A fine-handling car carries on a conversation with the tips of your fingers and the seat of your pants, and not just near the limit of adhesion. Whether the engine’s up front, in the middle or out back; whether the powerplant propels the front, rear or both wheels, a true “driver’s car” is a master of communication and balance. While many cars have been successfully marketed based on their “ultimate driving,” very few are capable of delivering such erudition. Many are downright pigs, offering nothing more than understeer followed by more understeer. As Jonny Lieberman’s review indicates, the Mazda RX-8 is not amongst them. It is an under-appreciated gem.
Only two cars in the RX-8’s price range arguably handle better: the Honda S2000 (in its final year) and Mazda’s own Miata. Neither has a rear seat or is remotely as livable as the RX-8, and the Honda is insanely expensive to insure. And i enjoy driving the RX-8 more.
While I haven’t always been a fan of Motor Trend, the October 2008 issue includes a “giant handling test” that’s well worth reading. They lead off with instrumented testing, where the RX-8 doesn’t fare well against a group that includes the Dodge Viper ACR, BMW M3, Mitsubishi Evo, Porsche 911 Turbo, Nissan GT-R and Audi R8. So I figured they were going to bury the RX-8 in their rankings.
But another part of the comparison test involves a subjective component, where professional road-racer Randy Pobst ranked the RX-8 third, behind only the $120k Audi R8 and $63k BMW M3 (the light steering apparently comes alive on the track). Ahead of even the Porsche— and Pobst races a Porsche.
In the purest sense of a sports car, the rear-drive RX-8 is the most satisfying through corners. I felt like it was a glove on my hand. I could put it right where I wanted. Extremely well balanced, easy to drift, unfettered by weight. The all-wheel-drive cars tend to understeer, and then when they do break loose it’s a big event and a lot happens. In the RX-8, on the other hand, things happen a little bit at a time. It’s just so much fun to drive. The more powerful cars feel like riding a horse. The RX-8 feels like wings bolted right to your arms.
Note that Pobst says “the most satisfying through corners,” not merely “one of the most.” I couldn’t agree more. I’ve driven an RX-8 on WV16 and OH26, two roads packed with challenging curves. It was the most satisfying driving experience I’ve ever had.
I’m aware of the arguments against the RX-8, most of which center around the rotary engine. Yes, the Wankel’s fuel economy is poor. In my experience, the car gets 15 mpg in all-out hooning mode, 17 in typical suburban driving, and 21 when cruising on the freeway. But plenty of vehicles have been sold that do worse. And the recent fuel price spike indicates that it’s not all about frugality. In the first eight months of last year, when gas prices were lower, Mazda still only shifted 4,417 RX-8s.
Next up: the lack of low-end torque. There’s a fix: downshift. Where some engines reward a downshift with a raucous fuss, the rotary begs to be revved. Sure, the RX-8 doesn’t launch strongly, but once underway on a winding road, power is not an issue. I’ll grant that there’s a certain adolescent thrill to rocketing oneself and 3,500+ pounds of metal and plastic forward by merely pressing down on a pedal. But is this really what performance driving has devolved to?
Apparently so. Mazda developed a unique engine and chassis for the RX-8— bits not shared with a midsize sedan. They’re offering a lightweight car with outstanding handling and a livable ride. They even toss a usable rear seat into the deal, AND an amazingly low price for a bespoke low-volume car (under $30k new, under $20k used with low miles). And yet Mazda sold just 2,591 RX-8s in the first eight months of 2008.
The unavoidable implication: handling simply isn’t a high priority for more than a few thousand people a year. When driving enthusiasts have to choose between handling and torque, nearly all of them choose torque. This certainly lets a lot of other manufacturers off the hook; torque is much easier to provide than communicative steering and a finely-balanced chassis. Just drop a powerful engine into a sexy-looking car (e.g. any of the new wave V8 muscle cars), and sales will follow.
In the future, when electric motors drive the wheels and steering is via wire, the torque temptation will only increase. Electric motors can certainly deliver low-end grunt, so few people will mind that any steering feel these vehicles provide will be entirely artificial. My advice to those with limited budgets who really care about handling, whose driving isn’t all in a straight line: buy a Mazda RX-8 while you still can.
What about the wankel’s legendary tendency to implode if not driven REALLY hard? That’s what would scare me away from this, and into the seat of, say, a 350Z.
