Great letter in April 2004 Car and Driver
03-02-2004, 12:00 AM
#26
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those defending Mazda on the mileage issue - just remember, the EPA testing regimen is not a big secret. The auto manufacturers (ALL OF THEM) design the fuel maps with getting the best possible EPA test results as a goal. If you drive the car the way the EPA tests it, you will likely achieve similar results as the EPA.
Having said that, I have tried to drive the 8 by shifting under 3k and it is absurd. I didn't buy a rotary powered sports car to drive it like a diesel truck. I might pull a couple of sub 3k shifts during warm up but that's it. Let's be real. In the time it takes to lift your foot off the clutch and prepare to upshift again the engine is already between 4-5k. It likes to rev and I like to rev it.
I can exceed 20mpg on the highway if I keep it below 73mph in 6th. Since this is not a realistic interstate cruise speed, it would be nice to have a dashboard selectable "economy" mode.
I read somewhere that the owners of the Toyota and Honda hybrids are starting a class action lawsuit because those cars are even furhter from the EPA numbers in real world conditions and usage.
I'll be going in for an oil change and a couple of warranty issue in the next week or two. I'll see if they 'll update the ECU and see if that makes any difference. If not, oh well.
Having said that, I have tried to drive the 8 by shifting under 3k and it is absurd. I didn't buy a rotary powered sports car to drive it like a diesel truck. I might pull a couple of sub 3k shifts during warm up but that's it. Let's be real. In the time it takes to lift your foot off the clutch and prepare to upshift again the engine is already between 4-5k. It likes to rev and I like to rev it.
I can exceed 20mpg on the highway if I keep it below 73mph in 6th. Since this is not a realistic interstate cruise speed, it would be nice to have a dashboard selectable "economy" mode.
I read somewhere that the owners of the Toyota and Honda hybrids are starting a class action lawsuit because those cars are even furhter from the EPA numbers in real world conditions and usage.
I'll be going in for an oil change and a couple of warranty issue in the next week or two. I'll see if they 'll update the ECU and see if that makes any difference. If not, oh well.
03-02-2004, 12:09 AM
#27
Moderator with a mycocardium
I exceeded 21 mpg with no reflash on an 8 manufactured in Sept '03, driving it at 75 - 78 mph using cruise control. I cannot complain about highway mileage even if it isn't in the middle 20s. However, even if I keep the RPMs under 3500 and drive it like a grandma, I cannot achieve above 15 mpg, I still stay around 14.5 or below. I could only drive it that way (granny) for 100 miles before I said I have got to fill it up to check the mileage and go fast again. It was as all who have tried it, BOORING!!
I will get the reflash when I get the reflash. I no longer complain about mileage issues.
I will get the reflash when I get the reflash. I no longer complain about mileage issues.
03-02-2004, 12:15 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just got my car back from the dealer today. Took it in for the latest reflash. Had a good chat with the service tech to. He mentioned that there could be more updates coming from mazda, and that the mileage will improve with time? Anyway, I did notice some more grunt and less hesitation at WOT.....but it could be just me. But it did feel a little different, especially around the 4k-7k mark. The mileage issue we did talk about, and lets face it, the rotary is not a car for good mileage, and climate change plays a huge part in how much gas this thing will use. He mentioned that warmer weather will improve the mpg, but even at just below freezing temp, the car will get much poorer mpg. The rotary is not a fan of cold weather........and to me, the performance is worth it !......to the guy that had the run in with a Mustang GT.....on the way home, some guy in a BMW 330ci was trying to tail gate me?? Think he was trying to see what I was going to do? Well, next light I pulled away and floored it up to about 90kph, he pulled in the other labe to try and pas, but was still about 1 or 2 car lengths behind. I backed off as I would like to keep my license. But in the real world, the 8 has enough power to keep you smiling......and with CZ's mod, it will be even more fun!:D
03-02-2004, 12:47 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by shebam
No -- at least in my experience, reverses cause and effect. When mine flooded, because I had moved it for about 30 seconds in very cold weather and returned to it 2 days later, it ALSO ran for about 2 seconds then died and wouldn't come close to catching again. The flooding was caused by the move 2 days before, not the dying after 2 seconds. Can't explain the why or wherefore, but that was my experience too (raising the very scientific sample to 2).
