RE: Shed of the Week: Mazda RX-8
Discussion
exgtt said:
Ah the magical fixes for high miles in a Renisis, coil and leads. I hear if you decat them and premix they do 200k don't you know don't you know.
It's not a magical fix. It's well documented that the OE coils only last 30k miles tops. If the engine has been run on shagged coils then it's toast. The cats on them are a common failure point as well, which again in turn shags the engine. Hence the logic of engine rebuild + decat + quality coils = a now long lasting engine (as long as you keep up the very frequent maintenance).exgtt said:
Ah the magical fixes for high miles in a Renisis, coil and leads. I hear if you decat them and premix they do 200k don't you know don't you know.
Anyone who wants the engine to get through 100k miles should change the coils and keep the oil topped up. Check the oil every 2nd tank of fuel, normally I need about 50-100ml so not bad for 600 miles and definitely within piston engine numbers. Premixing can help with lubrication and reducing carbon to maintain performance. It’s really easy to premix too, just a 100-150ml squirt of 2T (such as Castrol 2T Racing) then fill with fuel.These cars don’t use any special parts or have any special service requirements so are cheap to maintain. If you do have to have a rebuild then it’s nothing like the cost or effort of replacing a head gasket for example. The extra benefit is you can put a bridgeport in there and really wind up the power.
Harji said:
This thread is reminding how i liked to hold my gears long and high in the rev range on b-roads and lots of blipping of the throttle, and also how I left a S3 for dust (he started tailgating me) on the b road up to Bicester from Thame, apparently S3 testing didn't involve bends, or at least that what the driver was implying.
Good road that. Shame it's a 50mph limit though, eigh.GranCab said:
Sounds very similar to SH car sales Wyboston, where I bought my Merc from. Interesting. They were closed down. PoopahScoopah said:
GranCab said:
I know nothing about this dealer, but the reviews on that site seem every bit as dodgy as the dealer is being made out to be! The cynic in me thinks they are fake reviews left either by a competing business, or more likely a very disgruntled customer. Sometimes online reviews say more about the person who has written the review than what they are reviewing!The poor grammar and spelling in a couple of the reviews on the car dealer review site, from people claiming to have bought Lamborghinis and the like from these people, is pretty suspicious.
Ran my RX8 from 2009-2012... Even back in 2009 they were not a big sales success, mine was pre-registered, last of the 231BHP ones before the R3 took over, with all options - with a just few hundred on the clock it was bought from Mazda for £12995 - list price was > £25K IIRC. Not bad for a essentially a brand new car of this performance.
In the 3 years I ran it I had no problems at all, but I was very cautious. It was never started from cold then stopped (having read up on all the problems with re-starting). This occasionally (moving around the driveway etc.) was very inconvenient. It never had a problem with warm re-starting as detailed in the article.
Oil consumption was higher than any car I have owned since my my student days of 1970s sheds but acceptable as part of the overall package. What was not forgivable, given the essential need to check the oil level so often, was the inaccessible and super awkward dipstick.
Fuel consumption around town was 15-18MPG and on a longer run around 22MPG. I once achieved 29MPG driving North to South on a slow (but steady) M6 but I never came close this a second time. I never managed more the 300 Miles out a tank of fuel.
Aside from this, I absolutely loved this car. The only critics were so obviously those who had never driven one or If they did never took the time to master it - because once you invest the time to work out how to get the best out an RX8, they are superb. If you don't enjoy working things out, it is not the car for you.
I took mine on a long European road trip (insert jokes of second mortgage for the fuel here) and it was lovely on some of those winding mountain roads and tunnels in certain parts of Spain.
I can't believe how cheap they are now. I sold mine after 3 years (part ex) for about £7500 - so it lost less than many new cars given the low purchase price. I would have been pretty p*ssed if I had bought one for list price and only got that back though. It is still going strong according the DVLA and now almost at 100K miles with it's current owner - although it has failed a couple of MOTs along the way.
Great car, risky, but at these prices maybe worth the gamble - because if you get a good one, that engine, handling, steering and gear change are all pretty special.
