Last night I dreamt I was driving a 2007 Renesis MX-5. I woke up in the morning hopeful...

Would a Renesis MX-5 be a sales success or failure? How would it affect Mazda's sales of the RX-8, good or bad move. I'm sure Mazda entertained this idea, but I assume since the Renesis MX-5 doesn't exist, Mazda already decided it was a bad business decision.

Am I missing something with this logic? In my mind, I think it's a great move for Mazda and would be a sales hit everywhere. Where is the disconnect?

*EDIT: I assume Mazda watches this forum :fingersx: for its market research*

Last night I dreamt I was driving a 2006 Renesis MX-5. I woke up in the morning hopeful...

Would a Renesis MX-5 be a sales success or failure? How would it affect Mazda's sales of the RX-8, good or bad move. I'm sure Mazda entertained this idea, but I assume since the Renesis MX-5 doesn't exist, Mazda already decided it was a bad business decision.

Am I missing something with this logic? In my mind, I think it's a great move for Mazda and would be a sales hit everywhere. Where is the disconnect?

they'd have to call it an RX something.... just a thought

i love the RX8, correction i love MY RX8, but the thought when reading this is... what would it be like to stick a rotary in a Miata? i mean hell the engines in our cars are tiny and crank out a lotta power for their size, why not stick the small engine in a small car and just tear shit up :)

RX-5 easy. :)

According to what I've read on the forum...a lot of posters say that a Renesis powered mx-5 would 'destroy' the competition.


Wouldn't a 2-seater coupe make it a rx7?

Do it, Mazda!

It's funny that the 2006 MX-5 chassis and trans are the same as the RX-8.

I just bought a RB front sway today from a guy who had it on his 2006 MX-5.

Makes me wonder. :naughty:

It would be a huge hit IMO...I would get one FOR SHURE...

Some earlier post said that a RENISIS would not fit into the latest MX-5, I don't believe that as the 4 banger has been move further back toward the bulkhead like the RX-8.

As far as toxin440 concerned about the 13B (RX-8) engine (power), Mazda could easily and for little extra cost turn the 12A into RENISIS Specifications and then drop that into the MX-5, and call it an RX-5, even though that name was used in the 1980's.

Imagine the sound of a purring rotary in a convertible with the top down...almost heaven.

Come on Mazda...

It all sounds great, but I think it would be a hard sell to loyal MX-5 owners. I believer they would really have to get a better gas mileage or they would lose thousands of customers. But the idea sounds good to an 8 lover.

518!

For once im going to do some searching...

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=71501&highlight=rotary+miata
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=5854&highlight=rotary+miata
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=42511&highlight=rotary+miata

Better to see a Kabura based coupe - with a 4 in-line Standard with a Rotary upgrade.

The Miata market is 'mature' IMHO and based on the L4 - although a rotary upgrade would be great for some drivers.

I've seen people writing in magazines like "Car" that the RX8 would be utterly unbeatable if it had a V6 instead of the Renesis; they view the Rotary as the car's primary weakness.

But, I think that for every person who doesn't buy it because of the poor economy and lack of torque (and being realistic, no-one really believes the Rotary is more efficient in terms of real-world applications now, do they? It doesn't matter how much power from how many ccs you get if the overall result is less power/torque for the fuel put in), there's someone that buys it because of the insane geek value, the insane rev limits, or insane smoothness.

I'm a total cargeek. My primary reasons for wanting the RX8 were "it's RWD and in my price range (not much RWD in the UK)". The secondary reasons were "it looks DAMN good from the front 3/4 view, is Japanese and likely to be very well made, amd it has a rotary engine".

But the rotary engine is opening up a new social thing for me that I've missed. I like knowing about cars; I'm terrible at doing smalltalk. The Sera, with dihedral doors, sparks a conversation with most people, the Beetle... well, the most conversation one needs with a Beetle Cabriolet is "Yes, it's very nice" and "I'M NOT GAY".

