
Does the addition of the extra doors and extra seats compromise its ability compared to other, 'dedicated' sportscars? Yes, of course. Does its small size and sporting nature make it less capable, less spacious, less comfortable, than a regular 4-door 'sport' sedan? Yes, of course. But please show me another car, ANY OTHER CAR, with this level of performance and the capacity to carry 4 real people at this price point.
If Honda came out with a 2+2 version of its S2000 and was able to price it around 30K I think it would be an absolute bomb in the marketplace. That is essentially what the RX8 is. It may be exactly what you are looking for but I suspect that you are somewhat unique in your tastes.
>>But please show me another car, ANY OTHER CAR, with this level of performance and the capacity to carry 4 real people at this price point
I've read most of your posts and have concluded that you are primarily a rotary engine fan. Which leads me to believe that your answer to my hypothetical question, would you be as interested in this car if it had a traditional piston engine? would be a definite no.
There is a lot of educated speculation about a real successor to the RX7 being available within the next year or two. If this became more than speculation and a firm release date was established I wonder what that will do to RX8 sales. himler is correct in saying that I am somewhat fixated on the 3rd gen RX7. Which is one of the main reasons that the RX8 frustrates me so much, its like being teased. When the last RX7 was being made I could not afford one, that is no longer the case. If/when the next RX7 becomes available I will probably be first in line to order one. I don't care if it has any more power I just want it to be 200-300 lbs lighter with 2 less doors and no back seat. Most people that buy this kind of toy can also afford another more practical vehicle for those occasions when carrying passengers is a concern.
Ostensibly, the whole reason behind the RX-8 is to prove the reliability of the Renesis rotary, so that Mazda can revive the RX-7.
It only makes sense that Mazda would offer this engine in a car with broader appeal than the RX-7. (Which is not to say that the RX-7 lacks appeal for sports car buyers, it's just that the RX-8's utility makes it an easier sell to those on the fence between a sports car and a sports sedan.)
If the RX-8 sells, it'll be a result of brilliant engineering and smart product planning.
i'm not THAT well off yet to be able to afford a NEW 2 seater weekend toy and a traditional sedan.
the RX-8 is the best compromise in my situation in terms of price, performance, and practicality :-)
and yes, if it was a pist-on engine car I probably wouldn't care for it as much... Ultimatedly, it is the rotary engine that sets it apart from all other cars out there.
>>It only makes sense that Mazda would offer this engine in a car with broader appeal than the RX-7
We disagree on that. I'm not sure that this car will have broader appeal than a 2 door/two seater.
Examples, when the old Z came out with a 2+2 version it did not sell better than the 2 seater? BMW's M3 comes only as 2 door despite the fact that the vast majority of 3 series sold are 4 door. If you want a manual transmission on a 6cyl Accord you have to get the coupe.
Its obvious that the vast majority of car buyers want 4 doors and a back seat. But when you are looking at the relatively small subset of those buyers that are willing to pay a premium for performance then the priorities become very different.
"Its obvious that the vast majority of car buyers want 4 doors and a back seat. But when you are looking at the relatively small subset of those buyers that are willing to pay a premium for performance then the priorities become very different."
Then I guess BMW will be ceasing production of their 3-series ANY day now.....
BTW, regarding the 3-series vs RX-8 comparison (which I know you hate), here are a few numbers:
Hmmm....for about $4k more, you get 200lbs more weight and 16ftlbs more torque (and 66 fewer ponies). Plus, about 1" more rear headroom, and 2" more rear legroom (tho over an inch less front legroom). And a really neat propeller logo on the hood!
If you think people won't be cross shopping the RX-8 with an entry level 3-series, you are out of your mind.
WRX? Sorry, I'm not a fan of AWD. If I lived somewhere where snow/ice (or even lots of rain) was a concern, I'm sure I would be in love with the WRX. But central Texas doesn't get that much really adverse weather. As it is, I can't get past the styling and the grade of the interior materials. But you are correct, the WRX would otherwise certainly fit my needs.
That surprises me to find out that the 3 series actually has more legroom than the RX8. I know for a fact that it is not comfortable for adults to sit in the back of my car so if you think somehow the RX8 will be able to accomplish this with less room to work with you might be in for a surprise. But then again I would actually feel kind of silly driving around 3 other people in an RX8. The appearance does not suggest passenger hauling. You might as well attach a trailer hitch to it.
