Reviewed: 2005 Mazda RX8

[A790]

You've all seen them. You've all heard them. But have you all driven them?

The sound of the RX8's Renesis rotary at 9,000 rpm can only be compared to a complimentary arrangement of symphonic frequencies, or in other terms, like a cigarette after sex. There's no sound of strain, no indication that the engine is tired. It want's more, lot's more.

So what do you do? Give it to her. Mash that pedal to the floor, slam the shifter into the gates, and enjoy the ride.

The thirty minutes that I owned her convinced me that there are finer things in life- elegant 18" rims, a beautifully sculpted interior, gorgeous lines and sweeping curves. Call me a classicalist, but it's the sheer animalisitc ferocity that got me. Leather is just a bonus.

Exterior
Designing an automobile that has mass appeal is a very difficult task. Of course, you can go the route of Toyota and design vehicles that, though relatively attractive, look as if they were designed blend into the crowd.

Is such the case with the RX8? Absolutely not.

A subtle rear spoiler combines with the dual exhaust and unique tail lights to give the rear of the vehicle presence. I thought it quaint that I'd mention this first, as the taillights are usually what everyone will see.

Pronounced wheel arcs give the RX8 a wider stance, while the fender air inlets provide functionality. Of course, underneath those arcs are massive 18" rims which compliment the car perfectly. The suicide-style doors negate the need for a centre pillar, shortening the cabin and providing a better visual appeal from the outside.

A very beautiful car indeed. Tired of admiring her from the outside, I decide to open the door and get in.

Interior
Closing the door with a satisfying "thunk", you are presented with an arrangement of materials that combine to create a feeling of refinement. The sport buckets hold you in place, while providing the support you need. The triangular cues throughout the cabin will remind you that you are not driving an ordinary car. The rotary is what makes this sensational machine.

The shifter is the perfect size, just protruding enough to get the job done. The centre console, which features a Bose audio system, looks amazing and it's incorporation into the dash is perfect. Nothing feels out of place, but most importantly, nothing is out of reach.

Seating position is perfect- low enough that you know you're driving a sports car, but high enough to give an excellent view of the world arround you. Often sports cars place you too low, so that the world can see you but you can't see it.

The audio system is one of the best I've ever heard in a stock vehicle. The low notes are presented aggressively enough, but are not overstated. Midrange is present and well done, and the high notes are clearly reproduced. Turning the volume up doesn't bring distortion until you get into levels so high that you probably can't hear it anyway. Manufactures have been incorporating large woofers into their vehicles lately (Lancer RalliArt, or Cobalt SS) to compensate for an otherwise lackluster system. You will find no such thing here. Being an audiofile, the stereo is usually the first change I make with every vehicle I own. I'm confident in the capabilities of this sytem.

Upon starting the engine, I'm thrust forward and my focus has shifted.

Driving Impressions
With the windows down, and the stereo (along with the heater) turned up, I am careening down Deerfoot Trail. The experience is nothing sort of extraordinary. Sure, you could drive like a madman in any vehicle and have a good time, but that's just what makes this car so unique- you don't have to in order to enjoy it.

Cruising at 100km/hr, I decide that it's time to see what this car is capable of and I quick punch it. Now pulling at 130 in the left hand lane I am satisfied. I exit onto Glenmore, and enjoy the entire length of the ramp. After all, a good off ramp is a terrible thing to waste.

I quickly leave Glenmore and am now in the industrial areas surround Blackfoot Trail. The entire length of the drive I am enjoying the cars powerband, but most important, the sound of the dual exhaust when the engine is screaming in the high rpm's. In any other car, I'd be afraid to run it at 7,000 rpm. In this one, it just feels natural.

The car handles very well, though I find the suspension to be a bit too soft. Perhaps I am a little biased, but I believe that a sports car should handle as if it's on rails. Body roll is unacceptable. Though I experience some in this vehicle, it was very limited and didn't hurt my experience.

The clutch is a bit stiffer than what I am used to, but I quickly mastered it and was enjoying the transmission. Shifting is easy enough, and feels very solid. Though I have felt more refined transmissions, this one is not bad by any means. Braking is a bit sensetive, and I did notice a bid of fade. However, it was manigable and pretty good for a stock setup.

Acceleration is brisk, and though it's a little soft in the low rpms, the engine quickly picks up the slack as soon as you explore the rev range. Though I found speed, and lots of it, I didn't find a lot of torque. My butt dyno wasn't as satisfied as it was when I drove the 350Z, or even the older RX7 twin turbo. However, I am sure that there is a large and accesible aftermarket that could solve that problem.

I navigated myself back to Kramer, taking the long route down Deerfoot and Anderson, and relinquished the car back to the sales associate.

Conclusion
A very solid entry into the market. Though it has been around for a few years, you don't see very many of them. I hope that the buying public at leat gives this machine a chance- she wants to prove her worthiness to you.

All you have to do is give her some high-octane and a little bit of love.

[BlueFrenzy]

Good write up. You have a good writing style ... are you perhaps trying to get into journalism?

As an RX8 owner, I can attest to pretty much everything that you have mentioned. One point however, with regards to the Bose stereo system ... I find that the higher frequencies are not as nice. Seeing as that the A-pillar tweeter takes care of both mid and high range. No biggy though.

Regarding the torque of the car... it is a bit low compared to other vehicles in its class, but constant throughout the power band (all 9000rpms!). You will find that this engine does not give you the sensation that it's working hard in the higher range. I think there was a Mazda poster in the states that read "At 9000 rpm, other engines will die". If you're not paying attention to the DIGITAL speedometer (I love it!), you find that you usually go faster than you think because the car is so smooth.

This is NOT a drag racer car so don't expect to get crazy 1/4mile times .. it more of a cornering machine. With the small compact rotary engine, it allowed engineers to get a 50/50 balance so cornering and control is very nice.

I actually find that the clutch is one of the most forgiving clutches around. The 6 speed transmission is has gearing ratios that are very close. So there's no gear that is too tall or too short. Heck, because of the high revs available you can get around the city in 1st and 2nd only!

The aftermarket, it is still very new, so the selection of forced induction is limited. There are bolt on turbo kits from GReddy that have done well (13-14s). The Mazda engineers have tuned the car very well ... so adding an aftermarket exhaust or intake will net you very little HP improvement (3-5HP at most). If you're modding your exhaust/intake, it's most likely for the exhaust sound. There are piggyback PCM units that you can also "bolt on" and those will give you additional performance.

Overall, the reason you buy an RX8 is NOT because you're a kid racer that wants to beat everybody from stoplight to stoplight. You buy it because of it's beautiful styling, great handing, responsive and smooth rotary engine. Oh ... it's also got a useable back seat AND trunk (I'm a goalie and I can get my gear into the 8)!

[MIWYFSHOTTER]

I bet if you forcefed that eight it would rape.

[4doorj]

good write up!!!
rx8 is a awsome car:thumbsup:

[gp36912]

i like the look of the car, and i myself being a "kid racer" actually don't care about straight line speed, i would rather have a car that can corner quickly and corner well than go fast in a straight line. heres my way of thinking, almost anyone can go fast in a straight line, not everyone can take a corner properly.

[Goblin]

kid racer? :rofl:

[A790]

Journalism? No, not me... don't have the patience for that. I am actually just an enthusiast who enjoys cars. I am going to set up (yet another) car reviewing website at some point though.

Reading it through today, I found a bunch of spelling/grammatical errors... my next one will be much cleaner.

Glad you enjoyed the review, as I enjoyed "researching" it!

