jaimesix

I am very satisfied with this and all rotaries I had.

Provided you check oil levels and do your timely oil changes these cars run for ever.

Having an RX7 as well, a 3rd Gen Turbo (94) overseas (Spend time overseas and keep my 7 over there) I can say I long for the new real deal, turbo and wish Mazda would offer a two rotors and a 3 rotor version.

But that would go into my wish list. For what the RX8is, light, nimble and agile, so far so good.

lOOkatme

I am satisfied with mine but I purchased it very cheap. The person before me thought the engine was dead and I brought it back to life.

I wish the rx8 was lighter. I could live with roll up and down windows, just a radio, and could live without all the emissions crap, etc, etc. Could be better if the car weighed only 2600lbs if you could get it that low.

ASH8

Well said mate, and TOTALLY agree with you..

YES, the RX-8 is VERY SPECIAL, no other rotary before it offered this CLASS and driving enthusiasm.
Me owning both updated versions of Series 2 RX-8 and NC2 which is also a VERY SPECIAL 2 Seater (as we know) BUT Mazda Japan missed out on an ideal opportunity to make for sale a RX-5 using the S2 platform.
WOW just WOW what a platform and car to make and own, this failure and a green light I will NEVER understand WHY it never proceeded, it would have been an instant sales success.
The final production and engineering cost were negligible as the parts were already made and in use for the Series 2 RX-8......


Sad ;(

jaimesix

It never became a sucess for two reasons I believe

First and foremost, been this car a non turbo model made of this 1.3 engine too small a powerplant to compete with sports cars of the day

Second place I do think it was the front fenders.

These fenders were something strange when the car came out to the market At certain angles these front fenders look weird I was not impressed by it myself

But being a rotary engine enthusiast guy soon I minimized that fact

But to others not particularly interested nor looking for rotaries but looking for a sports car, these two issues, power versus larger engines/sports cars and those fenders kept many on the sidelines

My opinion

lOOkatme

If I could make changes to the car I would lighten it up to 2600lbs, the car already comes with great brakes and a good LSD, and suspension design is great.


So I would like to see more low end grunt out of the engine if possible. the top end power is fine, but If I could carry some of these corners at a gear higher I would love it without having to shift so much. I think this is why the corvette has such a big advantage in autox and other tight course events, huge torque, not much shifting.

IamFodi

iTrader: (1)

The RX-8 failed for a few reasons. The biggest and most important is that it's basically the exact inverse of what most people want in a car.

What most people want is some combination of the following:

1. Comfort
2. Fuel economy
3. Effortless acceleration
4. Low demands (maintenance etc.)

Their idea of a "sporty" or "fun" car is mainly just amping up #3 with as few compromises as possible.

The RX-8 makes big sacrifices on every one of those points. What it gains in return is handling that is basically unmatched in a car with four usable seats. Sounds like a good deal to me, and I'm sure many people here agree. The other 99.9% of the population can't even imagine what we must be smoking. Almost no one cares about handling past the point where they feel reasonably secure around an onramp. They will never drive a car such that an RX-8's advantages will even show in a big way, let alone be worth the sacrifices. But they will feel the downsides every day, and twice on the day the engine fails.

Many of the RX-8's early adopters just bought it for the looks, or because they thought it was faster than it is. Even among performance-minded folks, the RX-8 was a rare choice; few demanded this level of handling and four usable seats from the same car while being willing to forego straight-line speed. Outside of a very small core group of enthusiasts, the car's popularity was a house of cards that quickly collapsed when engines started failing in droves. By the time Mazda addressed the failures in a big way (MY2009), the car's rep was in tatters, and the rest of the industry had moved on so that 230 hp in a ~3,000 lb car that gets 16/22 MPG was even less impressive than it had been in 2004. There was no way to recover credibility.

A rotary engine doesn't really make sense EXCEPT in a handling-focused car, where its compactness enables a low polar moment of inertia. It's a terrible design for most people: too loud, too gutless, too demanding in every way. Adding turbos helps the gutlessness, but worsens the demands and diminishes the weight (distribution) advantage. Unless Mazda pulls off a miracle with it, it'll never be more than a super-niche product.

It's sad, IMO. Most people judge a car by how little it hurts them -- their pocketbooks, their blood pressure, their tailbones. The RX-8 and the rotary engine are for people who judge a car by how much joy it brings them. I think that's a much better mentality to have. If nothing else, it means you can actually enjoy the endless hours you spend in your car, instead of simply enduring them.

That's why I was so motivated to buy my R3 as soon as I could. It's the swan song for a car that represents what driving should be. It needs to be as visible as possible for as long as possible, and I want to be part of that effort.