No insult intended, but perhaps you're particularly prone to feeling silly. Unless you're going to be hauling 3 passengers all the time, what difference does it make?
The RX-8 is not a sedan. The RX-8 is not the new RX-7. The RX-8 is a combination of "in a pinch" sedan utility and real sports car performance. It's not intended to be a direct competitor with the 3-Series.
This is really not as difficult as you're making it out to be.
P.S. -- Have you ever seen a trailer hitch on a 3-Series? Me neither.
Actually, snap isn't really pushing the 3-series comparison. I'm just trying to make some small digs at snap since he owns a 3-series (according to his profile) and IMHO there are more than a few similarities between the two cars; with the size/comfort advantage marginally in BMW's favor and the performance advantage marginally in Mazda's favor. (No hard feelings snap).
I think the most telling post was the one in which snap expresses obvious disappointment that Mazda DIDN'T release an obvious replacement to the -7 and instead "saddled" the -8 with what, in his eyes, are huge compromises: 4-doors, 4-seats, and the additional weight they entail. It doesn't matter how 'good' the new -8 is when driven as a 'sportscar'. It doesn't matter that, according to C&D, the new -8 is "from the driver's seat, the best RX ever". All snap can see is how much 'better' the new car MIGHT HAVE BEEN without the extra doors/seats.
Or at least, that's the way I'm interpreting the posts. If I'm substantially wrong, I apologize. But snap needs to realize that most people with families simply can't afford a 3rd 'play' car (ie. 2 seats only) and NEED the capability to haul 4 people.
Will that need be on a daily or even weekly basis? No, not necessarily. But situations will occur often enough that we need 4 seats. The rest of the cars attributes (power, handling, RWD, manual tranny) are simply wants.
..I previously thought the RX8 made too many compromises to appeal to hardly anyone. And I thought putting a low torque engine in a car theoretically capable of hauling 4 adults was a mis-match.
But I've now come to think that the RX8 would have been an interesting choice for me about 20 years ago when I bought a 1984 Toyota Supra. It weighed 3,000 lbs, had a 162 hp/168 ft lb I6, and had a reasonably large hatchback and rear seat. It fit the bill perfectly for me at the time, given that I wanted a sports car, but also needed flexibility. The RX8 can't match the performance of my S2000, but it will beat the heck out of my old Supra.
So, fellow posters, consider this an admission of a too quick rush to judgement by me on the RX8. I may not be in the current demographic for an RX8, but I think it has it's place. Especially given that it has received positive marks for quality construction and interior design/materials.
I still have not changed my mind on the 350Z, however. A fixed roof two seater sports car should not weigh 3250 lbs and have a 6,400 rpm engine, IMO. If you are going to be impractical, why not get an S2000 that matches the 350Z in acceleration, bests it in handling, sports a 9,000 rpm engine, gives you top down fun in sunny weather, is limited production and hand built - all for about the same price as the overweight, mass produced, cheap interior, sunroof-less 350Z.
"But please show me another car, ANY OTHER CAR, with this level of performance and the capacity to carry 4 real people at this price point"
Easy, I happen to own one. Honda Prelude SH. Stickered for $27k, had good power, phenomenal handling, a subdued but quality interior, reliability and reputation, and it won just about every comparo it was entered into. You couldn't fit much in the backseat... but you could certainly try. And yes, it bombed in the marketplace... it sold so poorly, they didn't even bother to redesign it.
I think the RX-8 will do better because it has more power, more room, better looks and a more flashy interior. It's eerily similar to the Prelude, but evolutionarily improved in just about every way for not too much more money. The exterior styling is way better. So, I think they'll sell every one they make for the first few years. But, I would not be surprised if the RX-8 sales tanked around, oh, say late 2005.
...and it goes from a pig to an outright hog in the process.
P.S. sphinx: regarding a Prelude SH to RX8 comparison, I offer the following difference and would like your thoughts:
IMO, the original Prelude was never considered a sports car. For at least 12-15 years after the nameplate was introduced, it defined the term "chick car". "Real guys" bought RX7's, Z's, Supras, 924s/944s etc. that were RWD and had decent power. Heck, even the RWD then FWD Toyota Celica had a better image as a sports coupe in the 80's. As I recall, the 80's and early 90's Prelude was even less of a "performer" than Honda's own CRXsi. By the time Honda actually endowed the Prelude with any performance capabilities in the mid-late 90's, it's image as a rather docile wannabe sports coupe had been so strongly established that it was a lost cause. And Honda's choice to go with a FWD setup, ATTS notwithstanding, would never put it in the same league as a RWD alternative. Fortunately for the Prelude, most of the RWD alternatives had gotten to pricey or been discontinued, otherwise I think the Prelude wouldn't have survived as long as it did.
