Height 1340mm
Length 4430mm
Width 1770mm

Front Headroom (without sunroof) 970mm
Front Headroom (with sunroof) 932mm
Rear Headroom (without sunroof) 937mm
Rear Headroom (with sunroof) 927mm

Cargo area length 878mm (rear to seat back)
Cargo area width 1350mm
Cargo area volume 290 litres

Wheel size 18x8JJ
Tyre Size 225/45R18
Spare wheel - None (accessory only)
Puncture repair kit included instead

Safety & Security

Dual front airbags
Side & curtain airbags
TCS
DSC
ABS
LSD
ISOFIX child seat anchorages on rear seats
Alarm with intruder sensor
Imobiliser
Collapsible brake pedal
Front and rear 3pt seatbelts
Remote control cental locking

Engine (High Power)
Renesis rotary
Displacement 654x2
Max Power 231ps @ 8200rpm
Max Torque 211Nm @ 5500rpm
Max Rpm 9000

Power lower to achieve Euro satge 4 emissions.

Transmission (high Power)
6 speed manual
1st 3.760
2nd 2.269
3rd 1.645
4th 1.187
5th 1.000
6th 0.843
Reserve 3.564
Final Gear ratio 4.444
Driven Wheels - Rear

Performance and economy (high power)
Urban 17.9 (15.8)
Extra 31.7 (8.9)
Combined 24.8 (11.4)
CO2 (g/km) 284
Vehicle excise D

Top speed and 0-60 not known at present.

Steering
Rack and pinion with electric power assistance
Turning circle 5.3m

Interior
Leather steering wheel & gear knob
BOSE 6cd & 9 spkrs
Climate control aircon
Power steering
Sports style seats
Electric windows (front)
Ski opening to rear boot
Chrome inner door handles

Exterior features
18" alloys
Xenon headlamps
Rotary design features
Rear lip spoiler

Winning Blue, Lightning Yellow and Nordic Green will not be available until late November 2003
Black and red leather will be available with black from November.



Ok, that's it, it may explain the 0-60est at 6.8 as the power is definately down. Also mentions that insurance groups and performance figures will be communicated to customers week commencing 26/5/03.

My fingers now hurt so look forward to your comments!

Cheers
Oilman

Performance and economy (high power)
Urban 17.9 (15.8)
Extra 31.7 (8.9)
Combined 24.8 (11.4)


Oilman, Did your fingers slip typing the high power consumption figures? :eek:

So wait....

Yanks+Japs get 250hp -
Brits get 231hp ??????

My god - how can we have tighter emissions controls than California ?????

That is dreadful !
If it is electronic limitation - I for one will certainly be looking to swap to JP/US engine managment !

:mad:

Nope, consumption figures typed as listed, must be some conversion of some sort, I don't know.

Cheers
Oilman

This sucks! VERY disappointing indeed.

The () figure will be litres/100km for those oddballs who work in metric....

M.

The figures in brackets are litres/100km - I thought the values in brackets were for the high power and the others low power.
Was there any info on the low power cars?

Have the full specs for Low Power but as most are buying High Power, I didn't bother. If you want it, I'll post, just let me know.

Low Power
Urban 18.7 (15.1)
Extra 34 (8.3)
Combined 26.2 (10.8)

CO2 267
VED Band D

Do you want anything else?

Cheers
Oilman

Originally posted by oilman
Do you want anything else?

Yeah, the car I actually pre-ordered! :mad:

Thanks Oilman,

What is the quoted power for the low power engine is that still 192ps?

Yes I am a cheapskate, buying a low power car :o

Mark

Engine Type (low power)
Renesis rotary
654x2
Max power 192ps @ 7000rpm
Max torque 220Nm @ 5000rpm
Max RPM 7500

Cheapskate or not, this is looking very close to the High Power now due to Euro Stage 4 emissions.

MAZDA UK Quote to their Dealers:

"However 231ps @ 8200rpm is still an outstanding proposition and we can assure you, provides a truly thrilling drive!"

Cheers
Oilman

...although not as thrilling as the 250ps the rest of the known world gets...

:mad:

I'm pretty pi**ed off about 231ps if that true. Whilist acceleration is not the be all and end all, the clio cup, CTR, TT, and others will all out accelerate the RX8. My cars to date include two TT225, 200sx and a clio 172, cupra r type all of which are near as dammitt the same or faster acceleration. Combined with the poor fuel economy i'm having serious second thoughts.