The Mazda though - that's going to be something else. It sounds different, and anyone asking can be assaulted with a history of the rotary engine, a vague description of how it works (though having looked at the Mazda document, I think I am going to settle for "by SCIENCE" as the quick explanation. Any idiot can understand how a conventional engine works - bang, lever is pushed down, force is applied, things move - but the rotary needs equations and diagrams and things).

The RX8 has HUGE appeal for cargeeks (and even non-car geeks, who can appreciate a geeky technology when they see it but feel reassured by Japanese build quality).

The Miata would be a good limited edition home for the rotary. Perhaps a 50th anniversary of the rotary engine's launch in a Mazda in 2013, in a special edition MX-5 Cosmo, with the bonnet pressing of course carrying the rotary symbol.

But really, can anyone think of a logical reason to put one in? Would you want a Miata with less useable torque and considerably worse fuel economy?

Good post RichardK...
At my age almost half a century, and working for Mazda most of my working life, I have seen the rotary come and go, now more than ever the RX-8 has revived IMO the rotary appeal to a newer generation,here in OZ the youth are wanting anything rotary RX-2/3/4/5/7.
I know the used market for old rotaries has been around for a while but the demand from guys just getting their licence amazes me.
Thats why I think Mazda should offer a cheaper rotary, ie Kabura (RX-3 or 6), or why not a rotary MX-5, they could still have both, like the old days.
I think an MX-5 with the smaller 12A, lighter body, would achieve about 15-20% better fuel figures than the 13B in the heavier RX-8.
There needs to be a comprehensive business plan on the real merits to another rotary model, but I believe there is room for one more, provided its cheaper, lighter and has 2 doors. The US IMO is very hungry for such a car, as there are many guys with the cash for a $19-20K sports car/rotary.
One can only hope.

I'm one of those "mature" (27yrs old) miataphiles, having owned a 92 for 6 years now. (www.cardomain.com/id/jgaskins) I believe many miata enthusiast would love an optional rotary platform. I know I would! I'd give my kidney for one! (Any one at Mazda need a kidney?) I don't know about fitment because in a piston engine, the crank exists the lower section of the engine, but on a rotary, the Eshaft exists center, so the whole centerline of the engine is higher... Just my 2 Cents... And if Mazda is reading this, there is plenty more of my 2 cents that I could spare to purchase an RX Spyder...

They'd call it an MRX-5.

Good post RichardK...
At my age almost half a century, and working for Mazda most of my working life, I have seen the rotary come and go, now more than ever the RX-8 has revived IMO the rotary appeal to a newer generation,here in OZ the youth are wanting anything rotary RX-2/3/4/5/7.
I know the used market for old rotaries has been around for a while but the demand from guys just getting their licence amazes me.
Thats why I think Mazda should offer a cheaper rotary, ie Kabura (RX-3 or 6), or why not a rotary MX-5, they could still have both, like the old days.
I think an MX-5 with the smaller 12A, lighter body, would achieve about 15-20% better fuel figures than the 13B in the heavier RX-8.
There needs to be a comprehensive business plan on the real merits to another rotary model, but I believe there is room for one more, provided its cheaper, lighter and has 2 doors. The US IMO is very hungry for such a car, as there are many guys with the cash for a $19-20K sports car/rotary.
One can only hope.

I think the Miata shouldn't be messed with, personally - though I would LOVE one with a Rotary, the Miata saved Mazda's imagine in many markets; if the RX8 is the Halo car, the Miata is the prophet, missionary and preacher.

However, what I would like to see would be something new from Mazda. The MR2 is dead (at least in the UK). The MG TF is dead. The Smart Roadster is on life support. In fact, if you want a 2 seater 'sports car' which isn't at prestige-car money, you have only a handful of choices now - the BMW Z4 (and then only in the 2.0i form really - the good ones are expensive), the MX-5/Miata, and (heh) the Audi TT. The Elise is fragile and expensive, the Opel/Vauxhall Speedster/VX220 similar.

Obviously the US has more home grown hardware to offer, but really, the Solstice isn't even remotely comparable by all accounts.