No -- at least in my experience, reverses cause and effect. When mine flooded, because I had moved it for about 30 seconds in very cold weather and returned to it 2 days later, it ALSO ran for about 2 seconds then died and wouldn't come close to catching again. The flooding was caused by the move 2 days before, not the dying after 2 seconds. Can't explain the why or wherefore, but that was my experience too (raising the very scientific sample to 2).
03-02-2004, 10:04 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've measured about 19 mpg over the last three tanks, and that includes some pretty spirited driving. I've owned seven cars over the last fifteen years, and I've always managed to meet the EPA numbers -- frankly, I'm surprised I'm able to do so in my RX-8, given that I seem to shift at about twice the rpm as in any piston engine car.
As for people who buy their cars "by the numbers" instead of by how the vehicles feel from behind the wheel, to each his own. My RX-8 is great fun to drive regardless of whether it takes 14.5 seconds or 15.2 seconds or 16 seconds to cover a quarter mile.
As for people who buy their cars "by the numbers" instead of by how the vehicles feel from behind the wheel, to each his own. My RX-8 is great fun to drive regardless of whether it takes 14.5 seconds or 15.2 seconds or 16 seconds to cover a quarter mile.
03-02-2004, 10:50 AM
#31
F125er/Future RX-8er
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WI, USA
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TwoZooms
As for people who buy their cars "by the numbers" instead of by how the vehicles feel from behind the wheel, to each his own. My RX-8 is great fun to drive regardless of whether it takes 14.5 seconds or 15.2 seconds or 16 seconds to cover a quarter mile.
As for people who buy their cars "by the numbers" instead of by how the vehicles feel from behind the wheel, to each his own. My RX-8 is great fun to drive regardless of whether it takes 14.5 seconds or 15.2 seconds or 16 seconds to cover a quarter mile.
03-02-2004, 11:10 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tx
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think someone should survey everyone that bought a new car in 2003 or anytime recently, and see if they get the same numbers as the EPA estimates. I bet the answer would be a resounding "HELL NO." Visit any car forum, read any magazine road test or long-term test and you'll see cars these days rarely deliver what the EPA says they might.
For comparison's sake, look at Edmunds long term Z and G coupe. The best mpg for the Z has been 22.9, the worst 17.8. For the G, the best was 16.3, and the worst was 13.7. Nowhere near what the sticker claims.
For comparison's sake, look at Edmunds long term Z and G coupe. The best mpg for the Z has been 22.9, the worst 17.8. For the G, the best was 16.3, and the worst was 13.7. Nowhere near what the sticker claims.
03-02-2004, 12:39 PM
#33
M0D Squad -charter member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For comparison's sake, look at Edmunds long term Z and G coupe. The best mpg for the Z has been 22.9, the worst 17.8. For the G, the best was 16.3, and the worst was 13.7. Nowhere near what the sticker claims.
Before my purchase, I budgeted based upon 20 mpg. After 35 tankfuls, I'm getting 21.16 mpg. So nothing but praises from this satisfied owner. I did not pick 24mpg to budget from, knowing I do not drive to acheive EPA's highest number. 85% of my driving is highway. Those of you with mostly city driving, did you expect to get the highest city number that EPA gave?
I am closing in on 8 months of ownership. Like many of you, I studied up on the RX-8, and other car choices like the G35 & 350Z mentioned above. Even though I pre-ordered the RX-8 in 1/03, I was not blinded to look into other choices.
When I got my RX-8, I was worried it would dissappoint, kind of like a movie you look forward to seeing, because of all the hype, and it ends up being a let down because the build-up was bigger than it deserved. Yet with my ride, the reverse was true. It pleasantly surprised me with the quality of ride, the linear acceleration, the responsive steering, and ultimately, the total driving experience.
May the latest 'L' reflash help those who do mostly city driving. However, I do believe driving style plays the biggest part of the MPG equation.
drive
03-02-2004, 01:43 PM
#35
They Come At Night
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh how can I stress this, RTFM!!
If you want the EPA gas mileage, shift at recommended points where? In the manual. Want to know about flooding the car and getting it unflooded, hmm, read the manual. People want to get bitchy and complain about how the salesman didn't go over this or that, or the sticker said X mpg, yet don't know how these figures are derived, it's not Mazda that puts out these numbers, it's the EPA, and they shift at what it says in the manual. While I agree this is not a fun way to drive the car, I am not bitching about MPG. I drive hard and I've never gotten below 15, when I did I was driving around about 40-50 in 2nd gear. BTW my salesman did go over the cold shutdown with me, it's not a new issue, it was back in August, and I'm sure it was known or they wouldn't have put it in the manual. The only thing I expected from sales was to fill out the paperwork.
