Went down to the peruse the local car lots where I went by the Mazda dealership. As it turns out, a buddy from high school I hadn't seen in about 5 years now works there, so he said he'd take me for a test drive of the RX-8, even though he knew I had no intentions of buying. Even better, he told me that he trusted me since I auto-x and said feel free to "drive to the level I am comfortable with". :devillook I definitely took him on this, and we went out to a rural country road that winds around the hills of Post Falls, Idaho where I proceeded to flog this car pretty darn hard for about 25 minutes. Anyway, here is my official review:

Styling:
This one is of course very subjective, but I gotta say I love the styling of these things inside and out. Very unique shape, love the front fender flares and the suicide doors. The interior was tan leather on black, and I liked it alot; better than the red on black interiors I have also seen. Mazda has very tastefully integrated the the rotary emblem into styling touches such as the gear shift knob and the top of the seats. Ergonomics were very good, very supportive seats and intuitive controls. The gauges are very easy to read, lighting up white on black with red needles in the day time, switching to red on black at night.

The novel backseat with the suicide doors is actually a very trick idea. Much easier to get in and out of than my M3 (not that I spend much time back there). Overall, a very practical package for the cars size and intended purpose.

Engine:
This was both a strong point and yet a weak point in the car. I liked the fact that despite its 8.5k redline, it was not a total dog at low RPM's like an S2000 is. It is a fantastically smooth engine with a nice satisfying mechanical whirring reminding you when it's legs are being stretched.

What I did not like about the engine is that first off, it just flat out needs more horsepower, which is why I can't wait for the mazdaspeed version to come out. They will surely partially remedy that there. While this engine -in typical rotary fashion- only has 150 lb-ft of torque, it does not feel as completely torqueless as the S2000 motor, which made it very easy to launch. Also aiding the launch was a very smooth easy clutch with decent modulation.

Another thing about the power band I did not like, is that most engines start pulling at the beginning of the power band, build up to a crescendo and then wane as you approach redline. In the Renesis, the power comes on at around 5500 rpms, but the pull is constant from there till redline. It just didn't have that urgent rush to the redline I was hoping it would have.

Transmission:
The 6 speed tranny in these cars is ok. The throw is very short and smooth with low effort, although I found the gates to be a bit vague. There were times when I would hesitate a moment because I wasn't sure if I was grabbing 3rd or 5th gear. It definitely didn't have the rifle-bolt precision of an S2000.

Suspension/Chassis:
This is where things really get interesting. This is simply a fantastic chassis for the money. Very tossable car, it feels even lighter than its 3100lb weight with wonderful turn-in. It may have been because it has quick ratioed steering coupled with a small wheel, but it definitely felt like it responds quicker than my M3. I would have to drive my M without the massive 4 spoke steering wheel to find if what I felt was reality or perception. The chassis is very stiff and didn't shimmy or protest when I was taking the car to 8/10's (anything more than that is criminally negligent to do on the street IMO). Ride is a nice balance of performance and smoothness. A fair amount of body roll is evident, but I am sure that aftermarket mods would fix that.

The car has 50/50 weight distribution and a very well sorted suspension which allowed it to handle very neutrally. It was easy to bring the rear end around a little bit or to get the nose to push depending on input. What is truly great about is that it breaks loose in the rear in a very gentle and predictable manner, unlike an S2000 that just breaks loose seemingly almost at random. I was able to take the car to impending loss of rear traction and feel very comfortable since it was giving lots of feedback on when it was going to let go for good. This of course, scared the hell out of my buddy/salesman, but it sure was fun . . . this car is definitely a handling car, this is its highpoint and it is very capable.

Steering:
Very quick ratioed with a small steering wheel, but extremely accurate. Also has very good feel and a nice light effort without it being too light. The front tires were communicating rather well during the drive.

Brakes:
Very strong. I don't know the #'s, but they have to be pretty close to an M3 braking wise (though I do think the M3 has an edge on braking power). Didn't drive it long enough to comment on fade. Very firm brake pedal with very minimal pedal travel sort like a Porsche's. Nice feel and modulation. Very well done overall.

Conclusion:
As you may have noticed, I spent a lot of time comparing this vehicle to an S2000. In feel and capability, from its small steering wheel and quick ratioed steering rack to its high revving engine, those two feel very similar to me. What is so cool about it IMO though, is that I find the RX-8 to be much more practical and better looking with a much nicer interior than an S2000. So if forced to choose, I would take the RX-8 in a heartbeat. Incidentally, they also have an almost identical sticker price . . . overall, this is truly a great car. I can see why C&D put it on their 10 Best list, and agree with the assessment I have read where people admit this car is underpower, but say that the chassis is so fun you don't really care. Again, I am giddy wondering what the Mazdaspeed version with bring. If they can get the HP north of 300 (it is 240hp on the manual) things will definitely get a lot more fun.

