What would be the point of introducing a rebate of only $500 to the average consumer? Doesn't sound SOOOOO compelling that it would push consumers over the edge and make that purchase. I think the market will discount prices first and then the real manufacturer incentives will come later. As a rebate for college grads, I think it's a great "principle" statement for today's youth!
It might be easier to find a manufacturer that doesn't offer the college rebate. I've been out of college for 20 years. Everytime I buy a new car, I tell them I want the college rebate just to see if I could get it. Hasn't worked yet...always worth a try, though. It's at least been worth a chuckle when talking to the dealership.
The Edmunds Incentives/Rebates section says the rebate began (for graduate students or recent graduates) 11/02/03. Mazda is doing the same thing for the Mazda 3 that just came out. Though it's a nice gesture, I just don't understand why the RX-8 would be rebated to anyone. GM has a similar rebate deal with GM employees but wouldn't give a rebate on a Corvette.
I got this month's issue of Consumer Reports and they did a review of sports cars/coupes/sedans. The cars covered in this report were the Subaru STI, Mazda RX-8, Nissan 350Z, Mitsu EVO 8, Chrysler Crossfire. They compared them with other cars that weren't being described in depth in this issue. Strangely, the G35 Coupe wasn't even in the list of cars. Out of about 10 cars, CR put the SVT Ford Focus ($19,000) as number one. The Subaru STI ($31,500) as number two. The Mazda RX-8 ($31,100) was number three. The regular Subaru WRX ($24,500) was fourth. I believe the Mitsu EVO 8 was fifth. The 350Z was near the bottom of the group only ahead of the Chrysler Crossfire, Hyundai Tiburon and the last place finisher, Mitsubishi Eclipse. They felt the RX-8 was a much better car than the 350Z though not as fast of course. Reliability on the car wasn't available yet so they couldn't recommend it (which is common for NEW cars). The only gripe they had with the RX-8 was the low gas mileage. Otherwise, everything else was positive. They had a few more problems with the 350Z though the reliability was average so they recommended the car.
Consumer Reports published the 0 to 60 time for the 238HP version of the RX-8 to be 6.7 seconds and the 1/4 mile to be 15.2 seconds. That is slower than what was previously reported by other magazines. The Crossfire at a 7.2 second 0 to 60 time was the only car slower (in the five car group). The other three vehicles were right on par with what other magazines and reports have posted.
Their times are usually higher than those posted by other auto review mags, sometimes by a second or more.
They don't rev and then clutch dump, like some testers like to do. They try to treat their test cars as if they owned them (which they actually do, as they purchase them "anonymously"...or at least try to) and are interested in their long-term longevity. Of course, most of US would probably drive our own cars the same way (I would anyway), not like they do at R&T.
Mazda has come out and said the tests done by C&D and R&T were with the production versions...same as you can buy from your dealers.
Their tests with a 7K-9K RPM launch put 0-60 identically at 5.9 sec. 1/4 mile times were low-mid 14s.
After break-in, I did my own personal 0-60 run and achieved a 6.3 sec 0-60 run with a 4K RPM launch....with DCS on and no practice runs. With a couple of practice runs, I'm sure I could beat that number. That makes the trade rags totally believeable.
I suspect CR just let out the clutch from standstill...maybe a 1K RPM launch?
Normally, I don't launch from 4K RPM. Unless, of course, someone is in the other lane and tries to "get the drop" on me.
It wouldn't surprise me if CR was more conservative with the vehicles during speed tests. However, the times for the other vehicles (350Z, Sti, EVO) were the same in Consumer Reports as previously published data that could be found in C&D, Road Track, etc. Why would the RX-8 be any different? Motor Trend rated the 0 to 60 time of the RX-8 at 6.4 seconds a month before the vehicle was available. The 5.9 second time that C&D/Road Track came up with was documented as a tire smoking launch as people have pointed out. I don't know if the other vehicles required the same kind of hard launch to acquire their times. I don't believe so.
I just finished following the Rx8 stalling thread. I also see mentions of the Rx7 stalling problems...all 2nd Generation if my memory is correct. I have a 93 3rd Gen Rx7...first I've ever heard of a stalling problem. Mine hasn't stalled once in 8 years of ownership. Sounds like an old problem Mazda took care of years ago. Personally, I've never met an experienced rotary mechanic at any Mazda dealer shop, so if someone at the dealer garage says this is a known rotary problem...I would suggest you get a 2nd opinion somewhere else. There are plenty of independent shops throughout the country that would know better
Actually, when I was test driving before buying, I'd driven the 350Z and G35 Coupe extensively. Don't get me wrong...they are fine cars. But, I found the Z marginally quicker than the RX8 and the G35 Coupe to be about the same in real world driving.
I stated this a while ago, but I'd doubt there would be a bumpers width worth of difference on the road in acceleration times between the RX8 and the 350Z in real world driving scenarios.
CR is not the source you want to test acceleration times on any car.
ozone...good point. Some posters flit in here, post something bad about the RX8 with little to no basis in fact and then disappear. We can only assume the only reason they stopped by was to spread some disinformation.
