I've always been a supporter and fan of Consumer Reports, but they've disappointed me this time. And pleased me at the same time. I think it's a boon to Mazda that they have a yellow 6 on the cover and they speak of it highly in what is the first article in this issue about current cars (they have letters to ed and a brief synopsis of their 50 years of testing before it). One thing I found interesting is they said the 6 has a 41ft turning circle yet Mazda's website says the RX-8 has one of 17.4'. Anyway, back to the RX-8.

CR [page 64] said it is "a sporty coupe that is inteded as a successor to the uncompromising RX-7, which was retired in 1995" - no, not my typo -they made fun of an ad on the inside cover that is apparently taken from a coupon booklet type of thing where the resulting ad spelled ultraviolet as "ULTRA-VIOLENT" sunscreen - and yet can't spell "intended" correctly. They don't seem to know which tranny is standard much less the engine. They go on to say it is a "four-seater GT (Gran Tourismo)". They list air bags as side for front but failed to mention rear. Listed as 'standard' are both traction and stability control - maybe in Canada but not here in the US-only optional!
Later in "Facts and Figures"[page 82] they listed the weight as 2600 lbs, yet have all cargo and interior dimensions as "NA" even though those have been out for months now - yet the weight has not and has always been showing up between 2800 and just over 3000. Where do they get these figures??

I noticed the inconsistencies as well......and like you, have been an avid reader of Consumer Reports for years.

They also missed the boat in the section that talks about the new 2004 models coming out. No mention anywhere of the RX-8 !

Certainly looks like they did not do any last minute homework before publishing specifics (or lack thereof). :mad:

and how many times does mazda have to say that this car is not the succesor to the rx-7. i read it last night also when i went to the store looking for the new automobile. i noticed that turning circle thing it's got to be some kind of typo. and to leave the rx-8 out of the new for 2004 section wa ridiculous. that's where it should have been in the first place instead of the earlie section since they did not have up to date info. may be they are always like this and it is because i am so aware of things about the 8 and the 6 that i am noticing?

Mazda's site lists turning radius so double the 17' to 34'.

why dont u guys email them