I think premiums over MSRP for the RX8 are unlikely to hold up for long, for the following reasons:
(1) It's not limited production, as was the S2000. And Honda dealers are no longer able to charge premiums for the S2000. Mazda expects to sell as many RX8's in the first year as HOnda sold S2000's in it's frist three years of production.
(2) Competition is extensive. Even if you consider the RX8 preferable, there are a lot of other recently introduced sports cars and coupes out there.
(3) The economy is nowhere near as good as it was when the S2000 was introduced relative to "discretionary" expenditures. Whereas the RX8 has some functional versitility going for it, it's still a lot less "practical" than most coupes or sedans. Paying a MSRP premium when your stock portfolio is still trying to recover won't sit to well with many buyers.
Examples of declining premiums that have recently caught my eye:
- 2003 Boxster S, 800 miles, perfect, MSRP $57,800; sell for $46,900 obo. I've seen 2002 models for as little as $41k.
- 2003 SL500, 1,000 miles, $85,000 ($5,000 under MSRP) or best offer. (This car was selling for well over $100k several months ago.
- M3's, new, ordered to my specification for $1,500 under MSRP, options at invoice.
- 350Z's - choose from 15 in stock, $1,500 under MSRP.
All of the above are from dealers, not desperate individuals.
Some Mazda dealers might try to gouge an early buyer $37k for a 6-speed RX8, but that will be one sorry buyer in about 3-6 months.
on the left is the 'ground illumination lamp' under the side rear view mirror (turns off 10 seconds after door is shut), and the right is the center console at night
That looks like a 7,300 rpm yellow line and 7,500 rpm redline. I thought it was a high revving engine, with a redline approaching the S2000's 9,000 rpm.
I checked out the video which prompts me to ask what might be a stupid question. I have always been under the impression that if you are trying to get the best performance out of an engine you should strive to keep the rpms at around the peak torque which in the RX8 is 5500. The driver in this video seems to be trying to keep the revs around 8000, why? I know that max hp occurs at 8500 but is that really significant in terms of the potential to accelerate? To put it another way, if two RX8s are driving side by side, one engine is turning at 5500 the other at 7500 and both drivers simultaneously stomp on the gas. Which one will accelerate faster?
Like I said, this might be a stupid question which means I have been under a misconception. I would appreciate someone clueing me in.
Ahhh....shades of the old torque vs. hp argument...8^).
Yes, torque is what accelerates the car. But, please remember we are talking about the torque AT THE WHEELS and not the torque at the output shaft. Torque at the wheels is a direct function of the gearing in the transmission/rear end multiplied by the torque at the output shaft (minus any drivetrain losses).
Therefore, since the torque multiplication in your lower gears is ALWAYS more than the torque multiplication in your higher gears, it makes sense to take advantage of your lower gears as long as feasible, even though you are running your engine beyond the torque peak.
Now, to take your example: 2 RX-8's one at 5500 rpm and the other at 7500 rpm. This can occur in two different ways, leading two 2 different results.
Case 1: Both cars traveling at same speed. The car turning 5500rpm MUST be driving in a higher gear (say, 3rd gear) than the one turning 7500rpm (perhaps 2nd gear). I would expect the one driving in 2nd gear to accelerate harder even though it may not be at peak (engine) torque.
Case 2: Both cars in same gear. The car turning 5500 rpm will be going much slower (with less aero drag, closer to peak torque) than the one turning 7500 rpm (more aero drag, past peak torque). The one turning 5500 rpm will certainly accelerate harder, since they are using the exact same gearing.
Question, relating to the RX8 or any car for that matter.
When you see a HP rating, this rating is not for the entire range of the car's operation. In other words, the RX-8 only has 250 HP at a certain point. Ditto any car.
So what is that point and shouldn't we all be shifting right about there?
rorr Your explanation was particularly informative. But based upon this new understanding I still disagree that max hp is the optimum shift point. Shouldn't it be somewhat past this at the point where the decreasing power output in your current gear intersects with what would be the increasing power output of the higher gear? Not that you can go too much further than 8500 rpms with a 9000 redline.
Personally, so long as the car is still pulling fairly hard (engine isn't out of breath or feeling strained), I'll shift as close to redline as I can. The idea is to take advantage of the lower gears as long as feasible before you have to upshift.
