Upcoming Mazda RX9 To Have 300hp Rotary And Weigh Under 2800 Lbs

sweet :) this is exciting. Supposedly it'll have direct injection as well to help with fuel economy.

Exciting, but doubtful.

lets just hope the new engine comes with some torque

use a lower gear :-/

Joe_Limon says "use a lower gear :-/"

More torque means you can spend less time near the redline. Some folks prefer the sound of a high-revving Asian sportbike, while others prefer the slower-turning grunt from a large-bore V-twin. It's just a matter of preference. Personally, I like more "umph" off the line without having to spin the engine up to its limits. So yeah, I like more torque, but I balance that with my desire for okay-ish fuel economy.

Cheers.

you get just as much "umph" off the line in a lower gear at lower rpm. But as you said, it's a matter of audible preference.

Joe_Limon "you get just as much "umph" off the line in a lower gear at lower rpm. But as you said, it's a matter of audible preference."

The more torque your engine has, the more your engine can accelerate at lower RPMs. An engine with less torque requires higher RPMs for similar acceleration. It's not just an "audible preference." It's a matter of how one uses the engine, and the character one prefers in the engine.

no steve, let me give an example

If you have two engines, one with 200hp and 100ftlbs and a second engine with 200hp and 300ftlbs

Clearly, the first engine can rev three times higher as you said to compensate for the lack of torque. But it doesn't need to redline to be able to get all of that torque. From the get go lower gear ratio's will multiply the torque of the car with less torque so that at the wheel, even from a stand still both cars will receive the same thrust force. If you coordinated the gear ratio's properly so that both engines would shift at redline at the exact same speed, and both engines had the same torque curve, only stretched... there would be no physical difference at the wheels.

Perhaps we're using different words to say the same thing. I am not saying, nor implying that you need to keep a lower-torque engine at the redline. I am firmly asserting that the formula for calculating power (Torque [ft-lbs] x RPM /5252 = Power [hp]) clearly reveals that if the engine has half the torque, then you need to double the RPM to generate the same power).

Torque curves being what they are in internal-combustion engines, have similar characteristics: lower delivery at idle and low RPM, build-up with increased RPM to a peak (usually near, but short of red-line), then a roll-off after the peak. Engines with greater torque typically deliver more torque at lower RPM (in an absolute sense) as compared to lower-torque engines, resulting in more power with lower RPM.

The driver's experience is that off the line, you'll need to rev the lower-torque engine higher to get similar acceleration as the higher torque engine. Similarly if you're at 60 MPH and you want to pass: With a high torque engine, you can simply gas it, with low-torque, a downshift or two may be needed.

Summary: For lack of torque, you need to spin the engine up to higher RPM to get more power. Some people like this. Others don't. The people who don't, want more torque.

I agree with your statement regarding power, but power isn't the same thing as '"umph" off the line' which is what confused me in your previous statements. It sounded as if you believed that a higher torque engine would put more torque to the pavement then a lower torque engine only if the lower torque engine wasn't near its peak power. Which is incorrect.

This is good news! Let's hope Mazda can get its act together about releasing accurate horsepower and torque numbers. Giving the rotary better fuel economy and not having it eat/drink a quart of oil every couple of hundred miles would be nice as well.

Let's see:

-Nissan 370Z
-Mitsubishi EVO MR(3000GT VR-4 replacement)
-Subaru Imprezza STI
-Mazda RX-8(hopefully)
-Chevy Camaro SS
-Porsche Cayman SS
-BMW 135 & M3
-Audi R5

Something seems missing . . . ?
-No IRS, no mustang!

Yes, let's hope they solved that oil eating problem that rotaries have - what's up with that?

having an e46 m3 ( no torque) in the past and then the is-f ( plenty of torque) i preferred the high revving m3.. high revving is just so much more fun than a muscle car...

And please don't do electric steering like that of Camry or 5 series!

As long as it looks more like an updated RX-7 than a redesigned RX-8.

@Steve,

Hi there,

I love cars, especially, sport cars but don't know much about it mechanic and engineering side. So would my G37 consider to be high torque engine? I love my G's it so much to drive and when I step on the gas paddle I can hear the grunt or growl in from my exhaust is absolutely beautiful.

Thank you

The G is more of a high revving engine, as opposed to a high torque. I test drove one and they are a blast to drive.