[95EagleAWD]

I've driven an RX-8 before... they're pretty sweet. The 9,000 RPM redline, slick gearbox, RWD. Super fun car. Especially like the tone at 8,500 RPM or so to tell you to shift; lets you keep your eyes on the road.

They feel nicely balanced too (can't really tell at 110 on the 'Mud) and I'm sure they'd be a hoot on a road course.

[A790]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
I've driven an RX-8 before... they're pretty sweet. The 9,000 RPM redline, slick gearbox, RWD. Super fun car. Especially like the tone at 8,500 RPM or so to tell you to shift; lets you keep your eyes on the road.

They feel nicely balanced too (can't really tell at 110 on the 'Mud) and I'm sure they'd be a hoot on a road course.
My next review will be up soon: The 2006 Civic Si.

[heavyD]

I personally find the RX8 ugly. It looks like two different ideas tacked together as there are no smooth lines. The front end doesn't seem in sync with the bulging fenders. It reminds me of Pontiacs of the 80's & 90's that its just too busy.

I know two guys that own RX8's and both are not very happy with the overall quality of the car and regret their purchase. Constant re-flashes required, multiple CEL's, dash light problems, prematurely worn leather seats, rattles galore. Initial driving impressions are nice but real truths are revealed after the new car smell wears off. Like I said it's just two owners but they seemed to have pretty well the same gripes like they were sharing the same car.

[Nix87]

Originally posted by heavyD
I personally find the RX8 ugly. It looks like two different ideas tacked together as there are no smooth lines. The front end doesn't seem in sync with the bulging fenders. It reminds me of Pontiacs of the 80's & 90's that its just too busy.

I know two guys that own RX8's and both are not very happy with the overall quality of the car and regret their purchase. Constant re-flashes required, multiple CEL's, dash light problems, prematurely worn leather seats, rattles galore. Initial driving impressions are nice but real truths are revealed after the new car smell wears off. Like I said it's just two owners but they seemed to have pretty well the same gripes like they were sharing the same car.

I think your bitter about Mazda's thats flawing your styling views :D Your p5 really soured ya?!

I respect that you have personal references to back up the statement tho. Every car has its little quirks some more some less what can ya do?!

[A790]

Originally posted by heavyD
I personally find the RX8 ugly. It looks like two different ideas tacked together as there are no smooth lines. The front end doesn't seem in sync with the bulging fenders. It reminds me of Pontiacs of the 80's & 90's that its just too busy.

I know two guys that own RX8's and both are not very happy with the overall quality of the car and regret their purchase. Constant re-flashes required, multiple CEL's, dash light problems, prematurely worn leather seats, rattles galore. Initial driving impressions are nice but real truths are revealed after the new car smell wears off. Like I said it's just two owners but they seemed to have pretty well the same gripes like they were sharing the same car.

Some of that may be true, but I also know of many SRT-4 owners who are in a very similar position as your friends with the RX8's.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by A790


Some of that may be true, but I also know of many SRT-4 owners who are in a very similar position as your friends with the RX8's.

All of that is true.

How did the SRT-4 get into the conversation? Did someone mention cars that were faster than the RX8 for a fraction of the cost? Or is someone comparing the quality of an econobox to a supposed sports car that cost thousands more?

Back on topic. If someone posts a glowing review of a car based on a test drive that's fine and dandy but people should know also that these cars have some issues. I don't hate the car as it delivers a great handling package for the price but it's unfortunately packaged with with an engine that consumes oil & combines 4-cyl torque with V8 gas mileage. For almost the same money the Mazdaspeed 6 offeres better performance & cleaner styling if you have to have your "Zoom Zoom".

[calgarygts]

^^Why is it a 'supposed' sports car? It's a small rear wheel drive quick, cramped interior, great handling car that sits low to the ground and looks agressive. What else would you classify it as? A family sedan? I don't understand why people always say these types of things - just because it's not the fastest car out there doesn't mean it's not a sports car. The best was when someone on the board said a lamborghini is not a true sports car. WTF?

[heavyD]

Originally posted by calgarygts
^^Why is it a 'supposed' sports car? It's a small rear wheel drive quick, cramped interior, great handling car that sits low to the ground and looks agressive. What else would you classify it as? A family sedan? I don't understand why people always say these types of things - just because it's not the fastest car out there doesn't mean it's not a sports car. The best was when someone on the board said a lamborghini is not a true sports car. WTF?

:confused:

[heavyD]

Originally posted by heavyD


:confused:

I'll give you a hint. Think rear seats.:rolleyes:

[heavyD]

Originally posted by heavyD


:confused:

By definition a sports car has no rear seats.

[likwid]

An eclipse is not a sports car then?

[bspot]

My biggest problem with the Rx-8 is fuel economy. A car that isn't exactly "fast" yet still drinks like a pig. If I'm filling up ever couple hundred kilometers I'd better atleast be able to scare the shit out of myself when I hammer the throttle.

[bspot]

Originally posted by likwid
An eclipse is not a sports car then?

Hell no. Its a "sports coupe" or "sport compact".

If an eclipse is a sports car then a cavalier is a sports car.

[A790]

Originally posted by likwid
An eclipse is not a sports car then?

Neither is a G35, 300ZX 2 by 2, 3000 GT...

Basically, by that definition, the Ariel Atom is the only true sports car around.

And the reason why I mentioned the SRT-4 is becuase every time you start a car debate you start talking but how sweet the SRT-4 is because it's fast and cost you $20. Of course, they have problems too, but it's funny how that never gets mentioned.

All this thread was supposed to be is a review of the RX8, from a new buyers perspective. I wasn't looking for someone to come pipe in about how they suck, and basically disagree with everything I wrote. If that's how you feel, go write your *own* review.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by likwid
An eclipse is not a sports car then?

Not by definition. It's FWD & has rear seats & would be classified as a sporty coupe or something like that. This is only by definition remember. How you interpret a car is up to you. This has been beat to death many times and is getting off topic.:closed:

[A790]

Originally posted by bspot
My biggest problem with the Rx-8 is fuel economy. A car that isn't exactly "fast" yet still drinks like a pig. If I'm filling up ever couple hundred kilometers I'd better atleast be able to scare the shit out of myself when I hammer the throttle.

I didn't find fuel economy to be that bad. It reflected how I drove it, absolutely, but overall it wasn't terrible. I used a quarter tank of gas driving the absolute shit out of it for about 70 km.

[calgarygts]

Originally posted by heavyD


By definition a sports car has no rear seats.

You sure are patronizing. So a porsche isn't a sports car? Or a trans-am/camaro/mustang? How about an STI/evo?
I ask again, what would you classify an RX-8 as?

[pr0]

Tell me the 911 Carrera isn't a sports car and i'll slap you. A sports car "usually" seats two. It does not have to.

The RX8 is a sports car and so is an Eclipse.

[calgarygts]

By the way A790, good write up. I've always wanted to drive one, I would think they would be very fun cars. How would you stack it up against a 350Z?

[A790]

Originally posted by calgarygts
By the way A790, good write up. I've always wanted to drive one, I would think they would be very fun cars. How would you stack it up against a 350Z?

The 350Z is more my kind of car. It's got more acceleration to it, more head in the headreast kind of take off. However, the RX8 felt a lot more nimble and responsive.

I'd take the 350Z because I love acceleration, and being able to control it at speed. I'd also take the RX8 because I love speed, and being able to effectively use it in motion.

I do prefer the looks of the 350Z, however.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by A790
All this thread was supposed to be is a review of the RX8, from a new buyers perspective. I wasn't looking for someone to come pipe in about how they suck, and basically disagree with everything I wrote. If that's how you feel, go write your *own* review.

