Thought I'd a take a minute ... or 30 ... to type out my impressions of the RX-8 after one month of ownership. I have to preface this with a few things: I have to let you know I haven’t had the chance to bond with my new car. I like to spend a Saturday or two each month carving up the canyons or driving over twisting mountain roads. We’ve had a lot of snow since my purchase and I’ve yet to order my snow tires. So the RX-8 has spent more than a few days in the garage these past 30 days or so. Second I’m getting out of a Miata, a car that I really loved. In the cars that I’ve owned (ranging from Z-cars to Mustangs to VW’s) the Miata was the benchmark in bang for the buck, handling and for reliability. That said, here it goes ....

IMHO ....

I started looking at the RX-8 the day the first one arrived at the local Mazda dealer. Over the next months I had the occasion to drive an RX-8 five times. In both 6 speed and automatic form. The automatic would make a great car for someone, but not me. It’s short a few horses and the power it does have is too hard and slow to reach with the four speed. The paddle shifters, however, earn positive marks. Placement is good. Paddles are large, intuitive and easy to access. The difference in power delivery and the fact that there is more of it to be had beyond the automatic’s 7000 rpm redline, makes the 6 speed the driver’s choice. There’s no substitute for rowing through the gears for yourself.

The car I settled on is a 2004 Sunlight Silver with the Sport Package. MSRP was $29, 430. I bought it for $26,130. As this is my 5th silver car now, I was hoping for Velocity Red or at least Titanium Gray, but this was the best deal and I took it ... silver and all.

What a looker this car is. It’s definitely love it or hate it styling and you can put me in with the former. I haven’t found a bad angle to view it from. From the round sculpted and bulging front fenders to the upward moving belt line to the bulbous backside, it’s a fine piece of design work. Lot’s of looks and comments from other folks. While gassing up one day an old-timer in his finest cowboy get up sauntered over to ask about it. He was so taken with it, he even told his wife to come over and have a gander. Chalk one up for the boy-racer design team.

Right away I was impressed with the interior. I’ve driven the new 6, been in a 3 and I am thoroughly impressed with Mazda’s interiors. Plastics are a little hard and only time will tell if rattles will appear. So it’s not quite VW levels of materials and fit, but a huge step forward from past efforts none-the-less. The seats are comfortable. I haven’t spent more than 2 hours at a time behind the wheel, but no backaches and/or soreness and numbness in the legs. I’m 6’3” and often wish seat bottoms would have more leg support. Not so with the ‘8.

Boy can this engine rev. It will pull forever. Happily and quietly making horsepower all the way to its 9000 rpm redline. In all honesty though, I don’t get the rotary. I don’t see the real world benefits of building a car with this engine. I understand the high output from a small displacement and an engineers desire to design an efficient tool. However, it doesn’t translate in to real world practicality. So what if I can get 238hp out of 1.3 liters? I’m using a quart of oil every 1000 miles or so and only get 20 mpg ... on the highway !!!! That’s efficiency ?!?! I can get high output from a small displacement engine in a Honda S2000 and still get 25 mpg out of it. I don’t know how much oil one burns, but I can fairly assume it’s doesn’t burn it at a rate of 1 qt per 1000 miles.

Though it may not be the most efficient thing on the road, it’s probably the most utility minded sports-car going. It’s hard to beat its combination of sport-car abilities and practicality. Rear door ingress and egress is fair, even for adults. With the driver’s seat extended to the rear of its track, a 5’10” man is easily able to crawl in with out much fuss--as was demonstrated for me by the dealership owner. Trunk space is adequate. This made possible by deleting the spare tire. I sure hope I never need it. The trunk opening is on the small side. And lift over is high. Getting larger items into the trunk isn’t easy.

