Better engine for RX-8: Renesis or 2.3 Turbo?
 

Say you could go the process of buying your RX-8 all over again. Only this time, side by side in the showroom there is the Renesis-powered RX-8 we all know and love, and next to it there was the exact same car, only with the 2.3 Turbo engine from the MS6. We'll call this one the "MX-8." Also, assume that both cars cost the same price, it's just matter of whether you want the Renesis or the 2.3 Turbo.

So which one would you choose? Please, I'm not trying to start a flamewar or bash either engine, I'm just curious to see what people would choose.

i would still choose the rotary i have come to love it.

I'd hate to say it, but probably the MX-8. Better power and gas mileage, and we were all n00bs when it came to rotaries before we bought the car. But if Mazda realistically did that, it wouldn't make sense for them to make the RX-8.

I wanted an s2k when I was car shopping, but went with the RX-8 for the four seats. The better exterior/interior was a plus, and the rotary experience has been fun.

Weight distribution isn't really the 'key'. Anyone know the weight of the 2.3 compared to the Renesis, though?


Can't wait to lose this Ford Focus rental and get my 8's rear bumper fixed from the shop...it's torture.

umm... i would go for the s2k or Z. i like our engine. might have not gotten the car if it wasn't an RX.

It wouldn't be an RX-8 without the R part

the rotary was one of the selling points for me

Right, which is why I pointed out that the 2.3 Turbo version would be called the MX-8.

Also, recall that in the 1970's many Mazda vehicles were available in both piston and rotary versions, such as the Capella/RX-2, Familia/RX-3, and Luce/RX-4.

this thread has been done numerous times

Really? There has already been a poll comparing the Renesis and 2.3T? If so, please post a link, I did not find a poll like this while searching.

Who said the 2.3 has "modability"?

I voted for the rotary. Give me the same pressure ratio with the Renesis as what the MZR has and it's not even a contest as to which is more powerful. The Renesis is the better engine as far as I'm concerned.

what would the RX series be without the rotary engine thats what makes the car unique. i mean seeing a FD3S with 365-385 rwhp eat up a 600+ awhp BNR34 Skyline in a touge battle dont tell me thats not impressive

I would pick the turbo 4, especially if the car remains rear wheel drive.

I have been driving piston engined cars all my life. I'm sick of it. My RX-8 has finally gotten me off the pogo stick.

Ken

i think i would like the rx8 already turbo/supercharge and call it (T RX-8). F--- the rest i'll pay the extra 5,000 or so is only $100 a month

O rly?


And that's the thing anyway, you don't have it.

Not from the factory I don't. For my cares and concerns, I'm thinking strictly in terms of potential. There's a reason 9psi GReddy turbos are running 290whp. Give the MZR 9psi and tune it all you want and I don't think it will hit 230whp since it is a 160bhp engine NA.

Yeah, I'll take a well-tuned Greddy turboed Renesis as well. But the OP mentioned that you're in the show room, trying to decide between stock and stock. Different perspectives.

Absolutely. :)

If I wanted instant gratification I would have purchased an EVO.

even after two engine replacements I still say the Renesis. If it isn't a rotary it isn't an RX

My reponse to an earlier post, it bears repeating:

Right, which is why I pointed out that the 2.3 Turbo version would be called the MX-8.

Also, recall that in the 1970's many Mazda vehicles were available in both piston and rotary versions, such as the Capella/RX-2, Familia/RX-3, and Luce/RX-4.

So since there is actually precedent of Mazda having both piston and rotary available in the same vehicle, I was simply wondering what it would be like if they did that with the RX-8/MX-8 as well.

It wasn't the engine that got me to buy the car, it was the car. I would take the turbo 4, if they moved the tranny back to keep the balance. If they can maintain the handling the 4 is a better choice.

Yes, I know the blasphamy, but there really is no need for a rotary in todays world. The benefits was alway light weight for balance but there are plenty of piston cars out there that have just as good and some better handling then the 8.

Also 3 moving parts was suppose to show how simple and non-problematic the engine is, but we all know better on that one.There are more powerful engines getting better gas milage and more torque.

I don't see any benefit to a rotary other then a 9K rev, and some pistons are getting real close to that too. Who wouldn't want a MX5 with the 2.3 turbo? or even better an MX8 with the 2.3turbo?

I just don't see a benefit for the rotary...

lets see... i think i'd take the one that comes with 40 more hp stock, better fuel mileage, far better bang for your buck modibility, and the engine that does not require you to drive around the neighborhood just to wash the car

An MX-8 sounds like a good idea to me. But I think it will handily outsell the RX-8.

An 8 without a rotary would be like a Dirty Harry movie without Clint Eastwood. No rotary? No 8 for me.

I bought my RX8 SPECIFICALLY for the "R".

Every since I saw one disassembled in a local shop and learned how they work I knew I had to own a rotary. I really didn't care what vehicle it came in, but I thank the stars it was in the sexy new 8's.

I've had enough of boingers for a while. After rebuilding the cylinder head of my Talon... twice... I'll give them a rest for a while.

Chris...

While I don't exactly meet the specifications of "doing it all over again" as I don't own an 8 currently, my opinion right now would be that I'd rather have the 4 banger turbo. I definitely lean towards the "more power" crowd so whatever gets me more power while maintaining the pimp styling of the 8 is all I really want.