Checking the gear ratios from Mazda's web site: there is about a 40% drop in the gears from 1st to 2nd (3.76 to 2.27), roughly 27-28% drop in the 2-3 and 3-4 upshifts (2.27 to 1.65 and 1.65 to 1.19) and only a 16% drop in the 4-5 and 5-6 upshifts (1.19 to 1.00 and 1.00 to 0.84). Unless the engine torque output drops more than 16% from peak to redline, you might as well shift at redline. (of course, I'm not taking into account the fact that driveline losses vary from gear to gear; your mileage may vary...8^)
Does that mean if you revved the car all the way up to its 9000 rpm redline when you shifted into second the rpms would drop all the way down to 5433 which is 9000 * 2.27/3.76. That seems like a pretty severe drop off, especially for a car with 6 speeds, or is there more to it than that?
You got it. Amazing how the 1-2 upshift at redline drops you RIGHT at the torque peak in 2nd gear. Coincidence????
What some more amazing math? Rear-end ratio for the RX-8 is 4.44:1. So, the total gear multiplication in 1st is 4.44 * 3.76 = 16.69. Sidestep the clutch at 5500 rpm and the tires are trying to transmit 159ftlbs * 16.69 = 2654ftlbs. (minus drivetrain losses, of course).
Holy smokes! Hopefully, the odor you smell is your tires and not your clutch.
A little more to make your head spin. From the eq. for HP (HP = Torque * rpm / 5252), we can determine that when the engine is turning that 5500 rpm, the HP = 159 * 5500 / 5252 = 167Hp. Okay, great, at the crank we're making 167Hp at 5500rpm.
But what about at the wheel, where we're trying to harness 2654 wild Mazda ft-lbs of torque? Well, even though the engine is turning at 5500 rpm, the axle is actually turning at 5500 / 16.69 (the overall gear ratio) = only 329 rpm. So what is the horsepower at the wheel?
Hp = 2654ftlbs * 329 rpm /5252 = 167Hp.
So, you can see that (minus drivetrain losses) the horsepower at the drive wheel is UNAFFECTED by the gearing, where the torque is greatly magnified. Since we can all (I hope) feel the difference in acceleration between 1st gear and 2nd (or 3rd), maybe now we can understand that what we are FEELING is torque, and NOT horsepower.
That makes perfect sense to me. But wouldn't it then make the most sense to space the other gears similarly. For instance, if you now rev it all the way to 9000 in 2nd and shift to 3rd your rpms will drop to 6541 which is higher than where peak torque is produced. Could better acceleration be obtained if the gear ratio for 3rd was 1.39 instead of 1.65, this would have put you right back at peak torque. It also would allow you to get very close to 100 mph before you have to shift to 4th. Which leads me back to my comments from awhile ago. A car that has such a wide rpm span between redline and peak torque (very unique) does not really benefit from 6 speeds because it doesn't need the gears to be spaced that close together.
Well, considering that peak torque is 159 at 5500 and it only drops to around 154 at 8500 rpm (a drop of only 3%), I would be comfortable saying there is not much difference in output between 5500 (peak) and 6500.
That being said, the 1.65 ratio for 3rd is nearly 19% shorter than your hypothetical 1.39. This gives better around town grunt (more torque available in normal driving circumstances) whereas your hypothetical 3rd gear sacrifices that grunt for a higher top speed in 3rd.
I don't know ALL of the criteria that the engineers use in selecting the individual gear ratios, but I do know that, like nearly every other aspect of car design, it all comes down to a series of compromises. Having more gears, rather than fewer, reduces the compromises. Having more gears means that I can have both a close ratio tranny and aggressive rear gear (better performance), and an overdrive gear (or two) for better economy. Reducing the number of gears means that the tranny ends up being either more performance oriented or more economy oriented.
I agree that with the RX8's flat torque curve there probably isn't a noticeable difference between 5500 and 6500 rpms. I disagree that there are compromises involved in the decision of going with 5 or 6 speeds. In general I'd say this is true but this is not the typical engine. An S2000 produces max torque at 7500 rpms. This car absolutely needs 6 speeds in order to keep the engine revving around peak power. Not true with the RX8. I suspect that in the example I gave of changing the gear ratio of 3rd from 1.65 to 1.39 you would see not only a slight improvement in performance(0-100) but an improvement in economy. The improvement in economy is based on the assumption that you will be burning less gas at lower rpms. Now if you are willing to sacrifice a little performance and economy for the pleasure of keeping your revs up then the 6 spd is the way to go.
