I am about to buy a new car and am considering the RX8. I have a Miata now and want to upgrade to something a little larger but still sporty and nimble. I have looked at and read about the RX8 but the rotary engine still worries me. Can someone answer this question for me: if the rotary engine truly is efficient and reliable, then why do none of the other major car manufacturers also use one? Does Mazda have the patent or have they just decided the piston engine is the most reliable?

I went to the dealership today and saw a gorgeous 2004 RX8. My first thought: why did the buyer sell it? Were there performance problems?

I have done some research but so far haven't found anything about the reliability of the rotary engine or the RX8.

3 moving parts in a rotary > 40+ in a piston

With less moving parts it is reliable. If you are looking for a striaght line performer dont get the 8. I love the 8 going around turns and bends, even with the factory suspension it sticks to the road.

A rotary is unreliable when you don't take care of it. That's no different than any other engine. The thing that gives it a bad rep is the fact that alot of RX-7 owners will take and boost their engines to stratospheric heights and then poorly tune them and blow them up. We see it all the time. This engine isn't tolerant of detonation under boost. The 3rd gen RX-7 also had cooling flaws which led to engine overheating and failures. The engine itself is extremely reliable. People cause problems. The engine doesn't. Then you have dumb people at magazines such as Sport compact Car and others who wouln't know a rotary engine from a pinwheel and they do nothing but give it a bad name. The new Renesis won engine of the year 2 years in a row. It's a great engine that loves to rev. There are quirks to a rotary but you must understnd those when you get one. They do use a very small amount of oil to lubricate the internal seals. This means you will need to periodically add some oil but don't think this means that it will just suck it down. You should also let the engine fully warm up before shutting it down to avaoid flooding. It doesn't get the best gas mileage for it's size but it is very smooth. These things are just minor. I love rotaries and will always own one.

The reason Mazda is the only company using one extends back to the early 70's. Back then nearly every manufacturer was excited about the rotary and it's potential and that was back when it actually was unreliable. There were 2 different rotary powered Corvette concepts. Mercedes, Rolls Royce, and almost every other manufacturer was playing with it. Then came the gas crises back then and tighter emissions regulations. At the time the rotary couldn't meet them and was decently fuel hungry so most manufacturers abandoned the rotary. Only Mazda kept it alive and continued to develop it. The rotary today is light years ahead of where it was in the 70's. It is a much cleaner and more efficent engine. Image what it could be like today if everyone had worked all this time to improve it.

I think it took Mazda a while to get the apex seals right, something that may have scared off a lot the early adopters. That, plus you're getting poor mileage despite the engine size. Then there's little things like an increased chance of flooding, the oil consumption... who'd want to sell an econobox that requires you to add oil every couple of fillups? (Rotary's oil consumption used to be much bigger than the RX-8's).

So why throw money at the undeveloped rotary, when you can throw money at existing 4-cyl designs that you know will sell well? Perhaps that's the line of thinking taken by most manufacturers.

right now i am getting 21-21 mpg

Put it this way, it was common for a FC3S (Second Gen RX-7) non-turbo to last at least 200k miles. The reason why the apex seals blew up so often on other rotarys was cuz of the turbo and extremely high compression.
And besides, rotarys sound so much cooler than a typical engine.

The engine makes the car. Love the engine, love the car. Afraid of the engine? Don't buy the car.

Very simple.

And there's nothing to be afraid of whatsover.

Just test drive one and rev it to, say 8,500, in each of the first three gears.

You'll buy it. ;) :D

I heard all these thigns about the rotary before I bought my 1st RX7.

1) Short engine life
2) Flooding
3) Bad emissions

Here's what I found out when I pulled hundreds of articles fromt eh library:

1) My first RX-7 got 173k then was wrecked. My second got 160k then was wrecked. My third got 255k then stolen and driven into a lake. Never had to replace a timing belt, get a valve job or deal with engine clacking and ticking. They all three ran the last day fo their lives like the first day they were made.

2) Never had a flooding problem in a rotary. Been in 0 F weather to 130 F in Arizona.

