Just saw the 2005 Consumer Reports Buying Guide. They listed our 8's in the
Most\Least reliable section as one of the least reliable sports cars. They listed
the mileage, brakes, A/C and engine electrical as problem areas. I know we have had some minor teething (new car) issues but come on least reliable?

 

I agree, kinda harsh

 

The first two years of the new 996 were pretty bad...

 

Not more bad news...this type of stuff makes the decision to get an 8 that much more difficult. I love the car, I really do but this type of stuff makes me think of alot of questions. I"ll have to get that consumer guide issue.

Thanks for letting us know...with detail, unlike the other guy...not to be to harsh on him either...

 

What does mileage had to do with reliability?

 

LOL yeah, must mean that 8 owners like their cars too much they drive them a lot and this contributes to high mileage??

what the heck is engine electrical??

 

Probably meant fuel consumption. Honestly, most of that is just nitpicking, with fixes available from Mazda. Here's a real definition of reliable. I drive my car every day. I've had it over a year. The only time it's been into the shop were for the two recall items, and regular oil changes and tire rotation. It's solid, starts up every time... getting behind the wheel is a blast. So, if the best nit they can come up with is fuel consumption... well, they weren't thinking. ROTARY ENGINE SPORTS CAR. If you want a gas-sipper, a sports car isn't for you anyway.

Honestly, though, this is what you can expect from magazines and reviews that think all cars can be quantified by numbers. Go ahead, try to quantify a Saturday afternoon drive over a rolling, winding road with numbers, but you'd just end up counting how many times you started grinning and putting your foot down. Here's another number they just wouldn't get. 3. You, the car, and the open road. Compared to that, the nits fade away into insignificance.

Happy motoring.

 

What a bunch of BS... how does a small segment of the owners with squeaking breaks make for a reliability issue? And the revised AC Amplifier that Mazda put out... how is that a reliability issue? or mileage?? And what the hell is meant by engine electrical? Just because Mazda has upgraded our PCM flash revision, that's a reliability issue?

I used to trust CR's judgement as I thought it was based on sound research, but I see now there's no research at all- they must simply be going through Mazda's service bulletins calling each affected component "unreliable". Whatever.

 

Its bullsh*t, My 8 is my daily driver and I haven't had any issues with the car. Besides Consumer Reports is full of it--they rated the Mazda Millenia one of the most reliable, I've had two (still have one) and I have never had so many mechanical problems with the cars; the check engine light stays on and there is always some issue. To hell with Consumer Reports. The best way to determine reliability of a car is really to get on these owner forums and get a feel of real world responses and experiences--the long term test done by magazines is a pretty good starting point.

 

Let's not get too defensive here fellas. Consumer Reports is a pretty good unbiased (supposedly) organization. Without reading the 2005 version, nor looking at Consumer Reports' sources, I'm surprised they didn't have all the segments filled with N/A or No Data Available becasue it's too eary to test a car's reliability based on a little over a year. They usuallyhave that on newer cars, but I wonder why they chose to mark it the way they did.

If I can remember I think engine electrical are two different categories: engine / electrical

 

I agree with them.

I have 25k on the car in 1 year with 95% highway miles.

I don't track it, I don't race it and I don't to red light drag racing.

In the past couple of months I have noticed the fit and finsh is horrible. I have had the center console replaced......TWICE and it just broke again.

I have inside cupping that Mazda cannot fix.

I have a hard time getting into 6th gear.

The inside plastic scratches very easy.

The truck has become "misaligned" by itself.

etc,

When people use to ask what I thought of the car I would say I love it. Now, I cannot say that.

 

I'm not sure I'd be happy with a "truck" either :D

 

CR's reliability data comes from a survey of RX-8 owners. You can be mad at them, but they're reporting what owners told them. Personally, I think they're a trustworthy source.

If you take a closer look at the ratings, you'll see owners rated the RX-8 "very good" or "excellent" in all 14 of their reliability history categories.

"Excellent" for: cooling, electrical, suspension, brakes, exhaust, power equipment, paint/trim/rust, body integrity, body hardware. "Very good" for engine, fuel, ignition, transmission, A/C. Based on the complaints we hear on this board, that sounds pretty accurate.

Yet the reliability verdict is "below average" as compared to all cars in the survey. Isn't that interesting? This means the average car is damn reliable.

For the record, the CR survey did not find the RX-8 "least reliable" as the title of this thread claims. Cars that were "better than average" on reliability (from top to bottom) were:

Toyota Celica
Acura RSX
Mazda MX-5 Miata
Subaru Impreza WRX
Mitsubishi Eclipse
Porsche 911, Carrera
Ford Thunderbird
Honda S2000

Cars that were "worse than average" on reliability (from worse to worst) were:

Nissan 350Z
Porsche Boxter
Audi TT
Mazda RX-8*
Mini Cooper
BMW Z4
Hyundai Tiberon*

The interesting thing is that while the car was rated "fair" on predicted reliability, it's rated "very good" on owner satisfaction. I'd take issue with that. My owner satisfaction is "excellent." :D

From the CR website:

Reliability is an important concern for the new-car buyer, but a difficult quality to discern. CR's annual reliability surveys can help. Our latest survey, conducted in the spring of 2004, yielded information on 810,000 vehicles spanning the 1997 to 2004 model years. By looking at these data for past model years, we can predict how current models are likely to hold up.

To create the scores shown here, we average the overall reliability scores for the last three years, where available, provided the vehicle didn't change significantly in that time and hasn't for 2004. We've found that three years' data is a better predictor than is the single most recent model year.

Each car's overall score is calculated for its 2002, 2003, and 2004 versions. It's also weighted to emphasize more serious problem areas, including the engine, transmission, cooling system, and drive system. This overall score is then compared with the average for all the 2002, 2003, and 2004 cars in the survey. The charts reflect how the car compared with that all-car average.

The Predicted Reliability ratings at the bottom of each graph are based on a range. For example: Average stretches 20 points on either side of zero. So a car may have an average Predicted Reliability rating even if its score is a negative number. A broken bar indicates a percentage that extends beyond the chart.

In cases where a vehicle was new or was redesigned last year, or where we simply lack sufficient data, we may rely on one year's data--indicated by an asterisk (*)--if that's all that's available. Otherwise, the score is based on at least two.

Most new models don't appear here since we don't yet know how they'll rank. We make predictions for some models if the manufacturer's track record is consistent. Unless noted, all versions (body styles, drive wheels, powertrains) are included under the listed model.

 

D'OH!

 

I agree there's been some issues, as expected with a first year car, but I wouldn't deem them as reliability problems. The slight potential for flooding is the only reliability concern that is valid in my opinion, and the M-Flash all but eliminates that. Everything else is just a fixes and tweaks to minor problems.

 

Fu@k Consumer Reports. They can lick my nuts, last year they rated the RX-8 a "Best Buy" and the only car that was ranked higher was the Z. The only down points they listed for the 8 were fuel mileage and lack of more horsepower.

Oh well. It's just a magazine.

 

They've never rated the RX-8 a best buy. And they rated the RX-8 higher than the 350Z. I know because, oddly enough, CR is where I first heard about the car and got interested in it. They gave a very nice review of the car (basically, mileage was their main issue). You must be thinking of another magazine.

 

Call me crazy, but I agree that A/C amplifier is not a "reliabilty" issue, and neither are most of the thing they pointed out. In my opinion "reliability" is the car starting and getting you from Point A to Point B reliably. With over 25,000 miles, mine has done that every time so far. Anyone can nitpick any car. Oh, my Camry's plastic trim is not absolutely correctly aligned! The horror!! Whatever.

CR has always been a joke with their electronics ratings, but I thought the car reliability ratings could be trusted. Not sure why I thought that before, but now I don't.

 

A/C performance, mileage and brake squeaks have nothing to do with "reliability," in my opinion. What does that leave? Mainly the flooding problem, which the M flash seems to have eliminated.

And even as to the others, Mazda has corrected them all, except for the mileage, which has at least improved. And I'm fine with it as it is.

