I'm aware they are very different cars. But which one?

[ZackM]

fflump said:

I'd take a RX8 over a M140i given the baseball cap wearing knuckle draggers that drive 1-series round our way.

I don't think a M140i is even comparable to a RX8. M140i should be compared to Golf, Focus, A3, A-Class and other common cars.

[ZackM]

Wadaboo said:

I don't suppose this is in budget (don't think I saw a budget though?) But a Kia stinger fits the bill. Unconventional, rwd, stonking petrol, back seats and doors, not a hatchback.
Not sure the big engine comes in manual thinking about it though

Yeah, the V6 is auto only. The others I never checked as the only one to have would be the V6.

[ZackM]

Taking a look at a car tomorrow.

Will update the thread .

[Rotary Potato]

ZackM said:

A lot of useful info there.

Although I will have to disagree the RX8 is not under powered. I think for a sports car it is under powered. I have heard that it's because it's not supposed to be a sports car. But then what it's supposed to be then? A GT it is not. Not comfortable and luxurious enough.

Well look at its contemporary rivals:

Audi TT 3.2 - 247bhp - 1490kg
BMW 330Ci - 228bhp - 1505kg
Alfa Romeo Brera 3.2 - 258bhp - 1630kg

In that company, I'm not sure a 231bhp*, 1350kg car would be considered underpowered. Sure, an extra 30bhp would have had it winning games of Top Trumps ... but it's definitely competitive (especially when power to weight is considered) with all of its contemporary rivals.

I think the problem here is one of perception. That after 15+ years, the RX8 has outperformed it's 'in period' rivals (performance wise) that it is now considered against rivals from a class or two above it ... in which company it can look underpowered. I'm the perfect example of this. I got rid of my RX8 and replaced it with a 3.2L Boxster S. 100kg lighter and 30bhp up on an RX8. But definitely in a completely different price bracket to the RX8 when they were both new. I think from memory, the RX8 and the BMW E46 M3 had a similar time around the Top Gear test track - and again, cars sold at quite different price points when they were new.

• For anyone who's following on and really knows their RX8s, I'm deliberately ignoring the fact that Mazda were generous (being polite here) in their interpretation of horsepower, and it's highly unlikely than any RX8 ever sold actually had 231bhp. But I don't know how much other manufacturers at the time were doing the same thing, and so using the 'as quoted' BHP figures for all these comparisons. I got my 2nd RX8 to 197hp at the hubs (on a respected hub dyno ... where standard 231s usually made about 165-170hp at the hubs) but that did involve getting greedy with the porting at rebuild time!

[XR]

ZackM said:

Taking a look at a car tomorrow.

Will update the thread .

I'm hoping its a Jag, I also like the Mazda but its a long time since I've seen a decent one.


I don't know what your budget is but this car ticks all the boxes and is a bit special

Its not a Jag so forgive me but I consider it a worthy option

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/274841170130?hash=item3...

[ZackM]

Rotary Potato said:

Well look at its contemporary rivals:

Audi TT 3.2 - 247bhp - 1490kg
BMW 330Ci - 228bhp - 1505kg
Alfa Romeo Brera 3.2 - 258bhp - 1630kg

In that company, I'm not sure a 231bhp*, 1350kg car would be considered underpowered. Sure, an extra 30bhp would have had it winning games of Top Trumps ... but it's definitely competitive (especially when power to weight is considered) with all of its contemporary rivals.

I think the problem here is one of perception. That after 15+ years, the RX8 has outperformed it's 'in period' rivals (performance wise) that it is now considered against rivals from a class or two above it ... in which company it can look underpowered. I'm the perfect example of this. I got rid of my RX8 and replaced it with a 3.2L Boxster S. 100kg lighter and 30bhp up on an RX8. But definitely in a completely different price bracket to the RX8 when they were both new. I think from memory, the RX8 and the BMW E46 M3 had a similar time around the Top Gear test track - and again, cars sold at quite different price points when they were new.

• For anyone who's following on and really knows their RX8s, I'm deliberately ignoring the fact that Mazda were generous (being polite here) in their interpretation of horsepower, and it's highly unlikely than any RX8 ever sold actually had 231bhp. But I don't know how much other manufacturers at the time were doing the same thing, and so using the 'as quoted' BHP figures for all these comparisons. I got my 2nd RX8 to 197hp at the hubs (on a respected hub dyno ... where standard 231s usually made about 165-170hp at the hubs) but that did involve getting greedy with the porting at rebuild time!

I respect your opinion. But I think the fact you need to compare a car like the RX8 to FWD hatchbacks and 2 door saloons to make you point is a telltale.

The RX8 should be compared to cars like the 350Z and other RWD sports coupes. You might say, but the RX8 has rear seats. It's true but that was always the gimmick. It is a sports cars with a trick up its sleeves. But it's a sports car from the ground up. Not like a 3 series which is designed to be a family car, or a Brera which is based on a heavy saloon or TT which is a tarted up Golf. So 350Z is fair comparison and I have seen people even pitching it against 911, despite the price gap. But it is not the same type of car as a 3 series, Brera or Golf at all. The 911 comparison might be laughable. But it's closer to that than to a Brera or 3 series in what it is. And I know the 350Z's platform. But it is still the same type of car as the Rx8. The point is, a RX8 is not Brera or 3 series material.

Since we are discussing under powered, it is ironic you would bring the Brera up as it is the poster child for under powered cars. But in the FWD version at least it has the advantage of no power loss as the RWD RX8.

I'm not even going to get into Mazda's optimism with the power. You can feel it doesn't drive like a 230 hp car. And not everybody was lying back then. For example Alfa Romeo was conservative with the power ratings for their Busso. Which brings me to the 147 GTA, a FWD hothatch with over 250 hp to the front wheels. Same era as the RX8 too.

So I don't think it's a matter of perception. The RX8 was under powered when it launched and is even more now. It should have been 300 hp for the type of car it is. The chassis can definitely take it. It was made for it.


By the way, why did you get rid of the RX8?

Edited by ZackM on Tuesday 29th June 23:37

[Mr Tidy]

ZackM said:

I respect your opinion. But I think the fact you need to compare a car like the RX8 to FWD hatchbacks and 2 door saloons to make you point is a telltale.

The RX8 should be compared to cars like the 350Z and other RWD sports coupes. You might say, but the RX8 has rear seats. It's true but that was always the gimmick. It is a sports cars with a trick up its sleeves. But it's a sports car from the ground up. Not like a 3 series which is designed to be a family car, or a Brera which is based on a heavy saloon or TT which is a tarted up Golf. So 350Z is fair comparison and I have seen people even pitching it against 911, despite the price gap. But it is not the same type of car as a 3 series, Brera or Golf at all. The 911 comparison might be laughable. But it's closer to that than to a Brera or 3 series in what it is.

Since we are discussing under powered, it is ironic you would bring the Brera up as it is the poster child for under powered cars. But in the FWD version at least it has the advantage of no power loss as the RWD RX8.

I'm not even going to get into Mazda's optimism with the power. You can feel it doesn't drive like a 230 hp car. And not everybody was lying back then. For example Alfa Romeo was conservative with the power ratings for their Busso. Which brings me to the 147 GTA, a FWD hothatch with over 250 hp to the front wheels. Same era as the RX8 too.

So I don't think it's a matter of perception. The RX8 was under powered when it launched and is even more now. It should have been 300 hp for the type of car it is. The chassis can definitely take it. It was made for it.


By the way, why did you get rid of the RX8?

Japanese power outputs seem hugely optimistic going by quoted performance figures!

My bog-standard E90 330i boring saloon daily has 255bhp.

Although I did like the RX8 for it's quirkiness!

[Fastdruid]

Rotary Potato said:

I think from memory, the RX8 and the BMW E46 M3 had a similar time around the Top Gear test track - and again, cars sold at quite different price points when they were new.

