The recent dealer info. package which only mentions reduced NVH
under 2 feature/benefits, does little for the market that is looking
for that quality of refinement.

Too often sports cars' roar of the engine is actually drowning out
a lot of NVH which become more apparent after the early emotional appeal wears thin.

A smoother, more driveable car that can't let potholes destabilize
proper contact and grip, but is quiet in it's own delivery of handling, will satisfy a broader audience. Achieving exceptional
controllability over diverse road and driving conditions and having that feeling of predictability in how the car will perform, goes beyond what current sales push is hyping.

I'm still struck at 1.4 mil. new BMW 5 series will be produced for 7 year cycle. And this a car trying to deliver a sports car feel. Are Mazda's marketing & advertizers really just aiming for 30-40 year old males who work hard, play hard, and see this RX-8 as a form of self-expression?

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

If you're suggesting that the RX-8 will not have low enough levels of NVH and that it won't be soft enough ("A smoother...potholes...quiet..."), I think you may be looking at the wrong car. Mazda has been billing the RX-8 at a sports car with 4 doors, and sports cars aren't supposed to appeal to a "broad" audience. Certainly Mazda is trying to get more than the usual niche sports car buyer, and they have added real back seats and made it softer and quieter than a usual sports car. They seem to have gone so far that I'm no longer considering the RX-8 any time soon - unless my own test drive shows that it does perform well enough.

Reductions in NVH cost money and add weight. The appeal of the RX-8 to me is the combination of performance, cost, and usability. A decrease in NVH will make the car perform worse than it does due to the increases in weight and will raise the cost of the car. Since it's at the upper limit of cost and lower limit of performance already, any further reduction in NVH would make the car unacceptable to me.

The comparison with the BMW 5 series is not very meaningful to me. The 5 series is *not* a sports car line by any stretch. It's a luxury car with very good performance. It's also way more expensive, with MSRP going from $38,295 - $57,795. Last, BMW is cashing in on the name, which Mazda can't do.

 

I couldn't agree more. Look at the cars Mazda considers its main competitors (S2000, Audi TT, 350Z, G35 Coupe). Its already below the performance level (overall objective numbers) of the S2000 and the 350Z (the "sports cars") and around the same as the G35 Coupe (an argument could be made for either one..but I think the RX8 has a more sporty character from the reviews). For ME, it went too far in pursuing a broader audience.

 

Guys, What's NVH????

 

thanks i didn't want to be the one to ask

 

Noise, Vibration and Harshness.

 

First let me respond with the facts:
Engineering that adds weight for NVH suppression:
*Eng. and Diff. mounts are longer than RX-7 (10.4 & 2.8 ").
*PPF closed section but with single drive shaft, 11 lbs less!.
*mode control panels under floor rudces resonance from road.
*Front & rear subframes

Engineering that is Neutral:
*balancing rotors by dynamic means--added refinement
*counter (reversed from previous) rotating gear
*linear straight-line powertrain
*optimized front & rear suspension mounts

Engineering that results in a stiffer vehicle and reduces NVH.
*The High-rigidity body is beneficial in so many ways. Many advances reduce weight but others, like the size of the High Mount Backbone, or the Front suspension-tower brace do add weight, but results in weight lost elsewhere of much improve handling and responsiveness. So cost benefit analysis prevails.

Rather than just being mentioned twice in Marketing Dealer package, Suppressing NVH (or equiv.) was mentioned 20
times in Technical write-up. It is a very important aspect
and yes, the car may not be for you.

 

Now let me address the volume thing I had in mind. And let's drop the BMW comparison, except to say, it seems they are throwing technology options as expensive add-ons to claim sports-car like feeling for the driver, (plus many things like projected info. on front windscreen which appeals to "image-maker" (a la Mazda), more than practicality.

I'm not saying price would come down with more volume, but certainly Mazda's costs would and those profits can be spread
to other very good handling vehicles as Mazda' builds it's reputation amongst drivers who care.