My 8 has been stone reliable, and perfect for over a year now. I'm totally content with it.

 

if a car has to go back to a dealer for anything other then regular maintenance, Then it's a ding against it.

 

CR has made mistakes in the past, this is another one...

 

I have been getting CR for over 20 years and they have been accurate. I didn't wait for the 1975 cars report issue to come then and I bought a 75 VW Rabbit!!! It was quick and neat for about 2 blocks!! When the report came out it basically said something about when you see one of these cars at a dealership keep on walking by it!!!! They were accurate 100%. Worst car I ever owned! It spent more time in warranty repairs than on the road. Horriable car that was. As far as the RX I doubt CR would say that about our cars. I think it depends on their surveys. I bought my RX after the surveys came out so I missed my 2 cent readings. I would say its an excellent car but not so great on fuel use which I knew before I bought it and its just an accepted factor with this car. I have bought cars that CR recommended too and I got burned with one. A Pontiac Grand Prix. It wasn't a good car. More like a rental car from Hertz. They said that in their survey but still it was one of the cars they checked!!! I failed this year to review CR before I helped my son lease an 04 Pontiac Grand AM!!! Oh my goodness. A very bad car from CR's view. They were 100% accurate and they were 100% accurate on the car's depreciation going down fast too. I traded it in for the RX and took a bath in money. Of course the car's value took over a 50% dive. Ouch. My son failed to make the lease payments and so dad took the car from him and was basically stuck with a crappy car. I couldn't stand it having that nightmare parked in my driveway which I didn't drive and was making monthly payments on it so I decided to take a large hit and opted to trade it in for the RX after much research on the RX. CR has yet to come out with a single review on the RX but I bet if they do they will ding it for gas use and how it handles on wet pavement but otherwise it should get high ratings. Their observations can be pretty picky down to checking the torque on wheel lugs and lose fittings here and there. I hope they do review and RX but I think there will be some negatives there.

 

As others have stated, "reliability" is defined as "Did I have to take my car back to the dealer to have something fixed."

When it comes to the 8, the reliability "shortfalls" can be thought of as:

A/C: Cooling/A/C amplifier issues
Engine Electrical: Needed reflashes
Brakes: Squaking/squealing/rusted wheel hubs

"High reliability" to CR means you drive it off the lot and only see the dealer for scheduled maintenance; even the most rabid 8 fans will have to admit that hasn't been true so far.

 

Not true. I can't post the entire review without violating some copyright law I'm sure, but here's the summary:

"The new RX-8 is a sporty coupe and successor to the RX-7. It marks the return of the Wankel rotary engine. While acceleration is not explosive, it is exceptionally smooth and responsive provided you keep the engine at mid-revs, which becomes natural and sounds invigorating. Handling is super agile, with quick, communicative steering, and is forgiving at the limits. Unlike some competitors, the ride is fairly comfortable. This truly fun-to-drive car doesn't beat you up and seats four. The rear-hinged rear doors with no center roof pillar make backseat access relatively easy. Fuel economy is disappointing, as is first-year reliability."

Overall, I'd say a very favorable review.

Want to see what they said about the 350Z? This will restore everyone's confidence :

"The 350Z two-seater revives Nissan's now-classic Z series of sports cars that started its dynasty in the early 1970s, when Nissan was still called Datsun. It shares mechanical components with the Infiniti G35, including a wonderfully strong and smooth V6. Acceleration is very quick, and fuel economy is respectable. The six-speed manual shifter feels slightly notchy. Handling is fairly agile but less so than the Mazda RX-8. The ride is harsh and uncomfortable. Tire and road noise are pronounced. Rear visibility is poor. Interior fit and finish is disappointing. A convertible with a power-operated top is also available. "

 

Take your emotions out of it.

The 8 cannot, and will not, be a long lasting car. Period.

With issues of Fit and Finish, Dealer arrogance in the service department and the issuance of sb after sb, this car is doomed.

The 8 was rushed to market. If they would have waited another year, it would be a much better car.