Mazda RX8 - Opinions?

BESman

Considering purchasing a Mazda RX8, maybe 2004-ish. Seem to be decently priced, going anywhere between €4,000 and €7,000 at the moment.

I've heard mostly good things so far, reliable, quick, etc. Rotary engine seems to be well received too. How is it treated for insurance considering its a 1.3?

And what do you enthusiasts here feel about them??

Thanks.

unkel

There have been lots of good threads on the RX-8 here recently - do a search!

Plenty of owners on boards too

Summary: great car, now to be had for peanuts. Uses a little bit of oil but not as much as people make you belief. Does not need engine rebuild every 100 miles. Uses a lot of petrol. Don't get the 190BHP model. That's about it

Drummerboy08

unkel wrote: »

There have been lots of good threads on the RX-8 here recently - do a search!

Plenty of owners on boards too

Summary: great car, now to be had for peanuts. Uses a little bit of oil but not as much as people make you belief. Does not need engine rebuild every 100 miles. Uses a lot of petrol. Don't get the 190BHP model. That's about it

Don't forget that for some mad reason it's taxed as a 1.8 (and thus insured as a 1.8).

Insurance won't be cheap unless your 75, blind, and haven't held a valid licence in years.

Sofiztikated

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Don't forget that for some mad reason it's taxed as a 1.8 (and thus insured as a 1.8).

Insurance won't be cheap unless your 75, blind, and haven't held a valid licence in years.

Insured as anything between a 1.8 and 2.6 depending on the company. Some bollix about it being 2 1.3's.

I like them, but they are a bit of a sow on juice.

They also need to be treated gently, as in you can't just hop in and run down to the shops, turn off the engine, and hop out, hop back in and away you go. You need to let the engine wind down before turning it off, and short runs aren't hectic for it.

Nonoperational

An awful lot of 2004s are now suffering low compression. Get a compression test done if your considering buying one. The engines are far from bulletproof.

Squall19

I had my heart set on one before, really do think they are class, but the performance

If I had never drove the 3 Mps, mapped 330d, Audi S4 before it, it wouldn't have been too bad as its quick once it roaring and I could have lived with it.

The machines listed made it feel slow in comparison and would blow it away in a straight line.They are much quicker in a straight line The amount of power from third gear upwards, when you floor the acelerator, is something you could never hope in hell of matching with an RX8.

They would leave it for dead if you met them on the motorway.It has everything but the wrong engine, should have been the turbo charged engine from the 6 and 3 mps, then it would have been a special car.

gearoidol

I bought one new in 06. 50k then for the 240bhp exclusive.I kept it for 2 years.Here are my thoughts,

Killer on juice - never saw over 15mpg (but i never spared it)

I never had any bother with flooding i.e turning off cold after short journeys ,think they sorted that with a software update

Sounds and looks great for the age .

Not really that quick -- bought a 08 2.0t tfsi dsg tt afterwords and that was real world much faster.

Really tail happy in cold wet wintery roads,may catch you out if you are not careful,good tyres are essential.

Other than that fine car i suppose

MetzgerMeister

I'ts not exactly 2 x 1.3s - it's 2 x 654cc x 3 rotor faces.

It's insured mainly as a 2.6 and taxed as a 1.8.

What I never understand is people are always saying that they're hard on juice. Of course they are, they are performance cars!

@ Squall - they whole point of the RX series cars is the fact that they have the rotary engine. The reason the 8 isn't turbo'd from the factory is because the turbos on the 7 caused all the damage and the stories of needing to be rebuilt. They left the 8's engine NA to make it more reliable

I would agree strongly with gpf101 regarding getting a compression test done before you buy it. Don't bother with the 192 version, get the 231. If you get the 192 you'll forever be asking yourself "why?"

