I think its price tag would keep the RX-8 from being ubiquitous. It's not some car that "teenagers" (or parents of teenagers) would just go and pick up.

As far as Skyline's posts, his points are well taken (by me at least). I will investigate very closely the two cars. I saw a white/ivory (whatever) G35C barreling down the highway yesterday morning... it is very sweet looking car. Personally I don't think price, insurance, or reliability of the two is going to be that different. As much as I love the RX-8 right now, it really will all come down the the test drive. The RX-8, however, will always have an upperhand for this single most important reason: I, being 30 and starting a family, am tired of two doors but not tired of a "sports car". (The innovation/novelty of the RENESIS is simply icing for me.)

 

Skyline Maniac, how tall are you?

 

at marrying the coupe, sedan, and sports car themes into one vehicle can look at the April issue of Car & Driver where the RX-8 came in first place in a comparison test. Who did it beat? Only the Infiniti G35, Motor Trend's reigning 2003 Car of the Year. My money is on the RX-8 being named 2004 COTY. Simply put, there isn't another car like the RX-8 on the road.

 

What? If you only have one tall passenger, then the rear seats won't be used. If you mean 1 passenger in the rear, there is absolutely no way anyone over 5'10" (and probably much shorter than that) can sit in the back comfortably or even safely. An average person can't fit back there, much less a tall one!
The whole point that started this thread was the claim that the RX-8 has missed its mark by trying to be too many things. I pointed out that there is simply no other car on the market that does what the RX-8 can do close to its price. The G35c cannot from a practicality standpoint, and the sedan cannot from the standpoint of satisying someone who really wants a true sports car.
Incidentally, I found the rear seats of the RX-8 far more comfortable than the G35C (even aside from the headroom issue), but that's very subjective. There was more than enough leg, arm, head, hip, whatever room.

I'm glad to see it's less than the $35k that I found on edmunds. They're usually extremely accurate, so I'm curious where their misinformation came from.
Still, that's $4,000 more than the RX-8 that *I* want. I hate nothing more in a car than leather seats, other than FWD and an automatic transmission. Almost everything else that you listed is either something I would pay to have removed or something I want that's included in the base RX-8 package, so for me the price difference is still extremely significant. Certainly there are people for whom the price difference would be less, but I don't think it's possible for the RX-8 to cost more with similar options. At worst it's a draw, and at best it's a $4,000 advantage for the RX-8.

I'd be interested in how you know this. I much prefer a car that feels fun to drive, and I strongly suspect that the RX-8 will have that far more than the G35c for me. I'm a huge fan of light weight, nimble, agile, and communicative cars. Mazda has done that with the Miata, old RX-7s and Mazda 6 (given its platform), so if they put that same fairy dust in the RX-8 I'll enjoy it more than I did the G35c. If they missed the mark, then I won't buy either.

This is the part I really don't understand. For me, it's $4,000 less, has virtually identical performance to the G35c (0.1 seconds slower than the G35c on the C&D comparison article) even with the power deficit. That to me points to a better handling car, which is what performance is to me. In that comparison it was the only car to get 10s in fun to drive and handling, which are the two categories I'm concerned about. So it has nearly equal performance on the track as the G35c, better handling and fun to drive according to that article, and costs thousands less (in the trim that I want)! To me it looks much better than it did 2 months ago. I simply don't see how you can make the statement that you did unless straight line performance is the only or primary definition of performance for you.
Fuel economy doesn't concern me in the slightest, and acceleration in a straight line isn't important to me. Heck, I drive a Miata! And $4,000 can buy a whole lot of gas!

I'm really not trying to knock the G35c, although I know it looks like I am. I'm simply trying to point out that for the market Mazda was aiming for, it's a much, much better fit than the G35c. Nissan/Infiniti really hit their mark for their car, and I do respect their entire new line. If the RX-8 didn't exist, I'd be giving the G35 some serious consideration. However, the RX-8 has better performance in the areas that I care about, costs a whole lot less, comes with better option choices for me, and has a rotary engine! The initial question was, did Mazda try to do too many things and in doing so miss the mark? No. If the questions changes to "is the RX-8 or G35C a better car for all buyers?" then the answer is obviously "No." It's better for some, we just don't know how many.

 

Skyline - I don't disagree with you. On the contrary if we draw a 3D graph of all cars with the axes being price vs performance vs space/content then the 6MT G35 Sedan is way above everything else overall (inc. the RX-8, 350Z, BMW 3 series, EVO, BMW 5 series etc).

But the RX-8 has other things in it's favour, such as looks, compact external size, weight, handling, gearshift feel, rotary engine etc. Some of these 'benefits' are subjective so not everyone will agree. Heck I may not agree once I have tested the RX-8 - if I am not completely in Nirvana then I will be getting the 6MT G35 for the reasons you have mentioned.

