Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
As far as displacement, each rotor face displaces 654 cc. Times two gives just over 1300 cc. This is really unfair though. The Euopean racing authorities call it a 2600 cc engine, probably based on full displacement of piston engines occuring over two crankshaft rotations - equivalency needed for racing fairness. Again, I differ from the norm., I think it's really half way between the two, or about 1950 cc. The problem is caused by the rotary being a 1/3 ratio whereas a four stroke piston engine is 1/2 ratio. If you count all rotor faces (three eccentric shaft rotations) it is 3900 cc. But that's just getting silly.
The rotary is not "more efficient" than a piston engine. It's hard to compare the two, but the telling way is fuel efficiency. I challenge you to beat a piston engine. Best vs best, the piston engine will win. Even matching HP and/or weight. The rotary IS smoother. It used to be able to rev. higher, but no longer. Now we have streetable Hondas reving just as high as the renesis. I don't think a racing rotary will be capable of 19,000 RPM like F1 engines for quite a while.
Come on folks, a single person use to be able to build an engine. A NASCAR pit crew guy I use to know, once described to me the process, of tearing down an engine and re-building it for a race. By comparison, a rotory engine is no more complex than a model airplane engine. Well not quite, but the picture is there.
I high rev it through the streets of Boston on a fairly complex daily commute. I don't worry about over torquing through a turn. I don't worry about over revving the engine. And I do love the jet engine wirrr sound up shifting 1st to 2nd off a 6K RPM rev where a I paddle shift with no shift shock!!!!!! No piston eninge at any price, behaves like this. And I could reasonalbly rebuild it myself (well if pathstar helped).
Mazda's numbers are off, IMO - and make no sense, plus they hurt sales. A 3.9L rotary engine that put out 210+HP and got ~20mpg, that's not so unreasonable in people's minds. Even if they figure 2/3 of 3.9L, to be fair(since the rotary has less compression/chance in displacement per face when it cycles), it would be 2616cc. A 2.6L 210Hp engine with 20mpg - again, not too far off.
That said, rotary engines are more efficient than 4-stroke, but not as efficient as 2-stroke. Hence, why I like to call the three-stroke engines. Mazda, though, isn't really pushing the limits on this engine. With a turbo added, it would scream(or better yet a belt-driven supercharger) 300hp and suddenly its smoking a 350Z.
I don't know about that...350Z has 3.5 liters, 300 hp, and 19/25 mpg.
Rotary and 2-stroke are not more efficient in terms of fuel usage, they do produce a lot of power from a small engine.
When I see 9k rpm on the tach in a rotary, is that the eccentric shaft speed or the rotor rpm? (I'm thinking now that is the eccentric shaft speed so 9k rpm would actually be 'only' 3k rpm for the rotor itself).
Okay, now I can see the relationship between a 2-rotor and a 4-cylinder; yeah, that's the best analogy.
I think that what's wiggin' me out is the difference in the rotational speed between the rotor and the eccentric shaft; I still can't wrap my mind around it. After your description, now for some reason I'm picturing a 3.9l 4-cylinder making it's peak 238 hp at 3000 rpm. You're right, that's just getting silly. Because THAT analogy would indicate a mountain of torque. And we KNOW we're not getting that out of a Renesis.
Personally, I think the rotary's biggest advantage is packaging efficiency. It's physical size (dispite just HOW one goes about measuring displacement vs. a piston engine) really frees up the engineer to place the powertrain low and back in the chassis. Personally, I don't give a rip about 'hp/displacement' arguments or whether it drinks fuel like a 2.6l (or 3.9l).
I've always liked the idea of using the drivetrain out of a wrecked RX-8 for a really quick Lotus 7 knockoff.....
The rotary Lotus has been done. I suspect you could even buy one (or a kit anyway). Not sure you could register it though. There is even a very active rotary aircraft group.
The rotary is best suited for racing. Reason is it's so easy to rebuild and so tolerant of overreving. It's difficult to get one to work "on the street" and meet pollution requirements. Based on Mazda's travails with the RX-8. Just look at all the extra "stuff" jammed into your engine compartment to get the engine to meet the requirements. Part of the reason the 3rd gen RX-7 was pulled from the market (other than Japan) was the pollution requirements.
The RX-8's more forgiving suspension and low torque Renesis, is a huge advantage. Adding snow tires or all seasons, round out the package. So, unless there's 4 or more inch's of fresh snow, the RX-8 is going to go just fine.