3) Not a single article with substantiated bad emissions data ( And dont say my friends 1979 didnt pass last year cause that's just too old. Hell my friends '94 Aspire with 135k miles was a gross polluter). All articles I ever found were based on here say. I did find about half a dozen articles praising the rotary from the state of Ca due to almost non exhistent nitrogen emissions (what actually kills the ozone). The only problems are hydrocarbons and they are only a problem if the cars not kept up. I have never had a problem with emissions on my RX7. I've had more problem with my stupid piston engine based cars in the family. I challenge any one to produce an official article showing that rotaries are statistically worse at emissions. As a matter of fact, the state of Ca has a list of the worst offending cars of all tme and you know what, rotaries aren't a single one.

The 350Z and RX-8 score identical in emissions (FYI)

Before I bought my first rotary every one I knew said they were crap. Even my uncle that worked in the automotive repair business said they were crap. I went down and read every study in the library. Not a single piece of statistical trended data showing they were bad enignes. Just the opposite. So I bought one and never regretted it.

No one else makes them because GM spent a lot of money on negative ad campaining during the 70's. I have the original popular science mag that shows a picture of the GM rotary on the cover. It only had 1 spark plug per cyclinder. It never worked, the year after, every article I found on microfiche from GM blasted the rotary as unreliable and polluting.The truth is, Mazda spent 4 years and 25 million dollars to develop the first engine. They patented it. Wankle came from Germany to help build the engine. He came up with the idea in the 30's. The Nazi's imprisoned him for a few years for refusing to design weapons until he gave in and worked on war machines. He was responsible for numerous inventions, one of them being the engines for the famous He111 bomber. He was unable to make the rotary work in the 30's because of material limitations. Then, along comes teflon and Mazda snatched it up.

The Mazda rotary engine was the first Japanese powered car to win the 24 hours of LeMans. Nissan put every piston car (7 if ai remember) they had into the race and only 3 finished (only 1 in top 10). All of Mazda's cars finished (4 I believe ) and 3 placed in the top ten.

The turbo rotaries did suck in reliability. To be fair all turbos really suck. In general stay away from turbos unless its a Mercedes diesel turbo. Turbo <> reliability. There are always esceptions but most of the people I know that bought them and drove them hard paid a price with an early 50k to 75k mile engine death.

I recommned you buy one. You get 50k miles to see if you like it. if not, trade it in when the warranties up. How can you loose?

^bravo

Ah yes, I remember my first test drive. There was the unforgettable looks I got from other guys at the redlight........before I had even BEGUN to try the thing out. Then I asked the salesman "so do you care if I get on it?" and he gladly replied "nope" so I wore the thing out. I loved hearing it beep as I stayed on the pedal all the way to 9K.....as if it were saying "hey now! don't have TOO much fun!". Seriously....a killer looking car with an engine so unique........how can you NOT want to buy one???????

P.S. I guarantee you it'd be more maintenance free than your dog!
(I hope he has a dog)

There's a small book on the Wankel that I read a while back, and this is what I remember. In the 70s when the American companies had their rotary experiments, most of them payed Mazda for the rights to work on the design, and they had the option of paying more to get the rights to all the research that Mazda had at the time.

GM cheaped out and didn't buy the full license, figuring that they would figure it out. Then they wasted a lot of time testing ideas that Mazda had already figured out didn't work, especially with the internal seals. Eventually they gave up. The other thing was that the other American manufacterers were sort of waiting to see if GM would adopt it. If GM had bought the full patent rights from Mazda, maybe things would have been very different for the rotary.

The engine is very smooth at high revs. It is a fun car. But, this engine is anything but efficient. I get between 12 and 15 mpg.

I heard all these thigns about the rotary before I bought my 1st RX7.

1) Short engine life
2) Flooding
3) Bad emissions

Here's what I found out when I pulled hundreds of articles fromt eh library:

1) My first RX-7 got 173k then was wrecked. My second got 160k then was wrecked. My third got 255k then stolen and driven into a lake. Never had to replace a timing belt, get a valve job or deal with engine clacking and ticking. They all three ran the last day fo their lives like the first day they were made.

2) Never had a flooding problem in a rotary. Been in 0 F weather to 130 F in Arizona.