With regard to the 8 not being a quick car, the rotary engine works best at high revs. When you go for a test drive, get the engine up to full temp, put the car in 2nd gear, gently get the revs up to 5000, then floor it. You'll know all about power then

You might also want to check out my DIY below at some stage if you do buy it

gearoidol

einheisserschre wrote: »

What I never understand is people are always saying that they're hard on juice. Of course they are, they are performance cars!

The reason having owned one why i found it hard on juice is versus the performance received from it. 0 - 60 was 6.4 as far as i can remember which was the same as the tt i got afterwards and that would do 40 mpg when not being pushed or 25mpg when being pushed .

Im sure looking at comparable bmw,audi they would fare better than 15mpg.

Regards

Gearoid

Vertakill

LIGHTNING wrote: »

But they arent so quick that its worth the 15mpg! If it was a 350-400hp sports car then the 15mpg would be ok, but a RX8 would be about on part with a TT.

It is dangerously close to Monaro/M5 territory, MPG-wise. But imho, I agree, it isn't really fast enough to warrant that kind of fuel costs (very few cars are to be fair, with the exception of the likes of an M5 upwards). I would look at TT's, 350Z's, 350GT's, S2000's, Elises, VXR220 if I was in the market for this kind of car. All of which will get between +5 to +15mpg better and are usually (with possibly the exception of the early Elises HGF) more reliable.

RX8 probably does look the best or close to the best out of it's competitors though and has 2 very usable back seats (TT and 350GT have back seats too but they're very tight).

With all that being said, some people (myself included for a little while - not so much anymore) just love RX8's. They are a little different and a bit quirkier than pretty much any coupe on the market at the moment.

colm_mcm

I drove a 190 and my old fto back to back and was really disappointed with it, I'd heard reports of the engine being turbine smooth etc, hated the engine note, mpg was shocking for such a relatively slow car. Fair dues to mazda for developing the rotary engine a bit further but IMO its just marketing nonsense and its fundamentally flawed. Friend had a 231 which was well minded that needed rotor tips. A lot have compression issues.
A 1.8 turbo or a high revving variable valve timing engine just makes more sense IMO.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Had a 190 model...endless trouble with flooding, starter motor. Really not that fast espically by todays standards where hot hatches have 200+ bhp. Depreciated like a rock. Good points were the great stereo, comfortable.

The fuel consumption does not justify the power, maybe th 230 model is far better but somehow I doubt its that much better.

MetzgerMeister

The reason it drinks fuel is because it's a rotary, whereas people are used to the consumption of piston engines with similar power.

Also, the rotary engine has little or no low-end torque. This is why people find it slow. You have be in the high rev range in order to get the power.

unkel

It's not slow!!! It's high revving and low torque though, so to get max performance, you need to rev the bejaysis out of it - not unlike Honda's VTEC engines. Agreed it's a lot easier to get performance out of a turbo charged engine like a Mazda 3 MPS or a Golf GTI

btkm8unsl0w5r4

There the reasons alright but why would you put up with them, I have a 3lt twin turbo petrol with 300+ BHP and it get 10 more MPG, and has lots of torque. Rx-8's good value now, but have e60 M5 fuel bills. As for high reving low torque thats not a good thing, it means you have to drive like a idiot to get the performance your paying for in fuel bills regardless of how you drive.

The engine may be different and work differently but not in a good way, look I was a champion of them when I had one, it left me stranded on the side of the road too many times. I do think they look good every time I see one and they handle well. Mostly seen driven by girls with large sunglasses IMHO now.

s2000 that what you want, its high reving but is not lethargic at low revs, reliable.

BESman

Why are they so thirsty? That would turn me off, especially with pump prices the way they are going. I do a 120 mile round trip every second weekend or so and 15mpg would be worrying to say the least.

MetzgerMeister

BESman wrote: »

Why are they so thirsty? That would turn me off, especially with pump prices the way they are going. I do a 120 mile round trip every second weekend or so and 15mpg would be worrying to say the least.