As far as having an overdrive gear for better economy I think Mazda missed it here too. By my estimates, using a 22 inch wheel diameter, at 78 mph in 6th gear the engine will be turning at 4500 rpms. I realize that 4500 rpm in a rotary is not like 4500 in a V8 but, IMO, its still a little high for your top gear. Mazda could have done better than this with only 5 speeds had the gears been spread out a little better.
From all accounts (I don't know; I've never driven one), the S2000 has a fairly flat torque curve. There may not be much there (like the RX-8), but the torque curve is fairly flat.
The necessity to keep it in the upper rpm band (LIKE THE RX-8) is to take advantage of the gearing in the lower gear, NOT necessarily due to where the engine is making peak torque.
Hmmm....an improvement in both performance AND economy by changing 3rd gear? You may need to submit your resume to Mazda.
"Now if you are willing to sacrifice a little performance and economy for the pleasure of keeping your revs up then the 6 spd is the way to go."
Having more gears available (6 spd) results in sacrificing performance AND economy? You seem to infer having only 5 spds (do I hear 4 spds anyone) available will somehow give me better performance/economy? The logic somehow eludes me.
Is the overdrive gear a little aggressive for what is typically an economy gear? Perhaps. Would I have chosen a slightly taller 6th gear? Maybe. Pretty small nit to pick tho, IMO.
Spread out better? Define "better". You chose gearing for economy or performance or some compromise in between. We may all have our own ideas of the "ideal" gear ratios but I really fail to see how having fewer gears available is somehow intrinsically better.
I think it's good but possibly overkill for the average person who is going to buy this particular car. I'm wondering if the increased complexity really gives the average driver any benefit over a 5-speed. Truck drivers and F1 contestants, certainly, and Me and You of course, talented that we are, but for most people, I dunno....seems a waste of good tech. I'm sure you all know drivers who often forget to shift into 5th, much less 6th.
Very true. But as a self-proclaimed enthusist, I welcome the additional gears. Do I always use all 6spds in my car? No. I usually skip 5th and do a 4-6 upshift. But I certainly want the option to use 5th.
Forget to shift into overdrive? Oh yeah, I've done it myself on numerous occasions. I don't think that is a valid reason to simply not have the gear available tho.
I don't always use the AC; or turn on the radio; or adjust my mirrors. But I certainly want the OPTION to do all these things.
The RX8's engine produces max torque at an rpm that is almost 40% below redline. I think you would be hard pressed to find another engine that does that. What I have been pretty much beating to death is that, I believe, maybe wrongly, that this allows for greater spacing between gears with minimal, if any, loss of performance and increased efficiency.
I agree with your point that even though you may be beyond max engine torque the ability to use a higher gear ratio results in actually more torque at the wheels. Then why the huge drop off between 1st and 2nd? The only possible motivation I can see is the ability to do 0-60 without having to shift into 3rd, even though by my estimates this will put you slightly past redline. The sacrifice is that when you shift from 1st to 2nd the initial drop off in power will be greater than it needed to be.
You know, I think in most cases having the 6 speed results in two things: 1) it can be fun and 2) you can say you have 6 and someone else only has 5, so you have one more.
But as for making some difference in the car's efficiency on public roads, vis a vis a 5 speed, I think it is hair-splitting at best.
I agree, its more of a marketing gimmick. And for the enthusiast who enjoys both shifting and maintaining high revs I suspect that the way the RX8's gears are set up he might feel a little ripped off. This car will be doing upper 80's in third gear if you wind it out all the way. What do you do now? On occasion you may feel like going faster but more often than not this will represent in excess of your final cruising speed meaning your shift pattern will be 1-2-3-6 and for when you aren't driving at highway speeds it will be 1-2-4. For those times that you are negotiating winding roads you will be pretty much stuck in 2nd with maybe the occasional chance to shift to 3rd when a straight section of road is encountered. What's my point? I think that if I drove this car I would end up shifting less than I do in my 5 speed, I could conceivably never visit 5th gear. So yeah, it's overkill.