Mazda, on the other hand, is using the positive image dating back to the original RX7 as a marketing platform for the RX8. And, they appear to be endowing the car with decnt performance from the start. Image isn't everthing, but I think Mazda has a huge advantage over Honda in the RX8 vs. Prelude comparison.
>>But I've now come to think that the RX8 would have been an interesting choice for me about 20 years ago
I'll take that a step farther. 20 years ago the RX8 would have been perceived as a super car.
rorr I think you have essentially captured my sentiments on the RX8. As I've said before, I hope it does well in the market because I think that will increase the chances of an RX7.
I also realize that most families cannot afford a 3rd play car. That's who cars like the Mazda 6 and Altima SE were designed for, a combination of family practicality and decent performance(I know they're not RWD). And I suspect that even though a lot of potential buyers express interest in the RX8's configuration when it comes time to buy the practical side will win out and one of the aforementioned cars might get a closer look.
This car's design/image screams play car. That philosophy should have been strictly adhered to. Yes it would have immediately excluded some potential buyers but how many former, passionate RX7 owners is this 4dr/backseat layout going to alienate? And how many RX8s is Mazda really trying to sell? Supposedly Nissan is on track to sell 30k Zs this year and Honda sells all the S2000s they build. These aren't practical cars but they are profitable and image enhancing for their manufacturers.
My thought is that I agree that there is a difference, but I don't think it's all that marked. Prelude's reputation versus RX-7s was hurt by a few other things that you didn't mention. One was the availability of lower cost, lower performance options. Prelude in the mid-90s was available with everything from an ok engine to a cool engine, but the Ok models tended to dominate sales-wise. Make no mistake, the RX-8 is not in an entirely dissimilar position. EVERY review being discussed, every messageboard post here and elsewhere, talks about the 250hp Renesis and how this stacks up against past, present and future. Great. But what about the detuned version that is likely to comprise the bulk of RX-8 sales? Isn't it 200-210hp with much less headroom on the tach? Doesn't the car weigh 3000lbs? The "average" RX-8 is going to be a sporty, decent, fun performer, kind of like the RSX is a sporty, decent, fun performer. The cool RX-8 everyone's drooling over here is going to be like the RSX-S: much more potent, much more fun, and a much rarer site on the open road.
Another huge difference is styling - Prelude lost its cool styling with the 1992 redesign and never got it back, although the 5th gens sure seem to be aging nicely now that they've been cancelled. The RX-8 comes out of the gate with some pretty slick styling. People can and DO make buying decisions based on style. If Mazda keeps doing good in this area, sales will not be hurt. If they give the RX-8 a bizarre interior or funky headlamps, it'll tank.
I don't buy the performance/image angle as much anymore. As I've said before, I think my Prelude SH has similar or higher cornering limits than my S2000 despite the drivetrain difference. It's also far more stable and predictable on less-than-perfect roads. This doesn't make it the better sports car, but it does imply that the Prelude never needed to answer to the competition when it came to predictable, stable handling. Unfortunately, if you take a look at the demographics and ask people why they did or didn't buy the car, you'll see that performance is not part of the equation. Remember: if the Prelude got cancelled because it was a chick car, did the RX-7 and Z and the rest get cancelled for some similar perceptual issue? Prelude was priced in no-man's land: a coupe that was more expensive and better performing than the Celicas, Eclipses, and Probes, but less expensive and less performing than the Supras and 3000GTs and RX-7s.
Fast forward a few years and now we have a RX-8 with what appears to be the same mission, with performance characteristics that (to me) are awfully similar, with a price that's about in line with a Prelude with five or six years of inflation built in, in a market where just about everything is either cheaper than it (by a decent margin) or more expensive than it (by a decent margin).
