2004 Mazda RX-8: Second-quarter update
Good Looks, And Talented Too: RX-8 Refuses To Change Its Excessive Ways, But We Appreciate It Still
JOE KOVACH
Published Date: 12/6/04
SECOND-QUARTER UPDATE
MILES DRIVEN (QUARTER/TO DATE): 6934/13,594
FUEL MILEAGE (QUARTER/TO DATE): 18.76 mpg/18.12 mpg
FUEL COST (QUARTER/TO DATE): $743.72/$1,544.81
DAYS OUT OF SERVICE (QUARTER/TO DATE): 10/10
MAINTENANCE: Body repair ($3,625.86); 10,000-mile recommended maintenance, including fluid check, oil and tire change ($35.47); ECU reflash (no charge, warranty)
READERS: If you own one of the following, we’d like to hear from you: Jaguar XJ, Volkswagen Phaeton, Mazda RX-8, Toyota Prius, Dodge Magnum, Scion tC. Send comments for use in future updates to autofile@crain.com

Despite some complaints, our Mazda RX-8 remains a popular ride. Many staffers like it for its looks, but the long-termer’s road talents are most admir*ed. One editor chose the RX-8 to drive through Hell, Michigan, and back. He was determined to take a scenic, curvy route that added two hours each way to his assignment.

“I’ve done the same trip in our past Boxster S and 350Z long-term cars,” he wrote in the logbook, “and this one is a good match for its predecessors. The car tracks perfectly through corners, some of which are 90 degrees and can be taken at double the advised speed with no tire squeal. The more you push, the more it feeds information through the chassis and seat. It is reassuring that the car sticks to the direction you’ve chosen.”

He noted the Mazda averaged 14 mpg on the trip, and that an Acura NSX V6 probably would have delivered better numbers. Our Z and Boxster got better fuel economy than the RX-8 on that route, too. But with the Mazda, you get two rear seats and two additional doors.

Through a recall, our car’s electronic control unit was reprogrammed (or “reflashed,” as our dealer and engine tuners call it) to remedy the fuel flooding that a number of RX-8 owners complained of, a problem that prevented them from starting their cars. While we did not experience flooding, RX-8 owners told us their cars’ fuel economy is better since the update (believed to include a fuel/air ratio adjustment) was performed, and they think this is Mazda’s quiet way of addressing the mileage complaints.

We drove 274 more miles this quarter than we did the first quarter, averaging 1.95 mpg better fuel economy, likely due to the reflash work. But we think the fuel mileage should be better still, as not everybody hammers on the gas pedal.

Yes, some staffers do high-rev the rotary engine to coax the torque we crave. For serious lb-ft of torque, you have to get near or on the 9000-rpm redline. One editor’s comments are a good example of what most on staff experience in the RX-8:

“I’m having a love-hate thing with this car. I love the way it handles—some of the best steering feel on the road—and I’m enamored with the styling. But the lack of torque coming from the rotary is annoying, and I dream about this car with a torquey little six-cylinder. You can watch this fuel gauge drop as you drive.”

Gas isn’t the only fluid that vanishes quickly in the RX-8. The car continues to suck oil, a trend we noted in the first quarter (July 19).Three-and-a-half months past delivery, the RX-8 has consumed an entire case of oil, which is an inordinate thirst for any new car, rotary or not.

And so why, the love-hate staffer wonders for us all, is the rotary a better idea?

The Mazda’s trunk, rear bumper and a taillight were damaged by a large black vehicle as our car sat unoccupied in a parking lot. The offending coward slinked away without so much as a note. The repairs, covered by a $500 deduc*tible, are not inconsequential: The car spent eight business days at the body shop, costing more than $3,600 to fix.

But our RX-8 is back to beingpristine again, showing no hint of the run-in. And you can be sure, we’re still passionate about the Mazda, despite the troubles we’ve had. We intend to drive the brilliant and shapelyRX-8 as much as we possibly can for as long as the weather allows—we’ve ordered a set of snow tires to help get us through the winter. And we have a case of oil stashed in the office, at the ready.

cheers
michael
Mazda we need more TORQUE NOW

 

An entire case of oil in three-and-a-half months? Are they on crack?!? Does that include 2 oil changes?

 

I believe they are talking about oil top ups but even then it seems way excessive 4 litres in three- and-a half months

cheers
michael

 

Thanks for posting...I"m glad I'm not the only one who has thought about a RX8 with a nice V6 or shall V8.

The car is so loved by so many, if they figured out how to get 20/28 ouf the car regarding fuel economy...this would probably be the best sports car for bang for the buck there is...hands down.

 

the reason the handling is so great and the weight balance is nearly 50/50 is BECAUSE of the light, small, rotary engine. how many cars have the engine situated behind the front axle?

throw a V6 or V8 in there and everything goes to hell.

 

I'll bet that oil consumption number includes oil changes.

 

If I wanted a "torquey little V6" I would not have bought this car. More than likely I would've kept my TORQUEY big V8 and TC'd (also TORQUEY) Inline 5. And just to say the word torquey 1 more time, it sure does look funny when you type it in caps .

 

Torque goes both ways. I did not like the 350Z I test drove because the shifting was more "notchy", the car jerked almost as bad as my Hurst Olds I drove as a kid. 7 liters and a four speed now thats torquey!

 

Oh and BTW the Olds got 13 MPG!

 

if this is the biggest complaint about the car i cant wait to get mine next saturday

 

Absolutely right...good post, people seem to forget that. The chassis is designed for the rotary and nuthin else. Change the engine to piston and might as well scrap the car.

 

This is marketing hype by mazda.

The rotary isn't as light as they would have you believe.

I love the rotary because of the linearity and the sound and the uniqueness. Not because it is lighter and better than a V6.

It is 303lbs, from what I recall. A big nasty V8 is in the neighborhood of 400-500 lbs. and in fact, some 4 cylinders are lighter.

100 lbs can be made up by having a lighter driver/passenger. and is about... 3% of the total weight of the car. double the difference between having a full tank and 1/4 full. I could go on...

Don't over-emphasize the rotary's dimensions/weight impact on the performance on the car

 

Get back to me when you lose 100 lbs.

 

hah, point taken.

but they could have saved 100 lbs by not having suicide doors... or a million other things.

much more than 100 lbs if they had made it a 2-seater.

and adding 3% to the weight of the car isn't going to affect all that much one way or the other. which is my point.

Anyway, don't get me wrong. If it was an MX-8 instead of an RX-8, I wouldn't buy it, as I think taking away the rotary takes away the rx-8's soul. I would still be happily wrx'ing around town.

 

drop 100 pounds on the front nose and tell me a few pounds doesn't make a difference.

For me it was the 50/50 weight that was the deciding factor in buying this car. I know people complain about hp and torque but the 8 is much faster then my last car, which was a porsche 944, but the handling on the 944 was so awesome (also 50/50) that there was no way I would have bought this car if it didn't handle just as good.

I'm sure mazda could put the ms6 engine into this car or something simular, but then it would no longer have the characteristics that make this car so great. At that point I would have kept my porsche.

 

move the 303 lbs 60mm frontward and 40mm up, which is what mazda is telling you are the pros of the renesis vs the 13BREW.. and it isn't going to demonstrably affect the 50/50 weight distribution (and it isn't really 50/50 anyway. 51/49, isn't it?)

The new mustang has nearly a 50/50 as well (52/48). with a big V8 beneath the hood.

I really really love everything about the rx-8. But arguing against it with you folks is starting to hurt my soul.

If you can put a 4.6L V8 straight over the axle and get a 52/48 weight distribution, I doubt that placing the renesis (or a comparable 4 cylinder or v6) 6 inches forward will make a marked difference.

Anyway..

 

Using you're example...

If we just added 100 lbs to the engine, w/o moving it, the car would go from 51/49
to 53/47. But we also wouldn't be able to keep the engine down there, so it would come up and forward. So probably closer to 55/45 or more. You're telling me that much of a change wouldn't be noticable?

BTW, I did some searching, from a few sources the '05 Mustang weighs from 3400 to 3500 and has a weight distribution of 53/47.

If you save the weight by removing the suicide doors and back seats, how has this transferred weight backwards? It would make less weight in back further increasing the difference in weight distribution. the only way to lower the difference of a larger engine moved forward would be to add more weight to the rear end..., which is probably what they did to the new mustang to acchive it's "near 50/50".

Just my .02 from a layman's perspective using simple math. I realize that there is hype with any cars to make it sound different and stand out, just like anything in life, there's always another perspective on something. But am I way off base here?

 

The renesis is small and allows for a really nice engine placement, but you can slap a v8 into an rx7 and maintain nearly 50/50, I am sure you could do it with the 8, too.

Look guys, I am not really trying to argue against the loveliness that is the rx-8 with renesis. I love the car, engine and all. I have to make a second look back at the car when I walk away just to make sure that it's really mine. I love the angry buzzing sound coming from beneath the hood. All of it. It's just beautiful.

I am just saying that most of everything dealing with engine weight and 50/50 weight distribution is marketing hype by mazda to justify the engine, which stands on it's own unique merits.

 

Because there are also other engine types out there cough*Boxer*cough that do things such as lower the center of gravity. And, the new 2005 Corvette has the engine behind the front axle, so it is technically a mid-engine ride.