Another "old wives tale" about the RX8 is that it has to "idle down" before shut down. This stems from the old turbo RX7s when it was recommended to idle it for a few minutes before shutdown so the turbo could spool down before you shut it off. This was recommended because the turbos, which spin at very high rpms (and still spin after the engine is shut down), would still have access to oil lubrication from the oil pump with the car still running.
Consumer Reports is generally very bad when it comes to reviewing enthusiast cars. Or to put it another way, they care about trivia like safety, reliability, and fuel economy -- instead of the really important things like 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, skidpad and slalom numbers, responsiveness, tossability, handling at the limit, driver involvement, and becoming one with the car.
That said, I would bet that it's easier to be consistent about getting good 0-60 times with a Z or G35 than an RX-8. That's not a criticism, just a natural trade-off between a high-torque V6 and a high-revving rotary...
I just finished following the Rx8 stalling thread. I also see mentions of the Rx7 stalling problems...all 2nd Generation if my memory is correct. I have a 93 3rd Gen Rx7...first I've ever heard of a stalling problem. Mine hasn't stalled once in 8 years of ownership. Sounds like an old problem Mazda took care of years ago. Personally, I've never met an experienced rotary mechanic at any Mazda dealer shop, so if someone at the dealer garage says this is a known rotary problem...I would suggest you get a 2nd opinion somewhere else. There are plenty of independent shops throughout the country that would know better
We definitely have to take what they say (about performance) with a grain of salt! These people rave about Camrys & Corollas year after year (fine cars, but just not my cup of tea).
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
They seem to have fascination with all things bland. Such a practicality-above-all-else that is not often taked about, but very American imo. It's as if blandness somehow makes a car more utilitarian, thus more practical. Pick up a european car mag and all the cars CR rants and raves about are dismissed almost entirely for being entirely too dull to even tolerate. Interesting how different the points of view are.
I don't think it's a US vs. Europe thing. I think it's a "smart shopper" vs. car enthusiast thing. American mags like C&D and R&T also don't have much enthusiasm for Camrys and Corollas.
The current issue of C&D has rave reviews of the Porsche Carrera GT and Lotus Elise -- neither of which is particularly bland and practical...
Oh, I am not saying that we are devoid of enthusiasts. We buy more sportscars than any other market.
I was talking more specifically about Consumer Reports than anything else.
Although C&D does have a lot of love for the Accord, which is only barely more exciting than the Camry imo. Not that they are bad cars, or that we have any better alternatives. Maybe it's the whole mid-sized sedan segment that is boring.
And I do stand by my sentiment that there is an American/Canadian sub-culture that draws pride and pleasure from purchasing really bland cars that do their job without you ever having to notice them.
Well, I just let the Ex take my RX8 for a spin.... 15 minutes later, she came back with a big smile on her face and all she said was, "I see why you bought it.".......if it can put a smile on her face, then an RX8 can put a smile on anybody's face!! LOL!!
tested the Honda S2000 at 5.6 seconds 0-60 and 14.4 seconds 1/4 mile (August 2000 issue).
I wouldn't consider Consumer Reports the last word on enthusiast cars; however, the top two cars in their overall ratings are the BMW 530i and the Honda S2000. From my own seat of the pants test, the RX-8 is quick and smooth, but not in the same league as the S2000 or Boxster S, IMO.
Graphicguy: As for you timing your own 0-60 sprints, my hat is off! How you can work a stopwatch and shifter at the same time while looking down at the speedometer with one eye and the other on the road is beyond me. (Assuming the speedometer is accurate to within 1-2 mph).
stopwatch? you still got an 8-track player in your car too? lol.
You can get yourself a g-tech on ebay for about $60-$70 these days. I just received, as a gift, a palm pilot and AuterraWeb software that not only reads any trouble codes and can give you all kinds of info being picked up by your various car sensors, but it can also time 0-60, 1/4 mile, rate horsepower and torque, measure gearing, etc. Pretty neat toy.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I've never been a big proponent of CR. They are fine for the "toaster over" set, but I lost faith in them after they were proven wrong, in court, about the Isuzu rollover issues. CR was so arrogant, even after being proven wrong. While I do think their reliability ratings are worth looking at, some of their data gathering is flawed. That said, their reliability ratings are probably the least "flawed" of any known source.
Out of all of the trade rags, C&D is my favorite. While they do "gush" a bit too much about the Accord, I don't expect them to like every car I like. Plus, they've been known to take some "shots" at their major advertisers (case in point, GM can't be too thrilled with what they've said about the all new Malibu). I agree with C&D more than I disagree with them. I do wish they had Jean (Lindamood) Jennings back into the fold like the "old days". I like bits and pieces of R&T....like their "similar car" comparisons. MT is still suffering from the idea that they are a "slave" to their advertisers.
habitat....I had another person in the car with me using a chronograph when I did my 0-60 run. Not scientific at all. I just said "stop" when I hit 60. I'm sure there are better ways to do a run. If I subtracted the passenger (and the 180 lbs he represented), I would have been able to shave some time off my run. A little practice and a higher launch RPM and there's little doubt I'd get close to the numbers C&D and R&T posted.
Talk about unsafe...there's an RX8 owner that decided to take pictures of his speedometer when he was travelling at 130+ MPH in another RX8 forum...not a good idea, in my opinion.
qbrozen...I have an autox colleague that has a G-TECH. We've only used it on two Mini Coopers (one first gen we use for autox, the other is a new one he just bought). G-TECH's a slick piece. My colleague's new Mini-Cooper (supercharged) is giving him fits, though. That's a topic for another thread, however.
Unfortunately, I haven't had a tremendous amount of time to play with it yet. So far its been a matter of figuring out just what it wants me to do in order to get the readings correctly. I've gotten a couple of 0-60 readings, but none of been the perfect situation/launch. Put down one decent run (6.1), but I could still do better. I also want to try it on other vehicles to establish its accuracy (basically using the trade-mags as references). So, overall, its definitely more of an investment than the G-tech, but since it also reads OBDII, its a much more useful tool.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
While I agree with most of what was said, I have yet to hear anyone that doesn't like the digital speedometer who's actually lived with it. Certainly is easier to read than trying to decipher a bunch of small marks on an analogue one.
We sell CR cars on a regular basis.. including the RX-8 they tested. They pre-ordered the car 5 months before it came out. They do the testing not to far fromm us in the Connecticut woods.
I have to agree with blacktalon about Consumer Reports. They concentrate more on the reliability issues (or what's practical) than what an enthusiast may want. They don't try to be anything different. The magazine will only report on cars that most people in the U.S. are in the market for... even if some of those vehicles are bland. The main purpose of consumer reports is getting the best available car for the best price. Sometimes that may not add up to an "exciting car", but you will be more informed on what is right for your budget and the potential consequences of your purchase. For performance data, I feel they become a little careless depending on how significant the issue is. If the acceleration is really poor on a vehicle that lowers satisfaction/safety, they will be very accurate on the posting of their tests. Since the 0 to 60 time on an RX'8 isn't a crucial point as long as the acceleration is decent, they won't be as concern about consistency (like blacktalon mentioned). I have never regretted following their reports on anything I've purchased. Therefore, I wouldn't trust any other magazine more. However, I agree that one should check specs with a variety of other magazines (especially for enthusiast data) before settling on a vehicle to buy. Consumer Reports stated that the RX-8 had a curb weight of 2600 lbs. in the April 2003 car review issue. How in the world did they get that number and why would they publish something they weren't sure of? They could have just put "N/A".
graphic - I know NBC Dateline got in trouble for not posting a "dramatization" when testing a vehicle (and had to pay the auto manufacturer a lot of money), but I thought Isuzu didn't win their lawsuit against CR since they couldn't prove the tests were faulty. I'm not sure though. Nonetheless, I wouldn't disregard a magazine for one incident even it is true. When you do thousands and thousands of tests, you will make errors once in awhile.
They don't want their test-drivers getting injured, so they put outriggers on suspect vehicles to prevent them from rolling over, but allow them to tip up and lean on an outrigger.
Judging from pictures I've seen, these outriggers would actually lower the center of gravity of the test vehicle. But since they're outriggers, I'm sure they increase the rotational moment of inertia about the longitudinal axis.
Still, I think Isuzu and Suzuki's arguments are that most normal drivers wouldn't put their SUVs through such sudden manuevers. Right, like most drivers would calmly and smoothly steer around some deer that jumped in front of them suddenly (or someone who cut in front of them suddenly...you get the picture). I think the typical reaction is to slam on the brakes and jerk the wheel away from the obstacle, which at the least causes a spin-out.
Based on my own experiences driving SUVs, vans and other tall, tippish vehicles, I'm afraid of being inside one of them should "emergency" manuevers be required, especially if I'm not the driver. Perhaps that's why many of these vehicles are equipped with relatively slippery rubber. Better to slide out than roll over (well, until you hit a curb or the dip in the highway median).
...Suzuki is pushing their suit against CR for "repeatedly" bringing up the tip-test results of their Samurai to blah-blah defame etc. other Suzuki vehicles and raise funds for CR. There's a story out on another automotive-related news site.
Well, I've been a long-term subscriber of CR since those days, and I don't remember CR just trotting out the story to bash other Suzuki vehicles. I do remember occasional letters from the editor talking about Suzuki bringing a lawsuit against CR, and how they would appreciate donations to help pay for legal fees associated with fighting the suit. But they never did anything like mail dedicated fund-raising appeals with direct references to the Samurai tests.
Seems to me like a bogus face-saving (and money-grubbing) attempt by Suzuki for putting out a very dangerous vehicle without fairly warning prospective owners (they did put big warning signs on their visors after the test results initially came out in the late '80s). I have seen a few tipped-over Samurais, though I think I've just as many tipped-over 4x4 SUVs (mostly in the winter, in the highway median), so I definitely think there's technical merit to CR's test findings.
Suzuki...I won't buy from them just because they're full of nonesense.
I saw that article that you mentioned as well. It's funny that we were discussing that in this thread -- big coincidence. It looks like Suzuki is trying to find an excuse for having poor sales. This isn't surprising.
I "think" it was 60 minutes that did the report on Chevy pickups years back...stating that they explode upon impact. Come to find out, they rigged a Chevy pickup with explosive charges to show them exploding upon impact "for dramatic effect". They had to retract their findings later after being sued.
While I'm taking this from memory, I believe the CR Isuzu (and maybe Suzuki) tests were proven in court to be done in ways that assured a rollover. In other words, they tested the vehicles in ways no one would drive them to get them to tip over. They also tested other SUVs differently than they did the Trooper and Suzukis, to get the results they desired which supported their bias. I explicitly remember them losing the Trooper case. They never disclosed how much they had to pay Isuzu and refused to publish their testing techniques, saying they were a private concern which didn't have to disclose them. Damage was already done, however. Trooper sales dropped dramatically and even though the courts found them at fault, they offered no retractions. Pretty arrogant in my estimation.
Back to the RX8, with all the safety that's been built in to the car, I've yet to hear if any tests have been done by the gov't regarding safety.
Of course no SUV owner would purposely try to make their vehicle roll over. CR did maneuvers that would induce a roll over to see which vehicles were most and least resistant to roll overs. The vehicles that were easiest to roll over would be the most dangerous. Other similar vehicles were tested the same way and were not so easy to roll over as the Isuzu. It was not as if CR said the Isuzu would sponeneously roll over while driving in a straight line or when driving on a curve at or below the posted speed limit.
Well here's the lease I saw advertised in the paper for an '04 RX8 with 6 Speed, Leather, Moonroof. $31,100 MSRP. $15,500 Residual. 10K miles per year ($.25 thereafter). $0 Security. $0 Bank Fee. $995 Cap Cost Reduction.
$389 per month for 48 months. Add $20.73 into the lease to eliminate the cap cost reduction. Add in
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
graphic - I thought the case was still pending with CR/Suzuki. I don't recall them losing any cases, but they might have just settled due to financial reasons. I agree with s853 and what blacktalon had mentioned before about the testing CR does on all SUVs. Suzuki is just trying to find a scapegoat for their unsuccessful sales.
Leases don't make much sense to me. Instead of financing $20,000 for a car, you pay out $14,000 for a lease and save $6,000. However, you will pay $14,000 for something that you won't even own. As long as the depreciation of the car is decent, you should easily be able to make more than the $6,000 when you sell or trade-in the financed car. Plus, you have more flexibility with a financed car. Personally, I feel that people should buy what they can afford, and therefore, leasing should not be an option. I feel the same way about those rent-to-own appliance stores. One should live within their means!
You and I are on the same page regarding car purchases. Leasing doesn't make much financial sense any more unless you own a business and can write the car off as an asset of that business (in which case you'd have to use the car full time as a part of the business).
Outside of that scenario, leasing a car is a bad financial investment in a depreciating asset.
I am confused about personal leasing as well....My boss just got a brand new Jaguar XJR at $75K+ and he leased it for 60 months?!?!?.....I don't understand. And it is not a company car.....now, to defend him, his wife wanted it ......hmmm.....but a 60 month lease?....don't get it....(although, the wife is pretty darn cute)......MY pop always told my that leasing a car is just like owning a car; except you don't!.....
Allegedly, you only pay for the amount of time you "use" the car.
Typically, monthly payments are lower than when you buy the car, but you don't own the car after the lease is up as you would after your payments are over at the end of your finance agreement when purchasing.
Add in the fact that there are numerous fees involved in a lease like origination fees, disposition fees, "excessive" wear fees....doesn't make a lease a good financial decision.
But that does not mean - like a lot of posts say here - that leasing does not make sense. If you are a guy that typically finances his cars and likes to change cars once in 4/5 years, it makes more sense to lease. Otherwise, every time you roll over the loan from the previous car to the next one,the dealers are going to screw you BIG TIME - and you will never even know! What screws you is when you finance the difference between the value of the loan outstanding and the value of the car. Typically it will be a big amount.
With a lease, you are covered on that count, so if you like to drive new models, change cars and typically have them financed,a lease makes perfect sense.
Thanks for the lease info GGuy...again, you are an information-superhighway!!...I will stick with owning my RX8 for as long as I can...I love this car!
Question: Do you know of an easy way for me to either kill or reduce the horn beep when I set the security system? It bothers me when I come home to my apartment and wake everyone up! BEEP!.......
It would truly be sad if you made payments on a loan for 4 to 5 years and still had to "finance the difference between the value of the loan outstanding and the value of the car." How could that happen? Maybe paying full MSRP with zero down on a fully loaded brand new Taurus or Kia or something.
Sometimes leasing makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. It isn't "always" better even if you like to change cars every 3 years. It all depends on whether you can write the lease expense off your business taxes or if there is a really hot subsidized lease deal being offered at the time you're ready to lease.
I'm looking at leasing for a future vehicle, but so far I haven't found a lease deal on a car I wanted that was going to work out cheaper than just getting a very good purchase deal on car that retains its value well and reselling it on my own schedule. In my case I actually prefer to change cars roughly every 2 years. I haven't found any good deals on 24 month leases, so I have made out better by financing with zero down for 60 months, then selling at roughly 24 months. And , yes, I was able to do it without being "upside down" in the loan at 24 months despite putting no money down. In the past I have purchased new Hondas for about invoice price and resold in less than 24 months for more than the loan pay off amount while having a lower monthly payment than any 24 month lease I could find at the time.