3) Not a single article with substantiated bad emissions data ( And dont say my friends 1979 didnt pass last year cause that's just too old. Hell my friends '94 Aspire with 135k miles was a gross polluter). All articles I ever found were based on here say. I did find about half a dozen articles praising the rotary from the state of Ca due to almost non exhistent nitrogen emissions (what actually kills the ozone). The only problems are hydrocarbons and they are only a problem if the cars not kept up. I have never had a problem with emissions on my RX7. I've had more problem with my stupid piston engine based cars in the family. I challenge any one to produce an official article showing that rotaries are statistically worse at emissions. As a matter of fact, the state of Ca has a list of the worst offending cars of all tme and you know what, rotaries aren't a single one.

The 350Z and RX-8 score identical in emissions (FYI)

Before I bought my first rotary every one I knew said they were crap. Even my uncle that worked in the automotive repair business said they were crap. I went down and read every study in the library. Not a single piece of statistical trended data showing they were bad enignes. Just the opposite. So I bought one and never regretted it.

No one else makes them because GM spent a lot of money on negative ad campaining during the 70's. I have the original popular science mag that shows a picture of the GM rotary on the cover. It only had 1 spark plug per cyclinder. It never worked, the year after, every article I found on microfiche from GM blasted the rotary as unreliable and polluting.The truth is, Mazda spent 4 years and 25 million dollars to develop the first engine. They patented it. Wankle came from Germany to help build the engine. He came up with the idea in the 30's. The Nazi's imprisoned him for a few years for refusing to design weapons until he gave in and worked on war machines. He was responsible for numerous inventions, one of them being the engines for the famous He111 bomber. He was unable to make the rotary work in the 30's because of material limitations. Then, along comes teflon and Mazda snatched it up.

The Mazda rotary engine was the first Japanese powered car to win the 24 hours of LeMans. Nissan put every piston car (7 if ai remember) they had into the race and only 3 finished (only 1 in top 10). All of Mazda's cars finished (4 I believe ) and 3 placed in the top ten.

The turbo rotaries did suck in reliability. To be fair all turbos really suck. In general stay away from turbos unless its a Mercedes diesel turbo. Turbo <> reliability. There are always esceptions but most of the people I know that bought them and drove them hard paid a price with an early 50k to 75k mile engine death.

I recommned you buy one. You get 50k miles to see if you like it. if not, trade it in when the warranties up. How can you loose?

That speech should be sticky! Great job.

^ Bravo again!

Rotaries are truly impressive. I currently own a 1990 RX-7 (FC3S) and she is at 166k and running as smoothly as ever. As long as you keep your rotary N/A, reliability is a non-issue. I have been told, however, that i should redline the car once a day :eek: to keep the carbon out. I dunno about you but i don't find that hard to remember :D

before i bought my 8, i must've researched about 20-25 different cars. everything from suv's to the s2000. the first time i saw the 8 on mazda's website in dec. 02/jan. 03, i knew that this was the car i was going to buy. prior to that, my only knowledge of rotaries was that one of my coworkers at the time had a 2nd gen rx-7 and he it flooded...all the time.

i preordered my 8 in april 04 not even having sat in a rotary powered vehicle. but man, the first time i turned the key and the engine kicked in, it was all over. the first 3 months i drove around with the stereo off, just so i could enjoy the engine note! since then, i've done all the routine oil changes and maintenance and have not experienced any of the maladies that others may have described on this forum. as far as rotaries having problems, i can't think of any engine that hasn't had their fair share. so i guess just go with what you're most comfortable with and enjoy it, i do!

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine9.htm

around the third paragraph, it states that the rotary is a more reliable engine. also looking at the engine and the way it works is truly beautiful. you should read the article, its pretty good reading, and i learned a lot from it.

The engine makes the car. Love the engine, love the car. Afraid of the engine? Don't buy the car.

Very simple.

And there's nothing to be afraid of whatsover.


How very true. Please don't buy an RX car just because it looks beautiful or because it's a practical sports car or whatever. Buy it with an understanding and love of what truly gives birth to an RX car...the Rotary Engine.


The wonderful thing about Mazda is that it's a company truely run by it's engineers. In the 70s the rotary engineering team (47 samuris) litterly had the helm of the company, one went on to run the company.

They show up to work with the 1 goal of innovating, being different, and in the end they want to guarantee that you and I will love our vehicles. This isn't a Honda, or a Chevy. The men that built these cars have dedicated their lives to building these cars, and you can feel it when you drive them, sit in them, look at them, and touch the interior. The engines are hand built, by a single technician. After he's done he signs his name to the tag that attaches to the engine before installation.

There's something you can't describe in words about Mazda cars, especially the Japanese built cars like ours.


I'm so glad to see somebody else out there that truly understands Mazda. I totally understand your sentiment. The spirit of driving for sheer fun is really embedded in Mazda's cars, and you can really feel it when driving them hard.


As for my own rotary love story...Well just last year I picked up an RX-8. It's pretty funny because when I bought the car, I didn't know beans about the rotary engine. I did do some research, knew it ate gas and oil like the Cookie Monster devours cookies, knew it had some problems with flooding, knew you have to be anal about warming it up. I didn't even test drive it all that much, what mostly convinced me to get the car was when the salesman drove me around a circular carousel, which exerted some pretty insane g's on the passenger side. I was pretty set on getting a Mazda since I loved all of their car's styling, but that little stunt he pulled totally convinced me to go with the RX-8.

But now...god I love the rotary engine to no end. I love the spirit of aiming higher that you can feel through the engine. And I love Mazda dearly for having the balls to go through with developing this engine that just personifies the spirit of driving. I mean if people asked me what I like most about the car, I'd say without hesitation the engine. Not its looks, not its handling, although I do love these things too. The engine is what makes it all come together though. The incredible balance, the high degree of connection between the driver, the car, and the road...the RX-8 wouldn't even be the way it is without the Renesis to center around. It's so ridiculously fun in how you can rev it high all day long and it doesn't break a sweat. And the sweet little lulling burble at idle, ending in that beautiful roaring scream at redline...yep, I hope to own a rotary powered car for the rest of my life.

I had a friend with a 3rd Gen Twin Turbo that had an overheating problem, and he had sold it.

But that didnt influence my decision at all. I saw how the engine worked at a few sites like howstuffworks, and with that few moving parts, theres no way it cant be as or more reliable.

That and I had heard it said by many people that Mazda makes the best suspension (stock) hands down.

And it looks sweet. My wife gets all pissed when the girls look over, she just glares back at em =)

I am about to buy a new car and am considering the RX8. I have a Miata now and want to upgrade to something a little larger but still sporty and nimble. I have looked at and read about the RX8 but the rotary engine still worries me. Can someone answer this question for me: if the rotary engine truly is efficient and reliable, then why do none of the other major car manufacturers also use one? Does Mazda have the patent or have they just decided the piston engine is the most reliable?

I went to the dealership today and saw a gorgeous 2004 RX8. My first thought: why did the buyer sell it? Were there performance problems?

I have done some research but so far haven't found anything about the reliability of the rotary engine or the RX8.
Years ago I had a Triumph Spitfire, which is similar in many respects to the Miata (or, the Miata was a much-improved Spitfire). ;) The Spit was the funnest car I ever owned... until the RX-8.

Compared to the Miata (or Spit) the RX-8 is a little bigger with a HELL of a lot more power. It is incredibly nimble for its size, and the 50-50 weight balance give it very predictable handling. The back seats really come in handy too.

The thing that's taken me the most getting used to is the extra amount of mid-range torque the engine has.

I think Mazda is aware that people worry about reliability with the rotary engine (which is really unnecessary, as others have posted). Their warranty covers more than most do, which should allay any fears.

HTH

MODS: Make this a sticky and title it: Should I buy an RX-8?

Great thread and I think Ryan13B has captured in a few words what Mazda is all about.

This is my new favorite thread. The discussion makes me proud to be piston-free!

I had a 1999 Miata, base + lsd, and I made the switch to the 2005 RX8 touring a few months ago. My miata was quite modded, esp the handling dept. so its not a fair compare but when the miata stock vs stock, the rx8 really does feel like a bigger miata, same great turnin, good balance, great traction....and all around good car.

its got a lot more room and comfortably seats 4!