Not even mentioning that the M3 had a *LOT* more power. The main difference though is that the M3 was a "normal" car where they threw just about everything away from the base E46 then tried to make it perform within the limitations of the chassis while the RX-8 was designed to be what it was and that makes it far cheaper and lower powered for the same performance.

It was also at the time the best stopping car out of Japan. Yet if you look at the brakes they're nothing special. Just a well setup er setup. The downside, and I think this is in part due to the zero scrub radius is that it can be a little flighty on the brakes in the wet if you're pushing on. If you don't have a firm grip on the wheel it will want to pull it about.

I *loved* ours. It felt special just by sitting in it because of the cockpit and how low it is. It was laughably easy to push on, you could control how much under or oversteer you wanted at any point. Although it was a little twitchy when it was wet or icy. Did get it very sideways once or twice!

Fuel consumption is st. There is no getting away from this. Not helped IMO because it was almost impossible to drive it sensibly. You'd be there all "I won't rev past 3k" and next minute *BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP*.

Ours was used as a daily for years. The only issue ours had was a track rod end and a headlight level sensor (both fixed under warranty)....but that was many years ago now and it was still only 6 years old and low mileage when we sold it. It was massively practical for what it was, we had it for the first ~2 years of child #1, the boot was big enough for a travel "system" (although took the wheels off). Always amusing to park in the "parent and child" spaces next to the mumsy people carriers with an RX-8, see all the disapproving looks then get the push chair base out from the boot and the baby from the car!

Sold it just before child #2 arrived as it was massively awkward to put a baby in the back (we had them in the front). To actually get into the back need to open the front doors wide and move the front seats. This make getting into the back with a baby seat a massive lean into the car. Not such a problem with a child that can actually get in themselves but still have the same issue with opening the doors. As far as space in the back goes I was fine to sit in the back behind my wife but that might not be the case if the driver is 6'1"!

Oil use is overstated, as a daily driver we would top it up once a month. The only annoyance really is that for something that is *designed* to use oil that the oil check and top-up is such a pain. The filler in the very middle that needs the cover off and the fiddly dipstick.

As others have said all Mazda's are terrible for rust, MX-5's, RX-8's and 6's are all known for it. Not turn of the century Mercedes Benz bad but not far off. Our Dec 2005 registered Mazda 6 MPS was starting to get quite bad when we sold it and I would be checking the underside of a similar aged RX-8 very very carefully.

The thing with the RX-8 is that it is very much a marmite car. You either get it or you hate it. Some people hated the engine, I loved it. From the noise it made to the way it just kept going until the beep and the red line.

I would absolutely have another. I mean I don't because I wouldn't have a chance to use it and my actual "daily" use is *totally* wrong for one but if things were different I totally would.

[Mr Tidy]

Fastdruid said:

Not even mentioning that the M3 had a *LOT* more power. The main difference though is that the M3 was a "normal" car where they threw just about everything away from the base E46 then tried to make it perform within the limitations of the chassis while the RX-8 was designed to be what it was and that makes it far cheaper and lower powered for the same performance.

Nicely put, the RX8 was a bit of a bargain when released.

But BMW put the good bits together in the Z4M!

[Rotary Potato]

ZackM said:

I respect your opinion. But I think the fact you need to compare a car like the RX8 to FWD hatchbacks and 2 door saloons to make you point is a telltale.

Look back at tests at the time ... they were exactly the rivals (both from a price and a market positioning point of view) that the RX8 was up against - hence it being a very valid comparison. However, there's little point carrying on - you believe it's underpowered. After owning two, I believe the power was perfectly adequate. I will end by saying, that if you compare the power against the fuel economy, it was completely inadequate! My E39 M5 did about the same mpg, and that had 400bhp and weighed 1800kg!

ZackM said:

By the way, why did you get rid of the RX8?

I had a £3k engine rebuild by one of the most reputable names in the rotary scene. It lasted 1500 miles before going pop. I paid for the car to be returned to their workshop. After an 11 week wait (for reference, when they did the rebuild in the first place - and were wanting to take a decent chunk of change out of my wallet - they turned the car around in 3 weeks and even then apologised for how long it had taken), they finally honoured their warranty and rebuilt the rebuild. I then paid for the car to be shipped back to me (as the MOT had run out by this point) and it arrived back with a loose exhaust, a completely flat tyre, and some massive running problems - it took about 20 seconds of cranking to start it from cold and wouldn't stay running when idling once warm. The company involved said that if I paid again to have the car shipped back to their workshop, they would take a look at it when they could. By this point I was at my wits end and had completely lost all love for the car. I had no desire to spend more money shipping it to their workshop, wait for an inordinate amount of time for them to have another go at fixing it, and then spend more money to ship it back to me to see if it were fixed. So I broke the car for parts. Made back enough of my money to feel disappointed rather than bitter about the way the RX8 experience ended for me.

Unfortunately for me, it seems that the company had recently had a change of strategy, and having built its name on excellent customer service and an absolute cast iron warranty, they were transitioning to a business model whereby they grew their business through a strong social media presence and posting funny videos of them mucking about in the workshop. Obviously I can't say anything to identify the company, due to the rules of this site.

[ZackM]

Fastdruid said:

Not even mentioning that the M3 had a *LOT* more power. The main difference though is that the M3 was a "normal" car where they threw just about everything away from the base E46 then tried to make it perform within the limitations of the chassis while the RX-8 was designed to be what it was and that makes it far cheaper and lower powered for the same performance.

It was also at the time the best stopping car out of Japan. Yet if you look at the brakes they're nothing special. Just a well setup er setup. The downside, and I think this is in part due to the zero scrub radius is that it can be a little flighty on the brakes in the wet if you're pushing on. If you don't have a firm grip on the wheel it will want to pull it about.

I *loved* ours. It felt special just by sitting in it because of the cockpit and how low it is. It was laughably easy to push on, you could control how much under or oversteer you wanted at any point. Although it was a little twitchy when it was wet or icy. Did get it very sideways once or twice!

Fuel consumption is st. There is no getting away from this. Not helped IMO because it was almost impossible to drive it sensibly. You'd be there all "I won't rev past 3k" and next minute *BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP*.

Ours was used as a daily for years. The only issue ours had was a track rod end and a headlight level sensor (both fixed under warranty)....but that was many years ago now and it was still only 6 years old and low mileage when we sold it. It was massively practical for what it was, we had it for the first ~2 years of child #1, the boot was big enough for a travel "system" (although took the wheels off). Always amusing to park in the "parent and child" spaces next to the mumsy people carriers with an RX-8, see all the disapproving looks then get the push chair base out from the boot and the baby from the car!

Sold it just before child #2 arrived as it was massively awkward to put a baby in the back (we had them in the front). To actually get into the back need to open the front doors wide and move the front seats. This make getting into the back with a baby seat a massive lean into the car. Not such a problem with a child that can actually get in themselves but still have the same issue with opening the doors. As far as space in the back goes I was fine to sit in the back behind my wife but that might not be the case if the driver is 6'1"!

Oil use is overstated, as a daily driver we would top it up once a month. The only annoyance really is that for something that is *designed* to use oil that the oil check and top-up is such a pain. The filler in the very middle that needs the cover off and the fiddly dipstick.

As others have said all Mazda's are terrible for rust, MX-5's, RX-8's and 6's are all known for it. Not turn of the century Mercedes Benz bad but not far off. Our Dec 2005 registered Mazda 6 MPS was starting to get quite bad when we sold it and I would be checking the underside of a similar aged RX-8 very very carefully.

The thing with the RX-8 is that it is very much a marmite car. You either get it or you hate it. Some people hated the engine, I loved it. From the noise it made to the way it just kept going until the beep and the red line.

I would absolutely have another. I mean I don't because I wouldn't have a chance to use it and my actual "daily" use is *totally* wrong for one but if things were different I totally would.

Great reply. Specially the feedback on the practicability of the RX8. Thanks!

