It never fails. Whenever my girlfriend introduces me to guys at parties, I hear the same nine words: “Dude, you have the best job in the world.” And it’s true. I’ve driven some of this planet’s finest, fastest and most deeply addictive automobiles. But for every Audi RS4 there’s a Suzuki XL7. And a MINI Cooper Clubman S (trust me, it’s wretched). True, sometimes I’m surprised by how much I like a car; the Pontiac G8 GT springs to mind. And sometimes my socks are completely blown off my feet, like they were last week by a special edition Mazda RX-8, the R3.
I’m telling you up front that the Mazda RX-8 R3 is not for everyone. Like every modern Mazda, the company’s Nagare (flow?) design language is creeping in. Which makes the “sporty front bumper” that’s unique to the R3 package look like a demonic Pokemon. You also get a rear spoiler. I happen to think the exterior treatment looks wikkid awesome killer cool. But I understand why [some] folks over the age of 18 may not. At least we can all agree that ditching the RX-8’s ludicrous triangular anus was the best move Mazda’s made in years.
I could make the RX-8′’s interior perfect in 10 minutes– with a crow bar. Out goes the goofy stereo unit, most of the crummy plastic and the useless back seats. But here’s the good part: any surface that actually involves driving is near perfect, if not actually so. The leather shrouded steering wheel’s my new best friend. The six-speed manual (only tranny available on the R3!) may not be as snick-snick perfect as the Miata’s, but it’s damn close. And you won’t find a better dead pedal on any car. I’m too fat for the Japanese market racing Recaros. But hey, I should lose 25 pounds (though I’d still be too fat).
All RX-8s now come with a brilliant new 1.3-liter RENESIS two-rotor rotary engine that’s good for 232 hp and 159 lb-ft of torque. If that doesn’t sound like much to you, you’ve never driven a Wankel. You don’t take rotaries to drag strips where their obvious lack of torque is a handicap. You take rotary-powered cars to tracks, where a 9,000 rpm redline and humongous usable power band means you can leave the car in third and forget about it ’til you win the race. That’s essentially what I did while carving through some of LA’s best canyons.
Like all RX Mazda’s, the R3’s engine is up front, driving the rear wheels. There’s no performance compromise. Up until this weekend, the EVO X MR was the best-handling car I’ve ever reviewed. But remember: the mighty EVO begins life as a humble FWD econo-box, before Mitsubishi gives it a make over with fancy computers and even fancier mechanicals. Sure, the Active Yaw Control and twin-clutches in the rear half-shafts allow the best-ever EVO to run roads faster than the RX-8 (or most exotics). But underneath all the trickery the Mitsubishi’s still an upright, upper lower middle-class family car. The RX-8 R3, on the other hand, is a sports car first, second and last.
Mazda claims that all they did to tweak the R3’s handling over lesser RX-8s was to add a set of Bilsteins, 19” forged wheels and a Urethane-foam-injected front suspension cross member (whatever that is). But you know what? The results are mind altering. The R3 comes with traction control that I had on for maybe 30 seconds. You simply don’t need it. You cannot make this car break loose. I tried very hard to do so, and with the exception of making childish donuts in a parking lot, the R3 simply doesn’t surrender grip.
The R3 feels like you’re driving a closed cockpit racecar; let’s say a Lotus Se7en with a hard top and decent AC. Looking out over the hood, I kept expecting to see open wheels. Words like “direct” and “communicative” don’t begin to do the intuitive steering justice. Every crank and tug of the wheel results in total, benign compliance. One caveat: the ride is extremely hard, brutal even. But the teeth-chattering suspension’s perfectly-suited to the R3’s nature.
And here’s the cincher: $32k. For the same price as the aforementioned awful MINI Cooper Clubman S, you can have one of the world’s finest-handling sports cars. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that the RX-8 R3 handles well for a $32k car. I’m saying it handles better than a $320k car. Or, more importantly, whatever you’re driving.
[Mazda supplied the vehicle reviewed, insurance and a tank of gas.]