Any other sports car or even near sports car, Z's cars, 'Vetts, 'Stang, etc just turn into scary torque bouncers and spinners. Even near exotic cars get in trouble. An M6 paired up with me on a particular bad road construction that involve train tracks running down a street. The torque from his 390HP V8 was loosing it every time he hit a rail.
I've driven lots of cars in my lifetime. Nothing even comes close to the pure joy of my RX-8 with it's very practical little features and stunning all around balance and performance for a relatively low price.
How about the mind blowing image of the Caparo T1's aerodynamic down force enabling travel upside down in tube tunnels at 150MPH. Ala MIB :shades:
Will this product be compatible with 07 RX8's??
Also i previously own a scion tc 2.0 series 06 bought brand new 0 miles now it has 6k is it worth trading it with a Mazda rx-8 with 37k miles but is in mint condition with Grand Touring Package from 04?
By 1996, though, they had fixed most of it and most importantly, the automatic transmission was reworked to actually be decent performance-wise.
(or just get a 2005/2006 one with stickshift)
Of course, a new one is $25,871 at Cars Direct - manual transmisson, the bigger wheels, and of course, the performance package(stability and traction control, foglights, and a couple of other goodies). For 2-3K more than a used 2006, it's worth it, IMO. This is definately like a sportbike. You want to break it in and take careful care of it from day one as while it's a fantastic car, it's also very easy to abuse. Kind of like a M3 - you KNOW people are going to hammer it 95% of the time, so new vs used takes on this added factor.
But that Tc - sell it private party. You'll at least only lose a couple of thousand dollars. The deal will ream you(it's very desireable like a Mini almost)
The recall testing and the latest PCM re flashing were done on my 2005 RX-8 AT.
Few things to say.
1) The popcorn/rattle can still be heard, but not nearly as loud nor as often.
2) Gas millage is better as measured by the gross eye balling of the gas needle and actual miles. Maybe 10% better?
3) Morning cold starts are much quicker firing and smoother.
I live an equal distance to Rosenthal, and I am considering going there for service, so any opinions on them or good service managers I can ask for would be appreciated. Or any information from anyone that got their CEL problem fixed or engine mounts replaced in the NoVA area.
http://www.finishlineperformance.com/rx8/bulletins_index.html
I bought an RX-8 in Aug/03, and was offered the buyback program for the wrongly advertised horsepower when it got launch. I decided to keep the car and love it. Do any of you have the letter of offer for the 4 year service program plus the $500 cheque? I have lost the letter and my dealer in Vancouver and telling me that the service program is only 3 years... anyone know where i can get more info or if they still have their letter?
Much appreciated.
RX-8 Canuck
Were you going to Brown's in Fairfax or Alexandria? Sounds like you should try Rosenthal - I have ordered parts from them.
Yeah, now that it is cold out I've got the squealing brakes again as well. When I first got it they squealed all the time. After the fix they only seem to squeal when its cold out.
Or you could trade in your RX-8 for a Buick...
Electrical problems would probably be caused by badly installed sound equipment, or poorly repaired wiring.
.
.
doc
Plus, your insurance will throw in a chunk of money and NOT increase your rates as it's covered under comprehensive. Maybe get a used 2006 as a replacement?
When driving the air rushing by the underside keeps an overheated part cooled enough the part of it that has started burning can't spread. When you stop the smoldering part can build up heat in the surrounding parts, eventually "bursting" into flame. The flame will then spread the fire.
Deaun
I've known for a while it was destined for a new battery, but since I don't have to rely on it everyday, thought I would see how long it would last. About 15 degrees here today and I hadn't started it in over a week.
Anyway, anyone got the new battery? Can you tell a difference?
I'm gonna call my dealer to see if they'll replace it. Heaven only knows when I'll get it there - Rex doesn't have snow shoes and we've got lots of snow with more coming down. It's really not crucial other than I don't like not being able to start it once in a while.
try these on REX: Cooper Zeon sports A/S. Just bought a set 2 wks ago and had 2-3" of snow come down tonight. Not a bad ride home after an all day snow, up and down hills in Rural Missouri. Was reluctant to buy Cooper tires, but these were a good deal, about $149 each, balanced and mounted. It was a HUGE difference from the summer tires. I hated to unload those, but wife was upset I kept taking her SUV when the snows hit. Will remount the summers later one (maybe, since these tires have been decent so far).
New problem with Rex. Got him jump started today (wouldn't start the first time), drove him around left him running for a little over an hour, shut it down, dead again. Isn't recharging.
ALSO, the DSC is not working (or it's off) and I couldn't get it to turn back on?? I guess we're off to the dealer when the weather looks better - snow and ice forecasted for tomorrow!!
