Thinking about buying a RX-8
 

I have been a long time RX-7 (FC) owner and I have been thinking about getting a S2 RX-8. I was thinking about maybe a R3 because Blue, however when they first came out I read that the Recaro seat were not that comfy for a bigger guy like myself (6ft 240lbs). Since the cars have been out for about 10 years now so they may have issue that have popped up. Any help with what to look out for would be great. I am familiar with normal rotary type things, like burning oil,( it has oil injectors), and I should check the compression before buying.

Welcome.
I've heard the Recaros are uncomfortable as well.
I have a LY GT. '04, the only year LY was available.
90k miles on the original engine, but failing compression.
Still runs great though, I've made four 2000 mile road trips in it in the last year, very comfortable and quiet touring car.
GTs have heated leather seats, which are great on cold mornings.
Very comfortable, and I'm about your size as well, but a little thicker.
:)
I think the S1s are better looking, but I'm biased.

The most important thing is to be sure you get a rotary specific compression test before buying, unless you can afford a rebuild.

https://www.rx8club.com/new-member-f...t-here-202454/

R3 is the track-oriented model, which is great if that's what you want it for. If you want a cruiser, go for a GT.

Basically what Loki said. I got a GT because I like the heated leather seats and moon roof my old Accord Coupe had.

All the differences I am aware of for the R3:

- Exterior parts like front bumper, side skirts, rear spoiler, 19" forged wheels, etc.

- Interior parts like Recaro cloth/leather seats, some leather interior pieces have red stitching instead of the usual black.

- The engine is not different from the other models, but there are the Bilstein shocks(stiffer, corners better but less comfortable) and urethane foam injected front cross member.

Given your height, I'd think a moon roof would actually be a con since it takes away some headroom, so you might want to think twice about a GT. Sport has less comfort features than both GT and R3.

It's not, really.
I have to recline a bit for headroom, but I have short legs.
A normally proportioned 6 footer shouldn't have any issues, and the seat rails can be flipped to lower the seat further is desired.

https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-do-...-205255/page2/

To each of their own. I am about 5'9" to 5'10" and I fit in my car just barely with the seating position I am comfortable with. If I wear a helmet for autocross, I have to recline the seat and it's a position I don't use for daily driving. (Thanks, memory driver seat.)

If you are fine with reclining your seats back a little bit then by all means.

Yeah, you'll hate those Recaros. I'm 6'2" and 180, and they are barely tolerable for me.

And anyway, the R3 isn't worth the price premium unless the handling of the stock setup is a must-have. Like, you'd have to care about that enough to put it front-and-center in your post. The fact that you didn't makes me think you'd be better off saving your money and just getting a Sport or GT.

About the handling: if the R3 costs you 1500 more than a GT, you can buy some real nice coilovers for your GT and run circles around the R3. So unless you're competing and the class restrictions are such that you must use stock components, the R3 handling bonus isn't a big deal.

Don't mean to imply disagreement on the main point here; just want to address a minor point. The value of a good stock setup isn't just about how capable the car is. It's about having that capability along with a flat ride, consistent handling behavior with few or no odd quirks near the limit, etc. -- stuff that's not easy to get from an aftermarket suspension without a fair amount of setup and possibly some customization.

But yeah, if your point is that you have to want the R3 more-or-less as it is or it's not worth buying, then I agree 100%.

Yep that's a good point. I did mean what you say: an R3 is great if you want to keep it stock, if you're going to modify, may as well use a lower trim. And an R3 is VERY enjoyable in stock form (source: used R3 suspension on my S1). It's all down to the usecase.
Many of the track cars that post on this forum are nearly base model series 1s... with coilovers.

Used versus used, there probably isn't a huge price advantage for R3.

They just focus on different aspects: GT gives you more comfort, while R3 gives you better handling.

If my suspension bites the dust, I will probably pick up a set of R3 Bilstein suspension. Bonus that they last longer than non-R3 suspension from what I have read.

Now if you're the kind of person that's "in it to win it", then I think a cheapie Sport is probably the best pick since it lacks the stuff that will weigh the car down, and as you said, you can just change out stock parts for aftermarket parts of your liking.

