Hi all I just wanted to chime in. I've been reading on here off and on for a few months and finally had a chance to test drive an RX and find out what all the talk was about.

I test drove a GT, with 3 people in the car (girlfriend and salesman). It's a stunning car. I even liked the green with black/brown interior (classy). Like most people in this forum it's competition is an S2000, a 350 (which I will not buy because of the lack of sunroof), or a used Vette (2001 or so). The RX8 was the first one I drove. What a great car. It has something that I can't pinpoint...tight suspension, great sound system, nice looking interior and plenty of windows. I feel cramped in the 350.
On the highway, it's got a great ride with plenty of cushion. On the backroads, it handled very well with plenty of stiffness. The 6 speed was also a piece of work, feeling secure and well made. It's also one of the most unique looking cars out there.

I did everything from open the trunk to take the cover off the engine. This car had everything a nice car has...except one thing. I know this has been a huge bruise on this forum so I will not go on and on about it, but the lack of power is why I will not buy this car. My girlfriend has an eclipse GT convertible and I have a nissan maxima, and I have no doubt both would spank the RX8. I know it's been said so often on this forum, "If you don't like the power, don't buy the car" ...and I couldn't agree with you more, so I'm not. However, I believe Mazda is misleading the consumer in more than just hp numbers. It markets this car as a sports car, but it's not. While it has the looks, handling and feel of a sports car...it is very, very lacking in the power dept. I think if Mazda had done it right, they would maybe make it a sports coupe or something. Again, I'm not ragging on the car....it is GREAT for what it does...just calling a spade a spade. If I had to judge off hand hp numbers, I would describe it as high 190's...tops.
Once we were done the drive, I looked at the car and just thought I can't buy this car...I can't buy this car. It is a luring, great overall package...but the first time I went to punch it in a corner and went nowhere...I'd be cursing the car, and that's not fair to it. It's great at what it does...but, I'm holding out for the 2005 model.
Thanks for everyones help...this forum sells the car like no commercial can do.
Bill

 

One thing to note on power with a Rotary is that you don't step on it in 5th gear when you are at 55 mph. Shift down to third, then punch it.

When I first bought an RX-7 in 1986, it took me two weeks of driving a Rotary before someone told me, wait to shift! Keep the RPM up! It was then like a different car.

 

Well at least you won't become one of the owners that complains about the lack of torque.

But much like a 4 you really need to work the gearbox to get acceleration, coming through a corner means 2nd gear below 45+/- or 3rd gear if over 45+/-. I've driven nothing but 4s (aside from work trucks/van or other peoples cars) so this car suits me perfectly (handles allot like my old CRX on steroids) but I can see how people accustomed to the torque of a 6 would be turned off by the RX-8.

FI (2005) still may not add enough torque for you (it's such a flat curve on the RX-8). I'd go with the Vette as the easy winner based on your desire for raw power.

 

its' a good choice you made not buying this car because you would not be happy with it and you should trust your instincts but as far as the eclispe beating the 8 i know for a fact it cant ,won't and has'nt beat mine yet .unless she has put mods on hers it won't do it either lol

 

I agree with MTCD01 - for what you want - get the Vette!

It really IS a different way of shifting and working with the gears to get the most out of your 8 - but once you figure it out - notihing compares. I just LOVE the 9000 RPM redline - freeway on-ramps were made for it!

By the way - I own a 99 Eclipse GS-T Spyder, and since I got the 8, it's been mostly sitting in the garage. Next to the short throw on my RX8, drving the Eclipse sorta feels like shifting with a broomstick - probabaly gonna sell the Eclipse once the warm weather gets here and people get "convertible fever".

 

I hate to say this to your but... bla, bla, bla...

Not that you want advice or opinion as you have your own so stated here, but since you post here on this board (and #1 post at that)...

"Power (alone) does not a sports car make"
"(Rotary) power comes to those who shift"
"No doubt - typically indicates a lot of it"

Go have another go at it with the above thoughts in mind.