What about a mid-engined transverse rotary installation in a 2 seater car. Like a Porsche 914, a targa (rigid body), backbone chassis still, but a very low front emphasizing the RX8's fenders. I can picture it in my head and I wish I could draw well enough to show what I mean.

Or, and I know this is going to be abhorrent to most people here - a Renesis transverse with automatic (meaning the driver doesn't have to worry about the torque so much) in an MPV-type vehicle - utilising the packaging advantages and low weight of the Renesis to give class-leading space, weight and safety (think Mercedes A-class double-floor/engine goes under the car in an accident), V6 performance and economy, but unrivalled refinement and low servicing costs. The economy wouldn't be an issue so much in that market - most V6 MPVs are so utterly awful that the Renesis might even be better.

I think young drivers are going for classics more because new cars are mind-numbingly dull. Most of the Sera owners I know are pretty young.

I just don't think it'll happen. Less TQ and worse MPG I think are the main points. A blown MazdaSpeed piston engine mx5 could be close in terms of performance anyway and will come given the upcoming GXP/Redline GM roadsters. It would be great for RX owners b/c they would be pushing the Renesis thus justifying more R&D on Rotary.

Here's to slim chance!

I voted for success, but I really don't think it would be a success or a failure. I think it would have to be a limited offering, or maybe just even basically a special order option. The Miata is built on the reputation of being all the fun of a British Roadster while still being reliable and no hassle. The public doesn't view the rotary as being no hassle - if anything it is viewed as the direct opposite. To me, that makes a rotary Miata a cotradiction. I can't count how many Miata owners have told me they love the relatively low power because it's enough to have fun with, but not enough to get yourself into any trouble.

^^^I can't count how many would-be Miata owners don't own one because they don't have very much factory HP.


The Mazda though - that's going to be something else. It sounds different, and anyone asking can be assaulted with a history of the rotary engine, a vague description of how it works (though having looked at the Mazda document, I think I am going to settle for "by SCIENCE" as the quick explanation. Any idiot can understand how a conventional engine works - bang, lever is pushed down, force is applied, things move - but the rotary needs equations and diagrams and things).

...

But really, can anyone think of a logical reason to put one in? Would you want a Miata with less useable torque and considerably worse fuel economy?

A) You don't need equations and diagrams. If you're dealing with car guys, tell them the rotor oscillates like the pad of an orbital sander. That would be a better name for the engine, it's not really purely rotary. The orbital engine. Hmmm.

B) Yes, I can think of a logical reason. More horsepower. Like, nearly 70 more. In a slightly more compact and lightweight package. Assuming Mazda (or a decent tuner) could bring the renesis up to 250, that's 10 lbs. per horsepower, which is on par with the Lotus Elise. The somewhat worse MPG will be worth it to some and not to others. That's why you make it the optional upgrade engine. The engine torque doesn't mean anything, horsepower does.

As far as financial success goes, it would really depend on how much it would cost Mazda to build/develop. There's obviously some market for it, but at what cost. It would also help if the renesis variant had less cutsey styling, and/or a hardtop option.

^^^I can't count how many would-be Miata owners don't own one because they don't have very much factory HP.

A) You don't need equations and diagrams. If you're dealing with car guys, tell them the rotor oscillates like the pad of an orbital sander. That would be a better name for the engine, it's not really purely rotary. The orbital engine. Hmmm.

Orbital engine already exists, some thing done by some Australian bods working with Ford if memory serves me.

I'm happy to use "By SCIENCE!" though. It's a joke, kinda. If I'm dealing with car guys I can explain the planetary gear and ratio of rotor cycles to crankshaft revolutions and so forth.

Frankly, I think people who don't buy the Miata "because it doesn't have much factory HP" are completely missing the point and should buy a used Corvette.


