Roytary

What Mazda achieved with the renesis engine is amazing, not only the hp/tq numbers with a N/A 13-b, but having it to pass the EPA emission tests considering how strict they are now is amazing, you can compare wankels to 2 strokes on some aspects ''Not designed like one but operates in a similar way'', They're small, lightweight, with very high hp/cc ratio, as 2 strokes they have less mechanical parts (no valvetrain, cams, timing belt ect..), consume more fuel than comparable engine sized otto cycle out there ''2.5L 4cyl and less'' but hey : ask honda to built a reliable 1.3L 4cyl otto cycle engine with near 200hp... they'll have a hard time. Like 2 strokes they rev high and got no bottom end but from mid to top they go vroom vroom, they need a rebuilt sooner then otto cycle engines just like a 2 stroke but way less parts involved.

1.3L

I bought a 6-speed RX-8 new in 2004 and drove it for almost 10 years. Wonderful car. And yes, you are quite correct with the torque figures - they are indeed high per liter.

But, the (important) part you didn't mention is that the Renesis maximum torque doesn't occur until 5500 RPM. My driving experience was that the 1.3L Renesis pretty much fell flat on its face below that (high) RPM - you simply had to keep the revs up. Of course, you know this. So, you had to shift down a few gears to make it go, such as passing cars. Nothing wrong with that if you're willing to row the gears. Can be fun, but the driver has to "work at it" a bit.

I traded in my beloved RX-8 last year on something quite different; a 3.0L twin-scroll turbo BMW M235i. And it has an 8-speed automatic for even more difference.

The turbo'd 3.0L inline 6 does not achieve the torque per liter that the Renesis achieves; 110/L vs 122/L. However, there is a very, very important difference, and it is extremely noticeable. The turbo'd 3.0L full 330 ft/lbs. of torque hits at only 1400 RPM. In terms of just poking down the road or hanging some turns, this makes a big, big difference. The huge guts are always there, never missing.

As to MPG, well, my turbo 3.0L inline 6 consistently achieves 32 to 34 MPG on the highway (65 to 85 MPH cruising speeds) and has a combined MPG of 23.7 since the day I bought it new a year ago (5300 miles). And I don't baby it.

TALAN7

While Polish Person may be a troll he speaks truth. The renesis is a horrible engine. It's not reliable, it's thirsty, it doesn't make any torque, it drinks a lot of oil, etc. But, in no way does that make the RX8 horrible. The car, more than any other I've driven is worth more than the sum of it's parts. I traded mine in almost 2 years ago for a Buick Regal GS 6 speed. While the Buick is nice in its own way, it can't touch the 8. It's faster in a straight line but the 8 was just perfect to drive. In my dreams I still drive my RX8. My 8 broke down on the side of the road so many times that I became numb to it. I got to where I didn't care anymore, just tell me how much, I'll take it from somewhere. Once my second engine started to break down with 70 something thousand miles on it i got tired. I got nothin for the trade. I wished I had kept it as my summer car.

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

My car will be 12 years old in July, 143,000 miles (on my 4th engine. 1 original, 2 Mazda remans, and my current Pineapple Racing engine) . She has been stock, to nitrous, and is turbocharged and I love her more than ever

LiveWire

iTrader: (1)

What people don't realize is the area under the curve. The longer the time the car gets to spend in its ideal rpm range the better. The renesis accomplishes the opposite of what big volume engines do; it extends the rpm band to increase the area under the power curve, aka total power, whereas large volume engines cut out rev potential in order to put power down at a lower rpm. When you outline it like this, it is easy to see that large displacement is great for drag racing where there is a very limited amount of track, but accelerating quickly is key, and small displacement is good for maximizing the amount of time you spend in the power band. Engine size is always a give and take dynamic, no matter what anyone says, which is why you see motors from 1.3 liters all the way to some crazy large numbers.

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

It's funny when you tell people it is a 1.3L. For every time I have wanted to burn the car to the ground, there is a time I that I enjoyed immensely. I often equate RX-8 ownership to dating a hot chick who is slightly crazy, it is very similar.

