Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Is there a recall for the RX-8 AT in the works. I'm ready to get this solved. The car has 12500 miles on it. I don't want to risk engine damage. What should I do?
The one time with the 87 octane, RPM over 5000, the popcorn/rattle turned to a loud ball baring/rattle. But only that one time.
This is getting scary. My RX-8 AT's popcorn/rattle noise, which I notice mostly during low speed low RPM when I'm pressing back and forth on the gas peddle is mild and mostly not there when I listen with the windows up or down. If I'm driving beside a Jersey barrier or high curb, I can hear the popcorn/rattle clearly when it happens.
Wow, this is the first I've heard of "exhaust burning explosively" in the exhaust system. Would the auto tranny models exhibit more of this issue?
I've never noticed any kind of power surge or power decrease. Of course with the automatic tranny constantly shifting in Boston's traffic, it would be hard to notice small power fluctuations. Certainly nothing hugely out of the ordinary ever happens.
Yes, the gurgle/popcorn/rattle is less with a cold engine. Once the water temp gauge reaches vertical I can hear more gurgle/popcorn/rattle on the the first strong take off as I get on the first major road way.
As for cold ambient temperatures, the gurgle/popcorn/rattle seems the same.
As for millage, I get 14-15MPG in the city driving. And 23-25MPG on the highway.
It sounds like you don't have detonation, which is not surprising, as if it were detonation I suspect you would have engine trouble by now. Keep an eye on it, make sure Mazda NA (not just the dealer) has recorded your complaint, just in case.
The other day, after weeks of rain, summer temps returned and I turned on the AC. I was running in manual shift mode and the RPM was up around 6000 when I shifted. A horrible cracking sound occurred. Like a single misfire/backfire. There was no loss of power, no check engine light. I think it was the AC. Does the AC disengage the compressor at high RPM.
So what is the process for filing a concern with this presumed normal behavior. My dealer says there must be some other indication, check engine lite or smoke, before they can file an official complaint. I'm willing to live with the little noise, as there does not seem to be any other evidence of the problem, but I'd like to at least document with Mazada USA, the concern.
I did take Pathstar's advise and registered the issue with Mazda USA today. I described the noise as a gurgle/popcorn/rattle with popcorn being the closest best description. The Mazda guy on the phone was very nice, and took down, the details of my cars millage, purchase dealer's name, description of the sound, and the fact that there are no other issues or problems.
I called the contact number 1-800-222-5500 on the mazdausa.com web site and then held on the phone for five minutes for someone to talk to.
http://www.caranddriver.com/bestcars/8923/10best-cars-best-sports-coupe.html
Consumer Reports - "Recommended best buy."
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/mazda/rx8/model-overview-4335-515- 6.htm
Road & Tracks Long Term tests of a 2004 RX-8 MT shows good solid sports car driving and no significant problems after 22K. Road and Track long term testing continuously pushes the test cars to the limit, so a good rating is quite a positive rating. http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=2172&page_number- =4
1. As with any manufacturer, any model (as seen on these forums), you can end up with a "lemon". I suspect the dealer competence factors into this as well.
2. The rotary engine and the RX-8 handling traits may conflict with some peoples abilites or habits. Signs of constant flooding, clutch wearout, etc. are a warning. It may be best to reconsider if it really is the car for you if this is seen.
3. The rotary engine is still not the most efficient design. You have to PAY to play.
From what I've seen there appear to be several types of "thought processes" resulting in purchase of an RX-8. There are those who want the performance and are willing to put up with "quirks" to get it. Then there are those who just want to look cool by driving an RX-8. For some it may be more reasonable to locate a "normal" car that just looks cool, rather than -being- cool and unique.
But pathstar1 is correct - it's just not for everyone.
Mazda does no marketing to counter these stereo typical perceptions either, but seems to rely completely on the positive reviews by the car and consumer magazines. Of course I always think, "Zoom, zoom, zoom" traces back to the old "Hummmmmmmm" ads of the original rotary marketing, back when my uncle drove a rotary Mazda wagon.
Mazda should punch up the RX-8 marketing along the lines of the "Tokyo Drifting" or the VOD cars pod casts. Compare a Porche and RX-8 flying along a mountain race way, both revving to 9000 RPM, diving into 1G hairpin turns, and hitting 90-100mph tree blurring speeds. The ad could end with, "The RX-8 is not a Porche, but for $50,000 less, the RX-8 sure drives like a Porche."
A better comparison would be to see it smoking an Audi A4 or IS250, then point out that it's the best small sports sedan under $30K - plus it looks like a sportscar. Make a big deal of the rear doors in the ad, perhaps with two guys talking or something, like Chevy did when the first rear doors came out on extended cab pickups. They need to really push this fact - that the rear two doors are there, but are hidden for artistic purposes - to look more sporty - but that it still is a sedan.
Then they can whomp on the competition quite easily. I mean... Mercedes C230 with nothing on it or a fairly decently loaded RX-8? The IS250 doesn't have a hope in the world against it.
It's no sportscar. It just looks like one. OTOH, it is a fantastic small sedan.(I see four doors last I checked)
But any head to head with whoever or whatever and I'll bet the price/performance goes to the RX-8 big time; except may a WRX, but that thing is just so UUUUUGLY it doesn't count.
I'm gonna rig-up a Pod cast of my RX-8 AT running some Boston traffic rotories, with a bunch of camera shots of the tach revs, dyno stats and G-force lats. I wonder if Mazda is listening.
Is there a go G-force instrument for the dash that's not to costly?
Ttesty
20mpg highway is about what you get. It's tuned for speed and not at all for economy. Then again, when you compare it to a Mustang with the V8 or something simmilar, it's not so unreasonable.
The folks in the Mazda RX8 Owners: MPG-Real World Numbers discussion could tell you.
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
Me, I've got my tin foil hat on at all times.
Pulling tin foil down over my ears, I am.
It might be fun explaining to an insurance company why a data recorder was intentionally disabled. And then it might be fun explaining to that insurance company why they should still honor your policy.
Once again, unless Mazda has snuck one in lately, the RX-8 doesn't have a recorder. Further, if you disconnect the battery for a few minutes, you will erase any trouble codes stored in the PCM (engine computer).
If you want to worry about surveillance, turn off your cellphone.
Why?
The engine by design burns oil. Think of it as a 3-stroke engine(which is actually what it is - heh). 4-strokes optimally burn no oil, and 2-strokes burn oil mixed with their gas. This burns some oil via blow-by(somewhere between a 2 and a 4 stroke engine), but it's *NORMAL* for the car to run this way.
ROTARY ENGINES NEED TO BURN OIL OR THEY WILL SELF-DESTRUCT.
Mazda needs to hammer this home with massive campaigns or notices or something. But it also needs to use a $200 cat that's attached to nothing at all(O2 sensor and such well away) and cover them under their warranty)
Unfortunately, oil damage cats over time, and there's nothing that can be done about it. Diesels do this, too, which is why they didn't have cats on them for decades.
The rotor is "filled" with oil - the engine uses it to cool the rotors. Any leaks along the side oil seals will add too much oil to the combustion chambers. This may be the area that Mazda is worried about and is testing for.
All manufacturerers must, by law, install a cat. that will last a certain number of miles. This is what Mazda is struggling to meet, by eliminating oil that can leak into the exhaust system, and carefully controlling the oil that is injected into the intake. Hence the computer control of the oil injector system. In the case of the renesis, there is further need to limit this oil - too much and the side exhaust ports will plug with carbon.
Cats that can stand oil are just now coming on stream. They burn the carbon/heavy hydrocarbons in pulses something like an impulse jet engine. They are what will make diesel engines more acceptable in the US. They may also be what will save the renesis from extinction. I'll bet they aren't going to be cheap though.
So they should make the cat as simple and inexpensive as possible, then cover it under a 100K year warranty.
It fails smog? Run it over to the dealership and they'll install a $200 cat(their cost) and you're good to go.
I'd still own a RX-8, even with it burning oil.
The rabbit hole is much deeper than you imagine, grasshopper.
Is the EPA document below what you sort of what you were referring to?
________________________________
United States Air and Radiation EPA420-F-96-020
Environmental Protection March 1996
Agency
Office of Mobile Sources
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Environmental Fact Sheet
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EMISSIONS WARRANTIES
FOR 1995 AND NEWER CARS & TRUCKS
......
A. PERFORMANCE WARRANTY
The Performance Warranty covers repairs which are required during the first 2 years or 24,000 miles of vehicle use because the vehicle failed an emission test. Specified major emission control components are covered for the first 8 years or 80,000 miles. If you are a resident of an area with an Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program that meets federal guidelines, you are eligible for this warranty
protection provided that:
* Your car or light-duty truck fails an approved emissions test;and
.......
Design and Defect Warranty Coverage for 1995 and newer light-duty vehicles:
* Emission control and emission related parts are covered for the first 2 years or 24,000 miles of vehicle use; and
* Specified major emission control components are covered for the first 8 years or 80,000 miles of vehicle use.