B) Yes, I can think of a logical reason. More horsepower. Like, nearly 70 more. In a slightly more compact and lightweight package. Assuming Mazda (or a decent tuner) could bring the renesis up to 250, that's 10 lbs. per horsepower, which is on par with the Lotus Elise. The somewhat worse MPG will be worth it to some and not to others. That's why you make it the optional upgrade engine. The engine torque doesn't mean anything, horsepower does.

I'm sorry, what? Torque doesn't mean anything, horsepower does? What crap. Without torque, you HAVE no horsepower. And where and for how long the largest amount of torque the engine produces makes a huge difference to how the car drives.

More power - sure. I see no reason why a 2.3 transplant wouldn't deliver it, given the number of conventionally engined cars with 2.0 engines producing > 200bhp. Supercharging. I can think of many ways in which the MX5 can have more power without having the interesting, but inefficient, rotary.


As far as financial success goes, it would really depend on how much it would cost Mazda to build/develop. There's obviously some market for it, but at what cost. It would also help if the renesis variant had less cutsey styling, and/or a hardtop option.

I think for it to be profitable, it would have to have the minimum of body changes - a hood with the rotary pressing would be the most I would expect.

The engine torque doesn't mean anything, horsepower does.

how do you figure that?

RX-5 easy. :)
There already was an RX-5:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Mazda_cosmo_sport.jpg/250px-Mazda_cosmo_sport.jpg

According to what I've read on the forum...a lot of posters say that a Renesis powered mx-5 would 'destroy' the competition.


Wouldn't a 2-seater coupe make it a rx7?

Do it, Mazda!
Yeah, but the MX-5 is a convertible, so it wouldn't be a 2-seater *coupe*.

If it aint broke dont fix it. The Miata is Mazda's biggest selling car. They aint touching it with a light pole, not matter how much sense a RX-5 would make.

^ biggest selling Mazda "of all time" AFAIK, but not selling very well currently.

I believe the Mazda 3 takes that spot.

I think making it an option like the Solstice GT (or whatever it will be called) would be the best way to offer the Renesis. Then again, isn't Mazda soon to release the Mazdaspeed3? It would probably be better to just take the engine from there as it's already in the Mazdaspeed6.

Frankly, I think people who don't buy the Miata "because it doesn't have much factory HP" are completely missing the point and should buy a used Corvette.

I'm sorry, what? Torque doesn't mean anything, horsepower does? What crap. Without torque, you HAVE no horsepower. And where and for how long the largest amount of torque the engine produces makes a huge difference to how the car drives.

More power - sure. I see no reason why a 2.3 transplant wouldn't deliver it, given the number of conventionally engined cars with 2.0 engines producing > 200bhp. Supercharging. I can think of many ways in which the MX5 can have more power without having the interesting, but inefficient, rotary.



A) Not everyone wants a Corvette.

B) Torque is part of the formula for HP, but it doesn't tell us enough. A car with 300 ft.-lbs. of engine torque might be slower than the car with 100 ft.-lbs. of engine torque. We don't know. Unless of course, you bring in the "where, and for how long" part. Hmm, if only engineers had a succinct term for "torque at a certain point in the RPM band"! ;)

C) You may be right about the last point. The MSM Miata was a turbo, this may be easier and cheaper for them to do than an engine swap. But then again, the Renesis wasn't available when they came out with the MSM (err, I think?).

just FYI, the current 2.0 MZR engine in the new MX-5 has LESS TORQUE (141 ft/lb) than the 6 port RENESIS (159 ft/lb)... so the whole "too little torque" talk is completely inaccurate when referring to the MX-5, as it never had any torque to begin with either :Eyecrazy:

A) Not everyone wants a Corvette.

B) Torque is part of the formula for HP, but it doesn't tell us enough. A car with 300 ft.-lbs. of engine torque might be slower than the car with 100 ft.-lbs. of engine torque. We don't know. Unless of course, you bring in the "where, and for how long" part. Hmm, if only engineers had a succinct term for "torque at a certain point in the RPM band"! ;)

C) You may be right about the last point. The MSM Miata was a turbo, this may be easier and cheaper for them to do than an engine swap. But then again, the Renesis wasn't available when they came out with the MSM (err, I think?).

