This has been debated on her a bahzillion times. If the Kabura or whatever Mazda wants to call it if and when it comes out is a 2 or 2+2 and is able to drop 500 or so pounds it should be pretty fast with the existing Renesis. The RX8 is no slouch IMO but HP and torque sells sports cars. If you could drop the weight and boost performance even by 40-50hp you would have on bad *** sports car.



The RX8 is a great car but if you could get another 75-100 hp out of it, another 75 lbs of torque, up the mileage by 5 MPG and eliminate the possibility of flooding it would be the perfect sports car IMO.

 

Well let's be honest—if the typical American buyer + spouse would each drop 50-75 lbs (looking at news footage from The Mall of America, that sounds about right), they could have their faster, lighter RX-8 right now.

 

Technically, it's not really a sports car to begin with, it's a sport coupe. "Real" sports cars don't have four doors and don't have rear seats that you can actually USE... And yes, I consider the rear seats of this car usable, unlike the rear seats in "real" sports cars that have vestigal rear seats like the 911.

Getting away from semantics, don't you think the Renesis has been developed about as far as it could be without FI? Don't you think that Mazda has pretty much given us the best they can give us without breaking the bank? Throw in the FI hardware and there goes the affordability aspect, down goes the reliability, and up goes the insurance. The only other option is a third rotor, which would do nothing for affordability either.

If you want a rotary-powered car, you can ask for more HP or torque but you won't get an additional 5mpg (another of your requirements) at the same time.

Sounds like what you want is an RX-8 with a piston engine.

 

well guys, my 20b cosmo is getting constang 16 to 18 mpg thats a 20b twin turbo engine with 80's technology and the car weight 3200 lbs

now you are telling me mazda cant make a more economical engine today?
has anyone thoug that the renesis is just too small to move a 3000lbs car?
what happens if you put a small engine in a large car? it ends up consuming more fuel than a well mach engine to chasis.
a larger more torqui engine can use a taller final gear a 3.90 or something giving better hiway mpg.

 

aren't these great news, I will be done paying for mine by beginning 2009, which means I will most likely get into the new design 8... unless they make a turbo mazdaspeed 8... then all bets are off...

 

I'm telling you that I think that Mazda has given us the most economical rotary that they could. In the current climate, or even the climate of the last few years, being able to advertise better fuel economy would be a boon. Can you think of a single reason why they WOULDN'T give us better fuel economy if they COULD?

And no, I don't think that the RX-8 is too heavy for the Renesis.

 

The rx-8 already has too many concessions due to mileage and emissions requirements.

Just wait for your warranty to expire then get a turbo for your 100+ hp boost.

 

Waho! where to star

firts the renesis was develop with limited funds and time as the rx-8 development was not oficial and most engineniers work on the car on there free time as voluntiers, second the rx-8 weight's 300 pounds more than an rx-7 and has a NA engine, my fc gives better fuel milage, mazda should have gone with a larger engine or force induction. there's no way a 4.44 rear diff its going to give you good gas milage.

The rx-8 its a great car but there are a lot of things mazda could have made better just based on there own expirience, every problem that the rx-8 has have where fix on other rotary models.

Im sure the next rx-8 its going to be almost perfect since theres a lot more R&D going into this car

 

aha thats a miconception i have been wanting to address. this falacy of better fuel efficiency in the FC etc. its simply untrue. an FC has what hp at the crank? 160 NA? and was rated 17 city 25 highway for mpg. it also weighed in at @ 2600 or less ilbs.

the rx-8 weighs at least 300(if not 400) ilbs more has at least 50 more horsepower and is rated 18/24 . 25 highway with the new 6speed auto. that is a substantial increase in fuel efficiency for the engine. to get rated slightly better city and the same highway with more weight and more horsepower shows the Renesis is the more fuel efficient power plant. put this power plant in an FC and the FC would get BETTER mileage while enjoying more power. put the FC engine in the RX-8 and we would be paying a gas guzzler tax

they will gain more efficiency by going to DI. it may not get rated higher , because they will up the power. but more power with the same mpg rating IS an increase in fuel efficiency.

 

hope the redesign in 2010 includes a roadster model. would love to see the renesis in roadster flavor.