Shifty - I think you hit the nail on the head with #1: for those who enjoy shifting and have more choice of gear selection, more gears beats less gears.
Glancing blow with #2: Yeah, I like knowing I've got 6 vs. the other guys 5. But that is because I'm convinced that more gears is better for low torque/high rpm motors.
Snaphook - Upper 80's in 3rd when you wind it out; what to do now? SHIFT! After all, you've still got 3 gears to play with....8^)
Final shift pattern is 1-2-3-6? I'm sure that a lot of people may indeed drive that way. Sometimes I drive that pattern. Sometimes I do a 1-2-4-6. If I'm really lazy, I may do a 2-4-6. Does that mean I would be happy if you took 3 & 5 away? No. Does that mean that all buyers of stick shift RX-8's want to be forced to drive that way all the time? No. You wouldn't ever use 5th? Fine. I rarely use 5th myself. But I DO use it on occasion and I LIKE to have the option to use it if I desire. There are many occasions when I'm cruising at a low speed (40-45) where 6th is just too tall and 4th is a little short. I simply can't understand how having FEWER gears available to chose from is better (and no, I'm not advocating that I would like using an 18-spd tranny; I don't need THAT many choices.)
One other word regarding the spacing between the ratios: I'm not an automotive transmission engineer. Something tells me that you're not either. Neither one of us knows all the criteria they must take into account when selecting the ratios. But I think I can safely say that if you are disappointed with the spacing chosen for the 6-spd, you would be even more likely to be disappointed with the ratios in a 5-spd. The fewer gears you have available, the more critical it is that the engineer chooses correctly for each gear.
Having the sixth gear gives some flexibility to space the gear ratios out a bit wider, resulting in a flatter 6th gear. This may not be important for Porsche 911 Turbos that could loaf around in top gear at 70mph at 1500rpm and still have torque, but for something like the S2000, the engine is going to be spinning at 3k/4k/5k rpm at typical freeway speeds. Having the extra gear, acceleration aside, gives one the opportunity to live with the car on long commutes without too much engine drone.
Over my year with a S2k (yes, sold!) I wound up in 6th every single time I drove the car, simply because the engine was spinning more slowly than in 5th, and the drone was noticably less. The extra gear afforded a little more flexibility to keep the first to gears pretty steep and allow the rest to taper off more quickly. Would five have been drivable? Oh, sure. But given the choice, I'd rather have the flexibility.
Ditto the RX-8, I suspect. Someone who races it to 60mph or drives it at 30mph on the way to work and back each day may consider the 6th gear to be fluff or bragging material, but someone who actually puts 50 miles on this car, day in and day out on the way to work at highway speeds will find that the RX-8 gets driven in top gear for the majority of its miles.
I believe that what shifty and snaphook are saying is that the overall gear range could be adequately served with 5 gears, spaced a little further apart, rather than 6 gears spaced a little closer together. I don't think they are saying that they would never use 6th, so why have it.
I don't know tall 6th is in the S2k but I did notice that 6th is not a particularly tall overdrive (0.84) in the RX-8. For some people this is good; for others it is bad. I'm going to try and withold opinion until I actually drive the car.
In some cars (Miata and WRX STi), six forward gears don't make the most sense and do seem to be a "one-up" just for the sake of bragging rights.
IMO, anytime you have an engine that needs to rev to make power and then bolt it into a sporting chassis, you're better off with a 6-speed tranny to harness it with.
$27.5 to a couple who have been friends of my parents since around the time that I was born! They knew about my weekend detailing rituals so I got a pretty good "deal" so to speak, and so did they. Now seemed like the best time, we're crawling out of a truly miserable winter and the S2000 would be a tough sell six months from now. Having the cash will make summertime houseshopping (a favorite activity in the sphinx99 household) a reality.
In this area new S2000s leaving dealerships for about $2k below MSRP... not what it used to be but not invoice either.
Congrats on a good deal selling your S2000. And good luck house hunting. That's certainly the best non-sports car "investment" you could have made in my area over the past few years.
My estimates of top speeds in the different gears is based upon a 22" wheel diameter and knowing how fast the wheel will be turning given the different gear ratios and final drive ratio.