We all know that there are going to be some very slick 3-series coupes, WRXs and IS300 coupes, a new stang, and more, in the next couple of years. Meanwhile, the more-affordable-than-the-RX-8 crowd is going to get better RSX-Ss, Celicas, Neons, and the like. The RX-8 is sandwiched and it remains to be seen whether it has the goods to (a) get the $22-24k set to ante up with the dollars and/or (b) get the $35-45k set to give the RX-8s "value" quotient a serious second look. Prelude tried this and (eventually) failed. Time will tell how the RX-8 fares.
My prediction: very well for two or three years, on image and momentum alone, then people will start going back to buying big crossovers for the same money, then the RX-8 will die and be replaced by a Mazda version of the S2000.
If the RX8 had never been developed and you asked 100 people what they thought would be the best car to take full advantage of the Renesis engine I doubt many would say it should be a 3000 lb car that can seat 4 adults comfortably.
my Prelude many years down the road. I hope it lasts that long. While I'd like to post my philosophical points on the demise of the Prelude, they'd probably mirror himiler and sphinx99's since we all post on the Prelude board here on TH and tend to agree.
What I can comment on is the new RX8 and my current Prelude Type SH. I had the chance to sit in and view an RX8 at the NY International Auto Show.
I like the specs of a low weight, high-end horspower, low-torque, RWD RX-8. The car itself is gorgeous. Magazine photos do not do it any justice. The wheels fill out the wells nicely. The suicide (sorry, freestyle) door profile will take some time to get used to. The interior is well laid out. It has a real cockpit feel to it. Dash plastics are not as nice as my Prelude. The plastic dome that houses the gauge cluster felt like it was doomed to rattle. I'm still going to have to reserve judgement until a test drive. Given my 2001 Prelude Type SH is not even a year old (April 27), this will not be for a while.
If I had to get another car to as a successor to my Prelude (I say successor because nothing can ever replace this car) right now, I'd look at the RX-8, 325i (SP, 5-speed), an IS300 (5-speed), and an MB C230K Sport Sedan (6-Speed). The 350Z is a gorgeous car, but the redline seems too low, the weight too high, and the interior materials not up to snuff.
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
Comments
In the case of the RX-8, peak torque is 159 lb-ft at 5500 RPM. So we know the torque at 5252 RPM is going to be no greater than 159 lb-ft, meaning the power at 5252 RPM is also no greater than 159 HP.
At the same time, max power is 250 HP @ 8500 RPM. Any way you look at it, the power curve between 5252 RPM and 8500 RPM is going to be pretty steep.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. I drive a Prelude, which has similar torque characteristics (156 lb-ft @ 5250 RPM), but "only" a 7400 RPM redline.
Given that the Prelude has almost exactly the same weight as the RX-8 (Prelude 2954 lbs, RX-8 2940 lbs), I'd expect the RX-8 will accelerate like a Prelude -- with 1600 RPM more of a high-end rush and one extra gear.
That's a pretty entertaining ride, and with the extra gear, it should be easier to stay in the power band when shifting -- especially if you're willing to push the engine to redline.
And if you don't think driving at 9000 RPM sounds like fun (sounds like fun to me!), then I think this car would be wasted on you...
Explain to me how having more gears facilitates driving at 9000 RPM.
Somehow my point is being missed. When you upshift there is a drop off in RPMs. If this drop off is too great you will find yourself outside the peak powerband. The Renesis rotary allows for a relatively huge drop off in RPMs without a significant decrease in power, ie there is no need for the gears to be as close to one another. Now if you like shifting every time your RPMs increase by 2000 then maybe you should stick with the Prelude. But a rotary goes from 4000 to 9000 RPMs as easily as most cars go from 4000 to 6000. This is the characteristic that I like most about the engine. To break that up with unnecessary shifts seems to defeat the purpose.
Have you ever driven a rotary engine? If you have I'm not sure why you are comparing it to Honda's VTech, they are not even close to being same. I have driven the Prelude and several RX7s and it is definitely apples and oranges.
The numerous, tight ratios in the RX-8 gearbox serve to keep the engine on constant boil (like a VTEC motor), so that you're never far away from the power peaks. Falling into a "rev-hole" with a rotary -- or a VTEC engine, for that matter -- takes considerable time to climb out of.
In my experience, I'd compare a rotary engine to a DC motor -- the more juice you put in, the greater its output. The higher you let it rev, the more power you get.
Keep in mind that the 210-hp Renesis in the RX-8 Auto is the same engine as the 250-hp version, it just doesn't rev as high (to protect the torque converter). If it did rev as high, the output would be the same 250 hp.
