After reading the plethora of articles , I've got a few impressions so far.

First off, this issue about "torque" is absolutely ridiculous. There are sports cars built around monsterous torque filled engines and there are high rpm NA smaller displacement engines that produce good amounts of power (when accompanied by appropriate gearing and light body weight). Sure the larger displacement (or forced induction) powerplants produce more "readily available" torque, which I definitely enjoy at times, but there are trade offs. Generally they are going to require stronger and heavier structures to handle all that energy. In addition, to adding weight in total, subtle things of the overall driving experience like clutch and gear shift feel are going to be compromised to some extent, at least in most cases. A high reving NA engine is not for everyone, but for some of us, this is our favorite recipe for bringing a grin to our face when driving!:D

Certainly a powerband like this, is not meant for drag racing, but if designed properly, it should be very capable when pushed the few times you do (not recommended if you don't like replacing clutches!). An extreme example of how this design works is the Sun International Elise (the upcoming US Elise should be close to this) - ~1700 lb. 190 HP ITR engine that is as "peaky" as you get, but it still beat the Cobra in nearly every measure (including straight-line acceleration) in the SCC test linked below:

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/fe...lot/index.html

The question I have had from the beginning is how well the RX8 will execute this design philosophy? The only other high reving low displacement sports car/sports sedan on the market today is the S2000 (I'll ignore the Celica and RSX since neither are in the same league). Compared to it FROM A PURE PERFORMANCE POINT OF VIEW, the RX8 seems to fall a bit short.

Certainly neither the S2000 nor the RX8 are designed to be drag racing machines, but the S2000 seems to do better WHEN DRIVEN PROPERLY. Most road tests show 0-60 times for the S2000 from the low 5's to upper 5's while the RX8 is near or a little above 6(I'm ignoring that ridiculous test with a hardtop S2000 that wasn't even properly broken in). Quarter mile times for the S2000 have ranged from upper 13s to mid 14s with trap speeds in the high 90s to around 100 while the RX8 is in the mid to upper 14s and mid 90s for trap speed. I think the reltively poor quarter mile times (and trap speeds) are in part due to the redline of 3rd gear coming around 94 mph. Approximate 60-100 (0-100 less 0-60) times from Road and Track are 8.7s for the S2000 and 10.0s for the RX8. I can't remember where, but I believe the top end (100-130) was significantly better for the S2000 as well, despite its poor coefficient of drag (something like .40 I think?).

The handling differences are interesting. While having nearly identical slalom (65.9 - S2000, 65.4 - RX8 per R&T) and skidpad (.90 - S2000, .88- RX8 per R&T) results, the descriptions were more telling. While the RX8 was certainly considered to be a great handling car, there were trade-offs made for the ride quality. References to understeer and body roll were mentioned in several articles. I remember when the WRX came out and it was hailed as a great handling car (I dont' remember too many comments about undesteer and body roll in many articles, but my memory could be failing me), but when I test drove it, I was shocked by the amount of body roll. I don't recall any comments about understeer or body roll in the S2000 from articles or from owners. The S2000 makes few compromises in handling and can be more dangerous IF someone exceeds their limits, but then again that nature could be more fun as a RWD car. Certainly due its smaller size, the S2000 will undoubtedly feel more agile.

The RX8 does beat it (and just about every other competitor) in braking.


Mazda is definitely (at least as of now) trying a one size fits all approach with the RX8. Its essentially filling the 4 door sports sedan, 2 door sports sedan/coupe and 2 seat sports car niche (i.e. G35 4 door sedan, G35 coupe and 350 Z). From a business point of view, Mazda may not have the funds to make numerous models right away this platform, so I do understand that. However, from MY perspective, as someone who is cross-shopping the RX8 with sports cars/high performance cars, I think the RX8 comes up a bit short (in the performance area) due to excess weight and somewhat tall gearing. I think the suicide doors and related bracing added a lot of weight, which is bad for any performance car, but especially detrimental for a high reving NA rotary like the renesis (but I bet it will help make a convertible off this platform more easily). From MY perspective, as someone looking for a sports car, the RX8's performance ON PAPER, is a bit disappointing at least in comparison to the only other similarly available sports car (i.e. high reving NA, etc), the S2000. Yes the S2000 is a 2 seat roadster so it has inherent advantages in the performance area, but then again convertibles due add weight and sacrifice structural rigidity (though IMHO not enough to compensate for the advantage of being a 2 seater). More importantly, the S2000 has been available for four years and was designed at a time when the perfomance bar was much lower (competiton Z3??).

I think people's perceptions (in terms of perfomance only) of the RX8 are going to depend on what they are cross-shopping it with. People cross-shopping it with sports sedans are going to defintely see it as more sporting and be extremely happy with the performance. Sports car buyers are going to likely feel like me and are going to have to seriously weigh the practicality benefits with the performance compromises. I do think Mazda's marketing of the 6 as a sports sedan and the RX8 as a "sports car like no other" could lead to dissapointment for those that take the slogans at face value.

For me personally, I'm single and I have a beater 10 year old Ford Escort that I need to take to work (I work in a bad area and work late hours and can't take a new car in) so having back seats isn't essential (but are preferred). Again these are just preliminary thoughts and I could be ridiculously wrong! My final decison will be based on back-to back drives between the S2000 (S2200, if it does come out) and the RX8 (hopefully with it being a mass-produced vehicle some will be available for test drives) and perhaps the EVO8 (though I doubt it will be available for test drives anytime soon).

Other Observations:

The comparison to Lotus in the Automobile article was stretching things a bit too much!

How on earth did the mags. screw up the fuel economy estimates so much?? I think they just applied the 10-30% improvement to the RX7 city fuel economy and kept the highway mileage the same? If these estimates hold true, I think mazda's engineers should be win some kind of award! In addition, if the renesis is this efficient, I think a larger displacement NA rotary is DEFINITELY possible. If the fuel economy numbers were the same as the magazine estimates, I think any significant increase in displacement (assuming all other things equal) would have resulted in a gas guzzler tax being imposed and possibly caused problems for Mazda fleet average under the CAFE standards? Personally a 2 rotor 280 HP with a higher compression ratio (if it can be made reliable) with a 2500-2600 lb. curb weight for the RX7 would be ideal for me! :D

Shouldn't four seat sports cars ALSO be evaluated with passengers in the back seat as well?

Call me crazy, but the velocity red RX8 on C&D tv looked phenomenal! Maybe they didn't show the "weird looking angles" of the car, but from what I saw it looked amazing! Also, the lady host and the guy announcer on the show have got to go!!