"Mazda Motor Corporation's four-door, four-seater rotary sports Mazda RX-8, launched in April this year, was named '2004 RJC Car of The Year' with the RENESIS rotary engine that powers the RX-8 also named '2004 RJC Technology of The Year.' The selection was held on November 18 at a ceremony hosted by the Automotive Researchers' & Journalists' Conference of Japan (RJC)."
"Mazda wins the RJC Car of The Year award for the second consecutive year, following the Mazda Atenza (known as 'Mazda6' in overseas markets)."
"Powered by the "RENESIS" -- naturally-aspirated new generation rotary -- the RX-8 is an entirely new type of sports car that features distinctive sports car styling and excellent performance while providing ample interior space for four adults through technological invention, including the compact and yet high performance RENESIS. Since its launch in April this year, sales volume up to the end of October reached 13,000 units, well exceeding its original target."
I was told by the dealer when I purchased my RX8 that I should let the engine idle for about 20 seconds before turning it off. I just read a recent post on this BB that said this was not necessary. Can anyone confirm whether or not it is necessay? Thanks in advance for any help.
If it is important to idle the car for 20 seconds before turning the engine off, that should be printed in the manual or Mazda should send you an update to the manual in the mail if this is something they just discovered due to inadequate preproduction testing. It should not be something a dealership employee only tells you verbally. Is that warning in the owners manual or not?
sroc2004 - s852 is right. It really depends on what car you have financed and how early you decide to trade in that vehicle. He bought Hondas and his pay outs were quicker than the depreciation of those vehicles. That's what makes resale values all the more important. Leases typically make sense with most domestic cars since the resale value isn't as high and you do stand a greater chance of being upside down on your loans. With the example I mentioned in my last post in this thread: if you finance a $20K car for 60 months, keep it for just two years, you should have at least paid off $10K (assuming the total cost of the car was near $25K with tax and interest). There would be of course around $12K-$14K that needed to be paid off on the loan. As long as the vehicle hadn't depreciated less than that, you would be fine when trading in your vehicle. You'd have the money you already put in the car (which will obviously decrease the debt) plus the actual vehicle in your corner. Good resale value is the name of the game no matter what you choose to do. However, if you have your heart set on a car with a less desirable resale value, either make sure you own it through its finance period or lease it. Though leasing the vehicle would be more expensive because of its low resale value.
the_big_h - Not to be negative, but it seems that the RJC is Japan's version of the JD Power organization. I wouldn't get too excited about it. Nonetheless, the RX-8 is a great car!
I can't think of a good reason why you would have to let the RX-8 idle before turning it off. That used to be necessary for the Rx7 (as a previous poster also said a week ago) because after driving it hard the turbos should be allowed to be cool down. But, since the RX-8 doesn't have turbos, idling the car should not be necessary.
As Ozone and S852 point out, the whole "idle before shutdown" is a good habit to get into with all turbo cars (which later RX7s were). Idling allows the turbos to spool down while still having some lubrication coming from the engine. With the engine shut down, no oil would be travelling to the still spinning turbos.
RENESIS, not having a turbo, doesn't require this.
Follow the procedures as stated in the manual.
For all intents and purposes, there is no need to treat the RX8 any differently than you would any other car.
Except for one thing. I'm told by several owners that it still has the "flooding bug". Not really a bug, just circumstances. Don't start a cold car, move it, and shut it off. Warm it up before shutting it off (you just need to get the coolant a bit warm so the ECU will switch out of "choke mode"). Otherwise it may flood. If it floods it's really fun to get started again, because the gas in the rotors washes down the oil that gives it enough compression when starting to clean out the gas! Catch 22. You have to hold the throttle to the floor and crank it (in 10 sec. spurts so as not to overheat the starter). Eventually it will stutter, then you release the throttle and it should start.
Not as bad as earlier RX-7s, which didn't have the fuel shutoff at full throttle when starting. With them, you have to inject some oil into the rotor housings to get enough compession to clean the gas out. When they start it's smoke city!
I've heard of 3 instances, at most, of any sort of "flooding" issues....and one of those was from a dubious source.
Without knowing specific circumstances of the issue like weather, quality of fuel, etc., it's hard for the vast majority of RX8 owners to understand this as a real problem.
There have been no "set" procedures to make our cars flood. I've started, shut down, moved, reved my RX8 in many different ways and varying times...from seconds to minutes to hours in weather that's been in high humidity to low humidity, from low teens to high 90s temps (and everything in between). I've never had any sort of flooding or stalling.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do with any current technology car. What I am saying is it's extremely difficult to flood any car.
I have received a small leaflet from Mazda saying that when the ignition is turned on for a short time in cold weather, I should let in be on for 5 minutes, rev it to 3000, let it fall back and then switch off ignition. Revving it to 3000 before switching off is also recommended when the car is driven for short distances in cold weather.
You guys are right - it will depend on APR, car depreciation rates, term of loan, etc.
My point was - there will be people for whom leasing will be the better deal, because with ownership they would get hammered on the rollover portion because they had a high APR, fast-depreciating car, etc.
There are more of these people out there than you think - and they don't even realize this is going on! They won't lease just because "it's not the same as owning"!!
Comments
I got this month's issue of Consumer Reports and they did a review of sports cars/coupes/sedans. The cars covered in this report were the Subaru STI, Mazda RX-8, Nissan 350Z, Mitsu EVO 8, Chrysler Crossfire. They compared them with other cars that weren't being described in depth in this issue. Strangely, the G35 Coupe wasn't even in the list of cars. Out of about 10 cars, CR put the SVT Ford Focus ($19,000) as number one. The Subaru STI ($31,500) as number two. The Mazda RX-8 ($31,100) was number three. The regular Subaru WRX ($24,500) was fourth. I believe the Mitsu EVO 8 was fifth. The 350Z was near the bottom of the group only ahead of the Chrysler Crossfire, Hyundai Tiburon and the last place finisher, Mitsubishi Eclipse. They felt the RX-8 was a much better car than the 350Z though not as fast of course. Reliability on the car wasn't available yet so they couldn't recommend it (which is common for NEW cars). The only gripe they had with the RX-8 was the low gas mileage. Otherwise, everything else was positive. They had a few more problems with the 350Z though the reliability was average so they recommended the car.
They don't rev and then clutch dump, like some testers like to do. They try to treat their test cars as if they owned them (which they actually do, as they purchase them "anonymously"...or at least try to) and are interested in their long-term longevity. Of course, most of US would probably drive our own cars the same way (I would anyway), not like they do at R&T.
Their tests with a 7K-9K RPM launch put 0-60 identically at 5.9 sec. 1/4 mile times were low-mid 14s.
After break-in, I did my own personal 0-60 run and achieved a 6.3 sec 0-60 run with a 4K RPM launch....with DCS on and no practice runs. With a couple of practice runs, I'm sure I could beat that number. That makes the trade rags totally believeable.
I suspect CR just let out the clutch from standstill...maybe a 1K RPM launch?
Normally, I don't launch from 4K RPM. Unless, of course, someone is in the other lane and tries to "get the drop" on me.
I stated this a while ago, but I'd doubt there would be a bumpers width worth of difference on the road in acceleration times between the RX8 and the 350Z in real world driving scenarios.
CR is not the source you want to test acceleration times on any car.
ozone...good point. Some posters flit in here, post something bad about the RX8 with little to no basis in fact and then disappear. We can only assume the only reason they stopped by was to spread some disinformation.
Another "old wives tale" about the RX8 is that it has to "idle down" before shut down. This stems from the old turbo RX7s when it was recommended to idle it for a few minutes before shutdown so the turbo could spool down before you shut it off. This was recommended because the turbos, which spin at very high rpms (and still spin after the engine is shut down), would still have access to oil lubrication from the oil pump with the car still running.
That said, I would bet that it's easier to be consistent about getting good 0-60 times with a Z or G35 than an RX-8. That's not a criticism, just a natural trade-off between a high-torque V6 and a high-revving rotary...
The reason the RX8 didn't fall into their "recommended" category was because they said the RX8 was too new...nothing wrong with the car, however.
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
The current issue of C&D has rave reviews of the Porsche Carrera GT and Lotus Elise -- neither of which is particularly bland and practical...
I was talking more specifically about Consumer Reports than anything else.
Although C&D does have a lot of love for the Accord, which is only barely more exciting than the Camry imo. Not that they are bad cars, or that we have any better alternatives. Maybe it's the whole mid-sized sedan segment that is boring.
And I do stand by my sentiment that there is an American/Canadian sub-culture that draws pride and pleasure from purchasing really bland cars that do their job without you ever having to notice them.
I wouldn't consider Consumer Reports the last word on enthusiast cars; however, the top two cars in their overall ratings are the BMW 530i and the Honda S2000. From my own seat of the pants test, the RX-8 is quick and smooth, but not in the same league as the S2000 or Boxster S, IMO.
Graphicguy: As for you timing your own 0-60 sprints, my hat is off! How you can work a stopwatch and shifter at the same time while looking down at the speedometer with one eye and the other on the road is beyond me. (Assuming the speedometer is accurate to within 1-2 mph).
You can get yourself a g-tech on ebay for about $60-$70 these days. I just received, as a gift, a palm pilot and AuterraWeb software that not only reads any trouble codes and can give you all kinds of info being picked up by your various car sensors, but it can also time 0-60, 1/4 mile, rate horsepower and torque, measure gearing, etc. Pretty neat toy.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Out of all of the trade rags, C&D is my favorite. While they do "gush" a bit too much about the Accord, I don't expect them to like every car I like. Plus, they've been known to take some "shots" at their major advertisers (case in point, GM can't be too thrilled with what they've said about the all new Malibu). I agree with C&D more than I disagree with them. I do wish they had Jean (Lindamood) Jennings back into the fold like the "old days". I like bits and pieces of R&T....like their "similar car" comparisons. MT is still suffering from the idea that they are a "slave" to their advertisers.
habitat....I had another person in the car with me using a chronograph when I did my 0-60 run. Not scientific at all. I just said "stop" when I hit 60. I'm sure there are better ways to do a run. If I subtracted the passenger (and the 180 lbs he represented), I would have been able to shave some time off my run. A little practice and a higher launch RPM and there's little doubt I'd get close to the numbers C&D and R&T posted.