It may be a rotary engine, but has poor torque and poor economy at the end of the day, can't see its advantages apart from its smoother when its thrashed than eg a r type. Orignally i heard a quoted 5.9 sec 0-60 and now its a second slower and not much faster than a mondeo 220 etc with a proper four doors.

Don't get me wrong i do like the mazda rx8 but it's appeal seems to be depreciating, the more i read about the uk version

Which are faster ? Pretty sure it is only the 200sx.....(and then only if it is the 2dr later shape)

Other than that - some good points.
I think we are all pretty disappointed - but it will not stop me.

Car still looks stunning , Still has all the features I love and is a few tenths off what I hoped for. I can live with that.

M.

Long term test for type R = 6.4
ClioCup 6.6 i think ?
Audi Tt 225 - 6.1

From memory via Autocar, not sure of cupra less than 7 though it think.

The rx8 does look great, especially the front , rear reminds me of a puma, or mazda6, side is the worse imho, rear window lines don't flow smoothly.

I did think of 350z originally but dimissed it as too impractical due to only 2 seats and the strut brace in the boot. However that was on the assumption that the rx8 was only .5 second slower now its nearly 1.5 and slower than a lot of others. Not so sure now

I read the spec of the rx7, the original brochure, and it specifically mentions the addition of the turbos to offset the low torque of the rotary engine, strange that torque is no longer mentioned or mpg in the early advertising.

I sold my TT last year and bought a clio172 sepcifically to cover the interim until the 350z and rx8 were launched. However now considering whether its worth payinging an extra 16k for a car that no faster at the end of the day. perhaps i'll feel different when i see a uk based review on rx8

Ah !
Well if we are talking Mag-test times , as opposed to maufacturers figs we may still have something to look forward to -

For instance - Honda quote for CTR - 6.8. Autocar - 6.4
My IntegraR is 6.7 according to Honda , and Evo make it 6.2 !

Point is , not a flame war on performance figures , but the fact that when we get some 'mag-tests' we may be happier than we are now !
I was expecting S2000 type performance and hopefully we should be close.

Lets hope we are right , and the Mazda figures are as conservative as Hondas are....

M.

Its a shame the bad news overshadows the good news.

We have all been moaning about the lack of information for weeks.

However in the last few days, Mazda seem to have done most of the things we were asking for: :)

Mazda have written to us all
We have been given a nice free book
They have updated the web site
They have published where the car is available to view

On the otherhand, it now seems fact that they have stated:

The car is even further down on power to the US/Jap spec.
Therefore peorformance is further reduced.
It is also going to be 2 months late.

THe other thing to point out is the weight. The book doesnt show the Euro weight, but the US High Power is 1374kg. That is a whole person heavier than the 1300kg originally mentioned.

At 231bhp this gives 168 bhp/ton, whereas 237bhp at 1300kg gives 182bhp ton.

As a comparison that is similar to the difference between an Impreza WRX, and a WRX STi.

If the power is down and the weight is up that would account for the rise to the 6.8 sec time.

There are still numerous things I love about this car and I havent changed my mind yet, but I really hope the performance doesnt become too big an issue for me to overlook.

It is a bit depressing. BUT, I am sure that very little will need to be done to open up those 20 or so bhp to get the power back. It won't take long to see what the difference is between the UK and US models.


-andy-

Just had a further thought on the power output. If the power output is 19bhp down, what does it quote for the torque i thought 165 ( the original figure ?) was low, but does this mean torque will be even less than initial reports ?

At the end of the day performance is n't the be all and end all, but was an important factor when deciding what car to get next. Not wanting to get an EVo or impreza due to lack of style, interior etc, the RX8 seemed a good compromise between style and performance

But I can now envisage clio's, type r's and TT's bulletin boards full of "I thrashed an RX8 today" tales, which would p*** me off on the road, when i've just paid 23k for a "Sportscar". And a 350Z would fly past me.

The original figures i saw were 5.9 but starting off at near 8k revs, the more realistic figure of 5 - 60 rolling start was 7.2 and unless i'm mistaken was on a 250bhp model.

Maybe i'm over worrying on this as there are other great aspects of the car, it's just 6.8 secs sounds slow, when you could probably buy a nearly new hot hatch and a decent rx7 for the same price as a new Rx8

where did the figure 231 pps come from????