IamFodi

iTrader: (1)

Oh, on weight reduction: I ran some rough numbers for lols, and came up with some interesting results.

Just switching to the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S (or Super Sport if that's not available in your size) is good for a few lbs per corner. That's unsprung rotating mass at the farthest distance from the hub, so it can be pretty consequential. It's also really far from the car's center of mass, so that should help the car's polar moment of inertia as well.

RacingBrake 2-piece rotors save 4.5 lbs per front corner and 2.5 lbs per rear corner (though that's mostly from the aluminum hats -- good for unsprung, weak for rotating). Good BBKs (RacingBrake, AP Racing, etc.) save more than that because their calipers are lighter. The Brembo BBK saves the most of any big-name BBK, especially with drilled rotors; something like 7 lbs per front rotor (unsprung + rotating) and 5 lbs per front caliper (unsprung). I haven't seen numbers for Wilwood, but they're probably up there as well; their calipers generally aren't as good as the big-name ones, but they can be even lighter.

The OZ Allegrita HLT in 18x8 weighs about 17 lbs, which should shave a few lbs off any stock wheel. 17s can be had even lighter, obviously -- and because a smaller rim brings the heaviest part (the barrel) closer to the hub, the mass reduction has an even bigger impact.

A Braille i34RX battery saves something like 26 lbs. Pricey as hell for such a small reduction in sprung mass, but it has a disproportionate effect because it completely overhangs the front axle. Unlike a battery relocation, there are no added wires, no added failure points, and no reduction in trunk space.

Most of the good coilover options are lighter than the stock suspension, the lightest (AFAIK) being the Ohlins kits. Can't find real numbers, but from what I gather it definitely takes several lbs of sprung and unsprung mass out of each corner.

Then there's a lightweight flywheel, which I'm sure everyone's familiar with.

I ran my rough numbers with those wheels and tires, a Brembo front BBK, Racing Brake 2-piece rear rotors, Ohlins coilovers, a Braille i34x battery, and a Mazdaspeed lightweight flywheel (not even the lightest option). On my car, the result was roughly 120 lbs less total mass and a hair better weight distribution (~52.1% front vs. 52.8%). If that doesn't seem like much, remember that most of that mass is unsprung and/or rotating, and almost all of it is from the car's extremities. That means it's MUCH more effective than, say, removing your interior or swapping to lightweight seats. In terms of acceleration, the effect would be like taking roughly 250-450 lbs of dead weight out of the car, depending on which rule of thumb you ascribe to. And to top it off, it's all penalty-free weight reduction. Every part makes the car better in some way, with no compromises.

If you did the same mods (or better) on a more basic S1 RX-8, the effect would be even bigger. You'd be reducing the car's total mass by a higher percentage (taking the same amount of mass out of a car that weighs less to begin with), and the ratio of sprung to unsprung mass would improve by a greater margin than it would for my heavy R3.

FWIW.

lOOkatme

I would be careful on some of those mods. I am not a big fan of BBK unless you really need it. The stock brake bias seems more important than a BBK. brake rotors are also pretty expensive for little weight saved, that weight is also pretty centered on the rotor which means little gains.


If you read the options magazine who wrote an article about wheel weight, they tested two enkei wheels of the same design except has different weights. one was about 17lbs the other was I think 21lbs.


They ran the same car same day same driver with the same width wheels and tires.


The heavier wheels ran faster times than the lighter wheels because the wheel was stronger and held the tire in place better. the difference I think was .5 second or something. So losing weight isn't the main priority for wheels.


1) good grip tires
2) wheel width
3) wheel strength
4) wheel weight


Notice how weight is #4. this has also been proven on Miata's who are low WHP and torque which keep dropping times with wider wheels.


I say attack all the weight that is easy to attack and check. battery, A/C system, Emissions equipment, etc.


carry the weight where its needed, wide strong wheels that will probably end up weighing 18-21lbs.

IamFodi

iTrader: (1)

That's why I ran the numbers with a Brembo BBK and OZ wheels.

Pulling AC and emissions stuff is fine but not penalty-free, and not as effective because most of the mass you're pulling out is sprung mass that's low in the car and close to its CoG.

I addressed the thing about rotor mass distribution. It's still unsprung and still near the car's extremities.

jcblessing

Very Satisfied. One of the best handling cars I've own in my 75 years.
If you have access to premium-non ethanol fuel-It makes a difference in fuel economy and performance. Mine's an 07 and I've had it for 7 years.

mdisher

Just rolled 110k on an 04 that I bought 4 years ago with 60k. I've loved every single mile.