Roytary

Mazda made more than a great engine with the renesis, where they have failed is the consumer target'd with the car. I don't recall seeing so many complaints with the FD's . The main reason why is the category/pedigree/cost of the car, Ppl who bought a FD back then knew what they bought and in most cases had a passion for what the rotary engine was, Mazda made the 8 more affordable therefore more attractive to the average consumer. The 13b-rew engine dating from more then a decade ago made about 280hp with twin turbos and way less EPA regulations, so Mazda to make the same 1.3L N/A with nowdays EPA regulations with about 200hp is a success, RX7's engines were NOT more reliable compared with the Renesis, The engine concept didn't change, The ppl who bought them changed.

Everytime i see ppl complaining about rotaries, they're dreaming about an engine : fuel efficient as a Prius, Reliable as a 100hp otto cycle 4cyl but in a lightweigt 200hp+ sport coupe, A UNIQUE one.
Mazda should have made a 4cyl rwd as their ''cheap sport coupes consumers'' and give the real rotary fans a high-end model rx8, bit more expensive but targeted at us.

Long story short : Mazda gave us a great car but got screwed for offering it to the wrong audience !!
My 2 cents

soundawake

Yeah I agree with that. Enthusiasts bought the RX7. Hairdressers bought the RX8. While not as true anymore, when the car was released and I saw one on the road, 85% of the time it would be a woman driving.

Steve Dallas

Agree with the above. In addition to the price point, the RX-8 is really more of a touring car than a hard core sports car. While I love that feature sometimes, at other times, I wish the back seats and accompanying weight were gone. Anyway, touring cars have more appeal to a wider audience, which resulted in sales to people who did know what they were getting into.

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

I dunno, I was 16 when the FD was in it's prime, and it was a dream car of mine and in Florida they were very common and I knew a few rich kids and young adults that had them. Thru the years helping friends, etc. I found that they were just as unreliable and disheartening to own as the RX-8 is for a lot of people which is why I could never afford one back then. Like the RX-8, those who truly loved them and were enthusiasts dealt with the issues but most just got rid of the car. And the FD's also had any of the same issues with unreliable reman engines from Mazda.

I know lot's of FD owners and not a single one of them has not replaced an engine. But yes, definitely different types of owners for the RX-8 and RX-7.

revivo73

At about 150.000 km, runs perfectly on its second engine which was replaced at 88.000 km.

1.3L

Simply stated, your message is keep the engine in the power band. This is true of any engine. But of course with the Renesis, that translates to high RPM's. I fully understood this characteristic during my nearly 10 years with my RX-8.

As to the forced daily driver portion of my RX-8 experience, I didn't believe in keeping the engine constantly spinning at 5 or 6 thousand RPM, just to be prepared to call on the Renesis max torque and some reasonable amount of HP. For me, this just wasn't practical. And of course, driving it like that reduced the already poor MPG, particularly in the city driving realm.

Same thing on the highway. Chugging along in 6th gear resulted in ~3 thousand RPM. Step on the gas peddle when approaching a hill or trying to make a pass and nothing much happened. You had to shift down a couple of gears, or more. And as I mentioned previously, nothing wrong with that, as long as the driver is willing to make the effort.

I don't consider the inline-6 in my M235i to be a big engine, although it may seem big when compared to the Renesis. My idea of big engines are the 5 liter and up V-8's that are common in American trucks and cars. But in any case, having 330 ft/lbs. of torque available at 1400 RPM and up is incredible. That's barely off idle. The car doesn't even feel hills. Want to explore the HP portion, it will spin to 7 grand, and real quick too. Almost scary quick. Also consider the excellent, faster than human shifting, 8-speed automatic - the engine is always on the boil and ready to go and stays in the power curve. Quickly. Very quickly.

Then there's the 4-position driving mode switch...

