oilman

Height 1340mm
Length 4430mm
Width 1770mm

Front Headroom (without sunroof) 970mm
Front Headroom (with sunroof) 932mm
Rear Headroom (without sunroof) 937mm
Rear Headroom (with sunroof) 927mm

Cargo area length 878mm (rear to seat back)
Cargo area width 1350mm
Cargo area volume 290 litres

Wheel size 18x8JJ
Tyre Size 225/45R18
Spare wheel - None (accessory only)
Puncture repair kit included instead

Safety & Security

Dual front airbags
Side & curtain airbags
TCS
DSC
ABS
LSD
ISOFIX child seat anchorages on rear seats
Alarm with intruder sensor
Imobiliser
Collapsible brake pedal
Front and rear 3pt seatbelts
Remote control cental locking

Engine (High Power)
Renesis rotary
Displacement 654x2
Max Power 231ps @ 8200rpm
Max Torque 211Nm @ 5500rpm
Max Rpm 9000

Power lower to achieve Euro satge 4 emissions.

Transmission (high Power)
6 speed manual
1st 3.760
2nd 2.269
3rd 1.645
4th 1.187
5th 1.000
6th 0.843
Reserve 3.564
Final Gear ratio 4.444
Driven Wheels - Rear

Performance and economy (high power)
Urban 17.9 (15.8)
Extra 31.7 (8.9)
Combined 24.8 (11.4)
CO2 (g/km) 284
Vehicle excise D

Top speed and 0-60 not known at present.

Steering
Rack and pinion with electric power assistance
Turning circle 5.3m

Interior
Leather steering wheel & gear ****
BOSE 6cd & 9 spkrs
Climate control aircon
Power steering
Sports style seats
Electric windows (front)
Ski opening to rear boot
Chrome inner door handles

Exterior features
18" alloys
Xenon headlamps
Rotary design features
Rear lip spoiler

Winning Blue, Lightning Yellow and Nordic Green will not be available until late November 2003
Black and red leather will be available with black from November.



Ok, that's it, it may explain the 0-60est at 6.8 as the power is definately down. Also mentions that insurance groups and performance figures will be communicated to customers week commencing 26/5/03.

My fingers now hurt so look forward to your comments!

Cheers
Oilman

mhopley

Oilman, Did your fingers slip typing the high power consumption figures?

morganrogers

So wait....

Yanks+Japs get 250hp -
Brits get 231hp ??????

My god - how can we have tighter emissions controls than California ?????

That is dreadful !
If it is electronic limitation - I for one will certainly be looking to swap to JP/US engine managment !

oilman

Nope, consumption figures typed as listed, must be some conversion of some sort, I don't know.

Cheers
Oilman

Lensman

This sucks! VERY disappointing indeed.

morganrogers

The () figure will be litres/100km for those oddballs who work in metric....

M.

mhopley

The figures in brackets are litres/100km - I thought the values in brackets were for the high power and the others low power.
Was there any info on the low power cars?

oilman

Have the full specs for Low Power but as most are buying High Power, I didn't bother. If you want it, I'll post, just let me know.

Low Power
Urban 18.7 (15.1)
Extra 34 (8.3)
Combined 26.2 (10.8)

CO2 267
VED Band D

Do you want anything else?

Cheers
Oilman

Lensman

Yeah, the car I actually pre-ordered!

mhopley

Thanks Oilman,

What is the quoted power for the low power engine is that still 192ps?

Yes I am a cheapskate, buying a low power car :o

Mark

oilman

Engine Type (low power)
Renesis rotary
654x2
Max power 192ps @ 7000rpm
Max torque 220Nm @ 5000rpm
Max RPM 7500

Cheapskate or not, this is looking very close to the High Power now due to Euro Stage 4 emissions.

MAZDA UK Quote to their Dealers:

"However 231ps @ 8200rpm is still an outstanding proposition and we can assure you, provides a truly thrilling drive!"

Cheers
Oilman

morganrogers

...although not as thrilling as the 250ps the rest of the known world gets...

craig172

I'm pretty pi**ed off about 231ps if that true. Whilist acceleration is not the be all and end all, the clio cup, CTR, TT, and others will all out accelerate the RX8. My cars to date include two TT225, 200sx and a clio 172, cupra r type all of which are near as dammitt the same or faster acceleration. Combined with the poor fuel economy i'm having serious second thoughts.

It may be a rotary engine, but has poor torque and poor economy at the end of the day, can't see its advantages apart from its smoother when its thrashed than eg a r type. Orignally i heard a quoted 5.9 sec 0-60 and now its a second slower and not much faster than a mondeo 220 etc with a proper four doors.

Don't get me wrong i do like the mazda rx8 but it's appeal seems to be depreciating, the more i read about the uk version

morganrogers

Which are faster ? Pretty sure it is only the 200sx.....(and then only if it is the 2dr later shape)

Other than that - some good points.
I think we are all pretty disappointed - but it will not stop me.

Car still looks stunning , Still has all the features I love and is a few tenths off what I hoped for. I can live with that.

M.

craig172

Long term test for type R = 6.4
ClioCup 6.6 i think ?
Audi Tt 225 - 6.1

From memory via Autocar, not sure of cupra less than 7 though it think.

The rx8 does look great, especially the front , rear reminds me of a puma, or mazda6, side is the worse imho, rear window lines don't flow smoothly.