I didn't disagree with anything you wrote outside of styling which is purely subjective. You post up a Car & Driver'esque review of a car to show your steller literary skills then get offended when someone makes note that the car is not all it's cracked up to be. Quit being a whiner.:thumbsdow

[heavyD]

Originally posted by calgarygts


You sure are patronizing. So a porsche isn't a sports car? Or a trans-am/camaro/mustang? How about an STI/evo?
I ask again, what would you classify an RX-8 as?

Read my post and quit being a tool.:whipped: How you interpret a car is entirely up to you.

[Aleks]

A friend of mine drove one and the salesman tried to convince them the car was turbocharged. LOL. Didn't this car also suffer from over rated HP and Mazda had to offer to buy them back when they first came out?

[A790]

Originally posted by heavyD


I didn't disagree with anything you wrote outside of styling which is purely subjective. You post up a Car & Driver'esque review of a car to show your steller literary skills then get offended when someone makes note that the car is not all it's cracked up to be. Quit being a whiner.:thumbsdow

It had nothing to do with literary skills.

If I wrote something like "Yea man it's a wicked car buy it d00d" it wouldn't have the same mass appeal as a well thought out review would. Perhaps some people are content with just a select few being interested to read their reviews, but I would much rather have a larger targert audience and the review that holds their interest.

Don't call me a whiner, as your experience is completely subjective and isolated. Piss off.

And, when they first came out, Mazda quoted them at 250hp and offered to buy back some of the pre-ordered vehicles in the event that the would-be owners would no longer want the 238HP car.

[b_t]

Originally posted by calgarygts


You sure are patronizing. So a porsche isn't a sports car? Or a trans-am/camaro/mustang? How about an STI/evo?
I ask again, what would you classify an RX-8 as?

the porsche is a GT
the Trans Am, Camaro and Mustang are muscle cars
the STi and Evo are sports saloons as the brits call them

Ferraris, Corvettes, Lamborghinis, and Bugattis are sports cars... and to a lesser extent the Miata.

The RX-8 tries to be a sports car but doesn't really pull it off. Its just a crappy 2+2.

[b_t]

Originally posted by A790


It had nothing to do with literary skills.

If I wrote something like "Yea man it's a wicked car buy it d00d" it wouldn't have the same mass appeal as a well thought out review would. Perhaps some people are content with just a select few being interested to read their reviews, but I would much rather have a larger targert audience and the review that holds their interest.

Don't call me a whiner, as your experience is completely subjective and isolated. Piss off.

And, when they first came out, Mazda quoted them at 250hp and offered to buy back some of the pre-ordered vehicles in the event that the would-be owners would no longer want the 238HP car.

well your review was alright aside from a few things:
a) you call the car a "Her." Its not a her, its an "it," my gf is a her
b) you make wild boasts about the car. The taillights are all anyone else would see? Uhhh
c) you spend more time on the stereo then any other topic, and call yourself an enthusiast, and then say that the factory system is good. No, its not.
d) the whole test consisted of a drive down deerfoot and I would assume spirited driving on off-ramps. That's alright, how about a description about how well sorted the chassis is? Like how it handles mid-corner bumps, dips and crappy pavement like the Peigan Trail offramp?

[khtm]

Originally posted by heavyD
I personally find the RX8 ugly. It looks like two different ideas tacked together as there are no smooth lines. The front end doesn't seem in sync with the bulging fenders. It reminds me of Pontiacs of the 80's & 90's that its just too busy.

I know two guys that own RX8's and both are not very happy with the overall quality of the car and regret their purchase. Constant re-flashes required, multiple CEL's, dash light problems, prematurely worn leather seats, rattles galore. Initial driving impressions are nice but real truths are revealed after the new car smell wears off. Like I said it's just two owners but they seemed to have pretty well the same gripes like they were sharing the same car.
You drive an SRT-4 and think the RX-8 is UGLY? :rolleyes:

That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time.

:goflames:
Originally posted by heavyD


By definition a sports car has no rear seats.
But of course you also know that original sports cars were light weight, RWD, 2-door, 2-seats, had low horsepower, looked good, and handled great.

A lot of sports cars today don't satisfy those requirements.

Definitions can change, ya know ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car

[heavyD]

Originally posted by khtm
You drive an SRT-4 and think the RX-8 is UGLY? :rolleyes:

That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time.

Is it wrong for me to think the RX8 is ugly? It's purely subjective. You think the SRT-4 is ugly as do many, does that mean that other cars can't be ugly as well. What's funny is people bashing the SRT-4 which I never brought up into this thread until other people felt compelled to do so.

If someone posts an SRT-4 review I will post my two cents about that car there but this is about the RX8 not the SRT-4 or what defines a sports car.

[khtm]

Originally posted by heavyD


Is it wrong for me to think the RX8 is ugly? It's purely subjective. You think the SRT-4 is ugly as do many, does that mean that other cars can't be ugly as well. What's funny is people bashing the SRT-4 which I never brought up into this thread until other people felt compelled to do so.

If someone posts an SRT-4 review I will post my two cents about that car there but this is about the RX8 not the SRT-4 or what defines a sports car.
No, it's not wrong, but it makes your opinion look rather worthless when the car you own is (and I hope you don't disagree) considered by most people to be uglier than the car you're making fun of.

And you're the one who first started the whole "An RX-8 isn't a sport car" debate.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by khtm

No, it's not wrong, but it makes your opinion look rather worthless when the car you own is (and I hope you don't disagree) considered by most people to be uglier than the car you're making fun of.

And you're the one who first started the whole "An RX-8 isn't a sport car" debate.

So my opinion is worthless because of the car I drive? You don't have a car in your sig so can I assume that you don't have a car and therefore you shouldn't be posting a in a car thread because your opinion is worthless.

If you read re a l l y s l o w l y & carefully you will see that calgaryGTS started the "sport car" debate.

Any more ownage required?

PS: I know alot of you like to sidetrack but of respect for A790 lets keep on the topic of the RX8 only.

[khtm]

Sigh...


Originally posted by heavyD

Or is someone comparing the quality of an econobox to a supposed sports car that cost thousands more?

Yeah, you definitely weren't the first to suggest that the RX-8 is not a sports car. I should really learn how to read.

Man there's just no talking to you.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by khtm
Sigh...



Yeah, you definitely weren't the first to suggest that the RX-8 is not a sports car. I should really learn how to read.

Man there's just no talking to you.

I said 'supposed' purposely because of the grey area, calgaryGTS started the debate. Man there's no talking to idiots.:thumbsdow

[benm]

Here's another review with some nice pix (click on Photo Gallery) if you're interested.

[ argh.. guess the url is too long for this forum to like it. anyway the review was on www.carpages.ca under Mazda ]

[Lex350]

Originally posted by bspot
My biggest problem with the Rx-8 is fuel economy. A car that isn't exactly "fast" yet still drinks like a pig. If I'm filling up ever couple hundred kilometers I'd better atleast be able to scare the shit out of myself when I hammer the throttle.


there have been some inconsistant numbers from people. Some have received terrible mpg. I get 18 in the city and 23 on the hihghway. The one thing I fdound that kills the gas mileage is stop and go traffic. It doesn;t seem to have that much of an effect if you keep the rpm up.

Case: When we have done doemRX8 drives out to Elbow falls, the revs never are below 4500rpm (relining every shift) when I drive and I still got 22mpg. In the city driving in stop and go traffic, I've kept the revs at around 3200rpm and got 17 go figure?