Good article. If I could fit a rear-facing child seat in an RX-8, I’d get one. I’d buy it if it came with small, naturally-aspirated four cylinder, never mind the rotary.
There’s far too much power-marketing in modern vehicles, to the detriment of economy and handling. Bigger engines, more power, shorter gearing, all in the same of winning the spec-sheet battle and artificially boosting prices.
And no one is going to be the first to break with that. Getting whacked with the “Too small/too slow” stick guarantees sales failure, no matter how decent the whole car is, and selling a smaller-engined car means dropping the selling price, which means eating margin dollars. No one is going to do that.
What a great read. Thanks.
Makes me want a previous gen RX7 with an LS1 V8 under the hood. 99% of the handling, much better looks, and torque if you need it!
doctorv8, you do realize that stuffing a V8 into an RX-7 will offset the handling due to weight increase?
The V8 will shift the fore/aft bias forwards, raise the center of gravity, increase centrifugal loading on turns, and increase momentum and braking effort to slow the increased mass. You will destroy handling in short by “fixing” torque.
Forced induction or porting is probably the better route.
I’d like to thank Mazda for providing us with great cars when nobody else will. Miata, RX8, MS3, etc. That said, the RX8’s abhorrent gas mileage (not that my car is any better) scared me away, although a friend and I are considering going half-and-half on one of these now.
I wish I had bought a third generation RX-7, and someday I’ll again kick myself for not buying an RX-8. Wish I could, but my wife would shoot me.
Great handling, so-so reliability, an engine to die for at a price that won’t lead to a Wall St bailout. Sounds like an Alfa Romeo and we know what happened to them (here in the US). For this type of car Americans just don’t get it (and for Alfas that’s literally true.) So sad.
I took a serious look at an RX8 when I was selling my Miata pending the birth of our first child. I loved the rear seats, the performance (I still needed a car for track days), and by far the way it drove. I dare say that I loved driving that car more than my Miata.
However, at the time I had an 85 mile round trip to work and the poor mileage was part of the deal killer. Now I work only 5 miles from home and I ride my bike to work three days a week. I did keep our purchase in the Mazda family with a Speed 3. I love my Speed3, it’s a great track car, and family hauler, but every single time I see an RX8 I know I should have gone that direction instead. This article only makes it hurt worse. Sigh…
Been working on rotaries for over 25 years and never heard of this implosion comment. Usually it’s a driver error. Lack of maintenance or over rev that kills them prematurely.
Sorry that such fine powertrains get in the ham fisted hands of those that can afford, but not appreciate or manipulate properly. They must have problems like the gum and walking thang.
Definitely high on my third-car list.
Sales aren’t everything; I really appreciate Mazda’s ability to create excellent cars despite what most Americans appear to want.
When are we going to see a Variable Vane turbo on the RENESIS? or a twin-turbo setup like the previous model RX-7?
I have a feeling that the fuel economy figures are only hurt by the lack of low-end torque – there’s that desire to just press the accelerator and go, but no torque to back it up. So you end up downshifting and winding it out to get up to speed every time.
A turbo as mentioned above would easily boost power to the 300 hp mark, and add plenty of low-end power if tuned properly. There have been rumors about an RX-8 Turbo since it was introduced, but nothing more.
Too bad it’s such a perennial poor seller, or that sales volume would lead to R&D which would lead to a MazdaSpeed RX-8… if only…
keep in mind the RX-8 also offers insane cash on the hoods most of the time, or heavily subsidized leases – to the point where new ones can be had for substantially under sticker.
As for S2000 vs. RX-8 . . . . two different cars. I’ve owned an RX-8, my next planned car is an S2000 – but not for any fault of the RX-8s . . . . it was a fine fine car and just so smooth and fun in daily use yet so alive when I put it on the track. I just want a harder-edged vehicle at the moment, which is where the S2000 comes in. They both embody the same ideal – low weight, high revs (it takes a real connoisseur to appreciate this type of vehicle over those overweight torque monsters you mentioned).
But in the ideal world, you’d have both – one for family use and one for sunday racing.
I test drove an RX-8 in ’04. I’d prefer owning it to a number of much more powerful vehicles.
mocktard: sales are a lot if you’re Mazda. Why develop a replacement?
krazykarguy: there’s plenty of torque for around town. The combustion chamber is poorly shaped for economy, and there’s no getting around that with a rotary.