With a few mods I know this will feel almost identical to my miata.

While not as nimble as a Miata, and not a convertible, the RX-8 certainly is the best value out there in a four door performance car, which is a great deal of fun to drive on twisty roads, and decently powerful.

The only real complaints I have about our RX-8 are the gas mileage (simply horrible around town--my wife gets 15mpg on the same commute on which she previously got 19mpg on our Honda minivan); fear of flooding (it has never flooded, but we don't take any risk of that, so it means that we can't just move it out of the garage and turn it off); and I don't think that its actual power is very close to what its advertised power is (it is rated at 238bhp vs. 240bhp for our S2000, and RX-8s tend to dyno at about 185rwhp, vs. 210rwhp for my S2000).

But it's a fine car, and a lot of fun to drive.

best thread ever!

Just one note about gas mileage of the rotary:

You do hear a lot of gnashing of teeth about mileage. But the key datum that I picked up from reading this site is that when you compare a rotary to piston engines, you have to compare against a *v-8*. A 4-stroke cylinder fires once every four cycles of the engine. So if you have four cylinders, you get one firing per cycle, and with a v-8 you get two. A rotor, on the other hand, gets one firing *every* cycle of the engine, and the RX-8 has two rotors, which, again comes out to two firings every cycle. So really, it's just not fair to compare mileage against anything less than a v-8, and when you do that, from everything I can gather, the rotary comes in as comparable.

And, of course, this was a major reason people stopped wanting to build rotaries during the gas crisis... they stopped wanting to build v-8's too!

Krankor
05 Shinka 6MT

Just one note about gas mileage of the rotary:

You do hear a lot of gnashing of teeth about mileage. But the key datum that I picked up from reading this site is that when you compare a rotary to piston engines, you have to compare against a *v-8*. A 4-stroke cylinder fires once every four cycles of the engine. So if you have four cylinders, you get one firing per cycle, and with a v-8 you get two. A rotor, on the other hand, gets one firing *every* cycle of the engine, and the RX-8 has two rotors, which, again comes out to two firings every cycle. So really, it's just not fair to compare mileage against anything less than a v-8, and when you do that, from everything I can gather, the rotary comes in as comparable.

And, of course, this was a major reason people stopped wanting to build rotaries during the gas crisis... they stopped wanting to build v-8's too!

Krankor
05 Shinka 6MT

Comparable how, in mileage maybe... But when you consider you'll probably get better mileage with a LS7 equiped vette than with an RX-8 I'd say it's a pretty weak comparison, especially if you're trying to argue for the RX-8. '

Argue that the rotary is light and compact, but beyond that the arguments get shaky. There is a reason why the rotary has a bad reputation, it's very sensitive to heat and also pinging and knocking. Just ask the hundreds of guys that have had their engines replaced in the RX-8 if they think the rotary is reliable... Overall yes it's probably reliable, but if I want something efficient and reliable as my highest priorities the RX-8 isn't anywhere near the top of the list. The RX-8 is still relatively new, but the amount of engines that have been replaced thus far certainly look like a red flag to me...

I've gotten 26mpg on the highway doing the speed limit(65) on cruise.

I've gotten 26mpg on the highway doing the speed limit(65) on cruise.

Your point? There are hundreds of others than get get over 20mpg on the highway. Is someone supposed to buy the car and pray they aren't one of those people that get 15mpg no matter how they drive?

Your point? There are hundreds of others than get get over 20mpg on the highway. Is someone supposed to buy the car and pray they aren't one of those people that get 15mpg no matter how they drive?

I don't have a point but I think that the latest flashes have leaned out the mixture and improved mileage. I have no proof of this but I just thought I'd add my view point.

Anyhow, just providing another perspective. Sweet-tea, if you like the RX-8 I wouldn't let the rotary scare you off unless you need to get good gas mileage, or aren't good at keeping a tight maintenance schedule. Also, you may want to pass if you live in Arizona or Nevada :p

I don't have a point but I think that the latest flashes have leaned out the mixture and improved mileage. I have no proof of this but I just thought I'd add my view point.