[Lex350]

Originally posted by khtm
Sigh...



Yeah, you definitely weren't the first to suggest that the RX-8 is not a sports car. I should really learn how to read.

Man there's just no talking to you.


well...he does drive a Neon:D

[A790]

Originally posted by b_t


well your review was alright aside from a few things:
a) you call the car a "Her." Its not a her, its an "it," my gf is a her
b) you make wild boasts about the car. The taillights are all anyone else would see? Uhhh
c) you spend more time on the stereo then any other topic, and call yourself an enthusiast, and then say that the factory system is good. No, its not.
d) the whole test consisted of a drive down deerfoot and I would assume spirited driving on off-ramps. That's alright, how about a description about how well sorted the chassis is? Like how it handles mid-corner bumps, dips and crappy pavement like the Peigan Trail offramp?

A) I was calling it a her in a figurative sense, in the same way that you would refer to a ship as a "her" or "she". Make way for the grammar nazi everyone.
B) I cited the tailights specifically because I found them interesting, and that from the rear of the car that's usually the focus.
C) I spoke about the stereo for maybe a paragraph. The factory system IS good, especially for those that have no inention to modify the car or add a bunch of subwoofers to drown out the rest of the music. It's one of the clearest and most capable systems I've head.
D) I went down Anderson, to deerfoot, up glenmore, into blackfoot and into some side roads. I never went off the Paigan trail offramp to experience those crappy bumps. Sorry, next time I'll be sure to do so.

Here, how about you go write a review of a car so I can go in there and be a douche.

Anyways, I can tell outright that it's a waste of my time posting anything with any actual merit because Captain Dumbass over here is all over it.

[habsfan]

well done review, interesting to hear the opinions you have of the car seem to reflect what alot of the magazines say, so now we know there is merit to their writings. and STFU to all the hijackers

[Lex350]

Looks are always subjective...I don't think that is an issue to debate.

Yes, it isn't the fastest car. (6.1 0-60) But that's ok because some of us aren't looking for that. I love the way this car handles. You would have to be a complete moron to get into any kind of trouble in a corner. The car is so niccely balanced.

One of the things that I liked from day one was the braking. The brakes grip nice.

Braking from 60mph (ft)

RX8 - 110
Porsche Boxter - 113
Carrera GT - 124
911 gt2 - 116
911 Turbo - 119

Nissan 350 Anniverary - 114

All numbers from Road and Track


Some of us can't have a two seat sportscar because of a little something I call KIDS. This car is light (around 3000lbs) brakes well, corners great and has enough power to get me all the tickets I can handle and I smile everytime I hit the 9000rpm beep.

[tsi_neal]

decent review of a decent car.

Im gonna pipe up and mention that the car is a little bit on the soft side for my "definition" of a sports car. but it is a very capeable and comfortable "sports coupe" (these are subjective names and im not trying to start an argument with them) From the real world owner and driver of the car who is my father the only complaint that comes up is the fuel economy. (also anyone who buys a rotary and expects an efficient vehicle obviously didnt do their research)

heavyD and b_t, honestly when was the last time you drove an RX8? Id like to point out that it will by FAR out perfom a DSM or a neon in anything but dragstrip performance. Of which the car was never designed to be a drag racer. Also the car is very forgiving with midcorner bumps, in part due to my gripe about the soft suspension. It really seems like your nitpicking trivial things on the vehicle because its not something that you would buy, but the reality is some buyers want something a little more classy then a DSM or SRT4.

[bspot]

Originally posted by rotten42



there have been some inconsistant numbers from people. Some have received terrible mpg. I get 18 in the city and 23 on the hihghway. The one thing I fdound that kills the gas mileage is stop and go traffic. It doesn;t seem to have that much of an effect if you keep the rpm up.

Case: When we have done doemRX8 drives out to Elbow falls, the revs never are below 4500rpm (relining every shift) when I drive and I still got 22mpg. In the city driving in stop and go traffic, I've kept the revs at around 3200rpm and got 17 go figure?

18mpg is about 13l/100km correct?

I think that is Nissan Murano territory for fuel economy.

I'm pulling about 10l/100km in the city right now, but that won't last long once I swap pullies.

How big is the tank on the Rx-8? For me its not so much about the ammount of money spent on gas but the annoyance of filling up all the time. I miss my old car that got 650/tank in the city :cry:

[danno]

so in the end is the rx8 worth 40000 new or for a 2004 just over 30000???

the only thing i don't like is how they matched the seats to the outside.

if i were to get one it would have to be black or silver

[Lex350]

Originally posted by danno
so in the end is the rx8 worth 40000 new or for a 2004 just over 30000???

the only thing i don't like is how they matched the seats to the outside.

if i were to get one it would have to be black or silver


I think so...no regrets...but I can't tell you that. It's only my opinion.

[FiveFreshFish]

Originally posted by A790
And, when they first came out, Mazda quoted them at 250hp and offered to buy back some of the pre-ordered vehicles in the event that the would-be owners would no longer want the 238HP car.

Yup, here's the offer.

[iceburns288]

This thread sucks. The review sucked. The whiners suck. If someone disagrees with you, handle it like someone with a real personality instead of telling them to get out of 'your' thread.

I think the Mazda's a cool looking car but I would never own one.

[NickGT]

Originally posted by iceburns288
This thread sucks. The review sucked. The whiners suck. If someone disagrees with you, handle it like someone with a real personality instead of telling them to get out of 'your' thread.

I think the Mazda's a cool looking car but I would never own one.

Thank you :werd:

[heavyD]

Originally posted by iceburns288
This thread sucks. The review sucked. The whiners suck. If someone disagrees with you, handle it like someone with a real personality instead of telling them to get out of 'your' thread.

I tend to agree with you on that one.:thumbsup:

[heavyD]

Originally posted by rotten42



well...he does drive a Neon:D

Wanna race my crappy Neon for pinkslips?:rolleyes:

[Lex350]

Originally posted by heavyD


Wanna race my crappy Neon for pinkslips?:rolleyes:



you miss the point completely....your car is very fast but it's still a Neon. You talk like that is the only thing that matters. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[tsi_neal]

Originally posted by heavyD
Wanna race my crappy Neon for pinkslips?



Originally posted by rotten42




you miss the point completely....your car is very fast but it's still a Neon. You talk like that is the only thing that matters. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think you need to say 'yea ill race ya for pinks, fastest lap around race citys roadcourse'. then your only problem would be selling a neon :rofl:

[BlueFrenzy]

Originally posted by calgarygts
By the way A790, good write up. I've always wanted to drive one, I would think they would be very fun cars. How would you stack it up against a 350Z?

I'll tell you now that the 350Z in a straight line will take the RX8 by sheer brute force of the engine (3.5L vs 1.3L) ... but who drives in straight lines only, right? In terms of cornering, I do give the edge to the rx8 (smaller turning circle and smaller yaw inertial moment). The 350Z is a bit stiffer in the corners. I think on the skid plate, the rx8 edges out the Zed. Again, depends what you like ... going fast in straight lines or taking corners at high speeds. You will definitely feel the torque on the 350 when you mash the peddle. I can't quite remember the gear box on the Zed but remembered that it was decent (good shifts) but can't remember how the ratios were.

Bspot .. the tank is 60L. As rotten mentioned, the fuel economy depends on the driving style. If you idle all day, you'll get zero mpg. I too get the advertised mileage. If figure, if you can afford the car, you can afford the gas, OR just drink less cola/coffee so that the car won't have to haul as much of you.