Just out of curiousity, how is it that the 210hp version has slightly higher torque output (164@5000 vs 159@5500). Is this just a slight difference in the design of the intake or are there some internal differences? Are there any differences in the compression ratio between the two motors?
this is for NA rotaries, turbos are a whole different animal ;-)
A while back someone posted the torque curve for the RX8. If that person could provide that link again I will try to track down a torque curve for the S2000. You will see that there is no comparison. Power peaks and rev holes are far less of an issue for a rotary engine. Rotarys do operate best above 3500 RPMs but since they also rev freely up to 9000 it doesn't require many gears to keep the engine spinning in this range.
If this is not the case, if it IS possible to simply re-tune the intake, I can see a large market for owners of the 210hp version.......and possibly a few fried torque converters.....
rorr -- you may be correct about the number of ports being different. My interepreation was that the number of ports is consistent between the engines, but that the 3rd ports were not used in the 210-hp motor. I will do some fact-checking.
Dinu
This car seems like a fantastic vehicle to me and I wonder if part of the reason is simply an over abundance of exciting vehicles in the market right now.
Or maybe many people are simply not attracted to the 4 door sports car idea with a rotary engine.
Well I hope that there is little interest in the car initially so I can negotiate a great price.
Has anyone ordered the car for less than MSRP?
Thanks
Hey, snap, the RX-8 DOESN'T HAVE A PREDECESSOR!!! When Mazda releases a new RX-7, THAT car can be compared to the old RX-7 (just as the 3rd gen. RX-7 was compared to the 2nd and 1st gen. cars). I don't remember people whining that the 1st gen. RX-7 compared unfavorably to it's "predecessors" the RX-3's and RX-4's.
Would you complain that BMW's 840i and 850i coupes don't compare to their "predessors" the 740i and 750iL???? The RX-7 and RX-8 are DIFFERENT CARS! I know that whole "RX" thing has you confused.
"Yeah I know it has 4 doors and a back seat but that describes most cars on the road today, certainly nothing to get all that excited about."
Well, as a BMW 3-series owner, you of all people should understand what the new RX-8 offers: RWD and spirited performance, coupled with excellent handling, in a car capable of transporting 4 in reasonable comfort, at a price most enthusiasts can afford.
Of course, if the RX-8 succeeds, the resale value on used BMW 3-series cars may take a beating......hmmmmmm....things are becoming much clearer now....
LOL, rorr.
I'm not that familar with BMW's 7 or 8 series but if BMW is going to a scheme of even numbers for coupes then I suspect that the 8 should live up to or excede its 7 coupe predecessor. For instance, if the Z4 had been inferior to the Z3 then I think that would definitely have been a legitimate complaint. If BMW would have defended this complaint by saying that these are two different models and the public shouldn't be confused by the Z then I think that would have been somewhat bogus.
Do you really think there will be a lot of cross shopping between the 3 series and the RX8? I think 3 series sales might be pressured a little from cars like the the G35s but definitely not the RX8. The 3 series is a sports coupe/sedan not a sports car. It accomplishes its objective very well. The RX8 is trying to be a morphing of a sports car and a sports sedan and I think it will end up being fairly mediocre in both regards. While 30k isn't all that much to spend for a car these days I personally would expect more than mediocrity for that price.
Out of curiousity. What do you think the interest in this car would be if it came with a traditional piston engine rather than a rotary . Let's say it was similar to the S2000 VTech so performance/revving characteristics would be somewhat similar. My feeling is that interest would be way down. If you agree then a lot of people are looking at this car because of the gee whiz/novelty factor of the Renesis rotary. And I wonder how many S2000 owners are wishing they had two more doors and a back seat.
Does anyone know what Mazda's sales goals are for this vehicle. While I'm sure there will initially be very high demand as is typical of many new models I think if Mazda wants to sustain this demand/price then they need to seriously limit production, <15k units/year.
Given the price and performance differential between the two, I think the 3-series will be cross-shopped with the RX-8. For someone who doesn't want the more formal, upright appearance of the 330i, and is interested in a more overtly sport-oriented machine, the RX-8 looks to be a good choice.
If my geographic location warranted a RWD vehicle year-round, the RX-8 would be at the top of my list of potentials.
Personally, I don't give a rat's [non-permissible content removed] whether the car is powered by a rotary or an I4, V6, or small V8. But I DO want decent performance, excellent handling (read: RWD), and a manual transmission. I NEED the capacity to carry 4 real humans and affordability.