Anyway, I understand your's, and the other posters, point about more gears making it easier to keep the car's revs up. But it seems to me if this was the case Mazda would have used this extra gear to space all of the gears a little closer. Instead it looks like 1st, 2nd, 3rd gear are pretty typical when compared to a 5 speed. By typical I don't mean the actual number but the percentage drop off from one to the next. So what Mazda chose to do is essentially take what would have been 4th and 5th gear and put a gear in the middle. These are not your accelerating gears to begin so it really won't help much with keeping the revs up, unless you frequently drive in the 120+ mph range. I'm curious, how many people that now drive a 5 speed often find themselves wishing they had a gear between 4th and 5th? I know I don't.
I was wanting to drive the RX-8 and consider it for my next vehicle, but I gave up. I wanted to purchase now, not in the summer months after my current warranty expired. I am going with the EVO which is 2k more (RX-8 w/o leather) and has about 2hp and 80 ft/lbs more torque. Winding engines are fun, but not always.
"Boy, that front plate location does look kinda funny."
Yeah, just like Bugs Bunny. There ain't no way in hell I'd put the front plate there. IF, and I say "IF", an RX-8 is in my future, that plate will either be relocated to curb-destroying height or will be collecting dust in the garage.
The RX-8 may take a new title for "most attractive design ruined by the front plate"...
Obviously, it's your call, but the longer you can wait, the better off you'll be:
-- You'll have a chance to drive the RX-8 and EVO back-to-back (if you think you'll get tired of revving the RX-8, just wait until you live with the EVO's ride: OUCH!) -- EVOs are already popping up for less than MSRP, so a bit of patience can really pay off.
Personally, if I were considering either of these cars, I wouldn't be considering the other. They're very different machines with very different intents.
So I saw the X-Men sequel the other day. As some of you may know, a few of our favorite heros escape the bad guys in a Mazda RX-8.
It seems fair to assume that the car weighs about 3000lbs with some gas. Now, this one was the escape vehicle for four X-Men. The two young kids (Pyro and Iceman) both seemed relatively slim, so let's say 150lbs each. Rogue is shorter but kind of chunky, so let's say another 150lbs. Wolverine is built, plus he has that metal skeleton, so let's say about 300lbs for him. That's 750lbs. The car also came with a weird stereo that hid an X-Men stereo, adding at least ten pounds.
So, effectively, we had a 3750lb vehicle with about 150 ft-lbs of torque. Hmmmm.
"So, effectively, we had a 3750lb vehicle with about 150 ft-lbs of torque. Hmmmm."
That's 159 ft-lbs of torque, x-menbreath...8^).
Besides, you're obviously forgetting about the little known x-man, Hopskotz. Hopskotz is a 9 year old girl with a trans-dimensional transport capability. At will, she can temporarily move herself and up to 1000 lbs of mass into an alternate reality (X-men vs. Matrix?).
The x-men keep her in the trunk of the RX-8 for just such emergencies. Right next to the can of fix-a-flat....
Comments
(1) It's not limited production, as was the S2000. And Honda dealers are no longer able to charge premiums for the S2000. Mazda expects to sell as many RX8's in the first year as HOnda sold S2000's in it's frist three years of production.
(2) Competition is extensive. Even if you consider the RX8 preferable, there are a lot of other recently introduced sports cars and coupes out there.
(3) The economy is nowhere near as good as it was when the S2000 was introduced relative to "discretionary" expenditures. Whereas the RX8 has some functional versitility going for it, it's still a lot less "practical" than most coupes or sedans. Paying a MSRP premium when your stock portfolio is still trying to recover won't sit to well with many buyers.
Examples of declining premiums that have recently caught my eye:
- 2003 Boxster S, 800 miles, perfect, MSRP $57,800; sell for $46,900 obo. I've seen 2002 models for as little as $41k.
- 2003 SL500, 1,000 miles, $85,000 ($5,000 under MSRP) or best offer. (This car was selling for well over $100k several months ago.
- M3's, new, ordered to my specification for $1,500 under MSRP, options at invoice.
- 350Z's - choose from 15 in stock, $1,500 under MSRP.
All of the above are from dealers, not desperate individuals.