If you want the EPA gas mileage, shift at recommended points where? In the manual. Want to know about flooding the car and getting it unflooded, hmm, read the manual. People want to get bitchy and complain about how the salesman didn't go over this or that, or the sticker said X mpg, yet don't know how these figures are derived, it's not Mazda that puts out these numbers, it's the EPA, and they shift at what it says in the manual. While I agree this is not a fun way to drive the car, I am not bitching about MPG. I drive hard and I've never gotten below 15, when I did I was driving around about 40-50 in 2nd gear. BTW my salesman did go over the cold shutdown with me, it's not a new issue, it was back in August, and I'm sure it was known or they wouldn't have put it in the manual. The only thing I expected from sales was to fill out the paperwork.
03-02-2004, 05:13 PM
#36
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Riverview FL
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same old thread... but
I have two. My wife and I compare numbers on mileage regularly. I get from 19.5 to 21.5 depending on the amount of fun I am having. My wife gets 18 to 20.5 and I have watched her driving style to understand the differences.
I shift at 3750-4000 unless I am gettin on it. I do skip-shifts on a regular basis if I am bogged down in traffic and there is no bene to running through the gears. My wife shifts around 4500-5000. She is not that aggressive, she just waits longer to shift. Lastly, she does not use 6th as much as I do.
Pondering whether I should get the L reflash or leave well enough alone....
I shift at 3750-4000 unless I am gettin on it. I do skip-shifts on a regular basis if I am bogged down in traffic and there is no bene to running through the gears. My wife shifts around 4500-5000. She is not that aggressive, she just waits longer to shift. Lastly, she does not use 6th as much as I do.
Pondering whether I should get the L reflash or leave well enough alone....
03-02-2004, 08:34 PM
#37
Pro Audentius
Originally posted by TwoZooms
As for people who buy their cars "by the numbers" instead of by how the vehicles feel from behind the wheel, to each his own. My RX-8 is great fun to drive regardless of whether it takes 14.5 seconds or 15.2 seconds or 16 seconds to cover a quarter mile.
As for people who buy their cars "by the numbers" instead of by how the vehicles feel from behind the wheel, to each his own. My RX-8 is great fun to drive regardless of whether it takes 14.5 seconds or 15.2 seconds or 16 seconds to cover a quarter mile.
As I said in my original post, the driving experience is what sells cars, and that's why I bought the car. There's nothing else like it -- a "Renaissance Man's Car", IMO. "Renaissance Woman's Car" too :D
The RX8 felt so much more optimal, especially compared to all the other cars I tested (Z, G, EvoVIII, STI, 3-Series, et.al.).
Last edited by SpacerX; 03-02-2004 at 08:37 PM.
03-03-2004, 06:25 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astor,
The owner's manual is crap. Flooded -- followed emergency start procedure and it still took twenty embarrassing minutes to get it fired up again. I've never had a fuel injected car flood. Carburetor floods were always a piece of cake -- pedal down, don't let up, crank.
I'm not even sure what the point is of putting the pedal down on a flooded fuel injected car (never had to ponder this before). It's either telling a sensor that I want more gas (no), or maybe that tells a sensor that the engine IS flooded and it cuts off fuel?
It would be nice to know -- someone suggested pulling the fuse to the pump and in hind site, that probably would have re-started the engine a lot sooner.
With two plugs per chamber flooding should be nearly impossible. They NEED to fix this...
Tinkerer
The owner's manual is crap. Flooded -- followed emergency start procedure and it still took twenty embarrassing minutes to get it fired up again. I've never had a fuel injected car flood. Carburetor floods were always a piece of cake -- pedal down, don't let up, crank.
I'm not even sure what the point is of putting the pedal down on a flooded fuel injected car (never had to ponder this before). It's either telling a sensor that I want more gas (no), or maybe that tells a sensor that the engine IS flooded and it cuts off fuel?
It would be nice to know -- someone suggested pulling the fuse to the pump and in hind site, that probably would have re-started the engine a lot sooner.
