Now consider that the GTO for about the same money as GT RX-8 with the same engine as the Vette and weighing about 700lbs more than the RX-8. The GTO averaged 14mpg, Better than the RX-8 with about twice the horsepower to the wheels, more to lug around, and ancient pushrod V8 technology.

 

I thought this thread was about advertising, not fuel economy or the inevitable, ludicrous comparison to the Corvette.

In fact, I propose a variant of Godwin's Law* that states whoever disparagingly compares any non-2 seat car that is under $40,000 (e.g., obviously, the RX-8) to the Corvette instantly loses whatever argument they were making. They are not in the same class at all. People who buy the RX-8 because they want a fun car, can budget at most $35,000 (or, hell, $25,000 in my case) and need a car that is moderately practical are not even going to give a thought to the Corvette except when they are masturbating. If someone looks at both because they could both be fun, purchaseable weekend toys, then we may as well also compare them with sailboats, big model railroads, Las Vegas prostitutes and fine cut heroin. "My Corvette goes to 60 in 4.2 seconds." "Yeah, but I can run 3 mainline freight trains and 3 shunt engines AT THE SAME TIME on my 1/87 recreation of the St. Louis/Kansas City interchange. Your Corvette is total weak sauce."

Advertising can make any sh*t car desirable. The problems with the RX-8 are not considerably worse than those of many other cars. And I am talking about ALL cars, including the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milano, Pontiac G6, etc. that get all sorts of advertising coverage. Mazda could easily market the car if they chose to. I'm sure even Ike would agree it is not as bad as a Yugo. I thought the ads Mazda used to run pretty fairly pointed out its particular strengths. Therefore, I can only assume Mazda is more interested in advertising their volume cars. But I don't think they are alone in that. I don't remember any TV ads about the Pontiac GTO either, and I right now I don't see any about the Z, the S2000, the WRX or the RSX. And I have never seen a TV ad about the EVO. You know what, I don't remember too many TV ads about the Corvette except to show one zipping by in an Impala ad. I see the aforementioned cars in magazines sometimes, but also, see pg 34-35 in July R&T (it's an RX-8).

I like to think (and I could be somewhat wrong) that people interested in sports cars are not easily swayed by advertisements. For one thing, most sports cars are unique enough that their defining characteristics don't need to be accentuated to people that are aware and capable of assessing the differences. The manufacturers merely have to alert people that the car exists, that job is done with in the first year. An Accord and a Camry do exactly the same things in almost exactly the same way. Same with most SUVs or trucks. So they need advertisements to set them apart somehow. In fact, most ads I've seen lately only focus on image gimicks or pricing (or at best, quote useless EPA highway mileage figures), they do not "market" the particular characteristics of the cars themselves. Mazda probably knows this and figures it's a waste of money to tell tens of millions of people about a quirky car that 99% of them would never consider buying.

* If you don't know already, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

 

Huh? So which car is worse?

 

Some of us grow tired of incessant attention ******.

But kudos to you for your tolerant nature.

 

being an attention ***** doesn't make his statements incorrect. or the responses any less crazy. but what do I know, I drive a subaru.

 

Don't know about the US, but the "zoom-zoom" advertising campaign for the RX8, paired with the uniqueness of the car (engine, doors, 4-seater, trunk space, design), has really worked wonders in Europe. Well, not ALL of Europe, but in certain countries (including Greece and Cyprus) the RX8 is the best-seller in its category (which is sport coupes).

You won't see too many RX8s in France, Italy or Germany, but this is simply because people there have more money to spend on Porsches, Ferraris and Mazeratis. Don't forget (or you should know) that the RX8 is a EUR 30K+ car in Europe, reaching up to 40K in Greece

Granted, we don't get many USDM cars here (i.e. Corvette), but frankly the RX8 is practically without a direct competitor. I would say that this is a car that sells itself, and the campaign of Mazda is more or less succesful....

 

beautifully said - well written and sharp wit - I'm in love (calm down, I am female).

The 8 is not a car for the masses. It is a niche car. There is a very small percentage of people out there that will even think about it when it comes time to buy a car. There are many niche cars out there - and if you want 'em, you want 'em, if you want a taupe colored camry, you won't even think about these cars.

It's not smart for any car company to put advertising money in their niche cars. It will not yield great returns. The best way to promote these vehicles is by getting them noticed by car mags - c&r, road and track - nice write-ups, nice pics..... That's where the market for the niche cars LIVE.

I love the fact that my 8 is unique. I considered a Z before I made my purchase and now I am so glad I did the 8 because for every 8 I see on the road, I see 5 Z's. (not to bash the Z, I'm still an admirer).

 

Because this was not a compare topic to begin with.

 

I never said it did.

But I think most of us who read this site, however infrequently, just might have figured out Ike's opinions, oh, say 3,000 or so f**king posts ago.

 

 

CORRECTED:
RX-8 238hp, 0-60 mph 5.9 sec (17-23 mpg)

 

I think the RX-8 suffers from the what do we compare it to category. It is natural to compare it to Sports cars like the 350Z, Z-4, Vette, Eclipse, ect.... because it was designed as and looks like a sports car. In this company the others say it is a 4 seater and dose no compare to their cars. The lack of HP hurts the RX despite its other quality that match or exceed the other cars. The reason the RX-7 turbo is regarded in such high esteem was mainly its HP to weight ratio combined with all the rest that was good with the car. But If the RX-7 was 180hp and was regularly wiped on by the Suprus(spelling?) and 300Z of its time do you think it would be such a desirable car today?