Talk about unsafe...there's an RX8 owner that decided to take pictures of his speedometer when he was travelling at 130+ MPH in another RX8 forum...not a good idea, in my opinion.
qbrozen...I have an autox colleague that has a G-TECH. We've only used it on two Mini Coopers (one first gen we use for autox, the other is a new one he just bought). G-TECH's a slick piece. My colleague's new Mini-Cooper (supercharged) is giving him fits, though. That's a topic for another thread, however.
seriously, though, check this thing out:
http://www.auterraweb.com/
Unfortunately, I haven't had a tremendous amount of time to play with it yet. So far its been a matter of figuring out just what it wants me to do in order to get the readings correctly. I've gotten a couple of 0-60 readings, but none of been the perfect situation/launch. Put down one decent run (6.1), but I could still do better. I also want to try it on other vehicles to establish its accuracy (basically using the trade-mags as references). So, overall, its definitely more of an investment than the G-tech, but since it also reads OBDII, its a much more useful tool.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I read somewhere that some "8-tracks" and players are bringing significant collector money...go figure.
This was a couple of years ago, but I attended a local Concours event. Saw quite a few late 60s-early 70s cars there with "stock" 8-track players.
Back to the topic at hand...here's a view from our Northern neighbors regarding the RX8...
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/04rx8.htm
While I agree with most of what was said, I have yet to hear anyone that doesn't like the digital speedometer who's actually lived with it. Certainly is easier to read than trying to decipher a bunch of small marks on an analogue one.
And another one from our friends "down under"....
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,756- 8398%5E13232,00.html
graphic - I know NBC Dateline got in trouble for not posting a "dramatization" when testing a vehicle (and had to pay the auto manufacturer a lot of money), but I thought Isuzu didn't win their lawsuit against CR since they couldn't prove the tests were faulty. I'm not sure though. Nonetheless, I wouldn't disregard a magazine for one incident even it is true. When you do thousands and thousands of tests, you will make errors once in awhile.
Judging from pictures I've seen, these outriggers would actually lower the center of gravity of the test vehicle. But since they're outriggers, I'm sure they increase the rotational moment of inertia about the longitudinal axis.
Still, I think Isuzu and Suzuki's arguments are that most normal drivers wouldn't put their SUVs through such sudden manuevers. Right, like most drivers would calmly and smoothly steer around some deer that jumped in front of them suddenly (or someone who cut in front of them suddenly...you get the picture). I think the typical reaction is to slam on the brakes and jerk the wheel away from the obstacle, which at the least causes a spin-out.
Based on my own experiences driving SUVs, vans and other tall, tippish vehicles, I'm afraid of being inside one of them should "emergency" manuevers be required, especially if I'm not the driver. Perhaps that's why many of these vehicles are equipped with relatively slippery rubber. Better to slide out than roll over (well, until you hit a curb or the dip in the highway median).
Well, I've been a long-term subscriber of CR since those days, and I don't remember CR just trotting out the story to bash other Suzuki vehicles. I do remember occasional letters from the editor talking about Suzuki bringing a lawsuit against CR, and how they would appreciate donations to help pay for legal fees associated with fighting the suit. But they never did anything like mail dedicated fund-raising appeals with direct references to the Samurai tests.
Seems to me like a bogus face-saving (and money-grubbing) attempt by Suzuki for putting out a very dangerous vehicle without fairly warning prospective owners (they did put big warning signs on their visors after the test results initially came out in the late '80s). I have seen a few tipped-over Samurais, though I think I've just as many tipped-over 4x4 SUVs (mostly in the winter, in the highway median), so I definitely think there's technical merit to CR's test findings.
Suzuki...I won't buy from them just because they're full of nonesense.
While I'm taking this from memory, I believe the CR Isuzu (and maybe Suzuki) tests were proven in court to be done in ways that assured a rollover. In other words, they tested the vehicles in ways no one would drive them to get them to tip over. They also tested other SUVs differently than they did the Trooper and Suzukis, to get the results they desired which supported their bias. I explicitly remember them losing the Trooper case. They never disclosed how much they had to pay Isuzu and refused to publish their testing techniques, saying they were a private concern which didn't have to disclose them. Damage was already done, however. Trooper sales dropped dramatically and even though the courts found them at fault, they offered no retractions. Pretty arrogant in my estimation.
Back to the RX8, with all the safety that's been built in to the car, I've yet to hear if any tests have been done by the gov't regarding safety.
The vehicles that were easiest to roll over would be the most dangerous. Other similar vehicles were tested the same way and were not so easy to roll over as the Isuzu.
It was not as if CR said the Isuzu would sponeneously roll over while driving in a straight line or when driving on a curve at or below the posted speed limit.
