By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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....