Thinking of getting a Mazda RX8???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Tundraz
Thinking of trading in my tried and trusted Mazda 3s for a Mazda RX8, My 3s is my daily driver, she has 120'000 trouble free miles and she dries and handles like the first day i took her home with 7 miles on the odo, she has never spent a daY IN THE SHOP (knock on wood)all i have done is buy gas , change the tires twice, change the brakes once, truly a superb automobile, So my question is Could the the rotary engine in the RX8 stand up to the rigors of being a daily driver commuting car? I drive 120 miles daILY 5 days a week, how would the rotary handle the wear and tear as opposed the the regular engine in my 3s ? I understand that rotaries use up a lot of oil is this one of the drawbacks?
I really dont want to get rid of my 3s, but i'm thinking about the new fancier RX8 , What is your opinion,


I would say it depends. If you're commuting 120 miles 5 days a week, it seems like fuel expense is something that would be a concern with you. As it has been stated, the RX8's fuel economy is nothing to brag about. On highway trips, I average anywhere from 21-23 mpg. I would imagine your Mazda 3 was averaging around 30 mpg. If you're willing to take this financial hit, then you've overcome one of your greatest obstacles to owning a RX8.

In regards to oil consumption, every other gas fill up, check your dipstick to monitor the oil level. If it gets low, just add a bit of oil. My average oil consumption has been ~1 quart every 2500 miles.

I own a 2006 manual transmission RX8 GT with all the options. MPG aside, I love the car. The suspension is very comfortable when you're cruising on the highway or just taking it easy but when you wind that thing up and whip it around some corners, you would swear that the suspension has somehow changed without your knowing. Through the corners it's a very compliant car and very easy to control. You turn the steering wheel and the car goes where you want it to go. Although it has less space than your Mazda 3, I found that the vast majority of times, I'm either driving by myself or with one passenger. However, the situations where I needed to carry four people turned out great. The back seats are surprisingly roomy (plenty of head clearance) and everyone fits into the car nicely. As th driver, I'm 5'11" and all I do is scootch my seat up an inch or two and the passenger behind me has plenty of space.

As other people have hinted, don't forget to rev that engine up (after it's been warmed up)!

In regards to problems people have been having with these engines, the engines are hand built so one can expect some variablitiy in terms of quality. However, the engines have a 10 year/100,000 mile warranty on them now! The best thing you can do is listen to the advice of the RX8 owners who have commented on this forum.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Look at the mustang, 350Z, 370Z, Mazda speed 3 + 6, Fords Taurus Sho, Subaru STI, Mitsubishi Evo, Cobalt SS, ect. . . .
All offer more power, better MPG, and a lot less head ach.
And, as far as I can tell, for the most part, they all beat the rx8 on the turns too.

Well, let's look at this.

Mazda RX-8:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=7180
Tires: 225 all around
Slalom: 70.8 mph
Skidpad: 0.90g
60-0 braking: 122 ft.
MPG: 16/22

Nismo 370Z (handling and braking upgrades over base, and much better than the 350z):
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=8203
Tires: 245 front, 275 rear
Slalom: 69.9 (base is 69.5) mph
Skidpad: 0.93g
60-0 braking: 123 ft.
MPG: 18/26

Evo:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0308_cover_mitsuVwrx_chart.pdf
Tires: 245 all around
Slalom: 71.7 mph
Skidpad: 0.97g
60-0 Braking: 124 ft.
MPG: 16/22

STI:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0308_cover_mitsuVwrx_chart.pdf
Tires: 245 all around
Slalom: 69.8 mph
Skipdad: 0.90g
60-0 Braking: 119 ft.
MPG: 17/23


Mustang GT:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0409_mustangGT_dp.pdf
Tires: 255 all around
Slalom: 69.3 mph
Skidpad: 0.93g
60-0 Braking: 115 ft.
MPG: 18/27


Taurus SHO:
http://www.insideline.com/infiniti/g37/2...37-journey.html
Tires: 245 all around
Slalom: 62.9 mph
Skipdad: 0.80g
60-0 Braking: Unavailable; lukewarm reviewer comments
MPG: 17/25


Mazdaspeed 3:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/1108_turbos_comparisonchart.pdf
Tires: 215 all around
Slalom: 68.7 mph
Skidpad: 0.86 g
60-0 Braking: 120 ft.
MPG: 18/26


Mazdaspeed 6:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0603_awd_data_panel.pdf
Tires: 215 all around
Slalom: 64.9 mph
Skidpad: 0.86g
60-0 Braking: 121 ft.
MPG: 19/25

Cobalt SS:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/1108_turbos_comparisonchart.pdf
Tires: 225 all around
Slalom: 70.0 mph
Skidpad: 0.92g
60-0 Braking: 121 ft.
MPG: 22/30


Only the Evo beats the RX-8's slalom speed, and that is with wider tires (and the same fuel economy). The Cobalt SS comes close, but it is smaller and much lighter.