The G35 Coupe is certainly not lining up the same competitor list Mazda's Marketing Package has. There are Mercedes and BMWs
in their crosshairs.

But I'm content to let the volume issue be decided by reputation, word-of-mouth, and true cross-shopping. I'm just saying, if the ride is as pleasing as I'm expecting, volumes, primarily because of functionality combined with everyday performance, will be larger.
The retiring empty-nester keenager market, because of the baby-boom, is a huge thing. And sports car designers need volume to survive. I also say the Marketing seems to miss this. And I have
had 40 years of Marketing, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

 

There are many counter arguements to my suggested higher volume Marketing, and quite frankly they are engineering/ styling
issues that work against broader appeal. For example I have concerns about MPG, about 4K revs at 120 kms/hr, (62 mph)about
the car being too flashy and not having the integrity of it's fine engineering preceed a bunch of young cowboys acting as it really is a reflection of self. (as the Marketing Document seem to imply).

A truly sustainable long term satisfaction with the car depends on both substance and the image created. I'm concerned.

But maybe this is another thread for another day.

 

I haven't driven the RX-8 yet but from the reports I've read, including those of our fortunate friends in Japan, it sounds as though the 8 has an almost perfect balance of performance and comfort for the price.

I don't think the 8 was ever intended to appeal to a very broad demographic, just one broader than the average sports car.

I think the only mistake Mazda made was making the Renesis a 1.3L. I wish they'd jumped up to 1.5L and given us a little more bragging rights. Because, let's be honest, unless you do track days or drive like a maniac (yes, I've been guilty of doing that from time to time), anything above 200Hp in a 2900-3100lb car is just for bragging rights.

 

I didn't buy this car to brag... I bought it to have a blast.

It's beyond me why people buy cars for the 'image' they provide to others... it should be for pure love of the machine and its gift to you thru the twisties. Besides, the beauty of the RX-8 is it's nimbleness, not its power.

If they were to up the power however, I don't think I'd complain. But 250 horses for me at this point... is plenty to have a blast with.

 

Herc:

Yer missin' my point, man. I probably did a poor job of making my point.

I don't mean that I'd buy a car for bragging rights. I'd actually like to Auto-X the 8. But the truth is that if you drive within legal limits and logical boundaries of safety, you'll very rarely get to use all 250Hp. Does that mean you can't have fun? Heck no! All I need is a twisty canyon road and nimble car/motorcycle to reach automotive bliss. I don't need a lot of power. Would I still like more power? Sure, who wouldn't?

Besides, there's always that time you go to pass a semi on a hill and the car coming towards you happens to be closer than you thought it was. THAT is when you use ALL the ponies! We all have lapses in judgement (hopefully not many). Those times are when a performance car can actually save your butt.

Anyway, my point is that the 8 is envisioned as a do-it-all car. It can be a daily driver, a family car (for a small, young family), a weekend canyon carver, and an occasional racer.

Mazda's engineers did a GREAT job at building a Swiss Army Knife for the road. But they're still engineers, not magicians. They HAD to make SOME compromises. Personally, I can live with those compromises.

 

Well said Schneegz. I was going to leave this Performance
thing but too much cafeine, I guess! The sales guide actually instructs Sales to find the slowest speeds for competitive products. Look at C&D's best time for 30-50 mph and you get 10.8 seconds vs. 9.2, and a 1.2 second disadvantage for the
50-70 accelerations -- all vs. G35. Be careful out there!

And let's not let Marketing get away with this. Be more demanding on the showroom floor!

(I must sound like I'm trashing the RX-8, but what I'm striving for is the straight goods.)

 

Yep, I missed your point earlier. I'm still not certain that I can understand what you're getting at, but here's a shot. Are you saying that:

The RX-8 marketing material doesn't stress the comfort level enough because the market for those who will be impressed with the ride quality is larger than those who will be impressed by the performance. Therefore, Mazda should be placing a greater emphasis on the reduced NHV than they are currently.