When are we going to see a Variable Vane turbo on the RENESIS? or a twin-turbo setup like the previous model RX-7?
When they can get clear to people that you can’t ignore certain issues in the same way you might in a piston engine. It’s a neglect-hostile powerplant, which a lot of people don’t seem to understand. Pre-ignition in a rotary is going to badly damage the rotor, housing or both.
I think Mazda would have blown the motor if they thought they could get away with it. Not all powerplants are happy about being boosted; this is one of them.
At full throttle, the mileage isn’t really that bad–drive a Celica GT-S over 6000rpm all day and watch what happens–but it’s “casual use” consumption is problematic. One of the Corvette’s saving graces is that, driven like a granny-car, it returns good mileage (driven hard it sucks worse than the RX by far, but hey, 400hp V8). The RX-8 doesn’t have a “commuter zone” in which is gets good mileage; I don’t think it will until it gets hybridized.
I don’t think it’ll get hybridized. It might get hydrogenated–they’ve tested hydrogen-powered rotaries for years.
Mazda claimed at one point that the Renesis engine would not meet emissions regs with a turbo — that adding a turbocharger would reduce the effectiveness of the catalytic converter to a problematic degree. I’ve heard rumblings that aftermarket turbos have a tendency to make it go ‘boom,’ as well.
My understanding is that the Wankel’s poor fuel consumption is due largely to its poor thermal efficiency compared to a reciprocating engine. The lack of reciprocating weight makes up for it in power output, but not in specific fuel consumption.
I don’t think it’ll get hybridized. It might get hydrogenated–they’ve tested hydrogen-powered rotaries for years.
I think they’re testing a hydrogen/electric-hybrid rotary in the Mazda5. Hydrogen is kind of a waste of time, but CNG might not be and the hybrid part would certainly help the torque issue without the “Boom” factor of forced induction.
there’s a certain adolescent thrill to rocketing oneself and 3,500+ pounds of metal and plastic forward by merely pressing down on a pedal. But is this really what performance driving has devolved to?
Lord, I hope not.
… handling simply isn’t a high priority for more than a few thousand people a year. When driving enthusiasts have to choose between handling and torque, nearly all of them choose torque.
Those of us in the mentioned “few thousand” — who value handling and balance over pure torque(whether we own RX-8s or not)– will continue to gather here to chat in a civilized manner while the others are making tire marks in the parking lot.
Interesting that both of these quoted passages appeared almost adjacent to the “Future of the muscle car” essays on the screen.
The RX-8 is truly wonderful to drive. It’s a damn shame about the fuel economy, and really, nothing can be done to remedy that. Bad fuel economy is inherent in the rotary.
I suspect that the problem of adding oil all the time also scares some away from the rotary. When I was considering an RX-8, in 04, the boards were full of stories of stalling and having to take the thing to the dealer and pay $100-plus to get it started again. It seems to be a high maintenance car. Alas.
Nonetheless, Consumer Reports now recommends it. Maybe things have improved with the stalling problem.
I never realized this car needed defending.
You either like RXs or you don’t. If you don’t you can get Miata, Corvette, 350Z etc. I’d rather have this car be fairly exclusive than everyone love it.
My main problem with the RX-8 is the riceboyz on acid styling.
My second problem with it is the last gen RX-7. The RX-8 was introduced in 2003 just as the horsepower wars were heating up. Only the RX-8 had less power than the ’95, and still hasn’t caught up.
I’ll grant that there’s a certain adolescent thrill to rocketing oneself and 3,500+ pounds of metal and plastic forward by merely pressing down on a pedal. But is this really what performance driving has devolved to?
Based on a chats with a salesman or six, I think many adolescent brain stems bought the auto version of this car. And dumped/traded it ASAP when they realized 2 hands were needed to get the most out of the engine. They’d rather eat a taco or chat on the phone…
It’d be interesting to know the auto / manual ratio of RX-8’s sold.
In a world were the RX-8 can exist by itself I am sure I would fall deeply in love with it. In the real world I do not think I would be able to pass up the power and torque of a 350z for the more surgical hadling of the RX-8.
The RX-8 can best be described as an “odd-ball” and that is why it has not been a sales success.
If the RX-8 actually did have the proper engine to compliment its excellent 2+2 body I bet it would have been much better received.
Everytime I think about the RX-8 I have to wonder why Mazda did not see fit to install the rotary into the Miata. That is the car that the real enthusiast would die for! Think about the performance of a 232hp MX-5 with a smaller, lighter engine installed? I also bet that the 500lb+ weight savings would do wonders for the fuel consumption.
Another joke is that a Rotary Mx-5 might have been able to beat the S2000 on price!
In reality the RX-8 does not fit our market as it is configured. Mazda should create a longtitude version of the turbo4 from the Mazdaspeed3 and stuff that into the RX-8, now you’re talking!
The irony is that the heavier more powerful turbo4 would most likely get better mileage than the rotary in the RX-8!
Installed into the RX-8 the Rotary can best be described as a novelty. It does nothing very well IN THAT PARTICULAR CAR. Yes, it indeed revs like hell, but with a HP peak of only 232 and torque of only 159, whats the point?
On the otherhand it returns piss-poor mileage, and does require an extra level of maintenance in an era were just about every other new car in every price range DOES NOT! The hassle of needing to top off the oil is a big deal. Why didn’t Mazda design the car to manage its own oil requirements with a simple reserve oil tank??????
Come on, Porsche is so confident about its Boxsters and Cayman that you cant even access the damn engines and Mazda feel it is ok to expect the owners to “watch their oil”
Clarkson said the RX-8’s handling is simply phenomenal. I agree with him.
And I agree with all those like Farago who say, if you don’t like a car’s fuel economy, then drive less.
Assuming you’re not a travelling salesman, then what’s there not to like? What has to be defended?
Despite low sales I hope Mazda keeps the faith and continues to: A) develop the Wankel (God knows, they are all alone, after GM, NSU and others gave up) and B) continue to offer an RX, no matter how it’s packaged.
Even though I own a Mazda 6 (my 4th Mazda), they don’t listen to me :-) If they did, the new 6 wouldn’t be as big as it is, but never mind.
I’d tell Mazda to revive the RX-7, make it a hardcore two-seat sports car, but also make a RX-9, a more conventional (true) four-door sports-luxury sedan along the lines of a BMW 3-Series. Both cars should offer the 16X Renesis, the RX-7 should offer a twin-turbo option. Either that or the triple-rotor Wankel seen in the JDM Cosmo coupe way back when.
This is my way of saying the RX-8 –don’t get me wrong, I love this car– really is an oddball in the car world.
whatdoiknow:
Come on, Porsche is so confident about its Boxsters and Cayman that you cant even access the damn engines and Mazda feel it is ok to expect the owners to “watch their oil”
For $18K+ in savings over the (base)Cayman w/ non-race seats, I can watch a LOT of oil.
“the Honda [S2000] is insanely expensive to insure”
Maybe if you have a crappy driving record. The insurance on mine isn’t bad at all.
Even though I’ve never driven one, I kinda like the rotary idea. The poor gas mileage is a put-off, though, hence the S2k. I did see one guy who took a 3rd-gen RX7 and installed an AC electric car setup: kept the high redline and dumped the gas and oil worries.
Why didn’t Mazda design the car to manage its own oil requirements with a simple reserve oil tank??????
Because people would be even less likely to check the oil injection tank level, resulting in numerous engine failures. At least most, okay some, people have been taught to check the engine oil level at least monthly. Throw in an extra oil tank and I doubt many would even know to check it, and nobody reads the Owner’s Manual anymore.
I also have dreamed of a rotary powered Miata. It would be equvalent to a convertible RX-7. Light weight, two seats, and the top down, with the anticipated superb handling and relatively low price, this would be heaven.
In my humble opinion, the RX-8 needs no defense. I feel that, as long as a car is not completely asinine, hideously ugly, or mind-bogglingly expensive, to begin with, it needs no defense. As it stands, very few cars need to have their very existence defended.
The RX-8 is a sports car with a Wankel engine, and it reasonably priced. Its looks may not appeal to all, but they’re not reminiscent of an automotive Whoopi Goldberg. The Wankel engine has limited appeal, but that’s Mazda’s niche, and they’ve been doing it for a while. And its price is within reason, which is a good thing.
As I see it, if Mazda wants to continue production of the RX-8, that’s their prerogative.
Lumbergh21 – I swear for maybe 20 minutes that Mazda was considering the 1998-ish redesign to make the Miata a rotary powered car. I remember reading that in the rumor columns and press releases but I wouldn’t put money on that!
The fact that so many have commented on the RX-8 shows that it still has a place in the market – there’s always room for the one that is different! The RX-8 is just fun. Like the Euro-spec (and older) S2000s, there is just something wild about revving an engine all of the way to 9000rpms. I’m back in the market for a new car (even through these rather crazy economic/credit times…let’s see what happens soon) and I’m looking into the refreshed RX-8. The ONLY thing that will keep me from saying yes is the mileage – I drive a lot and poor real-world mileage isn’t an option.
I have read this site for quite a while but this (and the ’09 RX-8 review) are the ones that finally got me to sign up to post.
So up until two months ago I owned one of these. I learned everything about it while I owned it and will try to give some insight.
First, both reviews are spot on. The body roll in my base RX-8 was excessive for a sports car but gave excellent ride quality. Although once set in a corner it had massive grip, there is no avoiding that a mass accelerating into a roll is going to put excessive force on the tires’ adhesion when the time comes to slow the roll. Aftermarket suspension or an R3’s stock upgrade completely solve that problem and make it a supercar with all it’s accompanied ride harshness. ’nuff said. Telepathic steering, predictable breakout and neutral balance are all just like the articles said.
The car was designed for the engine, not the other way around so those LS1 and blown 4 comments are pointless. The miata idea has always been intriguing but then you would have a tiny convertible getting ~26 mpg instead of ~30 mpg and people would complain about that. In order to like anything with a rotary in it you must ACCEPT THAT IT HAS A ROTARY IN IT! This means poorer fuel economy than a reciprocating counterpart (at low speed cruise due to thermal inefficiencies). However, these engines get fantastic mileage at WOT on the highway. You can play around redline all the time and your mileage may dip from 21 to 20. Also you cannot understand why someone would like this engine by reading this or any other post or anything printed on paper. It’s like trying to explain to someone that peak horsepower doesnt matter as much to speed and driveability as something more nuanced like a power curve. You simply have to drive a rotary to grok it.
Oh and to address some other engine related posts: the engine doesn’t have a turbo because of emissions and reliability issues. It already runs an 11 to 1 compression and had a devastating (power and economy) software reprogram just to get it on US shores. They would have to drop compression to add a turbo but then mileage would drop further and reliability would return to the Gen III RX-7 days (shudder). Turbos do wonders to this car and work okay for a long time if you do it right but it is easy to see why a global corporation said no way.
Also it uses oil and always will. One of those recalls you read about was they tried to make it use less oil (emissions/owner involvement issues) and lo and behold it was more engine wear. They bumped the oil usage back up. It will go through about a quart every 3K. I think they should have had a separate reservoir of about that size with a light that came on (or a meter) that told you when that was empty.
Here are some common problems: It fouls cats; the car ran rich as part of the software/emissions fix. The tranny synchros blow up; they didn’t put in some super special custom tranny to handle the 9,000+ rpm shifts, just a standard Aisin 6 speed. The automatics sucked and where unreliable and less powerful for a number of reasons; learn to shift.
And here is my personal list of negatives: I didn’t like the headroom. I’m 6’1 and always had the drivers seat at it lowest and still felt was very close to the ceiling. The passanger seat does not have adjustable height and is annoying to ride in if you are not short. The seats do not have sufficient bolstering. Good enough for a normal sports car, but this thing can turn stupid hard; it really needed recaros or at least suede inserts. It rattled some and no car should do that (but they all seem too these days). The lower rear end styling was dumb but that has been fixed.
Anyways I could list positives but they’ve already been covered extensively, and I agree with all of them. I figured some of the bad stuff learned the hard way might be more informative. For me the balance sheet was massively on the positive side and it was a great car for the amount of money I paid (about 2/3 MSRP for a 2 year old, 20K car). For those who are wondering mine was an ’04, and I sold it for a Mazdaspeed 3, thinking the increased mileage, power, economy, and ski-car possibility were things I needed. While that car is #1 on TTAC’s 10 best for a very good reason, it feels like a bunch of mechanical bits trying to make a snowplow not a snowplow. The RX-8 never was a snowplow and reading these articles has made me miss mine dearly :)
Thanks for the insight. I had a good time reading it.
I like what you said. I own a 2004 RX-8 with a 6 speed, K&N cold air intake without the conical filter (My filter looks like something off of a Corvette) and Racing Beat full exhaust. I am able to catch up and pass a MazdaSpeed 6 in a straight line launch if I rev up to 5000 and release (The only reason I have to catch up is the fact that it has awd and I spin through first gear). It is not as “Slow” as everyone says. I love the car so much that I couldn’t bear to sell it, so I paid $2,500 to have it shipped from Houston, Tx to Fairbanks, Ak. I can only drive the car for 3 months out of the year and there has not been another car that I want. There are negatives, like that fact that our octane here is only 90 which saw my city mpg go from 18 (which is also what my 02 Mustang GT had in Houston) to 15-17 mpg, and my Highway went from 27 to 25. Now here is where I don’t see that as bad, because my Mazda 3s only gets about 9 to 10 in the winter due to -40 F. Yes it gets cold here. So I look forward to my few summer months I get to drive this car. People do come up to me and tell me I was dumb for buying it and they almost always say its because of mpg (I have no idea why people who buy a sports car care about mpg… if you can’t afford the gas, buy an economy car), or its “slow” (Says the people with their Roush mustangs who can’t shift and blow out their transmissions not once but 3 times), or some other dumb reason… and they have never driven the car before. Then after all their “know it all” remarks, they have the nerve to ask if they can drive it! Point is if I wanted a car that had a ludicrous 0-60 that can’t turn for anything, I would have stayed in my Mustang GT and put a Kenne Bell supercharger on it, but I wanted a car that wasn’t strong in just one field but had its wheels in all corners, that is why I chose the RX-8. Oh and the fact that the Rotary makes the sweetest sound at full Rev.
I once had the distinct pleasure of test driving a 2008 MX-5 and a 2008 RX-8 back to back in a situation permitting triple-digit speeds and beyond-the-limit cornering (Best. Day. Ever.). Of the two cars, I liked the Miata’s handling, shifter feel, and packaging more than the RX-8, but that rotary completely made up for the RX-8’s relative deficiencies.
A hard-top Miata with that rotary engine would be something I’d get a third job to pay for.
Whenever I add to, or replace a car in, my tiny fleet the eventual transaction usually derives from an advance decision to seek, find and buy a specific vehicle. I know what I want and just go for it. But occasionally I go free-ranging for a next car, widely sampling and evaluating what’s interesting to me that will meet just a few requirements so as not to preclude any category. Such was the case when I bought my Cadillac XLR-V after shopping it against the Mazda RX-8 and over a dozen other cars of widely varying prices and configurations.
The RX-8 was at once amazing, annoying and disappointing but the qualities that made it amazing kept it in the running through the late innings of my selection game. After the frustration of not having been able to consider the last generation RX7 for the simple reason that no seat position nor contortion on my part allowed me to fit into that car in any driveable posture, I found the interior space utilization of the RX-8 stunning. Not only could the driver’s office accommodate me, but someone substantial could sit comfortably behind me. The gearbox felt precise and light. Steering, as you’ve already noted, was talkative and pithy in my hands. The car felt neutral and lighter than it is. There was no sense of the car fighting its mass in turns. All vehicle dynamics were exemplary. Altogether an accessible, fun yet functional car that isn’t a box nor a throwback. And it in no way communicates “cheap.” Keep it detailed and frankly, it could be perceived as carrying any price.
Yes, the torque anemia can be mitigated by keeping the rotary mill in its powerband, but you still don’t have the dynamic immediacy on tap for instant insertion into crowded traffic. Even that I can live with to get the rotary’s whirling top end. The little screamer is exhilarating in the soprano revs.
But two characteristics knocked the RX-8 out of contention for me. First, driving the RX-8 I felt something I haven’t sensed since trying a Fiat 850 over 30 years ago: I could feel the floor pan flexing under the heels of my feet as the car soaked up the road. The car’s unit body integrity felt robust and stiff enough in the main, but the flexing floor pan wasn’t confidence-inspiring and was distracting. Second, I just couldn’t justify the lack of fuel economy given the torque anemia. To put this in perspective, my 4.4L supercharged 4 cam V8 in the 3800 lbs Cadillac is more frugal with fuel than the Mazda’s tiny spinner. A Corvette’s 6.2 or 7.0L mills even more so.
35 years ago I got that Zoom-Zoom feeling in an 1800 lbs. Triumph that delivered over 40mpg from an ancient carburetted mill. It wasn’t as quick or fast as an RX-8, but it was even more visceral and exciting. And it didn’t have a rubbery floorpan.
The RX-8 has the virtue of feeling lighter and less substantial than its actual mass suggest it is. That’s mostly good for a driver’s sensory satisfaction. But in some respects that’s not as convincing as some of the lighter sports cars from a generation-and-a-half ago that felt more substantial than their willowy actual mass led one to expect. At the end of the day, when a 443hp V8 in a capable chassis out-economizes the mouse-that-roared Mazda motor, it seems like a poor trade to give up the torque.
So I passed, even though I could have bought three for about the same price. It felt a pretense to have the assumption of others that a small sports car must be virtuous because it is small. Plus it had to be shipped here on a completely unregulated cargo vessel. There are better four-seaters, and more efficient, higher-performing sports cars. But if you don’t care about any of that, the RX-8’s balance, precision, directness and sheer vividness at-a-price do make it a category of one.
Phil
Well written. Thanks.
psarhjinian :
This car LOVES boost.
I boosted mine to 9 psi and made 360 whp with no problems – I even got better fuel economy (because it runs so rich from the factory, when I leaned it out just a tad things ran great).
People in Puerto Rico (where they LOVE their rotaries) were getting 19 psi and 400+ whp last I checked, back in 2006. God knows what they’re doing now.
Rotaries LOVE boost – problem is people don’t know how to care for boosted rotaries, so selling one will clearly involve a lot of mistreatment and warranty claims.
What they need to do is bring it to 1.6L of displacement with direct injection (~300 hp) and put it in a lighter two seat car – that’ll solve the power complaints.
God bless the Puerto Rican rotorheads. They know how to roll.
Down there they have a sickness, for which the only cure is more rotors! I think more 3 rotor engines end up there than anywhere else.
Also there seems to be some misunderstanding about why a rotary makes such big power for a 1.3L (understandably!).
Simply put, it fires twice as often as a reciprocating engine per rotation of the crankshaft. In that respect it is like a 2-stroke engine in terms of power/displacement. (even though it is a “four stroke”). That is why Ward treats it as a 2.6L in their program. There is some more esoteric stuff about rotational momentum vs. reciprocating mass that I’m more likely to get wrong so I just will leave it at that. One nice thing about the rotational momentum though is that it is surprisingly more difficult to stall the car. You’ll think you botched it and then inexplicably it will spring back to life. The rotary helps you save face :)
flomulgator, how big physically is the rotary engine?
Dunno exactly. It has funny dimensions. It’s like a barrel with a periscope (the intake manifold). I do know it will fit pretty much anywhere a small 4-cylinder will.
There’s nothing wrong with an RX-8 that a turbocharger won’t fix.
That said, I still bought a 350Z.
For the record, the one Motor Trend drove was the R3 — in fact, the EXACT same car I had. (I matched the plates)
Probably explains why even though the car only had 1,100 miles on it when I got it, it was low on oil.
Adub :
September 30th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
flomulgator, how big physically is the rotary engine?
I believe the brochure for the 2004 edition described it as approximately the same size as an average suitcase. It’s small enough that they can mount it entirely behind the front wheels and maintain a cabin roomy enough for four adults. Think about it. It has two rotors rather than 4 to 8 cylinders, so it is pretty darn flat.
Great article Mike!
I fully endorse the RX-8 as being very under appreciated. It’s a fantastic driving car that begs you to throw it into a corner and hang on. Sure you have to rev it (and coming from a Honda Civic, that was probably the more enjoyable part during my drive) but it sounds so unstressed and free-revving that it’s a great match to the platform.
Sure my head is hell bent on nabbing a MazdaSpeed3, but the RX-8 was right up there in the runnings (albeit, the poor fuel economy plus the maintenance issues of the rotary engine and the overall better practical package the Speed3 presented kinda influenced my decision).
The original title of this piece was “Handling doesn’t sell.” But the car does need defending because it deserves to sell much better than it ought to.
The insurance rate my then company quoted me on an S2000 was insanely high–over a dollar for each mile I expected to drive it–and my record is clean. But such things vary from company to company.
The rotary engine is about the size and shape of a pony keg. They fill much of the space above it with an intake system, but I’m sure this system could fit in a smaller space if it had to.
