CoolMax

iTrader: (7)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...rbuyback_x.htm

global_threat

iTrader: (3)

THIS IS THE CORRECT WAY TO POST ARTICLES, NO ONE LIKES CLICKING LINKS

RX-8s fall short of power claims, so Mazda will buy them back

By James R. Healey, USA TODAY

Mazda is offering to buy back most of the 3,551 RX-8 rotary-engine sports cars sold since the July launch because engine power is as much as 5% less than advertised — an important difference to sports car enthusiasts.

2004 Mazda RX-8.


The flub interrupts an important rollout of models designed to restore Mazda's image as innovative and sporty. But the company's quick action is expected to prevent damage to Mazda's reputation.

Mazda sent letters Aug. 22 to RX-8 purchasers saying it would pay full sticker price plus taxes and other fees — even if they've run up thousands of miles on their cars. Those who tell Mazda they will keep their cars get free scheduled maintenance for the four-year, 50,000-mile warranty period, plus $500. Buyers who don't contact Mazda get nothing.

Buyers from now on sign a form saying they've been informed of the discrepancy and aren't eligible for buyback or maintenance deals.

Thirty-one owners have asked for their money back, says Mazda spokesman Jeremy Barnes.

He says the power dropped after a last-minute change in engine tuning to meet emission rules. The drop was noticed "during ongoing testing that manufacturers perform after cars go on sale."

The RX-8 with manual transmission was supposed to deliver 247 horsepower but makes 238. The automatic transmission model was rated 207 hp, but makes 197. There's no drop in advertised acceleration, apparently because testing was done with the lower-power models.

This is the second time Mazda has overstated the power of a sports car. It made the same buyback offer to purchasers of 2001 Miata two-seaters because those produced 142 hp instead of the 155 hp that Mazda advertised.

"It's unfortunate, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. The RX-8's still a cool car. And Mazda's to be applauded for not denying the problem," says Gordon Wangers at AMCI, which tests cars to give automakers data to support advertising claims. "I'd still recommend it to my friends."

"The bigger problem would be that it reminds people that years ago there was problem with the rotary engine," says Dan Gorrell, at consultant Strategic Vision.

Mazda last sold rotary-power cars in the USA in 1995. Older rotaries burned oil. If owners didn't monitor them closely, engines wore out fast. The new design uses much less oil, Mazda says, and shouldn't cause problems.

Questionable power claims aren't just a Mazda problem.

• Hyundai confessed last year that it misstated power by as much as 12 hp, or 9.6%, on 1.3 million vehicles sold in the USA and Canada since 1992. Hyundai blamed sloppy record keeping and provided extended warranties to owners of the 400,000 vehicles with the biggest discrepancies. Some Kia models, which use Hyundai engines, also were involved.

• Ford Motor, which has a controlling stake in Mazda, recalled 8,100 1999 Mustang Cobras after owners found the engines did not produce the advertised 320 hp. Ford blamed changes in mufflers and intake manifolds for the problem and installed new ones free on nearly all the Cobras — a process that took so much time it eliminated production of '00 model Cobras.

• Nissan's '02 Infiniti Q45 wouldn't accelerate to 60 mph in the 5.9 seconds the company claimed. Nissan said it tested the car under ideal weather conditions, using a light base model and lightweight driver. It didn't offer buyers anything to make good.

• Nissan cut power ratings by 5 hp on the '02 Maxima, Altima 2.5, Sentra SE-R and Spec V models shortly before they went on sale.

SMX

This article just confirms that Nissan DOES NOT give a shi!! About their customers. For a company as established as Nissan is! It's a shame that Kia Motors would step up to the plate and Nissan wouldn't! That why I said and I will say it again, this is my last Maxima. It's sad when this is my 4th one, as much as I like the car...if given the option for a buy back...just tell me where I need to deliver it!

SteVTEC

Yeah, they were initially hyping 260hp for the Maxima and dropped it back to 255hp. And it still only makes around 240hp peak.

So they only stretched the truth by 6% instead of 8% on the peak power figures.

SteVTEC

Personally, I would MUCH rather have the 240hp/265tq that the engine actually delivers than 255hp/246tq that's advertised. You only need peak horsepower if you track your car a lot. I think the extra 20 lb-ft of torque throughout most of the rev range more than compensates for the less than advertised top-end. Just my $0.02. But yeah, really shady by Nissan.

Dave B

Agreed on all points.


Dave

CoolMax

iTrader: (7)

Thanks for the initial and final warning, but I didn't see the rules for posting anywhere.

I'm sorry and it won't happen again!

p.p.s. I don't think people appreciate oversized lettering in all-CAPS either.

Frank Fontaine

It's only a handful of cars, and if you were interested in a RX-8 you are shopping among torque deficient cars anyway. How many brochures lie anyway? Many, many, many cars show peak HP at above the 5252 rule, yet their ft-lbs. of torque is a higher number.

But I can see how numbers are important. That Titan or Pathfinder Armada slips to 285 hp, and it will most certainly damage sales. 300 hp is 2003's threshold, the way 200 hp was back in 1995.