Corvette is just an example. There are loads of powerful RWD 2 seater cars out there, the Miata's USP is the balance of economy, power and price. Make it more powerful and more expensive, and people might choose an Elise instead, or an S2000, or BMW Z4...

From what I know of the Renesis, it isn't the answer to making a faster Miata. It would not be any better than the S2000, in that both cars need high revs (which makes them harder to drive smoothly for novice drivers), would be worse on fuel, have higher oil consumption. It wouldn't be a commercial success. Fans of the rotary engine may well buy it, but Mazda doesn't care about that - the RX8 sells to fans of rotarys, sure, but it also sells to everyone else because it is an unbeatable package. Frankly, I think if it had a V6 of similar output - if possible - at the same weight, you wouldn't be able to move for RX8s, they'd be as common as Camrys.

I happen to like that it has a rotary, I like the idea, I like the car. But the rotary isn't my only reason for purchase.

I'm not a fan of turbos in the Miata. The idea of the car is to replicate a British sports car, and those cars are simple, snorty, tractable and accessible. Turbos begin to add complexity and dilute it. Forget tracks, think country lanes - you want a nice square to long-stroke engine, good gearing, and a good chassis and gearbox to make the most of it.

I'm standing by my practical application of the Renesis in an MPV, and I think the other practical use of it would be a motorbike - a latter-day Commander without the British bike incontinence and reliability issues. The RX8 would almost certainly be an equally good car with a good V6 (Mazda, to the best of my knowledge, don't make a good V6, they either make tiny breathless ones like the MX3, or lumpen unreliable things like the MX6 'valve-eater'). Hell, a cut down RX8 with a 150-180bhp 4 cylinder would probably be a very popular car indeed with many buyers.

I know I should be advocating more use of rotary engines and would do so if arguing from an idealistic viewpoint, but I'm trying to present a logical, marketing oriented view. From an emotional viewpoint, I want a Renesis powered Citroen C6, a Renesis powered Miata, a Renesis powered Fiat X1/9... etc ;)

and my personal opinion is, that the MX-5 will NEVER be offered with a rotary engine, even as an option. One of the BIGGEST appeal of the MX-5 is that it provides VERY ECONOMICAL sporting fun, something that the RENESIS simply can't offer when compared to the 2.0 MZR

and Richard basically said what i just said, except longer and more detailed :o:

just FYI, the current 2.0 MZR engine in the new MX-5 has LESS TORQUE (141 ft/lb) than the 6 port RENESIS (159 ft/lb)... so the whole "too little torque" talk is completely inaccurate when referring to the MX-5, as it never had any torque to begin with either :Eyecrazy:

From my POV, I care WHERE the torque is more than how much is made (don't worry, I am prepared for the driving experience of the RX8, I can enjoy both).

I like revving a car. I don't like revving many modern 16v motors because they get coarse when extended; my Sera redlines at 7.5K as will my RX8, but the RX8 whirrs smoothly up to that speed, the Sera sounds like it wants to kill me for being cruel to it.

I much prefer 8 big valves in my four cylinder engines ;)

I don't think that the RX8 has 'too little torque' for the MX5, what I think is that it has too little torque in return for the added fuel consumption and market-perception of complexity (which should be addressed with good marketing, but never will be because the marketing bods at Mazda know that the instant you point out the RX8s differences in technical terms, the buyers won't go near 'em).

^^^ Umm, what? I seem to dimly remember a print ad for the RX-8 making a big fuss about the Renesis, and I know there was an RX-8 TV ad I saw a couple of years ago that mentioned it.

About a V6 RX-8...no, I doubt they would be common as Camrys, not if you're talking about a top-heavy DOHC V6. The beauty of having a low center of gravity is that you can have great handling without resorting to rock-hard shocks/springs/sways and tires that wear out every 12,000 miles like some of the RX-8's competitors.