What I remember most fondly from driving my first-gen RX-7 was the way that the rotary felt like a turbine engine when the tach needle swept past 4000 RPM. It wasn’t explosive the way my two-stroke Kawasaki 750 triple was, but like the famed H2, it was gutless below the powerband. But when it hit 4000, power was plentiful and the whole car really came alive. Driven correctly, the RX-7 felt like a dancer, strong, quick of reflex and graceful.
Has anyone seen any reviews / tried themselves / heard of feedback about the HKS Turbo kit for the RX-8?
Apparently Turbo-ing the new Wankel was impossible due to the computer, but HKS (I think it was HKS) has resovlved it and has a workable, powerful turbo-kit for the RX-8.
A turbo-ed (and thus torqued-up) RX-8 might be the perfect sports car.
Anyone have any info?
Can’t remember if they do. Go here for more information on that stuff than you ever want: http://www.rx8club.com/forumdisplay.php?s=4ec086e3546574e88cc33ed399bafc3b&f=93
The short answer to the second one is, no it was never impossible. The computer did pose a unique challenge though as it is a unique computer. It is a learning computer that will work its way back to baseline if you change parameters (“don’t do that Dave”). It’s also insanely complex. So the computer was an annoyance for while but now there are some really good, very expensive fixes. Greddy has had a kit ($4k) from the beginning but their computer solution was poor initially. The biggest of the big time is Mazsport; they are the ones making 400hp at the wheels.
If that is your idea of the perfect sports car then I know where you can find it. It is in Puerto Rico. The guys down there put in a turbo 3 rotor making 700hp while keeping balance almost the same.
Mazda had the RX-7 and MX-7 produced at the same time, the latter with a regular four pot. why not do the same for the RX-8, MX-8.
I love the Idea of a rotary engine, and would by that even if i had the choice of a regular one.
Wankels are just great engines, if you dont care much about torque. and according to a friend that own an RX8 he’s had it for a few years now and not a single problem with the engine. plus Mazda just put up the waranty on these things. that must mean something.
The RX8 is a superb machine, with unmatched interior quality.
But the rotary is a dog. No torque, dreadful economy, and it slurps oil faster than a rusty Chevette. Why doesn’t mazda just dump that rotary and put in a small turbocharged mill??
limmin: Because sometimes it’s fun to actually work for your power. A monkey (or acne-riddled teenager) can floor a strong, torquey engine and go fast. Personally, I like the responsibility of selecting the proper gear to keep the engine up in the powerband, and the reward of getting it right and finding all the power.
Additionally, pretty much any other engine with similar power would weight twice as much and completely spoil the handling.
I would totally buy this car. If it had the Miata’s engine or better yet the MS3’s.
I’ve been hanging around the RX-8 website (rx8club.com) and seeing what people want in the new RX sports car. What is striking is that, in a site devoted to RX cars, there is little appreciation for what a sports car is or should be. Just like here, the RX-8 is compared to Camaros and Mustangs. It points to the fact that there seems to be no defined category for true sports cars.
I’d say a true sports car is one where you get in the car on a pleasant summer Sunday evening, for no other reason than to drive. I’ve owned some sweet cars over the years, but by this definition, the only ones that qualified as true sports cars were my Triumph GT-6+, Datsun 260Z and present RX-8.
Owned a 2005 RX8 since new, have also owned numerous fast and well handling cars, boats and motorcycles. RX8 is a great handling and very entertaining car. Don’t care about the gas mileage for the pleasure it generates. Not as fast as I originally hoped but the rotary has a lot of turbo boost feel to it after about 4200R. Can be very quick off the line if you know how to drive it, I have the MT 6 speed.
The main problem I have is service on the vehicle. It has some inherent intricacies that have caused some problems only to be exacerbated by the dealer. I too, have been taken by the dealer for the flooding and non starting issue, (dealer said it was the starter) brakes that could not be stopped from squealing after dealer installation and 6 trips to the service department which I ended up replacing with a $40 pair that I bought and installed to eliminate the problem. Now I’m told I need a catalytic converter for $ 1800 which I am refusing. My wife and I both love the handling characteristics of this car, acceleration is acceptable but for the hassle, I am removing it from the street and keeping it to play with. Look at the threads of dealers hosing people on this car. By the way, I’m 6’4″, could not fit in the Miata, but love driving this car, even on 3000+ mile road trips. But the service, no one else can work on them in my small town in Texas. Guess I’ll have to learn to do it myself and forget the dealer……….