 

An Eclipse GT convertible will beat a MT RX8? Don't think so.

 

Thanks for the advice guys...again, I'm just trying to state my impression of it. I can't speak enough about the "experience" of driving the car. If I had a choice of driving and eclipse or an RX-8, I would definetly take the 8. I'm well aware of the RPM challanges of the smaller engines. My real backround is in motorcycles and after starting out on a 600...I realize that keeping the RPM's up is the key to power and staying with the torque monsters. I also realize that having 3 full grown adults in the car may hinder acceleration as well. I paid special attention to the red line (since I was test driving) and was shifting in the 8500 area. You guys have described it to a T, and torque is the missing piece.
I just wanted to compliment you on a great car...it's extreemly unique and tasteful. Everything from the gearbox to the dashboard was great. I'm not necessarily looking for raw v8 power, but I just felt as though It should have more umph than it did even at high rpms.
Thanks again...who knows, maybe I'll go try it again...wait...I can't buy this car...I can't buy this car...

 

Umph is exactly what a Vette will deliver. The handling of the Vette is also good. I don't think the Rotary will ever be able to deliver the same kind of power you get from a good ol' V8.

If you ride then you obviously understand how to milk the Renisis for power. I just can't see this motor ever giving you the stuck to the seat feeling you get from a V8 (Vette, Mustang, F-Body).

The look is only a small part of what a car is and I think you made the right call for you.

 

Hmmm, I guess Miatas aren't sports cars either. All those old Triumphs, MGs, Alfa Romeos, etc. aren't sports cars. A Maxima IS a sports car, though, from your reckoning.

Or, maybe a definitive sports car doesn't require big torque numbers to be a sports car? Maybe sports cars aren't defined by 0-60? Maybe your definition of a sports car is different than the traditional definitions, which emphasize handling and feel, and recognize that there are different classes of sports cars, and that even (maybe especially) Miatas are full-fledged, bonafide sports cars? (I mention Miatas because they are universally acknowledged as being excellent sports cars, yet are significantly slower than an RX-8)

Regards,
Gordon

 

Sorry, but no it won't
I searched and found listed 1/4 times for most cars on the web.
For Maxima....(0-60 and 1/4 mile times.)

1985 Nissan Maxima SE 8.6 16.7
1989 Nissan Maxima SE 8.9 16.9
1992 Nissan Maxima SE 7.3 15.7
1994 Nissan Maxima SE (auto) 8.8 16.7
1995 Nissan Maxima SE 7.4 15.7
1997 Nissan Maxima SE 7.1 15.5

1989 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS 7.2 15.8
1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T 7.4 15.9
1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 6.9 15.2
1992 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 7.0 15.3
1993 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 6.8 15.2
1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS 9.0 16.6
1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T 6.4 15.0
1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 6.4 14.9

(Not sure what an Eclipse Conv would run, but probably slower than a coupe). Looks like most these are comperable to an RX8 (Low 15s).

As far as Sports car. 1/4 mile drag times does not a sports car make. If so, I have ridden in some sports cars with a 8 ft truck bed that ran upper 14s. Also, many Porsche's and Ferraris run somwhere in the same area (high 14s to low 15s).

 

These numbers are older and differnt body styles than current generations of both of these cars.. He didn't specify what year, but I believe the Eclipse GT conv is a 2000 car, or there abouts.. and the newer maximas are alot faster than a 1997

 

A matter of semantics, but I don't think that power-level is a requirement to fall into the category of "sports car" and there are enough examples of true sports cars that did not have overwhelming power. In fact, a purist might argue the contrary -- that a true sports car requires the driver to coax power out of the engine. That is part of the fun of the RX-8; tailoring your driving style to the needs of the moment. It's a sports car, no doubt in my mind. It is not a muscle car but then again it's pretty quick.

Mazda's marketing that I've seen is placing the car outside the normal definitions. Sports car AND 4-doors/4 seats. Sharp handling AND suppleness. Fun to drive, high-capability but also EASY to drive. I think they've hit the mark.

 

True,
I found some other #s at a site that keeps more up to date (they try to accumulate factory stock numbers from C&D, MT, R&T tests).

2002 Nissan Maxima SE 6.0 14.7

2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT 7.0 15.4

again pretty close if you ask me.

 

That's exactly right. The fact that he specified GT means that it is a 2000 model and up. 1999 and below were either specified as RS, GS, GST or GSX. So....

That means it's a 2000+ Eclipse GT, which means it's got the V6, which means....it wouldn't beat a MT RX8. :D

 

You've never driven a 3rd Gen RX-7, then. 'Cause if you had, you wouldn't have made that statement.

 

I second that. :D My friend's 3rd Gen as a few mods and runs 12.50s at Englishtown on street tires.

 

Maganize numbers tend to be a little optimisic in that they drive the car in a way very few of us would ever do. That being said here are the actual numbers from Judge Ito's post on the racing forum.

Judge does drive like a magazine test driver though! :D

R/T .365
60 .2.409
330 .6.403
1/8 .9.073
MPH .75.42
990 .12.388
1/4 .14.324
MPH .95.77

 

Twin turbos will add more torque but that isn't the Renisis and I doubt Mazda would make the same mistake twice.

The used Vette is light with plenty of torque and horsepower provided in stock form. The ammount of money you would have to spend to change the NA Renisis to a twin turbo and purchase the car in the first place would easily top the price of a used Vette (and void the warranty for the engine and drivetrain, as well as shorten engine life). Stock Vette vs stock Renisis...no contest.

He's not looking at RX-7s, and RX-7s do not have this motor.

 

Opps, I re-read your post and you did say "this motor" and not any rotary. Sorry, my bad.

On the Vette issue - I've driven the ZR1, C4 and C5. IMO they are over priced junk. The lack of quality in ALL Vetts is nauseating for what they cost but they are fast (the newer ones).

 

The Vette is an American car and as such I never expect much from them. The fit and finish of American made vehicles is typically only slightly better than Korean vehicles (which really doesn't say much). But one thing Americans can do is build a descent V8.

This is all IMO of course but I would never buy an American car or a foreign car that was assembled by Americans.

 

I agree with whomever said this......"the measure of a sports car is not just about pure speed." It may not be the fastest but it sure handles incredibly better than most cars. It's overall performance is superb and for a great price!! Unique, beautiful, finely appointed interior, superb handling, quick and feeling safe and confident at the wheel is #1 in my books....a top notch sports car to me!!! Buy for speed only then buy something else.....it's all a matter of what you want. Enjoy whatver you decide to buy!!

 

When I see the Power issue.. I think to myself, just how fast do people want to go? Do they think that what they are driving is the fastest out there?

I tend to drive 80-90, and that is fast enough for me. Do I need to race people on the freeway? Not really, I'd rather let them look at my car and wish they had a car that looked as good as the RX-8.

My neighbor has a Ferrari Modena, retired gentleman, late 60s or so.. and I asked him how fast has he driven his car... 100? 120? He said 90 was about the fastest he has driven it. I told him that's crazy, I'd go super fast and kill everything on the road. Then he told me, he owns a Ferrari, people already know his car could kill most of the standard cars on the road right now. Then he said... at least this way, the ladies will see his car. That my friend is as good an idea as any...

Can the RX-8 go fast? It can go pretty fast.. not the fastest... but it still hauls a$$, and looking good doing so.

 

Why do we analyze every sentence some guy posts on this forum. Do you have to justify to him(and yourself) that the car is fast enough? Are you that bored at work? He wants a car with more torque...have fun guy with whatever car you choose... Buubye.

 

Let's also remember that they admitted to destroying two complete transmissions on that car with monstrous clutch dumps at 8,000 rpm's to get said numbers. I'm not arguing whether they got that time but was it worth the cost?