Don't get me wrong. I actually like the RX8 or I wouldn't be considering it. And the power doesn't really put me off. For a daily drive it's alright. But I just think it should have had more power. But it doesn't worry me. What worries me is the reliability. The problem is it seems for every owner who has no big problems with it, because of all the extra attention, care, time and money invested in it to save the car from itself, there seems to be 10 others with horror stories.

[ZackM]

Rotary Potato said:

ZackM said:

I respect your opinion. But I think the fact you need to compare a car like the RX8 to FWD hatchbacks and 2 door saloons to make you point is a telltale.

Look back at tests at the time ... they were exactly the rivals (both from a price and a market positioning point of view) that the RX8 was up against - hence it being a very valid comparison. However, there's little point carrying on - you believe it's underpowered. After owning two, I believe the power was perfectly adequate. I will end by saying, that if you compare the power against the fuel economy, it was completely inadequate! My E39 M5 did about the same mpg, and that had 400bhp and weighed 1800kg!

I don't think price is the only guide. The type of car is more important in my opinion. But anyways, when you have a contemporary hothatch with more power to the front wheels than a RX8, you know the RX8 could have used more power. I guess there is nobody who would disagree with that.

And yes, don't even get me started on the 400hp V8 consumption for the performance you get.

Rotary Potato said:

ZackM said:

By the way, why did you get rid of the RX8?

I had a £3k engine rebuild by one of the most reputable names in the rotary scene. It lasted 1500 miles before going pop. I paid for the car to be returned to their workshop. After an 11 week wait (for reference, when they did the rebuild in the first place - and were wanting to take a decent chunk of change out of my wallet - they turned the car around in 3 weeks and even then apologised for how long it had taken), they finally honoured their warranty and rebuilt the rebuild. I then paid for the car to be shipped back to me (as the MOT had run out by this point) and it arrived back with a loose exhaust, a completely flat tyre, and some massive running problems - it took about 20 seconds of cranking to start it from cold and wouldn't stay running when idling once warm. The company involved said that if I paid again to have the car shipped back to their workshop, they would take a look at it when they could. By this point I was at my wits end and had completely lost all love for the car. I had no desire to spend more money shipping it to their workshop, wait for an inordinate amount of time for them to have another go at fixing it, and then spend more money to ship it back to me to see if it were fixed. So I broke the car for parts. Made back enough of my money to feel disappointed rather than bitter about the way the RX8 experience ended for me.

Unfortunately for me, it seems that the company had recently had a change of strategy, and having built its name on excellent customer service and an absolute cast iron warranty, they were transitioning to a business model whereby they grew their business through a strong social media presence and posting funny videos of them mucking about in the workshop. Obviously I can't say anything to identify the company, due to the rules of this site.

This is my biggest worry. It seems like a very high risk car, very hard to maintain car, very expensive to run.

[samoht]

ZackM said:

This is my biggest worry. It seems like a very high risk car, very hard to maintain car, very expensive to run.

Do some research and try and find out if there's a good specialist near you.


If there is, you're probably in luck. If not, it's going to be more effort to keep one in good condition.

There's nothing fundamentally impossible about keeping a rotary in good working condition for reasonable cost. In places like Japan and Australia/NZ, I think there are lots of mechanics who are perfectly capable. There are a few in the UK, but sadly they're in a minority compared to the have-a-go types who see a gap in the market without actually having the skills.

If you can't be bothered to try and find out the answer, then you definitely shouldn't buy an RX-8.


Now, there are cases where a 'good' or widely recommended tuner turns out to do a bad job. But at least you're starting with the odds on your side that way.

[Rotary Potato]

ZackM said:

This is my biggest worry. It seems like a very high risk car, very hard to maintain car, very expensive to run.

