RX8-TX

You are not missing; you have 2 extra seats and platform lenght + everything necessary to ensure that the car does good on a side impact: which is necessary due to the lack of B pillar....remove the back seats, shorten the platform lenght.....and I bet you saved a few hundred pounds.

aussie77

Regarding the weight, if you want to compare it to the 350z, how much would the Z weigh with another 2 seats engineered into the setup?

Back to the engine question though... why would Mazda spend the time, effort and money to bring this engine back to life?

Vision.

The same vision that has seen Japanese companies take foreign concepts, adapt and improve them, and them sell them back to the rest of the world for a ton of money. The vision that tells them the rotary IS the engine of the future, and when the future arrives they'll be the only company with the engineering know-how, technology and manufacturing capabilities to fulfil the need for rotaries when their time comes.

You might call that foolish, but to me it seems brilliant. If they're wrong they've lost some money. If they're right... the sky literally will not be the limit for Mazda and their rotary engines.

Or one of my favorite quotes from Macarthur:

There is no such thing as security in this world, there is only opportunity.

Kudos to Mazda for taking that opportunity.

revhappy

The 2,940 was a pre-production model that Car and Driver weighed. There was a thread on here where the car was weighed without fuel in the low 2,900's. Adjusting for a full tank ( official curb weight requirement), it was about 2,983 lbs. Not that impressive when you consider it doesn't have a spare tire or tools. Take the spare tire and tools out of the WRX and its around 3,040 lbs even though it has four true doors, seating room for five, and a turbo and heavy AWD system.

poison123

RX8-TX

Its simple, if you want the weight of the 350z with 2 extra seats just look at the G35c.

RX8-TX

Thank you so much for the pointer:
G35 Coupe Base Model 3,416 lbs
G35 Leather Model 3,422 lbs
G35 Leather 6 MT Model 3,435 lbs

And a 20 gallon fuel tank.

RX8 AT w/popular options (whatever that means) 3,053 lbs
RX8 6MT w/popular options 3,029 lbs

15.9 gallon fuel tank.

Before going any further, my impressions of the G: I maybe be wrong, but the buckets and back seats of the G seemed to be much more cushy (I don't know any other word for it...sorry) than my 8s...therefore they might add extra weight.

Comparo: remove the back seats on the 8...and you could be gaining anything from 20 to over 150 pounds? (obviously getting rid of all the backbone components to make the car safe for rear passengers and the suicide doors...)

In my opinion the 8 platform has a clear advantage weight-wise. Wouldn't you agree?

RevHappy: Not that Im trying to compare a minimalist Lotus Elise in here....that thing can rip the heart out of anything in here...IMO
:D :D

RX8-TX

1. How is the chassis structure of the WRX?...I know its stiff, but whats between sheetmetal in the doors and structure to reinforce it ?

2. What is the wheelbase & lenght ? isnt' the Subie shorter than an 8?

revhappy

WRX is 173.4 inches with a 99.4 inch wheelbase. The length is marginally shorter (~1 inch) while there is a significant difference in the wheelbases (~7 inches).

The WRX uses tradional doors with pillars. Its a pretty rigid chassis. It has a little too much body roll for me, but its very respectable for a mass-porduced car. Believe it or not, I still sliughtly preferred the RSX-S and Celica GTS when i was cross-shopping them 2 years ago.

RX8-TX

I guess the biggest advantage of the Subie is its AWD and the boxer engine (is it really noticeable..??)

I know about the RSX....I was looking at one before as well....the handling on that thing is nothing short of amazing for a FWD car.

About the dimensions, help me out:

1. The Subie & RX8 are almost identical is lenght, but the RX8 is 7" wider....1st extra weight source for the 8.

2. The steel reinforcement in place of the B pillar make up for a 2nd source for extra weight. This one is needed to keep structural rigidity on a side impact.

3. The center tunnel, which does as a spine for the chassis on the RX8...3rd extra weight source....

4. I think tires & rims are heavier on the RX8, right?

5. The fiber shaft & diff. on the RX8, should be a weight advantage over the complex AWD system of the Subie...

Shoot...Im confused...I'll go get some coffe...be back. :o

A note about lots of people asking 'Why did they ruin the interior with that THING crossing through the middle of the car?? you can' switch seats if you are on the back!!' My answer: it was a necessity....

rxphink

Piston Engines get better MPG what not due to two main factors:

1) Rotary engines have poor thermal efficiency

2) The piston engine has a LOT (LOT!) more R&D than any other type of engine. Piston engines have a lot more racing experience than any other engine and racing is where ideas come from.

On the same token, look at how many different types of piston engines there are availlable, inline, flat, V, Miller Cycle, Diesle, W, etc...

Everyone is trying to come up with the best design, but the truth is there isn't one best design. Just many ways of achieving similar results.

Piston engine builders work very hard to make their engines more compact, smoother, more wear tolerant, get better MPG, & less complex. If you look at what the rotary already has by virtue of it's inherent design it fills most of those goals straight off the bat.

Antother plus for a rotary is that it absolutely destroys piston engines on NOx emissions, but at the same time has failed in the past to overcome high CO2 emissions problems. With the Renisis that has changed and I'm sure will continue to get better as more development is put into the engine. With this new development comes better MPG as well BTW.

For anyone who would like to learn more about the rotary and the why's and hows check out http://www.monito.com/wankel/

lots of good info there, especiially how the Corvette was almost a a rotary vehicle in the 60's and how Mercedes C111 SuperSports car took the world by storm with a rotary engine.

Chadr

As far as someone bring up my name as being a naysaying zealot I do resent that.

I feel my arguments as to why I am returning the car have been extremely logical and unemotional. The simple truth is the car as a whole is a wonderful item. Everyday I drive it I am somewhat torn on my decision to sell it back but getting 200 miles from a full tank of $2 per gallon premium makes me remember why I am returning the car.

Having a piston vs. rotary thread on this board is pointless. The fact is that MOST people here will argue for the rotary regardless of logic and practical applications. It is like discussing religion, no matter how compelling your argument you will never change their opinion.

To me I am returning the car because it simply does not perform to the level I was told it would and expect it to. It is plenty fast enough but Mazda has lost my confidence with this car since it doesn't make the power they said it would and doesn't get the gas milage they said it would (even though it is plenty fast I expect to get what I paid for).

The milage is the largest issue for me. Include that with the down on power, the extremely weak air conditioning, the seat that is starting to creak and a few other things and I don't have confidence that in a year this car won't self destruct or be a serious problem that causes me a nightmare of time in the shop.

I simply lack the faith in Mazda right now to trust that this will work itself out on the first generation of the car. Perhaps in a few years if the car still is around I will examine them again, but presently there are a few too many issues that make me nervous.

RX8-TX

You get my full respect in your decission. It would be hypocritical from me to deny I toyed with the idea of returning the car...but I won't.

About the whole discussion between rotary and piston, and how I (I'm speaking for myself) will never change my mind...well, I was (am) having a decent exchange of information with some people here. I am not pretendin to change their minds, nor will I. But I'm learning in the process...I don't have an answer for every question, least I know everything.

And as I said before, the rotary still has to prove itself with me after a couple 100K miles. It will be my learning experience after that. If the engine or the car itself turn out to be a mass of problems and glitches, I will voice it and say it to whoever asks me. But until the odo. hits the first critical number (75K miles) all I have are RX7 & rotary owners w/their experiences.

DonG35Miata

I have seen your posts and I concur. You have my respect for the way you present your arguments in a plain, factual, and rational manner. Like you just did.

I think the religion point hit it right on the head. It is almost like RX-8 detractors (atheists) vs. RX-8 fans (believers). The atheists put out lots of history, numbers and technical data, and the believers say that it's not all about numbers, and sometimes attack the data or the reasoning.

The atheist vs. fundamentalist argument boards are very entertaining to read. Makes this forum look like everyone singing Kumbaya.

TomsterRX8

For those of you who say torque is overrated and that power at high revs more than makes up for the lack of torque with the RX8 I would beg to differ. Torque is a beautiful thing. I had forgotten just how impressive having it is until I started test driving cars with lots of torque once my decision was made to turn in my RX8.

By far it's best attribute is that you are never really in the wrong gear should you find yourself in a situation where you need power to avoid a potential problem in traffic. My problem with the RX8 (and with my S2000) is that you better pick the right gear if you need instantaneous power or you are dead in the water. With loads of torque you can simply bull your way into the power zone. Without it you had best be a magician with the stick. You better find 2nd gear and not accidentally hit 4th gear in a sticky situation or you're not gonna have the power to gain the speed you might need. My guess is that many current RX8 drivers will not have the expertise to downshift properly in precarious situations.

So please don't make light of the ****-poor torque. You know you want more!