The ‘8 is a composed and well handling car at high speeds. Recently I had an empty two-lane to myself and I got into it just a bit. At 120 mph, in 4th gear and 7000 rpm, the car was quietly doing what I asked of it. It was flat and composed as I steered through the long sweepers. Smoothly transitioning from left to right and left again. The only thing keeping me from going any faster was a sustained crosswind of 40 mph with gusts to 60. Not being too familiar with it, I didn’t want to push it any further. However, I have to admit, I was probably being too cautious. That 40mph crosswind wasn’t pushing the car around at all. It remained well-planted and heading right for where I pointed it.

What this car seems to do well is rev and it doesn’t mind doing it all day, over and over, if you ask it to. I can’t wait for the chance to spend a little quality time bonding with my new toy on the twisting roads of the Snowy Range Mountains here in Wyoming or along Poudre Canyon or the Peak-to-Peak highway down in Colorado. Once I’ve had the chance I’ll update this post with my impressions on the most important thing of all ... is this thing fun to drive. Is it more fun than my Miata?

 

The 8 is certainly more fun than the Miata. Why?

Because it has more power and revs to the stratosphere.

 

I like the review of your experience so far but don't know if you used the wrong words here or don't understand how the rotary works. Many people outside of the Rotary world have this misunderstanding that the rotary burns oil which it does but by design to lubricate the Apex seals.

I don't know if this is your first rotary or not but to me it seems it is. If this is the case then you need to get into it more and get a full understanding of this engine and then an amazing thing will happen, you will start to bond to it like no other car. Why do most of us in this forum love the 8 or the 7? Is it the styling? Performance? Yes thats part of it but many cars have nice styling and performance, it's the rotary engine which is the what makes us a unique group, no other car is like this and you begin to have an incredible appreciation for it. Many of us have had other rotary cars in the past and will not give them up, many had to sell theirs only to come back and buy the 8 because they felt something was missing when driving other cars (like me).

I don't know if i'm doing a good job of explaining it but there is this bond or connection to the rotary that many of us have that doesn't happen with a piston engine. From your review I don't see you have this bond, perhaps in time you will, but when it happens then things like mpg or the oil consumption or other little things that seem to be wrong with this car don't really matter.

 

you state that you don't understand the purpose of the rotary, but praise the ability to rev (and pull) forever. those are inextricably linked.

I understand what you are saying, as a rotary isn't as light as some seem to believe, and that displacement/horsepower isn't so relevant, especially with the added deficiency of achieving sub-par gas mileage and oil consumption.

However, the allure is that it revs high, has a very linear torque curve, has a nice (and quiet) sound, and does not transfer very much of it's motion to the driver in the form of vibration.

All that, and it is unique.

anyway, I think I am trying to say that you answered your question somewhere in there.

I also understand your comparison to the S2000. But consider for a moment that the S2000 costs USD ~$7,000 more, (which is quite probably a few years of driving at a lower mileage, to compensate for the price).. A rotary is much more mild mannered than a K20. While in VTEC land, the S2000 is a noisy beast (which doesn't detract from it's fun factor at all but does affect daily driveability in my opinion). The RX-8 is a lot more civilized.

Rotary engines are definitely not for everybody (I am not sure if I am sold, myself.. However, I have been gazing longingly at the RX-8 for a couple years now)

 

Thanks for the Info - I too am coming from a Miata...I believe I recognize your name from Miata circles; If not, I recognize it because I once worked at Rose Barracks, Bad Kreuznach,
Germany (1994-95)

 

Well technically the Rotary Engine IS more effecient, its just that only one Manufacturer has really attempted to perfect it, and has mostly focused on its ability to rev and be a performance engine.

The Cylinder engine has been around forever, and has had countless engineering teams work on perfecting it.

I think the real issue is, you generally lose less kenetic energy in a rotary because the combustion isn't pushing against the inertia of the cylinder. However the problem is that the Cylinder or the Central piston in the RX8 is rather large, and although much of its motion is retained, because of the rotating design, the energy lost in this car is more because of the size of the part in question.

Another factor to concider is the fact that in a V6 or 4 Cyl, you have many more combustions per Rev, so although the revs on the RX8 are higher, they may equal the same as a lower reving Piston engine of the same size. With that, you could easily speculate that a 1.3 liter engine 4 Cyl would produce about 100 hp, where this car gets 220-238 hp out of the same size engine.

Had that engine been setup to only produce 100 hp, immagine how awesome the fuel economy would be. It would likely get 50-60 MPG.

 

the previous versions of the naturally aspirated rotary engine had around 100 horsepower and achieved worse mileage than the rx-8.

And it is only more efficient when you measure the size of the combustion chamber in comparison to the size of the combustion chamber of another engine. But when you consider duty cycle, it becomes far less phenomenal. There are threads about this topic around. The renesis can be considered 2.6 or even 3.9 litres... and 238 horsepower becomes a less radical concept.

somebody else could probably explain the efficiency problems better than I (www.howstuffworks.com comes to mind, rotarygod... some others). But it has something to do more with energy being lost due to heat soak and the shape of the combustion chamber, i.e. design limitations rather than mass of the rotors.

The design hasn't reached its full potential yet, by any stretch, but the cards are already stacked against the rotary engine by things like physics and thermodynamics.

 

DMP, I was stationed there from 1990 to 1993. It was my first duty station. I was 1 of about 15 Air Force guys assigned to the Air Liaison Office. Have you been back there since your tour? I went back in '98 while TDY to Stuttgart. Things have changed a bit. Rose Barraks and the other kasernes are gone. I think the helo pad is still there. Even the "Volkswagen on a Stick" is gone !!! I don't know how people give directions anymore. ("Well you go down to the VW on a Stick and turn left. Then ...") Marco Polo's is still there though. Best Italian food I have ever had. I'd put in for orders back to Germany in a heart beat, but Mrs Kreuznach won't go.

Always cool to hear from someone else who has been there.

Auf Wiedersehen

 

You must have left right before I got there - I too worked with the ALO people, as I was a member of 1AD G3 Air, working in the Air Defense field.
I'm now a GS civilian; haven't been back to germany since my enlisted days. I've been applying for every GS job I THINK i qualify for - just to get back.

:D

:Cheers:

 

You are right Dragula53, I'm addicted to the revs. No lying about that. I just can't help myself. I wind-out that little engine every day, several times a day. They say if you do it 100 times you'll go blind.

Overall I think the RX-8 is a great package. And for me the short comings of the rotary were not enough to walk away from the car. Dragula53 and Iceman VKO, you guys definitely have a better understanding of the rotary, and probably mechanics in general, than I. However, from a practicallity stand-point, it seems Mazda is building rotaries for the sake of building rotaries. Something to make them different and perhaps appear technology minded. Sort of like a marketing tool. IMHO, there doesn't appear to be a clear advantange. So why not go convetional and build a piston engine that is capable of the same performance?

Oh and Nojooc, horsepower isn't everything. You can see that by the Miatas beating up on the Corvettes at your local track. Next your going to tell me size matters. ... it doesn't, right?

 

So you've owned it for 1 month and barely driven it and have over 1000 miles on it. Did you observe the breakin period?

Nevermind that.

I too came from a Miata. My dad still has one and i drive it from time to time. It makes me miss mine when I get in it. Except when I lay into the gas pedal. It makes me appreciate the smoothness of the rotary. I agree with "Hellbreed" above when he talks about the rotary. Give yourself a chance to love it for it's uniqueness. I have never driven a car that is so smooth to 9000 RPMS and it never complains. Actually I think it's the only car I've driven that will even rev that high :-). And your question about "Is it fun to drive?" Oh yeah, it's fun to drive. But be careful, I have found that you have to drive it a lot harder than the Miata to drive it at it's limits. It consantly amazes me as to just how stable it is. Have fun.

 

I also happen to think that it is a "Gimmick"

With the obsession with 50/50 weight distribution, weight, etc.. And they are trying to tie the rotary in with all of that, when there are lighter engines out there.

All of that aside, I don't care how they try to market it to the public, the renesis is a hell of a fun engine to wind out, and the car is a great total package..

 

I don't consider the rotary a gimmick as you say. It is a very crucial part of the 50/50 weight distribution. It is not only the weight of the rotary, but the size and therefore placement of it. A 4 seater with 50/50 distribution is a good feat. Just my opinion though.

 

I was pretty good about break-in. I learned that lesson the hard way. I had a brand-new '98 VW Jetta and drove it like I stold it from day one. I had to replace the head gasket and this gasket and that gasket at less than 12000 miles. Won't do that again.

That's something I really enjoyed about the Miata. It was easy to drive at 9/10s. It's small size, modest power, low weight and balance made for a great combination. It really was a well balanced formula. And turned average drivers like myself into great ones. Because I haven't had the chance to get the '8 out and put it through the paces, my initial impression will be just that, an initial impression. Once the snow clears ... in June at this rate ... I'll get 'er out and see what she can do.

Thanks all for the conversation. Talking cars has always been a hobby.

 

There are a few FD rx-7's that have had V8's slapped into them that still have very nearly a 50/50 weight distribution. I just don't think the rotary is as crucial as mazda would have us believe.

I love the rotary as it is great fun. And the rx-8 is a great package. having a rotary makes it an excellent conversation piece. But 300 lbs on a 3,000 lb car is not all that serious.

you can cut down (or eat more) on the cheeseburgers and affect the weight distribution just as much.

 

more rotors helps fuel economy not at all. And then you have the added complication of eccentric shaft flex.

efficiency is really honestly related to the heat soak, the shape of combustion chambers, and how much fuel gets burnt (or actually, unburnt) during the combustion cycle, I swear.. this is why there are 2 spark plugs per combustion chamber, to help burn all of the fuel.

Here is a direct link to a really informative article in layman's terms. and he discusses this very issue.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

 

The thing is, the rotary engine really grows on you. I had two RX-7s in years past, both for a brief period of time, and didn't realize how much I missed them until I drove the '8 for the first time. The power is so smooth and linear - like a turbine engine in a car would feel I suppose.

Of course, I love all sorts of engines, and especially miss the roar and torque of a good V8. Thinkin a 'Vette may be in my future in 5 or 6 years, maybe sooner. And Nissan's VQ engine is awesome, but feels different from a V8. Also like the WHAM! boost in the STi and Evo VIII.

 

Forgive me if I'm not getting this, but, dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor not an engineer!
A 4 cyl has 2 combustions per revolution and a 6 cyl would have 3. I thought a rotary would have 3 combustions per revolution per rotor - 1 as each rotor face came across the plugs - so 6 combustions per revolution. I had assumed that was part of the relative fuel inefficiency but high power-for-size of the engine; a lot of bang per rev.

 

It has been a while since I have gotten into this but here goes.

For every full revolution of the rotor, the eccentric shaft turns 3 times. So a two rotor engine would fire 3 times for every turn of the eccentric shaft.

I think that is right..

Edit: No, that is not right, for every rev of the shaft it would fire twice.

 

There are quite a few ways to look at the duty cycle of the Renesis, and it makes comparison with normal engines a little bit on the difficult side.

The total swept volume of a renesis is 1.3 liters. And a full combustion cycle only involves 1.3 liters, and a single revolution of the eccentric shaft. unless you count all three faces.. on both rotors, in which case you are counting 3 revolutions of the eccentric shaft, and 6 combustion cycles, for 3.9 liters of displacement.

A normal 4 stroke, 4 cycle engine takes 2 rotations of the crank to complete a full combustion cycle. Therefore, it only really displaces half of it's total volume per revolution. A 1.3 liter piston engine will only displace .65 liters per rotation, and 1.95 liters during 3 crankshaft rotations.