After ending the test drive, I got back to the dealer, and my friend said that he was rather scared at several points on the test drive and that he had never had any other driver take the car that far to its limits. Anyway, it really made my day as I love driving new sports cars I have never had an oppportunity to try out. :redspot :alright

Anyone else driven one of these? I am curious to see what others think of the car and my assessment of it . . .

Under powered but very fun to drive. The interior is nice it would be been nicer if they would of just made it a straight up coupe. I love how high the engine revs though and the seats. I like the S2000>350z>RX8

Under powered but very fun to drive. The interior is nice it would be been nicer if they would of just made it a straight up coupe. I love how high the engine revs though and the seats. I like the S2000>350z>RX8

I have yet to drive a 350Z. I really need to get my hands on one, especially since my first car was a 300ZX (as my handle implies) and I therefore have a soft spot for Z cars.

Fun to drive buy I felt kinda claustrophobic in the car. I didn't have a panic attack or anything, but it felt really small. And small spaces usually don't worry me.

Fun to drive buy I felt kinda claustrophobic in the car. I didn't have a panic attack or anything, but it felt really small. And small spaces usually don't worry me.
coming from a backpack driver... i now HAVE to see the interior for myself

again, I loved the interior. Very stylish and high quality. Small? Yes. But its a comfortable small. Also, the car I drove did not have the moonroof option. With a moonroof I bet it would be almost like an M Coupe as far as cockpit feel.

If you get the automatic, you will get yourself rear ended while trying to accelerate. If you get the stick, you'll have to keep it revved pretty high to get it moving

i hear it burns 1 qt of oil every 1000mi, am i wrong?

I have only been a passenger in an RX-8, at an autocross with one of the better drivers in our region.

When we were at the start he asked me to please not scream as it broke his concentration --it was never an issue.

The car is nice and I found it to be comfy, just not exciting.

I find riding with my Mom in her S2K to be more fun and she is not a particularly aggressive driver.

350z def has more power on the low end then the s2000 and RX8

get a fully loaded 350z with brembos....

I find rx-8's to be very under-powered. if they stick a turbo in them, im sure the demand for them will be greater.

Did you test drive in on GT4 or in real life?

:D

i definitely wouldnt consider one till they stuck a turbo on there...my car whooped the crap outta one a few weeks back on the 101 north

ive test driven a 04 rx8 fully loaded stick

it was DAMN slow ... redlined 1st and 2nd .. and my friend in the back said " did you just push it? cuz we barely went anywhere"

ill test drive another when they add a turbo

also to add.. after many hours driving my friends s2000

s2000 is better in every way except room.

ive test driven a 04 rx8 fully loaded stick

it was DAMN slow ... redlined 1st and 2nd .. and my friend in the back said " did you just push it? cuz we barely went anywhere"

ill test drive another when they add a turbo

also to add.. after many hours driving my friends s2000

s2000 is better in every way except room.

teck they plan to add turbo on it?

It would also be sick if they took off those back doors and just made it a coupe. I love the interior and the way it handles though.

yeah one of the downsides of the rx-8/rotary engine is that it drinks oil.

teck they plan to add turbo on it?

It would also be sick if they took off those back doors and just made it a coupe. I love the interior and the way it handles though.
The Mazdaspeed version should have a turbo.

ive test driven a 04 rx8 fully loaded stick

it was DAMN slow ... redlined 1st and 2nd .. and my friend in the back said " did you just push it? cuz we barely went anywhere"

ill test drive another when they add a turbo

also to add.. after many hours driving my friends s2000

s2000 is better in every way except room.

Well, even though I compare it alot to the S2000 and like the RX-8 better, it has been about 3 years since I drove the S2000, so my memory may be a bit hazy. But it definitely had the same overall feel that I remember from the S2000. Still a fun car regardless . . . and yes, they are underpowered, but they reach lmid 14's in the quarter, so its not like their EXTREMELY slow . . .

I thought it handled fairly well but it was seriously underpowered. I drove my M3 to the dealer though and then drove my 355 later that day so ithought it was just me thinking it was seriously underpowered. All rotary engined cars feel enemic though. My buddy had a hopped up RX7 and it was pretty weak. The Rx8 is one of my favorite looking cars though. It seriously needs turbos and it needs to be at least 2.5 liters.