In the 3 years I ran it I had no problems at all, but I was very cautious. It was never started from cold then stopped (having read up on all the problems with re-starting). This occasionally (moving around the driveway etc.) was very inconvenient. It never had a problem with warm re-starting as detailed in the article.
Oil consumption was higher than any car I have owned since my my student days of 1970s sheds but acceptable as part of the overall package. What was not forgivable, given the essential need to check the oil level so often, was the inaccessible and super awkward dipstick.
Fuel consumption around town was 15-18MPG and on a longer run around 22MPG. I once achieved 29MPG driving North to South on a slow (but steady) M6 but I never came close this a second time. I never managed more the 300 Miles out a tank of fuel.
Aside from this, I absolutely loved this car. The only critics were so obviously those who had never driven one or If they did never took the time to master it - because once you invest the time to work out how to get the best out an RX8, they are superb. If you don't enjoy working things out, it is not the car for you.
I took mine on a long European road trip (insert jokes of second mortgage for the fuel here) and it was lovely on some of those winding mountain roads and tunnels in certain parts of Spain.
I can't believe how cheap they are now. I sold mine after 3 years (part ex) for about £7500 - so it lost less than many new cars given the low purchase price. I would have been pretty p*ssed if I had bought one for list price and only got that back though. It is still going strong according the DVLA and now almost at 100K miles with it's current owner - although it has failed a couple of MOTs along the way.
Great car, risky, but at these prices maybe worth the gamble - because if you get a good one, that engine, handling, steering and gear change are all pretty special.
Edited by edwheels on Saturday 6th January 15:17
I think one of the RX8 main downfall was making the car too pretty. They literally sold bucket loads of them on looks alone. This then meant that a lot of the examples were bought by non car enthusiasts who didn't understand how to actually look after and care for the unique engine.
In general though, I think some of the reputation is unjust if you treat it as a everyday car rather than a sports car. Low 20s mpg does seem excessive in a time when everyone was moving to 1.9tdi VW cars, but the RX8 should never be bought as a car for their mpg. I think the 20s is actually perfect considering it stayed there or there abouts when it still returned that regardless of how it's driven. It's and engine wanting the revs and will drink regardless if you use the revs or not, so why not go everywhere with a smile on your face. Furthermore, I seem to remember that the NA rotary engine doesn't actually need that fancy of fuel? It's quite happy running on normal unleaded (probably lower Ron is fine too if it was available in the UK). So if you actually compare the costs of the RX8 running on normal unleaded Vs a Subaru impreza WRX who needs super unleaded, there's probably not that much in it.
In general though, I think some of the reputation is unjust if you treat it as a everyday car rather than a sports car. Low 20s mpg does seem excessive in a time when everyone was moving to 1.9tdi VW cars, but the RX8 should never be bought as a car for their mpg. I think the 20s is actually perfect considering it stayed there or there abouts when it still returned that regardless of how it's driven. It's and engine wanting the revs and will drink regardless if you use the revs or not, so why not go everywhere with a smile on your face. Furthermore, I seem to remember that the NA rotary engine doesn't actually need that fancy of fuel? It's quite happy running on normal unleaded (probably lower Ron is fine too if it was available in the UK). So if you actually compare the costs of the RX8 running on normal unleaded Vs a Subaru impreza WRX who needs super unleaded, there's probably not that much in it.
PhantomPH said:
I also had a 6MPS with the 2.3ltr turbo lump and that engine was huge and heavy by comparison to the rotary in the 8 (whole car was a decent lump to be fair). Not sure if it's the same lump as the 3MPS tho, so may not be a fair comparison.
Same engine as the Mk1 3MPS and only slightly changed to the Mk2 3MPS. Also basically the "same" engine as the current Focus RS (Ford took the Mazda "L" engines with them when they split up). Obviously rather evolved since (mostly I believe in a new head and a different turbo). cib24 said:
Under normal driving the car consumed about 1L of oil every 1,000 miles (better than my current BMW E39 530i).
We had about the same, would check and top up once a month. A lot is made of how much it uses... but it's actually it's used the least oil from the cars we've had in the last 10 years and all have been within tolerance. Hell it's less than a brand new 320d could get through and be within spec!edwheels said:
In the 3 years I ran it I had no problems at all, but I was very cautious. It was never started from cold then stopped (having read up on all the problems with re-starting). This occasionally (moving around the driveway etc.) was very inconvenient. It never had a problem with warm re-starting as detailed in the article.
Same as. I've actually had *more* issues with restarting piston engines than we ever had with the RX-8. Again it comes to reading the manual (which I'm willing to bet 99.9% of people didn't do). As there was very specific instructions on what to do if you flooded it (and just keep cranking isn't it).edwheels said:
What was not forgivable, given the essential need to check the oil level so often, was the inaccessible and super awkward dipstick.
Dipstick *and* filler was awkward, having to remove the engine cover and then fill into the cap in the very middle of the engine bay was a royal pain. It uses oil, that's fine but why could it not have utilised an oil tank with a simple way of checking the level in a nice easy to get to location. If I was to have another I'd change it to use two-stroke oil from a separate tank.
It's one of the cars I miss lots and I'd happily have another...except I wouldn't get to use it and have no where to keep it!
Jayho said:
I think one of the RX8 main downfall was making the car too pretty. They literally sold bucket loads of them on looks alone. This then meant that a lot of the examples were bought by non car enthusiasts who didn't understand how to actually look after and care for the unique engine.
In general though, I think some of the reputation is unjust if you treat it as a everyday car rather than a sports car. Low 20s mpg does seem excessive in a time when everyone was moving to 1.9tdi VW cars, but the RX8 should never be bought as a car for their mpg. I think the 20s is actually perfect considering it stayed there or there abouts when it still returned that regardless of how it's driven. It's and engine wanting the revs and will drink regardless if you use the revs or not, so why not go everywhere with a smile on your face. Furthermore, I seem to remember that the NA rotary engine doesn't actually need that fancy of fuel? It's quite happy running on normal unleaded (probably lower Ron is fine too if it was available in the UK). So if you actually compare the costs of the RX8 running on normal unleaded Vs a Subaru impreza WRX who needs super unleaded, there's probably not that much in it.
I actually think the main problem was how Mazda marketed it. It was sold as just any other car, and the Mazda service schedule reflected that; 12.5k mile/1y oil changes, spark plugs every 3 years, ignition coils not even recognised as a serviceable item. If they had a much more realistic service plan from the start they might not have gone pop so frequently. Then again, sell a new car which requires the oil changing every 3-6 months/3-6k miles and it probably ain't gonna sell well.In general though, I think some of the reputation is unjust if you treat it as a everyday car rather than a sports car. Low 20s mpg does seem excessive in a time when everyone was moving to 1.9tdi VW cars, but the RX8 should never be bought as a car for their mpg. I think the 20s is actually perfect considering it stayed there or there abouts when it still returned that regardless of how it's driven. It's and engine wanting the revs and will drink regardless if you use the revs or not, so why not go everywhere with a smile on your face. Furthermore, I seem to remember that the NA rotary engine doesn't actually need that fancy of fuel? It's quite happy running on normal unleaded (probably lower Ron is fine too if it was available in the UK). So if you actually compare the costs of the RX8 running on normal unleaded Vs a Subaru impreza WRX who needs super unleaded, there's probably not that much in it.
edwheels said:
What was not forgivable, given the essential need to check the oil level so often, was the inaccessible and super awkward dipstick.
I believe they fixed that in the later R3 models. But yeah, for that sort of engine the original dipstick design was ridiculous.Turbojuice said:
I believe they fixed that in the later R3 models. But yeah, for that sort of engine the original dipstick design was ridiculous.
They did fix that on the R3. The dipstick is accessible by opening a small flap. Not only that they increased the oil capacity by 1l, added an extra oil injector in the engine, put a new oil metering system on there which reduces oil consumption depending on rpm and increased oil pressure by 100%. [correction: 50%]Edited by delta0 on Sunday 7th January 23:39
delta0 said:
Turbojuice said:
I believe they fixed that in the later R3 models. But yeah, for that sort of engine the original dipstick design was ridiculous.
They did fix that on the R3. The dipstick is accessible by opening a small flap. Not only that they increased the oil capacity by 1l, added an extra oil injector in the engine, put a new oil metering system on there which reduces oil consumption depending on rpm and increased oil pressure by 100%.Jayho said:
I think one of the RX8 main downfall was making the car too pretty. They literally sold bucket loads of them on looks alone. This then meant that a lot of the examples were bought by non car enthusiasts who didn't understand how to actually look after and care for the unique engine.
Its not the 1940's, its not an exotic so that expectation is that it should do the job of a car without needing to be treated like some motorised Mogwai, never really heard that a car wasnt ugly or brutal looking enough given its a bit of pain in the arse to warn off the unwary, the irony is the Ford Scorpio and FIat Multipla had really quite reliable engines, they should have had quad rotor, highly boosted wankels based on their looks !The engine wasnt that unique, they had been making them for forty years or so, NSU had a go as well, there is a reason that nobody else still bothered, because they are a nice idea with some advantages that sadly, doesnt work that well in practice.
I am glad there are die hard owners out there that keep the going, they are the last of the rotary engine, with the EV takign off in earnest, despite some hyperbole about a re-release a few years back we all know it will never happen if they didnt make it work in forty odd years.
J4CKO said:
Its not the 1940's, its not an exotic so that expectation is that it should do the job of a car without needing to be treated like some motorised Mogwai, never really heard that a car wasnt ugly or brutal looking enough given its a bit of pain in the arse to warn off the unwary, the irony is the Ford Scorpio and FIat Multipla had really quite reliable engines, they should have had quad rotor, highly boosted wankels based on their looks !
The engine wasnt that unique, they had been making them for forty years or so, NSU had a go as well, there is a reason that nobody else still bothered, because they are a nice idea with some advantages that sadly, doesnt work that well in practice.
I am glad there are die hard owners out there that keep the going, they are the last of the rotary engine, with the EV takign off in earnest, despite some hyperbole about a re-release a few years back we all know it will never happen if they didnt make it work in forty odd years.
It definitely won’t be the last. They make exceptional range extenders for EVs. The engine wasnt that unique, they had been making them for forty years or so, NSU had a go as well, there is a reason that nobody else still bothered, because they are a nice idea with some advantages that sadly, doesnt work that well in practice.
I am glad there are die hard owners out there that keep the going, they are the last of the rotary engine, with the EV takign off in earnest, despite some hyperbole about a re-release a few years back we all know it will never happen if they didnt make it work in forty odd years.
Surely the way forward with these is electric conversion. Plenty of space for motor and batteries.
I can imagine one of the many companies now converting classics and taxis will offer a kit before long.
Electric reliability and performance with the original looks and handling would be very compelling.
I can imagine one of the many companies now converting classics and taxis will offer a kit before long.
Electric reliability and performance with the original looks and handling would be very compelling.
delta0 said:
They did fix that on the R3. The dipstick is accessible by opening a small flap. Not only that they increased the oil capacity by 1l, added an extra oil injector in the engine, put a new oil metering system on there which reduces oil consumption depending on rpm and increased oil pressure by 100%.
I never knew that - real progress and well done for listening to criticism, Mazda.After my largely very positive experience with my 231 (pre-R3) I would love an R3 one day. Apart from the styling and interior changes, this dipstick / oil re-design alone makes it very interesting.
I am sure there are other minor but significant mechanical upgrades that I don't know about.
So tempting...
the_hood said:
Looks good but the economy and general faffing about with the engine would put me off.
Totally depends how you look at it.I never experienced any starting issues - just a case of knowing how to work with it (i.e. don't start it when cold and shut it off again when still cold - no big deal - many 'normal' engines don't like this either - so just good practice really). Warm starting - never experienced a single problem, not once.
