REPOST

[NFS4]

2003 Sports Car Shoot-Out: Nissan 350Z vs. Mazda RX-8

 

[Crazymofo]

REPOST

 

[rh71]

wow ... 1.3-liter rotary engine ... i'm not a car nut, but isn't that kinda... underpowered ?

 

[StageLeft]

Welcome to yesterday so called ace reporter 😛

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: rh71
wow ... 1.3-liter rotary engine ... i'm not a car nut, but isn't that kinda... underpowered ?

Rotaries are...different. Sorta like I6's. You'd never get 300+ HP out of 3.3L V6 but you can with a 3.3L I6. Just about the efficiency of the engine.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: rh71
wow ... 1.3-liter rotary engine ... i'm not a car nut, but isn't that kinda... underpowered ?

you are kidding right??

did you see the specs??

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: rh71
wow ... 1.3-liter rotary engine ... i'm not a car nut, but isn't that kinda... underpowered ?

Rotaries are...different. Sorta like I6's. You'd never get 300+ HP out of 3.3L V6 but you can with a 3.3L I6. Just about the efficiency of the engine.

I kinda attribute the "liter" of an engine to how much gas it would suck up... so is this to say the RX-8 is more fuel efficient while delivering more power with that "rotary" engine ? According to the specs, it doesn't...

 

[vi edit]

I kinda attribute the "liter" of an engine to how much gas it would suck up... so is this to say the RX-8 is more fuel efficient while delivering more power with that "rotary" engine ?

Displacement isn't the only factor in milage. It's "a" factor, but not "the" factor.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: rh71
wow ... 1.3-liter rotary engine ... i'm not a car nut, but isn't that kinda... underpowered ?

Rotaries are...different. Sorta like I6's. You'd never get 300+ HP out of 3.3L V6 but you can with a 3.3L I6. Just about the efficiency of the engine.

I kinda attribute the "liter" of an engine to how much gas it would suck up... so is this to say the RX-8 is more fuel efficient while delivering more power with that "rotary" engine ? According to the specs, it doesn't...

Liter is the amount of gas, but there's more to it. I'm sure you've seen 5.0 liter mustangs with only a couple hundred+ horsepower, whereas a formula 1 car (not rotaries), have something under 2 Liter displacement and many hundreds of horsepower. Part of that is because they can rev up to 18,000-20,000 RPM range.

But, in addition to liter displacement increasing the RPM can help power, as can increasing compression, so displacement is not a great thing to go on.

Then, with rotaries it's a different ballgame altogether, since they displace quite a small amount of fuel. They are not all that efficient though in terms of gas economy.

 

[Rallispec]

Originally posted by: rh71
wow ... 1.3-liter rotary engine ... i'm not a car nut, but isn't that kinda... underpowered ?

regardless---

238hp isnt much, even for a 2500 pound car..... 0 - 60 in 6.6, 1/4 in 15.1---- MY SENTRA DOES 15.1.
For a sports car, and strictly SPORTS CAR standpoint-- the 350 BLOWS IT AWAY.

so what, the 350 isn't as COMFORTABLE.... F"ING MORONS. If you want comfort, buy a caddy.


the people who buy 350's dont care about comfort, same with any other sports cars-- Ever rode in a viper? or even a vette for that matter.. one of the jeriest, stiffists rides i've ever been in. Nobody would ever put an rx=8 above them.


edit.... and this was mentioned in the other thread
the give the 350 crap for having constant power.. OH NOES A FLAT POWER CURVE@!!!1!!!!
becuase having to rev the RX up to 9k rpm to get what little power it does have is SOOOO NICE.

 

[DannyBoy]

Its interesting how a car with a 50bhp rated difference performs only VERY marginely lower...

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Then, with rotaries it's a different ballgame altogether, since they displace quite a small amount of fuel. They are not all that efficient though in terms of gas economy.

I don't think the 'liter' in displacement figures has anything to do with fuel or fuel consumption.

 

[Lifer]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Then, with rotaries it's a different ballgame altogether, since they displace quite a small amount of fuel. They are not all that efficient though in terms of gas economy.

I don't think the 'liter' in displacement figures has anything to do with fuel or fuel consumption.

the liter in displacement is the volume from top dead center to bottom.
many think the 1.3 is actually a 2.6 due to the nature of calculating displacement in a rotary.

the give the 350 crap for having constant power.. OH NOES A FLAT POWER CURVE@!!!1!!!!
becuase having to rev the RX up to 9k rpm to get what little power it does have is SOOOO NICE.

LOL