Hopefully that's the case, is everyone reporting better mileage with the new flashes? That's one thing I haven't been following since every time a flash comes out it's the latest and greatest thing going, then Mazda creates another one...

I do recomend getting your engine,tranny and diff oil changed after the first 2000 miles of break in.

Hopefully that's the case, is everyone reporting better mileage with the new flashes? That's one thing I haven't been following since every time a flash comes out it's the latest and greatest thing going, then Mazda creates another one...

Mine is an 05 and I have the N flash. I average 18-22 mpg in mixed city and highway. I can live with that. When I drove to florida, I got a consistent 25-26mpg all highway at 3500rpm in 6th

Man this post has really made me feel better about my new 8. I have read a lot of negative on this board that had me contemplating if I made a big mistake in buying this car. I am just glad to see that there are some good things to say about this car as well.

I didn't notice any difference other than throttle response feels better, but that could have been because they reset the ECU.

Anyway's back on topic, no rotor no motor I say.

Hopefully that's the case, is everyone reporting better mileage with the new flashes? That's one thing I haven't been following since every time a flash comes out it's the latest and greatest thing going, then Mazda creates another one...

3500 in 6th is like 65mph??? on the highway!!? I don't even travel that slow on regular streets. That's dangerously slow dude! :(

Mine is an 05 and I have the N flash. I average 18-22 mpg in mixed city and highway. I can live with that. When I drove to florida, I got a consistent 25-26mpg all highway at 3500rpm in 6th

Who remembers:

"No pistons...no problems."?
:D

Just get it man, I was skeptical about it as well since my first choice was a S2000. Now i'm loving it, well except the fuel consumption...

3500 in 6th is like 65mph??? on the highway!!? I don't even travel that slow on regular streets. That's dangerously slow dude! :(

It was at night and raining off and on and I was using cruise control. 65mph was the limit and I kept it within 2 miles from that. In Canada, Speeding is more forgiving but I've had some bad experiences in the states with the highway patrol so I don't take any chances.

Originally Posted by Krankor
Just one note about gas mileage of the rotary:

You do hear a lot of gnashing of teeth about mileage. But the key datum that I picked up from reading this site is that when you compare a rotary to piston engines, you have to compare against a *v-8*. A 4-stroke cylinder fires once every four cycles of the engine. So if you have four cylinders, you get one firing per cycle, and with a v-8 you get two. A rotor, on the other hand, gets one firing *every* cycle of the engine, and the RX-8 has two rotors, which, again comes out to two firings every cycle. So really, it's just not fair to compare mileage against anything less than a v-8, and when you do that, from everything I can gather, the rotary comes in as comparable.

Comparable how, in mileage maybe... But when you consider you'll probably get better mileage with a LS7 equiped vette than with an RX-8 I'd say it's a pretty weak comparison, especially if you're trying to argue for the RX-8. '


Comparable how?? Just which part of "Just one note about gas mileage" didn't you understand?

And since you can't even do better than 'probably' better on a vette, I'd say that's pretty comparable. "Comparable" doesn't mean better, and it doesn't mean the same. It means similar, and I stand by it. A couple mpg one way or the other is noise.

Just one note about gas mileage of the rotary:

You do hear a lot of gnashing of teeth about mileage. But the key datum that I picked up from reading this site is that when you compare a rotary to piston engines, you have to compare against a *v-8*. ...

I think we can discuss what it can be compared to until cows come home (and I think the cows made many roundtrips to home and pasture in many a thread on this forum).

Honestly, I compare horsepower versus mileage, because that's really the only thing that matters. My roommate's WRX STI gets better mileage with more power. Not much better though, and the way he and I drive our cars doesn't help.

Are these the same cars though? Nope, they are different in nature. Does the fact that there's a 2-4 mpg difference really matter, given the fact that both our cars' mileage sucks ass (15+mpg less) compared to Honda Civics? Nope.

So I think the gap between the rotary and the piston engines is narrowing now, but that was only given a lot of R&D by Mazda. Who knows what kind of mileage would rotaries have if only more manufacturers spent time researching and improving the rotary engine? (Or, heck, even if Mazda didn't have its "dark ages" of severly-reduced rotary research)

Comparable how?? Just which part of "Just one note about gas mileage" didn't you understand?