125 Comments on “2009 Mazda RX-8 (R3 Sport Package)...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Damn, 5 stars? Not a word about its abhorent V8-like fuel mileage or frequent repairs required?
Then again, you are writing a driving review, not an owning review. I’ve no doubt the car is sublime, but the RX-8 is one of those cars, like the Mini, where all the reliability issues and negatives of ownership are pretty much ignored because of the fun factor. To each his own I suppose–I’d rather have a 350Z.
I always loved the look of RX8’s, but I couldn’t pass up the reliability/practicality of a 4 door rally car (STi).
Anyone know if the rotary engines last past 100k miles or is that just an old wives tale?
Well all the rotary owners constantly pipe up with “if you take care of them right they last forever” but things keep blowing up left right and center. And last year (or was it the year before?) Mazda finally did a massive recall on them to repair something fundamentally wrong with the engine (damned if I can remember what it is now) that increases longevity.
But y’know, apex seals are apex seals. It’s just not a reliable design.
excellent review, Jonny. I always expected these were fun cars, but i really want a convertable. I was thinking about a cooper or a cooper s droptop, i’m curious to know why you hate them.
This may have only been a concern in the first couple years and maybe Ford/Mazda corrected it. Does the RX8 still burn oil about a quart of oil between regular oil changes?
BTW very nice review!
Cars like these frustrate me to no end. As a father of 3 young kids, no way can I justify blowing $30K+ on a new one, and as tigeraid points out, I’d be a fool to wait 3 years and buy one used, given the reliability of Wankels.
Pity.
By all means, buy one if fun factor is your #1 selling point. It’s like an old British roadster–the feel of driving one outweighs the constant problems.
You cannot make this car break lose. (sic)
You think?
Maybe you can’t break the rear wheels loose because of its torque deficiency, but I guarantee the car can be made to lose traction. While it handles well, no question, telling us it handles better than a Miata, Cayman, Z06, GTR, Ford GT, and LP560 (or anything else short of $320k really brings into question the seriousness of your comments.
Well all the rotary owners constantly pipe up with “if you take care of them right they last forever” but things keep blowing up left right and center.
Sounds like Saab owners. Or Mercedes owners. Or Volvo owners. Or BMW owners.
Or owners of anything excepting the Toyota Corolla, to some degree.
doctorv8:
Just so TTAC doesn’t look like a bunch of yobs (as if), please send all typos to robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com. Meanwhile, text amended.
On the handling seriousness front, I defer to Mr. Lieberman.
The handling is as good as he says it is. I haven’t driven the R3 yet, but the handling of the regular car is THAT GOOD, with excellent ride quality for a sports car. A 350Z handles like a truck in comparison. I’ve driven over 500 different cars. IMHO, none of them is as fun or as easy to drive quickly on a challenging mountain road as the RX-8.
In a drive from VA to Detroit and back, hitting some of the toughest roads in WV and OH, I only needed the stability control once. But even if you only need it once, it’s very good to have. And, unlike some such systems, it operates unobtrusively. When it kicks in, you want it to kick in.
TTAC has an editorial lost somewhere in the bin where I argue that this car’s poor sales indicate that few people truly place a high priority on handling. If you think you do, you should own one of these. Seriously.
One error in the review: the rear seats are far from useless. I’m 5-9 (but not overweight), and I fit back there with more comfort than in some sedans.
Reliability is about average in TrueDelta’s survey, but then hardly any of the current gen cars are near 100k. You can find plenty of 2005s and even 2004s with under 20k miles on them, because they’re often second cars. And they’re dirt cheap.
After you buy one, I hope you’ll participate in the survey:
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
For once, I can write about a nice car from my own experience, not from what I’ve heard. I owned a new 2004 RX-8 for 5 months in 2005. Thank God, that thing was stolen! Worst car I ever had, can’t understand why every auto journalist goes ga-ga over it. Probably fun if you live in California or Florida, where roads are billiard-table smooth. Not so much in Montreal, where every other inch of road is covered with cracks and potholes. The ride is intolerable after about oh, 2 minutes?? The Bose soundsystem is crap. Everyone wants to race you but you don’t have enough power to win. Ever. And the drinking… I had that car when Katrina pushed gas price for premium at 1.60 $CDN/liter (about 7.71$US/gallon). Fill ups lasted about 150 miles, city driving. Let’s not forget price. You may get your R3 for 32K, but it’s 42K in Canada (46K for a GT with nav, which I had). Some things are harder to forgive at that price point.
trust me, it’s wretched
Sorry Jonny, I liked my drive in the Clubman S. It’s on my list for WRX Wagon replacement. Thus, trust, but verify.
