How is this not an RX8?

[swift996]

I once owned an RX8 and it was a spectacular performing car, especially in handling. I think the BRZ will feel very similar which is a great compliment. The RX8 was a great car but it just didn't have sufficient fuel efficiency for most. My thought was 17mpg without a good amount of power isn't worth it, so I bought a Porsche 911.

I wish they made the RX8 in a 3 rotor or FI option. That car with 300hp would have been magnificent.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i think it just depends on your perspective. when you put it like that, maybe. how i see it is a little different though. i make a finite number of dollars per year. if car a gets 20mpg and car b gets 30mpg then car b will let me buy the car and go to 3 or 4 more track days per year or buy a complete suspension or turbo kit every three or four years.

I like this comparison. I don't know why people don't think of balanced solutions like this. If I wanted a Prius I wouldn't be here, if I wanted a 6 banger I wouldn't be here. What I want is a compromise between the two, some power, some fun, and some MPGs.

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I totally understand what you're saying, I think the RX8 is a great car in concept, the problem is the engine is comparable in terms of efficiency to engines built 40 years ago. You could say the lack of research and development makes it an unfair comparison, but unfortunately that's the weakness.

It interesting that Mazda almost went bankrupt over focusing on the Rotary too much during the Oil Embargo. Now the Renesis failed Euro emissions. If they can improve the FE and Emissions for the 16x, that should do it.

Originally Posted by swift996

I once owned an RX8 and it was a spectacular performing car, especially in handling. I think the BRZ will feel very similar which is a great compliment. The RX8 was a great car but it just didn't have sufficient fuel efficiency for most. My thought was 17mpg without a good amount of power isn't worth it, so I bought a Porsche 911.

I wish they made the RX8 in a 3 rotor or FI option. That car with 300hp would have been magnificent.

Well the balance between the two is what was a failure, IMHO. They made it bigger with suicide doors to make it a legitimate 4 seater and gave it a thirsty high output but small(relatively) N/A engine. The power was good when it was introduced, the 350z and BMW 3 made a bit more power and were slightly heavier, but the RX-8 had a long life cycle.

Then again the RX-8 is cheaper than any BMW let alone a Porsche.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by spin9k

^ well, 238HP isn't too shabby, but in reality they way HP is figured and due to the combustion cycling of the rotary, it is customary to compare its 1.3L with a 2.6L piston engine. I'd say it's HP is fairly decent for a NA engine (given that comparison), just sometimes wished Mazda had added an FI option somewhere along the RX-8 lineage...

I was wondering why no one mentioned the 2x displacement thing yesterday, but I don't rotary so I didn't want to interject.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by 70NYD

I never drove a s2k so i dont know. I never driven them because I don't like them, or hondas for that matter

???
It's basically a 2-seat convertible RX-8 (that gets better fuel mileage).

Here, vtec boys ruined the brand for me to be honest.

Never understood hating a brand because of other people's association with them. I've never been a "Honda boy" or "VTEC boi", but that didn't do anything to damp my enthusiasm for the S2000, which is probably the only Honda automobile I'll ever own.

Actually I hate that word "vtec" because Honda wasn't the 1st to invent variable valve control, nor did they do it the best.. But they did do it smartly, and marketed it good il give them that

Again, ???
It works brilliantly. Great performance for a 2-liter from 0-6000rpm, outstanding from 6000-9000. The only gripe I have is that the transition should be at the rpm where the torque curves meet, but instead it transitions at a higher rpm than that, so you get a "kick". Kinda gimmicky and not optimal. But in reality, I'm always below 6000 on the street and always above it at the track, so I practically never experience this.

That someone would hate that they call it "vtec" because "Honda wasn't the 1st to invent variable valve control" is puzzling to me...
I don't care if they call it "Honda's stupendiferous valve lift/timing changey mechanism", it works well, allows great in-town response and tremendous pull at stratospheric rmp as well
I am glad there are no VTEC stickerz on the car, though...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by DSR2409

How is 238 hp from a 1.3L engine inefficient?

