Thinking of getting a Mazda RX8???

[saberz]

I am not sure about the oil injection but would recommend you take a peak at Wiki Answers:

well i did for you because i was curious as well.


Q: Where does the oil go in a Mazda RX?

A: Out the tail pipe.
Literally, if the engine is healthy.

The RX8 uses engine oil for the oil injection pump to keep the internal rotor seals lubricated.

If your RX8 does not use at least a half quart of engine oil every 4 gas fill ups see your dealer.

 

[Nick R]

Someone will need to explain to me why the Rotary needs to be revved up that often.... It sounds perfect for my driving style, because with the car I have right now, it gets revved up to 4k+ rpm quite regularly because of the lack of power.

 

[mpvue]

rotary fans always claim how much more 'advanced' it is over a piston engine; when I think of 'advanced', I want great mpg, reliabilty, torque, and go anywhere ability. that is NOT an RX8.
you think the rotary is advanced, but the design has been around forever, is finicky, dirty, unreliable and inefficient. fans tout the less moving parts, no cam or valvetrain, etc. well, if the compact light design is so great, then I want 50mpg out of it.
everyone tried their hand at rotarys and failed. mazda is the only one stupid/stubborn/smart enough to stick w/ it (pick your favorite).
seriously, before I would consider a RX8, an '02 or '03 Z06 corvette would be looked at.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: rudolphna
Someone will need to explain to me why the Rotary needs to be revved up that often.... It sounds perfect for my driving style, because with the car I have right now, it gets revved up to 4k+ rpm quite regularly because of the lack of power.

You need high temps and revs to keep the combustion chamber free of deposits.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: mpvue
rotary fans always claim how much more 'advanced' it is over a piston engine; when I think of 'advanced', I want great mpg, reliabilty, torque, and go anywhere ability. that is NOT an RX8.

If that's what they're claiming, then they have no idea what they're talking about and I fully agree with you.

The main point of the Renesis, besides its weight, is that it is compact enough to be mounted entirely behind the front axle without requiring the front shock towers to be too far away from the firewall. This keeps the polar moment of inertia down and lets the structure of the car be exceptionally stiff without being exceptionally heavy or requiring the use of hideously expensive materials.

The RX-8 has better torsional rigidity than many supercars, weighs right around 3,000 lbs (depending on trim level), costs well under $40k base, rides comfortably, and handles better than anything with four seats (and many things with two seats). In trade, you have to deal with an engine that has some disadvantages. I think that's pretty fair, honestly...

You just have to decide whether you're so interested in handling that you'll take a finicky engine. I would, and I understand why most people wouldn't. Just saying I don't think it's any different from deciding whether you'll put up with the stiff ride of a sports car or the huge heft of a large sedan. It's just another thing you have to factor into your decision.


Originally Posted By: mpvue
seriously, before I would consider a RX8, an '02 or '03 Z06 corvette would be looked at.

Is the 'Vette really comparable? It only has two seats. I would think a BMW 1-series or Hyundai Genesis coupe would be closer.

 

[saberz]

The Vette also costs more, the Genesis isn't really what its made out to be.

The RX is a unique vehicle(advanced maybe in terms of engine design). There is a lot of potential with a rotary engine but I don't think Mazda really has the will to push the envelope. It would need a competitor to up the ante. For what it's worth though, they are good cars and the mentality to take care of them is a bit awkward yes.

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: Anies
The Vette also costs more, the Genesis isn't really what its made out to be.

The RX is a unique vehicle(advanced maybe in terms of engine design). There is a lot of potential with a rotary engine but I don't think Mazda really has the will to push the envelope. It would need a competitor to up the ante. For what it's worth though, they are good cars and the mentality to take care of them is a bit awkward yes.


It's not advanced. It is a poor engine design. It is unreliable, uses to much gas, puts out BAD power for the amount of gas it uses, ect. . .

Why do you think NO OTHER car maker uses this design??

You get 350+hp, and 17mpg city from Fords new EcoBoost. Who the F would want a Rotary?!?!?!?!