$389 per month for 48 months. Add $20.73 into the lease to eliminate the cap cost reduction. Add in
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
Tax $1,696.28 ($35.33/month)
$445.06 per month (w/ only 10K per year)
$409.73 * 48 = $19667.04 (total payments w/o tax)
$19,667 total payments + $15,500 residual (same as buyback?) = $35,167.04
audia8q: am I doing something wrong here or is the dealership jacking up the interest?
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
Leases don't make much sense to me. Instead of financing $20,000 for a car, you pay out $14,000 for a lease and save $6,000. However, you will pay $14,000 for something that you won't even own. As long as the depreciation of the car is decent, you should easily be able to make more than the $6,000 when you sell or trade-in the financed car. Plus, you have more flexibility with a financed car. Personally, I feel that people should buy what they can afford, and therefore, leasing should not be an option. I feel the same way about those rent-to-own appliance stores. One should live within their means!
Outside of that scenario, leasing a car is a bad financial investment in a depreciating asset.
Allegedly, you only pay for the amount of time you "use" the car.
Typically, monthly payments are lower than when you buy the car, but you don't own the car after the lease is up as you would after your payments are over at the end of your finance agreement when purchasing.
Add in the fact that there are numerous fees involved in a lease like origination fees, disposition fees, "excessive" wear fees....doesn't make a lease a good financial decision.
But that does not mean - like a lot of posts say here - that leasing does not make sense. If you are a guy that typically finances his cars and likes to change cars once in 4/5 years, it makes more sense to lease. Otherwise, every time you roll over the loan from the previous car to the next one,the dealers are going to screw you BIG TIME - and you will never even know! What screws you is when you finance the difference between the value of the loan outstanding and the value of the car. Typically it will be a big amount.
With a lease, you are covered on that count, so if you like to drive new models, change cars and typically have them financed,a lease makes perfect sense.
Question: Do you know of an easy way for me to either kill or reduce the horn beep when I set the security system? It bothers me when I come home to my apartment and wake everyone up! BEEP!.......
How could that happen? Maybe paying full MSRP with zero down on a fully loaded brand new Taurus or Kia or something.
Sometimes leasing makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. It isn't "always" better even if you like to change cars every 3 years. It all depends on whether you can write the lease expense off your business taxes or if there is a really hot subsidized lease deal being offered at the time you're ready to lease.
I'm looking at leasing for a future vehicle, but so far I haven't found a lease deal on a car I wanted that was going to work out cheaper than just getting a very good purchase deal on car that retains its value well and reselling it on my own schedule.
In my case I actually prefer to change cars roughly every 2 years. I haven't found any good deals on 24 month leases, so I have made out better by financing with zero down for 60 months, then selling at roughly 24 months.
And , yes, I was able to do it without being "upside down" in the loan at 24 months despite putting no money down. In the past I have purchased new Hondas for about invoice price and resold in less than 24 months for more than the loan pay off amount while having a lower monthly payment than any 24 month lease I could find at the time.
"Mazda Motor Corporation's four-door, four-seater rotary sports Mazda RX-8, launched in April this year, was named '2004 RJC Car of The Year' with the RENESIS rotary engine that powers the RX-8 also named '2004 RJC Technology of The Year.' The selection was held on November 18 at a ceremony hosted by the Automotive Researchers' & Journalists' Conference of Japan (RJC)."
"Mazda wins the RJC Car of The Year award for the second consecutive year, following the Mazda Atenza (known as 'Mazda6' in overseas markets)."
"Powered by the "RENESIS" -- naturally-aspirated new generation rotary -- the RX-8 is an entirely new type of sports car that features distinctive sports car styling and excellent performance while providing ample interior space for four adults through technological invention, including the compact and yet high performance RENESIS. Since its launch in April this year, sales volume up to the end of October reached 13,000 units, well exceeding its original target."
truely a "sportscar like no other!"
It should not be something a dealership employee only tells you verbally.
Is that warning in the owners manual or not?
the_big_h - Not to be negative, but it seems that the RJC is Japan's version of the JD Power organization. I wouldn't get too excited about it. Nonetheless, the RX-8 is a great car!
RENESIS, not having a turbo, doesn't require this.
Follow the procedures as stated in the manual.
For all intents and purposes, there is no need to treat the RX8 any differently than you would any other car.
Not as bad as earlier RX-7s, which didn't have the fuel shutoff at full throttle when starting. With them, you have to inject some oil into the rotor housings to get enough compession to clean the gas out. When they start it's smoke city!
Without knowing specific circumstances of the issue like weather, quality of fuel, etc., it's hard for the vast majority of RX8 owners to understand this as a real problem.
There have been no "set" procedures to make our cars flood. I've started, shut down, moved, reved my RX8 in many different ways and varying times...from seconds to minutes to hours in weather that's been in high humidity to low humidity, from low teens to high 90s temps (and everything in between). I've never had any sort of flooding or stalling.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do with any current technology car. What I am saying is it's extremely difficult to flood any car.
My point was - there will be people for whom leasing will be the better deal, because with ownership they would get hammered on the rollover portion because they had a high APR, fast-depreciating car, etc.
There are more of these people out there than you think - and they don't even realize this is going on! They won't lease just because "it's not the same as owning"!!