Comments: 1-15, 16-25
My 2006 RX8 is the fourth Mazda I've owned. I previously owned an 808, RX2, a 626 GT Turbo, and now this RX8. Many people complain about no low end torque on rotary engines. It's true that some rotary models have low torque, and the newer model RX8s are lower than the RX7. These cars are not built to be drag cars. They are sport cars.
One thing that people should be aware of. If you need maximum torque, rev the engine over 4000 RPM and take off. Under 4000 RPM, the engines are somewhat anemic at low speeds. No, they won't take off like a hemi powered Barracuda or an old Pontiac Judge. However, I will take a rotary powered Mazda on any road with a lot of curves versus a V8 powered behemoth and I'll win.
If you really need more torque, you might want to look for an older model RX7. Some are still in decent shape and have more horsepower and significantly more torque, and several engine models are turbocharged. The trade off is poor emissions and lower gas mileage.
I'm hoping that someday Mazda will come out with a four rotor engine like Curtiss. They built a 2.6 liter engine for a speed boat in the early nineties that developed over 500 horsepower and over 300 ft lbs of torque. The only thing keeping me from buying a hemi powered Charger or Magnum is gas at $2.50 a gallon. I'll stick with my RX8 as it gives me a decent everyday touring car for the freeways and a fun weekend sports car on mountain roads. Remember to keep your RPMs up at low speeds.
Beware: Though the RX-8 has a small engine, requires expensive, premium gas, and its mileage is NOT good. I sold my RX8 due to its poor reliability and bought a new V8 Mustang. My mileage is about the same, but I get to use cheaper, regular gas.
The RX-8's lack of torque makes it a lack-luster daily driver and its poor quality/reliability should be taken into consideration if you are thinking about purchasing one.
:58 did not do any research on his RX8 prior to purchasing it and so was disappointed. To say it has a "small engine" is not to understand what the engine is. Premium gas was a known factor prior to buying the car, as was the low torque.
Most people don't cross shop Mustangs and RX8's because they are for two totally separate drivers. Mustangs are for drivers who like going in straight lines and enjoy outdated technology (such as the solid rear axle). RX8's are for people that like a real sports car, albeit one with limited torque.
That said, hopefully your Mustang will be more reliable.
:17.
My comments regarding premium fuel/poor gas mileage were responses to the original poster's assertion that the RX-8 was more fuel efficient than a V8 powered car. It is not. Further, only after owning one for a while did I realize how its lack of low-end power would taint my daily commute.
Regarding 'outdated technology', I agree that the Mustang's solid rear axle is less elegant than an independent rear end, but it is more than adequate for the daily commute, or occasional spirited drive. The rotary engine, however, is an example of technology for the sake of technology; its output is much lower than the Mustang's V8, while its gas mileage is about the same, if not lower.
Finally, thus far, my Mustang proven to be much more reliable and better made than my previous RX-8.
I bought my Rx8 about a year ago and love everything about the car except the ride height and the rotary engine. The ride height can easily be fixed with an aftermarket suspension setup, which will also improve the already great handling.
The rotary engine however, isn't such an easy fix. I do recognize that the rotary has been very successful in road racing and even drag racing, but, because I am not a die-hard rotary fan I cannot overlook its many shortcomings.
In comparison to say, an LS2 V8, (which is a common swap for FC and FD Rx7's) the rotary is only 50 something lbs. lighter, makes a fraction of the torque, runs hotter, eats oil, gets much worse gas mileage, and is less durable and reliable. The only advantage I can think of in the rotary's favor is the fact that the engine is very compact and sits completely behind the front axle, thus centering the weight on the chassis.
If I were planning on keeping my Rx8 longer, I would get an LS2 Corvette engine swapped into my car, making it the ultimate usable sports car (in my opinion).