On a dirtbike, with a 2-stroke, 2 cycle engine, every rotation of the crankshaft displaces the full volume of the engine. And a 1.3 liter dirtbike (in addition to hauling ***), will displace 3.9 liters in 3 crank revolutions

So, in closing, a rotary is a 2 stroke, 4 cycle engine (it has 4 distinct cycles, but are completed in half as many strokes) a dirtbike has a 2-cycle, 2-stroke, and a honda civic has a 4-stroke, 4 cycle engine.

I might be expressing all of this in a mind-numbing way, but I am pretty confident that my logic is sound. But this discussion is a classic example of why hissy fits are thrown about what class they compete in when rotary engined cars are introduced into competetive events.

 

I've had a little more time to "bond" with the car since my initial impression. In-fact today I got to wash and wax it. For me, like for many of you I'm sure, this is big bonding time. I have really come to love the lines of this car. What better way to get familiar with them, then waxing. Those aggressive wheel arches. And that round rear end. The sharp creases of the hood. A very athletic looking car.

More importantly I've had more time behind the wheel as well. As a daily commuter this car is almost perfect. Almost. Very comfortable. Low effort controls. The one thing keeping it from perfect is gas mileage. Big surprise, right? Other wise, I look forward to the drive to and from work. As a sports car ... I Love It. It's fast enough off the line. But I'm not interested in red light to red light drag racing. I still haven't had the oportunity to carve up a canyon or mountain road, but I did take it out into the county for a little fun. ABS works great! As I had the chance to find out when I way over cooked it into a 180 degree switchback. As the black and yellow warning signs got closer and closer and after I reminded myself to breathe I was able to get the back end to snap around very nicely. Yeehaw! High speed composure is nice, even in the triple digits. However, it doesn't like rough roads, of which we have plenty in Wyoming. And it absolutely hates crosswind. Mix the two together and you're in for a helluva ride

Hopefully I'll have the chance soon to drive this thing through the mountains or at least up a canyon road soon. At this rate, that may be summer

 

We have a lot of round abouts-where I live. I drove down a road last night with 13 round-abouts over a 20 mile stretch. It is difficult to describe how much fun it is to zoom around those. Damn that car handles well! Just a bit of body roll, but I wouldn't trade it for a rougher ride.

I've had the car for a year now and I have yet to test it's road-holding limits. The car grips so well that I'm not sure how much more I can push it around corners before the back-end goes loose. Sometimes I can feel the rear slipping outwards, but the tyres don't screech. Probably DSC at work. I wonder if, with DSC on, the tyres would actually start screeching well before the back-end gives in.

 

I think the main reason why the rotary is less efficient than a piston engine is due to the shape of the rotor combustion chamber. Because it is oblong instead of perfectly round, it is harder to get the spark plugs to fully ignite all of the fuel in the chamber. The dual spark plugs in each chamber help this cause, but the RENESIS made a pretty notable innovation to the rotary. The RENESIS actually has combustion in two stages of the revolution cycle to help burn all of the fuel in the cycle. Improved locations of the intake and exhaust valves also help to keep the air from the stages separated from each other better so that exhaust air from the second combustion stage doesn't get mixed into the initial combustion stage.

At least, that's my understanding.

The RENESIS is supposedly quite a bit improved over the 13B for reasons listed above... that's why we can get a naturally aspirated 240hp out of it. I'd agree that the rotary has yet to reach it's full potential. I think that it will likely never be able to have the fuel efficiency of an efficiency-minded piston engine but there is still likely a good margin for improvement. When you consider that the rotary is basically only being researched by ONE manufacturer for use in ONE vehicle, I'd say that the economics of innovation are more of a barrier than those posed by physics. If there was a competitive market for this type of engine, it would surely be even better and probably less expensive as well.

 

[QUOTE=dragula53]There are a few FD rx-7's that have had V8's slapped into them that still have very nearly a 50/50 weight distribution. I just don't think the rotary is as crucial as mazda would have us believe.
QUOTE]

They might still have 50/50 weight distribution but what about center of gravity/mass? With the big cylinder heads and valve trains of modern v-8's, they carry their weight high.