 

well I get 20 to 26 mpg on my fc and it is a turbo, not a lot of rx-8 owners are getting that

im not discussing that the fc engine is more eficient, you just help me make my point the renesis in a 2700lbs car would be just right.

the renesis is a completly superior desing to any rotary engine before it the problem is packaging and setup, this engine would be at home in an rx-7 but for the rx-8 I think it would have beeng better to use a larger engine.

 

how bout we don't turn this into another MPG thread

 

^^Ditto

 

Renesis in a two seater, i.e rx-7 car, or Kabura = good power/weight ratio, perhaps better mileage will result. DI would be nice. Problem solved. A three rotor from Mazda would be unlikely.

For those who say horsepower ratings sell, just always try to give in 0-60 times in advertising whenever possible. Assuming it's good, and assuming Mazda actually decides to advertise whatever future rotary sports car.

 

I completly agree with this. Maybe what Mazda should do is have 3 generations of the rx8, the four seater sports car, then maybe even go back to the rx7 with 2 seats. Still, I think more options should have been made availabe for this car. i.e. factory turbo, higher hp n/a model... Which I thought they have done in Japan... and a few other places..

 

hmmm somebody do an experiment!!! drop the renesis in a 1st or 2nd gen, use manual tranny with 4.10 or 3.90 gears, 7500 rpm redline with 8000 rpm fuel cut and test the mileage!!

 

He didn't make that point, not at all... And neither have YOU.

While you are correct that a 2700lb car with this engine would be a hoot, you have not shown us how this car is too heavy for a 230+hp engine. It seems your only "evidence" is that the RX-8 gets no better mileage than the turbo model of 15+ years ago, which doesn't have any relation to the subject. I will agree with you that 6th gear could be, and should be, taller... Like the OD gear in a Corvette box. Just 3000rpm (instead of 3500-ish rpm) at 75mph would be a good start... The yawning gap between 5th and 6th gears be damned.

Please illuminate we uninformed folks as to how Mazda dropped the ball by giving us too little motor for the RX-8. Is your only argument that the mileage is essentially the same as the FC Turbo? The way I see it, the '8 weighs 20% more than that car yet makes 50% more hp, and it is the RX-8 that's underpowered??

 

Between my CX7 and RX8 the 7 motor would feel right at home in the 8. Gobs of bottom end torque.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the 2.3T offered in an 8 as a special Z killer in the next few years.

 

Will never happen.

 

a push back to 2010 would seem to indicate trying to get an extra few years of profit out of a model before dumping it -shrug-

 

I seriously doubt 2010 would be the time table. As Zoom pointed out, most models they have for 2007/2008 are hitting this year.

 

If they go DI in the next RX8, I think they should try developing a variable displacement system like the HEMI's. That way you can increase hwy mileage while increasing power. But if they can't do that in a 2 rotor maybe it can be done in a 3 rotor. That would make a 3 rotor more feasible. Also CVT's for the auto's would rule.

 

What i also find intresting....no RX-7 mentioned in any of those years as a new product that is being released. To be honest as much as we love the RX-7, i really don't think Mazda see's the same love for it.

Realistically, the RX-7 gave Mazda bad press in the 90's , with all its quirks, engine fires, bad fuel econemy, paint chipping,etc. As a business venture, resurecting the RX-7 name, may be bad business. Even though its one helluova performer in the Enthusiast eyes, its bad business in Mazdas eyes.

Yes the 8 gets slammed for its gas consumption for a small engine, seems like every mag i read , that is the main con for this vehicle. Other than that , the 8 gets praised for everything else, testers alike from every mag loves the car, it won best sports coupe every year since its introduction , and even though the 8 is nots Mazdas bread and butter vehicle , the car brings in positive feed back,(something the 7 didn't most of the time) which inturn brings in good business for Mazda, even if the 8 is Mazdas niche car.

Hopefully Mazda will bring us a high performance 2 door sports car again, or maybe further the 8 in the performance direction in the future, such as the UK performance version of the 8, Prodrive. No power adders added but tweaked suspension/lighter wheels is a step in the right direction.

 

If you think Mazda doesn't have love for the RX-7 you are crazy. Mazda has its finger on the trigger but the safety is on...Know your market, what battles to fight, and when the time is right...

 

The RX7 is one of the most storied names in the sportscar business, and I don't think that the name carries any negative baggage, its simply a cost issue.

Mazda would love to have a RX7, but they need a business case for it. The Kabura would be close to the feel of the original RX7 if it had a rotary, light weight, cheap and fast.