Frank Fontaine

Whoa--torque and HP are related in the 5252 formula--they meet at that rpm. Why if the HP is mistated would the torque not be lower as well? I could see them saying they reported HP at the wrong rpm, etc. What you propose above is that the 240 hp is developed at a lower rpm than 5252, therefore the torque peaks at 265. Yes, I like that such as the new V8 which is 300 hp and 375 ft-lbs. (tractor trailer turbodiesel can be 280 hp and over 1000 ft.-lbs torque) But again, in a scenario where Nissan misrepresents the peak HP, how do you figure torque does not go down if the peak HP rpm is correct?

Blu

iTrader: (63)

repeated dyno result

SteVTEC

Because torque begins falling off before 5252 rpm and is no longer at peak values at that point.




If you held the torque curve flat to 6500rpm, the engine would be making 270hp peak, not 240, all without giving the engine a single extra pound-foot of torque. That requires new intake manifold design with a more top-end bias which is part of what they did in the 350z/G35, if you've ever seen one of those dynos. The Max engine is tuned for low/mid-range torque, not top-end. Although Nissan was shady and tried to stretch the truth a bit for marketing purposes I guess.

SMX

Thats just my point, the rated HP of a car is one of the selling points when advertising. It’s just wrong to over rated that.





Although Nissan was shady and tried to stretch the truth a bit for marketing purposes I guess.[/QUOTE]

SteVTEC

I agree.

But the vast majority of the American public does not understand what torque is. Only "peak horsepower". If companies want to compete, they need to keep designing engines with more and more top-end torque (peak horsepower), but it's counter productive because that isn't what makes cars quick. Solid torque in the low-end and mid-range is.

So to actually sell the car and "look" competetive you need lots of peak horsepower. But to actually have a quick car you need solid low/mid-range torque. It's tough to have your cake and eat it too with sub-$30k cars because to make an engine that flexible you would spend so much money developing it that you would blow your budget for the entire car and the rest of the quality would suffer.

The Honda approach is to make the cars look AWESOME on paper and to really give them all of that peak-horsepower, at the expense of low and mid-range torque. Then you just find out later that the cars really aren't that quick and end up disappointed. This is maybe why Honda owners can be so uptight at times.

The Toyota approach is "who cares" because most people don't buy Toyotas for power anyways. They rate their engines pretty accurately and for the most part (mid-sized and larger at least) they are tuned for solid low-end and mid-range torque which is exactly what you need.

The Nissan approach for the 02/03 Maxima was split because they tried to do both. They stretched the truth on the peak horsepower a bit and were trying to make it compete with the Acura TL-S with 260HP even though it only had 240. But they secretly gave you a crap load of extra torque which is what you really needed in the first place.


It's a crazy world, but that's my perspective.

Nighthawk750

When car shopping, I drove an 03 Acura TL Type S and 03 Maxima SE in the same day. The extra low end torque of the Maxima made much more of an impression on me than the extra high end horsepower of the TL. The Maxima just felt more powerful thanks to that extra torque. I am typically a Honda fan, but the Maxima got my money this time - primarily because of that initial impression (followed closely by cost!).

spiff56747

iTrader: (-1)

lol lol thats a classic statement

i basically agree, but u should post that on a honda board, and be sure to bring a fire extinguisher

Black VQ

Nissan offered a reprogramming job for the transmission computer, which improved shifting and raised performance to the original stats. Folks on Freshalloy have it now.

Kevlo911

iTrader: (36)

Black VQ, that is true and also if i recall, in one issue motor trend got 6.0 flat out het Q. so i think it CAN do 5.9 in 0-60

now the 02+max is a differ story, i want to see dyno of auto 3.5se altima and automagic 02+ max. then we will know(if we havn't seen it already)

SteVTEC

you're about a year or two out of date. "WE" already do know. Search to enlighten yourself

Kevlo911

iTrader: (36)

oh sorry i never pay attn to 5thgen forum

jtkz13

Lets not forget that gearing can help even the torque-less wonder Honda engines.

I agree that most people don't know anything about how hp & tq are related, and only like to have a nice peak number. I have given up trying to explain to people on how they are related. Every one of them just tell me that tq gets you off the line and hp makes for good highway power.

Frank Fontaine

I agree. It's hard to get away with not having as much HP as the competition. If the new Ford F150 has 300 hp optional, so unless the Nissan has at least 300 hp, it will not sell. Marketing reps will tell you, that thing gets listed at 295 and it is done, at least taking the F150 on head-on. Actually, you want more than a 6.5' bed and the Nissan is done. How many people know the towing capacity of their SUV (or care because they don't have any coyne to buy anything that can be towed)? Touareg was the first to blow that number out of the water (in a luxury SUV), and Pathfinder Armada seems to be the 2nd. Then again, you really think that people make all that money to drive the Pilot's or XC90's that you see on the road? My hunch is it's LEASEVILLE, USA.

Personally, on paper, I have always liked to have torque more than HP. But what does that mean? That means that the motor has the ability to develop its peak HP at less than 5252 rpm. It was interesting to me that the Audi A4 CVT does 80 mph at 2500 rpm.

The average person does not know all the numbers for their car, and their really isn't anything wrong with it. What I do think is wrong is when people don't understand numbers as it pertains to $$$--that's an opportunity to really get ripped-off whether buying a house, car, boat, etc.