@beetlebug:
Lieberman’s Clubman S press car was an automatic.
VFR800A: have you driven any sports cars with passable ride quality on Montreal roads? I don’t think I’ve driven a sports car that rides better than the RX-8. I’ve driven plenty that ride much worse.
MINI hands out automatic press cars? Do they want bad reviews?
I’ve only driven the current MINI with an automatic, and didn’t care for it, but blame the transmission.
Probably fun if you live in California or Florida, where roads are billiard-table smooth. Not so much in Montreal, where every other inch of road is covered with cracks and potholes. The ride is intolerable after about oh, 2 minutes?? The Bose soundsystem is crap. Everyone wants to race you but you don’t have enough power to win. Ever.
lol.
A Corvette equipped with the F55 Magnetic ride control rides better than a base RX8, especially if you ditch the run flat tires….if my experience with the old RX7 and it’s R1 variation is any indication, I would imagine the R3 is a fair bit stiffer.
I’ve seen 22 year old wankels with 150K on them, and even the old ones are a blast to drive.
After my ownership experiance with an RX-7 I can promise you that no amount of positive review will ever make me own a Rotory powered car again.
The Wankel is like a heroin addiction. Addictively fun but ultimatly self-destructive.
DrV8: “Ride” and “drive” are two different things. The Corvette is probably still a bit heavier on it’s feet than the RX and takes a bit more muscle to get it in the turns, but I’m sure it’s a bit more comfortable as a cruiser.
Justin,
Thanks for the info on the Mini with auto. Ugh, I can imagine how that might dumb down the driving experience. In some ways I think the Mini and the RX8 are similar: Strong auto flavors that not everyone will like but those who do can get intoxicated on them. Just yesterday I was swearing about the radio controls in our Mini, but then I took a few sweepers and realized that occasional swearing is good for the soul.
Actually, my concern about the RX8 is the aforementioned excessive oil usage and the lack of torque. I don’t go to VIR and do track days (wish I could afford it, though), I drive in traffic and occasionally break free on a nice twisty road for treat. Thus, I’m not sure if I would have a smile on my face if I had to lug the RX8 around town.
VFR800A: You presumably took your car for a test drive before buying it, right? If you didn’t notice an uncomfortable ride, poor sound system, and lack of torque during a test drive, then I have a really hard time placing value on your opinion.
doctorv8: As TEXN3 noted, Ride and Handling are very different animals. Ride is all about comfort, while Handling is about communication, driver involvement, and confidence. They aren’t entirely mutually exclusive, but they come close. The Corvette, Ford, and Lamborghini you listed may very well have better ride comfort than even a base RX-8, but I can readily believe they have worse handling. Nimble cars, not necessarily fast cars, are the kings of handling.
TEXN3:
I’m familiar with ride vs drive, thanks.
I was responding to Michael Karesh’s statement, “I don’t think I’ve driven a sports car that rides better than the RX-8.”
No question the RX8 is lighter on its feet, but the F55 Vette is a sports car that rides noticeably better. Too bad very few Corvettes are so equipped, since the MR shocks are a $1900 option.
Crazybob:
Ditto.
If either of you think the RX8 handles better than a Miata or S2000, let alone a Cayman….hell, even the 1993-95 RX7 was more nimble IMHO.
Thanks for the review.
The Evo X is a really Family Sport Sedan compared to the RX-8 which is a Sport Car. A VERY good counterpart of the BMW Zs and Audi TTs.
In Japan RX-8 are use to chase kids with Rice Rockets or high performance cars that are racing in the streets of Tokyo.