According to federal law, an emission control or emission related part, or a specified major emission control component, that fails because of a defect in materials or workmanship, must be repaired or replaced by the vehicle manufacturer free of charge as long as the vehicle has not exceeded the warranty time or mileage limitations for
the failed part.
.......
What Are Specified Major Emission Control Components?
There are three specified major emission control components, covered for the first 8 years or 80,000 miles of vehicle use on 1995 and newer vehicles:
* Catalytic converters.
* The electronic emissions control unit or computer (ECU).
* The onboard emissions diagnostic device or computer (OBD).
No-one is allowed to change the cat with anything other than the stock approved part either. We have, using a Random Tech. 5" metallic one (and now revealed as guilty as charged ). This uses a strip of stainless, impregnated with platinum and rohodium, crimped to a zig zag, rolled up and inserted into a stainless canister. They work, they last with higher temps., and being "high tech", I think they work better (three way cat, takes out hydrocarbons, CO and NOx). I even put one on my 3rd gen RX-7, replacing a mid-pipe, with no loss of power. They are called "ultra high flow cats". We had to use them on the RX-8 when we messed with the fuel mixture to get more power, as that overheated the stock cat.
They don't have to last any period of time. They just have to be covered free of charge by the company(which of course is a bit of a problem, since it's a chunk out of their profits)
Was that a mistake on the MazdaUSA.com web site, or is that normally how they tell folks about recalls on their vehicle?
PathStar, did you say your RX-8 rotor side seal went bad. Is there an actual seal substance, like the Apex seal, on the sides of the rotors? Or is the oil in the rotor providing the seal? How does the rotor oil circulate?
Sorry, I guess I need to buy a model of the Renesis.
The oil is pumped into the eccentric shaft - there is a hole in it that feeds the oil to the centre of the rotors. On each side of each rotor there is a circular seal just outside the sun gear. It's pressed into the side of the rotor. This keeps the oil from getting into the "side seals" and "corner seals". These two plus the apex seals keep the combustion gas in the chamber. The oil seals keep the oil in the rotor, and it lubricates the eccentric, which the rotor pushes on to turn the eccentric shaft. It also cools the steel rotor. Power is transmitted by the rotor pushing the eccentric - so you could say the "stroke" of the engine is the major diameter of the housing minus the minor dia. There are "stationary gears" that the rotor rides on (rotor has a sun gear on the edge of the centre hole - this keeps it in phase and aligned as it moves around but the rotor doesn't push against it to transmit power although there is reaction force against it - the stationary gear acts like a planet gear).
The oil is pumped from the sump through the filter into the rear of the eccentric shaft, it flows through a hole into the rear rotor, then out another hole in the eccentric shaft to the front rotor, then out another hole to the front end of the eccentric shaft, and is dumped through a pressure regulator back into the sump. In this way all moving parts are lubed. except the apex seals, corner seals, and side seals. They get their lubrication from the oil that is injected into the intake stream. A very simple design in concept.
Lots of people like to say the rotary is a "two stroke" engine. Mazda says it's a "four stroke" - I think it should be called a "continuous combustion" engine. It sounds like a two stroke because it is "piston ported" (rotor ported but whatever).
I can hear it now, "Well sir, that two cylinder engine you've got there is way out of spec, I can't allow you back on the road until you replace that engine completely."
I read a review, don't recall where, that complained about the small displacement of the engine. Pay no attention to how the car drives or accelerates, just look at that 1.3L displacement number and say "that's small".
All that metal and wasted displacement. Of course you need 5L or more to get good results out of a 4-stroke engine. It's a hopeless kludge that's been made to work.
Compare its efficiency to a rotary or better yet, a turbine engine.
Think about it. Three lobes (roughly akin to cylinders) x 2 rotors.
Of course, that's not really fair to a V6. For every SINGLE revolution of a rotor, you get 3 power pulses (one for each lobe as it spins within the housing). So, for a two rotor design, you get 6 power pulses per revolution. But for a 4 stroke motor,you need TWO complete revolutions of the crankshaft for each cylinder to generate a power pulse. So, for a V6 engine you only get 3 power pulses per revolution of the crank. For this reason (rotaries use ALL their displacement in every revolution while piston engines use HALF of their displacment in every revolution) I've heard it said that a 1.3l rotary would be roughly analogous to a 2.6l V6.
Another question regarding displacement:
Is the displacement of a rotary engine the total displacement within the housing minus the displacment of the rotor itself? Or is the displacement measured as the maximum volume achieved within each lobe at the rotor spins x 3 lobes x 2 rotors?