MX-8?

[CaptainSlow]

Did Mazda get it wrong with the RX-8? Looks wise I think they are lovely but I think with the rotary engine it was never going to work. Should they have put a sub 3 litre V6 in there instead? It could have been the new 944.

[SystemParanoia]

it needed a pair of sequential turbos

[Munter]

SystemParanoia said:

it needed a pair of sequential turbos

But the main problem is the fuel consumption as far as I'm concerned. I don't see sticking turbos on it improving your average drivers MPG.

[snotrag]

CaptainSlow said:

but I think with the rotary engine it was never going to work.

How come so many people dont understand!?

Without a rotary, the RX-7 just wouldnt work - the engine is the centrepiece of the design. Its small, compact and low down - to fit a regular engine in there the car would have been a totally different shape.

An RX without a rotary is just A.N. other car.

[wolves_wanderer]

CaptainSlow said:

Did Mazda get it wrong with the RX-8? Looks wise I think they are lovely but I think with the rotary engine it was never going to work. Should they have put a sub 3 litre V6 in there instead? It could have been the new 944.

Where would they have put this engine? I can guarantee that you would lose the back seats and probably most of the handling balance/

People have no problem with trading off mpg for performance or having a large car. The RX-8 makes the mpg tradeoff for the flexibility of 4 seats in a car that by rights shouldn't be able to fit them in and handling that is pretty special in comparison to other cars it competes with.

[300bhp/ton]

Munter said:

SystemParanoia said:

it needed a pair of sequential turbos

But the main problem is the fuel consumption as far as I'm concerned. I don't see sticking turbos on it improving your average drivers MPG.

Or more mpg vs performance and HP. I know it handles well and all that but I'd seriuosly look at one if it was either:

A) much better on fuel
B) a heck of a lot faster
C) both

[BeeRoad]

300bhp/ton said:

Munter said:

SystemParanoia said:

it needed a pair of sequential turbos

But the main problem is the fuel consumption as far as I'm concerned. I don't see sticking turbos on it improving your average drivers MPG.

Or more mpg vs performance and HP. I know it handles well and all that but I'd seriuosly look at one if it was either:

A) much better on fuel
B) a heck of a lot faster
C) both

And a huge bonnet bulge the driver couldn't see over - it was designed for the vertically very compact rotary engine, pretty much nothing else will fit and still let you see where you're going!

[MoBeanz]

SystemParanoia said:

it needed a pair of sequential turbos

[CarbonBlackM5]

wolves_wanderer said:

CaptainSlow said:

Did Mazda get it wrong with the RX-8? Looks wise I think they are lovely but I think with the rotary engine it was never going to work. Should they have put a sub 3 litre V6 in there instead? It could have been the new 944.

Where would they have put this engine? I can guarantee that you would lose the back seats and probably most of the handling balance/

People have no problem with trading off mpg for performance or having a large car. The RX-8 makes the mpg tradeoff for the flexibility of 4 seats in a car that by rights shouldn't be able to fit them in and handling that is pretty special in comparison to other cars it competes with.

Lovely handling cars but the poor MPG and oil use can not be justified by the average performance. My M5 which replaced the RX8 gives the same MPG and its 5.0 and has 170 more bhp.

Can be very unreliable too.

[TheLurker]

What MPG do they tend to get then? I dont know much about the rotery engines, are they fairly reliable on the most part? any majour downsides?

[ZeeTacoe]

BeeRoad said:

300bhp/ton said:

Munter said:

SystemParanoia said:

it needed a pair of sequential turbos

But the main problem is the fuel consumption as far as I'm concerned. I don't see sticking turbos on it improving your average drivers MPG.

Or more mpg vs performance and HP. I know it handles well and all that but I'd seriuosly look at one if it was either:

A) much better on fuel
B) a heck of a lot faster
C) both

And a huge bonnet bulge the driver couldn't see over - it was designed for the vertically very compact rotary engine, pretty much nothing else will fit and still let you see where you're going!

Small block chevy. Probably give more mpg and power.

[300bhp/ton]

BeeRoad said:

300bhp/ton said:

Munter said:

SystemParanoia said:

it needed a pair of sequential turbos

But the main problem is the fuel consumption as far as I'm concerned. I don't see sticking turbos on it improving your average drivers MPG.

Or more mpg vs performance and HP. I know it handles well and all that but I'd seriuosly look at one if it was either:

A) much better on fuel
B) a heck of a lot faster
C) both

And a huge bonnet bulge the driver couldn't see over - it was designed for the vertically very compact rotary engine, pretty much nothing else will fit and still let you see where you're going!