Wow, that is a lot of replies. Was there no touring trim level for the S2? I noticed a lot of of GT or sport. The main reason I would get a R3 is because of that Blue.

Other then the cosmetic changes, what also has changed from S1 to S2. I remember that these guys had coil issues because sitting on the motor cooked them a little.

I think there was a Touring trim for 09. It was pretty short-lived, and likely will be labeled as GT by unknowing sellers.

S2 has some mechanical changes as well, engine is slightly different with a centre oil injector added for each housing, different transmission(made by Mazda in-house, not the Aisin glass transmission), different differential gear ratios, etc.

http://www.rx8help.com/series-differences.html

As for coils, S2 came with Revision B coils stock, which are still problematic. Grab some Revision C or BHR and you will be fine.

Thanks for the link.

S2 had a LOT of changes. Cooling, oiling, breathing, fueling, electronics, chassis, suspension, transmission, final drive, body, interior... Almost everything was worked over. Little tweaks, plus addressing known failure points. The driving experience is basically the same but it's a better car. Like, the only reason to buy an S1 would be if you were going to mod the hell out of it.

Also, if the color is the only reason you're interested in an R3, don't do it. 99.9% chance you'd be a lot happier with a Sport or GT repainted in that color. Similar cost in the end, and you won't have to put up with the Recaros, stiff suspension, etc. (or destroy yet another R3 by getting rid of them).

I'm 6'4 and have no problem with the Recaros. The R3 is the rarest of the U.S. RX-8's with only 950 imported. That appealed to me very much. On top of it being the prettiest version, and obviously the best handling version. Who knows how few there are left, but I like the thought of owning a true unicorn. Mine is very mildly modded, nothing that can't be returned to stock, and has very low miles on it.

If I bought a S1 it most likely be one with a broken motor that is cheap. I have to read up on the differences in trim levels. I think I could also get the R3 aero stuff as well.

I saw a Blue R3 with a LS swap, which broke my heart. like the guys who LS swap a FD when they could have bought a C-5 Corvette.

Thete's a Hinson LS for sale for $16k here.

Realize that car magazines/auto journalists did not consider changes to the S2 mechanicals (engine, oiling, cooling) significant. No, the S2 was universally considered "a refresh". Articles at the time focused much more on the new taillights, front grille, tachometer and, of course, the R3 with Recaro seats. Extra oil injector? Uh… not so much. Barely mentioned. Don't believe me? Read all the articles.

(Personally, and note that this is just my opinion, I believe the mechanical changes were made to make the car more resistant to owner maintenance neglect, which was and is widespread on this car. With the vast majority of RX-8 owners neglecting to check/add oil every other fill-up, routinely skipping/putting off oil changes as if they owned a Camry, cruising around all day at 3K RPM, and heading out each morning without letting the car sufficiently warm up first, the 8 was destined to be thought of as unreliable. S2 changes helped fight that kind of owner neglect; neglect you can get away with if you drive an ordinary car.)

Opinions have to be supported by facts, you know.

IMO it's a combination of both owner neglect like you mentioned and design flaws from the factory.

Here are some design flaws I can point out:

- Paper-thin S1 radiator(thicker in S2)

- Potato ignition coils(a little bit better in S2, but they can still fail)

- Lack of centre oil injector(fixed in S2)

How is any amount of normal(as in, no mods, no tuning) maintenance supposed to help these?

By the way, I think I mentioned this in another thread, but "warming up before you drive" should have died with carburators. At most, wait for 30 second and drive it. You do more harm than good if you wait any longer.

So there you have it. My '05, purchased new, is now almost 14 years old, and after 47K+ miles, has yet to have ANY engine problems. Not a single one. If the car has "design flaws," as you say, that shouldn't be possible now, should it? My '05 has the "paper thin" S1 radiator. My '05 has NO center oil injector. So how did it manage to get this far without dying? Do I have a magic RX-8?? Did a magic fairy come down in the middle of the night and wave her magic wand over my '05 Shinka? Uh, no.