Well, even though I compare it alot to the S2000 and like the RX-8 better, it has been about 3 years since I drove the S2000, so my memory may be a bit hazy. But it definitely had the same overall feel that I remember from the S2000. Still a fun car regardless . . . and yes, they are underpowered, but they reach lmid 14's in the quarter, so its not like their EXTREMELY slow . . .

14.1-13.9 so high 13's

ive driven one.. i love the styling, especially the suicide doors! it needs more power though, and handling wise 300zxna is right, theres a relative amount of body roll in my opinion but other than that it was a smooth ride, nice smooth transmission with a racing clutch..

i would never get the automatic version of the rx-8 just simply because they limit your power from 238hp to like 190hp because the torque converter can't handle 9000rpm so they cut the redline back to like 6700 im pretty sure. and autos suck if your going to get a sports car anyway!!

yeah one of the downsides of the rx-8/rotary engine is that it drinks oil.

and GAS

I have an RX8 for sale, $25K, PM me for details...

Why are they called "suicide doors" ?

Why are they called "suicide doors" ? http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/columnists/jeff_elder/10287334.htm?1c

"when everyday cars reached higher speeds around midcentury, the dangers of this configuration became a concern. If someone tried to open and slam shut the rear-hinged door of a speeding car, it could fly open, pulling them out. Or the wind could catch it and cause the car to veer. Or an oncoming car could hit a rear-hinged door, pinning an exiting passenger. It's not known how many people actually fell victim to these and other risks, but the concerns became widespread. "These were scary things to think about," Kreipke says."

Thanks!

For $25K (plus or minus a grand), you can get a new one out the door just about anywhere (fully loaded). These things aren't exactly flying off of Mazda car lots....

Well, I did notice on ebay that they are depreciating EXTREMELY fast. So I would never buy one now. But say 3 years from now? Hell yeah. I will always have an M if I have my way, though if my GF and I get married, I have lobbied for her to replace her Subaru station wagon with something like this . . . another concern with the RX-8's is that they don't appear to respond to well to modding. I looked up costs of turboing or SC'ing, and for $5000 Greddy makes a turbo kit that will only net you about 270 rwhp. :confused That really sucks . . . but again, if this car is for my GF, she won't care too much about such things. :D She does love manuals (her subies a stick) and sports cars though . . .

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/columnists/jeff_elder/10287334.htm?1c

"when everyday cars reached higher speeds around midcentury, the dangers of this configuration became a concern. If someone tried to open and slam shut the rear-hinged door of a speeding car, it could fly open, pulling them out. Or the wind could catch it and cause the car to veer. Or an oncoming car could hit a rear-hinged door, pinning an exiting passenger. It's not known how many people actually fell victim to these and other risks, but the concerns became widespread. "These were scary things to think about," Kreipke says."


Also, during the 1920's and 1930's when there were doors still like this, a rival gangster or gang member could walk up to the car, open the door and have a clean shot at you. Just think about it and how open you are if the door opens opposite.

i drove both an rx8 and 350z at work (valet) and the Z has more giddy up (me nono how to spell that) but the rx8 has kool styling...the z has a way big booty but i take it thats not a bad thing...personally i love mazda shifters...i love that mechanical feel that the rx8 had which was similar to my miatas shifter...but renesis hasnt reached its potential...

I thought that was a good assessment. The car is extremely neutral due to its front-midship layout and the motor is smaller than a beer-keg = low center of gravity. I can't think of very many cars that are as neutral as the RX8. I personally don't think the S2K 'breaks loose seemingly at random", but the RX8 is a little more predictable.

Good review, fun car to drive, if you havn't driven one, it's worth testing for the heck of it -and i'll bet you'll like driving it too. It just needs more power, although stock has enough to light up 275s in the rear while sliding around a corner -it requires a lot more effort.

Unfortunately due to the "Renesis" design, it's not very boost friendly and can only get about 250-300whp safely. I know some people are pushing more, but those are the ones that pop their motors a few months later.
i hear it burns 1 qt of oil every 1000mi, am i wrong?That's because it has oil injectors. It's essentially a 2-stroke motor.

Yes, it does not "burn" oil. If a piston engine "burns" oil, it's because there's some kind of leak somewhere. The rotary is supposed to use oil. Ask any rotary owner, we keep oil in our car and just check our levels approx. every 1K-2K miles. Personally, I LOVE my car. Aside from the many other features, you can't beat its uniqueness. I work in a buidling with only a few hundred people. There are 3 new IS's and two E90 328xi's but one RX8. I love that fact. Plus, in real world driving, hp is nothing. What am I going to do with 300/300 on a normal town road? But, I can rack my 8 around any curve I come across. My kids' car seats fit in the back, and I just transported a jack, 4 stands, a tool box and a huge box of supplies to a friends to do some basic maintenance work. IMO, you may not like the class, but this car is in a class by itself right now.