But one problem with RX-8 engine is that it takes time to accelerate according to my friend who just bought one.
The price is not bad for a sports car compared to the BMW, Evo and Audi.
I always had fun driving this car. Last time I was at a Mazda driving event, I remember driving this car 5 times that day, it was that much fun.
Good review Jonny. This car really does deserve 5 stars.
Pity about the front end styling though.
As a lurker on this site for years, this review finally prompted me to sign up and comment.
I will do my best not to sound like an offended fan-boy.
I am the proud owner of a 2004 RX-8 I have owned since new. It was in the first batch of North American cars.
I have stayed on top of the maintenance, and did deal with a few recalls (upgraded starter, redesigned coil packs) but otherwise, the car has been great with no reliability problems at all.
It has certainly not been a garage queen. It has been daily driven, I had it at a Solo II event when it was only 8 days old and it’s done more open lapping days and HPDEs than I can count. It happily did a 3000km road trips to Quebec for a lapping event at Mount Tremblant and did just fine on the Quebec roads (including Montreal) while it was there.
The ride quality of the car is fabulous in my opinion, and it’s smoother than my previous sporty car (Civic SiR coupe), much smoother than the MazdaSpeed Protege is shares a garage with, and rides smoother than my friends E46 M3 as well. I can’t ask for much better than that from my sports car. It’s not meant to be a Camry.
The car is not perfect by any means, but I’ve found it to be perfect for me.
Very comfortable on the highway, fabulous handling on track, very useable day-to-day. (4 of use used to to go to dinner the other night.) I was even able to fit my girlfriend and I, luggage for a weekend, 4 mounted 18″ R-compound tires, tools, trolley jack, helmet and a cooler into it. Try that with a comparable sports car.
It’s not perfect (but no car is.) Yes, the Bose system is bad, the plastic quality is so-so (much better than a 350Z IMO), I find the stock springs allow a touch too much body roll and the fuel mileage is towards the bottom of it’s class, but otherwise I have nothing bad to say.
As for people’s oil-use concerns, I burn maybe 1L of oil between changes, or about the same as my previous VTEC Honda.
As for long-term reliability, most NA RX7s get to 200,000 miles without an issue. It’s the Turbo’s that get you and have given the cars reliability a bad name.
For those of you who just don’t understand the car, all I can say is, “Drive it.” I’ve had two people I know end up buying them after I told them to go drive one rather than me try to explain in words to them why I bought mine. One of them ran theirs for 3 years (and counting) year-round in Montreal, the other in Ottawa.
Pretty spot on review although most of the characteristics you’ve described are available on the base or mid-level RX8.
The only thing I’d disagree about is the “useless” rear seats. I find them to be very useful but then I’m not 6’ tall. I regularly transport 1-2 kids back there with no complaints (also have had four adults in the car too with no complaints). The only thing the RX8 lacks is power and torque which should be helped some with the 16x engine (still several years away and I’d give Mazda 2-3 years to iron out the bugs).
And for the usual complaints:
Gas mileage: I average 19-20MPG in mixed driving with multiple redlines daily.
Reliability: Yes those who bought a new engine design in 04 or 05 have had some issues. Still not significant when compared to many other manufacturers (looking at you VW). There are many who have 80k miles or more with no issues too.
Oil Usage: About a quart between oil changes. It’s supposed to do that and its not a big deal.
Think of it as an S2000 that you can put four average sized people in.
By Jonny Lieberman
You take rotary-powered cars to tracks, where a 9,000 rpm redline and humongous usable power band means you can leave the car in third and forget about it ’til you win the race. That’s essentially what I did while carving through some of LA’s best canyons.
Growing up in Colorado/ Wyoming and owning two RX-7’s (one of which was the best of the first generation… an ‘84 GSL-SE), I can attest to driving most of the time in third gear and pushing that redline as easy as a hot knife threw butter. I’d fly up I-70 to the Eisenhower tunnel in third gear doing 75 mph when all of the other vehicles were pushing 45 mph. And I would just drive around them.
Not to mention the thrill of driving through a narrow canyon. It was May of ‘95 when I was just leaving Estes Park to go down the Big Thompson Canyon when two brand new Corvettes (that still had the temp. tags) went flying around me; chasing each other down the canyon. I proceeded to follow them.
Anyone that is familiar with that canyon knows that there are limited and very short areas to pass not to mention narrow and tight curves. Whenever they would pass anyone, I would stay right on the second car’s rear bumper and follow them. We made what was usually a 30 minute drive down to 18 minutes! I’m sure it broke their hearts that they couldn’t lose a ten year old RX-7 with their new purchases.
A rotary engine is truly a lot of fun. It is like an electric motor that hums like it’s filled with angry bees. For anyone that has not had the pleasure, do not discount it, and make it a goal once in your life to drive a Rotary.
As far as the RX-8, I almost bought one but decided it was time in my life that I wanted to leave the paved roads… so I bought a Jeep Wrangler as it handles mud and rocks a lot better. :D
I have owned both a 1993 twin turbo RX-7 and a 2004 custom single turbo RX-8 and I assure you, these cars are reliable and will last forever – the rotary is a compromise – you get super light weight and low mass in exchange for trash fuel economy and some oil consumption.
HOWEVER – if you know what you’re doing, they will last forever.
Unfortunately, 90% of the population has no clue what they’re doing when it comes to getting behind the wheel of a car, much less maintaining one.
That said, the RX-8 is one of the most overlooked cars on the planet – and as a result you can have one for thousands off sticker or get a heavily subsidized lease.
Keep in mind – the 2004 RX-8 tied the 2004 BMW M3 around Top Gear’s test track – this thing is a serious sports car.
Steve_S: Thanks for the much more succinct version of my little rant.
Speaking as a person 6 feet tall, I can fit into the back with the drivers seat set for me (although I sit close to the wheel as a track-habit) but wouldn’t want to go much further than across town.
My mileage has been comparable to yours as well.
It ticks all of the sports-car boxes while being a little underpowered.
In summary, it’s a typical Mazda. Great handling, great brakes, but needs more Cowbell…
(Did I forget to mention the stellar brakes? The term boat-anchor is probably best used to describe them.)
Wow, lots of controversy over the RX-8. But it’s a weird car. Rotary engine, suicide doors, cartoon styling, it’s bound to be a love-it-or-hate-it. I think it’s a really an alternative to an Evo or an STi, rather than a BMW or a Audi TT. The styling is just too out there.
Personally I drove an ‘05 RX-8 in Ithaca, NY (lots of hills, cracked and frost heaved roads), and I loved it. I seriously considered trading in my Mazda3 and getting one of these, but the I think I’ll wait a while longer, pick up a slightly more depreciated ‘05 or ‘06.
Robstar :
September 29th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Anyone know if the rotary engines last past 100k miles or is that just an old wives tale?
I had to respond…
My old ‘84 RX-7 GSL-SE is now sitting in a friend’s garage. Although the rotary needs work, it still runs at 185,000 miles. He tells me that it still drives like it did when I owned it. He plans on restoring the car and reworking the original rotary to 250 hp.
“Oil Usage: About a quart between oil changes. It’s supposed to do that and its not a big deal.”
IMHO a modern day car should not burn a quart of oil between changes. A year after the RX8 came out I went down to the dealership to test drive and hopefully purchase one. As we were going over the car he casually mentioned the need to add a quart of oil between oil changes and I walked away from the purchase after hearing that. If this has changed then I would seriously considering purcasing a used one on the cheap. I think its bullshit that Mazda couldn’t build an engine that doesn’t burn oil. Does anyone know if the newer model year RX-8 still burn oil??
BTW I don’t buy the argument that a high revving engine inherently burns oil. My current car has the Toyota/Yamaha 2zz engine in it that redlines at 8,200 RPM. 5000 mile recommended oil changes. Never once had to add oil despite a more than occassional jaunt up to redline. Same with my friend’s S2000.
RGS920: It has nothing to do with hi-revs
It’s what Wankels do.
Buy the way, oil costs about $5 a quart. Which, if you drive 12,000 miles per year is… $20
I guess my gripe is that even though it’s supposed to do that, it seems like an imperfect design to me. For me that was the deal breaker even though I love everything else about the car.
I think I remember R&T quoting a figure of 15mpg around town on average with their six-speed RX-8. It just doesn’t seem worth it, considering how slow they are.
Still, they do handle well and are fun… it’s just… a car with a real engine makes more sense.
RGS920: Wankel engines consume oil very deliberately. The oil is injected into the combustion chamber to preserve the apex seals. The alternative would be replacing the apex seals far more frequently, which I assure you would be more expensive than the occasional $5 quart of oil.
Mrb00st: Why are people so convinced that it’s a slow car? Top Gear tested it at the same lap time as an M3, which nobody has ever claimed to be a slow car. Of course, even that’s really beside the point; I would much rather have a fun car than a fast car. Certainly, speed can be fun, but if you can have that same fun while going more slowly, then you can enjoy it in more places. When a car is only fun at high speeds, you can enjoy it illegally or on a track. When a car is fun at low speeds, you can enjoy it every time you drive.
I think its bullshit that Mazda couldn’t build an engine that doesn’t burn oil. Does anyone know if the newer model year RX-8 still burn oil??
They still burn oil. It’s how they work. Oil is used to lubricate the engine’s moving parts, and nearly all the moving parts of this engine are inside the combustion chamber. The critical bits are the apex seals–they must be lubricated.
It’s not like a four-stroke piston engine in which oil consumption is an indication of problems or deficiency, it’s a design requirement.
RGS920: The car doesn’t burn oil due to sloppy build quality. They intentionally inject oil into the combustion chamber to lubricate the seals. In fact, the big “engine recall” of last year that some people got worked up about was largely because cars that weren’t being revved high enough (primarily the automatics) weren’t injecting enough oil, and part of the “recall” was a new engine map that injects a bit more oil across the RPM range, not just at high RPM.
From the long-term tests I’ve read in EVO, CAR, etc burning oil at that rate seems to be very normal, especially in Audi’s.
There is an easy way to not have it burn the oil. Disable the oil metering pump and run pre-mix in your gas instead.
My track-only RX7 runs 80:1 premix…. none of the “oil” is being burned, and it leaves a lovely 2-stroke haze behind it.
cretinx :
September 29th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I have owned both a 1993 twin turbo RX-7 and a 2004 custom single turbo RX-8 and I assure you, these cars are reliable and will last forever – the rotary is a compromise – you get super light weight and low mass in exchange for trash fuel economy and some oil consumption.
HOWEVER – if you know what you’re doing, they will last forever.
Unfortunately, 90% of the population has no clue what they’re doing when it comes to getting behind the wheel of a car, much less maintaining one.
That said, the RX-8 is one of the most overlooked cars on the planet – and as a result you can have one for thousands off sticker or get a heavily subsidized lease.
Keep in mind – the 2004 RX-8 tied the 2004 BMW M3 around Top Gear’s test track – this thing is a serious sports car.
So what’s the secret? Typical engine maintenance usually only requires oil/filter changes. I guess plugs/wires and coolant (although many cars now recommend 100,000 miles before doing this). Not much else. So what’s everyone doing wrong that is having problems with these rotaries? I can’t speak for the RX-8, but finding a RX-7 that hasn’t had a rebuilt motor (if over 80,000 miles) is like finding a needle in a haystack. And you would think most people that buy a sportscar are at least going to change the oil at the recommended intervals. As often as you see (rebuilt motor), I find it hard to believe it’s always negligence.
Now for my review of the RX-8. Yes, I drove a friends. Yes, the handling is incredible. I actually liked the interior (leather), and felt the back seats where useable with adults. About the same amount of space as 3-series in back. Looking from the outside, you wouldn’t think so. I felt the comfort was typical of a sportscar, which was good enough for me… What surprised me was the power. From all the reviews I read I thought it was going to be pathetic. But, this car does have some oomph.. if driven aggressively. No, not V8 power. But enough to satisfy if driven hard. Problem is even though it doesn’t have V8 power, it drinks like one. My buddy complained all the time about how poor it was concerning MPG. And he really didn’t drive it that hard. I guess this, along with suspect reliability has stopped me from every looking into a RX-8. I could deal with one, but not both. BTW – This same friend now ones a BMW 335i. I ask him which car handles better. He said RX8 hands down. That being said, he loves the Beemer. Especially the acceleration + fuel economy. Of course, it cost him nearly double.