I'm one of those "mature" (27yrs old) miataphiles, having owned a 92 for 6 years now. (www.cardomain.com/id/jgaskins) I believe many miata enthusiast would love an optional rotary platform. I know I would! I'd give my kidney for one! (Any one at Mazda need a kidney?) I don't know about fitment because in a piston engine, the crank exists the lower section of the engine, but on a rotary, the Eshaft exists center, so the whole centerline of the engine is higher... Just my 2 Cents... And if Mazda is reading this, there is plenty more of my 2 cents that I could spare to purchase an RX Spyder...

:mdrmed: :mdrmed: I like that mate...'miataphile'.
I like your thoughts, many here continue to rant about HP being too light on in the Miata/MX-5, god it becomes BORING.
Many have never driven an MX-5, and until you have, you can't understand how you can fall in love,(sorry) with the driving experience...and thats what its all about, particularly with the top down on a sunny day, there is nothing like it!..., when at Mazda, every time I took one home , or, during the day, I would think, boy I would love one of these, never got to, not yet anyway...midlife crisis almost here.
As I said a rotary donk would IMO make the 5 even better, and it would sell, of course not in the numbers of the MX-5, but it would sell very well, and thats the problem, even IF Mazda considered it, how much would it take away from existing sales.
From an engineering point, I still think it can be done, even if there needs to be a mild bonnet bulge.

EDIT. I just checked out your pics, boy, you have used up a few of your kidneys on your Miata Mods!, lots of dollars, very immaculate, blown too, colour is a bit Ford GT like, suits that model Miata...top job!

As for the RX-8, well here is a guy who knows how to have the very best of what Mazda has to offer, what a great combination, you have the best of both worlds...If you don't mind me asking, which one is your favourite,......let me guess, the Miata on a warm sunny day, the 8 every other day, so I think the 8 wins here...only just :)

^^^ Umm, what? I seem to dimly remember a print ad for the RX-8 making a big fuss about the Renesis, and I know there was an RX-8 TV ad I saw a couple of years ago that mentioned it.

About a V6 RX-8...no, I doubt they would be common as Camrys, not if you're talking about a top-heavy DOHC V6. The beauty of having a low center of gravity is that you can have great handling without resorting to rock-hard shocks/springs/sways and tires that wear out every 12,000 miles like some of the RX-8's competitors.

Mentions it has a rotary engine (and perhaps the US market print ads made more of s fuss; the RX7 was more popular there), but doesn't actually tell you anything about it beyong it being a rotary engine.

I'd want a 12V V6, maybe not a pushrod, but top-heavy is perhaps a little harsh. Remember that most people don't care quite so much, and the differences are quite minor.

And FWIW, I know of plenty of cars with excellent handling, normal engines, and don't eat bushes, have rock hard suspension, or eat so many tires (the RX8 eats tires). As an example, I'm not a fan of the 350Z, but on Top Gear, the 350Z achieved the same track time as the RX8, and I consider it soft. However, the advantage the RX8 has here is £4-7K lower cost (and IMO, better looks).

I'm looking forward to my RX8. I think I'm going to love the engine. But, I don't think it makes total sense on paper. You want low CofG and good torque, there's always boxer engines - fancy an RX8 with a flat four?

I'd want a 12V V6, maybe not a pushrod, but top-heavy is perhaps a little harsh. Remember that most people don't care quite so much, and the differences are quite minor.

And FWIW, I know of plenty of cars with excellent handling, normal engines, and don't eat bushes, have rock hard suspension, or eat so many tires (the RX8 eats tires). As an example, I'm not a fan of the 350Z, but on Top Gear, the 350Z achieved the same track time as the RX8, and I consider it soft. However, the advantage the RX8 has here is £4-7K lower cost (and IMO, better looks).

I'm looking forward to my RX8. I think I'm going to love the engine. But, I don't think it makes total sense on paper. You want low CofG and good torque, there's always boxer engines - fancy an RX8 with a flat four?