I think there will be a LOT more cross shopping between the RX-8 and the 3-series than you may think. Mediocrity? Compared to the old RX-7 (which you seem to be fixated on), the new car doesn't have the same punch due to a relative lack of torque; but the handling (from all accounts I've seen) is BETTER. Better handling than the old RX-7 in a car capable of carrying 4 real adults in relative comfort. At a price substantially cheaper than the old RX-7.
Does the addition of the extra doors and extra seats compromise its ability compared to other, 'dedicated' sportscars? Yes, of course. Does its small size and sporting nature make it less capable, less spacious, less comfortable, than a regular 4-door 'sport' sedan? Yes, of course. But please show me another car, ANY OTHER CAR, with this level of performance and the capacity to carry 4 real people at this price point.
>>But please show me another car, ANY OTHER CAR, with this level of performance and the capacity to carry 4 real people at this price point
The WRX comes to mind.
There is a lot of educated speculation about a real successor to the RX7 being available within the next year or two. If this became more than speculation and a firm release date was established I wonder what that will do to RX8 sales. himler is correct in saying that I am somewhat fixated on the 3rd gen RX7. Which is one of the main reasons that the RX8 frustrates me so much, its like being teased. When the last RX7 was being made I could not afford one, that is no longer the case. If/when the next RX7 becomes available I will probably be first in line to order one. I don't care if it has any more power I just want it to be 200-300 lbs lighter with 2 less doors and no back seat. Most people that buy this kind of toy can also afford another more practical vehicle for those occasions when carrying passengers is a concern.
It only makes sense that Mazda would offer this engine in a car with broader appeal than the RX-7. (Which is not to say that the RX-7 lacks appeal for sports car buyers, it's just that the RX-8's utility makes it an easier sell to those on the fence between a sports car and a sports sedan.)
If the RX-8 sells, it'll be a result of brilliant engineering and smart product planning.
the RX-8 is the best compromise in my situation in terms of price, performance, and practicality :-)
and yes, if it was a pist-on engine car I probably wouldn't care for it as much... Ultimatedly, it is the rotary engine that sets it apart from all other cars out there.
We disagree on that. I'm not sure that this car will have broader appeal than a 2 door/two seater.
Examples, when the old Z came out with a 2+2 version it did not sell better than the 2 seater?
BMW's M3 comes only as 2 door despite the fact that the vast majority of 3 series sold are 4 door.
If you want a manual transmission on a 6cyl Accord you have to get the coupe.
Its obvious that the vast majority of car buyers want 4 doors and a back seat. But when you are looking at the relatively small subset of those buyers that are willing to pay a premium for performance then the priorities become very different.
Then I guess BMW will be ceasing production of their 3-series ANY day now.....
BTW, regarding the 3-series vs RX-8 comparison (which I know you hate), here are a few numbers:
Cost: 325i: $34k RX-8: $30k
Weight: 325i: 3219 lbs RX-8: 3011 lbs
Hp: 325i: 184hp RX-8: 250hp
Torque 325i: 175ftlbs RX-8: 159ftlbs
Headroom 325i: 38.4/37.3 RX-8: 37.8/36.2
Legroom 325i: 41.4/34.6 RX-8: 42.7/32.3
Shoulder 325i: 54.4/54.2 RX-8: 54.8/53.2
Hmmm....for about $4k more, you get 200lbs more weight and 16ftlbs more torque (and 66 fewer ponies). Plus, about 1" more rear headroom, and 2" more rear legroom (tho over an inch less front legroom). And a really neat propeller logo on the hood!
If you think people won't be cross shopping the RX-8 with an entry level 3-series, you are out of your mind.
WRX? Sorry, I'm not a fan of AWD. If I lived somewhere where snow/ice (or even lots of rain) was a concern, I'm sure I would be in love with the WRX. But central Texas doesn't get that much really adverse weather. As it is, I can't get past the styling and the grade of the interior materials. But you are correct, the WRX would otherwise certainly fit my needs.
Besides, Mazda isn't looking to chart Accord sales numbers with the RX-8. It's a specialized vehicle for a specific buyer type, no argument there.
The RX-8's advantage lies in that it offers genuine sports car ability and reasonable 4-seat capacity. Think of it as a 330is/S2000 hybrid.
The RX-8 is not a sedan. The RX-8 is not the new RX-7. The RX-8 is a combination of "in a pinch" sedan utility and real sports car performance. It's not intended to be a direct competitor with the 3-Series.
This is really not as difficult as you're making it out to be.
P.S. -- Have you ever seen a trailer hitch on a 3-Series? Me neither.
I think the most telling post was the one in which snap expresses obvious disappointment that Mazda DIDN'T release an obvious replacement to the -7 and instead "saddled" the -8 with what, in his eyes, are huge compromises: 4-doors, 4-seats, and the additional weight they entail. It doesn't matter how 'good' the new -8 is when driven as a 'sportscar'. It doesn't matter that, according to C&D, the new -8 is "from the driver's seat, the best RX ever". All snap can see is how much 'better' the new car MIGHT HAVE BEEN without the extra doors/seats.
Or at least, that's the way I'm interpreting the posts. If I'm substantially wrong, I apologize. But snap needs to realize that most people with families simply can't afford a 3rd 'play' car (ie. 2 seats only) and NEED the capability to haul 4 people.
Will that need be on a daily or even weekly basis? No, not necessarily. But situations will occur often enough that we need 4 seats. The rest of the cars attributes (power, handling, RWD, manual tranny) are simply wants.
But I've now come to think that the RX8 would have been an interesting choice for me about 20 years ago when I bought a 1984 Toyota Supra. It weighed 3,000 lbs, had a 162 hp/168 ft lb I6, and had a reasonably large hatchback and rear seat. It fit the bill perfectly for me at the time, given that I wanted a sports car, but also needed flexibility. The RX8 can't match the performance of my S2000, but it will beat the heck out of my old Supra.
So, fellow posters, consider this an admission of a too quick rush to judgement by me on the RX8. I may not be in the current demographic for an RX8, but I think it has it's place. Especially given that it has received positive marks for quality construction and interior design/materials.
I still have not changed my mind on the 350Z, however. A fixed roof two seater sports car should not weigh 3250 lbs and have a 6,400 rpm engine, IMO. If you are going to be impractical, why not get an S2000 that matches the 350Z in acceleration, bests it in handling, sports a 9,000 rpm engine, gives you top down fun in sunny weather, is limited production and hand built - all for about the same price as the overweight, mass produced, cheap interior, sunroof-less 350Z.
But the RX8 desrves my apologies.
Easy, I happen to own one. Honda Prelude SH. Stickered for $27k, had good power, phenomenal handling, a subdued but quality interior, reliability and reputation, and it won just about every comparo it was entered into. You couldn't fit much in the backseat... but you could certainly try. And yes, it bombed in the marketplace... it sold so poorly, they didn't even bother to redesign it.
I think the RX-8 will do better because it has more power, more room, better looks and a more flashy interior. It's eerily similar to the Prelude, but evolutionarily improved in just about every way for not too much more money. The exterior styling is way better. So, I think they'll sell every one they make for the first few years. But, I would not be surprised if the RX-8 sales tanked around, oh, say late 2005.
P.S. sphinx: regarding a Prelude SH to RX8 comparison, I offer the following difference and would like your thoughts:
IMO, the original Prelude was never considered a sports car. For at least 12-15 years after the nameplate was introduced, it defined the term "chick car". "Real guys" bought RX7's, Z's, Supras, 924s/944s etc. that were RWD and had decent power. Heck, even the RWD then FWD Toyota Celica had a better image as a sports coupe in the 80's. As I recall, the 80's and early 90's Prelude was even less of a "performer" than Honda's own CRXsi. By the time Honda actually endowed the Prelude with any performance capabilities in the mid-late 90's, it's image as a rather docile wannabe sports coupe had been so strongly established that it was a lost cause. And Honda's choice to go with a FWD setup, ATTS notwithstanding, would never put it in the same league as a RWD alternative. Fortunately for the Prelude, most of the RWD alternatives had gotten to pricey or been discontinued, otherwise I think the Prelude wouldn't have survived as long as it did.
Mazda, on the other hand, is using the positive image dating back to the original RX7 as a marketing platform for the RX8. And, they appear to be endowing the car with decnt performance from the start. Image isn't everthing, but I think Mazda has a huge advantage over Honda in the RX8 vs. Prelude comparison.
I'll take that a step farther. 20 years ago the RX8 would have been perceived as a super car.
rorr
I think you have essentially captured my sentiments on the RX8. As I've said before, I hope it does well in the market because I think that will increase the chances of an RX7.
I also realize that most families cannot afford a 3rd play car. That's who cars like the Mazda 6 and Altima SE were designed for, a combination of family practicality and decent performance(I know they're not RWD). And I suspect that even though a lot of potential buyers express interest in the RX8's configuration when it comes time to buy the practical side will win out and one of the aforementioned cars might get a closer look.
This car's design/image screams play car. That philosophy should have been strictly adhered to. Yes it would have immediately excluded some potential buyers but how many former, passionate RX7 owners is this 4dr/backseat layout going to alienate? And how many RX8s is Mazda really trying to sell? Supposedly Nissan is on track to sell 30k Zs this year and Honda sells all the S2000s they build. These aren't practical cars but they are profitable and image enhancing for their manufacturers.
Another huge difference is styling - Prelude lost its cool styling with the 1992 redesign and never got it back, although the 5th gens sure seem to be aging nicely now that they've been cancelled. The RX-8 comes out of the gate with some pretty slick styling. People can and DO make buying decisions based on style. If Mazda keeps doing good in this area, sales will not be hurt. If they give the RX-8 a bizarre interior or funky headlamps, it'll tank.
I don't buy the performance/image angle as much anymore. As I've said before, I think my Prelude SH has similar or higher cornering limits than my S2000 despite the drivetrain difference. It's also far more stable and predictable on less-than-perfect roads. This doesn't make it the better sports car, but it does imply that the Prelude never needed to answer to the competition when it came to predictable, stable handling. Unfortunately, if you take a look at the demographics and ask people why they did or didn't buy the car, you'll see that performance is not part of the equation. Remember: if the Prelude got cancelled because it was a chick car, did the RX-7 and Z and the rest get cancelled for some similar perceptual issue? Prelude was priced in no-man's land: a coupe that was more expensive and better performing than the Celicas, Eclipses, and Probes, but less expensive and less performing than the Supras and 3000GTs and RX-7s.
Fast forward a few years and now we have a RX-8 with what appears to be the same mission, with performance characteristics that (to me) are awfully similar, with a price that's about in line with a Prelude with five or six years of inflation built in, in a market where just about everything is either cheaper than it (by a decent margin) or more expensive than it (by a decent margin).
We all know that there are going to be some very slick 3-series coupes, WRXs and IS300 coupes, a new stang, and more, in the next couple of years. Meanwhile, the more-affordable-than-the-RX-8 crowd is going to get better RSX-Ss, Celicas, Neons, and the like. The RX-8 is sandwiched and it remains to be seen whether it has the goods to (a) get the $22-24k set to ante up with the dollars and/or (b) get the $35-45k set to give the RX-8s "value" quotient a serious second look. Prelude tried this and (eventually) failed. Time will tell how the RX-8 fares.
My prediction: very well for two or three years, on image and momentum alone, then people will start going back to buying big crossovers for the same money, then the RX-8 will die and be replaced by a Mazda version of the S2000.
Of course, the RX-8 expands the performance envelope of the Prelude quite a bit. It's like a modern-day, RWD Prelude.
I've often thought that the RX-8 would be my ideal "next step" when I'm ready to replace my Prelude.
Relax, snaphook -- the RX-7 is coming. Delayed gratification can be a character builder.
What I can comment on is the new RX8 and my current Prelude Type SH. I had the chance to sit in and view an RX8 at the NY International Auto Show.
I like the specs of a low weight, high-end horspower, low-torque, RWD RX-8. The car itself is gorgeous. Magazine photos do not do it any justice. The wheels fill out the wells nicely. The suicide (sorry, freestyle) door profile will take some time to get used to. The interior is well laid out. It has a real cockpit feel to it. Dash plastics are not as nice as my Prelude. The plastic dome that houses the gauge cluster felt like it was doomed to rattle. I'm still going to have to reserve judgement until a test drive. Given my 2001 Prelude Type SH is not even a year old (April 27), this will not be for a while.
If I had to get another car to as a successor to my Prelude (I say successor because nothing can ever replace this car) right now, I'd look at the RX-8, 325i (SP, 5-speed), an IS300 (5-speed), and an MB C230K Sport Sedan (6-Speed). The 350Z is a gorgeous car, but the redline seems too low, the weight too high, and the interior materials not up to snuff.
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD