RX8 zoom zoom

flappist · 21-06-2006, 06:39 PM

I had a loan of a RX8 for the weekend from my freindly local Mazda dealer a few days ago.

What a nifty car. It is not particuarly quick off the mark but it out handles and out stops everything I have ever driven with a Ford badge on it.

It also gets a LOT of attention from young ladies. Now I just have to convince myself not to buy it.

I recommend anyone who wants to have a bit of fun to test drive one of these. They are heaps better than I thought they would be.

ReVd_uP · 21-06-2006, 06:45 PM

yeah, theyre not bad, i used to have a RX7, great little car but way to thirsty, after owning one everything, including my xr8 feel like fuel misers...

PH47 · 21-06-2006, 06:47 PM

I'd rather the later model RX7s to the RX8.. but RX8s are still an undeniably good car..

EL_futuraistic · 21-06-2006, 06:50 PM

never driven one but you have a point a lot of people stop to look when they see one..... I guess mazda has doen something right

Steffo · 21-06-2006, 07:13 PM

RX-8 has the same problem for me the last RX-7 had. Top looking car, horrible heap of junk excuse for an engine. If they didn't have a stupid rotary, I'd be after one.

Though swapping a good engine into a Series 7 RX-7 is tempting sounding idea... like a 302W

turboute · 21-06-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

RX-8 has the same problem for me the last RX-7 had. Top looking car, horrible heap of junk excuse for an engine. If they didn't have a stupid rotary, I'd be after one.

Though swapping a good engine into a Series 7 RX-7 is tempting sounding idea... like a 302W

The newer rotaries have actually been quite good engines - however they were not made for turning up the boost, which most owners doo and therefore they have the 'reliability' problem.

flappist · 21-06-2006, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

RX-8 has the same problem for me the last RX-7 had. Top looking car, horrible heap of junk excuse for an engine. If they didn't have a stupid rotary, I'd be after one.

Though swapping a good engine into a Series 7 RX-7 is tempting sounding idea... like a 302W

So when you drove the RX8 you didn't like it?

Or are you yet again quoting others.

I seem to remember several rotaries doing quite well at Bathurst. Mustn't have been any V8s running those years........

The RX8 engine is completely different from all of its predecessors.. but I thought you would already know that......

Steffo · 21-06-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

So when you drove the RX8 you didn't like it?

Or are you yet again quoting others.

I seem to remember several rotaries doing quite well at Bathurst. Mustn't have been any V8s running those years........

The RX8 engine is completely different from all of its predecessors.. but I thought you would already know that......

Can't say I've been in or driven an RX-8, no. But I never said the car itself was bad, I just personally don't like rotary engines. I love the rest of the car, it looks awesome, I just don't like the piece of technology (or lack thereof?) powering it.

In my opinion, if they stuck the Mazda 6 MPS' 2.3 turbo 190kW 380Nm inline-four in the RX-8... they would have the absolute best car in its price-point and category. And I'd bet it would be faster then the less powerful n/a 13B car too, and use less petrol.

kooky · 22-06-2006, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Can't say I've been in or driven an RX-8, no. But I never said the car itself was bad, I just personally don't like rotary engines. I love the rest of the car, it looks awesome, I just don't like the piece of technology (or lack thereof?) powering it.

In my opinion, if they stuck the Mazda 6 MPS' 2.3 turbo 190kW 380Nm inline-four in the RX-8... they would have the absolute best car in its price-point and category. And I'd bet it would be faster then the less powerful n/a 13B car too, and use less petrol.

IDIOT!!!

out:

For a start the renesis engine puts out 206 KW......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

2003 - Mazda "2.6L" RENESIS RX-8 (Funny, since Mazda itself states 1308cc)

The swept volume of a rotary is effectively 2.6l (given evidence stated by others here) but if you bothered to read much about them you would know this........

Steffo · 22-06-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kooky

IDIOT!!!

out:

For a start the renesis engine puts out 206 KW......

The swept volume of a rotary is effectively 2.6l (given evidence stated by others here) but if you bothered to read much about them you would know this........

Actually...

Mazda RX-8 Manual 13B-RENESIS

1308cc Twin-Rotor
177kW @ 8200rpm
211Nm @ 5500rpm

LINK HERE

Mazda RX-8 Automatic 13B-RENESIS

1308cc Twin-Rotor
141kW @ 7000rpm
220Nm @ 5000rpm

LINK HERE

Now... the best RX-7 imported here by Mazda from the factory... the 1995 RX-7 SP had the following...

13B-REW 1308cc Twin-Rotor Twin-Turbo
204kW @ 6500rpm
357Nm @ 4600rpm

LINK HERE

Was it necessary to call me an idiot? NO! Especially after "correcting," me with the wrong information.

As for calling it a 1.3, Mazda does, so I've been doing it. And yes, I know all about 13B's being calculated as 2.6 litres swept volume, before it was mentioned in this thread... but pointing out that the manufacturer says it's a 1.3 can't hurt. :Reverend:

I don't like Rotary engines. Can we move on, instead of trying to insult and/or convert me? It's just an opinion...

ClevlndStemer · 21-06-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

RX-8 has the same problem for me the last RX-7 had. Top looking car, horrible heap of junk excuse for an engine. If they didn't have a stupid rotary, I'd be after one.

so bad that it won engine of the year 2003 and was listed in 2004 and 2005 Ward's ten best engines. It also holds the "2.5 to 3 liter" size award for 2003 and 2004, where it is considered a 2.6 L engine. Not bad for a horrible heap of junk excuse for an engine as you put it :togo:

i have test driven one when a friend of mine had one for a weekend (dealer lent it to him to help make up his mind). The engine sounded fantastic for a rotary, the car rode well, better than anything I have been in (incl the focus XR5T which i still crave after), only downside for me was the dash/console, a little too red and busy at night. Meh minor issue. Countless times the car has been given the thumbs up by journos and others.

Steffo · 22-06-2006, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevlndStemer

so bad that it won engine of the year 2003 and was listed in 2004 and 2005 Ward's ten best engines. It also holds the "2.5 to 3 liter" size award for 2003 and 2004, where it is considered a 2.6 L engine. Not bad for a horrible heap of junk excuse for an engine as you put it :togo:

Believe what you like about it, and I'll believe what I like.

I personally choose not to like a 1308cc engine that has fuel economy that makes some 5000cc+ piston engines look efficient, nor do I like an anything that makes a paltry amount of torque at very high revs... and there is the questionable reliability of the things.

"International Engine of the Year," is a pretty meaningless title. It's another big magazine publication event that really has no bearing on how said product will turn out in day to day use.

And their criteria is quite interesting, to say the least, when you look at the last few winners...

1999 - Toyota 1SZ-FE (1.0L Yaris)
2000 - Honda 1.0L IMA Insight
2001 - BMW S54 3.2L M3
2002 - BMW N62 4.4L Valvetronic
2003 - Mazda "2.6L" RENESIS RX-8 (Funny, since Mazda itself states 1308cc)
2004 - Toyota 1NZ-FXE 1.5L Hybrid Synergy Drive Prius
2005 - BMW S85 5.0L V10 M5/M6

So let me get this straight, in '99 you've got a small, efficient 1.0L petrol engine winning, followed by a Hybrid 1.0L Petrol engine in 2000. Then in 2001 a 252kW 3.2litre high-performance inline-six wins? Followed by a 4.4litre V8 used in large four-wheel drives and big luxury cars? So are they after an economical, eco-friendly engine, a ball-tearer or something torquey to tow trailers?

Then the 13B-RENESIS wins it, billed as a 2.6 even though it isn't, followed by a 1.5L Hybrid 4cyl engine and then... a 373kW 8250rpm V10? Oh boy, that makes a whole lot of sense, especially since some of those engines (like the M3's 3.2) bring no real technical innovation to the motoring world, and were just pretty powerful and in a good car.

Bad thing to use as a "for and against" argument.

As you'll notice, I commented nothing about your experience in the car, because the car itself I have no gripes with. I think it looks great and that the interior looks great, and I'm not doubting for a second that its a nice drive.

I simply dislike its powerplant, have done so since I knew the difference between a rotary and a piston engine, and probably will for the foreseeable future.

4.9 EF Futura · 22-06-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

2003 - Mazda "2.6L" RENESIS RX-8 (Funny, since Mazda itself states 1308cc)

Comments like this suggest you dont truly understand how a rotary engine is placed in a basket of reciprical piston engines. There's more to such matters than meets the eye steffo.

Yeah... put a big KW rotary in in the same category as a 1.3L suzuki motor making 60kw. Excellent plan.

The ONLY thing that's ever been the downfall of the rotary is the method used to seal the apex of the rotor against the rotor housing. If they'd had this sorted back in the 70's you'd probably see a lot more ****el engine powered cars on the road today.

The engines are brilliant by design. 66% fewer moving parts than a piston engine. An engine doesnt need torque if its put in the right car with appropriate gearing. Their adaptation to alternative fuels has proven to be very successful - the dynamic nature of the combustion chamber (ie. the chamber essentailly moves around the engine) has lent itself to the use of hyrdogen fuel.

The apex seal hasnt been a huge problem since the mid/late 80s and the new Renesis motors with the multi side porting have reached a generally accepted level of reliability.

