The RX-8 is the new king of the most naturally aspirated horsepower per liter and it rev's a little past 9000 rpm's !

 

It's a rotary engine so you can't compare them like that by using displacement. Anyways, the RX-8's seem to be having a little problem of showing about 30 less horsepower than they should when people have dynoed them.

 

To me an engine is an engine. Would it be more fair to compare size and weight/horsepower. Even then it's still pretty amazing +- 30 horsepower!

 

That's a pretty ignorant way of looking at it, but I guess you would be really impressed with the torque output of an electric engine since it is producing 100% torque at 0 RPM and has 0 cc's of combustion chamber displacement.

The rotary engine design is so differenct from a four stroke engine you can't just compare them like they are the same. While the Renesis engine from the RX-8 has a 9000 RPM redline, the actual rotor is only spinning at 3000 RPM because the internal gearing on the eccentric shaft is 1:3 and engine speed is defined by shaft rotation, not by rotor orbits. Also because the three different "combustion chambers" in the rotary share a common area, it is more similar to a 3.9 liter four stroke engine than it is a 1.3 liter four-stroke. The Renesis engine is still a great design, but to compare the specific output and redline to the F20C without taking into account the vast differences between the two engines is a pretty simplistic way of looking at it, but you're free to think what you want.

 

No offense but this is ridiculous. Two titles that mean absolutely nothing. Do you want to brag about the car or do you want to drive it? Posers and mag racers care about titles. Drivers care about actual performance.

ron

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by R11
[B]No offense but this is ridiculous.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by R11
[B]No offense but this is ridiculous.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jeffbrig
[B]

As an engineer, I do care about these titles.

 

Look guys, there's no doubt that the current motor is an impressive feat of engineering in a production car. But I will say it again, titles mean nothing when it comes to relative performance. They may give you a warm and fuzzy for the car, but in and of themselves they do nothing for you on the road. I think people who really care about performance driving would gladly trade a small amount of peak RPM for a motor that will allow you to be faster in most situations. People talk about the S2K and it's handling prowess in the tight twisties. Just think what the car could do with a fatter low end in that kind of driving. No contest. It just boils down to priorities.

ron

 

Oh, I dunno. Sure, "people who really care about performance driving" would rather have a C5 Vette than an S2000. The fact that so many people choose the S2000 instead, however, and get great enjoyment out of driving them on the track - that should tell you something. Not so much that the title of highest revving means anything - rather, the simple fact that it revs to 9000rpm is an integral aspect to the joy of driving this car. There are plenty of other cars out there that give the experience of driving with a lower redline and fatter low-end torque curve. I don't drive those cars, and I don't want to drive those cars. I want to drive a high-strung, go-kart like 9000rpm screaming machine. *shrug* Just my personal priority. "S stands for Special."