But winter rain and ice are still with us. Boston's horrible cow path road beds, all chipped and broken by the constant freeze/thaw weather, results in invisible ice patches. Constantly watching out for these frozen road hazards use to cause me stress headaches. This winter, I've finally trained myself to trust the built-in intelligence of the RX-8 AT's stability control to handle it. So I can just enjoy the ride.
I would consider another one despite the few quirks. Most owners would probably agree the handling is phenomenal and the car is fun to drive, but I would love to see a bit more low end torque + horsepower. Oh well, some guys can't have it all. My 2005 rx8 has ran almost perfect for a year and a half. Despite the annoying brake squeals and a few dashboard rattles, the car remains a pleasure to drive at 24,000 miles. The air conditioner has handled 104 degree heat in the summer and the heater has worked well in -9 degree cold, though it does take a lot longer to warm up in this extremely cold winter. The Blizzak snow tires are a must for me for the recent 8 inches of snow that covered our streets earlier this week. I have not gotten stuck. The Rx8 Stability control is awesome, but I had to shut it off a few times when I needed to accelerate and push through some deep snow drifts. I like the fact that we can turn the rx8's DSTC on and off. Some automakers, like my wife's '06 Lexus IS350, make it nearly impossible to shut the stability system off. It can bog down her car at times when you need full power.
Bring on the spring.
Can't imagine how a rotary engine can get more low end torque without a turbo. But from all of PathStar's experience in turbo enhanced rotary engine disasters, I hope Mazda avoids that temptation.
I don't mind the low-end torque issue though. It's just as much fun to let engine's wind up till the punch hits. My RX-8 AT tops out at 7000 with just 4 intake ports, but don't the RX-8 MTs have a really fantastic punch at 7000 to 8500 with all 6 intake ports sucking air?
Besides, here in new england, wet slick roads are normal most of the years so huge low end torque just serves to get me in trouble.
Maybe a supercharger that cuts out/bypasses at 4000rpm? You'd get more low-end grunt, but once the engine was wound up, it'd throttle it back.
Now a number of years ago a turbo system was developed that worked well at low RPMs and wouldn't over-boost at higher RPMs (no mechanical control needed, which is the Achilles heal for the 3rd gen RX-7). With ceramic technology steadily advancing, we could end up with a ceramic turbo boosting to get the torque up in the rotary. -IF- the rotary survives expensive fuel/fuel economy wars.
The problem with supercharges is they suck so much power from the engine. Turbochargers are -almost- "free" to run, recovering some energy from the exhaust to compress the intake air. I say "almost" because, not withstanding the large extra cost they add, they do add some exhaust restriction, which costs HP. This restriction does have some benefits, however. It helps low end torque, and it attenuates exhaust noise, allowing smaller lower restiction mufflers.
It is possible a 9000 RPM torque converter will be developed, allowing the car to make full use of the 6 port in the auto equipped cars (which now have the 6 port engine).
Mazda are working with H2 powered rotary engines, and could even go to hybrid units. They've built some wild "concept vehicles" in the last few years.
I have read through all the forums and most sounds negative which has me concerned. I took it for a test ride and loved it. My kids were thrilled with the ride.
It concerns me with what I have been reading about flooding problems, engines failing because of 20W oil etc.
Any opinions on what I should do? Please advise...
With end of year incentives, you can get a 2007 base model for about $21-22K. IMO, it's like a motorcycle. You need to treat it exactly like, say, a Harley with carbs. Abuse isn't a good thing and it takes maintainence to own one that's simmilar to a bike.(needs to warm up, can't hammer it cold, need to blip the throttle when you shut it off, and check the oil every weekend). It's not an appliance-like Honda. But it's also the most speed and handling for the money - not too bad, really.
I'd buy new if at all possible unless the price was really low.
My money, though, has to go to the new Mini just because it will depreciate roughly $1000 a year or less.
Just not sure it's worth the risk I have been reading about. Not sure if I am just reading more the negative than the positive.
http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91107&acode=USB60MAC161B0&restor- - e=false
Cars direct says about $23,700 including delivery.
http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91107&acode=USB70MAC161A0&restor- - e=false
Roughly $24,400 for the new one.(ignoring the Mazda financing "deal"). Now, true, the 2006 has a sunroof and stability control, but that's about the only difference between the 2006 Touring and the 2007 Sport(and adding in the stability control is a few hundred dollars.
If you can wait, just get a 2007 in a few months when the 2008s come out and save a years worth of depreciation.
Thanks for the advice. It really helped.