Mazda RX8 - What should I know?

[otolith]

stugolf said:

I don't see the attraction no, yes Mazda tried something unique and I have much respect for the RX-7 at least they are great bang for your buck

Handling is excellent on the RX-8 but other than that, what's special exactly? Bad fuel, high oil consumption, tax, tips need replacing, engine needs rebuilding, compression fails, starting issues, flooding, for me an S2000 is a far better proposition or even a Civic Type R/ DC5 Integra

I traded my Civic Type-R in for an RX-8. I'd just got bored of hotted up front wheel drive family cars. It had a great engine and gearbox, really top notch, but the wife's MX-5 was more fun to drive. I wanted something rear drive and purpose built, not a compromised shopping trolley. I considered the S2000, but it was just too impractical. We only had room to park two cars and two two-seat cars didn't make sense. The other option was a 3-series coupe, but they're a bit everyday. I only went into the Mazda dealers to see if the seats folded (they don't, but there is a ski hatch which was enough for my needs). The salesman was keen to give me a go in the demonstrator, so he chucked me the keys and sent me out for an hour, and the car sold itself. I just really like the way they drive, the packaging advantage means that you get something that drives like a sports car but has proper rear seats and a big boot. The closest thing I've driven is the GT86, but that doesn't really have what I would call proper rear seats.

I eventually replaced it with an Elise and an Impreza estate when we had room to park another car.

The advantages may not be a priority to you, meaning that it isn't worth putting up with the downside, but they do exist.

[Ali_T]

stugolf said:

I don't know any other car which is so bad on fuel other that an Evo or Scooby, but at least you get serious performance to match

After my two RX8s, I owned a 2009 WRX STI 330S and then an Evo X FQ330. Both were hugely disappointing after the Mazda. Far faster in a straight line, yes, but that gets old all too quickly and you realise your not actually having fun driving them. I'd happily buy another rotary. Heck, I'd put down a deposit immediately if Mazda announced one. This thread has even got me scratching my chin and wondering if I could sneak an RX8 R3 into the garage without the wife noticing....you may all be required for marriage counselling advice soon...or called on as witnesses at the trial!

Edited by Ali_T on Wednesday 19th August 14:54

[Joeguard1990]

Camoradi said:

I've only driven an RX8 for a brief period on track at Thruxton. In terms of power delivery it felt to me like a turbo diesel in limp mode. It may have a great chassis, but when you arrive at every corner at about 40mph, it really doesn't matter. The gearbox was pretty dire too if I recall

Did you actually drive it to the red-line...? It feels slower than it is because the power delivery is smooth and you don't get a turbo kick like in other cars, but the Speedo would say otherwise. A diesel in limp mode would do 0-62 in 6.4 seconds... As for approaching every corner at 40mph, you probably could have done the same corner at 70mph, if the tyres weren't squealing or the TSC didn't kick in you weren't going fast enough
If the car you drove was one shared by other track-day drivers, then of course the clutch and gearbox aren't going to be in the best condition.

[Ali_T]

Camoradi said:

I've only driven an RX8 for a brief period on track at Thruxton. In terms of power delivery it felt to me like a turbo diesel in limp mode. It may have a great chassis, but when you arrive at every corner at about 40mph, it really doesn't matter. The gearbox was pretty dire too if I recall

Sounds like it was a duffer with a broken actuator for the third port...or you're hugely over-exaggerating. On track, it can hold speed where the hot hatches have to wash it off in a massive blur of understeer.

[otolith]

Camoradi said:

I've only driven an RX8 for a brief period on track at Thruxton. In terms of power delivery it felt to me like a turbo diesel in limp mode. It may have a great chassis, but when you arrive at every corner at about 40mph, it really doesn't matter. The gearbox was pretty dire too if I recall

Sounds like you were a bit off the pace there, maybe watch this guy and see if you can pick up some tips?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE06ryJaJb8

[lostkiwi]

stugolf said:

I don't see the attraction no, yes Mazda tried something unique and I have much respect for the RX-7 at least they are great bang for your buck

Handling is excellent on the RX-8 but other than that, what's special exactly? Bad fuel, high oil consumption, tax, tips need replacing, engine needs rebuilding, compression fails, starting issues, flooding, for me an S2000 is a far better proposition or even a Civic Type R/ DC5 Integra

All the items in bold are actually the same thing. Its like saying 'piston rings need replacing, engines need rebuilding, compression failures and starting issues' about a conventional petrol engine.
Tips= rings and to replace them you rebuild the engine. If you have compression issues guess what... you rebuild the engine (or a part of it at least if its head related on a piston engine), poor starting - well guess what - compression issues can cause poor starting as can flooding and that is owner error as its down to how the car is shut down.
Lets look at the positives... no headgaskets (something every Rover K series owner would view as a positive and something straight 6 Merc owners with higher mileages will be familiar with as well), no cam chain tensioner failures (some Jag V8s and Audi V8s), no Nikasil bore failures (Cayenne/BMW), no cam belt changes (a good many DOHC cars).

Yes they use oil. A small amount and less than a V6 Mercedes engine does (yet not many whine about them). Yes they're thirsty (but so is any large N/A petrol engined car with similar performance).

I haven't owned one (have driven a mates and loved it and grew up with Rotarys as a teenager as they were incredibly popular down under) but I do keep an open mind on them as they are possibly one of the best RWD chassis around. As for the engine you just need to adapt your driving style to fit the car (like any decent driver does when learning a new car).

Edited by lostkiwi on Wednesday 19th August 14:54

[sidekickdmr]

Couldn't be bothered to read through the thread of wankel bashers.

Current RX8 R3 owner here, never missed a beat, and on 54,000 miles, feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions etc

[Joeguard1990]

sidekickdmr said:

Couldn't be bothered to read through the thread of wankel bashers.

Current RX8 R3 owner here, never missed a beat, and on 54,000 miles, feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions etc

I feel your pain...
Same, PM for any info or actually go to the RX8 Owner's Club UK forum and point your queries to people who actually own and run the cars.

[stugolf]

lostkiwi said:

All the items in bold are actually the same thing. Its like saying 'piston rings need replacing, engines need rebuilding, compression failures and starting issues' about a conventional petrol engine.
Tips= rings and to replace them you rebuild the engine. If you have compression issues guess what... you rebuild the engine (or a part of it at least if its head related on a piston engine), poor starting - well guess what - compression issues can cause poor starting as can flooding and that is owner error as its down to how the car is shut down.
Lets look at the positives... no headgaskets (something every Rover K series owner would view as a positive and something straight 6 Merc owners with higher mileages will be familiar with as well), no cam chain tensioner failures (some Jag V8s and Audi V8s), no Nikasil bore failures (Cayenne/BMW), no cam belt changes (a good many DOHC cars).

Yes they use oil. A small amount and less than a V6 Mercedes engine does (yet not many whine about them). Yes they're thirsty (but so is any large N/A petrol engined car with similar performance).

I haven't owned one (have driven a mates and loved it and grew up with Rotarys as a teenager as they were incredibly popular down under) but I do keep an open mind on them as they are possibly one of the best RWD chassis around. As for the engine you just need to adapt your driving style to fit the car (like any decent driver does when learning a new car).

Edited by lostkiwi on Wednesday 19th August 14:54

All valid points...

Problem is:
Petrol/diesel = 100-200k miles if looked after
RX-8 60k regardless

[lostkiwi]

stugolf said:

lostkiwi said:

All the items in bold are actually the same thing. Its like saying 'piston rings need replacing, engines need rebuilding, compression failures and starting issues' about a conventional petrol engine.
Tips= rings and to replace them you rebuild the engine. If you have compression issues guess what... you rebuild the engine (or a part of it at least if its head related on a piston engine), poor starting - well guess what - compression issues can cause poor starting as can flooding and that is owner error as its down to how the car is shut down.
Lets look at the positives... no headgaskets (something every Rover K series owner would view as a positive and something straight 6 Merc owners with higher mileages will be familiar with as well), no cam chain tensioner failures (some Jag V8s and Audi V8s), no Nikasil bore failures (Cayenne/BMW), no cam belt changes (a good many DOHC cars).

Yes they use oil. A small amount and less than a V6 Mercedes engine does (yet not many whine about them). Yes they're thirsty (but so is any large N/A petrol engined car with similar performance).

I haven't owned one (have driven a mates and loved it and grew up with Rotarys as a teenager as they were incredibly popular down under) but I do keep an open mind on them as they are possibly one of the best RWD chassis around. As for the engine you just need to adapt your driving style to fit the car (like any decent driver does when learning a new car).

Edited by lostkiwi on Wednesday 19th August 14:54

All valid points...

Problem is:
Petrol/diesel = 100-200k miles if looked after
RX-8 60k regardless

And your basis for this nonsensical figure...?