Is that what you're saying?

If it is, I disagree even more for two reasons. If people are primarily looking for a car with a high level of comfort, they should not be looking at an RX-8. The RX-8 is being marketed as a sports car with 4 doors. Who buys a sports car for its comfort level? Performance sells in this market. Buicks sell based upon the marketing dept.
The second reason is that comfort is something that people will have to decide on themselves. It's something that has to be experienced to make a connection with the driver. Certainly a good salesman who is assisting a customer who is cross-shopping the S2000 should point out that the RX-8 is significantly more comfortable and usable, but there's no reason for them to make commercials about it. There's no faster way to alienate performance drivers than to advertise your product as softer and more quite than a competing product. The implication is that you cannot compete on performance.

Last, as for finding the lowest speeds for competetive products, of course they do that! Everyone does, and it's perfectly legal and ethical. Any consumer who can't see through that shouldn't be allowed out of the house.

 

I remember when the NSX was first reviewed and the reviewers
were a bit astonished how Honda made everything so much more driveable. It can be a win/win case but I agree messages should not be mingled and anyways advertizing is such a subjective thing. Let word-of-mouth do it's thing. A pleasing ride
with exceptional dynamics is what I'm expecting to prevail.

 

Well something has got to give? In engineering there are always compromises in creating a design. Yes, there are some examples of cars with great handling AND great ride quality, but they tend to be more expensive. Furthermore, I bet those cars would have significantly better handling if the smooth ride quality wasn't part of the design.

Part of my decision to rule out the RX8 was based on the marketing materials I have seen in the last few months. With all the references to smooth ride quality, room to sit four people comfortably, etc., the word soft kept coming to mind. Many sports car buyers tend to be quite fanatical and can read through those lines. For $30K, I don't see the RX8 being a performance AND ride quality leader.

I think the success of this car will depend on how effectively they blur the line between sports sedan (i.e. nice ride) and sports car (i.e. performance). IMHO, emphasizing the ride quality will lead many more enthusiasts to come to my conclusion.

 

Have you ever riden in the RX-8? So how can you be sure? Honestly, your argument sounds like that of certain people in the "torque camp" who made a decision without experiencing the car (favorite quote: "I don't wanna rev the **** of the car just to keep up with traffic"). Do you see any japan RX-8 owners complaining bout torque right now?

Seriously speaking, you actually want some ride quality. My brother recently got an Evo8. It's a great car, fast, handles great, but the ride is really bad. It's fun at first, but it gets old very quickly if you're using the car as a daily drive. Everyday livability is not something you can disregard (for most of us who may use the car daily) in the quest for "ultimate performance".

 

I am not in the "torque camp"! If you read through my posts, you will see that I actually prefer high reving, low-torque, lightweight sports cars. Cars like the ITR, S2000 and the Celica GTS and the lotus elise (never driven, but same powerplant as the ITR except about a 1,000 lbs lighter ) are among my favorites. That being said, I also appreciate the rally-car approach to fun. IMHO, the EVO takes a more uncompromising, dedicated approach than the RX8 its way of achieving "fun".

I test drove the EVO back to back against the 350Z and the S2000 and felt the EVO was way out of the league of the other two. I'm not just talking about torque, I'm talking about steering feel, steering quickness, the gearing and overall handling. Almost everything I read about the RX8 says that its a "civilized" sports car. I'm sure that is important for a lot of people, but FOR ME, the only concern I have in that regard is having a bit of practicality (the EVO exceeds the RX8) and having reasonable gas mileage and emissions(the EPA tests actually show the EVO gets better gas mileage, but we don't yet know on the emissions front).