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: mpvue
rotary fans always claim how much more 'advanced' it is over a piston engine; when I think of 'advanced', I want great mpg, reliabilty, torque, and go anywhere ability. that is NOT an RX8.
you think the rotary is advanced, but the design has been around forever, is finicky, dirty, unreliable and inefficient. fans tout the less moving parts, no cam or valvetrain, etc. well, if the compact light design is so great, then I want 50mpg out of it.
everyone tried their hand at rotarys and failed. mazda is the only one stupid/stubborn/smart enough to stick w/ it (pick your favorite).
seriously, before I would consider a RX8, an '02 or '03 Z06 corvette would be looked at.


You don't have to be a fan to appreciate the design and ingenuity that went into designing this engine, you clearly misunderstand the purpose of this engine, reasons why it's less efficient and your measure of MPG as an engine advancement on technology is clearly misplaced. F1 engines have the most advanced technologies that are available, but their advancement is not measured by miles per gallon or reliability.

If you've never heard of Mazda 787B race car, I suggest you check it out, and then comment if the technology is a total failure or not.

Mazda clearly showed that the rotary can compete and win races, unfortunatley, the street application is much different from racing applications and Mazda just did not have enogh recources to truly exploit the rotary design.

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: mpvue
rotary fans always claim how much more 'advanced' it is over a piston engine; when I think of 'advanced', I want great mpg, reliabilty, torque, and go anywhere ability. that is NOT an RX8.
you think the rotary is advanced, but the design has been around forever, is finicky, dirty, unreliable and inefficient. fans tout the less moving parts, no cam or valvetrain, etc. well, if the compact light design is so great, then I want 50mpg out of it.
everyone tried their hand at rotarys and failed. mazda is the only one stupid/stubborn/smart enough to stick w/ it (pick your favorite).
seriously, before I would consider a RX8, an '02 or '03 Z06 corvette would be looked at.


You don't have to be a fan to appreciate the design and ingenuity that went into designing this engine, you clearly misunderstand the purpose of this engine, reasons why it's less efficient and your measure of MPG as an engine advancement on technology is clearly misplaced. F1 engines have the most advanced technologies that are available, but their advancement is not measured by miles per gallon or reliability.

If you've never heard of Mazda 787B race car, I suggest you check it out, and then comment if the technology is a total failure or not.

Mazda clearly showed that the rotary can compete and win races, unfortunatley, the street application is much different from racing applications and Mazda just did not have enogh recources to truly exploit the rotary design.


But. . .
a piston engine can, and has done everything the 787b has done on the track.


So o o o . . .
Your point?

 

[kkreit01]

I'd much rather have a Speed3. Other than handling, I've never been impressed with the RX8.

 

[Nick R]

I would consider an RX8... Not so much for practicality, or for the merits of the engine, but it seems to me, that despite its flaws, the rotary has something the piston engine hasn't had for years. It's pretty darn cool. It definitely has advantages over the piston engine. Weight, high RPMs are attainable without really any concern for damage to the engine, simplicity, and power/liter.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Who the F would want a Rotary?!?!?!?!

All cars have a "who the F would want that" feature about them. The RX-8's is the engine (or at least many aspects of it).

Likewise, most cars have something very attractive about them. In the RX-8, it's supercar handling with small sedan practicality at a reasonable price point.

What's the big freakin' deal?

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: rudolphna
It definitely has advantages over the piston engine. Weight, high RPMs are attainable without really any concern for damage to the engine, simplicity, and power/liter.


Where are you getting this info????
WHAT advantages????
Weight, yea ok.
High RPMs??? yea, soooo. If ya dont have the Tq and HP High RPMs are useless.
Simplicity?? It has fewer parts yea. I would not call it simple.
Power to liter is high. But again pointless with the MPG. You get the MPG of a old V8 with the get up and go of a econo V4. Sign me up!!!!

The piston engine has ALL the advantages. Better power, MPG, reliability, everything.

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Who the F would want a Rotary?!?!?!?!

All cars have a "who the F would want that" feature about them. The RX-8's is the engine (or at least many aspects of it).

Likewise, most cars have something very attractive about them. In the RX-8, it's supercar handling with small sedan practicality at a reasonable price point.

What's the big freakin' deal?


Im sorry. Have you owned a Rx8?
I have. And it's engine is junk.
The handeling is good. But nothing like a super car.

