Mazda RX-8 Low or High Power ??
Discussion
ALERT-ALERT- VOLVO DRIVER ON JAPCHAT..(sorry)
I wonder if any RX-8 owners or prosepctive owners could help out here ?
A guy I know through business is considering an RX-8, and feels the low power version would suit his driving more. Is the high power version that much more of a pain in the ears ? Do you have rev the nuts off it a la VTEC ?
He has been told that the low power version has a 3 month waiting list, whereas the high power is only one. If he can be convinced theres not too much of a difference I think he'd go for the HP variant. (I know which I'd choose
)
Thanks in advance !!
(Packs bag and heads back to Sweden
)
I wonder if any RX-8 owners or prosepctive owners could help out here ?
A guy I know through business is considering an RX-8, and feels the low power version would suit his driving more. Is the high power version that much more of a pain in the ears ? Do you have rev the nuts off it a la VTEC ?
He has been told that the low power version has a 3 month waiting list, whereas the high power is only one. If he can be convinced theres not too much of a difference I think he'd go for the HP variant. (I know which I'd choose
) Thanks in advance !!
(Packs bag and heads back to Sweden
)As it is a wankel engine, either will need reving (to the 9400rpm rev limiter 
).
The low (189bhp, i think) has slightly more torque and a five speed box, which may make it more driveable.
For the money, and especially the lack of wait, I would go for the higher output.
Also on the lack of torque front that everyone seems to harp on about with the RX8, it has more than most 2 litre NA engines, and the lower gearing should help. I think the lack of any 'kick' point (a la VTEC) and linear nature, make it seem more gutless than it really is.
I want one.
Sparks
P.S. Some owners will be along soon
). The low (189bhp, i think) has slightly more torque and a five speed box, which may make it more driveable.
For the money, and especially the lack of wait, I would go for the higher output.
Also on the lack of torque front that everyone seems to harp on about with the RX8, it has more than most 2 litre NA engines, and the lower gearing should help. I think the lack of any 'kick' point (a la VTEC) and linear nature, make it seem more gutless than it really is.
I want one.
Sparks
P.S. Some owners will be along soon
wankel engines love to be revved. Constantly driving a rotary engine at low revs is actually bad for engine longevity and it's good to push them to the limit once in a while to stop stop deposits building up within the rotor chambers.
Although low down torque isn't great you will find that as the engine comes alive, torque is flat and pulls evenly all the way to the redline; especially on a N/A rotary engine.
Although low down torque isn't great you will find that as the engine comes alive, torque is flat and pulls evenly all the way to the redline; especially on a N/A rotary engine.
Lo - power has 4% more torque at the crank.
Hi -power has 6 gears instead of 5.
Torque at the wheel difference is undetectable.
I couldnt justify my RX08 if it had a 7k rpm limit, those last few rpm are where its most fun.
You get a lot for that £2k etxra, 6 speed box, 40bhp, Xennon HIDS, alloy pedal set + the 9.5k rpm limit.
Then again every lo-power owner I know seems happy enough. And it does get slightly better mpg.
Hi -power has 6 gears instead of 5.
Torque at the wheel difference is undetectable.
I couldnt justify my RX08 if it had a 7k rpm limit, those last few rpm are where its most fun.
You get a lot for that £2k etxra, 6 speed box, 40bhp, Xennon HIDS, alloy pedal set + the 9.5k rpm limit.
Then again every lo-power owner I know seems happy enough. And it does get slightly better mpg.
Gassing Station | Japanese Chat | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff