RE: PH Fleet Intro: Mazda RX-8

[JonnyFive]

CarbonBlackM5 said:

Really like the look of the R3 but compare to my old RX8 I found the R3 seats too narrow on the back. (Maybe Im just a fat git)

I also find them too narrow on the back of the seats.

[daz4m]

CarbonBlackM5 said:

Really like the look of the R3 but compare to my old RX8 I found the R3 seats too narrow on the back. (Maybe Im just a fat git)

I'd be more inclined to consider the changes they made to oil lubrication system and gearing rather than the seat design.

[Fastdruid]

CarbonBlackM5 said:

Fastdruid said:

I do. We've got one registered Jan 2006 (although currently for sale *sob*)

2009 R3's are the ones to go with if you can afford them, if not then 2006 onwards.

Best pre-R3 are those 2006 models in that small window before March 23rd.

Really like the look of the R3 but compare to my old RX8 I found the R3 seats too narrow on the back. (Maybe Im just a fat git)

IIRC the R3 seats are 5Kg lighter each, maybe they just made them a bit narrower!

[JonnyFive]

daz4m said:

I'd be more inclined to consider the changes they made to oil lubrication system and gearing rather than the seat design.

Abit pointless considering the changes to the lubrication system when you can't sit in the car comfortably..

[daz4m]

Plenty of the old model seats around for less than £300, a bit harder and significantly more ££££ to change the mechanical bits. The gearing in the original car was terrible too, changing up to 4th was always a disapointment until the revs came up.

The R3 is the best Rx8 but its not such a bargain.

Edited by daz4m on Monday 6th February 10:50

[Harji]

Gary C said:

Harji said:

In terms of one rotation to intake, compress, combustion and exhaust.

OK, but I would argue that 'efficiency' is not quite the right word in that case.

As said, the rotary is thermally quite inefficient.

Efficiency can relate to work, hence why I used the word. The work involved by a rotary to convert fuel/air into energy is more efficient than a four stroke cycle.

[otolith]

daz4m said:

The gearing in the original car was terrible too, changing up to 4th was always a disapointment until the revs came up.

Third was good for about 95mph, as I recall, and dropped you back into the power.

[daz4m]

otolith said:

Third was good for about 95mph, as I recall, and dropped you back into the power.

Yes 3rd went to 95mph and then change up to 4th and it bogged down a bit, I always found the car felt quicker between 105 and 115 than 95 to 105. Annoyed me on track.

[otolith]

Can't say I noticed that, but then at Kenilworth I was probably giving more thought to the corner at the end of the long straight than what was happening in 4th

Obviously never saw the top end of third on the road, ossifer

[thewildblue]

otolith said:

Third was good for about 95mph, as I recall, and dropped you back into the power.

Not quite in the power properly it was just shy of 7k IIRC. There are some Jap models that did 98/99mph in the 3rd I believe which would make the change to 4th better. As stated 4th really got into its stride above 105 where it was pulling above 7k.

[CarbonBlackM5]

daz4m said:

CarbonBlackM5 said:

Really like the look of the R3 but compare to my old RX8 I found the R3 seats too narrow on the back. (Maybe Im just a fat git)

I'd be more inclined to consider the changes they made to oil lubrication system and gearing rather than the seat design.

Do you have a beard

[daz4m]

Lol.

[marcosgt]

CarbonBlackM5 said:

daz4m said:

CarbonBlackM5 said:

Really like the look of the R3 but compare to my old RX8 I found the R3 seats too narrow on the back. (Maybe Im just a fat git)

I'd be more inclined to consider the changes they made to oil lubrication system and gearing rather than the seat design.

Do you have a beard

I do, but the seats on the R3 were a deal killer for me (If I had been in the market for one).

It felt like I was sitting ON the car, rather than in it, as my older car does.

I'd still take the PZ personally if I wanted a hard riding RX8.

M

[Gary C]

Harji said:

Efficiency can relate to work, hence why I used the word. The work involved by a rotary to convert fuel/air into energy is more efficient than a four stroke cycle.

No its not.

It converts a given quantity of fuel into less work done than other engines as more of the energy is lost as heat.

Edited by Gary C on Tuesday 7th February 13:59

[BrettMRC]

That depends on what you fuel you decide to burn...

[Gary C]

BrettMRC said:

That depends on what you fuel you decide to burn...

Does it ?, how so.

A fuel that burns at a lower temperature ?, might loose less on thermal efficiency ?

I believe they have been run on Hydrogen, is it more efficient than a piston engine in this case ?

[Fastdruid]

Not sure about more efficient but IIRC the range was about 70miles with about 1/2 the power...

Mostly limited I think due to the size of tank but still rather a big power loss. I'm also not sure if they were hampered by being dual fuel rather than 'pure' hydrogen powered.

The wikipedia article has the following which would tend to suggest they should be suitable for hydrogen use.

wikipedia said:

Due to a 50% longer stroke duration than a four-cycle engine there is more time to complete the combustion. This leads to greater suitability for direct injection. A wankel rotary engine has stronger flows of air-fuel mixture and a longer operating cycle than a reciprocating engine, so it realizes concomitantly thorough mixing of hydrogen and air. The result is a homogeneous mixture, which is crucial for hydrogen combustion.

Interestingly for those slating rotaries in general for fuel consumption there is another line there of interest:

wikipedia said:

At the Le Mans 24 hour endurance race in 1991 the 26B had significantly lower fuel consumption than the competing reciprocating piston engines. All competitors had the same amount of fuel available due to the Le Mans 24 hour limited fuel quantity rule.

Of course take information on wikipedia with the pinch of salt it deserves but it would tend to support that my theory that emissions have seriously hurt the mpg of the rotary.

[otolith]

I found the RX-8's consumption no worse than piston engined cars of similar power and weight when driven really hard. It just didn't improve much when driven gently. I can well believe that it would be no worse than rivals under race conditions.

[y2blade]

I experienced one of these for the first time last night....It was infront of me on the run home...It had been lowered and had a after-market Exhaust fitted.


braaaaaaaaaaaaa pop pop braaaaaaaaaaaa pop bang braaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...the sound was truly spine-tingling although it wasn't as quick as I thought it wild be (I matched it in the S60)...perhaps it was the lower BHP one, or perhaps it was shagged....I'll never know but it did sound fantastic

I have a new found fondness for these now

Edit: pre-coffee spelling

Edited by y2blade on Wednesday 8th February 08:43

[CarbonBlackM5]

y2blade said:

I experienced one of these for the first time last night....It was infront of me on the run home last night...A blue one that had been lowered and had a after-market Exhaust fitted.


braaaaaaaaaaaaa pop pop braaaaaaaaaaaa pop bang braaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...the sound was truly spine-tingling although it wasn't as quick as I thought it wild be (I matched it in the S60)...perhaps it was the lower BHP one, or perhaps it was shagged....I'll never know but it did sound fantastic

I have a new found fondness for these now

Good work. I had a Borla fitted to mine and it used to pop on the over run. Not the quickest in a straight line but a great A-B car which makes up for the lack of grunt.