With two plugs per chamber flooding should be nearly impossible. They NEED to fix this...
Tinkerer
03-03-2004, 03:07 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Oakland, NJ
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another point of view
The problem with letters like the one in C&D is that they air dirty laundry in public. Often the result is that the manufacturer pulls back and out of the segment, re: no more RX-8, maybe no RX-7 replacement and so on.
Sometimes cars like the RX-8 represent an imperfect first step that with some encouragement leads to improvements and even better cars.
I love my RX-8 despite a little less hp than I expected. My last car was an M Roadster. Plenty of power and acceleration, but overall, a very poor comparison to the RX-8 in quality, handling, content and value.
Last, I work for the world's leading sports car company and regularly drive some pretty exotic machinery -- bottom line is I can't wait to get back in my RX-8, it always brings a smile to my face.
Sometimes cars like the RX-8 represent an imperfect first step that with some encouragement leads to improvements and even better cars.
I love my RX-8 despite a little less hp than I expected. My last car was an M Roadster. Plenty of power and acceleration, but overall, a very poor comparison to the RX-8 in quality, handling, content and value.
Last, I work for the world's leading sports car company and regularly drive some pretty exotic machinery -- bottom line is I can't wait to get back in my RX-8, it always brings a smile to my face.
03-04-2004, 08:02 AM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rxeightr
And planted right smack within those numbers we find our own RX-8.
Before my purchase, I budgeted based upon 20 mpg. After 35 tankfuls, I'm getting 21.16 mpg. So nothing but praises from this satisfied owner. I did not pick 24mpg to budget from, knowing I do not drive to acheive EPA's highest number. 85% of my driving is highway. Those of you with mostly city driving, did you expect to get the highest city number that EPA gave?
drive
And planted right smack within those numbers we find our own RX-8.
Before my purchase, I budgeted based upon 20 mpg. After 35 tankfuls, I'm getting 21.16 mpg. So nothing but praises from this satisfied owner. I did not pick 24mpg to budget from, knowing I do not drive to acheive EPA's highest number. 85% of my driving is highway. Those of you with mostly city driving, did you expect to get the highest city number that EPA gave?
drive
Do I wish I was getting better mileage? Sure I do, but I also don't want to give up shifting above 3000 RPM or cruising faster than 63 MPH. Besides, the Rx-8's competition isn't anything to write home about when it comes to mileage. My last car (Audi TT) only got around 23.5 MPG and was slower and far less enjoyable to drive. Even that expense differential is erased when you consider I can use 87 octane in the Rx-8.
03-06-2004, 11:21 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to echo what all the RX8 "lovers" are saying. I've never owned a car (including some highly regarded German models) that is as fun-to-drive, well put together, with high quality materials, that is as stylish and head turning as the RX8.
Someone mentioned the MPG on the Prius....quite a firestorm with that number. EPA says 50-61 MPG. Owners say it's more like 38 MPG in city driving (where it's supposed to get its best economy). That's a 30% differential. I get 38 MPG (highway) in my '99 Civic and it's faster than any Prius.
Point is, I've never had any car that matches the MPG numbers on the sticker.
Oh yeah, I get 19 MPG in mixed driving with my RX8...24 MPG on highway driving.
Mine has never flooded. I've driven in all types of weather, hot and cold. I've pulled it our of the garage to wash it, and shut it down several times.
The minority that have flooded, Mazda has offered to put in "hot" plugs and that seems to have rectified their issue.
Someone mentioned the MPG on the Prius....quite a firestorm with that number. EPA says 50-61 MPG. Owners say it's more like 38 MPG in city driving (where it's supposed to get its best economy). That's a 30% differential. I get 38 MPG (highway) in my '99 Civic and it's faster than any Prius.
Point is, I've never had any car that matches the MPG numbers on the sticker.
Oh yeah, I get 19 MPG in mixed driving with my RX8...24 MPG on highway driving.
Mine has never flooded. I've driven in all types of weather, hot and cold. I've pulled it our of the garage to wash it, and shut it down several times.
The minority that have flooded, Mazda has offered to put in "hot" plugs and that seems to have rectified their issue.
Last edited by graphicguy; 03-06-2004 at 11:26 AM.