Some Mazda dealers might try to gouge an early buyer $37k for a 6-speed RX8, but that will be one sorry buyer in about 3-6 months.
on the left is the 'ground illumination lamp' under the side rear view mirror (turns off 10 seconds after door is shut), and the right is the center console at night
I am SO loving this car!!!
it has a redline of 7300rpm and a max HP of 210hp.
obviously it cost quite less than the 250hp, 9000rpm, 6-speed 'High-power' version that everyone's drooling over.
note the 16" standard wheels and tires as well.
this one probably cost him around $25k US
http://special.rx-8.mazda.co.jp/asx/timeattack_300k.asx
More videos available here:
http://special.rx-8.mazda.co.jp/gallery/movie.html
I did!
damn that car looks hot!
Like I said, this might be a stupid question which means I have been under a misconception. I would appreciate someone clueing me in.
When you don't have much torque output to take advantage of, you have to focus on staying as close as possible to the point where HP peaks.
Just like in a F1 car or on a sportbike, you have to keep the pot boiling if you want hot soup.
Yes, torque is what accelerates the car. But, please remember we are talking about the torque AT THE WHEELS and not the torque at the output shaft. Torque at the wheels is a direct function of the gearing in the transmission/rear end multiplied by the torque at the output shaft (minus any drivetrain losses).
Therefore, since the torque multiplication in your lower gears is ALWAYS more than the torque multiplication in your higher gears, it makes sense to take advantage of your lower gears as long as feasible, even though you are running your engine beyond the torque peak.
Now, to take your example: 2 RX-8's one at 5500 rpm and the other at 7500 rpm. This can occur in two different ways, leading two 2 different results.
Case 1: Both cars traveling at same speed. The car turning 5500rpm MUST be driving in a higher gear (say, 3rd gear) than the one turning 7500rpm (perhaps 2nd gear). I would expect the one driving in 2nd gear to accelerate harder even though it may not be at peak (engine) torque.
Case 2: Both cars in same gear. The car turning 5500 rpm will be going much slower (with less aero drag, closer to peak torque) than the one turning 7500 rpm (more aero drag, past peak torque). The one turning 5500 rpm will certainly accelerate harder, since they are using the exact same gearing.
When you see a HP rating, this rating is not for the entire range of the car's operation. In other words, the RX-8 only has 250 HP at a certain point. Ditto any car.
So what is that point and shouldn't we all be shifting right about there?
yes, please shift at 8500 all the time for daily driving :-D
rorr
Your explanation was particularly informative. But based upon this new understanding I still disagree that max hp is the optimum shift point. Shouldn't it be somewhat past this at the point where the decreasing power output in your current gear intersects with what would be the increasing power output of the higher gear? Not that you can go too much further than 8500 rpms with a 9000 redline.
The RX-8's tranny is of the close-ratio variety, so the idea is that you'll shift at redline for maximum acceleration.
Checking the gear ratios from Mazda's web site: there is about a 40% drop in the gears from 1st to 2nd (3.76 to 2.27), roughly 27-28% drop in the 2-3 and 3-4 upshifts (2.27 to 1.65 and 1.65 to 1.19) and only a 16% drop in the 4-5 and 5-6 upshifts (1.19 to 1.00 and 1.00 to 0.84). Unless the engine torque output drops more than 16% from peak to redline, you might as well shift at redline. (of course, I'm not taking into account the fact that driveline losses vary from gear to gear; your mileage may vary...8^)
What some more amazing math? Rear-end ratio for the RX-8 is 4.44:1. So, the total gear multiplication in 1st is 4.44 * 3.76 = 16.69. Sidestep the clutch at 5500 rpm and the tires are trying to transmit 159ftlbs * 16.69 = 2654ftlbs. (minus drivetrain losses, of course).
Holy smokes! Hopefully, the odor you smell is your tires and not your clutch.
A little more to make your head spin. From the eq. for HP (HP = Torque * rpm / 5252), we can determine that when the engine is turning that 5500 rpm, the HP = 159 * 5500 / 5252 = 167Hp. Okay, great, at the crank we're making 167Hp at 5500rpm.
But what about at the wheel, where we're trying to harness 2654 wild Mazda ft-lbs of torque? Well, even though the engine is turning at 5500 rpm, the axle is actually turning at 5500 / 16.69 (the overall gear ratio) = only 329 rpm. So what is the horsepower at the wheel?
Hp = 2654ftlbs * 329 rpm /5252 = 167Hp.
So, you can see that (minus drivetrain losses) the horsepower at the drive wheel is UNAFFECTED by the gearing, where the torque is greatly magnified. Since we can all (I hope) feel the difference in acceleration between 1st gear and 2nd (or 3rd), maybe now we can understand that what we are FEELING is torque, and NOT horsepower.
That being said, the 1.65 ratio for 3rd is nearly 19% shorter than your hypothetical 1.39. This gives better around town grunt (more torque available in normal driving circumstances) whereas your hypothetical 3rd gear sacrifices that grunt for a higher top speed in 3rd.
I don't know ALL of the criteria that the engineers use in selecting the individual gear ratios, but I do know that, like nearly every other aspect of car design, it all comes down to a series of compromises. Having more gears, rather than fewer, reduces the compromises. Having more gears means that I can have both a close ratio tranny and aggressive rear gear (better performance), and an overdrive gear (or two) for better economy. Reducing the number of gears means that the tranny ends up being either more performance oriented or more economy oriented.
As far as having an overdrive gear for better economy I think Mazda missed it here too. By my estimates, using a 22 inch wheel diameter, at 78 mph in 6th gear the engine will be turning at 4500 rpms. I realize that 4500 rpm in a rotary is not like 4500 in a V8 but, IMO, its still a little high for your top gear. Mazda could have done better than this with only 5 speeds had the gears been spread out a little better.
From all accounts (I don't know; I've never driven one), the S2000 has a fairly flat torque curve. There may not be much there (like the RX-8), but the torque curve is fairly flat.
The necessity to keep it in the upper rpm band (LIKE THE RX-8) is to take advantage of the gearing in the lower gear, NOT necessarily due to where the engine is making peak torque.
Hmmm....an improvement in both performance AND economy by changing 3rd gear? You may need to submit your resume to Mazda.
"Now if you are willing to sacrifice a little performance and economy for the pleasure of keeping your revs up then the 6 spd is the way to go."
Having more gears available (6 spd) results in sacrificing performance AND economy? You seem to infer having only 5 spds (do I hear 4 spds anyone) available will somehow give me better performance/economy? The logic somehow eludes me.
Is the overdrive gear a little aggressive for what is typically an economy gear? Perhaps. Would I have chosen a slightly taller 6th gear? Maybe. Pretty small nit to pick tho, IMO.
Spread out better? Define "better". You chose gearing for economy or performance or some compromise in between. We may all have our own ideas of the "ideal" gear ratios but I really fail to see how having fewer gears available is somehow intrinsically better.
Forget to shift into overdrive? Oh yeah, I've done it myself on numerous occasions. I don't think that is a valid reason to simply not have the gear available tho.
I don't always use the AC; or turn on the radio; or adjust my mirrors. But I certainly want the OPTION to do all these things.
I agree with your point that even though you may be beyond max engine torque the ability to use a higher gear ratio results in actually more torque at the wheels. Then why the huge drop off between 1st and 2nd? The only possible motivation I can see is the ability to do 0-60 without having to shift into 3rd, even though by my estimates this will put you slightly past redline. The sacrifice is that when you shift from 1st to 2nd the initial drop off in power will be greater than it needed to be.
But as for making some difference in the car's efficiency on public roads, vis a vis a 5 speed, I think it is hair-splitting at best.
Glancing blow with #2: Yeah, I like knowing I've got 6 vs. the other guys 5. But that is because I'm convinced that more gears is better for low torque/high rpm motors.
Snaphook - Upper 80's in 3rd when you wind it out; what to do now? SHIFT! After all, you've still got 3 gears to play with....8^)
Final shift pattern is 1-2-3-6? I'm sure that a lot of people may indeed drive that way. Sometimes I drive that pattern. Sometimes I do a 1-2-4-6. If I'm really lazy, I may do a 2-4-6. Does that mean I would be happy if you took 3 & 5 away? No. Does that mean that all buyers of stick shift RX-8's want to be forced to drive that way all the time? No. You wouldn't ever use 5th? Fine. I rarely use 5th myself. But I DO use it on occasion and I LIKE to have the option to use it if I desire. There are many occasions when I'm cruising at a low speed (40-45) where 6th is just too tall and 4th is a little short. I simply can't understand how having FEWER gears available to chose from is better (and no, I'm not advocating that I would like using an 18-spd tranny; I don't need THAT many choices.)