If I were doing it again, I would find a clean shell - the worse the condition of the engine, the better, as it makes it cheaper to buy. I'd then ship that shell (or drive if it was legal & mobile) to my engine builder of choice for a full engine rebuild. I'd then spend whatever it took to fully rust proof the car. That way I'm starting with a clean sheet & the best chance of having a trouble free run with the car. There are no guarantees in life and the sparsity of specialists can make it seem daunting running a car that relies on a couple of spinning doritos and voodoo. But treated well, there is no reason why you shouldn't have a long, reliable & happy experience with an RX8. And everyone (in my opinion) should own a rotary at least once. The magic of that smooth rise of revs right up to 9k is unlike anything else on 4 wheels.

[Fastdruid]

ZackM said:

This is my biggest worry. It seems like a very high risk car, very hard to maintain car, very expensive to run.

It is the equivalent of a two stroke bike. Better power to weight and power to capacity than a four-stroke but the downside is they are designed to burn oil and need a regular rebuild. Thing is though that a two-stroke bike has a schedule where you are *meant* to replace rings etc.

I think in some ways that Mazda made a real mistake in trying to make them so common, if they'd been more realistic about the maintenance schedule, hadn't run the lubrication on engine oil and hadn't scrimped on the ignition they would have been a far better car. Equally the owners need to drive it like it should be driven. Baby it and run it at 2-3k and it'll be slow, coke up the seals/tips and have issues. There is some truth in the Mazda saying of a beep a day keeps the mechanic at bay!

If I was to do over with a new car I'd convert to an external two-stroke tank (eg https://theperformanceshop.co.uk/products/mazda-rx... ), use fully synthetic oil (and change every 3k rather than every 6k), replace the ign system with an uprated one and then drive it like I stole it.

We ran ours to ~34k with no issues with no maintenance other than oil/filter/plugs and the aforementioned arb drop link (alongside normal stuff like tyres, brake pads etc obviously), similarly my wifes cousin ran his to 40k with no issues. I've heard of some running to >100k without issues....but then I've also heard of some needing a rebuild after only ~20k or so. Both "conventional" engined cars we bought after have had more engine issues (the MPS had a new turbo and needed another £700 to replace the VVT and timing chain, the Golf needed £1000 spending on a new waterpump/thermostat) and the MPS used more oil than the RX-8 did!

This is our old one.

[ZackM]

I get that it is possible to have them reliable. But it seems a lot of work and struggle to do so. Like you have to invest a lot of time and money, just to get it to do what other cars do out of the box, which negates having a fun car. Because if you spend much time on it just keeping it up, it's robbing you from driving and enjoyment time. I want a car I can enjoy driving as much as possible.

And I'm not the biggest fan from being so dependent on specialists. Specially if they are rare. The closet I found to me is about 2 hours away too. I heard that around here Mazda hates if you bring a rotary in. Because they don't really want to work on them.

If the car was reliable and a bit more comfy, we wouldn't be here have this conversation. Even with it being under powered with 231(175) hp.

[Fastdruid]

But the point is that nothing does do what they do "out of the box".

As I said they're marmite, you either get them or you don't. In just the same way that people love and love to hate two strokes.

[ZackM]

But I think its easy to understand the concern to get a car for daily driving which needs to be attended to all the time. I wouldn't even mind if it was just the power, the fuel and the oil topping every 3000 miles.

Edited by ZackM on Wednesday 30th June 20:44

[samoht]

ZackM said:

I get that it is possible to have them reliable. But it seems a lot of work and struggle to do so. Like you have to invest a lot of time and money, just to get it to do what other cars do out of the box, which negates having a fun car. Because if you spend much time on it just keeping it up, it's robbing you from driving and enjoyment time. I want a car I can enjoy driving as much as possible.

And I'm not the biggest fan from being so dependent on specialists. Specially if they are rare. The closet I found to me is about 2 hours away too. I heard that around here Mazda hates if you bring a rotary in. Because they don't really want to work on them.

If the car was reliable and a bit more comfy, we wouldn't be here have this conversation. Even with it being under powered with 231(175) hp.

I think we've arrived at a conclusion. You don't have a rotary specialist nearby and don't want the hassle of a high maintenance car. Therefore, I'd recommend you don't buy an RX-8.