Originally posted by sixspeed
It is a bit depressing. BUT, I am sure that very little will need to be done to open up those 20 or so bhp to get the power back. It won't take long to see what the difference is between the UK and US models.-andy-

You're right and my authentic sources confirm it. Does anyone know how this would affect the eventual MOT though? (emissions.)

i don't mind losing power output in the interest of emissions and global natural safekeeping, specifically air! What annoys the hell out of me is that the Americans can get away with it. We lose coz we care more.

Originally posted by ed hall
i don't mind losing power output in the interest of emissions and global natural safekeeping, specifically air! What annoys the hell out of me is that the Americans can get away with it. We lose coz we care more.

That's not the issue, the issue is that Mazda advertised the car as 240bhp instead of 250bhp BECAUSE it would comply with UK emissions controls. That was the car that I put money down on. Now we find out through the back door that they've failed to achieve what they promised (they KNEW in advance what the tests would be) and have slyly decreased the power still further. This is exactly what happened in Australia (check it out) and it's what is technically known as 'a rip-off'. :mad:

We get the same engine with you guys, and Mazda Australia quoted 0-100kph 6.2sec, before they bring the power down to 177kw, they claimed 6sec 0-100kph. But I can tell you Australian RX8 will not have a turning circle of 5.3m:p The car is faster than S2000 according to factory performance figures. Honda claimed 6.4sec for S2000, 7.3 for Integra Type R. 200sx 7.2sec.

I am not pretty sure about the claimed RX8 figure though, since Mazda Australia screwed us big time already. They can just say 6.2 instead of 6.8 so the pre-order customers don't get too upset.

I am pretty sure that the RX8 book figures for 6.8 and the car specs is for pre-production model.

some of the posts have pointed out that the manufacturers times are slower than the tested times. i've always found this to be true when reading through the stats in the back of car mags. it's usually quite easy to spot tested figures in bold next to a similar engined car with manufacturers figures in normal font.

the reason? maybe:
1. insurance - make the product more attractive by lowering the insurance group
2. customer complaints - if the actual car didnt perform at least as well as the claimed figures they'd be trouble.

I hope i'm right - nearly 7 seconds doesnt see an MGF off by much - hardly a performance car!;)

I can assure you all that the 231ps is genuine. Contact yr Dealer!

We will all get a letter from Mazda UK week 26/5 confirming the specs, insurance grouping, performance figures and the "free" pro drive live training.

At least something is happening behind the scenes!

Cheers
Oilman

From the RX-8 book:

US Car 0-60 mph in 6.6
UK Car 0-100kph (62mph) in 6.8

0.2 sec extra to do 2mph seems reasonable.

We also know the US car will do 5.9/6.0, so maybe the press test times will be better for the UK car.

I havent looked at the gearing, but it will also depend whether or not this is attainable in 2nd or 3rd, as the extra gear change looses a little time.

However, the UK 0-60 time of 6.8 is based upon 240ps, not the reduced 231ps shown, so maybe the official time may end up being 7+ :(

Also just to point out that 231ps is equivalent to 228bhp (227.8 to be precise), which is now 19bhp down on the US car.

I am off to see my dealer today...as well as test drive an s2000 later on. If i like it and if what has been said re bhp ans 0-60 times is true then the choice will be an obvious one! surely if the spec Mazda stated no longer exists then this is false advertising!:mad:

Originally posted by M1 RX8
I am off to see my dealer today...as well as test drive an s2000 later on. If i like it and if what has been said re bhp ans 0-60 times is true then the choice will be an obvious one! surely if the spec Mazda stated no longer exists then this is false advertising!:mad:

I feel the same.........this needs Mazda UK to explain

can you post what your dealer said?

will do ccrx-8

will be back late afternoon.....if nothing else at least I will get to let rip to the 9000 rpm red line of the s2000 today...:p

cheers

m1 rx8

Is it really going to be 2 months late?

That suites me just fine if it is, as I've just secured an R32 and picking it up on Friday. It will give me at least 5 months with the car instead of 3.:)

i'm starting to get worried that I might not fit into this car. I'm about 6 foot 1 and have not orderd the sunroof. How does the front headroom figures compare to the 3 series BMW?

ed don't worry too much. i'm 6 2 and have the sunroof. apparently you shouldn't order the sunroof if over 6 foot as it decreases headroom. it'll be tight for you, tighter for me!

How can we be down 19ps on california's emmisions ?

At 240/250ps it looks good ( and 1300kg) but at 'only' 228 bhp and 1375kg its looking much less sporty. Least in comparison to Subaru, focus RS, Audi TT types.

At the moment there is just no good news and with the initial almost 'blind' ordering excitement over we have been nothing but knocked backs. No-knowledge dealers, no info from Mazda UK and now later delivery and lower power etc. I intend to keep my order in but any doubt I initially had (torque & Interior quality) have now been greatly added to. However, I will do the test drive when the dealer cars come in and see but will walk away if the car does not compete with the TTC whose drivers base Mazda are after.

Certainly Mazda have really lost am oppertunity to bring this car in with a bang.

rael

ditto.

I still dont get why were 19ps down on California, surely Euro 4 emissions arnt as strict?

What worrying me is 19ps down, 75kg up and much lower fuel efficiency than what was expected. I'm willing to take a hit at the petrol pump, not on the performance of a sports car...

Originally posted by RobDickinson
I still dont get why were 19ps down on California, surely Euro 4 emissions arnt as strict?

Just been doing a Google search on these Euro-4 standards. I'm not an expert on any of this, but they do seem to be extremely tight. What puzzles me is that they only apply to cars made after 2005/06. If all that is needed is a tweak to the engine management unit then why can't they introduce the change in a couple of years time (they will have to do this anyway to most of their current models, which probably don't pass Euro-4 at the moment). In the meantime we could have the US/Japan spec.

I suspect we are a victim of some Mazda corporate policy aimed at showing how green they are.

In which case 2003/4 cars can be modded to euro 3 and 240/250ps and not worry about MOT's n such?

Shame it may affect the warrenty and insurance.

Anyone have an e-mail address at mazda to ask these sort of questions?

Does anyone know where this extra 75kg has come from too? (or did I miss something that's been posted earlier?)


-andy-

I am sure if the limitation is electronic then there will be plenty of persons willing to make the change for us to get the car back to 250bhp.

If it is physical (in the CAT or something) then there will be a problem (or at least it will be expensive).
Valid point about why are we getting the lower power now instead of a couple of years down the line...

On the subject of weight gain - maybe it's leather motorized seats and sunroofs... both add weight !

M.

Theres a post on the main forums saying 1374 for a GT(?) spec version.

Just remember any mods you do to get extra performance will:

a) Cost you Money
b) Put your insurance up
c) Maybe invalidate your warranty (unless manufacturer approved)

MOTs wont be an issue until the car is 3 years old, but the alleged roadside emissions tests may be.

All that to get the car back to what you were expecting in the first place. :(

To look on the bright side for a moment, maybe this change will knock us down an insurance group? One thing's for sure, group 20 (as earlier rumoured) would now be even more outrageous.

Originally posted by ChrisW
To look on the bright side for a moment, maybe this change will knock us down an insurance group? One thing's for sure, group 20 (as earlier rumoured) would now be even more outrageous.

Yeah, well just to add insult to injury I wouldn't be surprised if it STAYS in group 20 despite the power loss. I can't see 9bhp dropping it out of there.

Well, actually I'm assuming that group 20 was a mistake and that this power decrease will knock us down from say 18 to 17. Frankly, I need at least one piece of good news on running costs to persuade me not to give up on this whole thing.

Look at the groupings for other cars with similar power:

Alfa 156 GTA 250 hp group 18
Golf R32 237 hp group17/18?
Alfa 147 GTA 237 hp group 17
BMW 330Ci 230 hp group 17
Focus RS 220 hp? group 17

Yes I know there is the S2000 at group 20 but that's a 2 seater convertable (I can't think of any other reason for it being that high). In fact a BMW M3 is only group 19 (according to What Car). The RX8's official fuel consumption figures are about the same as the M3's as well.

When the price was announced I thought the RX8 was a performance bargain. Now we may be looking at a car with the performance of a Civic type-R and the running costs of an M3 and probably big depreciation too.

There are plenty of things I like about the RX8 besides the performance and I'd hate to give up on it because there's nothing else out there at the price really catches my imagination in the same way. But having to pay crazy insurance premiums would really be the final straw.