Once you drive the 8, it will make perfect sense. :)

The Renesis is so compact that it fits completely behind the front axle, and its weight is concentrated in a low and small area, resulting in a exceptionally low center of gravity. Large V6s such as the VQ from the 350z are not only are heavier but the weight is more spread out, making it hard to match the CofG of the 8. Also, Jeremy stated on that same Top Gear episode that the 350z's ride is indeed harsher than that of the RX-8, so you'll probably think the 8 is reaally soft. You also think the 8 eats tires, read through 350z forums and you'll find that many members have had tire feathering problems on the track.

Responding to the topic, I believe that rotary applications in other Mazda cars besides the 8 would not do as well as their piston counterparts for one major reason. Most people who buy these cars want something fun, but as low maintenance as possible. I'm sure most miata drivers would like to have the benefits of a rotary engine, but would not like to worry about mileage, flooding, adding oil etc. This argument definitely applies to the rotary MPV idea I read earlier. Could you imagine a soccer mom popping the hood to add oil after dropping off the kids to soccer practice? Or stepping on the gas to deflood the car? :mdrmed:

I would vouch for keeping just one rotary car in Mazda's lineup, to keep it as a unique enthusiast vehicle that makes owners feel special.

Sorry Ishu....BULL DUST!

I wish people would get OFF the OIL USE/CHECKING thing, its way over the top in comments, it depends how much you use your 8 to how much it consumes, they say check fortnightly, but in most cases once a month will do, your dip stick does not ALWAYS have to be on the FULL mark all the time. After awhile you will find a regime that suits you.

FLOODING is also a non event, yes some early owners had problems, which was mainly due to the 8's starter and battery size, not enough capacity/amps, they were renewed.
Those that had flooding issues were because they were starting the car and moving it a few yards and switching off, the engine still cold, restarting and pumping the pedal again and again.
The only thing you should do when you start a cold 8 is to let it warm up a little until you turn if off, if you are not going any distance.

As far as I am concerned the only "extra" task you have to perform over other cars is the oil topping up...if thats too much for you then don't buy a rotary, or dare I say don't be a lazy ass.

These are NOT major issues, there are many owners of conventional engined cars that flood them, because they have poor starting skills/methods.

The reason I have a 1.6 Beetle Cabriolet is the 2.0's alleged appetite for oil.

And yet, I don't care that I have to check and top up the RX8.

Why?

Well, I know where the oil in the RX8 is going. It's lubricating the rotor tips. It's being injected into the chambers. It's being USED. It has a purpose to fulfil which consumes it, by design.

The 2.0 Beetle engine? Why? Why the hell does it use so much oil?! It isn't injecting it, it should be keeping it from being burned, not consuming it!

Anyway, Honda S2000 and Porsche owners have to check their oil regularly. There have, to my knowledge, been far more mainstream press reports of S2000s detonating because the owner didn't follow the instructions to top up the oil than RX8s.

they need to put a rotary on this
http://www.miata.net/news/images/MiataCoupe2.jpg
and call it a RX-7

EDIT. I just checked out your pics, boy, you have used up a few of your kidneys on your Miata Mods!, lots of dollars, very immaculate, blown too, colour is a bit Ford GT like, suits that model Miata...top job!

As for the RX-8, well here is a guy who knows how to have the very best of what Mazda has to offer, what a great combination, you have the best of both worlds...If you don't mind me asking, which one is your favourite,......let me guess, the Miata on a warm sunny day, the 8 every other day, so I think the 8 wins here...only just

Thanks ASH8! Yeah, too much power this pwoer that, but man, there is NOTHING like ringing out my miata with the top down at 7K-pure bliss! I love the 8, I love my 87 rx7 TII, but niether car has near the character of my miata. It is hands down the best car of my stable.

Now, as for a rotary in the miata. I really don't understand the distain. The rotary is light, compact, and revs freely-the perfect sports car engine! If Mazda would put the miata on a diet back to its original 2200 lbs, mileage and TQ become non-issues. Hell, even at 2400lb, mileage and TQ really won't be that bad. (Chop 400-500 lbs off your 8 and see the difference.)