[BlueFrenzy]

Originally posted by heavyD


Wanna race my crappy Neon for pinkslips?:rolleyes:

^^^ In the end, that's what kid-racers think is the ONLY deciding factor of what makes a car good ... straight line speed.

[b_t]

Originally posted by tsi_neal





I think you need to say 'yea ill race ya for pinks, fastest lap around race citys roadcourse'. then your only problem would be selling a neon :rofl:

I think heavyD would have more trouble selling an RX-8, since the few thousand people in the world who can contend with a rotary probably already own one.

[bspot]

Hey heavyD.

I bet I know something that you didn't know.

Your car is a neon.

Did you know that?

I thought it needed to be pointed out in this thread.

Incase you didn't know.

Your car is a neon.

If anyone knows heavyD personally and sees him, please tell him his car is a neon. I don't think anyone has told him yet. He probably doesn't know that for himself.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[habsfan]

this thread officially has more shit in it than Bob Barker's old man diaper

[4doorj]

Originally posted by khtm


But of course you also know that original sports cars were light weight, RWD, 2-door, 2-seats, had low horsepower, looked good, and handled great.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car

s2000:clap:




one day im going to own a rx8... its going to be my family car for when i have a family... who knows when:dunno:

the interior of the rx8 is super pimp!
i love the red and black interior!:bigpimp:

[Aleks]

Originally posted by BlueFrenzy


I'll tell you now that the 350Z in a straight line will take the RX8 by sheer brute force of the engine (3.5L vs 1.3L) ... but who drives in straight lines only, right? In terms of cornering, I do give the edge to the rx8 (smaller turning circle and smaller yaw inertial moment). The 350Z is a bit stiffer in the corners. I think on the skid plate, the rx8 edges out the Zed. Again, depends what you like ... going fast in straight lines or taking corners at high speeds. You will definitely feel the torque on the 350 when you mash the peddle. I can't quite remember the gear box on the Zed but remembered that it was decent (good shifts) but can't remember how the ratios were.

Bspot .. the tank is 60L. As rotten mentioned, the fuel economy depends on the driving style. If you idle all day, you'll get zero mpg. I too get the advertised mileage. If figure, if you can afford the car, you can afford the gas, OR just drink less cola/coffee so that the car won't have to haul as much of you.

Most of the races in north america are in a straight line (on the street) now if you're talking a track car then yeah the corners do come into effect.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by BlueFrenzy


^^^ In the end, that's what kid-racers think is the ONLY deciding factor of what makes a car good ... straight line speed.

No kid racer here but if a person wants a great handling car that isn't fast you may as well buy the new Civic Si and save thousands rather than pay for a tourqless rotary powered car that you may get 150000 kms between rebuilds if you are lucky.:rolleyes:

[Lex350]

or you can buy a tarted up neon that puts all its power to the FRONT wheels (ya...that's fun to drive) and looks like the cheap shit box that it is...oh, with a fast buzz-saw motor.

[b_t]

Originally posted by rotten42
or you can buy a tarted up neon that puts all its power to the FRONT wheels (ya...that's fun to drive) and looks like the cheap shit box that it is...oh, with a fast buzz-saw motor.

fast buzz-saw motor? let's not talk about how loud a rotary gets as soon as you make some serious power and port it - oh wait, you need to port it to make serious power. how about how unbearable they get when you want to make big numbers with a bridgeport (lurching at 100km/h? no thanks) and how they get even shittier mileage then a comparable 2 liter with gigantic cams.

front wheels? no big deal, rather that then no torque whatsoever. fuck a smooth power delivery, I want to be able to get down to 3000rpm - where a rotary is basically bogging down - and punch it without having about 3 grand of wasted rpm before I make any power.

[khtm]

There's no point in arguing, rotten.

It's useless trying to debate with people that compare the handling of a FWD Civic to an RX-8, and are ignorant to the fact that the Renesis isn't FI so it won't have the reliability issues of the 13B since kid racers won't be boosting it beyond its capabilities.

And porting it to make some serious power? Now you're talking about the 13B again, not the Renesis (yet). Do a little research before assuming that all the characteristics of the RX-7 are the same in the RX-8.

[Lex350]

Originally posted by khtm
There's no point in arguing, rotten.

It's useless trying to debate with people that compare the handling of a FWD Civic to an RX-8, and are ignorant to the fact that the Renesis isn't FI so it won't have the reliability issues of the 13B since kid racers won't be boosting it beyond its capabilities.

And porting it to make some serious power? Now you're talking about the 13B again, not the Renesis. Do a little research before assuming that all the characteristics of the RX-7 are the same in the RX-8.


I know...these guys know a friend of a cousin of a guy who once had a TT FD that blew up and now all rotaries are shit.:dunno:


The Neon (cough) SRT is fast in a straight line but putiing one through a corner is like fucking a fat shit...you can do it but who would want to?:D



oh, but wait!...If I mod the shit out of my civic it will rock!

[Tomaz]

Good wirte up Cam! I forgot you went on a drive with the RX-8. She's a pretty lil thing! Great words, Good car, A lot of off-topics on this thread!

[tsi_neal]

I still find it rather humourous that these guys are still in here preaching about how a CONVERTED turbo DSM (umm why didnt you just buy a turbo car in the first place and save thousands) and a neon are better cars because they have a bit more torque and straight line capability.

And b-t if you honestly believe that an srt4 (similarily modded) would take an rx8 in a roadcourse then id bet you for so much more than pinkslips...

[b_t]

Originally posted by tsi_neal
I still find it rather humourous that these guys are still in here preaching about how a CONVERTED turbo DSM (umm why didnt you just buy a turbo car in the first place and save thousands) and a neon are better cars because they have a bit more torque and straight line capability.

And b-t if you honestly believe that an srt4 (similarily modded) would take an rx8 in a roadcourse then id bet you for so much more than pinkslips...

shut the fuck up about my car, it sucks ass, it was fast in straight lines but it doesn't float my boat anymore. I converted to turbo because the DSM 4G63 is a shitty motor and the 420A (and by extension the 2.4 liter version of it in the SRT-4) is actually a very good one. And have you ever seen a turbo DSM with 80,000km for $10k? No, you haven't, because there aren't any more, and my turbo kit didn't cost all that much and I ended up making money on it when I sold it.

SRT-4s don't need any mods to rape a RX-8 in a straight line and they handle better then you think. I'd gladly take you on that race, you'd lose about three seconds in any tight corner because the SRT-4 has something called "torque" which is a foreign concept to both Honda and Mazda boys.

[slowboy]

Originally posted by iceburns288
This thread sucks. The review sucked. The whiners suck. If someone disagrees with you, handle it like someone with a real personality instead of telling them to get out of 'your' thread.

I think the Mazda's a cool looking car but I would never own one.

Couldn't have said it any better. This is a public forum so if someone disagrees with your post, suck it up.
And you don't have to be a sour-grape and attack the other person's car (SRT4) just because he disagrees with the original post.

[khtm]

SRT-4s don't need any mods to rape a RX-8 in a straight line and they handle better then you think. I'd gladly take you on that race, you'd lose about three seconds in any tight corner because the SRT-4 has something called "torque" which is a foreign concept to both Honda and Mazda boys.

In all honesty, I agree with you to some degree. With a few suspension mods an SRT-4 can potentially beat a stock RX-8 in a roadcourse, yes. Stock for stock, there'd have to be a lot of straight road.

The RX-8 has amazing stock brakes and can corner like a mofo, but the SRT-4 would definitely pull away in the straights. There's no denying that...it's a fast little fucker.

But...as the RX-8 aftermarket improves we're seeing extra HP (and more importantly, TQ) get cheaper and cheaper. There's already a guy who's into the 12s 1/4 mile on RX8Club.com. I don't think it's a stretch to say he could give corvettes a run for their money on a road course, and absolutely destroy pretty much any SRT-4 out there.

[Lex350]

Originally posted by b_t


shut the fuck up about my car, it sucks ass, it was fast in straight lines but it doesn't float my boat anymore. I converted to turbo because the DSM 4G63 is a shitty motor and the 420A (and by extension the 2.4 liter version of it in the SRT-4) is actually a very good one. And have you ever seen a turbo DSM with 80,000km for $10k? No, you haven't, because there aren't any more, and my turbo kit didn't cost all that much and I ended up making money on it when I sold it.

SRT-4s don't need any mods to rape a RX-8 in a straight line and they handle better then you think. I'd gladly take you on that race, you'd lose about three seconds in any tight corner because the SRT-4 has something called "torque" which is a foreign concept to both Honda and Mazda boys.


But it's still a cheap piece of shit Neon with no refinement and cheap build quality. They spend a dollar on the motor and 5 cents on the rest of the car..

[Tomaz]

People... this is a reveiw on a STOCK and NEW car... and it sia reveiw! Take banter somewhere else!


BTW RX-8 will beat a SRT-4 on roadcourse as long as there were no long straight a ways.

[tsi_neal]

Originally posted by b_t


SRT-4s don't need any mods to rape a RX-8 in a straight line and they handle better then you think. I'd gladly take you on that race, you'd lose about three seconds in any tight corner because the SRT-4 has something called "torque" which is a foreign concept to both Honda and Mazda boys.


most cars sold handle just fine when they arent pushed to their limits, as they get closer to the limit they become increasingly hard to drive consistantly well. the srt4 falls into this category. the RX8 falls into the other category of being comfortable and confident at the limit (which is WAY higher than any neon)... and your torque comment is laughable at best if you ever get down to a race track you might start to get it.. the srt4 is a wrong wheel drive drag car. the rx8 is a very nicely balanced car that wouldnt be at all uncomfortable on a roadcourse.

[A790]

Originally posted by Tomaz
People... this is a reveiw on a STOCK and NEW car... and it sia reveiw! Take banter somewhere else!


BTW RX-8 will beat a SRT-4 on roadcourse as long as there were no long straight a ways.

Hey, I like SRT-4's too. I drove a couple of those and loved the speed. But, it's not always about speed, sometimes it's about refinement.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by rotten42
But it's still a cheap piece of shit Neon with no refinement and cheap build quality. They spend a dollar on the motor and 5 cents on the rest of the car..

I was just wondering how the SRT-4 became such a topic for this thread?

Is it cheap? I would say so. I only paid $27K for my ACR which according to Car & Driver has super car brakes, & with the 225/45-16's & factory supplied Tokico Illumina adjustable shocks & pulls a respectable .87g on the skidpad, does the 1/4 mile under 14 sec and has a top speed of 150 mph. A fair bit of performance for the money if you ask me.

Is it a POS? Not by my experience. The interior is very low rent for sure, full of hard plastics but everything works. The shifter is notchy but works. The body panels have no large gaps and everything fits well. The car is loud & crude but a person looking for refinement isn't looking at an SRT-4 in the first place. I haven't had any issues with mine hell I'm still waiting for the first rock chip of any sort on the paint and I've been driving it all winter.

All I can say is that there are no documented issues for the SRT-4 while there is lots on the RX-8 (HP overrated, excessive oil consumption, poor gas mileage, catalytic converter failures, CEL's, etc.). Maybe you just drive a more expensive POS?

[Lex350]

Originally posted by heavyD


I was just wondering how the SRT-4 became such a topic for this thread?

Is it cheap? I would say so. I only paid $27K for my ACR which according to Car & Driver has super car brakes, & with the 225/45-16's & factory supplied Tokico Illumina adjustable shocks & pulls a respectable .87g on the skidpad, does the 1/4 mile under 14 sec and has a top speed of 150 mph. A fair bit of performance for the money if you ask me.

Is it a POS? Not by my experience. The interior is very low rent for sure, full of hard plastics but everything works. The shifter is notchy but works. The body panels have no large gaps and everything fits well. The car is loud & crude but a person looking for refinement isn't looking at an SRT-4 in the first place. I haven't had any issues with mine hell I'm still waiting for the first rock chip of any sort on the paint and I've been driving it all winter.

All I can say is that there are no documented issues for the SRT-4 while there is lots on the RX-8 (HP overrated, excessive oil consumption, poor gas mileage, catalytic converter failures, CEL's, etc.). Maybe you just drive a more expensive POS?


the excessive oil consumption comment alone proves you don't know the first thing about the Renisis engine. I've been on many different RX8 boards and have rarely seen a documented catalytic converter failure.




27k for a Neon?...ya, that was worth it!

[NickGT]

Is the rear seat in the RX-8 actually useable? Having rear swinging doors I'd have to think they'd actually make the rear seats functional. But I've never personally sat in one. How is the space back there?

Just curious because in my mustang, yah I've got rear seats. But good luck sitting behind me without having circulation to your legs cut off - its that tight. I'm only 5'10".

[heavyD]

Originally posted by rotten42
the excessive oil consumption comment alone proves you don't know the first thing about the Renisis engine. I've been on many different RX8 boards and have rarely seen a documented catalytic converter failure.

27k for a Neon?...ya, that was worth it!

The Renesis doesn't consume oil?:rolleyes: Fuck there was a Car & Driver issue (I'll dig it up if you wish) that stated their long term RX-8 consumed so much oil that they had to keep jugs in the trunk. The CAT's failed due to overly rich running early models.

I can sleep at night knowing that I paid $27K for a car with more HP & torque than a Civic, you paid $40K for a car with a sewing machine engine with less than 160 ft/lbs torque when for a little more money you could have bought an 300ZX that actually has an engine befitting of a sports car. Maybe there's a reason the 300ZX has been a sales success for Nissan while the RX-8 has been a slow seller for Mazda.:poosie:

[b_t]

Or you could save up for another few months and get a Corvette C6, which in about a year of production sold more then the 350Z and RX-8 did, combined, in two years... even though it costs about as much as the two, combined.

[khtm]

Good point on the Corvette...it's hard to find more "bang for your buck" performance than that car, as much as I hate to admit it. But for some people looking for practicality and a car that's fun to drive, that's out of the question. Those back seats and a usable trunk definitely can come in handy.

The RX-8 has sold more in 2 years than the RX-7 in all 24 years it was produced. So yeah, it definitely isn't selling very well for Mazda. :rolleyes: Also, in 2004 the RX-8 outsold the 350z nearly 2:1 in Canada. I guess it must be doing really poorly?

And anyone who thinks HP and Torque are all that makes a sports car is definitely not a driving enthusiast. I bet you don't think the Miata is a sports car either right? The Guiness Book of World Records would strongly disagree with you ;)

[tsi_neal]

Originally posted by NickGT
Is the rear seat in the RX-8 actually useable? Having rear swinging doors I'd have to think they'd actually make the rear seats functional. But I've never personally sat in one. How is the space back there?

Just curious because in my mustang, yah I've got rear seats. But good luck sitting behind me without having circulation to your legs cut off - its that tight. I'm only 5'10".


Id say the rear seats are awesome for the size of vehicle. Im a bit short at 5'8" but i think they would be totally comfortable for a long drive. If all your doing is taking clients around town or friends to the bar then im sure they would be fine for anyone who isnt "huge"

[NickGT]

Originally posted by tsi_neal



Id say the rear seats are awesome for the size of vehicle. Im a bit short at 5'8" but i think they would be totally comfortable for a long drive. If all your doing is taking clients around town or friends to the bar then im sure they would be fine for anyone who isnt "huge"

Cool, thats what I was curious about. Nobody wants to pile in my car (which is fine I kinda get annoyed by that anyway) just because there is no leg or headroom (when the top is up) in the rear seats. Its amazing they crammed a functional rear seat into such a little car.

[A2VR6]

I've driven this car a couple of times and I must say it's a pretty nice car for the money. My only major gripe about it is that when I drove it i found the steering feedback to be a little lacking... It's not as bad as say a civic, but heck i thought it would be a little better. Anyone else notice this?

[Lex350]

Originally posted by heavyD


The Renesis doesn't consume oil?:rolleyes: Fuck there was a Car & Driver issue (I'll dig it up if you wish) that stated their long term RX-8 consumed so much oil that they had to keep jugs in the trunk. The CAT's failed due to overly rich running early models.

I can sleep at night knowing that I paid $27K for a car with more HP & torque than a Civic, you paid $40K for a car with a sewing machine engine with less than 160 ft/lbs torque when for a little more money you could have bought an 300ZX that actually has an engine befitting of a sports car. Maybe there's a reason the 300ZX has been a sales success for Nissan while the RX-8 has been a slow seller for Mazda.:poosie:


I didn't say it didn't use any oil....but ptting in 1/2 litre every 1.5 months is't any trouble. If you check you oil on a regualr basis...whats the problem.


..In early models...good for you. I know that know taints the whole line.



You still paid 27k for a Neon...it may be fast but its still a bottom feeder econo car.


Burger king is fast and cheap but I don't consider it a gourmet meal.





Yes the backseats are usable for adults. I have people back there all the time. You wouldn't want to ride there all the way to BC but they aren't that bad. Head room is better than leg room.

[BlueFrenzy]

Originally posted by Aleks


Most of the races in north america are in a straight line (on the street) now if you're talking a track car then yeah the corners do come into effect.

Most races in NA are in straight line? What coked up races are you watching? NASCAR, Indy, Rally, etc races are all straight line? Even inbred hicks in the deep south watching NASCAR know better.

The "straightline races" you talk about are likely illegal road races that lead to deaths like the one recently in Toronto or that kid here in Calgary in an RSX who crashed his car racing and killed his passenger grandma.


Heavy D, you apparently don't know anything about your own car other than what the brochure says. As you say and I quote, "no documented issues for the SRT-4" ... ok guy. Take a look and take your car in.
http://www.alldata.com/TSB/16/031686fi.html

You also obviously don't speak with other SRT4 owners .. because on the SRTforum, there are a heck of a lot of people complaining of engine misfires, boost leaks, overboost/vacuum leaks, throttle sticking problem, etc. But hey, as long as your car is ok, it's all good.

Your comment on the rx8 being "plagued" with problems is based on outdated information (3 year old info when the car JUST hit the shores). Rotary engines by design consume more oil.. that's a given. Can't afford oil ... ride a bike. HP overrated? Every manufacturer does that (Only by 5-7HP, depending on where you are). CELs? which one ... every car has CELs. It's there for your protection.

Every car has people bitching about it ... does that make it the norm ... no. A790 did a good job on reviewing the car ... why are you ripping into his review like this? I think his next review is on a Honda Civic SI ... that's going to suck too right? You really got to relax on your quest to prove that every car sucks but yours.

[b_t]

Originally posted by BlueFrenzy


Your comment on the rx8 being "plagued" with problems is based on outdated information (3 year old info when the car JUST hit the shores). Rotary engines by design consume more oil.. that's a given. Can't afford oil ... ride a bike. HP overrated? Every manufacturer does that (Only by 5-7HP, depending on where you are). CELs? which one ... every car has CELs. It's there for your protection.


actually under new SAE standards it was shown that Japanese manufacturers overrated every car tested and domestic manufactuers underrated most cars tested.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by BlueFrenzy


Most races in NA are in straight line? What coked up races are you watching? NASCAR, Indy, Rally, etc races are all straight line? Even inbred hicks in the deep south watching NASCAR know better.

The "straightline races" you talk about are likely illegal road races that lead to deaths like the one recently in Toronto or that kid here in Calgary in an RSX who crashed his car racing and killed his passenger grandma.


Heavy D, you apparently don't know anything about your own car other than what the brochure says. As you say and I quote, "no documented issues for the SRT-4" ... ok guy. Take a look and take your car in.
http://www.alldata.com/TSB/16/031686fi.html

You also obviously don't speak with other SRT4 owners .. because on the SRTforum, there are a heck of a lot of people complaining of engine misfires, boost leaks, overboost/vacuum leaks, throttle sticking problem, etc. But hey, as long as your car is ok, it's all good.

Your comment on the rx8 being "plagued" with problems is based on outdated information (3 year old info when the car JUST hit the shores). Rotary engines by design consume more oil.. that's a given. Can't afford oil ... ride a bike. HP overrated? Every manufacturer does that (Only by 5-7HP, depending on where you are). CELs? which one ... every car has CELs. It's there for your protection.

Every car has people bitching about it ... does that make it the norm ... no. A790 did a good job on reviewing the car ... why are you ripping into his review like this? I think his next review is on a Honda Civic SI ... that's going to suck too right? You really got to relax on your quest to prove that every car sucks but yours.

And how many of these races are you or people like us participating in? 1 maybe 2% of us. If that. I said most of the races here are straight line, light to light. I have never attended the Illegal street races. I have, however gone to Race City almost every weekend last summer and raced, where there were about 100 + cars every time doing the drag and maybe 10-20 (if that) doing the auto cross.

So unless we're couting out Initial D or similar playing skills majority of the races in Calgary ARE in a straight line...

[heavyD]

Originally posted by BlueFrenzy



You also obviously don't speak with other SRT4 owners .. because on the SRTforum, there are a heck of a lot of people complaining of engine misfires, boost leaks, overboost/vacuum leaks, throttle sticking problem, etc. But hey, as long as your car is ok, it's all good.



I'm a member (heavyD) at srtforums.com and am fairly surprised about how few problems there are with the cars. All turbocharged cars can suffer fom boost leaks especially modded. Misfires are due to spark plug wires close proximity to the turbo. Buying a decent set of maganecors alleviates that problem. Throttle sticking? All of those are minor nuances and practically every SRT-4 on that site is modded and boost increased and most by young kids that don't even know what they are doing.

[JCX]

I'm not reading this whole thread, but to the original poster who sounds like he reprinted a Mazda brochure I have some questions :

- Commentary on oil useage?
- Commentary on V-8 gas mileage?
- Commentary on owners having to get their cars flatbedded to dealers to unflood them?

I suppose one could love any car on a 15 minute test drive.

Personally I don't hate them, but seeing an RX-8 getting straight torn up by a Forester XT from a roll has kind of knocked them down a few rungs for me. No doubt it's a good handling, failry luxurious automobile. It's just not quick by 2005 standards.

[JCX]

Originally posted by BlueFrenzy


You also obviously don't speak with other SRT4 owners .. because on the SRTforum, there are a heck of a lot of people complaining of engine misfires, boost leaks, overboost/vacuum leaks, throttle sticking problem, etc. But hey, as long as your car is ok, it's all good.

