When I read this article, my BS dectector starts to go off. Here is what particularly makes me sceptical about this article. First they say:

Then they say:

So how would they know how BOTH engines perform? Did Mazda provide them with two test cars, one with each of the different power levels? I think this is highly unlikely and they probably haven't done all the testing their article would lead us to believe. Someone like R&T or C&D would get to test two vehicles simultaneously long before these guys would get that chance.

For this reason, I believe that at least some of this article is "creative journalism". How much of it is based on actually driving the car, I have no idea...maybe part of it, maybe all of it, or maybe even none of it. The RX-8 is a hot topic in the automotive press, and every automotive publication would LOVE to write a review about it because it will increase the sales of their publication. So what is stopping a publication from arranging a photo only session of the new car, and then writing an article about it as if they got to flog it thouroughly for two weeks? Not a darn thing.

Again, I have no idea how much of this review is based on their actual observations, but I think it smells really fishy. But then again, maybe they have driven it and know exactly what they are talking about...I guess we won't know until we get to drive one ourselves.

 

you see that little protrusion and the rectangular shape in front of the shifter and parking brake, that's the cup holder cover.

my protege5 has the same thing, so don't worry they ARE there.

 

This car is a VERY preproduction model, remember. They almost certainly do not have the final specs dialed in when it comes to suspension tuning, engine tuning, or things such as steering and gear shifting. Even when they were doing Mazda6 initial tests, that was less than a month before a worldwide debut, and even then they were all driving preproduction models. Keep that in mind before you complain about body roll, engine output, etc.

Also, why is the center of the steering wheel so "obese" looking. It looks fat there. The wheel otherwise looks much like the Mazda6, so why is it so much bigger. Compare these pics to see what I'm talking about....

Mazda6:



RX-8:

There is no reason the RX-8 wheel can't be as slim looking as the 6.

Overall, a very positive review. I REALLY hope the RX-8 makes it with 250hp, which I think is key. 240hp is just too much like more mundane cars such as the Altima and Accord, or the S2000. 250, even at 10 more hp, for some reason seems to put the car into that next level of power, at least in my eye.

 

does the steering wheel in the mazda6 pic have an airbag in it? the rx8 pic appears to. maybe that is the dif.

 

Lol Zoom, I knew you'd make that pic your avatar first! :D

There is no rhyme or reason to soften the suspension or have excessive body roll in this "2+2". It would blur the distinction between the 8 and the Mazda6 S. I think we'll see stiffer handling than reported thus far.

 

well you got the one sliding in the wet:p LOL

 

The Mazda6 wheel definitely has an airbag in it, just as every car sold has an airbag.

 

Also, are those air vents behind the brakes even functional!!?? From this angle, it sure looks like there isn't even an opening there.

Nothing says "looks over performance" like fake air ducts.....

 

i meant that i dont know the source of that pic so it could be a pre production pic and the wheel could have changed by now to something more like the rx8 pic

and yes those are actual functional vents.there is however a plastic insert there which iswhat makes it look non functional in that pic.

 

The only person that I'd have some belief in is Sam Mitani from Road and Track, because he really did drive the car. And his review sparkles with compliments, in fact he says there is [b\VERY LITTLE BODY ROLL[/b]. I'm going to do some homework about this article.

 

My pic says it all.

 

I'm surprised no one has noticed the cheapening of the interior since the yellow show car. Look at the center stack. The vents are pretty ugly compared to the super clean show car versions. Same deal with the display above the vents (for audio and HVAC readouts).

Of course the MiniDisc slot is gone from the stereo face, but I fully expected this. Just leaves the stereo with a big nothing there, which looks a little funny.

And I agree, the steering wheel looks fat.

 

I think the steering wheel is okay... probably out of proportion due to the picture but I like a hefty thick wheel.. seems okay to me.

 

Just a thought.....think the steering wheel is a little fatter looking because it's supposed to represent a rotor?

 

No, the rotor representations are in different places.. seats, door sill, hood bulge, and some other places. But I don't think it's in the steering wheel.

 

Oh I like a thick meaty wheel rim too, it's the center piece covering the airbag that looks fat. Look at a Miata wheel, the 6 wheel, the MR2 Spyder / Celica / Corolla S wheel. Now there's a trio of 3-spoke wheels with airbags that look well proportioned.

 

Can anyone see what the key looks like? Perhaps it is just a key to work the starter, and has nothing representative of the production key, but did the rotor shape make it??!!?

 

Man, I hope that's not the case. I'm certain they used Imperial measurements (UK publication), hence 18.5 US mpg average (converted in an earlier thread) is very concerning.

I love the styling and the potential driving dynamics, but the RX-8 has to deliver livable fuel consumption going into a life span of the next 5-10 years... Maybe not so much of an issue now, but if you're getting this car in a year or so, and keep it for a few years after that, I imagine gas will become quite expensive. For a modern sports car, we need to see at least mid 20's as an average fuel consumption. 18.5 MPG is what SUVs are capable of.

Let's hope more formal testing will deliver better EPA numbers eh?

 

I just noticed that the shiny black plastic does not appear on the steering wheel now, like it did on the yellow car.

As for the size of the wheel, the thickness is great, but the diameter does seem a bit large. No matter, I'll still enjoy driving it!

After reading the latest C&D article on the 6s, I do agree that Mazda should be aiming to make the RX8 a significantly sportier car.

RX8Dreamer

 

After reading some of the posts, it seems to be that some of the faithful RX-8 fans on this site are starting to panic at the latest Auto Express article. Although they gave it their approval, some of their comments struck fear into the hearts of RX-8 fans. I was wondering if somehow this panic will reach the ears of the Mazda brass, possibly even warrenting a message from upon high about further development of the chassis, engine, etc, etc? Or do you think they plan on just riding it out? Just curious.

 

I imagine that the “Mazda brass” are monitoring all reviews now.

 

While Autobild tested mileage at 22mph (imperial?), magazine testing usually offers drastically different results than EPA testing.

The following quote describes the mileage that 2 magazines got with the 1987 rx-7 turboII:

"Despite an EPA city rating of 17mpg, heavy-footed Motor Trend testers were only able to match that on the highway. Others cold not even match it: Autoweek chalked up a cumulative week's worth of driving at 11.8mpg."

Below are some EPA milage ratings for some past rotaries:

1986 rx-7 5-speed.....17/24mpg (city/highway)
1989 rx-7 5-speed.....17/25mpg (city/highway)
1993 rx-7 tt 5-speed..17/25mpg (city/highway)

Even the twin-turbo got 17/25 mph. Mazda has made drastic fuel economy improvements that basically allow the renesis to run at stoichiometric under light load and low-speed conditions.

I think that the mileage should not really be a problem.

Brian

 

Depends on your definition of a problem. Using those magazine "real world" quotes, even if they doubled it you'd still be looking at pretty poor numbers when compared to its competitors.

Not that this should be news to anyone...

 

That means, they do not know what the milage is. They estimate 11,6 litres / 100 km.
11,6 l = 3,06 gal(US) = 2,55 gal(UK)

That means with you can drive
20,3 miles with one US-gallon or
24,4 miles with one UK-gallon.