Alessandro

I think the RX8 will be the only wankel powered car for a long time and Mazda will be the only manufacturer to make wankel
powered cars. Why?
Because Mazda want to reach out for a new market and stick
out of the crowd of Japanese/Korean cars.
Other manufacturer don´t want to start over with the wankel
and be compared with Mazda´s achievements, so just like Citroën and their hydrualic suspension (also only one car on their
current programme got it the C5) the see it as a door opener for
their other more traditional built cars.

revhappy

1) No.. The RX8 is only 1.6 inches wider.

2) Extra weight unneccesarily required with the suicide doors. 2 doors would have been sufficient as the weight of the suicide doors (and related bracing) exceeds the access benefits afforded by these doors (front passengers still must get out first). Personally, a reworking of the Japanese 2X2 RX7 would have been a MUCH better option IMHO.

3) Agreed.

4) Yes...they are 18 inch wheels compared to 16 - 17 inch wheels for the Subie. .Some have speculated the larger wheels were necessary from a visual point of view. Specifically, the long wheelbase of the car makes the vehicle look odd with smaller wheels. Thus, the design of increasing rear passenger space (i.e. increasing the wheelbase) indirectly increased weight here.

5) Agreed.

A theme of the posts I am making is that there is NOTHING wrong with a low torque, high power engine. It just needs to be in a lighter vehicle (2X2, roadster, etc.).

mx5-->rx8

Piston v. Rotary

As many have posted, and as anyone who has done any research will learn, there are significant differences in the way a piston engine and a rotary engine produce power. The debate over which is "better" is merely personal choice.

Piston engines tend to have a better fuel efficiency to power ratio. Rotary engines (really the 13B and Renesis) tend to have a better engine displacement to power ratio. The comparrisons go on...

Probably the biggest difference for me as a consumer is that there are hundreds of piston engine cars on the market today and only 1 rotary engine car. It is this exclusivity or uniqueness that makes the 8 really special.

The interior design, options, and asthetics are competative with other cars, but it is the power plant that makes it unique. There are piston cars that will out accelerate the 8, or be more efficient than the 8, or provide more hp per $ than the 8, but none will be as unique and few will generate such enthusiasm or comaraderie with like minded owners.

To be sure the 8 is a compramize, fuel efficiency is likely to be lower than your current ride so long as it isn't an SUV or 5+ liter v8, reliability/defect questions will be present until the new engine and car have had some time to build a track record, and many (not all) Mazda dealerships are less than ideal and some are without local competition (a maintenance concern).

All this is a long winded way of saying, no matter how much research you do, how much rationalizing and weighing you do, none of it will matter once the car hits your emotions. At this point the reasearch, evaluations and everything else flys out the window and the cash flies out of your wallet.

good luck...

TomsterRX8

Splitting hairs here but the front passenger need not get out first.......just needs to open the door first. Getting in and out with the front passenger in place is surprisingly easy.

RX8-TX

1) Remind me to go back to school for reading classes...darn it!

2) I think the unnecesary items are the rear seats (for another iteration of the RX or Miata like you were suggesting! :D ) The added weight on the doors was not unnecesary (Duh! for me...one is the result of the other..) simply because I like them!!....and I know you don't or you would simply go for a more standard coupe style. :D

3) Ehhhh...darn, nothing to say!
4) Agreed, long car....16 inchers would look ugly..

Ok, now we have to document all this, and FedEx it to Hiroshima for their Engineers to digest it and come up with the next RX....

RX8-TX

I think torque should be on the right range of rpms...instead of even having 300 peak (however, its likely that if you have 300 peak, you'll have a nice 50% available at lower rpms no matter what..) I would really love to get a seriously FLAT tq curve at 150 lb-ft...wouldn't that we awesome, despite it being low compared to other torquier cars?

CERAMICSEAL

As far as the mpg thing goes the prime fault lies with combustion shape. Rotaries have the worst area of flame propagation of any modern engine( Long and thin) The opposite would be the hemi design.
The torque thing is defintely relative. People keep making negative statements about the amount available in the 8. I too would have been pleased if it was even more or if the car was a little lighter but its really quite acceptable. This is actually the most produced by a normally aspirated production 2 rotor yet.
Also due to the very trick intake system employed this car has 90% of peak torque from as low as 3000 rpms if I'm not mistaken.
The 6 speed car also has a 4.4 rear end gear which makes for good zippy acceleration and possibly against fuel economy.
Anyhow you do have a rather flat torque curve of about 140ft/lbs
for a wide range.