Despite its flaws if I was in the market for a car to use on the weekends that still had some element of practicality (bit of a boot, 4 seats etc.) to supplement a dull daily drive then the RX-8 still ranks quite highly for me.
RX8 > ?
- Thread starter monkey_boy
- Start date
Yes, but with most cars it wouldn't result in a call-out to RAC / Mazda assist
It did when my mum did it to her Tigra and a friend of mine with their Yaris
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
More like bad, as the other technology is fantastically well proven, developed and reliable whereas rotary engines rely on a consistently unreliable and very fragile rotor tip to maintain compression and performance. The rotary has only been around since the 50s and has never really taken off, or had as much development put into it as conventional piston engines - and it has always proven a somewhat troubled design due to the way the engine operates.
Yes, they have fewer moving parts but that does not automatically entail that they are simpler or more reliable. The sealing system for the tip itself, for example, is a precision assembly that if not correct, reduces efficiency and power.
Last edited:
Glad I read this thread. The wife has been wittering about one of these recently.
We both park in the same car park for work and its only a few miles travel. Cars don't get a chance to get up to temp. I sometimes drive round the ringroad a couple of times to get the Jeep warmed through.
I dare say we'd kill an RX8 within a year.
We both park in the same car park for work and its only a few miles travel. Cars don't get a chance to get up to temp. I sometimes drive round the ringroad a couple of times to get the Jeep warmed through.
I dare say we'd kill an RX8 within a year.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
As a comparison - "231" rotary economy, 231BHP and 156 (lol) ft.lb
...and a Corvette C6 LS3, 6.2 litre V8, 430BHP, 424ft.lb, economy:
So I can't see why someone would want to run one. Plus, as a fact, I know people who average a whole lot more in the Corvette - typically around 26-30 on average, even more if just sat cruising on the motorway
That's almost twice the power, almost three times the torque (!) and a whole lot more mid-range shunt. Much more relaxing engine to drive too, no doubt...
...and a Corvette C6 LS3, 6.2 litre V8, 430BHP, 424ft.lb, economy:
So I can't see why someone would want to run one. Plus, as a fact, I know people who average a whole lot more in the Corvette - typically around 26-30 on average, even more if just sat cruising on the motorway
That's almost twice the power, almost three times the torque (!) and a whole lot more mid-range shunt. Much more relaxing engine to drive too, no doubt...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
I'm not comparing cars, just the fact that the engine, output and economy are completely not worth it when you could run something much, much more powerful, for less - much like Fox was saying about the Impreza.
The only reason I was thinking about the C6 was, well, it's a sports car - and I knew the economy figures off the top of my head
- much like Fox was saying about the Impreza.The only reason I was thinking about the C6 was, well, it's a sports car - and I knew the economy figures off the top of my head
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
I don't know. I get the feeling that if you're buying a 'performance' car on a budget like that then fuel costs (or maintainence) probably aren't irrelevant to you - I'd have thought it'd be something that every buyer in that kind of range might be thinking about. Obviously if someone is buying a 10-15 year old performance car then it could be classed as a 'toy' but a more recent one.....
No doubt though that plenty of people would find the 231 fast enough - but there are lots of cars that could deliver similar performance and "fun" for the price, without the achillies heel of the Vankel, or poor consumption.
Although you could probably get a decent C5 Z06 for about 15, 16k, the same price as a recent RX8 - and you're talking similar figures
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
Like I said, again, I wasn't comparing car for car - just engine and performance with regards to running costs.
If we're going to be looking at buying though - well, you could get a C5 Z06 for 12-18k, that's 405BHP and 400ft.lb, 0-60 in 3.9 - with 30mpg+ average, with none of the driveability issues or consumption issues.
Also, you can get manual C6 6.0 and 6.2's (if you look hard enough) for about 20-25k too...so whilst not quite in budget, they're getting there.
Still nowhere near the 5-8k for a good example of a '04 or '05 RX8 mind - but then I know where I'd rather be (in an LT1 C4 with 300BHP and 340ft.lb getting 25-30 for about 6-7k
)Sorry, but if you're looking at fuel economy (unless its sub 15MPG) when buying these kind of cars, you shouldn't be buying these kind of cars.
You can make comparisons between two very different cars to the blue in the face, I could have bought an 2003, Low Mileage E39 M5 instead of my ST and it would have had an extra 125BHP, and only "marginally" less fuel economy, but they are two very different cars with very different overall running costs.
You can make comparisons between two very different cars to the blue in the face, I could have bought an 2003, Low Mileage E39 M5 instead of my ST and it would have had an extra 125BHP, and only "marginally" less fuel economy, but they are two very different cars with very different overall running costs.
I was contemplting an RX8, i do around 50-60 miles roundtrip to work (plus social stuff ontop). Current car is a 406 coupe 3.0 V6. I was spending about 50-60 quid a week on fuel. I didnt work out the mpg from the pug but i did assume the rx8 would be worse.
In the end i went for an Alpha GT, the 1.9 diesel Lusso version. i pick it up on saturday
I worked out that i save around 200 quid overall by getting the alpha. The alpha cost more to buy than the rx8 but the fuel saving gave me the 200.
A few friends have owned rx8's, make sure you rev the engine for 10secs or so if your doing short journeys. other than that they love them!
i would say that if mpg is a big worry to you then an rx8 wouldnt be wise.. i was in the exact same position.
In the end i went for an Alpha GT, the 1.9 diesel Lusso version. i pick it up on saturday
I worked out that i save around 200 quid overall by getting the alpha. The alpha cost more to buy than the rx8 but the fuel saving gave me the 200.
A few friends have owned rx8's, make sure you rev the engine for 10secs or so if your doing short journeys. other than that they love them!
i would say that if mpg is a big worry to you then an rx8 wouldnt be wise.. i was in the exact same position.
I average about 19 in my Jeep and thats not very fast
I think its nonsense to not at least think about the cost of fuel when buying any performance car unless you are particularly wealthy. My Jeep uses far more fuel than my UK Impreza which was actually quite frugal. My Impreza Type RA was modded and drank fuel probably as bad as the Jeep. I do very few miles so guzzling fuel isn't a big issue for me although I might gas it so we can use it on long hauls.
Fuel is part of the cost of ownership so should be taken into consideration. I accept a 4.0 will drink but an N/A 2.6 drinking a similar amount seems a bit strong IMO.