|
Good to know about the internals being different. I hadn't found anything about that yet (does anyone have a link to any deep dive into the engine?), but it seemed like the most likely scenario (I've definitely gotten the feeling over the years that there's an intentional effort to prevent making a tunable car for emissions or liability or whatever reasons). That's a bummer. Kinda tosses that idea out the window. Still, I like building engines (part of why the typical rotary rebuild schedule is more a feature than a bug in my book), so it wouldn't be the end of the world if I got to break it down that far... Definitely more cost and trouble for the gain though...
Even without an easy means of FI, the aftermarket for the RX8 is on its way out, and the BRZ is barely getting started... Pure numbers and longevity will make the BRZ the darling child between the two for modifications. That said, the RX8 was very well done by Mazda from the get go, and I honestly don't think I'd really want to do anything other than keep it stock. I live in a slow car fast place, so both of these cars check that box handily regardless.
The market right now has every 10 year old car being pretty stupidly priced. The RX8s are affected, but not nearly as bad as most. Another car I considered/haven't completely ruled out maybe is a BMW 335i. In that, oil consumption is a bug rather than a feature, and not one easily dealt with. Oil consumption is one of my biggest pet peeves with cars, which may make the RX8 seem like a bad idea, but then you realize it's intentional and beneficial, and it's not really a bug any more. At any rate, the BMW is kind of the middle path price wise. Make MUCH more power, and is reputed to be the next tuning darling, and a real back seat with full back doors, but BMWs are pretty much never broken in by anyone with an ounce of mechanical sympathy, and seem to typically burn more oil than even a sick rotary...
The oxygen delta is ~3%/1K' above sea level; power decreases are not as linear or predictable from platform to platform. I live at 7k', and my typical range is 5k'-8.5k' (carbs are challenging). One thought I had recently from something someone said on a different forum re: NA at altitude is the relative difference in performance characteristics of the two engines. The flat four torque/hp rise quickly, then plateau (a common way for modern engine manufacturers to tune) whereas the rotary is an approximate 1:1 linear increase from idle to redline. At altitude, the flat four will have a lower plateau in each gear, and that will feel just like less power, period (I'll almost certainly never drive it below 5k', so I'll likely never notice). The rotary, on the other hand, will just need to be at a higher rpm to achieve the same power; this power deficit along that curve can be effectively dealt with simply through gearing. The S2 I'm after has lower gearing by design. I haven't done the math (I don't know exactly what the differences are) may just put it closer to an S1 in terms of perceived power. Even if not, I feel like the power deficit may be perceptible, but may be masked. This is a fresh thought, and I may change my mind after I've had some time to rub brain cells on it.
This will not be a daily driver. Long story short, my wife and I will be sharing her JKUR as our daily, and this will be a runabout and occasional track car when conditions permit. I live on one of those famous canyon roads that everyone comes to drive from a long way away, and it's kinda silly not to enjoy that at least a little. Also re: dealer service, I don't think I even trust dealers to do oil changes at this point... If there's a recall or warranty repair, I might let them do it if the parts are expensive, but service techs don't give a shit about my car or anyone else's as long as they can log the hours for the job and get to the next one.
|