One other word regarding the spacing between the ratios: I'm not an automotive transmission engineer. Something tells me that you're not either. Neither one of us knows all the criteria they must take into account when selecting the ratios. But I think I can safely say that if you are disappointed with the spacing chosen for the 6-spd, you would be even more likely to be disappointed with the ratios in a 5-spd. The fewer gears you have available, the more critical it is that the engineer chooses correctly for each gear.
Over my year with a S2k (yes, sold!) I wound up in 6th every single time I drove the car, simply because the engine was spinning more slowly than in 5th, and the drone was noticably less. The extra gear afforded a little more flexibility to keep the first to gears pretty steep and allow the rest to taper off more quickly. Would five have been drivable? Oh, sure. But given the choice, I'd rather have the flexibility.
Ditto the RX-8, I suspect. Someone who races it to 60mph or drives it at 30mph on the way to work and back each day may consider the 6th gear to be fluff or bragging material, but someone who actually puts 50 miles on this car, day in and day out on the way to work at highway speeds will find that the RX-8 gets driven in top gear for the majority of its miles.
I don't know tall 6th is in the S2k but I did notice that 6th is not a particularly tall overdrive (0.84) in the RX-8. For some people this is good; for others it is bad. I'm going to try and withold opinion until I actually drive the car.
IMO, anytime you have an engine that needs to rev to make power and then bolt it into a sporting chassis, you're better off with a 6-speed tranny to harness it with.
In this area new S2000s leaving dealerships for about $2k below MSRP... not what it used to be but not invoice either.
Anyway, I understand your's, and the other posters, point about more gears making it easier to keep the car's revs up. But it seems to me if this was the case Mazda would have used this extra gear to space all of the gears a little closer. Instead it looks like 1st, 2nd, 3rd gear are pretty typical when compared to a 5 speed. By typical I don't mean the actual number but the percentage drop off from one to the next. So what Mazda chose to do is essentially take what would have been 4th and 5th gear and put a gear in the middle. These are not your accelerating gears to begin so it really won't help much with keeping the revs up, unless you frequently drive in the 120+ mph range. I'm curious, how many people that now drive a 5 speed often find themselves wishing they had a gear between 4th and 5th? I know I don't.
Have I completely beaten this to death yet?
The equine is on life support......
The RX-8 appears to be one of those rare cars that looks just odd enough to look great in any color.
I wanted to purchase now, not in the summer months after my current warranty expired. I am going with the EVO which is 2k more (RX-8 w/o leather) and has about 2hp and 80 ft/lbs more torque.
Winding engines are fun, but not always.
Yeah, just like Bugs Bunny. There ain't no way in hell I'd put the front plate there. IF, and I say "IF", an RX-8 is in my future, that plate will either be relocated to curb-destroying height or will be collecting dust in the garage.
The RX-8 may take a new title for "most attractive design ruined by the front plate"...
-- You'll have a chance to drive the RX-8 and EVO back-to-back (if you think you'll get tired of revving the RX-8, just wait until you live with the EVO's ride: OUCH!)
-- EVOs are already popping up for less than MSRP, so a bit of patience can really pay off.
Personally, if I were considering either of these cars, I wouldn't be considering the other. They're very different machines with very different intents.
It seems fair to assume that the car weighs about 3000lbs with some gas. Now, this one was the escape vehicle for four X-Men. The two young kids (Pyro and Iceman) both seemed relatively slim, so let's say 150lbs each. Rogue is shorter but kind of chunky, so let's say another 150lbs. Wolverine is built, plus he has that metal skeleton, so let's say about 300lbs for him. That's 750lbs. The car also came with a weird stereo that hid an X-Men stereo, adding at least ten pounds.
So, effectively, we had a 3750lb vehicle with about 150 ft-lbs of torque. Hmmmm.
That's 159 ft-lbs of torque, x-menbreath...8^).
Besides, you're obviously forgetting about the little known x-man, Hopskotz. Hopskotz is a 9 year old girl with a trans-dimensional transport capability. At will, she can temporarily move herself and up to 1000 lbs of mass into an alternate reality (X-men vs. Matrix?).
The x-men keep her in the trunk of the RX-8 for just such emergencies. Right next to the can of fix-a-flat....