FTR, I just replaced my ignition coils and upgraded my plug wires. Last year, I had a new starter/battery/plugs installed under warranty. Other than that, it's run like a top for the 14 months I've had it (2004 MY, 2nd owner). The rumors of its unreliability are greatly exaggerated.

Yes, it does not "burn" oil. If a piston engine "burns" oil, it's because there's some kind of leak somewhere. The rotary is supposed to use oil. Ask any rotary owner, we keep oil in our car and just check our levels approx. every 1K-2K miles. Personally, I LOVE my car. Aside from the many other features, you can't beat its uniqueness. I work in a buidling with only a few hundred people. There are 3 new IS's and two E90 328xi's but one RX8. I love that fact. Plus, in real world driving, hp is nothing. What am I going to do with 300/300 on a normal town road? But, I can rack my 8 around any curve I come across. My kids' car seats fit in the back, and I just transported a jack, 4 stands, a tool box and a huge box of supplies to a friends to do some basic maintenance work. IMO, you may not like the class, but this car is in a class by itself right now.

FTR, I just replaced my ignition coils and upgraded my plug wires. Last year, I had a new starter/battery/plugs installed under warranty. Other than that, it's run like a top for the 14 months I've had it (2004 MY, 2nd owner). The rumors of its unreliability are greatly exaggerated.

ill keep this in mind later...mazda car in the future for me...thanx for the heads up man...although a speed 3/6 sounds better over the 8...

drove my friends 3 times before he sold it, its quick, the interior i think is great, and the best part is the handling. They are freaking sweet in the twisties, i personally liked the shift/throw,etc. Very fun car to drive. I agree 100% with the OP

one of the few sub $100k cars i have yet to drive. i had a 93 rx7 twin turbo when i was 19; so much trouble in such little time, i really loved that car. after owning 2 e36 m3's, which i loved as well, i still dont think there is a single car on the road dollar for dollar that rivals the tt rx7. i really need to go out and drive one.

i really love the S2000's and think i would have to go with the honda over the RX8 mainly to take advantage of socal conv weather.. but it seems that the RX8 is a better buy, as a 04 rx8 is roughly the same price as a 01 s2k - ~$12-13k wholesale with good miles. i am seriously considering both of these cars as my next car purchase.

Another great thing about the RX-8 is the insurance is dirt cheap on them. Insurance companies look at it as a 4 door "2 piston" car and it has about a 5 star safety ratings all around.

Yes, it does not "burn" oil. If a piston engine "burns" oil, it's because there's some kind of leak somewhere. The rotary is supposed to use oil. Ask any rotary owner, we keep oil in our car and just check our levels approx. every 1K-2K miles. Personally, I LOVE my car. Aside from the many other features, you can't beat its uniqueness. I work in a buidling with only a few hundred people. There are 3 new IS's and two E90 328xi's but one RX8. I love that fact. Plus, in real world driving, hp is nothing. What am I going to do with 300/300 on a normal town road? But, I can rack my 8 around any curve I come across. My kids' car seats fit in the back, and I just transported a jack, 4 stands, a tool box and a huge box of supplies to a friends to do some basic maintenance work. IMO, you may not like the class, but this car is in a class by itself right now.

FTR, I just replaced my ignition coils and upgraded my plug wires. Last year, I had a new starter/battery/plugs installed under warranty. Other than that, it's run like a top for the 14 months I've had it (2004 MY, 2nd owner). The rumors of its unreliability are greatly exaggerated.

How many miles have you racked on your rx-8? I'm looking into some compact cars and am trying to decide what to get, RX-8 possibly being a choice.

Damit I just wrote a long response and it got erased because I tried to post a smilie!!! Ok I will keep this shorter I guess. I own a 2004 RX8 MT. It is a great car for what it is! It is a high revving, low torque, great handling car. It is a blast to drive. It tackles the twisties just as good as any car out there under $40. (Excluding the econo-box duo of the EVO and STI)

As far as reliability, never had an issue with it. I will admit that the rotary engine is needy, but if you keep it maintained, it runs great. The transmission and clutch are still in great shape after 57K miles. I switched to Redline Tranny and Diff. fluids about a year back. Shifting is still smooth as ever.