[The Flying Ox]

lostkiwi said:

And your basis for this nonsensical figure...?

Someone on a VW forum once heard a bloke down the pub who knew a bloke whose brother once saw one drive past says they are ticking timebombs, so it must be true.

[Joeguard1990]

stugolf said:

All valid points...

Problem is:
Petrol/diesel = 100-200k miles if looked after
RX-8 60k regardless

Who told you 60k regardless? There are RX8s on over 100k miles on the original engine from people who look after them...

Even then, a rebuild is approximately £2.5K so its hardly a a lot of money for what will be an essentially brand new warranted engine that you can look after from the get-go knowing it hasn't been neglected.

[J4CKO]

The Flying Ox said:

lostkiwi said:

And your basis for this nonsensical figure...?

Someone on a VW forum once heard a bloke down the pub who knew a bloke whose brother once saw one drive past says they are ticking timebombs, so it must be true.

A chap I know bought one and it cost him a fortune and nearly sent him mad, and he owns a car spares shop, he then went and bought a Maserati to try and get something less needy, it wasnt.

There is a reason that there are loads for sale with buggered engines, there is a reason why there is so much internet wisdom about them, they have their good points and some people have no problems, but they are possibly the same folk that can walk through a minefield without being blown up, maybe its a luck thing, I just wonder why anyone would bother with all the other cars out there with better potential for less expense and agro, and more performance and looks for the money.

They seem now to be attracting people with £1500 to spend who see them at £1000

[icepop]

Always thought that these cars would make great track day cars, especially as the prices are so low now, for good condition motors. High revving....rear drive....great handling....CHEAP ! anyone running a std'ish one, on track ?

[otolith]

J4CKO said:

I just wonder why anyone would bother with all the other cars out there with better potential for less expense and agro, and more performance and looks for the money.

There aren't that many alternatives. You're basically down to a scabby old 3-series coupe for that sort of money.

[lostkiwi]

The reason there are a lot of them around with knackered engines is owners that don't understand the importance of treating the engine correctly.
A properly treated and maintained rotary will go to 200k miles or more.
The major things are to warm them up gently, follow the shutdown process properly and (once warm) redline them regularly to blow the carbon out from around the tip seals.
Most low mileage ones that fail will have been molly coddled in an attempt to get more economy and thats death for a rotary.
Rotaries are used a lot in aircraft for a number of reasons. Weight and space for the power output is one reason, failure mode is another and reliability is the third.
The rotary when cared for correctly should have a lifetime well in excess of a piston engines as the mechanical stresses and complexity is much lower. When a rotary engine fails its most commonly a failure of the tip seals - something that will prevent an engine starting but not prevent it continuing to run, unlike a petrol engine where failure modes usually cause the engine to stop there and then.
In reality in the UK most RX8 engines seem to require a rebuild between 80-100k miles from what I researched (and I looked into this very seriously a while back and did a lot of research before my requirements changed and made it unfeasible).
An RX8 owned by someone who understands the engine and its needs should easily match the life expectancy of a piston engine.
If you know what you're looking at, know how to look after them and can cope with the economy then the RX8 makes a great bargain in my eyes.

[Mr2Mike]

Joeguard1990 said:

Who told you 60k regardless? There are RX8s on over 100k miles on the original engine from people who look after them...

Even then, a rebuild is approximately £2.5K so its hardly a a lot of money for what will be an essentially brand new warranted engine that you can look after from the get-go knowing it hasn't been neglected.

It's a st load of money for most people, which is one of the reasons that the cars are so cheap to buy.

[lostkiwi]

I think that was the point of an earlier post. Buy one needing a rebuild and spend the money on the rebuild and get an engine you know to be good.

[ShaunTheSheep]

Awesome machines. Best thing is the engine, so smooth, revs forever, completely linear power delivery and lovely (if a little quiet) noise. Handles very nicely.

Terrible mpg. Tin worm is usually cosmetic (wings) rather than structural / chassis which I suppose is better than the other way but still annoying. Sensitive to tyre choice, thankfully the tyres they like aren't the most expensive ones.

If you're near me you're welcome to a shot in a good one that's been looked after but it's not for sale :-p

[Mave]

Worth making sure you like the noise IMHO. Owned an rx-7, tried an rx-8, both suffered from a bland exhaust note (although I had an alfa 145, then 156 v6 at the same time as the rx7 so maybe a hard act to follow...)