It's inefficient in that it burns a LOT more fuel relative to its output vs. piston engines. And judging from measured rwhp and acceleration times, it's really more like 220hp.

If you were to get a piston engine that displaced 1.3L to that hp number, it would require forced induction, and burn way more fuel...probably even more than a rotary.

A turbo'd 1.3 liter would get better fuel economy than an n/a 2.0 liter with the same peak power, and would get WAY better fuel economy than a 1.3 rotary.

There's a reason we're seeing a shift to smaller-displacement turbos as CAFE is being jacked up again. Better fuel economy for a given power output.


Regarding rotary displacement equivalency, although rotaries aspirate their full displacement every crank rev and 4-stroke piston engines only aspirate half their displacement per crank rev, rotaries don't make twice the power per displacement. More like 1.5x (applies to 2-strokes as well).

I'd sooner argue for calling a 2.0 liter 4-stroke a 1.0 liter than to call the rotary a 2.6, which I think is kinda ridiculous.
I think that the way they are rated for displacement (1.3 liters) is appropriate. They do give a lot more power/displacement than 4-stroke piston engines.

[KatHawkDown]

Originally Posted by ZDan

It's inefficient in that it burns a LOT more fuel relative to its output vs. piston engines. And judging from measured rwhp and acceleration times, it's really more like 220hp.

A turbo'd 1.3 liter would get better fuel economy than an n/a 2.0 liter with the same peak power, and would get WAY better fuel economy than a 1.3 rotary.

There's a reason we're seeing a shift to smaller-displacement turbos as CAFE is being jacked up again. Better fuel economy for a given power output.


Regarding rotary displacement equivalency, although rotaries aspirate their full displacement every crank rev and 4-stroke piston engines only aspirate half their displacement per crank rev, rotaries don't make twice the power per displacement. More like 1.5x (applies to 2-strokes as well).

I'd sooner argue for calling a 2.0 liter 4-stroke a 1.0 liter than to call the rotary a 2.6, which I think is kinda ridiculous.
I think that the way they are rated for displacement (1.3 liters) is appropriate. They do give a lot more power/displacement than 4-stroke piston engines.

Nice perspective. I love rotary engines and wish there was a business case for them. Alas, unless major technology improvements are made I fear motorsport is their last lifeline. Rotaries appeal to passion at the expense of almost all sensibility and that just doesn't work in this economy. As good as the BRZ/86 seems to be, in my opinion it just isn't as special as a rotary powered Mazda sports car - including the RX-8.

[KatHawkDown]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Well the balance between the two is what was a failure, IMHO. They made it bigger with suicide doors to make it a legitimate 4 seater and gave it a thirsty high output but small(relatively) N/A engine. The power was good when it was introduced, the 350z and BMW 3 made a bit more power and were slightly heavier, but the RX-8 had a long life cycle.

Then again the RX-8 is cheaper than any BMW let alone a Porsche.

Yep. The numbers never really worked out well for the 8 because its real meal ticket wasn't its grip or even its engine, but its chassis. And in that reality a comparison between the RX-8 and a 350Z typically ends with the Z understeering into a wall.

[scorcherjf]

Well rotary engines are less thermally efficient than piston engines however they are much more volumetrically efficient. Mazda chose the rotary because of it's compact size so whether you compare it to a 2.6 or whatever, the fact remains that it's a small engine relative to the amount of power it makes. The engine being smaller with less moving parts allows you to have a low center of gravity and low polar moment of inertia. The boxer engine is quite small and they've done a pretty good job with weight distribution and center of gravity, but I still believe the RX8 as a whole package is more rewarding to drive. How many cars under $50k can you think of that seat 4, have a low center of gravity, and are double-wishbone on all 4 wheels? (well multi-link rear, but still)

I get the feeling subaru/toyota benchmarked the Porsche because they couldn't benchmark the RX8 which would've been the more logical choice since the engine is in the front unlike the Porsche. Had they chosen to go with double-wishbones up front I don't think they would've been able to hit their price target nor fit their engine inside.

