used RX8 buying advice

Buzz Killington wrote: besides, if it was that terrible, it wouldn't have dominated its class for a few years now.

True, but when you're in 2nd, around 4k rpm, with around 85whp, it's truly terrible :)

To billy:

You must have freakishly long legs or I have a freakishly long torso, but neither myself (5'10") or John (5'11") can fit inside a power-seat equipped one with a helmet on. We actually were at a dealer with our helmets and tried it for real. There was no difference between the hardtop and sunroof cars. The side of the roof pushed the helmet causing our heads to lean inwards.

I've never driven an M3 nor a Miata, but I have driven a stock 12A FB and a stock 13B N/A FC and both felt more powerful/peppier than the RX-8. It just doesn't have any forward velocity until you really get rolling and doesn't seem as "eager" as other rotaries. It also sounds flat with the bizarre ports.

did you lower the seat?

i'm 6' w/a 32" inseam, and don't fit in a sunroof car w/ a helmet, but the non-sunroof version was, in my experience, a whole different ballgame. loads of headroom, esp w/ the manual seat cranked all the way down.

aussiesmg wrote: Just get a FD RX7 and have the cheapest super-car ever built, but go for one with a good history and either a LSX conversion or at least a single turbo conversion.... Try this out for size http://www.v8rx7forum.com/cars-sale/55794-93-unfinished-ls1-rx7-project-cobra-diff-etc-former-ca-car-currently-il.html

other than shelling out $20g in cash for a gorgeous but tempermental 15-year-old car, that's a great idea...but does absolutely nothing to meet any of the criteria i described, including being a competitive autoX car.

besides, if i'm shoving an LSx into anything, it'll be the '91 miata i already own.

I'm 5'9" with a 30 inch inseam, and i have zero clearance issues in the RX8. I had PLENTY of room for a helmet, and the one i drove was a sunroof model.

RX8 for AutoX? The total lack of torque low down could cause problems. Also it's pretty big and heavy for an AutoX car, but any "grown up" car is going to be big and heavy...also anything that gets such poor mileage should be a snarling pavement-ripping monster, and the RX8 is almost a "momentum car." For a track day car I'd consider it but definitely not for AutoX.

+1 for WRX.

Seats were cranked all the way down. It wasn't top clearance, it was side clearance. The roof/top of the door glass is just too close and pushes a full-face helmet to the side, making you sit in the car with your head tilted.

We both tried a hardtop R3 and a sunroof 40th Anny but both cars had power seats. Maybe a manual seat will give you more, but it's a side issue, at least on full-face helmets, and was the same issue for both of us.

It sure is weird how people of similar size seem to fit or not fit in certain cars. I am a tight fit in an RX8 without a sunroof. My head rubs in a sunroof car. I am 6' 2". In any case, I've found over time my ability to fit in a smaller car correlates to how well I like the car.

I'm 6' and I fit in an RX8 with a helmet no problem.

RX8s seem to kick ass at every autocross I go to so that's not really an issue.

They also are much faster and fun than any of the other sporty cars out there with a back seat (BMWs).

No, they don't have quite the feel of an S2000, but they've got a back seat!

I have friends who own them and none of them have had any major problems even after lots of hard miles on the track or autocross.

GameboyRMH wrote: +1 for WRX.

i heart understeer.

yes, this looks like a blast ('08 STI):

carguy123 wrote: They also are much faster and fun than any of the other sporty cars out there with a back seat (BMWs).

Huh? I won't argue "fun" since that's so subjective. But "much faster...than...BMW's"?

As in, all BMW's? Put the crack pipe....down.

I am 5' 11' and fit in my rx8 just fine with a helmet. I will concede that anything under 5k is not to fun, however when you are wringing the motor out mine has always been fast enough to do anything i wanted. The motor winds up so fast you rarely have to worry about it.

P71 wrote: To billy: You must have freakishly long legs or I have a freakishly long torso, but neither myself (5'10") or John (5'11") can fit inside a power-seat equipped one with a helmet on.

I guess you have a freakishly long torso. I have a 33" inseam and fit just fine, although I've never tried to wear a helmet in a power-seat-equipped car.

Given your further explanation that it's side clearance (i.e., the latch structure/B-pillar tie in for the rear door) that causes your problem, perhaps your head is too big?

I guess it must be a Mazda thing, because I've had normally-proportioned people several inches shorter than I am say they don't fit in Miatas either.

P71 wrote: I've never driven an M3 nor a Miata, but I have driven a stock 12A FB and a stock 13B N/A FC and both felt more powerful/peppier than the RX-8.