So what’s everyone doing wrong that is having problems with these rotaries?
Predetonation/pre-ignition is one, especially on the turbocharged cars. Low-grade fuel, or improperly-meterd air/fuel charges can cause this. One good “boom” will whack either the rotor or the housing.
Quite frankly, oil is another. Even gearheads have trouble with the concept of checking your oil every other fill-up on a modern car. Seriously, check Edmunds’ long-term writeup: even their supposedly car-literate testers just couldn’t wrap their brains around it.
The rotary can run well for a long time, but–and I’m parrotting Saab-owning colleagues here–you must keep it in tune to do so. It’s not a Toyota Corolla (a car that seems inordinately able to withstand neglect). I’m not saying this is a good thing, just different engineering priorities.
Rotary motors are a hoot, but they sure break a lot. All the rotaries I’ve seen that go for any appreciable amount of time are owned by people who are “into” Wankels. They are easy to take apart and put back together, so if you’re into maintaining your ride as a hobby I could see an RX as a great car. If you aren’t good at or enthusiastic about anticipating failures from “new sounds” coming out of the motor and then fixing them, or are of the mindset that the “new sound” will hopefully go away, Wankels will break your heart and bank. From an emissions point of view, rotaries are the best 2-cycle motor every made…lol.
I have to echo the positive comments here. I own an 05 RX8 6 speed manual with grand touring package. It is an excellent car all around and I would recommend people drive the car and do some research before buying it.
To set the record straight, there is no special tuning or maitenance to the RX8. It is recommended to check the oil often but this is extreme.
For those with negative comments without facts to back it up, if you did some research you would find the majority of problems are with automatics. If you can’t drive stick, then avoid this car. Anyone doubting reliability should visit the RX8.com forum. There are numerous RX8s with well over 100k miles and no problems.
Last spring, I finally gave away my 1984 RX-7 with the 13B fuel injected engine. It had 190k miles on the original engine.
In contrast, a friend had an early 90s, twin-turbo, third generation RX-7. Its engine died at 70k miles.
I’m sure the RX-8 is a great drive. However, I think it’s so ugly that you would have to lead me to it blindfolded.
Owner-reported fuel economy can be viewed here:
http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php?stage=pt&bd=Mazda&mc=177
Some people think this car is slow when they’re used to massive torque right off idle. The first 20 MPH are the biggest issue. For a mountain road, where you’re going between 30 and 60, you have all the power you need.
Of course, if most of your driving is on straight roads from stoplight to stoplight, this isn’t the car for you.
I’ve been told that my editorial on the car will find its way out of the bin soon…
doctorv8:
My issue with the Corvette is less ride quality than the extreme roar that enters the cockpit from the rear tires. I think they’ve better insulated the cargo area in recent years, but still way too loud on some roads.
Michael,
I hear you. (literally) But ditching the runflats fixes 70% of the noise, in addition to the obvious ride/handling improvements. A few well placed pieces of dynamat helps as well, but you still have 600+ mm of rubber on the road a few feet from your ears, and the huge cargo volume (22 cu ft) tends to amplify the problem. I have a C4 ZR-1 that is much quieter than the C5/6’s for some reason.
With the face that the RX-8’s burn oil, how does this affect pollution?
I have been looking into a 2 stroke bike for a while but I don’t think any are street legal (I could be wrong….). It sounds like the wankel works alot like a 2 stroke.
With the face that the RX-8’s burn oil, how does this affect pollution?
It affects it negatively.
The RX just squeaks in under current regulations, and bettering it will be a real challenge without resorting to hybrid/electic power or alternative fuels (hydrogen, CNG).
It’s not two-stroke bad, but it isn’t good, either.