As for ride quality, I really don't care! I've been driving a ford escort for the last 10 years that probobly has worn out shocks and before that I drove an 1986 Hyundai Excel...so I know all about poor ride quality. When I rent a compact/economy car, it feels like a cadillac to me! (BTW...I hardly ever rent anything in a higher class because they feel like boats!)

 

nah, i'm not saying ur in the torque camp. :D I was only pointing out an example where actual experience makes a difference.

Also, you know yourself before than anyone else so it's up to you to decide what is acceptable ride quality. However the same goes for everyone else. What is "soft" for you made be "firm and sporty" for another. So I was only trying to say that actual experience is the key to making decisions. I also can't say with 100% certainty if I will like the RX-8. But I do like what I've read so far from various people who've driven the car.

 

sorry, a little confused here. Can you clarify? "out of the league of the other two" meaning the EVO is better or worse? Just curious. Personally, the EVO feels a little too raw for me. But my brother loves it. It fun to drive once in awhile :p

 

If my brother had an EVO, I might opt for something different too!
I meant the EVO just felt much more focused as a dedicated performance vehicle.

I test drove it at a Nissan-Mitsubishi dealer and I went to test drive a Z (had tested the EVO at another dealer). I told the Nissan dealer I was cross-shopping the EVO and he bad-mouthed it (they had seperate salesmen for Nissan and Mitsu), but he let me test drive the EVO after the Z (they were both in the same garage). Now, he was a fairly new salesman, former bodyshop owner and a "traditional" sports car guy...you know vettes, Zs, etc. He thought it was just a riced out civic, (never drove in an EVO), but after the test drive he admitted he couldn't compare the Z against it..his argument shifted to looks!

 

Herc:

No, I'm not saying the advertising should stress comfort more. I think it stresses day-to-day usefulness enough already, which is one of the reasons I want this car. Yes, I want a fun car. But I can only afford one car, and this one is already going to be a big stretch for me. So I want a car that is fun AND practical. I think the RX-8 is that car.

Like I said before, I wish Mazda had increased displacement to 1.5L so we could have even more performance. But the truth is that the 8 is already a great performance car and I'll rarely get to use all that performance on the road. But it sure is nice to know all that performance is there if you ever "need" it.


I think we motorcyclists have been dealing with this issue a lot longer than car-only enthusiasts. For decades motorcycles came in two forms, all-out performance machine barely tamed for the street, and soft, uninspiring cruiser or touring bike.

Fortunately, starting in the late '80s, motorcycle manufacturers started blending the qualities of their racing bikes and touring bikes. The result, as they became more and more sophisticated, is a group of bikes that can be ridden every day to work comfortably, flogged on twisty back roads on the weekends, taken on long road trips and even taken out for the occasional track day.

Even with these all-arounders, however, some are a little more focused on sport and some are more focused on day-to-day usefulness. Some people are willing to give up more usefulness for more performance. Some are willing to give up a little performance for more usefulness. And as the technology gets better, all of us are finding that we don't have to give up too much in either direction.

The same is true in cars. I haven't driven an RX-8 yet, but I suspect its blend of daily usefulness, performance and fun is just about right for me. The final decision, of course, will come after the test drive.

 

I test drove the EVO yesterday.
Stiff ride, noisy interior (bad news first).
Very nice otherwise: handling, power, interior room, seats and usable trunk.
Even the interior fit and finish were surprisingly good for a Mitsubishi.

If the RX-8 isn't up to snuff, this is the car for me.
I will even put up with the boy-racer look for the way it performs.
But ... I am still hopeful that the RX-8 will be the all-round car for me.
The post from the motorcycle owner is very apt here.
Besides, when pure performance is wanted, the two wheeler is better anyway .

 

Under Media thread--'Japan Apex Review', I just love
the story of hitting the 'sharp and rather nasty kink with a metal grate' - - 'and nothing happened'

and the last line in that paragraph - - "There-in lies the secret of this car: it could be driven like that for a long, long time, stress-free and yet very rewarding. Magic"

 

***Magic*** :D