If a car doesn't feel right to you, then it doesn't feel right to you, but that doesn't make it slower. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would be stunned if a stock 12A FB or a stock 13B N/A FC is faster.

Incidentally, I feel the same way about Quattro Audis that you do about the RX8. The numbers say otherwise, but they feel slow to me.

That said, I've owned both an M3 (E36) and multiple Miatae, and the RX8 is a shade slower than the M3 in a straight line and will absolutely destroy the Miatae. The RX8 feels better than the M3 in the handling department (to me), and, based on B-stock autocross results, appears to handle better than the M3. The handling vis-a-vis the Miata could best be characterized as similar, more planted, and with higher limits.

P71 wrote: It also sounds flat with the bizarre ports.

That's a valid opinion, but not at all related to the objective merits of the car.

GameboyRMH wrote: RX8 for AutoX? The total lack of torque low down could cause problems. Also it's pretty big and heavy for an AutoX car.... For a track day car I'd consider it but definitely not for AutoX.

Two words: B-Stock.

If that isn't enough, I think they're also competitive in STX, STU, or whatever.

I think I'd really enjoy a small turbo equipped one for DD duties, but the helmet clearance issues will keep me from serious ownership for the next several years. As an aside, my helmet is a G-Force full-face M2005 and John's is the same one in SA2005. John's hit the top of the helmet and the side in both cars. I hit the side in both and the top in the sunroof car. A manual seat, hardtop version might be OK, but the clearance is so close that it would bother me.

Some people just don't fit in some cars.

billy3esq wrote: If that isn't enough, I think they're also competitive in STX, STU, or whatever.

STU...nope, at least out on the slippery Topeka site. now that Nationals have moved to (a larger and supposedly grippier site in) Lincoln, the AWD advantage should be smaller, and the 8 might've had a shot

but no matter...they got bumped down to their proper class (STX), where it remains to be seen how they do, but on paper they look like (finally) good competition for the WRXs.

My feelings on the RX-8 are mixed. When it comes to styling, I love the interior, but outside the car I really don't care for the front end and front 3/4 views. Ergonomics are great up front, not so great in the rear - better than a Porsche, but it not a BMW.

The motor has great top-end, but the car just isn't that quick - almost disappointing when driven less than 8/10th's. The car has good grip and handles nicely, but when I autocrossed one back to back with a stock NC MX-5, the Miata was clearly the more tossable, enjoyable car.

All in all, my driving impressions were that if I wanted a fun autocrosser, the better choice was a Miata (which I have). If I wanted a fun daily driver, the better choice was the BMW M3 (which I have - and am sorry to hear about your experiences).

PS - after test driving an RX-8 at a dealership back to back with a WRX, my feeling was that the 350Z I'd already test driven was the better car... but the sports car I'd actually buy was an S2000.

Buzz Killington wrote:

billy3esq wrote: If that isn't enough, I think they're also competitive in STX, STU, or whatever.

STU...nope, at least out on the slippery Topeka site. now that Nationals have moved to (a larger and supposedly grippier site in) Lincoln, the AWD advantage should be smaller, and the 8 might've had a shot but no matter...they got bumped down to their proper class (STX), where it remains to be seen how they do, but on paper they look like (finally) good competition for the WRXs.

Makes sense, and is generally consistent with my recollection. I knew they got bumped down, but, not having been an active autocrosser for several years now, I couldn't remember which class was which.

At 6 foot even I fit fine without a helmet. Haven't had the chance to try it with a lid, maybe soon.

I like the buzziness of the engine. It reminds me of the days of piston port 125 MXers where you constantly had to stir the shifter to keep it in the fat part of the power. Keep it there and it will reward you with some very quick times.

The styling is subjective and to me depends on the color, for instance I like the red and blue ones but silver and white looks funny. The 'Shinki' edition dark red looks good too. I really like the ergos and interior fit. It has typical Japanese attention to detail and good assembly quality. My only gripe is I am not enamored of the instrument pod, it looks like someone at Mazda decided to copy a Boxster cluster.

billy3esq wrote: Those who say the engine lets the car down miss the point of a rotary.

Soooo what is the point of a rotary? Cause from where I'm sitting they make mediocre power in NA form, are unreliable in boosted form, and get comparable gas mileage to a V8 that's 3x bigger and makes 2x the torque at a usable RPM.

Yes, they rev nicely. So do most Honda's. They don't make any torque either but at least you get good gas mileage as a benefit and they never break.

Yes, they are small and compact. But that hardly matters unless you're putting one in a car that didn't come with one originally.

Most "rotards" (and I'm not implying anyone here is one) won't admit it but they like them just because they are different. Nothing wrong with that, to each their own. But at the same time a motor that can best be described as "magical spinning Doritos's on a stick" is far from perfect. Despite their qualities they are noticably lacking in many areas and the rotards just can't admit that.

That said I overall I like the RX8. I'll be autocrossing my brother's this weekend in fact. They have alot of things going for them but IMO the motor sure isn't one of them.

I'm not a huge rotorhead, but my feeling is that rotary engines are like Mustangs - totally mediocre in stock form, but can be absolutely fantastic once worked over.

I think this really shows in the redline of stock cars. 7500 rpm (IIRC, that's redline in a stock N/A FC) isn't anything special anymore, especially if your claim to fame is how high the motor revs. Stock rotaries should be hitting 10k+ in my opinion.

Soma007 wrote:

billy3esq wrote: Those who say the engine lets the car down miss the point of a rotary.

That said I overall I like the RX8. I'll be autocrossing my brother's this weekend in fact. They have alot of things going for them but IMO the motor sure isn't one of them.

That motor, it's powerband and it's compact packaging is what makes the RX8 have a lot going for it.

OK, I'll bite.

Besides the "I'm different" aspect, room for improvement as the Reverend mentioned, and the Jekyll-and-Hyde driving nature of my FC's N/A rotary, I also feel like the Wankel rotary is still a maturing technology.

I don't think we can go much further with the Otto-cycle gasoline engine when engineers struggle to get 30mpg from a modern small car (though to be fair the porkification of modern cars doesn't help). On the other hand, I think we can push the rotary further. It's only been around since the 50's, while the Otto has been around since the late 19th century. Mazda is currently working on a new engine, the 16X, that should address many of the rotary's limiting factors, like torque, mileage, and emissions: http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/rotary/16x/

You can bet if this puppy comes out and is as good as advertised, it's going in my FC.

Not just that, but the Wankel has been adapted for other applications like civil aviation and is even being explored as a layout for nanomachines. Seems to me it does have a future, even if it isn't in cars.

Will the Wankel rotary ever be more than a niche item? Probably not, since John Q. Public doesn't know the meaning of "preventative maintenence" which is critical to a rotary's health (N/A or turbo). But I also think it shouldn't be written off as a novelty, as it still has room to grow.

BTW, a well-cared for FC3S Turbo II engine can last over 175k before needing a rebuild. Many people thow their cars into the junkyard before then.

My 12A has 234,6xx miles on it, never been rebuilt. Ask wherethefmi how well it runs and revs

from what I know about rotary engines P71s runs great, granted my knowledge of the Dorito engine is limited, but it felt strong and revved very freely.

I think they are fantastic cars, but I have always been a fan of the underdog. My ideal car is an s2000, the closest compromise for that (taking price and seating as the compromise) would be the Rx-8. Test drove one a while back, amazing feeling cars, Im all up for driver cars (even cars that try to kill you), and this is truly a drivers car (as a bonus = doesnt try to kill you). Much like the s2000, it is blessed by a great chassis, great brakes and a high revving engine. All qualities I admire. The car rewards brilliant driving, and you really need to wring the engine by the neck to get anything out of it, much like the s2k. I would like to mention that the engine is smooth as butter and makes a wonderful sound that I truly appreciate. All interior ergonomics are gorgeous, comfortable and functional. Even sound system is great (Bose). I can see why this car never got the respect that the 350z did, just the horsepower alone would draw the crowd. Personally, I did not enjoy the 350z at all, it reminds me of the last generation sentra se-r which I recently autocrossed. Fast, but a brute, not really a smooth machine, you are in for a wrestle. Whereas my Honda flows much more brilliantly.

Insurance in my area is dirt cheap, as its classed as a 4 door family sedan with a 1.3l engine. The recent warranty upgrade is nice too. Mileage is terrible, for a car that makes this little power this mileage is hard to make excuses for.

Reliabilty wise, I have 2 friends who have had 2 of them for the last 4 years. One had some fuel system problem (still able to drive, fixed under warranty) and the other has had no problems. One of them also adds oil to the gas, something about the system that oils the engine being a common failure point. Insurance he says. Not to mention that you can run the rotary on some of the most crap for gas you can find. And it wont mind

Finally, a Clowns opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5FNjyaLfC8