Then you have the other cars that the RX-8 is compared to like the WRX, EOV, GTI that have 4 seats. These cars often out perform the RX but are based on econ boxes that at times let their simple low rent starting point come through. These cars are often viewed as boy racers that many don't feel they want to be associated with.

The RX-8 sits on a fence here seemingly not really belonging to either camp. It dose have a niche following and will attract the occasional new car buy who is unaware of the quarks this car brings. Unfortunately this is not a formula that can substance a car these days. The new car buys are turned off by the horrible gas mileage and the people that are in the know disregard the car because of the lack of HP. Mazda is limiting two large groups of potential buyer with this. If you look over a lot of our posts it is littered with phrases like. "despite it's limited..." "its great in the twistes thou...." "I don't need the extra HP....." and my personal favorit "It's a sports car it's not suppose to get good gas mileage....." it seems that we are often making excuses for the short comings.

We know the limitations of the car and accept them because of the other qualities the car has. I believe a lot of us enjoy the quirkiness of the rotary but the HP per MPG is killing this cars ability to move beyond the few who love it and that will translate into the demise of the RX. Mazda needs to stop sitting on it's hands or maybe this is just the best they can do.

 

Where the f*ck do you get the idea that the RX-8 gets worse than 14mpg? That's way below what most people on this board have reported.

 

HP has been revised again: Mazda now says 232 for the MT

 

Allow me to correct you. Mazda re rated the engine using a new universal standard to 232 HP which is their current claim (hp did not change since last years 238hp only rating method. Hymme Dynoed a RX-8 engine at the crank and ended up with 222 hp which much better matches the wheel rated hp of around 180 to 190hp.

R&T originally rated the car 0-60 in 5.9 seconds then retested the car and re posted at 6.1 sec.

R&T rating for gas mileage was 13.6 mpg my own was has been 12mpg.

Reality's a bitch.

 

did you just include the eclipse as a sports car?


1st and 2nd gen 7s sold more than the 3rd with far less HP.

17.5 mpg in town last tank FLOGGING it for half the tank testing a new mod. that is not "horrible" mileage. and 25something last highway tank.

people "in the know" dont disregard any car because of 1 number.

 

he was pointing outthat the use of the other car's advertised and reported specs should have been compared to those of the 8 of the same vintage rather than those numbers that were used.

 

OK, my bad. I'll give you that one.




But it is the 3rd that is a real icon in the eyes of my people.

My last tank in town was 12mpg driving normal, that is horrible and normal according to Mazda's.

I used a poor choice of words here, many potential buys who know the hp ratings and 0-60 times are turned off by the RX's numbers. Even more so when compared to gas consumption.

 

i dont know man- those 2nd gen owners are fanatical in their love for the FC. but ill grant you outside the rx7 community- young people think of the 3rd gen. older people(late 30s -50s) remember the 1st and 2nd gens with great fondness. Hell my aunt is late 50s and she still rembers the RX-3 and the 1st gen 7 as 2 of her favourite cars(rx-3 was hers rx-7 was aboyfreinds i think)

 

You guys must drive in heavy traffic or alot of light to light to average 12mpg. 17mpg is the worst I got when flogging it for a week. Other than that 20-21 is what I see.

I do agree that there is a lack of advertisement for the 8. Mazda should start making short commercials of how a rotary works with the 8 to get consumers interested.

 

Lets be fair though, the FB and FC had performance numbers that were better than most if it not all their competition. Like I pointed out earlier, the FB,was faster than the 280Z, 924, X1/9 and any other sports car of the day anywhere near it in price.

Does the fact that a car is faster make it better or worse? Absolutely not. Having one that's faster than the rest sure as hell doesn't hurt when it comes to getting people's attention though. Also, he rotary back then had more advantages over pistons engines than it does today.

 

When I shopped by what I would consider pretty traditional consumer methods, looking at reviews in auto mags, car shows, owner reviews, etc. as well as the numbers and consumer reports recommended list...it was easy and pretty cut and dried as to what sports car I was going to buy: The 8. Comparing this car to the 350Z is just as ludicrous as the corvette, they are in different price categories (I paid 22k for a new 8MT), and the 350Z, while powerful, is no faster than the 8 in anything other than a straight line. NO rear seat. The 350z is much more difficult to drive at speed than the 8.

Personally, my opinion is that the "charm" of the RX-8 is its quirkiness. It is unusual, the powerband is different and lots of fun. It's also hard to buy a car under 30k that you see less often, whereas it seems Nissan makes 350's by the doritos credo "Crunch all you want, we'll make more". I also think the 350 is a pretty blatant copy of the Porsche 911 body, it kind of looks like some old RUF 911's. While the 911 and the 350 both look good, at least Mazda didnt just copy some other car.

 

i agree with the comparo with the older cars, but i still think that while more expensive, the 8 still has a very good place in todays marketplace

 

Can you imagine getting 10 more MPG? 24-32!

RX8's would be every where on the road.

 

and then we could get turbos and get less mpg!