[EasternWind]

Originally Posted by Gardus

The RX8 and the 350z were direct rivals when they were launched, but then the Nissan moved on with the 313 bhp mk2 version which is faster, and the 370Z, which is WAY faster than the Mazda.
We're talking 100+ hp more... and the 370 is also lighter than the 350z, shorter and more agile.

An Rx8 with the same layout but the 2.3 engine of the MPS, that would be interesting.

I was honestly Expecting mazda to pull this move on either the Miata or the Rx-8 as far as the 2.3L goes, and quite frankly am disappointed.

a stock 2.3 from the MPS into a miata is a mid-high 12 second car, and it would annihilate everything in it's path short of 50-60k+ I often have dark fantasies about undertaking that particular engine swap( since I do have a spare 2.3 in storage), but fitment issues( driver that is I'm 6'4)is really preventing me from doing it.

My best run on my Mazdaspeed3 was a 13.2 on DR's with a mbc,tbe,intake and bypass valve.

Anywho back on topic. I've owned a '04 rx8 and it was a fine automobile until a dumptruck decided to tbone her. My only real issues were gas mileage, and that was it. Other than that fantastic handling, braking, and looks.

I'm holding off on the initial frs/brz surge until I see what the sti/trd versions are going to look like (plus the fact that I'll be in the market for a new house soon)

I

[70NYD]

Originally Posted by ZDan

???
It's basically a 2-seat convertible RX-8 (that gets better fuel mileage).


Never understood hating a brand because of other people's association with them. I've never been a "Honda boy" or "VTEC boi", but that didn't do anything to damp my enthusiasm for the S2000, which is probably the only Honda automobile I'll ever own.


Again, ???
It works brilliantly. Great performance for a 2-liter from 0-6000rpm, outstanding from 6000-9000. The only gripe I have is that the transition should be at the rpm where the torque curves meet, but instead it transitions at a higher rpm than that, so you get a "kick". Kinda gimmicky and not optimal. But in reality, I'm always below 6000 on the street and always above it at the track, so I practically never experience this.

That someone would hate that they call it "vtec" because "Honda wasn't the 1st to invent variable valve control" is puzzling to me...
I don't care if they call it "Honda's stupendiferous valve lift/timing changey mechanism", it works well, allows great in-town response and tremendous pull at stratospheric rmp as well
I am glad there are no VTEC stickerz on the car, though...

Nah I didn't explain it properly at all ay, because reading what you said and re reading what I said, it didn't come out how I think of it mainly in grammar haha
Sorry
I dont hate vtec because Honda wasn't the 1st. I hate the word because of 10000's of people that brag about it but don't understand it. Who think its be all and end all. That's why
It is a great system and all praise should be given to it, but I know of too many backyard mechanics that trashed their Hondas and "fixed" them but they don't know what they are on about. That's why I wouldn't buy one here. Brand new they were too expensive. 2nd hand and more than likely too many things could be wrong. Nice car, but I also don't like convertibles :p

[KatHawkDown]

Originally Posted by scorcherjf

The boxer engine is quite small and they've done a pretty good job with weight distribution and center of gravity, but I still believe the RX8 as a whole package is more rewarding to drive. How many cars under $50k can you think of that seat 4, have a low center of gravity, and are double-wishbone on all 4 wheels? (well multi-link rear, but still)

I get the feeling subaru/toyota benchmarked the Porsche because they couldn't benchmark the RX8 which would've been the more logical choice since the engine is in the front unlike the Porsche. Had they chosen to go with double-wishbones up front I don't think they would've been able to hit their price target nor fit their engine inside.

Completely agree. The 8 is a more appropriate benchmark in every way. I wonder how much comparing of these two they did away from cameras.

At least one publication that compared the steering input of both cars affirms that the 8's steering is still superior overall. Take that how you will, but my understanding is the 86 steering is immediate and precise but lacks the feel that you get in the 8 or a Miata - which are both also immediate and precise.

[ilikecars86]

Originally Posted by iShaveWithKatana

I have kept relatively accurate tabs on my fuel consumption, and I average just about 20.2 mpg with a 6MT @ 65% city/35% highway, and I do not lug my 8.

That's not great, obviously, but it's better than what many get. Mazda should have incorporated taller gearing in 6th for highway economy, because cruising at 75mph puts the 6port at about 3800rpm, which obviously wastes a lot of fuel.

I'd be all over the FT86 if 1) a factory FI option became available (i.e. warranty) and 2) it had a bigger backseat.

Number 2 above eliminates it as a possibility, unfortunately.

That is probably the one main issue with the manual RX-8. I noticed the automatics are better geared for highway cruising at a more tolerable rpm for fuel consumption.

But for others who mention gas mileage, it really is only an issue with non-synthetic 5W20 oil. If you switch out with Royal Purple then you will notice an upsurge of MPGs, especially in the city. With Royal Purple at least on a 06 automatic RX-8 it can have highway mpg at 25 mpg.

And others mentioning issues with engine, most of this was addressed with the 09 re-design. Still the RX-8 remains to be a value at around 16K used and it has a transferable engine warranty up to 100,000 miles.

[Wait4BRZ_STI?]

Another thoughts on Rx-8 vs BRZ comparison.

Since the price of BRZ is out, we can take a quick comparison

2009 Rx-8: $27590
2013 BRZ: $26270

These two cars are within 2K from each other. Granted that BRZ has better interior/exterior equipments. However, Rx-8 is more powerful and is a true 4 seater. Moreover, the sales of Rx-8 were so poor in the late years you can probably get a higher-spec Rx-8 at the same price at the limited BRZ. As a result, there is virtually no difference (or at most 2K difference) between Rx-8 and BRZ from the price perspective.

My point is that BRZ/FRS is supposed to be a bargain sports car that is much less expensive than s2000, 370Z and Rx-8. But in the end, we get a price that is comparable to the Rx-8. This is perfectly fine with me since BRZ still represents a very good value and is the only true sports coupe in the market (miata is a convertible).

However, one cannot help but wonder what is the differentiating factor that makes the sales of BRZ seem so successful but the sales of RX-8 so miserable.

For me, the eccentricity of a rotary engine is probably what kills the sales of RX-8. Marketing prowess is probably another reason to the success of BRZ/FRS.

[ilikecars86]

Originally Posted by Wait4BRZ_STI?

Another thoughts on Rx-8 vs BRZ comparison.

Since the price of BRZ is out, we can take a quick comparison

2009 Rx-8: $27590
2013 BRZ: $26270

These two cars are within 2K from each other. Granted that BRZ has better interior/exterior equipments. However, Rx-8 is more powerful and is a true 4 seater. Moreover, the sales of Rx-8 were so poor in the late years you can probably get a higher-spec Rx-8 at the same price at the limited BRZ. As a result, there is virtually no difference (or at most 2K difference) between Rx-8 and BRZ from the price perspective.

My point is that BRZ/FRS is supposed to be a bargain sports car that is much less expensive than s2000, 370Z and Rx-8. But in the end, we get a price that is comparable to the Rx-8. This is perfectly fine with me since BRZ still represents a very good value and is the only true sports coupe in the market (miata is a convertible).

However, one cannot help but wonder what is the differentiating factor that makes the sales of BRZ seem so successful but the sales of RX-8 so miserable.

For me, the eccentricity of a rotary engine is probably what kills the sales of RX-8. Marketing prowess is probably another reason to the success of BRZ/FRS.

I don't know if I would agree about the interior of the BRZ. I have been in the interior of the BRZ and I think the RX-8 interior is of much better quality / use of materials. For once, the visor/mirror is not that high quality and there are some other differences that can be mentioned. However, I don't think that takes away from the driving ability of the BRZ.

As for the poor RX-8 sales, my guess would be that early engine issues plagued the car and steered people clear from the RX-8 and its MPG. But as a used car and insurance discount as a "sedan," it is still a good deal. Even though it does have more power, it comes in heavier than the BRZ.

But it still would be interesting to pit the two cars against each other.