I am selling my beloved ride though. Just in the mood for something else. I did have it on the market for $17K but no takers. (Guess no one is looking for an RX8 in the middle of winter.) Thinking about putting it back on the market here pretty soon, but I'm not in any rush.

The main point I wanted to get across in this thread is, don't hate on the car because it doesnt go from 0-60 in under 5 seconds and it won't get you noticed at the drag strip. This thing is a high performance vehicle and what can be more important than having fun driving your car??

I actually used to own one of these cars, an 04 Titanium Gray one with a 6-spd and loved it. Dogged the piss outta that car too. Between the handling and the high strung engine, it felt as fun as an over-grown go kart. Oddly enough I went to the dealership the other day to reminisce, and I no longer fit in them. I am a young guy (20) so I guess I may have grown taller but it wasn't even close. Great car though. Don't put your cell phone in the center console though if you like it best in solid form. That thing gets smoldering hot in there!

They lose money, and the engine isn't as torquey as most, but I learned to drive on a 100hp rotary, so I know how to feed the power into them. You gotta drive it differently. You can rev the nuts off of it and nothing happens. they are remarkably reliable engines, and so long as you keep an eye on them, can go forever (they drink oil as a part of the piston rotation process, to make the apex seals last longer. just toss a quart or so in ever 1000 miles) and since the engine is so beautifully smooth, it never jerks the power around, giving you more control over the rear end.


Fantastic car, there's not a single problem with it. 250hp is plenty for a small sedan, it's as much as an e36 m3, and if you want more, the chassis and brakes can easily handle it.

so can these cars make it to 100K miles without major issues?

are these better overall then mustang gt's if you had to pick?

im currently looking at one in very good condition (2004) w/ only 44K miles on it... red w/ red-black interior and the guy is asking only asking 14K... this would be my first 'sports' car... does this sound like a good deal to previous rx8 owners? will it last well past atleast 75K miles without big problems?

would this be a better pickup and the 04 mustang Gt w/ 24K for 12K?

so can these cars make it to 100K miles without major issues?

are these better overall then mustang gt's if you had to pick?

im currently looking at one in very good condition (2004) w/ only 44K miles on it... red w/ red-black interior and the guy is asking only asking 14K... this would be my first 'sports' car... does this sound like a good deal to previous rx8 owners? will it last well past atleast 75K miles without big problems?

would this be a better pickup and the 04 mustang Gt w/ 24K for 12K?Yes, I just bought mine yesterday , 2004 Brilliant Black w/ Grand Touring Package. The interior is just beautifully designed and the car handles so silky smooth. To compare a Mustang with a RX-8 is like comparing a sledge hammer and a scalpel. Plus, it fits 4 fully grown adults comfortably, and has 4 doors.

Yes, I just bought mine yesterday , 2004 Brilliant Black w/ Grand Touring Package. The interior is just beautifully designed and the car handles so silky smooth. To compare a Mustang with a RX-8 is like comparing a sledge hammer and a scalpel. Plus, it fits 4 fully grown adults comfortably, and has 4 doors.

how many miles did yours have that you picked up? price if you dont mind?

ok i was just curious, i have not driven either yet.. i know it was prolly a sad comparison... is is your car speed wise? peppy enough for you on highway and open throtal? what about the lowend?

and random question... does ti take regualar gas? or does it really only take premium like the bimmers?

thanks

I had an '04 RX8 until last month. I loved it. Seriously loved it. It was a FUN, FUN car to drive and the suicide doors offered a convenience that no other coupe can offer.

The trunk was tiny, the gas mileage was abysmal and the car was in the shop for a day or two just about every 3 to 6 months for some serious defect. Thank goodness for warranties.

Despite that, I still loved the car and had a really hard time letting it go but being into year 4 at 52,000 and out of warranty, I didn't want to deal with the issues on my own dollar anymore. Just before I purchased my E46, the check engine light in the RX8 was intermittently coming on (for days) then for no reason going out again. Luckily, I got rid of it when it was out. ;)

I actually considered getting a new RX8, hoping that some of the bugs had been worked out of the system. The '04 was the first year model and the buggiest of all RX8's to date. I did actually talk to a dealer about the new RX8s and he could not assure me that I wouldn't have the exact same problems as the '04. He told me that the RX8s just seem to be hit or miss. Some will have NO problems, others will have constant problems like mine did.

Still, I would consider getting one again. But once you go BMW, you can't go back, right? ;)

so can these cars make it to 100K miles without major issues?

are these better overall then mustang gt's if you had to pick?

im currently looking at one in very good condition (2004) w/ only 44K miles on it... red w/ red-black interior and the guy is asking only asking 14K... this would be my first 'sports' car... does this sound like a good deal to previous rx8 owners? will it last well past atleast 75K miles without big problems?

would this be a better pickup and the 04 mustang Gt w/ 24K for 12K?


Certainly not to dissuade you, but I wouldn't count on it to make it 100K without major issues. My '8 was certainly a poor example of the 'breed' but just FYI at 52,000 miles, I was told that a major service was due at 60K and would cost a fair amount of money. When I got my E46 a month ago, my RX8 was looking at having at least $2300 worth of work done to it within a few months.

Personally, I would stay away from the '04s but I wouldn't completely tell you to steer clear of the car. Despite its problems, it was a fantastic car. When it was running, it was great and I will tell you that the way the RX8 handles, it saved my life two times in near collisions. If you want a maintenance free car, I don't think I'd look at an RX8 and I certainly wouldn't look at an '04. IMHO.

I still miss her a little bit. :)

BTW, hands down, I'd pick the RX8 again over a Mustang. Again, IMHO.

Just another note based on other comments in the thread: the RX8 does slurp the oil. I religiously changed it every 3000 miles and filled it at least once in between each change. I would typically check the oil level every other gas-up. So go to Walmart and buy a case of the gooey life water.

how many miles did yours have that you picked up? price if you dont mind?

ok i was just curious, i have not driven either yet.. i know it was prolly a sad comparison... is is your car speed wise? peppy enough for you on highway and open throtal? what about the lowend?

and random question... does ti take regualar gas? or does it really only take premium like the bimmers?

thanks Has 26.6k miles, 2004 w/ Grand Touring package w/ all options except nav, cost $16,888 + lic doc, etc came to about $18,500 out the door.

The car's low end torque isn't the best but it pulls hard. I can do 40-50 mph in first gear. and not even notice. If I floor it I'm constantly raking through the gear at the 9k rpm redline (car loves to rev) and im glued to the seat.

As far as I know, it takes any gas but premium is recommened. The RX-8 has plenty of power above 4k rpm and takes only a second to get there.

LS1 swap in this car would be perfect! Its just begging for it

Why doesnt mazda just throw in there turbo 2.3 motor? That would be alot of sense and be much cheaper...

Hell tweak there V6 a bit and it would be a much better match

Why doesnt mazda just throw in there turbo 2.3 motor? That would be alot of sense and be much cheaper...

Hell tweak there V6 a bit and it would be a much better match

because, the 1.3 rotary means it is mounted way back in the engine compartment creating a 50/50 neutral weight distribution which makes the car handle so well.

I think a lot of people who have never driven rotaries don't know how friggin smooth the engine as well. I can have it at 9k rpm and not have any crazy vibration in the car.

because, the 1.3 rotary means it is mounted way back in the engine compartment creating a 50/50 neutral weight distribution which makes the car handle so well.

I think a lot of people who have never driven rotaries don't know how friggin smooth the engine as well. I can have it at 9k rpm and not have any crazy vibration in the car.


+1.

rotary is a selling point. they didn't build the car and then choose an engine, they built a car around an engine. The rotary 1.3 making over 200hp is a downsight more than any other n/a engine is capable of, in terms of power per liter.

And nobody can deny the ultimate hotness that is a racing rotary... Shrieking bandsaws.

Also, rotaries withstand punishment better than most engines. a racing rotary doesn't have 4-12 bearings on the connecting rods to worry about, or 16-48 valves to worry about. They just love to be revved.

That, and two intake strokes per rotation is something that no other engine on earth is capable of. for it's mass, it's essentially 200% more efficient per rotation than any other engine, since piston engines make one piston stroke per two rotations of the crankshaft.



That's because it has oil injectors. It's essentially a 2-stroke motor.

Somewhat wrong. It doesn't burn premix like a 2 stroke does, it injects a slight amount of oil into the combustion chamber separately, to keep the apex seals fresh.

But the advantage is that it doesn't have the problems that a 2 stroke's valveless system does, due to the isolation of each particular stage of ignition.

+1.

rotary is a selling point. they didn't build the car and then choose an engine, they built a car around an engine. The rotary 1.3 making over 200hp is a downsight more than any other n/a engine is capable of, in terms of power per liter.

And nobody can deny the ultimate hotness that is a racing rotary... Shrieking bandsaws.

Also, rotaries withstand punishment better than most engines. a racing rotary doesn't have 4-12 bearings on the connecting rods to worry about, or 16-48 valves to worry about. They just love to be revved.

