Due to all the talk about the RX8s low torque and high fuel consumption i decided to do my homework and see how the RX8 compares with a piston engine of the same power. I chose the low power version of the RX8 and the Alfa 156 to compare it with (simply because i own one).
Car / ...Power / ............Torque / .............Fuel consumption
RX8 ....192hp@7000rpm. 220NM@5000rpm. 10.8 litres per 100km
2.5 V6 192hp@6300rpm. 218NM@5000rpm. 12.0 litres per 100km
Errr... RX8, LOW TORQUE??? HIGH FUEL CONSUMPTION???
:confused: :confused: :confused:
i dont think that is a correct comparison, i think u should compare its competition.
E.g 350z, TT, and other hot hatches.
It has the lowest torque of all of them. unfortunately. but its the best to drive, fastest, best handling. not sure on the fuel consumption though.
thx
raju
QuoteOriginally posted by mraraju
...i think u should compare its competition. E.g 350z, TT, and other hot hatches.
That was a quick reply!! Point taken but im really comparing the engines more than the cars. The Alfa V6 was the first and only comparison i looked at, i didnt feel the need to look any further because to my surprise the bhp figures were identical to each other (and at fairly similar revs) and the torque is measured at exactly the same revs on both cars.
I thought this might be of interest.. it was posted on another forum by a fellow Norton Rotary owner who i know. He is a senior employee of a prestige car manufacturer (no, not Mazda). I have obtained permission from him to reproduce this here.
Well guys, here\'s where it gets quite good.
Being at the very top of the European corporate tree of the world\'s second largest but wealthiest car company (I wish!) one of the trials of my job is to keep fully aware of the latest developments in our competitors.
Unfortunately, this involves driving around Belgium, Germany, Italy and France trying out new cars - purely in the name of research of course.
I could go on at great length about the delights of the Mercedes-Benz SL55 AMG, the new BMW 6-series, the new Fiat Panda (better than you might think) and even the Maybach (which won\'t fit my garage anyway) but this would be as boring for you as driving those cars was for me. It\'s a dirty job but someone has to do it.
No, I expect you\'d love to hear about the new Mazda RX-8.
Well, I drove it back-to-back with the Nissan 350Z and I have to say I preferred the Mazda. Tha Nissan was undoubtedly fast and a well made car (if a little more expensive) but certain parts of the interior were very cheaply made and with mismatching colours. It still has an image problem of the \'chest wig\' kind, I think.
The RX-8 seemed almost on another level. Were this not being read by rotary types I\'d explain about smoothness and turbine-type noises, but you know all that. Suffice it to say that the interior is very clever, the doors are a feature I expect we\'ll see on other cars before too long and I want one!
I drove both Low and High-output versions, and actually I preferred the Low Output one. Why? The high output is the sports version, with a few more horses than the Low. However, it has power produced at higher revs and a lower peak torque figure at higher revs than the low power version. In reality, if you like BMW M3 type of power delivery, go for the High; it\'s all revs, which is fine but can get to be hard work. The Low power version is actually a much easier and nicer car to drive, and would be my choice. Hower, it is also the sensible choice and car buyers being what the are, no doubt the High Power will be the best selling version.
Overall, I was very impressed, and a buyer of either version is unlikely to be disappointed. I did not get the opportunity to check fuel consumption though. At the price, it\'s almost a bargain. Get yourself a test drive!
Ian
QuoteOriginally posted by Norton
Errr... RX8, LOW TORQUE??? HIGH FUEL CONSUMPTION???
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Uh sorry I dont know about the alfoa v6 as I never owned an alfa.
The RX-8(for me, hi power) gets just above its lowest quoted mpg and never over 24mpg.
Its book stats are way, way off unless its pure urban cycle.
It also has marginaly less torque than my old focus 1.8. Tho this isnt a problem, apart from having to use high rpm to get a quick launch, without bogging.
But my fuel consumption isnt any worse than my bro in laws 2.5v6 saab so I cant complain much.
What is anoying is not being able to achieve close to that 32mpg mentioned in the tests.
"E.g 350z, TT, and other hot hatches"
I dont agree that the 350Z is the competition for the RX-8. When we get a new RX-7, then we could compare.
By the way, whats the price on the Alfa, and is it (Puke) front wheel drive?
QuoteOriginally posted by RobDickinson
The RX-8(for me, hi power) gets just above its lowest quoted mpg and never over 24mpg. Its book stats are way, way off unless its pure urban cycle.
It also has marginaly less torque than my old focus 1.8. Tho this isnt a problem, apart from having to use high rpm to get a quick launch, without bogging.
The \'Combined\' mpg figure for the RX8 (high power) is 24.7mpg (11.4 litres per 100km). I cant comment myself on how realistic this is though i do notice on the thread relating to mpg that some of the people complaining about the mpg didnt realise that air-con makes a huge difference (also traction control apparently).
Im puzzled about your old Focus 1.8, the petrol 1.8 makes only 160 NM of torque at 4400rpm, was it a (cough) diesel? or were you running it on nitro-methane?
QuoteOriginally posted by Martiny
By the way, whats the price on the Alfa, and is it (Puke) front wheel drive?
Oh.. ive just discovered that they have discontinued the 2.5 litre in favour of the 3.2 litre GTA. The 2.5 was just over 20,000 in the uk. Yes, they are front wheel drive. :(
Hmm, dunno where I got my torque figures from before...
focus 1.8 zetec : 160 Nm at 4400 min-1 (rpm)
231 rx-8 : 211Nm @ 5500rpm
But the focus is over 100kg lighter so theres not that much difference at low rpm in reality (and drives like it, soon as you get up into 4k+ theres a marked dif in acceleration lol).
As to hi pow/low pow, the difference in torque between the models is 9nm and 500rpm, barely 4% more torque, I dont see how that makes a lot of difference compared to 40ps more top end. Nuffin wrong with the low power but for only £2k more I thought it a bargain in comparison.
I drove both versions on my test drive (as I fell in love with the car at first site, for me the only question was which version to go for). The dealer said the same thing about the low power having more torque, being more of a driver\'s car is his opinion blah blah but I actually found the high power noticeably more sporty and exciting. I\'m not brilliant on driving technology but it seemed easier with the higher gearing to get to the revs that this car obviously loves.
I must admit I found I ran out of sufficient motorway on my run to get up to a speed where the 6th gear would properly come into play ... that would be obvoiusly well above the ton. At one point I thought "well this is pretty relaxed for 6th gear, at 85 mph" then I realised I was only in 4th......:)