Fact is, proper maintenance goes a long way with these cars. I believe just a tiny handful of RX-8 owners maintained the cars properly. I'm talking like maybe 5-10% of them. 'Cause we 'muricans don't want to be bothered havin' to maintain our cars, don'tcha know. Or even wash 'em. Add that center oil injector and who knows? Maybe the car can go a little further between oil fill-ups and oil changes. That's the conclusion I suspect Mazda engineers came to. Of course, if you check the oil every other fill-up the way you're supposed to, that center oil injector is kind of a moot point, isn't it?

Don't let facts get in the way of manufacturing your own reality;)

The S2 "cold" redline is at like 6k. It doesn't say don't drive, it says don't abuse the car.

And how does a 3rd injector and a fully revamped injection system have anything to do wirh someone maintaining the correct oil level?

I know you want to believe it's all bad owners fault, but plenty of qualified people right on this forum have had to replace engines. And your 47k miles is not an indicator of anything. See if a recent compression test is still at factory spec, and prove us wrong ;)

Cooling:
I don't know, people in hot climates are reporting overheating in traffic. Gotta think of the worst case scenario as an engineer.

Coils:
I say design flaw because they were considered life-time items. If they had a service interval with them from the factory, then yes I am BSing, but they don't, hence why it took people a while to figure out they were the culprit.

I will let someone more knowledgeable speak about the centre oil injector.

Warming up:
I didn't say "rev the crap out of it" when you take off. Take it easy(<4k RPM) until you reach operating temperature. Your original post was saying warming up before driving at all("...and heading out each morning without letting the car sufficiently warm up first..."), which is an old wives' tale.

This applies to ALL fuel-injected engines, period.

S2 has 3 stages of redline:

<40C: 5k RPM

40C~74C: 7k RPM for MT, 6500 RPM I think for AT

>74C: full redline, 9k RPM for MT, 7.5k RPM for AT

As for oil injectors, I agree that frequent oil changes can prevent possible clogging, but the level can't make up for that missing injector. I am just not 100% sure how much difference it makes, but Mazda probably added it for a reason on S2.

Lastly, this is not me bashing the car. Every car has its flaws. My Accord Coupe V6 could burn a lot of oil due to a flaw in the cylinder-deactivation mechanism, and my Corolla burns way more oil than my 8 does due to a design flaw in the oil control rings.

Lol, 47K and you haven't had any engine problems?..... and that's something to brag about? You must have low expectations! You do realize most modern engines would do three times that mileage and not have problems either....

Unsurprisingly, proper maintenance does wonders for the longevity for most engines. Can't help but think you're just looking for excuses for the unreliability of the Renesis, without acknowledging the facts and the elephant in the room.

Heck, it's a pretty obvious issue when even long term Mazda rotary owners acknowledge the Renesis is an embaressment, or Rotary workshops love the RX8's only cause they keep them busy with rebuilds...... but hey, if it makes you feel better on your purchase, lets all keep pretending these issues are simply related to improper maintenance :icon_tup:

Your mileage is relatively low, though. Any wear from the lack of centre injector may not be apparent yet.

New York isn't that hot from what I have looked up. Idling in the middle of Texan/Californian (40+C/104+F) summer is a different story.

As for "Americans can't check oil level", I don't think our friends on the other side of the pond is particularly better.

And heh, the Owner's Manual does say 8k miles between oil changes are fine, at least in certain regions. Even the Canadian schedule says 5k miles...

Put it this way: I call BS on the whole "50k miles and the engine is toast" thing, but you have to admit it has some poor design decisions, and that's fine. Every car does. Does it get in the way of me enjoying the car? No. I still like it.

Either way, OP has an RX-7. If he can put up with an RX-7, an RX-8 should be no problem.

S1 radiator core is quite a bit thinner than S2 unit, though.

TBF they addressed some issues with the Renny. There are some good design choices.

Really, the big problem is that the emission laws are getting more and more ridiculous, to the point that companies have to either cheat(VW is not alone now) or come up with untested technology to meet over-the-top standards.

