New Consumer Reports Annual Auto Issue is out:

"Mazda's sporty coupe is powered by a smooth and responsive rotary engine. Although acceleration is not explosive, at midrevs the engine provides strong power and feels smooth and unstressed. Handling is very agile, with quick, communicative steering and is controllable at the limits. Unlike some competitors, the ride doesn't beat you up. The rear-hinged doors with no center roof pillar make back-seat access relatively easy. The rear seat is comfortable for adults. Fuel economy is disappointing (CR overall mpg: 18). Reliability has once again improved to average."

What's more, the 8 is now "CR Recommended": "Vehicles must perform well in our testing and have average or better reliability…".

Now… you may think improving to 'average' reliability is nothing to shout about, and normally you'd be right. Average is just average. Except… not here. Because here you'll find thread after thread that start on the assumption that the Renesis is unreliable, and then go on to hypothesize why the Renesis is unreliable, or what could be done about it. So this "average" reliability rating from CR is a much-needed breath of fresh air—and is consistent with other long-term road tests:

Long-term road test reliability ratings:
Edmunds.com = Average
Car and Driver = Average
Road & Track = Excellent, after 40+K miles

Looking at CR's Used-car reliability report, under "Engine, major" the 8 has a big black dot (much worse-than-average reliability) in '04, a white dot (average reliability) in '05, and a half-red dot (above-average reliability) in '06.

In the "Engine, minor" category, the 8 has black dots in '04 and '05 and a half-black dot in '06.

Engine, cooling: '04, '05 = half-red (better-than average); '06 = full red (much better-than-average).

Finally, in "Best & worst used cars," the 8 is not on the "Good Choices" list; nor is it on the "Used Cars to Avoid" list.

What's weird is that CR has reliability improving. If you read the many threads here—the ones that start on the assumption that the Renesis is unreliable and go on to hypothesize why—you'd expect Renesis reliability would be getting worse over time—not better. I guess those CR readers—and the editors at Car and Driver, edmunds.com, and Road & Track who do the long-term tests—must pre-mix like crazy!

 

I don't give a crap. An Accord could be rated as reliable in CR. But if it keeps breaking down on me, I'd still be pissed. The 8 may be Avg in CR but to me it's been reliable and that's all I care.

 

My Renesis works just fine. Pull strong and never gave me any problems.

1st year model of ANY CAR will always have lots and lots of problems. and sadly that was also the year that this car sold the most. So, we have a lot of *bad ones* out there.

As time goes, the rating will only go up. its the same for almost every car out there. Even Accord, Camry, etc

 

Didn't the reflash and better starter and battery recall improve the early engine/flooding problems that CR lists as problems?

 

^I believe so.

But… any newcomer visiting this forum would, browsing the various threads, quickly get the impression that the Renesis is inherently unreliable. Suspect. Flawed. Not just early, first-year-of-production, "teething problem" engines in the '04, but most—if not all—Renesis engines. Regardless of year. The Renesis in general.

This, despite the fact that long-term road tests from edmunds.com, Car and Driver, and Road & Track found reliability to be about average (well, R&T rated it "excellent") compared to other cars. And despite the fact that Consumer Reports rates reliability as average and has added the 8 to its Recommended Cars, which must have average or better reliability.

 

Well and you have to remember...the reported reliabilities for the '06 models are reported on 2 year old cars or less...of course older models will also have worse ratings...they'd naturally be more worn out, need parts, etc. An '08 would porbably show up as excellent all the way across because it hasn't been used but for a few months, trouble-free...

 

The CR rating has been going up and down since 2004.
C&D, R&T, Edmonds,etc. give you the reliablity rating of one car. The one they're testing. Like many of you, some have had no problems. While some have had nightmares. The CR reports on many different cars from different owners, so you get a better idea of true reliability. The Audi's, BMW's, MB's etc. that the magazines test for 40K miles or one year also show few problems, but check out CR raings on those. Also CR no longer recomends the CX7 and CX9.
Best to just get informed from several sources and make your decision.
One more thing, I was getting 18 mpg in 1983 with my 130HP RX7. More or less what the RX8 is getting now but with 100HP more. So improvements have been made.

 

I've had several serious detonations and a big *** ping on my engine, all under 8 to 11 psi of boost. I keep expecting the engine to die, but nothing seems to effect it. It has healthy compression and makes a lot of power.

It was therefor ironic that the transmission died on me instead of the engine, as I never drop the clutch and changed transmission fluid once a year.

 

^^ the Aisin tranny in our car really suck.

Lets just wait and see what CRH and Aisin can come up with.