And since you can't even do better than 'probably' better on a vette, I'd say that's pretty comparable. "Comparable" doesn't mean better, and it doesn't mean the same. It means similar, and I stand by it. A couple mpg one way or the other is noise.

Yes they're comparable in mileage, but hardly comparable in horsepower, which is why I said what I did. If I'm going to get V8 mileage, I want V8 power <shrugs>

one piece of advice from a long time rotary owner:

STAY WAY WHILE YOU CAN!!!!!!!

:D


Rotary cars are very reliable it all depends on the owner, you can expect a few little thins from any new car and the RX-8 has had about the same as any new piston engine sports car, in fact my fd is much more reliable than my 1992 eclipse used to be. The problem with the fd was that alot of people started modifing them without really nowing how the engine works and blow a lot of them, when I bouht my fd it was pushing 15 psi without any ecu mod ( bad thing).

you cant comnpare it to a corolla it is not driven the same way, most people that buy a sports car beat the crap out of them.

I made my mind a couple of weeks ago im going all rotary, selling my suv and geting an RX-8 :cool: .

Yes they're comparable in mileage, but hardly comparable in horsepower, which is why I said what I did. If I'm going to get V8 mileage, I want V8 power <shrugs>

Bear in mind that Ike is not an owner, please. If you haven't figured it out yet on your own, Ike owns a WRX not an RX-8, so his opinions will take a different flavor than those of us owners. He's entitled to his opinion, but bear in mind he has never owned one.

On to the topic at hand: You will love the rotary powered car. There is nothing like it in terms of linear power delivery, sound, the endless rush to high-revs (it never seems to run out of breatheing room), the feel, the funky idle sound (sounds like George Jetson's car), the fact that you can talk about how cool it is (it ain't JAFPE [acronym: Just Another F-ing Piston Engine], etc.

Be not afraid of the rotary. Fear not its awesome ability to make you unable to resist its charms. Her call is like the Siren. Her strength is like the Amazon. Her ability to keep on going and going when all others have given up is like Jenna Jameson. [WHOOPS! Where did that come from!]

To add to the question of reliability.....I owned an '83 RX7 ( I named him Rufus )that had 120,000 miles on the ODO before I let it go. It carried me for 12 years without a single problem with the engine. As a matter of fact the older it got, the harder I drove it, and the harder I drove it the better it became. I miss that car. Anyway, I was driving past a used car lot and saw a winning blue '04 with the rotary accent pkg,. appearance pkg., and grand touring pkg...well quite naturally I had to stop and check her out. She was GORGEOUS! She had a black leather int. with blue inserts that matched the exterior paint. You know the two-tone similar the two - toned treatment Mazda offers. Well when I started her up, the engine idle was rough. It wasn't the smoothness that I was used to. I let her idle for a while to see if she would smooth out, but she didn't. What do you think that was all about? Gas maybe? She had 25k miles on her. Uhhmmmm the roughness made me wonder. There was no way I was going to buy it even if it did have a smooth idle because she changed her own gears instead of me doing it for her, and that's a no no in a sportscar.

sounds like a lemon-ish 8, stay away from that one!

I had a 2nd gen RX-7 nonturbo that had 136,000 on the engine when I replaced it with a turbo engine and drivetrain. The engine still ran. It went through alot and still lived. It had been seriously overheated twice. It had been run low on oil after an oil line broke. It even had the ceramic from 2 separate sparkplugs break off and fall through the engine. It still ran and passed emissions. I did pull the engine apart and it did have some damage but it still worked. I redlined that car constantly. I killed 2 transmissions and 3 clutches within the span of 6 months. I couldn't have been much harder to a car and it still ran. Great engine.

If you get into a turbo you might have some different issues. The counter to this is that you might have forced induction and have it detonate just once and it will blow. This just simply means tune it right and don't detonate. Bad tuning with forced induction makes bad things happen. Good tuning doesn't. Nonturbos seem to run forever and many 12A and 13B engines have simply gone long enough to around 250,000 miles that they just wear out.