That, and two intake strokes per rotation is something that no other engine on earth is capable of. for it's mass, it's essentially 200% more efficient per rotation than any other engine, since piston engines make one piston stroke per two rotations of the crankshaft.




Somewhat wrong. It doesn't burn premix like a 2 stroke does, it injects a slight amount of oil into the combustion chamber separately, to keep the apex seals fresh.

But the advantage is that it doesn't have the problems that a 2 stroke's valveless system does, due to the isolation of each particular stage of ignition.

This is all indeed true, but then there are the rotary specific issues, like flame speed, combustion chamber size, and the ever-important apex seals. Plus, with the multi-rotor (3+) cars (Cosmos, LeMans) the eccentric shaft becomes a major stress point. I had quite a few chats about rotary engine design with an ex-Mazda engineer. They all love the design, but the emissions are too much. If you add a thrid spark plug to even out your flame fronts so you get lower hydrocarbons, your NOx goes through the roof, and the only way to cut the NOx is to cut your peak temp. In a pison engine, this could be done with valve timing, but having no valves kills this. The only other option is an EGR, but when you make peak NOx, WOT, the EGR is off.

The NOx issue (and emissions in general) is the main reason why the rotaries aren't way more efficient, as if they put in the 3rd spark plug (like they did with the LeMans car) gas mileage improves by nearly 30%, and performance improves by a similar margin. They decided to keep the hydrocarbons up because they use the cat converter to cut the HC emissions.

If they can figure out the WOT NOx issue, a rotary will be much more effective in terms of hp/L and mpg.

id pick this car up in a heatbeat if it didn't require 91 fuel, and ummm, got better then 16-18MPG... thats pretty horrid, and when gas hits $4.00, i would deff not be caught driving this, nor could i afford it...

too bad they couldn't make this have more like 24ish MPG, i bet that would help sales alot!

... IMO

If you buy one of these new your getting ripped off. These things have no power off the line and aren't much fun unless your donig 70+ which I didn't get the chance to do very often. But if you get a used one for $15K then they are decent. Good luck if that rotary engine breaks down though lol

I test drove one befoe and loved the handling. Performance on the other hand was very sad. And it get horrible gas mileage.

This is all indeed true, but then there are the rotary specific issues, like flame speed, combustion chamber size, and the ever-important apex seals. Plus, with the multi-rotor (3+) cars (Cosmos, LeMans) the eccentric shaft becomes a major stress point. I had quite a few chats about rotary engine design with an ex-Mazda engineer. They all love the design, but the emissions are too much. If you add a thrid spark plug to even out your flame fronts so you get lower hydrocarbons, your NOx goes through the roof, and the only way to cut the NOx is to cut your peak temp. In a pison engine, this could be done with valve timing, but having no valves kills this. The only other option is an EGR, but when you make peak NOx, WOT, the EGR is off.

Well said. Emissions is a major issue. But reliability in an engine with three moving parts is just nigh-on unparalleled. the stress point problems have been alleviated with newer materials, and though apex-seals can become an issue, the overall reliability of the engine easily rivals that of piston engines. and even when a rotary engine loses an apex seal, the loss of power is gradual, rather than instant and catastrophic engine failure common in piston engines. if you lose a head gasket, your motor is going to go south quickly, if you lose a connecting rod bearing, you may shove a rod out through a piston.

But if an apex seal fails, you dig into the engine and pop on 3 new ones, job done. your engine isn't at risk of instantly shredding it's internals.

The NOx issue (and emissions in general) is the main reason why the rotaries aren't way more efficient, as if they put in the 3rd spark plug (like they did with the LeMans car) gas mileage improves by nearly 30%, and performance improves by a similar margin. They decided to keep the hydrocarbons up because they use the cat converter to cut the HC emissions.

Again, newer technology in emissions regulation can eliminate the NOx issue soon. which would allow the third plug option to be used, and the rotary engine may actually come into prevalence, being that they are so powerful and light.

If they can figure out the WOT NOx issue, a rotary will be much more effective in terms of hp/L and mpg.

hp/l is still unparalleled. for it's size, the renesis engine is FAR more powerful than the LS7, even in supercharged form.

200hp/litre.

a 7.0 would have to chuck out 1400hp to rival that.

IMAGINE a 7.0, multi-rotor engine? it'd be long as hell, but can you even fathom the noise or the power?

People need to give the rotary time to develop. It's still in its infancy. The RENESIS project started with about 20 engineers working on their own time. How can anyone compare that to the thousands of man-hours from car companies around the world improving on the piston engine?

