Sounds like they still appreciate it for what it is; but with so many high-horsepower cars I'm sure they wouldn't mind a twin-turbo in the next RX!


2009 Mazda RX-8 R3 - Short Take Road Test

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/mazda_mania/2009_mazda_rx_8_r3_short_take_road_test/2009_mazda_rx_8_r3/mazrx8_r3_09_18/1748375-1-eng-US/mazrx8_r3_09_18_gallery_image_large.jpg

New sports coupes arrive like summer lightning and depart like uneaten guacamole: ignored, slowly fading to brown, awaiting the inevitable flush. The six-year-old Mazda RX-8 languishes through 2008 with sales the Hubble telescope wouldn’t register: just 2591 units through the end of August.

Mazda isn’t giving up, however. The Hiroshima headquarters considers rotary engines integral to its identity, so the RX-8 stays, a place keeper for a future all-new rotary engine currently code-named “16X” and due perhaps by 2012.

Meanwhile, the RX-8 gets a little stir to keep it green. Most obvious is the new front bumper that flares the grille and brake-duct openings for a more dangerous, grinning-cobra menace. Four glassy robot eyes now fill the taillight teardrops, the exhaust tips are bigger, and fresh wheel designs adorn the various trim levels.



http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/mazda_mania/2009_mazda_rx_8_r3_short_take_road_test

numbers are slower....17.7 to 100....my car takes like just under 16...wtf

I wish they had a red R3 available when I went to get mine.. oh well :(

and their 0-60 was 6.7....yuck

I notice they list the weight as 3,110 pounds. Did they actually weigh a R3 and it proved to be that much?

^^ i read 3060... so which is it?

either way, the new one is more flubby. but that extra 20lbs and lower #s hardly does the R3 any justice... the looks on that car is awesome. its growing on me.

the higher mouth entrance on the front end looks easier to modify assuming the vfad is in the same place...

Instead of reducing the weight of the RX-8 they ADDED more to it!

But its not Mazdas' fault, its the customers who want their cars to be "fully loaded"

Sorry, the 3,110 is from Road & Track. The 3,060 is from Car and Driver. For ostensibly the same car, that's a big difference.

i just got to sit in one at san antonio dealership...i love those recaros and those wheels

Sorry, the 3,110 is from Road & Track. The 3,060 is from Car and Driver. For ostensibly the same car, that's a big difference.

...and notice Road & Track got quicker acceleration numbers and higher top speed in this month's Road Test Update.

It's likely they're testing a very green engine. Car & Driver had times nearly as bad with their long term 8 when new, and at 30000 miles they did the usual 5.9/14.5 times.

Surprised the new gear ratios didn't help, particularly with the trap speeds.

so who is lying :) road and track or car and driver

so who is lying :) road and track or car and driver

I think 9291150 explained it best. The rotary engine needs some mileage on it to make it perform better.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the wheels yet. 19" rims can't do much to improve acceleration times.

According to a couple of tests I've read on the '09, an additional shift is required before 60 mph is hit with the different gear ratios so this explains a slower 0-60. Anyone with an '09 verify this?

I can hit 60mph in 2nd gear easy, I think the highest I can go in 2nd is just about 70mph, but I know I can do 60mph at least

first gens hit 67 in 2nd gear...

Can't see why it would drop off to below 60 then if the first gen hit 67 in second.

bc of diff gearing....4.77 vs 4.44...but i was thinking it would hit 61 or 62 at least......but thats only on the r3...not the touring, gt,or sport.....so someone with an r3 needs to chime in...or make a vid or somethin

first gens hit 67 in 2nd gear...

Yeah I was gonna say like 67-68 for mine.

The low-torque RX-8 was always tricky to get rolling without a stall. A shorter rear-end ratio in all 2009s—4.78:1 versus 4.44—means less revving and clutch slip in everyday driving. However, the second-to-third shift is now perilously close to 60 mph, which likely slowed the acceleration runs (6.7 seconds to 60 mph versus 6.5).

C and D just says this which I guess depends on how long you hold the rev - I'm sure they take it to redline but probably not to fuel cut as they are doing a full acceleration run - not just to 60 and quit.

I started another thread earlier that has the braking much longer.
It has numbers of a sedan.

I think 9291150 explained it best. The rotary engine needs some mileage on it to make it perform better.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the wheels yet. 19" rims can't do much to improve acceleration times.

I thought someone had mentioned in another post that the new 19" wheels are actually lighter than the stock 18's on the '04-08s.

FWIW, years ago when Best Motoring released the Factory Fighters dvd, they tested the Mazdaspeed RX-8 against the standard model. The MS came with the full coilover suspension, body kit and 4.77 rear end.

In their 0-60mph and 1/4 mile testing they found the standard model (w/ 4.44 gears) to be faster -- I think they said the 4.77 geared RX-8 wasn't in the strongest part of its powerband for very long, before an upshift was needed.

So it sounds like the new gen has a better engine setup in terms of reliability, but with the 4.78 rear end doesn't help things any. Someone refresh my memory, what was the ratio with the FEED gear?

Well I just tried it out again, 8k gets you to 57mph, 9k gets you to 62mph,10k and fuel cutoff gets you to 66mph

R3's are so nice :)

also keep in mind, rotaries get faster w/ age

Im proud to say that I was holdin up our cars, and rotarys for that matter, within the user reviews area near the bottom of that link. Under the alias JunEJ25T