2004 Rx-8

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Nov 20, 2002 | 01:38 AM

#31

WJH'sFormula

Registered User

Joined: Nov 2000

Posts: 641

From: Dollars, Taxes

i find it rather amusing that in one thread, you guys are defending a 200hp FWD 3500 pound automatic coupe and here are bashing a 2900 lb RWD 250 hp 6spd coupe...whatever...

eh..not really my can of beans, but most definetely a step in the right direction away from the boring *** cars and suvs this country has grown so accustomed to

i think its a really neat car...im a bit anxious to see one in person

Nov 20, 2002 | 06:36 AM

#32

LT1runner

Registered User

Joined: Nov 1999

Posts: 139

From: Nashville, TN

Good point WJH'sFormula.

Nov 25, 2002 | 05:09 PM

#33

Draco

Registered User

Joined: Nov 2001

Posts: 1,213

From: North Vancouver, BC

Quote:

Originally posted by Z28Marcus
159lb ft of torque? Pfft. Why bother. What is this obsession with engines (Honda S2000 anyone) that have to be revved to >7k and kept there and only still manage to make a poxy 160lb-ft?? Also despite the tiny engine and lack of any real grunt, the fuel consumption of these cars is nothing to shout about either. Waste of money if you ask me.

Have you heard of gearing? Gears multiply TQ. an engine making 150 TQ with a flat TQ curve spinning to 10k rpm can make the EXACT SAME twisting force at the wheels (resulting in the same acceleration) as an engine outputting 300 TQ spinning to 5k rpm.

Now you do have a point when an engine has to be revved high to make peak TQ.