03-07-2004, 10:55 AM
#42
Oversteer = Bliss
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sask, Canada
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it particularly telling that Edmunds G35C gets the same mileage as the RX-8 does, despite different EPA estimates. At any rate guys, maybe you should look at the fuel consumption this way:
I have a 12A rotary engine in my RX-7. It's rated by the EPA for 17MPG city and 26 MPG highway. I typically get 15MPG in the city and usually get 26 MPG or better on the highway. The highway mileage is due to the low final gearing on my car, 3.903 compared to a 4.11 in the RX-8 IIRC. Anyhow, I think that you see my point, my 12A makes 100 HP on a good day, maybe 110 with my header. The RX-8 makes at LEAST 220 HP with the same fuel consumption, more with Canzoomer's ECU mods.
Compared to rotary engines of old, the Renesis does TWICE as much work with the same fuel consumption. Sounds like a good improvement to me.
I have a 12A rotary engine in my RX-7. It's rated by the EPA for 17MPG city and 26 MPG highway. I typically get 15MPG in the city and usually get 26 MPG or better on the highway. The highway mileage is due to the low final gearing on my car, 3.903 compared to a 4.11 in the RX-8 IIRC. Anyhow, I think that you see my point, my 12A makes 100 HP on a good day, maybe 110 with my header. The RX-8 makes at LEAST 220 HP with the same fuel consumption, more with Canzoomer's ECU mods.
Compared to rotary engines of old, the Renesis does TWICE as much work with the same fuel consumption. Sounds like a good improvement to me.
03-08-2004, 09:11 AM
#43
FWD Hater
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by SA22C
I find it particularly telling that Edmunds G35C gets the same mileage as the RX-8 does, despite different EPA estimates. At any rate guys, maybe you should look at the fuel consumption this way:
I have a 12A rotary engine in my RX-7. It's rated by the EPA for 17MPG city and 26 MPG highway. I typically get 15MPG in the city and usually get 26 MPG or better on the highway. The highway mileage is due to the low final gearing on my car, 3.903 compared to a 4.11 in the RX-8 IIRC. Anyhow, I think that you see my point, my 12A makes 100 HP on a good day, maybe 110 with my header. The RX-8 makes at LEAST 220 HP with the same fuel consumption, more with Canzoomer's ECU mods.
Compared to rotary engines of old, the Renesis does TWICE as much work with the same fuel consumption. Sounds like a good improvement to me.
I find it particularly telling that Edmunds G35C gets the same mileage as the RX-8 does, despite different EPA estimates. At any rate guys, maybe you should look at the fuel consumption this way:
I have a 12A rotary engine in my RX-7. It's rated by the EPA for 17MPG city and 26 MPG highway. I typically get 15MPG in the city and usually get 26 MPG or better on the highway. The highway mileage is due to the low final gearing on my car, 3.903 compared to a 4.11 in the RX-8 IIRC. Anyhow, I think that you see my point, my 12A makes 100 HP on a good day, maybe 110 with my header. The RX-8 makes at LEAST 220 HP with the same fuel consumption, more with Canzoomer's ECU mods.
Compared to rotary engines of old, the Renesis does TWICE as much work with the same fuel consumption. Sounds like a good improvement to me.
03-12-2004, 10:42 PM
#44
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cincinnati/Dublin, OH
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Tinkerer
Astor,
The owner's manual is crap. Flooded -- followed emergency start procedure and it still took twenty embarrassing minutes to get it fired up again. I've never had a fuel injected car flood. Carburetor floods were always a piece of cake -- pedal down, don't let up, crank.
I'm not even sure what the point is of putting the pedal down on a flooded fuel injected car (never had to ponder this before). It's either telling a sensor that I want more gas (no), or maybe that tells a sensor that the engine IS flooded and it cuts off fuel?
It would be nice to know -- someone suggested pulling the fuse to the pump and in hind site, that probably would have re-started the engine a lot sooner.
With two plugs per chamber flooding should be nearly impossible. They NEED to fix this...
Tinkerer
Astor,
The owner's manual is crap. Flooded -- followed emergency start procedure and it still took twenty embarrassing minutes to get it fired up again. I've never had a fuel injected car flood. Carburetor floods were always a piece of cake -- pedal down, don't let up, crank.
I'm not even sure what the point is of putting the pedal down on a flooded fuel injected car (never had to ponder this before). It's either telling a sensor that I want more gas (no), or maybe that tells a sensor that the engine IS flooded and it cuts off fuel?
It would be nice to know -- someone suggested pulling the fuse to the pump and in hind site, that probably would have re-started the engine a lot sooner.
With two plugs per chamber flooding should be nearly impossible. They NEED to fix this...
Tinkerer
Hey Tink !!!
Chill out. This IS acceptable behavior and Mazda is not going to bend over backwards to fix NORMAL **** !!! Some of us long-time enthusiasts have been dealing with the nuances of rotaries for a long g-damned time. Quit whining and enjoy the car. Anyone who expected this engine to behave any differently than 12A's or 13B's in general (be it flooding or mileage) is unrealistic. This is not just any fuel-injected car. Throw all pre-conceived notions of engines out of your head. I'm [not] sorry, but your posts just frustrate the hell out of me. Nothing personal.
(flame suit on)
P.S. - go buy a 3rd gen. 7 and THEN come back and tell me you still have "issues" with the 8.
03-13-2004, 05:35 AM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: East Texas
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Took a four week road trip from east Texas through Calif and up to Portland, OR in February. Included all sorts of driving - flat desert, mountains, freeway, city, etc. I checked the mileage for several tanks of gas: it ranged from 18._ to 24._. Thats within the advertised range, so I don't have any complaints. I did get the car up to 120 in west Texas...it tracked so smooth and solid, it felt like 80. Was able to pass with no problem anytime I wanted. We had some 12 hour days and we never got road-fatigue. Great car!
03-15-2004, 04:24 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey XU...
Apparently you live in a world of crap and expect more crap. I don't and don't expect any of it to begin with.
You think it's reasonable for a brand new 8 to flood and it takes twenty minutes to restart it is acceptable? I don't care what the history of this car or the engine is. It's not acceptable -- period.
If this thing was such a dog in the first place what did they bring it back for? I'm shocked that Ford let them bring this back if this is a known, unsolveable issue. What the hell am I even saying -- who the hell thinks an easily flooded engine in today's marketplace is acceptable? Are you off your rocker?! I can't even believe there's a procedure in the manual covering this -- there shouldn't be an issue -- no one should be able to put a production line together to sell something with this trait.
Now, you being back in your little hole of crap (where you seem to be pretty comfortable) I will say that this hasn't flooded since -- but damn I had no clue this was an issue or a trait of this engine. Seems more to me to be a bad episode of the twilight zone that this should be EXPECTED -- ACCEPTABLE -- NO -- BIG -- DEAL.
Hey, when you get your life -- drop me another line...
Tinkerer
Apparently you live in a world of crap and expect more crap. I don't and don't expect any of it to begin with.
You think it's reasonable for a brand new 8 to flood and it takes twenty minutes to restart it is acceptable? I don't care what the history of this car or the engine is. It's not acceptable -- period.
If this thing was such a dog in the first place what did they bring it back for? I'm shocked that Ford let them bring this back if this is a known, unsolveable issue. What the hell am I even saying -- who the hell thinks an easily flooded engine in today's marketplace is acceptable? Are you off your rocker?! I can't even believe there's a procedure in the manual covering this -- there shouldn't be an issue -- no one should be able to put a production line together to sell something with this trait.
Now, you being back in your little hole of crap (where you seem to be pretty comfortable) I will say that this hasn't flooded since -- but damn I had no clue this was an issue or a trait of this engine. Seems more to me to be a bad episode of the twilight zone that this should be EXPECTED -- ACCEPTABLE -- NO -- BIG -- DEAL.
Hey, when you get your life -- drop me another line...
Tinkerer
03-15-2004, 04:54 PM
#47
FWD Hater
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAHA..........I love this place.....
Unacceptable!! Unacceptable!! WHOOOO HAHAHAH
Really, stop whining. Sell the damm car if it bothers you so much. If you hadn't bitched about the flood thing, you'd probably whine about gas mileage, or overrated horsepower, or some other bulls***. It's no biggie....
Chicken littles.....
The sky is not falling.
Unacceptable!! Unacceptable!! WHOOOO HAHAHAH
Really, stop whining. Sell the damm car if it bothers you so much. If you hadn't bitched about the flood thing, you'd probably whine about gas mileage, or overrated horsepower, or some other bulls***. It's no biggie....
Chicken littles.....
The sky is not falling.
