6speed8

Ford probably sells 200-300 thousand Explorers (if not more), and they make a tremendous profit on them, Chevy does the same with the Suburban, so they will most likely be okay. The MPV? who knows? Isn't the Audi being redesigned? Besides Audi doesn't have to answer to the bean counters at Ford like Mazda does.


The Dealers are going to have to offer deep discounts to move the RX-8s, this will only be good for someone willing to purchase one. It will utimately hurt resale values of ALL RX-8s and possibly hasten its demise, or perhaps (hopefully) Mazda will get its act together and make the RX-8 a car to be used as a model for a modern Sports car.

10kRPMS

I work in the industry and rumor has it the new model will not be called the rx8

maikelnait

Any idea about when will it be released?

TALAN7

Just goes to prove that in this vehicle category you've got to come strong with the power. The RX8 is a good car, has a great chassis, but that's not enough. I've been saying that for the past 2 years and I love the car. Mazda shouldn't even make an 07 if they have no plans to upgrade power. Base, the 6 speed needs about 35 more hp and however much more torque they can squeeze out of it.

buzzardsluck

Its not a modern sports car now?

I think when someone totally breaks the ECU people will find the extra 35hp. Damn EPA.

6speed8

Yes, but it isn't a 'MODEL' of a modern sports car, an extra 68 hp would help!

titan_rx8club

I think the RX8 is too much of a niche car. It's a solution looking for a problem.

It's not a pure sports car and even though it has four doors it's not a famly sedan either. It's caught in the middle.

Look at the performance of some sports cars that seem to be popular
232 hp/159 lb/ft for 2006 RX8. 18/24mpg and 3045lbs = 13.1lbs/hp ($36,995CDN)
300 hp/260 lb/ft for 2006 350Z 3.5l v6. 20/28mpg and 3395lbs = 11.3 lb/hp ($46,198CDN)
300 hp/320 lb/ft for 2006 Mustang 4.6l v8. 18/26mpg and 3450lbs = 11.5 lb/hp ($32,999CDN)
340 hp/390 lb/ft for 2006 Dodge Charger 5.7l v8. 17/28mpg and 4,031lbs = 11.8 lb/hp ($37,745CDN)
170 hp/140 ft/lb for 2006 MX5 i4. 24/34mpg and 2443lbs = 14.3 lb.hp ($27,995)
260 hp/260 ft/lb for 2007 Solstice GXP 2.0l i4. 20/27mpg and 2948lbs = 11.3 lb/hp ($~32,000)

It's fairly expensive compared to the rest and the only car it looks to out perform is the new Miata. Everything is more powerful/lighter! Also you can get a more powerful Mustang and Charger if you want, but there is no special edition RX8 with a more powerful engine. The Charger is interesting because it is actually a real four door sedan and probably shouldn't be put in with the sports cars.

I'd really be interested to see it on a track against the rx8 in the Grand Am. It presuambly won't handle near as well, but it has 340hp and a monster 390lb/ft of torque which can compensate.

So lets look and the performance numbers for the two benchmark family sedans as the rx8 has four doors so it can attract those customers.
212 hp/159 lb/ft for 2006 RX8 auto. 18/25mpg and 3075lbs = 14.5lbs/hp ($36,995CDN)
244 hp/211 lb/ft for 2006 Accord 3.0l v6, 21/32mpg and 3443lbs = 14.1lbs/hp ($30,400CDN)
268 hp/248 lb/ft for 2007 Camry 3.5l v6, 23/32mpg and 3285-3495 lbs = 13.0lbs/hp (~$33,345CDN)

The Accord and Camry have a better power to weight ratio than the rx8! How the heck is Mazda going to attract people? The styling? The Camry is practically the most reliable car on the road and with the new 2007 model about to go on sale it, gets 28% better mpg, has more power, a lot more torque, weighs only a bit more, and costs thousands less.

robrecht

This is a great (first) post--makes me want to calculate $/g!

LionZoo

Honestly, if you're just going to compare power to weight ratio as the only factor in deciding the performance of a car, then you obviously do not understand what makes a sports car, and you certainly don't get the RX-8.

robrecht

I doubt titan_rx8club meant to imply that one should only compare power-to-weight ratio, but certainly it is an important consideration. He does mention others, eg, fuel economy, reliability, styling, and cost.

Every car is a series of compromises, right, and many of us are, in fact, caught in the middle.

The 2-seaters you mention are not very good comparaisons with the 4-seater RX-8, though it often compares favorably among those who value the balance and handling of the RX-8. See, eg, Road&Tracks early comparison with the S2k and the 350z track version.

WRT the Mustang and Charger, do you really feel that they handle as well as the RX-8? Certainly not the Accord or Camry. Each of these cars has it's strengths and weaknesses. I do wish the RX-8 had a bit more low-end torque, but I'm very much closer to buying it for what it is than any of the other cars you mention. Of course, I haven't test driven the Charger or Mustang yet. Not much chance I'd buy a Camry, but I think my retired in-laws made a very good choice to meet their needs and desires.

That said, there's no denying that the RX-8 occupies a rather small niche among American car buyers, who do put a lot of emphasis on power-to-weight ratios in their sports, ie, muscle cars.

ASH8

Sorry Titan,

Welcome,

But, what a load of bullshit, the RX-8 is not a 'solution looking for a problem', as you know its life began as a concept and became a reality because of public demand, and because its uniqueness and rotary engine.

The RX-8 and MX-5 for that matter would out run almost ALL of the cars you listed on a twisting circuit, IE, their handling is far superior to any you mentioned.

Yes, the HP numbers are at the low end, BUT, to be a sports car (which the 8 is) you don't have to have large HP.

I don't know where you get the "everything is more lighter" idea from as the 8 is the 3RD lightest in your list, according to your figures.

The RX-8 was NEVER intended to be a Volume seller, the car has been a good seller world wide, far more than Mazda Japan initially projected.

I would suggest that the slowdown in sales are partly due to the need for an upgrade, however, the main reason is the price of gas, as sales of all high consumption cars have tumbled.
And possibly some trying to compare a rotary with a conventional engine, IE, I wont buy it because it uses a little oil, does not have the same torque as my old car...these are the rotaries characters.

You guys in the State are infatuated in Ponies, this Mazda Car is much much more than just HP.

And please don't mention or compare a Camry/Accord with an RX-8, its a bloody insult.

Anyone who contemplates buying a Rotary should do their research first, and accept the car for what is does, NOT for what it does not do.
The RX-8's pluses far far outweighs any negatives, most owners, motor journalist think the same.....world wide.

grapes

Hurray-couldn't have said it better myself. Exactly my feelings. Thanks for such a honest concise evaluation of what the Rx-8 is really about. Most people in the U.S. just don't get it or have'nt driven enough true sports cars to get it. Thanks again for such a well written piece.

astro

[QUOTE=ASH8]


You guys in the State are infatuated in Ponies, this Mazda Car is much much more than just HP.

And please don't mention or compare a Camry/Accord with an RX-8, its a bloody insult.

QUOTE]

Indeed they are infatuated with Ponies. There is nothing "sporty" about going fast in a straightline. What's the big deal?

As for the Camry/Accord....

robrecht

Just read this 21-page thread (https://www.rx8club.com/rx-8-media-news-11/new-mazda-wide-15b-rotary-2007-a-73587/), which seems to indicate that the rumor of increased displacement is mostly speculation and there is little agreement on how this should be ideally done (wider 2-rotor design or 3 smaller rotors).

On the other hand, as many here alreadyknow, Mazda's Senku hybrid concept announced in October of last year and shown in January in Tokyo already has a 13B-DI (direct injection) gasoline rotary engine.

I imagine hp and fuel economy gains are modest from direct injection alone but that question did not seem to be answered (or I missed it) and, of course, no one knows how long it would take to go from concept to production if it were decided to place this 13B-DI in an upcoming RX-8.

Sapphonica

Shouldn't a car that gets crummy gas mileage be fast? I mean, since I have to pay for it, I'd much rather that gasoline's energy get converted to turning the rear wheels instead of heating up the exhaust manifold.

Some people like the RX8 just the way it is, a modestly powered track monster. I'm totally cool with that.

There are a lot of us who like the car much, MUCH better FI. This is not about WOT and/or 1/4 times. It is about how the car feels at part throttle and its overall driveability and responsiveness.

With more power & torque the RX8 really is a lot more fun to drive. Drive an RX8 with FI and you'll see what I mean.

Maybe you'll still be just fine with NA, but there are a lot of us who prefer the FI feel, so Mazda should make a turbo kit to meet our needs.

If they don't, they're not listening to their current and potential customers. That is just bad marketing.

saturn

I agree. I know it's all been said over and over again, but every time I see someone who makes a post telling us malcontents that we just "don't get it" I feel obliged to chime in.

I listen to what people say on this forum, car magazines, and real life and everywhere I turn the major complaint/concern about this car is the power. It's not that it doesn't have any power it's just not enough for the cost, gas mileage, and styling. Feel free to toss my two cents into the anecdotal evidence bin, but it's about as realistic as it gets for me.

If Mazda wants to sell more 8's (in the U.S. at least) it has to do something about the power especially the low-end torque. Right now it is such a niche car that it will never climb out of obscurity without changes to make it more mainstream. Maybe that's the way Mazda likes it, but it absolutely the cause of their current level of sales IMO.

Ike

Sorry Ash, but the RX-8 is/was intended to be a volume seller. Not Accord or Camry type volume, but goals were set and Mazda has fallen far short of those goals. Rather than selling far more globaly than Mazda projected, they actually only sold 27k units in 2005 when yearly goals were 60k.

Also, while I agree with a lot of what you say. I see no reason why the RX-8 wouldn't be much more fun with more horsepower. Yes, it's a great car, but it needs more oomph IMO.

LionZoo

Don't take the "don't get it" comment out of context. I've never disagreed that the RX-8 would be more fun with more power (though in my case, I would not buy it if there was a weight increase with the power increase, however much the power increase is, and I would prefer my power at the top end) However, I very much take umbrage at a comparison where a car's performance is determined solely by it's power to weight ratio.

I know that Mazda's yearly sales target was 60,000, but I'm wondering if that was the target at car introduction or whether it was a target for every year throughout the car's run. As any idiot in marketing should know, sports car sales display a very strong downward trend from the point of introduction onward. If Mazda had projected that sales would remain constant, then the idiot who came up with that projection should be fired immediately.

MTLbroker

Forget more horsepower. It'll come at the expense of fuel economy and reliability. I think Mazda should do a Mazdaspeed version that takes about 200-250 lbs off the curb weight of the car.
Extensive use of aluminum, carbon fibre, fiberglass, whatever. Get into the Lotus Elise weight class..... That'll be worth paying for......

rotary crazy

[QUOTE=MTLbroker]Forget more horsepower. It'll come at the expense of fuel economy and reliability. I think Mazda should do a Mazdaspeed version that takes about 200-250 lbs off the curb weight of the car.
Extensive use of aluminum, carbon fibre, fiberglass, whatever. Get into the Lotus Elise weight class..... That'll be worth paying for......[/QUoute

but if mazda can do this would it hurt to have 210 rwhp?

ASH8

Sorry Ike, I beg to differ...

Yes, 2005 was a poorer sales year for the 8, and so far 2006 is probably going to get worse, before the 07 upgrade.
Until, last year sales/production was still on track and in fact not that far behind the original Miata/MX-5 numbers.

60K is not a volume seller, its about 4.5% of Mazda Japan's vehicle production.

Its worth putting ALL this into perspective, even the latest MX-5 sales have slowed, partly because of world demand, also, because it a normal occurrence with sports cars, there are not many brands/models that continue to grow year after year.

Even the Sub's STI sales are at similar levels to the 8 last year, around 480 a month in the US.

I will stand by what I said earlier that the fuel cost's have hurt sales of ALL high fuel consumption cars.

Here 8 sales have gone from 120 a month to about 70.
Mazda Australia has never considered the 8 as a volume seller vehicle.

Ike

60k is still a pretty good volume for a sportcar and the Miata is even more of a niche car than the RX-8. The US was also supposed to be limited to 3,000 STIs a year, but demand was higher so they ramped up production, it's also far more of a niche car than the RX-8.

I agree that the gas prices are having an effect, but the drop in sales for the RX-8 is pretty drastic even compared to other cars in its segment that are a little thirsty on gas.

6speed8

True, but the RX-8 requires more frequent checking of the oil, and most of the mainstream magazines had concerns of how much oil the RX-8 uses. This probably didn't help things. I have had people ask me "why does the the RX-8 go through so much oil?".

The Miata might be more of a niche care, but oil usage is not a concern, nor is flooding, same goes for the STI and others.

280RX-8

The oil concerns are just an example of how misinformation can spread and cause a lot of concern for the uninformed. A quart of oil or so a month isn't that big a deal, especially if you're not using synthetic. I know one lady who says she never adds oil, but she gets it changed religiously, so I guess it never gets too low.

nucleus

I have information from Japan that leads me to believe the increased displacement is a go for 2007.

The ideal way to increase displacement is debatable on internet message boards.
The practical way to increase displacement (so that Mazda can use a lot of the same tooling) is to increase the length of the engine, making the rotors and rotor housings "wider".

Think about it, do you really think that having a 3 with more HP than their flagship is a sustainable situation?


Mazda's show cars are frequently good predictors of where they are going, DI is coming too. I would not be surprised if there was a partial shutuff of the combustion chambers at low power as well. I would crap with they could get 29 highway MPG out of an RX-8. Okay, now I AM dreaming...

Saphonica, you are dead-on in speaking about part throttle, drivability, and responsiveness. The 16B DI will be a big help, but the FI 16B DI will excel. The car magazine guys will stain their pants.

Let's just pray that Mazda will sell us one without a FRACKING SUNROOF!

Nucleus