Not sure I truly believe that. Ok bonnet clearance is more an issue these days for safety, but the Corvette is no bigger and has a V8. I see no little real reason why they couldn't have used a different powerplant if they wanted and had minimal affect on the car shape/size.

[300bhp/ton]

snotrag said:

CaptainSlow said:

but I think with the rotary engine it was never going to work.

How come so many people dont understand!?

Without a rotary, the RX-7 just wouldnt work - the engine is the centrepiece of the design. Its small, compact and low down - to fit a regular engine in there the car would have been a totally different shape.

An RX without a rotary is just A.N. other car.

[300bhp/ton]

ZeeTacoe said:

BeeRoad said:

300bhp/ton said:

Munter said:

SystemParanoia said:

it needed a pair of sequential turbos

But the main problem is the fuel consumption as far as I'm concerned. I don't see sticking turbos on it improving your average drivers MPG.

Or more mpg vs performance and HP. I know it handles well and all that but I'd seriuosly look at one if it was either:

A) much better on fuel
B) a heck of a lot faster
C) both

And a huge bonnet bulge the driver couldn't see over - it was designed for the vertically very compact rotary engine, pretty much nothing else will fit and still let you see where you're going!

Small block chevy. Probably give more mpg and power.

in the region of 150-200hp more and I suspect 20-45% better mpg.

[marcosgt]

Yawn... Are people still trooping out the old "It uses even more oil than petrol" story?

If you don't like it, buy something else...

M.

PS Hunt though I have, I can't actually find any RX8s converted to small block Chevy power, even in the US. I know a lot of RX7s have been and it might just be a time thing, but I also know that the turbos and plumbing on a 7 weigh a lot (and need a lot of space), so it might just not be possible on a roadgoing 8.

Edited by marcosgt on Monday 1st November 19:06

[slipstream 1985]

why would mazda want 2 gay cars in their line up?

[Ninjaboy]

300bhp/ton said:

ZeeTacoe said:

BeeRoad said:

300bhp/ton said:

Munter said:

SystemParanoia said:

it needed a pair of sequential turbos

But the main problem is the fuel consumption as far as I'm concerned. I don't see sticking turbos on it improving your average drivers MPG.

Or more mpg vs performance and HP. I know it handles well and all that but I'd seriuosly look at one if it was either:

A) much better on fuel
B) a heck of a lot faster
C) both

And a huge bonnet bulge the driver couldn't see over - it was designed for the vertically very compact rotary engine, pretty much nothing else will fit and still let you see where you're going!

Small block chevy. Probably give more mpg and power.

in the region of 150-200hp more and I suspect 20-45% better mpg.

Would much prefer the little rotary stayed put though. It brings a tear to my eye to see lovely Rx7's trashed by the yank engine boys.

[MarkRSi]

300bhp/ton said:

snotrag said:

CaptainSlow said:

but I think with the rotary engine it was never going to work.

How come so many people dont understand!?

Without a rotary, the RX-7 just wouldnt work - the engine is the centrepiece of the design. Its small, compact and low down - to fit a regular engine in there the car would have been a totally different shape.

An RX without a rotary is just A.N. other car.

He's got a point tho - like something like an RX-8 but don't like the rotary??? Well just buy a 350Z instead. Or a Z4. Or a 330Ci. Or an MX-5. Or an S2000. Or a Challenger. Or a Corvette. Or some Mercedes Coupe etc. etc.

Edited by MarkRSi on Monday 1st November 19:17

[300bhp/ton]

Ninjaboy said:

300bhp/ton said:

ZeeTacoe said:

BeeRoad said:

300bhp/ton said:

Munter said:

SystemParanoia said:

it needed a pair of sequential turbos

But the main problem is the fuel consumption as far as I'm concerned. I don't see sticking turbos on it improving your average drivers MPG.

Or more mpg vs performance and HP. I know it handles well and all that but I'd seriuosly look at one if it was either:

A) much better on fuel
B) a heck of a lot faster
C) both

And a huge bonnet bulge the driver couldn't see over - it was designed for the vertically very compact rotary engine, pretty much nothing else will fit and still let you see where you're going!

Small block chevy. Probably give more mpg and power.

in the region of 150-200hp more and I suspect 20-45% better mpg.

Would much prefer the little rotary stayed put though. It brings a tear to my eye to see lovely Rx7's trashed by the yank engine boys.

don't get me wrong, I'm actually quite a closest rotary enthusiast and have one of these firmly on my want list:



And if I hadn't bought something else recently I'd probably be making an offer on one I know of locally.

[hornetrider]

Those saying it wouldn't be the same package - correct. But with a bit higher bonnetline I'm sure they could shoehorn the MPS engine in there, would be a stonker. That said, stick the frinkin MPS engine in the 5 ffs