http://www.automotive.com/2005/12/ma...ews/index.html

 

Strange 'review', more of an 'introduction to'. Review is 80% a visual and (his) body fit critique. The guy must have been born under a rock somewhere as he acts like he's never heard of the car for the last 2 years.

Kind a scitzoid if you ask me:

"Fun, fast, practical, and entirely livable in the daily grind, it's hard to think of a better all-around sports car under $30,000 (if not $40,000) than the Mazda RX-8, especially if you want a balance of attributes. Mazda's will have to stuff its old 2.5-liter V6 under the hood before I buy one, but if the rotary's for you, what are you waiting for?"


Huh?

 

Seems like he likes the car but hates the engine until he realizes that the engine is part of the car.

"In fact, the RX-8 is perfectly balanced, with an emphasis on the "perfect": weight distribution is 50/50 front to back. There isn't a whole lot of weight to distribute, either: 3,029 pounds (only 303 of which come from the rotary engine). Hmm, now it all comes together: the light engine allows the neutral numbers, the neutral numbers allow the balanced handling, and the low weight allows the RX-8 to have inherent agility without having to beef up the shocks to the point of destroyed ride quality, like Nissan resorted to with its 350Z. Truthfully, the RX-8 handles better anyway."

 

what i like more than the perfect balance is the fact that it has a low moment of inertia...

i think thats what people always forget... it turns quick cuz of the low inertia...

it stays in control cuz of the balance

 

I don't understand what this guy is saying. He's complimenting everyone about the rotary, yet he won't buy one CUZ of the rotary. Jeez, what a weirdo.

Well, he does make some good points. ^^

 

And with that statement, goes all credibility...

 

LOL... Ah jeez, what a way to ruin the review


EDIT: Okay... so I actually read the review and.... I disagreed with MANY of his points.

The most obvious was what "The RX-8" said about the RE040s, and while those tires may be good for stock, they suck compared to say... S2000 stock RE050A's. There are ALOT of better tires out there, and the RE040s are expensive for no reason.

Second was about the Six-Footer thing. I am 6' 1" and I seriously have NO clue what he's talking about. According to my friends, I sit nearly perfectly upright and I have ample headspace. Well, it helps that I didn't get the sunroof.

Third was price point. 27k for 6speed base? Jeez, I got mine (2005 model, June) for 24k including the sport package. Hah, guess he doesn't know how to bargain huh?

Fourth was about the oil-burning issue. Well jeez. If you don't wanna take care of your car and check the oil at least every other gas fill-up, what kind of negligent car owner are you? Well... I guess not everyone is as paranoid as us forum'ers, but still, it's not that hard to check the oil, even if it is in a semi-hard to reach spot.

And a little side note: I believe the car DOES have a "virtual" b-pillar inside the rear doors. I don't think this guy really knows the true structural integrals of the car.

 

I've got to say though, I see his point. The balance, the feel, the whole driving experience is so great, all because of the LACK of weight on the front end. Why is there a lack of weight on the front end? Because of a measly 300 LB rotary engine. HOWEVER, if Mazda was able to place the Mazdaspeed6 turbocharged engine into the RX-8, it would get considerably more accolades because it could compete with the 350Zs and the G35s of the world. As is, the car is not the speed demon, and it was never designed to be.

Of course, to be fair, a lot of people bought the RX-8 because of the rotary engine, and the RX-8 is a whole tribute to the Wankel with rotary accents EVERYWHERE from the hood to a little one below the rear bumper to the head rests. Removing it for a cylinder engine would be somewhat dumb for those reasons. However, it would definitely begin to appeal to a much wider population if the car did not have black clouds over it's head like MPG, flooding issues, availability of knowledgable rotary mechanics, and reliability in general. However, that comes with a catch. One must replace the rotary engine, while at the same time preserving the smoothness and the balance that it provides. Quite the tough task to embark on. Additionally, the 9000 RPM redline would be for naught, replaced with around a 6700 RPM redline. I think thats what the writer of the article is trying to point out. He simply wants perfection. He is saying that if they improve on the MPG and the power, they got yourselves a deal! Unfourtunately, that does not seem possible with the rotary.

I think the best way to fix these problems is to look at other technology out there. For instance, one idea I brought up a while back was the use of CVTs and IVTs for the automatics. That would be nice since they could freely use the higher powered 6 port rotary and get the same power output as a manual, while at the sametime, improving MPG and times over even the cars equiped with the manual transmission. If you question the ability to handle the engine and output enough torque, I would like to point out that the Nissan Murano's engine outperforms the Renesis and yet it has a CVT handle its shifting (or lack there of )

Anyways, those are just my thoughts and I would like to say that by no means am I advocating the idea that Mazda shoud abandon the Rotary engine. I am just saying that the car is marketed to a very select number of people because of it, and it hinders on sales in many ways. Question is, how much more would the front end weigh with the MS6 engine rather than the rotary, and how much of an effect on the overall driving experience would it have (aside from the additional 50 HP and 120 FT-LBs of torque).

 

hmmm, MS6 engine instead of a wankel......


how about a turbo..... maybe 300 hp, 225 torque? that sounds like a better idea...then they could keep the rotary theme also

A turbo would not affect the mpg very much either.

 

A turbo is also harder to pass emissions. The cat needs to be a certain temp for the catalyst to work. Current emissions regulations require the car to pass 5 min after a cold start. A turbo reduces exhaust temps. The Mazda rotary engine (there are other designs) have problems passing emissions between buring oil, incomplete combustion and intake/exhaust overlap (thus the birth of side port exhaust). See the problem?

I'm not saying it can't happen, rather I'm saying that a turbo isn't likely. We'll probably see direct injection first, followed by supercharging or even possibly hybrid. The "next gen" Li-Ion battery from Sanyo is pretty small. Maybe 1/4 the size of that in the Ford Escape Hybrid (also made by Sanyo). Plus using the electric motor means, no need for a starter or probably even an alternator and flywheel. Better fuel economy and more low-end torque supplied by the electric motor. Looking at the rotary engine... it's setup looks well suited to bolting up an electric motor (to my non-engineer eyes).

 

Speaking of engines... the MZR engine is a transverse mount... it wouldn't work without re-engineering. The Renesis HAS been re-engineered to work transverse mounted... used in the Premacy/Mazda5 RE Hybrid. I wonder what Mazda is planning...

 

The 8 is a car that seems to be hard for some to understand. The design is love or hate, the motor scares the crap out of people because it is DIFFERENT and of course, it eats oil and gets bad gas mileage...

This is just one more person's opinion that most on this forum will likely not find much to agree with.

Oh, btw the 8 does compete with z's etc in the racing world - just not in a drag race. go to the racing sub forum and learn more.