People need to give the rotary time to develop. It's still in its infancy. The RENESIS project started with about 20 engineers working on their own time. How can anyone compare that to the thousands of man-hours from car companies around the world improving on the piston engine?

The rotary has been around for 20+ years, the Renesis is just a tweaked 13B engine from the 90's. I think they have lots of potential and the powerband is incredibly smooth but just doesn't make enough power which is part of the reason I sold my RX-8.

hp/l is still unparalleled. for it's size, the renesis engine is FAR more powerful than the LS7, even in supercharged form.

200hp/litre.

a 7.0 would have to chuck out 1400hp to rival that.

IMAGINE a 7.0, multi-rotor engine? it'd be long as hell, but can you even fathom the noise or the power?

It's not really 200 hp/liter, the way a rotary works it's equal to a 2.6L for displacement or about 90 hp/liter. The S2000 still makes 120 hp/liter though. Nice thing is that you CAN run 87 octane in it and 16-18 mpg isn't that bad, a lot of new cars I saw at the auto show this weekend had 16 mpg city ratings on the window tag.

I owned, and tracked, a slightly modified (chipped, intake, exhaust, suspension, etc) 1995 E36 M3 for almost two years before I sold it for the car I should've purchased in the first place.

Don't get me wrong. There are certainly positive aspects of owning an E36 M3, such as the wonderful motor, its terrific blend of utility, sport and comfort, but I wanted something newer.

I can be quoted as stating that the RX8 is a 3/4 E36 M3. However, now that I"ve owned my RX8 and tracked it as well, I've noticed that RX8 has CONSIDERABLY higher limits than my E36 M3, and has an equally intoxicating powerplant...it just the stock rotary sounds awful.

Give me a track, a stock E36 M3 and a stock RX8, and I'll show that the RX8 is just faster around the course.

However, the RX8 is horrible on gas, but oh well. For its price, there's not a better balance of handling and practicality. Just ask Jay Leno what he thinks about the car too!

I owned, and tracked, a slightly modified (chipped, intake, exhaust, suspension, etc) 1995 E36 M3 for almost two years before I sold it for the car I should've purchased in the first place.

Don't get me wrong. There are certainly positive aspects of owning an E36 M3, such as the wonderful motor, its terrific blend of utility, sport and comfort, but I wanted something newer.

I can be quoted as stating that the RX8 is a 3/4 E36 M3. However, now that I"ve owned my RX8 and tracked it as well, I've noticed that RX8 has CONSIDERABLY higher limits than my E36 M3, and has an equally intoxicating powerplant...it just the stock rotary sounds awful.

Give me a track, a stock E36 M3 and a stock RX8, and I'll show that the RX8 is just faster around the course.

However, the RX8 is horrible on gas, but oh well. For its price, there's not a better balance of handling and practicality. Just ask Jay Leno what he thinks about the car too!

Agree, E36 needs camber plates at minimum if not coilovers to be a good track car. RX-8 out of the box with an alignment is good, with Konis is very good. Plus you can run a 17X10 wheel with 275 all around R comps without even rolling a fender.

The rotary has been around for 20+ years, the Renesis is just a tweaked 13B engine from the 90's. I think they have lots of potential and the powerband is incredibly smooth but just doesn't make enough power which is part of the reason I sold my RX-8.

That's right... 20+ years compared to 100+ years for the piston engine. The number of man hours spent in R&D for the rotary is not even a fraction of what was spent with the piston engine. The side ports is an old idea that recently came into realization with improved manufacturing and technological advanced that otherwise would not have been cost effective until now. Anyone who bashes the rotary engine is not appreciating the engineering significance and the dedication of a single car company to the rotary design. Well, it'll always have its roots in Germany...

It's not really 200 hp/liter, the way a rotary works it's equal to a 2.6L for displacement or about 90 hp/liter. The S2000 still makes 120 hp/liter though. Nice thing is that you CAN run 87 octane in it and 16-18 mpg isn't that bad, a lot of new cars I saw at the auto show this weekend had 16 mpg city ratings on the window tag.

it's weight and size are that of a 1.3 lirre. It displaces 1.3 liters. You can't say "it's a 2.6!" when it's merely twice as effecient.

We could call a 5.0 v8 a 3.9 or somesuch because a piston engine doesn't even get 1 intake stroke per rotation.

Don't knock a 1.3 for being capable of two intake strokes per rotation. It's volumetric "displacement" is the cubic capacity of the engine at a standstill. which is 1.3 liters, not the amount of air it is capable of displacing in a single stroke.


Let's compare power to weight of the s2k's engine to a rotary. or it's complexity or capability to fail.