In regards to the comments on how reliable the RX-8 is, it is my opinion that having just 3 major moving parts is a good thing. I have had my RX-8 for about 9 months now and, I have not had any of the problems that I have heard of. I do have a coil issues at the moment, but, being an electrical part, this can happen on any car. It still runs, but, top end is compromised. As far as torque is concerned, the RX-8 cannot be adjusted like a piston engine so that it has more torque unless you force induce it. For those that do not understand what I just said, a crankshaft can be made so that the journals are farther away from the centerline of the crankshaft and therefor, you have a "stroker" engine IE. one that has good torque compared to one that has the journals close and would make more topend and not bottomend IE. torque. They are really just a equation anyway. I like mustangs and camaros and vettes just like the next person, but, keep in mind this; If you drive and RX-8 like it is meant to be driven, it will run just fine with minor quirks just as any other car. I have owned 14 cars in my life so, I have had good and bad times with piston engines just as I will with the RX-8. Also, keep in mind that the above mentioned do not have very usable back seats, insurance is higher, no easy access to the back seats, too much rumble (my opinion for daily commute), doesn't stop as well, no exclusivity. IF dragracing, rough ride, and you don't have any kids, go for anything, but an RX-8 for a sports car. If you want smooth and different and more sporty fun to drive car, go for the 8. Lets face it, if fuel economy was really a "biggie" on the list, none of us would have bought a sports car to begin with; after all, 2-4 mpg is not an issue and should not even be brought up. Torque should not be much of an issue unless you don't know your gearing on your car. Keep the RX-8 around 5000 or so if you are just playing around and, you will have enough power to go and feel it. The last issue is the oil. People come on, we all know that there is not a car on the planet that doesn't use any oil. The difference is the RX-8 uses it to keep the apex seals and the rotor housing lubed. A newer piston car may only use a couple of ounces or so while new, but as it gets older it can turn into several quarts. My 8 usually uses about half a quart give or take a little bit between oil changes. Just as I stated before about the mpg, this should not be an issue. It actually makes 8 owners more in tune with the "life blood" of the car.
People, keep in mind that the first working rotary engine was made in the 50s and therefore, it has not been refined like its piston brother. Also, since many people did not understand it that well, they did not develop it like they did with the piston counterpart. Also (depending how you want to look at it) it is by far the most potent engine as far as power to displacement goes.
So the R8-8's rotary engine is less fuel efficeint than a V8 (my experience), puts out less horse power, much less torque, and is less reliable despite having fewer moving parts?
Someone please explain why the rotary is the superior technology!
<<So the R8-8's rotary engine is less fuel efficeint than a V8 (my experience), puts out less horse power, much less torque, and is less reliable despite having fewer moving parts?
Someone please explain why the rotary is the superior technology!>.
Your point is well taken and the only reason I can think of is weight.
Have had an 06 RX8 for 5 months. It's my first stick shift. I'm 52 and I use it for my 20 min daily commute. I love this car. It is fun to drive, it always gets comments and I bought the cheapest model w/o the gizmos and sunroof. It is way fast for the U.S. but I'm not a dragster although I tend to go 15mph over the limit cause it's so much fun. I bought it cause it looked different and was relatively inexpensive. No issues whatsoever at only 4k miles. Use a 50/50 mix hitest and midgrade.
On a displacement/horsepower ratio the rotary is far superior than the piston engine. There is a reason the rotary was banned at LeMans - it put out vastly (unfair) amounts of power for its displacement class. It also has no top end limit, theoretically, so when you force-induct it the sky is the limit. The third-gen RX-7 rotary put out 255 hp from, I believe 1.2 liters (two rotor). That's 73.2 cubic inches, for 211.6 hp per liter. The new z-06 would need to produce 1481 hp from 427 cubic inches to match this output.
The rotary engine has come a long way considering its history. Some people want to compare Mustangs/Corvettes engines to this one. Look at the comparison.
183 hp/ liter
similar economy for fuel
usable back seats
9000 red-line
cheaper to insure
rev engine to keep it running well.
3 moving parts
no timing belt, head (s), valves, cam, cam gear (s).