Let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of 6 cylinder engine powered vehicles released by FoMoCo aust which are prone to destroying heads...

But hey - like you said, you beleive what you like and i'll do the same. You're certainly not alone in your dislike of the ****el engines.

Just dont get too cocky next time you pull up next to the grandma-spec capella down at the drags lol.

**Falcon Coupe** · 21-06-2006, 07:17 PM

Can a man actually fit in one ?

flappist · 21-06-2006, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Can a man actually fit in one ?

I am 6ft 2in, weigh 95kg and I can fit in it wearing a helmet.

NA XR6 · 21-06-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

I am 6ft 2in, weigh 95kg and I can fit in it wearing a helmet.

Why were you wearing a helmet

:

**Falcon Coupe** · 21-06-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

I am 6ft 2in, weigh 95kg and I can fit in it wearing a helmet.

Hmmm a helmet on a "testdrive" ehh.....sounds like a REAL testdrive, how is the legroom ? i'm also 6ft 2 and struggle in some newer cars EG: new Pathfinder is shocking.

Aussie_Geo · 22-06-2006, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

I am 6ft 2in, weigh 95kg and I can fit in it wearing a helmet.

Oh so your a lightweight

I need plenty of room

:

Peter

Dezza · 21-06-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Can a man actually fit in one ?

Not in the back LOL!! Well, not without extreme discomfort! I am 6"4' and tried to sit in the back of one at the Melbourne Motor Show, just for the sake of it. We could hardly get the door shut!

alesia · 21-06-2006, 09:29 PM

my boyfriend brought a 2000 model about 5 weeks ago..... its crazy the way that thing corners and brakes , there also fairly fast for a 4 cylinder

Steffo · 21-06-2006, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alesia

my boyfriend brought a 2000 model about 5 weeks ago..... its crazy the way that thing corners and brakes , there also fairly fast for a 4 cylinder

I hope you're not talking about RX-8's... because those came out in 2003 and use a 1.3 litre rotary engine.

opto · 21-06-2006, 10:11 PM

You do know that Ford does own Mazda ....

Steffo · 21-06-2006, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opto

You do know that Ford does own Mazda ....

Yes. And that has what relevance to this conversation?

opto · 22-06-2006, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Yes. And that has what relevance to this conversation?

It was a statement, maybe others don't know.

:

XRated · 21-06-2006, 11:36 PM

They certainly are a beautiful design. I think it'd be the perfect package if it had the 3.5L V6 from Nissan though :P

gtfpv · 21-06-2006, 11:45 PM

i went over a friends place and there was one out the front of his house . it was black . my mate had another friend over who owned the car . he loved it . but wasnt happy with the paint . he had it completely resprayed under warranty because paint was chipping off everywhere . after painting the same thing started happening agian . he still loved it though. the interior was very nice. he was ****ed off that his brother had a new ba xr8 with $1000 worth of mods . he said the xr8 blew it away. part of what made me buy the gt.
but i think they are very nice and will get the birds everytime .

blackers10 · 22-06-2006, 04:01 AM

they actually double the engine capacity of a rotor to classify it as it does 2 "fireings"(for lack of a better word) compared to the piston engines 1 "fireing" per rotation

**Mechan1k** · 22-06-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackers10

they actually double the engine capacity of a rotor to classify it as it does 2 "fireings"(for lack of a better word) compared to the piston engines 1 "fireing" per rotation

But it's actually 654cc (from memory) twin rotor ... hence making it a 1.3L

The 787B is a quad rotor (same capacity per rotor as mentioned above).
Not sure if it was turbocharged or not ... i really haven't read up on it though.

4.9 EF Futura · 22-06-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

The 787B is a quad rotor (same capacity per rotor as mentioned above).
Not sure if it was turbocharged or not ... i really haven't read up on it though.

It's a naturally aspirated motor with variable intake gemoetry (i.e. ECU controlled runner length... same concept as what you earthlings refer to as a 6 cylinder EF/EL motor!

700bhp

On the displacement issue... each rotor has a leading and a trailing spark plug, they both fire on the same cycle... and the rotor is still technically a 4 stroke engine... the trailing plug is more of a clean-up ignition which forms part of the power stroke...

ClevlndStemer · 22-06-2006, 06:06 AM

Steffo time and time again you amaze me with the cr@p you spout onto the keyboard. You would be a good politician. I don't know why I bother even replying to you. It doesn't matter what anyone says you're always right and everyone is wrong, even professionals who have been in the area longer than you have existed. You're young and very naive, blinded by your own faith in the at times tainted blue oval.
I wish you all the best in life, cause the way you're going, you're going to need it!!