Economy - yes it's a thirsty car - no question, but for what you are getting, others of the same configuration and performance are not too different. If your miles are low, say 6000 per year, the overall spend on fuel on a RX8 that does an 'awful' average of 22MPG and and another high performance, rear drive, petrol 4 seater which does, say, a 'commendable' 28MPG, is around £370. That's how I convinced myself at the time !!!!
Like any car the RX-8 has it's good and bad points. The bad points can mostly be avoided with proper maintenance, and a little bit of knowledge. The good points are what make the car unique and, in my opinion, pretty awesome.
I just wanted to reply to the comments criticising the performance and handling. The performance is actually very reasonable, but only if you are prepared to use the gearbox and all of the revs. If you are used to torque, V8s, turbos, and diesels, it will feel flat. But if you are used to highly tuned race engines, and motorcycle engines, you will feel very much at home with the car. Ultimately, it is quite fast, but you have to work for it.
The handling is close to perfect. It has brilliant balance, huge grip, and does exactly what you want. It also has a superb set of electronics, to keep you on the road if things start to go wrong. But you do have to have good tyres on it. Unfortunately most people now put budget tyres on the car, because a full set of good tyres in the large size required on the 8 will cost nearly as much as the car is worth.
How do I know? This year I won the Clubman class of the UK Time Attack Championship with my RX-8 231. It runs a totally stock engine, nearly stock brakes, and mildly modified suspension. It beat a 300bhp Astra VXR, a 220bhp tuned Fiat 500 Arbarth, a Renault Megane RS, and often beat cars in the higher class. It was invariably slowest on the straights (It has reasonable power, but can't match turbo hot hatches), but could out corner just about anything on the circuit.
It's also interesting to note that on the circuit it was one of the most reliable cars in Time Attack. The RX-8 just loves to be ragged as hard as possible, and I had almost no issues in two years of racing. In comparison, most of the turbos needed constant attention to keep them going. And fuel use? On the track it was significantly better then the turbos. When driven hard the rotary is very efficient. It is only when driven at very low revs that the rotary becomes inefficient.
I'm not denying the the RX-8 can have it's issues, but if you know what you are doing then currently you can pick up a characterful, fast, amazing handling car for pennies. This situation won't last for ever. Many UK RX-8s are already being shipped to France, where they are worth two to three times as much.
I just wanted to reply to the comments criticising the performance and handling. The performance is actually very reasonable, but only if you are prepared to use the gearbox and all of the revs. If you are used to torque, V8s, turbos, and diesels, it will feel flat. But if you are used to highly tuned race engines, and motorcycle engines, you will feel very much at home with the car. Ultimately, it is quite fast, but you have to work for it.
The handling is close to perfect. It has brilliant balance, huge grip, and does exactly what you want. It also has a superb set of electronics, to keep you on the road if things start to go wrong. But you do have to have good tyres on it. Unfortunately most people now put budget tyres on the car, because a full set of good tyres in the large size required on the 8 will cost nearly as much as the car is worth.
How do I know? This year I won the Clubman class of the UK Time Attack Championship with my RX-8 231. It runs a totally stock engine, nearly stock brakes, and mildly modified suspension. It beat a 300bhp Astra VXR, a 220bhp tuned Fiat 500 Arbarth, a Renault Megane RS, and often beat cars in the higher class. It was invariably slowest on the straights (It has reasonable power, but can't match turbo hot hatches), but could out corner just about anything on the circuit.
It's also interesting to note that on the circuit it was one of the most reliable cars in Time Attack. The RX-8 just loves to be ragged as hard as possible, and I had almost no issues in two years of racing. In comparison, most of the turbos needed constant attention to keep them going. And fuel use? On the track it was significantly better then the turbos. When driven hard the rotary is very efficient. It is only when driven at very low revs that the rotary becomes inefficient.
I'm not denying the the RX-8 can have it's issues, but if you know what you are doing then currently you can pick up a characterful, fast, amazing handling car for pennies. This situation won't last for ever. Many UK RX-8s are already being shipped to France, where they are worth two to three times as much.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff