Mazda RX-8

Rasherz

Was wondering if i were to purchase one of these fine looking cars would i pay the premium 1.8 tax rate or 1.3 since technically thats what it is :rolleyes:
How do they handle on the twistys and accelerate?
and finally the lesser question how are they on fuel?

All replys appreciated
Thanks

Nissan doctor

Rasherz wrote: »

Was wondering if i were to purchase one of these fine looking cars would i pay the premium 1.8 tax rate or 1.3 since technically thats what it is :rolleyes:
How do they handle on the twistys and accelerate?
and finally the lesser question how are they on fuel?

All replys appreciated
Thanks

The irish government basically just made up the tax rate for them as they refused to tax a sports car as just 1.3. The old rx7 used to be taxed as a 2.6:rolleyes:

They are renowned for their excellent handling but acceleration is poor. Low down power and torque is terrible even in the 230hp model and they have to be revved hard and high to really get the performance from them.

Fuel consumption is a bad thing to be asking about if your looking at a rotary engine.....its terrible.

You need to consider oil consumption as much as fuel consumption too especially as the mileage rises.

Rasherz

Well thats that out of the question then its the cheap tax that appealed most i want to pay is for a 1,6 really, w*nker government ruining my fun :mad: haha laughing at the idea of an RX7 as a 2.6, what logic did that figure come from, i know insurance considers it a 1.8 :L Would a EK9 handle better though? i heard the acceleration was poor and that i should be looking at a mazda speed but when i saw 230 bhp in a car that good looking had to ask :P
Dont worry fuel consumption does not bother me to much, just wondering would it be better then a RX7 on the juice as its a bit more modern, RX7 is the dream car but they take running costs to an extreme :pac:

Nissan doctor

Rasherz wrote: »

Well thats that out of the question then its the cheap tax that appealed most i want to pay is for a 1,6 really, w*nker government ruining my fun :mad: haha laughing at the idea of an RX7 as a 2.6, what logic did that figure come from, i know insurance considers it a 1.8 :L Would a EK9 handle better though? i heard the acceleration was poor and that i should be looking at a mazda speed but when i saw 230 bhp in a car that good looking had to ask :P
Dont worry fuel consumption does not bother me to much, just wondering would it be better then a RX7 on the juice as its a bit more modern, RX7 is the dream car but they take running costs to an extreme :pac:

For a car you really want surely the difference in tax between a 1.6 and 1.8 is minimal?

In standard form it would be hard to pick between an ek9 and an rx8 in terms of handling IMO.

The rx8 would be better on petrol then an rx7 as its an updated version of the twin rotary and the rx8 is also minus 2 turbos of course but the fuel consumption compared to similar performance/power piston engines is still very high.

muckwarrior

Nissan doctor wrote: »

You need to consider oil consumption as much as fuel consumption too especially as the mileage rises.

Rubbish. You'll get about 10k out of a 5L drum.

Nissan doctor

muckwarrior wrote: »

Rubbish. You'll get about 10k out of a 5L drum.

Whats rubbish? You need to factor in heavy oil consumption as well as heavy fuel consumption.

5L of oil over 10k is vastly more then people used to piston engines would be familiar with and so should be taken into consideration..no?

langdang

Nissan doctor wrote: »

For a car you really want surely the difference in tax between a 1.6 and 1.8 is minimal?

Nissan doctor wrote: »

5L of oil over 10k is vastly more then people used to piston engines would be familiar with and so should be taken into consideration..no?

I propose to ban nissan doctor from boards for being far too sensible and rooted in the real world.
I should also be banned for agreeing with him.


Rasherz, Fuel consumption is a far bigger concern than the tax difference of 1.8 v 1.6.
And they are (by all accounts) unsuitable for short hop driving.
I'd love to have one at some stage but
a) they seem tiny inside (crick-in-my-neck type tiny)
b) they don't suit the driving I do these days(lots of short hops)

MetzgerMeister

If you want to see loads of RX8 bashing, search for all the threads here.

Trust me, there's a lot!

If you're looking for a great handling, fantastic looking, sports car that has a few aces up its sleeve, go for the RX8 and don't listen to what anyone says about oil/fuel consumption. It's all blown out of proportion.

The 8 isn't a frugal car. In the one I had (250bhp JDM) you'd be lucky to see 25mpg. To get to where the power is, you have to rev it and this uses fuel.

I loved my one and I didn't care about the fuel consumption. The only reason I changed was because of a new job and I wanted something more powerful.

There's plenty of info on these forums to help you out too:

www.irishrotary.com
www.rx8club.com
www.rotaryheaven.net

x in the city

Rasherz wrote: »

Was wondering if i were to purchase one of these fine looking cars would i pay the premium 1.8 tax rate or 1.3 since technically thats what it is :rolleyes:
How do they handle on the twistys and accelerate?
and finally the lesser question how are they on fuel?

All replys appreciated
Thanks

dont think its the car for you.

apart from fuel they need oil....

x in the city

muckwarrior wrote: »

Rubbish. You'll get about 10k out of a 5L drum.

10 thousand miles....?

proof..?!

muckwarrior

x in the city wrote: »

10 thousand miles....?

proof..?!

I've owned mine well over a year and a half now. I top up with approx half litre every 1.5 - 2k km.

It's designed to burn oil so sure, it'll use more than a lot of (but certainly not all) piston engines, but the costs are relatively insignificant compared to fuel.

stevenmu

The last time I worked out my oil usage I think it was 1 litre for 2,000 to 2,500 miles, and from looking at rotary forums that's not unusual. It's also not any more than most sports cars will use, and it's not uncommon for a TDI to go through 1 litre per 1,000 miles.

It's also recommended to use cheap mineral oil over expensive synthetic, which most sports cars will use.

Was wondering if i were to purchase one of these fine looking cars would i pay the premium 1.8 tax rate or 1.3 since technically thats what it is :rolleyes:
How do they handle on the twistys and accelerate?
and finally the lesser question how are they on fuel?

I think it's 1.7 on the log book. The rate last time out for me was I think €553. There's rumours that people have gotten them re-classified as the correct 1.3, I'm going to give that a go myself before renewing in January.

Handling is pretty epic, they fly through the bends staying perfectly flat and stuck to the road. And they're very easy to control/recover if you push past the limit (I've only really managed to do this on wet slippy roundabouts). They're minble, steer beautifully and provide great feedback.

Acceleration is poor at lower revs, but pretty good at higher revs. And they rev up past 9k rpm, and have close gear ratios, so it might take some time to get to the power, but you can stay there a long time too. Also, because the power curve is so smooth it doesn't feel as fast as it is, you don't get thrown back into your seat the way you might with a big torquey diesel, this puts a lot of people off.

If you care about fuel consumption, you don't want one of these. The only positive thing is that they're equally horrendous on fuel no matter what way you drive it, so there's no incentive to drive in a fuel saving way.

Viper_JB

langdang wrote: »

a) they seem tiny inside (crick-in-my-neck type tiny)

Unless you're 7' something tall I don't see how you can draw this conclusion, from a drivers perspective they have plenty of space inside, maybe not so much in the back seats but can fit 3 people in mine comfortably.

I do love the way people will bash a car they've never owned, lived with or driven to someone who's looking to buy like they're some kind of expert on the subject matter. The RX8 is a great car, sure it's not for everyone, bit heavy on feul and actually requries that the owner does a small bit of maintence to keep it running well, but the upshot is, you have a car that handles very well, is pretty comfortable, is unique (which apperently is a bad thing in Ireland) and puts a smile on my face nearly every time I drive it and for me that's a big thing when getting a car.

langdang

Viper_JB wrote: »

I do love the way people will bash a car they've never owned, lived with or driven to someone who's looking to buy like they're some kind of expert on the subject matter.

Relax, it's the internet

The one I was considering had a sunroof, and I have a long torso. (someone the same height as me but with longer legs and average length torso might be fine).

Viper_JB

langdang wrote: »

Relax, it's the internet

The one I was considering had a sunroof, and I have a long torso. (someone the same height as me but with longer legs and average length torso might be fine).

Sorry, wasn't directed at you, tis a pet peeve though.

langdang

Viper_JB wrote: »

Sorry, wasn't directed at you, tis a pet peeve though.

Cool, sorry for my own flippant response.
Must try one without the sunroof, I'd really like to own one for a while. Can't justify it at the moment tho.

muckwarrior

langdang wrote: »

a) they seem tiny inside (crick-in-my-neck type tiny)

Compared to a family saloon perhaps, but for a sports car it's well above average. Did you try lowering the seat?

langdang wrote: »

b) they don't suit the driving I do these days(lots of short hops)

That's true. Lots of short hops would yield particularly bad fuel consumption and wouldn't be great for engine longevity either.

stevenmu

+1, could the seat have been raised up high ?

Back rest position could be a factor too. I know when I get into a car I'm not used to I like to sit bolt upright to have as good a view of the front of the car as I can. But in my '8 I have the back rest tilted back, which feels much more natural for the seat/position in the car. It feels more right to sit back into the car rather than sit upright inside it. I'm only 6', but I've a ton of head room.

stevenmu

langdang wrote: »

And they are (by all accounts) unsuitable for short hop driving.

Just to address this, there's two relevant things here.

When started from cold they need to be run for about 3 minutes before turning them off again or there's a risk of flooding the engine. This has mostly been eliminated through software updates and an uprated starter motor (you should check that any 8 you look at to buy has this), but it's still good practice to run it for 3 minutes if it's started from cold. (doesn't apply at all when hot)

The other thing is that rotaries are prone to carbon build up, on short hops they don't get hot enough to burn all the carbon off, so every now and then you just have to give it a good rev to build up some heat and remove any deposits. IMO this isn't really a problem though, if you don't give it a good rev every now and then you're missing out on a lot of fun.

Nissan doctor

Viper_JB wrote: »

Sorry, wasn't directed at you, tis a pet peeve though.

If it was directed at me, I never said they were a bad car, nor would I ever say that the rx8 is a bad car.

But bare in mind that the majority of people in Ireland just get in a car and drive it, they would need to be made aware of the eccentricities that rotary engines have, which to rotary enthusiasts just add to the character, but which, to joe soap public, will either result it the car being too much hassle for them or a knackered engine!

Wheres My ForkandKnife

Hi all. This is my first post and I'd just thought I'd give my opinion as an RX8 owner. I bought it in 07 and I never have had no real problems with it.
The only things to go wrong were:
1) I flooded it once moving it out of the driveway to get another car out.
2) The oil cooler pipe sprung a leak which was fixed FOC by a main dealer here(recall).There were no questions asked even though I imported it from the UK. Also I had no previous relationship with the dealer as I have it serviced independently

Apart from this I have had no problems. The car is serviced regularly and thats it. I check the oil every couple of weeks and top up if neccessary. The car burns some oil by design. I also have a E220 cdi that doesn't burn oil but I still check that regularly. Everyone should check their oil!

I have 102k miles on the car so can't complain but am probably putting the mockers on myself now.

To the OP if fuel consumption is a concern forget it. Everyone knows they are thirsty. But on the upside the tax is reasonable and there is great value in them due to the state of the market now and peoples perception of the car.

They were €25k on forecourts 4 years ago. My wife would like me to trade it in at this stage but I would get nothing for it so I would rather keep it as a weekend car

I have never used a gallon of oil between services. Oil consumption is not the problem it's made out to be. If you move it ten feet it will flood. However I regularly go to the shops(2 mins) without a problem.

I have read before about people getting it taxed as a 1.3 but have never seen any proof of this.

My 2 cents worth. Sorry for such a long first post!