03-15-2004, 04:59 PM
#48
FWD Hater
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh and my direct line to all the people who have been around this forum, read all the stuff, went out bought an RX8, then flooded it, and whined about it. You are stupid. Yep. Sorry....somebody has to say it. So quit the horses***.
How was that?
How was that?
03-15-2004, 07:07 PM
#50
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cincinnati/Dublin, OH
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Tinkerer
Hey XU...
Apparently you live in a world of crap and expect more crap. I don't and don't expect any of it to begin with.
You think it's reasonable for a brand new 8 to flood and it takes twenty minutes to restart it is acceptable? I don't care what the history of this car or the engine is. It's not acceptable -- period.
If this thing was such a dog in the first place what did they bring it back for? I'm shocked that Ford let them bring this back if this is a known, unsolveable issue. What the hell am I even saying -- who the hell thinks an easily flooded engine in today's marketplace is acceptable? Are you off your rocker?! I can't even believe there's a procedure in the manual covering this -- there shouldn't be an issue -- no one should be able to put a production line together to sell something with this trait.
Now, you being back in your little hole of crap (where you seem to be pretty comfortable) I will say that this hasn't flooded since -- but damn I had no clue this was an issue or a trait of this engine. Seems more to me to be a bad episode of the twilight zone that this should be EXPECTED -- ACCEPTABLE -- NO -- BIG -- DEAL.
Hey, when you get your life -- drop me another line...
Tinkerer
Hey XU...
Apparently you live in a world of crap and expect more crap. I don't and don't expect any of it to begin with.
You think it's reasonable for a brand new 8 to flood and it takes twenty minutes to restart it is acceptable? I don't care what the history of this car or the engine is. It's not acceptable -- period.
If this thing was such a dog in the first place what did they bring it back for? I'm shocked that Ford let them bring this back if this is a known, unsolveable issue. What the hell am I even saying -- who the hell thinks an easily flooded engine in today's marketplace is acceptable? Are you off your rocker?! I can't even believe there's a procedure in the manual covering this -- there shouldn't be an issue -- no one should be able to put a production line together to sell something with this trait.
Now, you being back in your little hole of crap (where you seem to be pretty comfortable) I will say that this hasn't flooded since -- but damn I had no clue this was an issue or a trait of this engine. Seems more to me to be a bad episode of the twilight zone that this should be EXPECTED -- ACCEPTABLE -- NO -- BIG -- DEAL.
Hey, when you get your life -- drop me another line...
Tinkerer
Sorry it took me SO LONG to respond. I was so deep in crap that I couldn't hear you bitching and whining. Or maybe that's just a defense mechanism from reading too many assinine posts on these forums.
Have you done your homework?!?! Have you ever stopped to read why this happens? Upon startup there is an abnormally large amount of fuel dumped into the combustion chamber of a rotary (as compared to piston poppers). This happens to be one of the main culprits - hence the need to let the car run and not immediately shut it off - give it a chance to burn up the extra fuel. Now, later in the life of the engine this can be exacerbated by not maintaining the motor. Rotaries are also especially hard on spark plugs due to added duty cycles and heat. Some mechanics recommend replacing 13B plugs as often as every 15,000 miles. Now if you let them go too long...... then they lose their ability to ignite that extra bit of fuel. It has yet to be seen how this will/will not change with the RENESIS. If anyone would like to add to this or clarify please do.
Read and you'll see that I'm not the only one who feels this way. Also read and you'll notice that there are a couple very simple habits to intergrate into your car-driving life that will eliminate the problems of flooding. If you pay attention you will see that it is only a problem for people who refuse to follow the laws of rotary
I have owned 5 RX-7's. The first - a 1989 GXL - was exceptionally prone to flooding. WHY ?!?!?! Not because it was a piece of ****, but because I had no idea how to proplerly maintain it. Now that I have learned the error of my ways (11 years ago) I have yet to flood another one since. I have not flooded my 8 at all. The people who pay attention don't flood their 8's. The only person who has flooded my 8 was my dad after the car sat for two months (jan-feb). If it takes you twenty F-ING minutes to restart the car....... then just don't bother. Sell it to someone who gives a **** and go buy a Z. Or, better yet, a Cavalier...... I hear they're bitchin' man.
Why not focus on all the awesome **** on this car instead of the one or two negative traits. I guess you can't please everyone. Well, I'm back to my Wide World O' Crap - with cars that don't flood.
Regards,
Ryan