I did think of 350z originally but dimissed it as too impractical due to only 2 seats and the strut brace in the boot. However that was on the assumption that the rx8 was only .5 second slower now its nearly 1.5 and slower than a lot of others. Not so sure now

I read the spec of the rx7, the original brochure, and it specifically mentions the addition of the turbos to offset the low torque of the rotary engine, strange that torque is no longer mentioned or mpg in the early advertising.

I sold my TT last year and bought a clio172 sepcifically to cover the interim until the 350z and rx8 were launched. However now considering whether its worth payinging an extra 16k for a car that no faster at the end of the day. perhaps i'll feel different when i see a uk based review on rx8

morganrogers

Ah !
Well if we are talking Mag-test times , as opposed to maufacturers figs we may still have something to look forward to -

For instance - Honda quote for CTR - 6.8. Autocar - 6.4
My IntegraR is 6.7 according to Honda , and Evo make it 6.2 !

Point is , not a flame war on performance figures , but the fact that when we get some 'mag-tests' we may be happier than we are now !
I was expecting S2000 type performance and hopefully we should be close.

Lets hope we are right , and the Mazda figures are as conservative as Hondas are....

M.

MarkW

Its a shame the bad news overshadows the good news.

We have all been moaning about the lack of information for weeks.

However in the last few days, Mazda seem to have done most of the things we were asking for:

Mazda have written to us all
We have been given a nice free book
They have updated the web site
They have published where the car is available to view

On the otherhand, it now seems fact that they have stated:

The car is even further down on power to the US/Jap spec.
Therefore peorformance is further reduced.
It is also going to be 2 months late.

THe other thing to point out is the weight. The book doesnt show the Euro weight, but the US High Power is 1374kg. That is a whole person heavier than the 1300kg originally mentioned.

At 231bhp this gives 168 bhp/ton, whereas 237bhp at 1300kg gives 182bhp ton.

As a comparison that is similar to the difference between an Impreza WRX, and a WRX STi.

If the power is down and the weight is up that would account for the rise to the 6.8 sec time.

There are still numerous things I love about this car and I havent changed my mind yet, but I really hope the performance doesnt become too big an issue for me to overlook.

sixspeed

It is a bit depressing. BUT, I am sure that very little will need to be done to open up those 20 or so bhp to get the power back. It won't take long to see what the difference is between the UK and US models.


-andy-

craig172

Just had a further thought on the power output. If the power output is 19bhp down, what does it quote for the torque i thought 165 ( the original figure ?) was low, but does this mean torque will be even less than initial reports ?

At the end of the day performance is n't the be all and end all, but was an important factor when deciding what car to get next. Not wanting to get an EVo or impreza due to lack of style, interior etc, the RX8 seemed a good compromise between style and performance

But I can now envisage clio's, type r's and TT's bulletin boards full of "I thrashed an RX8 today" tales, which would p*** me off on the road, when i've just paid 23k for a "Sportscar". And a 350Z would fly past me.

The original figures i saw were 5.9 but starting off at near 8k revs, the more realistic figure of 5 - 60 rolling start was 7.2 and unless i'm mistaken was on a 250bhp model.

Maybe i'm over worrying on this as there are other great aspects of the car, it's just 6.8 secs sounds slow, when you could probably buy a nearly new hot hatch and a decent rx7 for the same price as a new Rx8

ccrx-8

where did the figure 231 pps come from????

Lensman

You're right and my authentic sources confirm it. Does anyone know how this would affect the eventual MOT though? (emissions.)

ed hall

i don't mind losing power output in the interest of emissions and global natural safekeeping, specifically air! What annoys the hell out of me is that the Americans can get away with it. We lose coz we care more.

Lensman

That's not the issue, the issue is that Mazda advertised the car as 240bhp instead of 250bhp BECAUSE it would comply with UK emissions controls. That was the car that I put money down on. Now we find out through the back door that they've failed to achieve what they promised (they KNEW in advance what the tests would be) and have slyly decreased the power still further. This is exactly what happened in Australia (check it out) and it's what is technically known as 'a rip-off'.

Winning

We get the same engine with you guys, and Mazda Australia quoted 0-100kph 6.2sec, before they bring the power down to 177kw, they claimed 6sec 0-100kph. But I can tell you Australian RX8 will not have a turning circle of 5.3m:p The car is faster than S2000 according to factory performance figures. Honda claimed 6.4sec for S2000, 7.3 for Integra Type R. 200sx 7.2sec.

I am not pretty sure about the claimed RX8 figure though, since Mazda Australia screwed us big time already. They can just say 6.2 instead of 6.8 so the pre-order customers don't get too upset.

I am pretty sure that the RX8 book figures for 6.8 and the car specs is for pre-production model.

bugbear

some of the posts have pointed out that the manufacturers times are slower than the tested times. i've always found this to be true when reading through the stats in the back of car mags. it's usually quite easy to spot tested figures in bold next to a similar engined car with manufacturers figures in normal font.

the reason? maybe:
1. insurance - make the product more attractive by lowering the insurance group
2. customer complaints - if the actual car didnt perform at least as well as the claimed figures they'd be trouble.

I hope i'm right - nearly 7 seconds doesnt see an MGF off by much - hardly a performance car!