An RX-5 Miata makes complete sense to me. (Who cares that there used to be an RX-5, call it the "new" RX-5. You can buy a Chevy Impala today too which has nothing to do with my Dad's old '66 Impala). I think it would be a magnificient car. I also don't think there's a chance in hell they'll ever do it. But I'd seriously consider buying one.

The more I think about it, I'm not sure a renesis-powered Miata would sell well. The car would be an incredible performer for a reasonable price, but I think a lot of people would say "lol miata chick car hurr". So, you take that red car above and give it an aggressive body kit from the factory, maybe they could even tweak the fenders to look more muscular and make room for big tires. Then, name it the RX-9 and avoid any stigma of the miata name alltogether.

The more I think about it, I'm not sure a renesis-powered Miata would sell well. The car would be an incredible performer for a reasonable price, but I think a lot of people would say "lol miata chick car hurr". So, you take that red car above and give it an aggressive body kit from the factory, maybe they could even tweak the fenders to look more muscular and make room for big tires. Then, name it the RX-9 and avoid any stigma of the miata name alltogether.

You could maybe give it pop-up headlights, and perhaps alter the tail-lights so they run in a strip across the back... and turbocharge it...

Of course a RX-5 would sell well.
This is that one car that can truly show off the benefits of the rotary engine.

As I said in previous threads discussing a Renesis powered MX-5 (RX-5), the main advantage of the rotary engine is its low mass and compactness, which means:

- low weight = high power to weight ratio and high rubber to weight ratio.
- low yaw moment with 50/50 weight distribution.
- low center of gravity (at least compared to cars with inline engines, namely S2000 or Lotus Elise).

And of course the Renesis also delivers a very flat predictable torque curve over an extremely wide rpm range.

No need to bring back the RX-7, just make a RX-5 and sell it as convertible and coupe.

If you don't fit, well, tough luck. No RX-5 for You.

I like revving a car. I don't like revving many modern 16v motors because they get coarse when extended; my Sera redlines at 7.5K as will my RX8, but the RX8 whirrs smoothly up to that speed, the Sera sounds like it wants to kill me for being cruel to it.

Why will your RX8 redline at 7.5k? Are you actually getting an auto????

A) You don't need equations and diagrams. If you're dealing with car guys, tell them the rotor oscillates like the pad of an orbital sander. That would be a better name for the engine, it's not really purely rotary. The orbital engine. Hmmm.

Actually in German the engine is called KKM or Kreiskolbenmotor which translates as orbital piston engine. The rotary engine is in fact not piston-less it is only cylinder-less.

Also Wankel orginally built a true rotary engine and called it DKM or Drehkolbenmotor which translates as rotary piston engine, however this required both piston and housing to rotate and obviously made it far more complicated.

Why will your RX8 redline at 7.5k? Are you actually getting an auto????
In Europe they sell a lower powered 5speed version of the RX-8.

Why will your RX8 redline at 7.5k? Are you actually getting an auto????

5 speed manual 192ps model. 4 port.

0-60 in 7.1-7.7 seconds depending on which road test you believe (7.7 for official figures, compared to 6.9 for the 230), touch more torque than the 230, top speed of 139 vs. 146 (I think that the 5th gear is still plenty overdriven, though, so should be relaxed at motorway speeds. One could assume top speed is down to where the car runs out of revs and therefore the extra 1,500rpm could account for the extra 7mph.

Given that the many road tests and so forth generally suggest the 192ps model is basically better to have - "No point spending the extra", I view the cars pretty much as equals and consider the 230's additional expense to be paying for Xenon lights and a six-speed gearbox.

In Europe they sell a lower powered 5speed version of the RX-8.

Yep, and we pay more in real terms for it too :(

However, we get the Bose 9 speaker setup with six disc changer as standard. Only options are Leather+Satnav, and sunroof. (Plus the accessories of course).

I must admit, if I hadn't been going for the RX8 as a budget decision, I'd have had the leather + satnav.