Independent rear suspension (yeah for corvettes, but where is mustang?)
great on back roads part due to one thing that neither the mustang or vette has is 50/50 weight, but, the weight is more centered so that response is much quicker.
The ride doesn't beat you up either.
For those people that think that oil consumption is an issue, I have news for you. ALL cars use SOME oil. I have yet to own one that doesn't. Some use more than others depending on how warn the rings are. The rotary uses it by design, but, unlike the drinking fish people make it out to be, it only uses at best, one quart between oil changes unless you constantly redline it from the time you warm it up til the time you park it. The 8 makes for a great all-around car. People complain about torque, but, they don't even understand what torque is. It is just force. Torque is what you feel, but, gearing is all about that. You can take a Lotus that weighs in at about 2000 lbs and has a 190 hp and 160 torque and you won't feel the torque any more than on the 8 but it will still run with both the mustang and the vette. The 8 is one of those cars in which you don't feel like you are going that fast, but, you look down and you are going that fast. Straight line it will lose to a GT and the vette although, the vette is more in cost and the GT is like the 350z; like riding on concrete wheels. I have driven many cars and the 8 is the best over-all car if you are looking for performance and manners. If you are just looking for power, don't buy one. All the comments that I have read are coming from people that don't understand what the 8 is all about. The 8 has a little F1 in it and has practicality at the same time. For all around performance, its hard to beat.
OK, but:
- the RX-8 still feels gutless.
- it is still prone to serious engine failures.
- fuel economy is worse than competing V8 cars.
I have to wonder how up to date your information is, not to mention where you're coming from with your subjective perceptions.
The car is anything, but "gutless." While not blazing fast, it is certainly quick enough to be thoroughly enjoyable. If you find it to have insufficient power for your daily commute, one has to wonder whether either you don't know how or are too lazy to drive it properly. Someone actually interested in driving this car, as opposed to simply climbing behind the wheel and stomping on the gas petal, will find it to be thoroughly enjoyable.
The engine certainly has a less than stellar record, though the kinks are being worked out. I've seen little or no reports of "catastrophic failures" for the '06 or '07 model years.
As for claiming that fuel economy is "worse" than competing V8 cars, that's just not accurate. Agreed, a car of this curb weight with an engine this small would be expected to do better than it does. But it certainly is not "worse" than competing eight cylinder cars. Go to the EPA's website. The 2007 RX8's predicted fuel economy is nearly identical to the 2007 Mustang 4.6L considerably better than the 5.4L. The same is true regarding the Charger and the Monte Carlo.
There's nothing wrong with preferring a Mustang GT to the RX8. They are very different cars that offer very different driving experiences.
Oh, and by the way, the Mustang has a 50/50 weight ratio as well.
I'd be very surprised if the Mustang has the 50/50 balance that the RX8 has. However, when used as a 'cruiser' the Mustang rides quite well. It can't match the RX8's handling prowess, but few cars under $40K can.
In my experience, the 4.6 liter Mustang is slightly more fuel efficient than the RX8 in mixed driving, and dramatically better on the highway.
Regarding being "gutless"... it's lack of torque is an issue when commuting in stop-and-go traffic, where there's no opportunity to ring the engine out. In this scenario, it (subjectively) feels underpowered.
While the RX8 is a great handling car, it's much less entertaining as a daily driver (and its poor reliability precludes it from being used as such). Perhaps reliability has improved over the years, but I would not be willing to take that risk.
I'm getting ready to buy my baby, the RX8. I fell in love with this car when it came out, and when I was 18.
I think reliability have improved in last 3 years, but that does not bother me at all, as well as mpg, and low end torque, and the starting problem. I have spoked with experienced people about the starting problem, and I was given a simple solution REV THE ENGINE TO 5K THEN SHUT IT DOWN; it will clear the fluids from the engine. I don't know if it's true because I never had an RX8. And the ONLY down side I have is 12% APR on my loan.