motor

speedracer911 · 02-13-2005, 03:35 PM

Pros- Revs quickly so its a good engine to use in Mazda's F2000 race cars, fuel economy because of the small displacement, smaller engine=lighter weight i guess

Cons- Not enough so you have to rev it high to get some power

findleybeast · 02-13-2005, 04:15 PM

oh yea abbor, I guess I did resurrect an old thread. I didn't notice the year, so I thought it was only a month old

sergei_dekker85 · 02-13-2005, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by speedracer911

Pros- Revs quickly so its a good engine to use in Mazda's F2000 race cars, fuel economy because of the small displacement, smaller engine=lighter weight i guess

Cons- Not enough so you have to rev it high to get some power

Fuel economy? U kidding me??

caneswell · 02-14-2005, 02:35 PM

Its cool technology. But im not really sure its great in the RX8. They have low torque, high revs and low weight, would be ideal in a motorbike. Cars tend to need more torque to get them moving. Also they sound pretty nasty.

The main problem is that piston engines have had sooo much development compared to the wankel, its pretty much only been Mazda putting any work into the concept for years.

komotar · 02-14-2005, 02:49 PM

I drove the car. It handles great, looks unique and leaves and impression.

The price is phenomenal for the amount of car you are getting. There is nothing like it on the market right now. The suicide dors are funny and there is plenty of space in the back.

I can imagine owning a ca like this. I don't mind the lack of torque. I like reving the engine, and besides, it doesn't pull all that bad from low range. You're still faster than 90 % of the cars on the street. And the gear stick is a pleasure to work woth. The shifts are short and fast and the sound is not half bad also.

The only big minus with this car is the consumption. Oil and fuel. But the car more than makes up for it with it's tendency to please the driver during fast cornering.

The suspension and the schasis enable you to make wonderfull drifts and it is a real delight to throw the rx8's but around.

It's a car well worth considering if one is in the market for a car in that class.

findleybeast · 02-14-2005, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by caneswell

Its cool technology. But im not really sure its great in the RX8. They have low torque, high revs and low weight, would be ideal in a motorbike. Cars tend to need more torque to get them moving. Also they sound pretty nasty.

The main problem is that piston engines have had sooo much development compared to the wankel, its pretty much only been Mazda putting any work into the concept for years.

I agree with prettymuch everything you said right there. It really does need to be applied to motorbikes, I think it would rock.

And I don't think people really give Mazda enough credit. They're taking what is essentially still a fledgling technology and running with it. They were the only company that stuck with it after the oil crisis and through the new emissions standards.

BTW Komotar, nice review. I guess that's the car magazine journalist in you coming out

komotar · 02-14-2005, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by findleybeast

BTW Komotar, nice review. I guess that's the car magazine journalist in you coming out

8) I guess, thx

Vansquish · 02-14-2005, 04:39 PM

I test drove an RX8 in preparation for when we receive ours (I'll give a more detailed report then), and was surprised by a number of things. First and foremost the so-called "lack of torque" was not nearly as apparent as I was expecting. Keeping in mind that I drive a 220bhp, 220lb-ft Mazda 6S at the moment, and the fact that a substantial portion of the 220lb-ft it has is delivered in a reasonably nice fat band at the bottom of the range all the way up to the redline, I was expecting that the RX8 would feel anemic and wheezy. Quite the opposite actually. It doesn't have the torque of a big V6/V8, but it is reasonably strong all the way through the rev range. I attribute this primarily to the car's light weight, but even so, it had a nice linear torque curve, building through the range almost all the way to the redline where the engine was still pulling strongly. I was able to get rubber in second gear on a dry street (a fact which also surprised me) and was impressed not only by the engine's tractability but smoothness as well. Secondly, the sound was incredible, paranormal even hehe. I've driven I-4, I-5, V6, V8 and V10-engined vehicles over the years and I've never heard anything even remotely like the Renesis unit. Incredible noise, and a surprisingly large amount of it too considering the fact that I was expecting it to be hushed and luxuriously smooth.

All-in-all the powerplant is quite a marvel, despite the fact that it eats oil and gas at an alarming rate. The only thing it really needs is more power to keep up with the 350Z...if only Mazda would put out a 280-300bhp version...

Sir_GT · 02-14-2005, 10:21 PM

Bah. I take care of my cars, but I'm not in the market to practically babysit them.

Who the hell wants to check the oil at every fuel stop and top it up at every other stop? With oil going for about £40-45 per bottle on average ($80-90), the RX-8's "affordability" is shot straight into hell.

If you guys want to spend about a few hundred quid a week (regardless of currency), then the RX8 is definitely YOUR car. IMO, stick with an E90 or a 350Z. Cheaper in the long run. Plus you get good money back when the time calls.

graywolf624 · 02-14-2005, 10:38 PM

nd the fact that a substantial portion of the 220lb-ft it has is delivered in a reasonably nice fat band at the bottom of the range all the way up to the redline

What the hell else have you been driving? My 6S' power seems very dependent on rpm... It takes off over 4000 rpm and seems about average below that. I hardly would consider it a torquey engine. Maybe its because Ive driven a torque monster of a grand prix for years.. but to me the mazda 6 is not torquey at all.. Hell, my dad actually thought it had a turbo under the hood the first time I drove him around due to the power band. Thats before I opened the hood for him and after about 3 months of me driving it and learning to play with the manumatic.. Yeah I know I drive an automatic. I also lived in the middle of down town atlanta when I bought the car, so sue me..

Vansquish · 02-14-2005, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by graywolf624

nd the fact that a substantial portion of the 220lb-ft it has is delivered in a reasonably nice fat band at the bottom of the range all the way up to the redline

What the hell else have you been driving? My 6S' power seems very dependent on rpm... It takes off over 4000 rpm and seems about average below that. I hardly would consider it a torquey engine. Maybe its because Ive driven a torque monster of a grand prix for years.. but to me the mazda 6 is not torquey at all.. Hell, my dad actually thought it had a turbo under the hood the first time I drove him around due to the power band. Thats before I opened the hood for him and after about 3 months of me driving it and learning to play with the manumatic.. Yeah I know I drive an automatic. I also lived in the middle of down town atlanta when I bought the car, so sue me..

The cars I had prior to the 6S were a Taurus with the 24V engine...oh man did that thing ever go like stink

j/k, my mom drives a Ford Contour SE V6 with a 5-speed, and the previous two cars in my/my dad's garage were a Ford Focus 2.0 Zetec with a 5-speed, and a Mazda 626 ESV6 with a 5-speed. That car had the "turbo" effect you're talking about, and it had it in spades. Once you hit about 4 grand it changed cam profiles or something and off it went. The 6 has similar characteristics and you really can feel the Variable Valve timing kick in at the upper end of the rev range, but it's not bad low down either, granted it's nowhere near as chunky as the 3800 or even 3100 Series GM V6's but compared to the other cars I've had to drive it's a substantial difference. I was expecting no grunt from the Renesis unit at all, but it turned out to be alright in the end.