In maths there is a term necessary and sufficient that indicates you MUST have certain things (system will not work without any one of these things) and those things are ALL you need (i.e. other things are superflous but can be added without beneficial effect). Everything I've read and seen suggests the RX-8 will provide the absolutely necessary performance, handling, space and comfort and also just sufficient performance, handling, space and comfort that I'm looking for (too much space means increased size and weight, too much comfort removes you from the driving experience, too much performance costs too much money and negates comfort etc).

 

I am 5'10.5, and don't expect me to sit in the backseat of the G35C :D. Ain't gonna happen. Most of my friends and family are 5'8 or below, so I don't have a problem with the backseat headroom. If you have all 5'10+ friends and family, I can definitely see a concern there. As far as the RX8 goes, the headroom was ample in the back, but the legroom was very tight, reminds me of the IS300. It's also not as easy to get in or out of the RX8 backseat as I thought. If you have to carry 4 people in the car all the time, I would honestly suggest a 4 door sport sedan like the G35 (similar price to RX8) or BMW. I agree the G35 sedan doesn't look as sweet as the RX8, but you can't really deny reclining full size back seats and a huge trunk. Heck, the G35C has a huge trunk if you remove the spare tire and the plastic molding around it. (I estimate at least 12 cu.ft of space back there) Then again, I prefer to drive with a spare in case anything happens.

Rich: Point well taken, it's not about what the general public wants, if about what YOU want. So if leather, options, and all that is unwanted, then you shouldn't have to pay for them. That's one thing about Japan luxury brands, they tend to load things up pretty well even in the base trim.

As far as performance goes, try to accelerate a G35 to 90mph vs a TT RX7 at the same speed, and you'll see what I mean. The G feels slow, no lurch, no turbo kick, no drama..... until you look down at the speedo and realize you are way over speed limit. The RX7 on the other hand, will feel pretty damn fast cruising at 45mph due to all the 'communicative' jerking, road and tire noise, and lower riding position. Try it, you'll see.

 

I don't get how your point relates to the RX-8 then...

You mention the RX-7 being jerky due the turbo... I'll say you're right on that. However being that the RX-8 does not have turbos and rather a silky smooth power line all the way up to redline (and beyond), I don't see how the RX-8 would 'feel faster.'

It's a matter of preference really. I drove the G35 Coupe and I was impressed by the power and thought it handled really well.

However, then I went for the BMW Drive for the Cure where I got the chance to drive a BMW Z4 2.5 (only 180ish horsepower!) and found that to be a *much much much* more fun car to drive than the G35 Coupe, despite the power difference.

I think that in the end it comes down to what you want -- power or handling. The RX-8 gives you 'okay' power, and great handling, with a (more likely) better feel due to its low weight.

The G35 Coupe will deliver great power, good handling, but a more bulky and stubborn feel in its delivery.

I really did not know what the difference would be with a lightweight car over a heavier car until I drove the Z4 and G35 in a very close time slot. The Z4 just put a grin on my face the G35 could not replicate. And being that the RX-8 weighs only 100 lbs more than the Z4 (and adds 50 ponies on top of it), I am certain it will be just as fun to drive.

Keep in mind, I drove the Z4 with the top up, because it was chilly that day and I couldn't bear the wind

To each his own though.... In the end you will buy what you like best. I think that Mazda has a good recipe here though.

 

If you think the Z4 feels nimble, try the S2000.

 

Um, the fact that the FD would get to 90 several seconds quicker probably has something to do with it too... I can demonstrate this to you if you want. :D

 

Don't get me tempted :p

Actually I've been meaning to drive it.. but I haven't had the chance yet. That and the Boxter too :D

 

Try and test drive a used model of both cars, you'll get a much better feel for them.

 

I had two RX-7's... back when I was single. Back then it was nice to take a chick for a cruise. Now that I am married, a back seat just makes sense. And I can also bring the babe, and two friends to enjoy the ride.

 

Don poses a very interesting question here. A few months back I posted the question "Does the RX8 put too much emphasis on the rear passenger?"

Personally, a 2 door, 2X2 model with a shorter wheelbase and a more tightly tuned suspension, etc would have been what I wanted. You would lose some of the "weird" looking angles of the car (largely relating to the extended roofline and sharp angled rear window). I'm sure a good amount of weight would be shed (the suicide doors and related structural bracing and perhaps using 17 inch wheels, etc.). Basically, you would have a sports coupe, BUT it would look and perform much closer (if not exceed in many areas) to the sports/high performance cars in its price range.

Apparently, the RX8 is more of a combination of a sports sedan and a sports car. That means its more comfortable, but also heavier and more compromised.

The question really is will this be a successful design? I think it carries more risk in that there is probobly more room for error. I think there is a bigger challenge (i.e. more compromises to balance in the RX8s design than my preferred design). However, there probobly is a greater return if they hit the mark.

 

are you all forgetting that JSG AND EAST MOON say that the rx-8 is incredible to drive and exceptionally fast, especially in any twisties that come up?
maybe im just halucinating again, but IM PRETYY POSITIVE THAT THEY DID!
________
GONG BONG