Even reliable cars like Honda isn't much better off nowadays. Google "Honda VCM lawsuit" and "Honda 1.5T oil dilution". What an embarrassment to the company that built the legendary F20C.

They may have addressed some issues, but they obviously didn't address enough, and then created more.

Sure, emissions compliance is the big reason the Mazda rotary evolved into the Renesis. But its the same playing field every other manufacturer were/are playing in too. Plenty of vehicle manufacturers have managed to still design and fit performance engines to production vehicles that have shown to be vastly more reliable, and needing less ongoing, specialized pampering, compared to what the Renesis does...

Don't get me wrong, I'm a rotary guy through and through. Have been daily driving and racing rotaries long before they were even mainstream popular. Probably built over 50 engines, from stock 10A through to ported and turbocharged 20B engines fitted to dragsters, and then everything in between. So I'm not hating on the rotary, but just trying to be honest and pragmatic with what Mazda did with the Renesis, which was take a design that already had a shaky reputation for reliability and simply made it even worse - not by a little bit, but by a lot.

It's funny then to read forum posts where people try to justify the fragility of the motor on every other possible aspect, other than the obvious fundamental and inherit flaws in the design. In this day and age of technology, advanced materials and quality control, it's simply not acceptable to me that a mass produced engine could be so consistently unreliable, given what they should have learnt from their earlier motors.

Yeah so to the original poster: if you're OK with our little theater here, then welcome aboard! This is rotary ownership.

Lol, that was great. if you really want to see some heated debate hope on the 7 club and look up if OMP is better then Pre-mixing. I honestly believe Mazda should have the OMP use 2-cycle or similar instead of the oil from the pan. They maybe able to improve emission with the correct oil.

I honestly believe that the RX-8 would look a lot better if people stopped comparing it to a FD. IIRC the FD sold for about the same in 1993 and the RX-8 did 20 years later. Which is Corvette money. The RX-7 people should be comparing it to is the S5 (89-91) NA FC with the back seat or 2+2. That car was rated at about 150hp or so, you couldn't fit any adults in the back seat, where as the RX-8 has the most roomy back seats of anything that is a sporty coupe.

Well, considering the intelligence of an average car owner, they had to use 4-stroke oil. Some lubrication is better than none(running out of 2-stroke in a separate reservoir).

And yeah, 8 isn't comparable to FD at all. The FD was possible because before the economy bubble burst in Japan, a lot of Japanese car makers were making cars before they even consider the possibility that these cars probably won't sell. The 20B-REW Eunos Cosmo is a perfect example before Mazda actually went on and made the Amati V12 car they had in their plan...

On "design issues":

Consistently short lifespan would point to either:

1. Insanely bad design -- like, the kind that the most basic testing regime would catch -- or
2. Sacrificing longevity for some other goal, on purpose, in a calculated way.

Pretty clear that neither is the case with the Renesis. Mazda is neither incompetent enough for #1 nor foolish enough for #2.

When engines are troublesome, it's because of some combination of the following:

1. The design and development process didn't properly simulate real-world conditions
2. The design itself is too sensitive to something or other
3. Manufacturing problems

When those things happen, you don't expect all engines to die early. You expect variation. Many engines would die early, but some would last a long time. The same is true of any complex manufactured part.

That's exactly what happens with the Renesis.

I would be one to agree, but diesel engine use DEF now and owners seem to be ok with that. It would really get rid of the whole though process of, "rotary engine burns motor oil, that means the engines are poorly made."

IIRC Mazda had an issue with quality control for MY 2004-2006 because Ford was involved and it was causing problems. I was told that is why you should buy a 06 or newer, and stay away from the 04's like they had the plague.

People had issues when trying to Turbo the Renesis, and I am not really sure if it is truly do to the side port exhaust or because they are trying to turbo a 6 port engine. If you look into how hard it is to turbo a FC RX-7 6-port engine and make good power you may understand. I never tried but from what I have read it is not that easy. I am not sure if it is a tuning issue or what.

I believe a MSP rotary could be better if it have housing exhaust ports that could be opened at higher RPMs to increase power but be closed at cruise to improve emissions however; I have no idea how it should be built or implemented.