Just got December’s MOTOR magazine. It’s unusually interesting (!), for a few reasons:

P26 has an article about Takao Kijima (described as the chassis guru behind the MX-5) in which he says that the NC MX-5 and RX-8 share the same production line and the same dies are used for both cars (although ‘obviously’ shortened for the MX-5). This enables the MX-5 to be made quite cheaply, giving them room in the budget to use more expensive lightweight components… I wonder if that means the RX-8’s future is going to be closely linked to the MX-5’s, and whether that’s good or bad for us….?

P30 has a very biased article by Bill Tuckey about rotary engines (leading into news that the hydrogen-burning RX-8 is being leased to Japanese companies and government departments). After dragging up the old urban myth about NSU Wankel drivers greeting each other by raising one, two or three fingers from the steering wheel to signify how many engine changes they’d had, he goes on to describe the rotary engine as a ‘complex’ power plant. I thought its main claim to fame was its simplicity relative to a piston engine!! Far fewer moving parts, etc. The whole flavour of the article is anti-rotary (eg describing Mazda as ‘having spent zillions on solving the rotary’s problems’). If anyone wants to join me in writing corrective protest letters to MOTOR we’ll see how many they publish!

Finally there’s a little booklet glued to the cover, presented by Mazda and MOTOR, called ‘The Ultimate Glovebox Guide to Performance Driving’ that I found very useful, as well as promoting Mazda performance cars (including the RX-8 of course) it contains some useful tips for people like me who are learning about track driving. Mind you I hope it doesn’t encourage P-platers to try handbrake turns or throttle steers in their cul-de-sacs. (or is that culs de sac?)

Will

 

That's a mighty nice trophy you have there too...

 

Lightining yellow rocks

Michael

 

I guess from a mechanical point of view, rotaries are indeed simpler. When you consider that most of modern-day complexity comes from the bolt-ons (ECU's, turbos, superchargers, etc., the "complexity" advantage of rotaries is somewhat diminished.

Mazda did spend huge amounts on the rotary, and it nearly broke the company. Whatever their original motives were, they did end up with a sports car which offers excellent value for money for what you get. Let's face it, the only car to rival it (the new BMW coupe) is going to cost you ~$35k more. I suspect that the real value of the RX-8 to the company has been the expertise that they have gained in chassis design and all the other elements that are involved in handling has been able to be applied to other vehicles in the range. Arguably, Mazda has class-leading handling in all its passenger vehicles.

 

Having driven the 3, 6, 8 and 5, I'd agree with that.

Good to see the zoom zoom marketing guff has a bit of substance.

 

Brought the magazine too.

Love the pocket guide, and it will come in handy for the KK present I am about to give someone's

I have not read it properly, and I wonder if there is a section of heel-toe, and it will be handy to Stu I am in trouble now.

Re: Bill Tuckey's comment. I think that finger thing is come from the Top Gear show, and in the celeb segment there was a guy owned an old NSU Wankel - which has to rebuilt every 5000km. Bill - get rid of your Top Gear collection and it is not VERY legal to bit torrent it mate.

Sharing a line with MX-5 is a business decision, and hopefully that have a MX-5 that mistakenly put a rotary engine to the engine bay....

 

Well, Bill Tuckey has been writing for a long time. He probably hasn't realised that in the last 40 years, the Wankel rotary has advanced considerably. And yes, it is probably true that Mazda has spent a lot of money making it a much more reliable engine than it was on introduction, way, way, back then. Just as, 40 years after it had been developed, the Ford OHV V-8 was a much, much more reliable engine (which it was in about 1968 )

 

Actually good call! No trouble for telling the truth.

David Reynolds sat down with me at the last Oneill day after some laps and said my braking and heel & Toe into the corners is my biggest issue. Because of the limited motion of my dodgy ankle (but hey it is more man made than original) I am too aggressive and jerky, not smooth enough so cause the car some imbalance in the corners instead of having it nicely setup on turn in!

Oh by the way everyone I have first option on that accidental rotary MX5 that may one day come of the production line

 

Should I write to Bill and tell him I have made it to 21,000kms without a re-build!

 

Mmmm and send him a link to this thread while you're at it

 

Tuckey's columns are usually crap.

He's like some creaking old warhorse that the editors are afraid to put down.

Retire Bill - you're past it.

 

That makes 2 of us.

 

Three at 25,000km... I am sure that Hymee and Rx88er are waaaaayyyyyy past that too... And the stupid comment about the engine replacements just confirms to me that the whole magazine is a waste of time.. I would not even borrow it at a library..

 

I'm about to hit 29K and gee, what do you know, I've still got my original engine.

As for the mag, its the undergraduate humour version of Wheels. They're, like, so much cooler at Motor.

 

Mine was fine when I sold it at 60k...of course, there were a few US owners who have not been so lucky...

 

For the particular reasons that Gomez has posted about previously, mind.