You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. I personally own an SRT-4 and know at least a dozen owners. These cars are very much overbuilt and the "common problems" of misfires and boost leaks are pretty much maintenance issues on turbo cars. Pretty simple that when my intake system is pressurized at 20psi that I have to make sure everything is good and tight. Under the same conditions plugs tend to wear out. Overboost is due to guys fucking with their wastegate actuator. That is an owner problem, not a car problem. Throttle sticking is 100% bullshit on your part. There is a known issue with the throttle position sensor where the wires are too short and with engine movement can stretch them. In this circumstance the idle can be high and erratic. This happens to some, not all.

Point of fact, most of the SRT-4 owners around here punish their cars almost weekly at the track and they have all proven very reliable.

You can get defensive, but at least keep it truthful when you're doing so.

[Tomaz]

I heard of a few problems from personal friends who own SRT-4's Most of them being boost leaks and throttles sticking. But those got fixed under warrenty. Not terrable cars, but this again is a reveiw thread for MAZDA RX-8... Not SRT-4's

[handsomebassman]

Originally posted by JCX


- Commentary on oil useage?
- Commentary on V-8 gas mileage?
- Commentary on owners having to get their cars flatbedded to dealers to unflood them?



I was going to put some smart ass comment in here, but then i reasearched the rx8's gas mileage, and it is absolutly horrible. I compared the rx8, with its Little little rotary engine, to a 2002 camaro with a 5.7L V8. So, 1.3L vs.5.7.

Believe it or not, the camaro, the heavy gas chugging american powered car, got BETTER fuel economy than the rx8. Here are the results.

2002 Chevrolet Camaro (5.7L V8)

Fuel Economy

Fuel Type
Premium

MPG (city)
19

MPG (highway)
28

MPG (combined)
22

Fuel Economics

Cost to Drive 25 Miles
$2.83

Fuel to Drive 25 Miles
1.14 gal

Annual Fuel Cost
$1699


~~~2004 Mazda RX-8 (1.3L rotary)

Find a Car

2004 Mazda RX-8

Fuel Economy

Fuel Type
Premium

MPG (city)
18

MPG (highway)
24

MPG (combined)
20

Fuel Economics

Cost to Drive 25 Miles
$3.11

Fuel to Drive 25 Miles
1.25 gal

Cost of a Fill-up
$35.63

Miles on a Tank
286 miles

Tank Size
15.9 gal

Annual Fuel Cost
$1868


I am actually really amazed with this comparison. The gas mileage on that mazda is absolutly horrible. And i really really liked that car.



all information taken from http://www.fueleconomy.gov

[JCX]

Originally posted by handsomebassman


I was going to put some smart ass comment in here, but then i reasearched the rx8's gas mileage, and it is absolutly horrible.

Ah yes research, helps insure you never have to say "I'm sorry". ;)

BTW, I think part of the reason rotaries have (and likely will) never be produced en masse is because by their very nature they aren't real clean and use a lot of fuel.

[handsomebassman]

^^^hah, you got it.

[khtm]

Originally posted by handsomebassman


I was going to put some smart ass comment in here, but then i reasearched the rx8's gas mileage, and it is absolutly horrible. I compared the rx8, with its Little little rotary engine, to a 2002 camaro with a 5.7L V8. So, 1.3L vs.5.7.

Believe it or not, the camaro, the heavy gas chugging american powered car, got BETTER fuel economy than the rx8. Here are the results.

FYI: The G35C gets pretty much the exact same gas mileage as an RX-8. They both seat 4, but the G35C is about $14000 CDN more expensive, and a bit faster 0-60 but lacks in the handling department (mostly due to its weight advantage). Most reviews that I've read give the nod to the RX-8.

I rarely see people bash the G but the 8 gets bashed all the time. Why's that?

Also, I forget which magazine but the RX-8 was given one of the lowest "True Costs of Ownership" in its class recently. Even though it may suck a little more gas, it requires less maintenance than a lot of other cars (from this article). It also takes insurance into consideration, and the RX-8 is usually cheaper than even the Mazda 6. I forget what other factors are involved in this calculation.

The rotary engine has a lot less moving parts than its piston counterpart (in the order of 3:60 or something...someone correct me if I'm wrong). You don't have to look much further than the "24 Hours of Le Mans" to see that it has reliability potential. And time will tell how long the unboosted Renesis will last.

[handsomebassman]

Originally posted by khtm

FYI: The G35C gets pretty much the exact same gas mileage as an RX-8. They both seat 4, but the G35C is about $14000 CDN more expensive, and a bit faster 0-60 but lacks in the handling department (mostly due to its weight advantage). Most reviews that I've read give the nod to the RX-8.

I rarely see people bash the G but the 8 gets bashed all the time. Why's that?

Well, as a previous owner of a g35 (s), i can say that the gas mileage was great for an engine its size on long trips, but in city is brutal, especially if you have a slightly heavy foot. BUT when comparing its fuel economy to the rx8's, two things come to mind. First, The infiniti's 3.5L engine is much more powerful, and almost 3 times the displacement of the rx8 engine, and on TOP of that, gets better fuel economy, supported by this graph


2003 G35~

Fuel Type
Premium

MPG (city)
20

MPG (highway)
27

MPG (combined)
22

Fuel Economics

Cost to Drive 25 Miles
$2.83

Fuel to Drive 25 Miles
1.14 gal

Annual Fuel Cost
$1699

On top of the much larger engine, more torque, more HP, better handling, betterlooks, AND better gas mileage, it is also much more of a luxury vehicle, being that mazda isnt the luxury company that infiniti is. Hence the extra chunk on the price tag.

[khtm]

Originally posted by handsomebassman


Well, as a previous owner of a g35 (s), i can say that the gas mileage was great for an engine its size on long trips, but in city is brutal, especially if you have a slightly heavy foot. BUT when comparing its fuel economy to the rx8's, two things come to mind. First, The infiniti's 3.5L engine is much more powerful, and almost 3 times the displacement of the rx8 engine, and on TOP of that, gets better fuel economy, supported by this graph


2003 G35~

Fuel Type
Premium

MPG (city)
20

MPG (highway)
27

MPG (combined)
22

Fuel Economics

Cost to Drive 25 Miles
$2.83

Fuel to Drive 25 Miles
1.14 gal

Annual Fuel Cost
$1699

On top of the much larger engine, more torque, more HP, better handling, betterlooks, AND better gas mileage, it is also much more of a luxury vehicle, being that mazda isnt the luxury company that infiniti is. Hence the extra chunk on the price tag.
Yeah the 2003 G35 was out before the RX-8's first year. I'm referring to the newer models that have higher HP and suck more gas. Almost every review I've read puts them about neck and neck with the 8. My buddy has a 2005 and has gotten as low as 16mpg in the city.

So "better gas mileage" is negligable at best. EDIT: just checked MSN and it says 19/25 to 18/24 for G to 8. So yeah...pretty damn close.

"Bigger engine"? That's an odd thing to brag about considering you're comparing a rotary to a piston. Maybe the small difference in 0-60 times are a better gauge. I hope I'm not being optomistic in calling it a driver's race, but of course you'd have to do high rev drops in the 8 to keep up and the clutch would be toast after a few runs. :thumbsup:

And where the heck do you get "better handling" from? Car and Driver and Road and Track both reviewed these 2 cars and the RX-8 won both times. Beat the G at slalom and on the skidpad both times. Heck think about it...with ~500 extra pounds the G is bloated. Around an autocross course (good test of handling), it wouldn't be close. It's close with the 350Z, not the G, sorry.

Better looks? Highly subjective so that's a useless comment.

What about the old grandpa clock in the G? Or the fact that you can only fit a midget in the back because of the severe lack of head room?