The OP wants opinons. I am giving my hands on opinion. There are WAY too many other good cars that out perform the Rx8 in EVERYWAY.

 

[d00df00d]

Well I guess your hands-on opinion differs from mine. After driving an RX-8, I got back into my M3 and thought it was a 5-series.

If you're right that the RX-8 is so badly outperformed "in every way", I must be missing something huge. Could you name some of those cars?


EDIT: And by the way, you're a little past the point of just sharing your opinion. You're openly challenging opposing views. Nothing wrong with that as long as you're genuinely interested in the discussion, but let's keep it real.

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Well I guess your hands-on opinion differs from mine. After driving an RX-8, I got back into my M3 and thought it was a 5-series.

If you're right that the RX-8 is so badly outperformed "in every way", I must be missing something huge. Could you name some of those cars?


EDIT: And by the way, you're a little past the point of just sharing your opinion. You're openly challenging opposing views. Nothing wrong with that as long as you're genuinely interested in the discussion, but let's keep it real.

It is not my opinon. It is fact.
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.

 

[saberz]

Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: Anies
The Vette also costs more, the Genesis isn't really what its made out to be.

The RX is a unique vehicle(advanced maybe in terms of engine design). There is a lot of potential with a rotary engine but I don't think Mazda really has the will to push the envelope. It would need a competitor to up the ante. For what it's worth though, they are good cars and the mentality to take care of them is a bit awkward yes.


It's not advanced. It is a poor engine design. It is unreliable, uses to much gas, puts out BAD power for the amount of gas it uses, ect. . .

Why do you think NO OTHER car maker uses this design??

You get 350+hp, and 17mpg city from Fords new EcoBoost. Who the F would want a Rotary?!?!?!?!



Your idea of advanced is different from my idea. I am stating that its a "different" way of "thinking" in terms of engine design. Meaning its advanced in the way the engine was created and how it generates energy. Much like a steam engine was an advanced alternate method of propulsion. I am by no means stating the rotary is the end all be all of engines.

There is like I stated before a lot of potential to be had with it, the limitations of the rotary have not been met, nor have normal engines. Your entitled to your opinion of the engine design and car, remember experiences are opinions. 10 people can drive the car, and could end up with 10 different experiences with it.

I've driven an RX7, and test drove an RX8. I am by no means a jaw dropping on the floor fan of the 8 as the 7 beats it in terms of power and styling. The RX8 does offer more room than the 7, less power and the economy is roughly the same albeit a little worse. To me, it's different, different can be good when your always dealing with the same old same old time and again.


And again to add:

Who would want a rotary? Who would want a Ford? a GM? a Nissan? Toyota? [censored] I can sit here all day and be like WTH would someone buy a [censored] Toyota Echo. I don't really care about why they would, they bought it. Something about it sparked an interest in it and they bought it. The Ecotech/Ecoboost could be the greatest thing next to sliced bread but to some it will be just ho hum because some don't want to deal with Turbo's or had bad experiences in the past with Ford or any other manufacturer. Car's are like politicians, you either like em, or you hate em.

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: Anies


I am stating that its a "different" way of "thinking" in terms of engine design.


I know. All I am saying is that it is inferior to todays piston engines in terms of engine design.

Just because it is unique, does not make it good.

Yes, I am sure if the rotary is given 100-200 years, it could become just as good (never better than) the piston engine. But in the mean time, your stuck with a gas sucking golf cart motor.

And in 100 years, we will be running who knows what. Probally Hydrogen motors.

 

[saberz]

100-200 years is a bit of a stretch. Inferior, to some people. Take for instance both of us.


To you and I its just an engine, an engine like any other engine, it gets the job done by moving its occupants from point A to point B. Some people don't care how they get to point B so long as its in style(body style is a plus on the RX8). Some people care about efficiency(hence the Toyota Echo). Preferences are always in play. Person to person.

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: Anies
100-200 years is a bit of a stretch. Inferior, to some people. Take for instance both of us.


To you and I its just an engine, an engine like any other engine, it gets the job done by moving its occupants from point A to point B. Some people don't care how they get to point B so long as its in style(body style is a plus on the RX8). Some people care about efficiency(hence the Toyota Echo). Preferences are always in play. Person to person.


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?