A few cars beat the RX-8's skidpad rating, but either they are much lighter, smaller, and FWD, or they have wider tires (and often a wider track).

Not a single one of those cars has a 50/50 weight distribution. Most of them are heavier than even the heaviest trim level on the RX-8; the ones that aren't are FWD.

I have a hard time believing that most of those cars will be more trouble-free than an RX-8 -- which, once again, is totally fine with a manual transmission and a good thrashing on a regular basis. Most of them are direct-injected and turbo; the others are brand new and unproven.

The fact that the RX-8 can play among the best in this league with narrower tires than most of its competitors means it is a MUCH better sorted car.

Moreover, big tires are a two-edged sword, especially combined with higher weight, since they reduce hydroplaning resistance. That's a big deal for a road car.

I don't see how these cars outperform the RX-8 "in every way" while getting better MPG and giving less trouble.

Again, if I am missing something, please let me know.
 
Originally Posted By: rg200amp


I understand that.
But with many other choices you get the show factor, on top of the GO factor.

Yes, if you want a fast looking car, that gets bad MPG, and has little pick up. Yes the RX8 is for you.

If you want a car that looks fast and has the power to prove it (along with the perk of better MPG) get a 370z, STI, mustang, Evo, ect. . . .

Your right. It's all about preference. Do you want all show and no go?


The RX8 isn't very "fast" on a straight line, however it is very "fast" around corners, esepcially in the hands of a skilled driver.

For most people's purposes, I would say straight line acceleration is what you want because that's the setting we typically drive in 90% of the time. I wouldn't classify anyone who can jam down the throttle as a skilled driver.

In my opinion, there are fast cars and fast drivers. Fast cars are easy to get into and are loads of fun to drive. It takes a lot of time (on the track! don't be pushing a car to its limits on public roads!) to become a fast driver but I give props to those who do pursue that because they can hop into any car and whip it around real quick like =P

Of course the counter point to being a skilled driver is it takes time, boat loads of money, and isn't practical for 99.9% of driving situations.

Personal choices
34.gif
 
Last edited:
Sportscars:
RR drive, light, powerfull, great handling, commonly available 15-18K used. Hmmm. I can only think of a few cars:

A) BMW M 3.2 roadster
B) Porsche Boxter
C) Mazda Rx7, Rx8
D) Honda S2000

What did I miss? My pref in that order.
FWD - No way.
AWD? I'd love to turbo my wifes old 96 Subaru impreza 2.0L wagon - the new ones are big pigs.
 
Having a Speed 3 and having had a Nissan 240SX, I hope I can speak from some (small) experience .
Front engine/ rear drive cars like the 240,RX series,and even back to the corolla (AE-86) have a "tossability" and a way to put all four tires to work that the FWD hot hatches do not. In the 3 I'm always painfully aware that the limiting factor is the outside front tire . With the RX or nissans you can choose your cornering attitude with a smidge of control input; if you want to just hammer the outside front , just turn the wheel and let it push.
If you want to spice things up drive it in until you feel the front tires working hard and feather the throttle off and feel the chassis pivot around the shifter knob. Add a bag of throttle back in and finish the turn steering with your right foot :-)
Working both ends of the car with purpose,is a delight and not nearly as easy to do in a FWD vehicle.

my 2 (+ a little) c
Jorge
 
The RX8 as stated before is a handling car, the RX7 is more of a straightliner. The slightly wider body and suspension make it the Poor mans porsche in that price bracket(by no means is this a slanderous comment against the RX8).

I've driven in cars that made turning woefully unpredictable due to the body lean and weight distribution that occurs during a turn.

The only car that was decent with stability that to me, reminds me of the 8 would be the 3000GT VR4 Turbo(AW). Granted it was a bit tippier in the front its suspension proved stable in even some of the toughest turns. The worst enemy of any fun sports car is full all out body lean.
 