Don't get me wrong, I loved my RX-8 and well understood the engine and how to drive it. But unlike most cars today, the RX-8 requires a competent driver (sports) with good knowledge of what's under the hood to fully enjoy the car and extract max performance. And even though I enjoyed my RX-8, I must say that I do not miss the miserable MPG numbers and the background worry of the engine flooding. I'm disappointed that Mazda couldn't satisfactorily solve those two short-comings.

slash128

Love it or hate it, argue it to death... My wife already knows I will be buried in mine

BigCajun

iTrader: (1)

True enough.
I enjoy DRIVING my 8, not just riding in it.
Shifting through the gears being fully engaged with the machine is an ethereal experience.
Bad MPG?
No worse than the 4WD Pickup I've been driving for 15 years, maybe a couple of dollars more a week for premium.
Flooding is not an issue for my well maintained 8.
I love it more now than when I first got it 3 years ago.

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

Your RX-8 just needed a turbo. And engine flooding hasn't been an issue for years and most of the short comings were fixed in the 09+ RX-8. Not MPG of course but I never understood why people bought a rotary and then complained about gas mileage. I have gotten 300 miles to a tank many times in my 8 when it was NA and I really watched how I drove during long trips. 20MPG in a sports car is more than exceptable IMO.

I do love the bimmers, I'm not a fan of the look of the 1 and 2 series though. I test drove a new 335i recently and loved it and I have also been looking at low mileage 2010 335i manuals (really hard to find in Alpine White), I'm just not sure I want another car payment and I recently embarrassed a kid in his newly purchased 335i with temporary plates and all so things like that just make me want to keep a reasonable daily and continue on modding the 8.

1.3L

I agree that the MPG compares to a 4WD truck. This also makes my point of how crummy the RX-8 MPG is. Mine averaged 14 to 16 city and the best I ever nursed out of it on a freeway trip was 24 MPG. And on that trip, I kept it below 70 and kept the RPM's down.

But, since I overall enjoyed the car and it's uniqueness, I just bit the bullet and accepted the higher fuel consumption for its class.

As to maintenance, I had replaced all of the coils, spark-plugs and lead wires well before it hit the 30,000 mile mark. Also replaced the starter battery, and that was with a genuine Mazda battery and it was larger. And despite that effort and expense, the engine occasionally hinted that it was on the verge of flooding when it cranked over a few times more than normal. It always started (I experienced one actual flooding), but it was a background concern I always had with the car. The prime reason it concerned is because my radio control aircraft hobby takes me out into the boonies to our club airstrip. This is no place to get stranded.

Anyway, I overall had a blast with my 8. It had some flaws, but what car doesn't...

RotoRocket

iTrader: (1)

I feel so lucky.

I've not a had a single mechanical problem, motor or otherwise, in 114,000 miles and 9 years.

My 6MT 2005 8 is tied as the most reliable vehicle I've owned with a 2004 Civic EX 5 speed.

I drive it year round, with snows in winter.

I even get almost an exact 21 mpg on every tank, mixed driving (280 miles per 13.4 gallon fillup), on 87 octane most of the time (Costco gas).

I've literally done nothing but change oil and filters every 3k miles, change the coolant three times now (every 3 years), change the plugs, wires and coils for the first time at 80,000 miles, and change the rear diff gear oil at 60,000 miles.

It literally drives like it's new.

It's so good, that I have test driven (or rented) at least 20 cars that I've passed on because I like the 8 better.

Roytary

I agree with mpg, i had the renesis in my 8 for about 2 months when i first bought it and remember doing about 600-700 kms with a tank on normal driving conditions and a mix of highway/city, had a 2001 jetta 1.8t as a beater before and did about 800kms with a 10$ less to fill tank compared to the 8, with a 170hp motor, renesis aint that bad is you drive em' for economy. The 6spd on the 8 doesn't help with high rpms all the time, used to drive this tranny : 1st-2nd-4th-6th since u dont need all 6 gears on average driving conditions.
As you said flooding is not an issue with a healty well maintained renesis.
As for the Bimmers I WAS a big fan until the E90 gen, chassis are still great as ever buy way heavier and feels less balanced, IMO the last real bimmer was the E46, plus the fact that the 3.0L+ 3 series aren't more fuel efficient than the renesis.

I still think Mazda had 2 built an N/A 13b for Emissions control, EPA tests are complex and usually test emissions from a low range rpm, so we endend up with back ports and ssv and huge cat, otherwise i'm pretty sure mazda would have came up with a small turbo 4 ports renesis with way better mpg and power midrange, more reliable low compression rotors.