They're thirsty because it's a rotary engine. Mazda improved the mpg on the Renesis 13B engine in the RX8 compared to what it was like in the RX7. They do have a long way to go to get it better. That's the main reason why they're not being sold in ROI due to the emissions.

If you drive it very hard, you'll get bad mpg but if you take it easy you'd see c. 25 mpg if you're lucky. To be honest, I've never tried to drive mine like that. I want fun so I drive it how I feel like it and I've never really worried about mpg.

unkel

And fair play to Mazda for keeping the Wankel engine alive and up to date. Double fair play for making a mass-manufactured one that has proven to be reliable too. The first reliable one in history?

MetzgerMeister

unkel wrote: »

And fair play to Mazda for keeping the Wankel engine alive and up to date. Double fair play for making a mass-manufactured one that has proven to be reliable too. The first reliable one in history?

It's going be be out of date in Ireland in a few years if they don't get the emissions down

A few RX8 engines have needed rebuilds but it's always been down to poor maintenance.

smtdos

I agree with gpf101. My advice would be to not buy a 2004 model unless it has had the engine rebuilt or compression is well above the lower limits. Had a compression test done with Mazda recently for 60euro.

The main problems with the rx8's are a weak starter (upgraded in later models) and compression loss (which is affecting many 2004's lately, just ask Joe Duffy Mazda!)

Its worth noting that Mazda USA issued an 8 year (100k mile) warranty for rx8 engines as a result of low compression in the 2003-2004 models. You won't have the luxury of that warranty here if the engine packs up!

I love driving this car every day but be prepared to give it TLC. I still feel you get alot of car for your money with the second hand rx8's. Definately get the 231hp model and be careful someone doesn't try to sell you a 192hp as a 231hp! Viewed a "231" in Dublin last year that had a 7 speed gear knob screwed on to the 6 speed stick! FYI the 231hp model has headlamp washers and a 6th gear as standard, the 192hp model doesnt.

A thought for you: pick one up for 4k (not sure you'll pick one up that cheap) + rebuild 3k = 7k for great car worth 45k new with engine that'l last you years + peace of mind.

PS: currently getting 14.8mpg, city driving.

Mr Benevolent

smtdos wrote: »

PS: currently getting 14.8mpg, city driving.

That'll have your local petrol station manager crying with pure happiness right now.

bc dub

i used to work for mazda. i loved the RX's, especially the 231bhp. if you're getting one you should really just get the 231.

do not, under any circumstances, buy an automatic.

also, stay friendly with your bank/credit union manager becuase you'll be calling on him/her soon enough to take out small loans for petrol. like nearly all mazda's, these are by far the worst for mpg...probably becuase it wants to be redlined!

golfbgud

Abs pig on juice - 15mpg is probably about right.

Get a compression test done or you will be rebuilding the engine soon!

Nice "looking" car but very expensive to run.

Gotta be better value out there?

munsterleinster

einheisserschre wrote: »

The reason it drinks fuel is because it's a rotary, whereas people are used to the consumption of piston engines with similar power.

einheisserschre wrote: »

They're thirsty because it's a rotary engine

Can you please explain why?

RobAMerc

I think a big part of why its thirsty is that it need to have the nuts rev'd off it to make any power, so you must keep it on the boil all of the time, not just when you wanna kane it.

I have to say I drove the 230bhp one and I loved it.

1 - it was bloody fast for a 1.3 er 1.8 er 2.6 er....
2 - I absolutely loved the sound, I likened it to the sound I imagine Messershmidt pilots used to hear as the dived after some victim
3 - great gear change from what I remember, rifle bolt action
4 - practical enough car - 4 doors reasonable boot
5 - great handling, easily a match for the TT I tested it almost back to back with
6 - far superior ride to the TT and actually a bloody good and well composed ride for any manner of sports car.

down sides are high maintenance, high oil and petrol consumption, getting old which can mean bills, and some very dodgy interior colourings !

muckwarrior

Really don't know how people are allegedly only getting 15mpg.

I've been keeping records of every fill up for the last year and only once has it gotten close to that (15.7). I've managed 25 on a few tanks, and average just over 20 with over half my driving being city/suburban. That's not holding back either, I make her beep every chance I get. 231 model btw.

I'll agree though that the power to fuel consumption ratio still isn't great, but I guess that's the main reason why you can pick one up for next to nothing these days.

MetzgerMeister

munsterleinster wrote: »

Can you please explain why?

It's mainly due to the way the engine itself works. A certain amount of petrol has to be injected into the combustion chambers and it's the size of these chambers that matters. There is a formula or way of calculating certain cc's which show that the 13B engine consumes fuel like a piston engine size that comes close to 3.5 litres or something like that.

I'm of the opinion that because Mazda are the only company producing the Wankel rotary engine in road cars, they are the only company investing in it. By that I mean other manufacturers aren't coming up with other ways of decreasing consumption because they're not using the engine.

Edit: This taken from Wikipedia:

For comparison purposes between a Wankel Rotary engine and a piston engine, displacement and corresponding power output can more accurately be compared on the basis of displacement per revolution of the eccentric shaft. A calculation of this form dictates that a two rotor Wankel displacing 654 cc per face will have a displacement of 1.3 liters per every rotation of the eccentric shaft (only two total faces, one face per rotor going through a full power stroke) and 2.6 liters after two revolutions (four total faces, two faces per rotor going through a full power stroke). The results are directly comparable to a 2.6-liter piston engine with an even number of cylinders in a conventional firing order, which will likewise displace 1.3 liters through its power stroke after one revolution of the crankshaft, and 2.6 liters through its power strokes after two revolutions of the crankshaft. A Wankel Rotary engine is still a 4-stroke engine and pumping losses from non-power strokes still apply, but the absence of throttling valves and a 50% longer stroke duration result in a significantly lower pumping loss compared against a four-stroke reciprocating piston engine. Measuring a Wankel rotary engine in this way more accurately explains its specific output, as the volume of its air fuel mixture put through a complete power stroke per revolution is directly responsible for torque and thus power produced.

There is another measurement formula (3.5 litres) but I've forgotten where I read it.

BESman

I think the cost of running these is too high for me right now.

Thanks for the contributions!

muckwarrior

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I drove to Cork and back in one that I had a lend of and I left dublin with a full tank and I had to put another 50e at cork to get home (Dublin).

Meaningless anecdote unless you worked out exactly how much fuel you used and the distance you travelled.

I'm not trying to deny that it's hard on juice, but saying that 15mpg is the norm is way off the mark in my experience.

stevenmu

muckwarrior wrote: »

Really don't know how people are allegedly only getting 15mpg.

I've been keeping records of every fill up for the last year and only once has it gotten close to that (15.7). I've managed 25 on a few tanks, and average just over 20 with over half my driving being city/suburban. That's not holding back either, I make her beep every chance I get. 231 model btw.

+1, I notice that every time one of these threads pop up, I odn't keep detailed records but any time I've done rough calculations they've come out roughly 19-21mpg. I know that compression and/or catalytic converter issues can lead to poor fuel consumption, and power.

In particular I know that carbon build up can do the same, and I'm really starting to suspect that there are a lot of owners out there who aren't making their rotary beep often enough. I saw one or two ads with people claiming that the car was never driven hard like that was a positive. Lots of slow short trips don't get the engine hot enough to burn off any built up carbon, which leads to poor compression and fuel burn, which gives poor performance and poor fuel consumption.

Mine was running a little hesitantly and drinking lots of petrol for a while, so I put in some BG44k in the fuel and revved the nuts of her for a while and it was back to running perfectly and using much less juice. I'm guessing there's a few people out there who could do with doing the same.

firefly08

I think the cost of running these is too high for me right now.

Thanks for the contributions!

I know this is pretty basic, put I'll put it out there nevertheless: have you worked out the difference in running costs over the kind of time frame you want to own the car, and compared it to the difference in cost for similar performing cars? If not, you might be surprised.

You always hear lot of people praising the virtues of high MPG, but if you have to spend significantly more on the car up front, it can take a long, long time to see the benefit - and in the meantime, you've already spent the money.

muckwarrior

Also, don't forget the tax is relatively low.

RobAMerc

firefly08 wrote: »

I know this is pretty basic, put I'll put it out there nevertheless: have you worked out the difference in running costs over the kind of time frame you want to own the car, and compared it to the difference in cost for similar performing cars? If not, you might be surprised.

You always hear lot of people praising the virtues of high MPG, but if you have to spend significantly more on the car up front, it can take a long, long time to see the benefit - and in the meantime, you've already spent the money.

I am 100% behind this idea as an ideology except the depreciation has to be a factor. If you spend 10 k more on an equivalent car and get 8k more back when you sell it then the amount you have extra to run it will only be 2k. If you blew the whole 10k on running the RX8 then you'd be considerably out of pocket.

admittedly the RX8 will be cheaper to tax than most ( a fixed cost ) and if you don't do big mileage you may well only spend a fraction of the 2k on juice.

I think given the option of an RX8 or a 350z though I would have the Z. RX8 over TT any day.(Mk1 anyway, no experience of Mk2 )

MetzgerMeister

stevenmu wrote: »

+1, I notice that every time one of these threads pop up, I odn't keep detailed records but any time I've done rough calculations they've come out roughly 19-21mpg. I know that compression and/or catalytic converter issues can lead to poor fuel consumption, and power.

In particular I know that carbon build up can do the same, and I'm really starting to suspect that there are a lot of owners out there who aren't making their rotary beep often enough. I saw one or two ads with people claiming that the car was never driven hard like that was a positive. Lots of slow short trips don't get the engine hot enough to burn off any built up carbon, which leads to poor compression and fuel burn, which gives poor performance and poor fuel consumption.

Mine was running a little hesitantly and drinking lots of petrol for a while, so I put in some BG44k in the fuel and revved the nuts of her for a while and it was back to running perfectly and using much less juice. I'm guessing there's a few people out there who could do with doing the same.

I did the WD-40/water engine clean a few months back. You get a 2 ltr bottle, spray in a good amount of WD-40 and fill the bottle with water. Then pierce a large hole in the cap, insert a tube and tape it up so it's sealed.

You then take the cover off the rotor maintenance nipples (one at a time), plug the other end of the hose over it, turn on the engine and let it suck all the water/WD-40 in.

As we know, water can't be compressed so it turns to steam inside the engine. This steam then cleans off all the carbon inside the engine. Turn off the engine before removing the pipe.

If you do this, be sure to keep a VERY close eye on the oil light. This cleaning method makes a LOT of heat build up in the engine so there's a lot more oil pumped in.

stevenmu

I saw the youtube video of people doing it. Reminds me how fine the line between madness and genius is

jenizzle

Ah I do LOVE the RX8's, but I'll always be in two minds about buying... even when I do end up owning one :rolleyes: There's a lot of badly maintained RX8's out there for sale.

stevenmu

jenizzle wrote: »

There's a lot of badly maintained RX8's out there for sale.

That's true, but a quick and easy compression test would show up anything major. And you don't have to worry about some of the normal things when buying a second hand car, head gasket, timing belt, turbo etc, all of which can be major problems on cars and can be harder to detect future problems.

smtdos

I would also question how much experience the Mazda Dealerships outside of Joe Duffy in Dublin have with the Rx8 engine. A careful past owner, like the lads over on irishrotary.com would be worth more to me than a full mazda service history if I was buying again tbh.

muckwarrior

einheisserschre wrote: »

I did the WD-40/water engine clean a few months back.

I did this too and generally keep it well serviced, so I suppose I could be seeing better mileage than a lot of people.

MetzgerMeister

jenizzle wrote: »

Ah I do LOVE the RX8's, but I'll always be in two minds about buying... even when I do end up owning one :rolleyes: There's a lot of badly maintained RX8's out there for sale.

If you ever do come to buying one, your best bet of getting a good one is to look in the For Sale section of irishrotary.com. There's quite a few of us on here who own them too. I say this because you're nearly guaranteed to get a good one from an enthusiast.

bonzos

surly at the price the OP mentioned the RX8 would make a great track day car!

rotor_dude

only a few months late
but be good for future reference

thing is the rx7 and rx8 are sports cars, ie porsche and ferrari etc
ps examples dont take it seriously

plus they are a 25-30kish car new, so parts etc from mazda are still at the 25-30kish price, new parts dont depreciate like the secondhand car
but because people are now buying from 5-10k there shocked at the parts prices, but they forget the car was 25-30kish new etc

also im reconditioning a few rx8 engines now and also supply new ones

but from stripping the ones i have,
ive found that the engines are loosing compression due to very poor maintenance, in the ignition and oil systems
also not warming them up and cooling them down

also using cheap oil, big no no in a rotary engine they rev high and work hard so they need good oil, either mazda delexia oil or castrol is the minimum
and mazda oil filter as oil and filter are cheaper than a new engine
like would you use the cheapest oil in a porsche or ferrari, ah no
so why use cheap oil in a rotary

i have customers with over 80,000 mls and still going strong, because of proper maintenance

also rotaries love to rev, hence the 8,000 rpm limit,
you cant putter about in them otherwise they glog up abit

also petrol, yes they use petrol but what 1.3l piston engine has 230bhp N/A ?

useless info, by the time a piston engine has done one stroke a rotary has done 1 1/2 hence the power and fuel consumption

they are a great handling car and very good power for the engine size
you cannot compare them to a turbo'd car as the turbo'd car will always be better hp wise, pretty logical really
but they do out perform a 350Z around a track so think about that

so if you want fuel economy buy a 1L or a diesel, you want a fun sports car
rx8,
good value for money

if maintained correctly really al you change is sparkplugs and oil and filter and normal things like brakes etc etc

later
glen

MetzgerMeister

Rotor dude - you can copy and paste what you said there into a Word document and save it. That way, next time a "Mazda RX8 - Opinions?" thread pops up (and they do very often) you won't have to type all that again.

I've been saying the same thing in each of these threads over the past number of years and I'm sure the other RX8 owners on here are with me when I say this - the problems are blown out of proportion!

rotor_dude

yep your sure right about that,

every car manufacture has certain problems with cars, i think its just because a rotary goes round and round instead of up and down that people slag them, the unknown
you could say its like a car high school, the odd one out always gets picked on ha ha
like everything in life suppose, if you like it you like it

ive been around rotaries for 24 years and 18 years working on them reconditioning engines, upgrading and modifying from n/a to turbo and to me there the most reliable and cheapest horsepower,
from rx2, rx3, rx4, rx5 rx7 series 1-8 FB/FC/FD and rx8's

i seen alot of rebuilds over here, which to me is just replacing worn or broken only parts and cheap, and they wonder why they always blow up

ive been trying to say about them for the last 7 years here aswell, but its hard work to explain or change peoples perception
especially when the engines arent rebuilt correctly, just gives more ammo and then harder to explain correctly

as i say if it aint a rotor it aint a motor
but at end of day whatever spins your wheels

MetzgerMeister

I had my RX8 for 3 years and apart from the hard to start problem which I corrected with the upgraded starter, 70Ah battery, Magnecor leads, upgraded ignition coils and REC7-L leading plugs, I never had a problem. I always kept the oil levels up and did the engine clean with water/WD-40.

I've moved to a 6MPS now but I have to admit, I do miss the 8

Vertakill

rotor_dude wrote: »

also petrol, yes they use petrol but what 1.3l piston engine has 230bhp N/A ?

I don't get why you compare a 1.3l piston engine with the RX8's rotary engine... and then go on to explain how they're completely not comparable in your following sentence.

rotor_dude wrote: »

useless info, by the time a piston engine has done one stroke a rotary has done 1 1/2 hence the power and fuel consumption

The whole comparison thing is like some really, really irritating Mazda marketing ploy.

rotor_dude wrote: »

but they do out perform a 350Z around a track so think about that

Really? What track would that be? And that's not even a comparison with the later 308bhp Z's, which were faster again. And the Z has a much higher BHP/Tonne if you want to completely look beyond this engine size crap.

I used to absolutely love RX8's for what they were. But the fanboys absolutely ruined the car for me by claiming the 8 is something that it's not.

In it's own right, it's a great car with lots of character because of it's looks, its performance and of course some of it's really unique traits (the doors, the engine etc). But don't start making sensationalist and misleading claims like the engine size horsesh!t and the track stuff... it's been done to death.

Matt Simis

rotor_dude wrote: »

every car manufacture has certain problems with cars, i think its just because a rotary goes round and round instead of up and down that people slag them, the unknown. you could say its like a car high school, the odd one out always gets picked on ha ha

Yeah, "cos its the odd one out". Its not like it has high oil consumption, high fuel consumption, high emissions, stupidly low torque and mediocre performance given the fueling input plus a (deserved) reputation for poor reliability, high maintenance overheads. Oh wait, thats them in a nutshell.

Yes they get kudos from many car enthusiasts for being a different, but no, being different doesnt give them a get out of jail card on the metrics every other car/engine is judged on.
Wankel engines are simply no good for cars. At some point you got to call a spade a spade.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

I owned a Rx-8 and have to say I agree with Vertakill and Matt. The fuel to power ratio is apalling making the wankel engine interesting but a bit of a lame duck. Certainly by modern hot hatch standards it makes no sense.

rotor_dude

man tough crowd

Vertakill wrote: »

I don't get why you compare a 1.3l piston engine with the RX8's rotary engine... and then go on to explain how they're completely not comparable in your following sentence.

not sure what mean there dude ?
did you read it correctly ? you cant compare a normally aspirated car to a turbo'd car for performance, pretty logical really
yes i was comparing the engine cc from rotary to piston, my bad
yeah your right, my bad, shouldnt compare a rotary engine to a piston engine

The whole comparison thing is like some really, really irritating Mazda marketing ploy.
???? i because no other manufacturer does marketing ploys, plus what i said is true so how is it a marketing ploy ???
in racing they times the rotary by 1.5 to even the engines, hmmm must be a racing marketing ploy
funny how the rotary engine got banned from lemans as no one could beat it for years, yeah

In it's own right, it's a great car with lots of character because of it's looks, its performance and of course some of it's really unique traits (the doors, the engine etc). But don't start making sensationalist and misleading claims like the engine size horsesh!t and the track stuff... it's been done to death.

the engine size of the 13B engine is 1308cc that is from the manufacturer which i guess they no what there talking about ha ha
please explain
yeah ok fair enough, bad example choice, my bad
but funny how the 350z has near twice the cc but isnt that much faster really
im not making sensationalist claims, just trying to say that rotaries arent as bad as poeple think, alot has to do with how they are maintained

MetzgerMeister

What he's saying, and to be honest he's right, is that comparing the power output of a 1.3 rotary to a 1.3 piston engine isn't a good idea.

You know yourself that this is true

rotor_dude

Matt Simis wrote: »

Yeah, "cos its the odd one out". Its not like it has high oil consumption, high fuel consumption, high emissions, stupidly low torque and mediocre performance given the fueling input plus a (deserved) reputation for poor reliability, high maintenance overheads. Oh wait, thats them in a nutshell.

id have to disagree on oil consumption and poor reliability and high maintenance
ive owned rotors for over 18 years and have only ever replaced oil and filter and sparkplugs, coolant and filters