The RX8 is a nice looking car. I have always rooted for the underdog, and thus that makes the rotary appealing to me. It's not fast, and its MPG is frankly awful, but it is a fascinating principle. It would work great in small aircraft where power/weight is paramount, and they run at fairly high RPMs all the time. On another note, It would be nice to get the official track times for my cav... I know the 0-60/1/4 mile times will be bad. But I think the slalom, skidpad, and braking would all be pretty good. It's a good handling car, especially with good tires (like the ones I have now)
 
Originally Posted By: kkreit01
^ Found the 1 article from 3 years ago -- which the RX-8 one:) (just kidding)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comp...omparison_tests

Most recent:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/08q4/2009_mazda_rx-8_r3-short_take_road_test/specs_page_2

Zero to 60 mph: 6.7 sec (you will lose to most all V6 family sedans)





Wow, 0-60 in 6.7

A Ford Contour SVT back in the day was good for a 6.6 second 0-60 time.

A 2000s era Nissan Sentra 4 cylinder SE-R or Spec-V isn't much behind the RX-8 either.
 
The RX8 tied the E46 M3 and 350Z on the top gear test track with 100 hp less. That says a lot about the handling dynamics of the RX8.

Fuel economy is comparable to other sports cars, oil is burnt as an engine function and not as signal that it is in poor shape, fits four adults with ease, imo the sexiest looking car in its class, and a great backdated engine core warranty.

Yes I own a 5.7 Tundra as well as an RX8. The Tundra would most likely beat the RX8 in a straight line, throw in one corner and the RX8 will be miles ahead.

Yes there are many faster cars out there, are they cheaper?
 
Last edited:
My first car was an '86 RX-7, with a manual. No power anything, no power steering, cruise, manual locks and windows. Being a teen driver, I beat that poor car, and sold it with 177k on the odometer. Ran great. Reliability problems? Two clutches and a wheel bearing. At least one of the clutches was my fault. Gas mileage was probably around 15 overall- Explorer like. Used 1 qt of Pennzoil Conventional 10w30 per 1-2k miles depending on use.

The RX-7 & 8 are not jump in and go vehicles, and do not fit the current mold. I loved my RX-7, and I recall my English teacher in HS telling me there will always be someone faster, stronger and smarter-

Rotary engine- MB-GM and Mazda. I would like to know how the rotary would have turned out if it had the mass acceptance of a reciprocating piston engine. Last, I thought that the 787B was banned after its Le Mans win in 1991?
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
I had a 04. It was a great looking car. It did very well in the turns. and that is it.

It was SLOW. It gets BAD MPG. It was in the shop A LOT.
It's a nice car to drive every once and a while, but it sucks as a daily driver.

City MPG was around 8. You can't out run a Ford Windstar. Do not get one.

Get a 350Z. It is faster, better looking, gets better MPG, MUCH more reliable.

TEST SPECS: 2004 Mazda RX-8 5.8 14.49 (6 speed) (MT Mar '04)

Maybe your car wasnt running well. Or you have challenged a winndstar with 460 v8 and 200 shot nitrous
wink.gif
I would agree with the fuel mileage being v8 thirsty, but 8 MPG?


14.49 is slow...
happy0006.gif


Seriously, I know they handle and stop well but the guy I work with got rid of his because it had some sort of trouble with
the engine flooding.

I like how they look and sound though.
I just perfer a V8 because it was I know.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jokem



I wouldn't classify anyone who can jam down the throttle as a skilled driver.



Really? Care to jump into my Trans Am, heads, Cam, headers, intake, exhaust Mcleod twin disk clutch, Ford 9 inch, 4.10 and N20.
I will throw you the keys will see what kind of 60 foot time you get. My guess is it won't be as easy as you think. It does take some skill to get down 1/4 mile in a quick car.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that was the point of what he was saying.

The point was that anyone with a right foot can enjoy going fast in a straight line, whereas few people can truly enjoy going fast in the corners.
 
Beyond that, most people don't have a clue as to how to select gears, even if they can drive a stick.
This thing is torqueless, which means you have to downshift if you want to make decent progress.
I think the RX-8 sounds like a really interesting car.
I have never driven one, but from what I have read here and elsewhere, while the car is by no means a stoplight GP champ, it will fly down the road as long as the driver knows that the lower gears must and should be used when acceleration is desired or required.
Also, the need to redline the thing on a regular basis is a plus in my book.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
while the car is by no means a stoplight GP champ, it will fly down the road as long as the driver knows that the lower gears must and should be used when acceleration is desired or required.

Essentially.

What was odd to me when I drove it was that it seemed to require very little effort to plod along with normal traffic. The engine is enormously responsive with what little torque it has, so that helps a lot.

It's only when you want to start passing people that you need to put some effort into it. IIRC, you need to pass 5k RPM for it to start feeling quick. But what people consistently fail to realize is that you still have 4k RPM to go before redline, and the power climbs all the way! I never found myself in a situation where I felt lacking for straight-line speed. Not that I'd have minded having more, but after just a few corners I sure as heck wasn't picky about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom