"a few considerable flaws"

which are: fuel economy and off-the-line torque?

(i ask because... i think i'm falling in love with this thing)

Also consider a used RX-7? I would love too but since the F&F craze I haven't seen a clean one go for under $17-20k.

Something about buying a 10+ year old car with a finicky/funky turbo charged engine just doesn't sit well with me for that kind of money.

@Unregular: That and increased oil consumption. Also, repair costs would tend to be higher because any engine work will have to be done at the dealer or by a mechanic who specializes in rotary engines.

@reefer: FD + LS7 = GR8

I was chatting to a guy who has a turbocharged RX8 and tracks it regularly. It does very well indeed.

Oh, and they're "emo-doors."

A request: Can we have all reviewed car weights listed as a ratio to the Enzo? I think this is important to the auto-buying public because of.

Thank you.

I have a buddy who has a RX8. He loves the heck out of it, but then again, he rides the bus to work.

@boosted-lego-wagon:
I'd just go with a RX7 LS2 or LS3. The best part of using a LS series V8 is the weight distribution is unchanged.

I love techonogical diversity, I really do. And I love watching the animations of how a rotary engine workds. However, I cannot love the fact that a 2+2 coupe that, by many measures, is the absolute best on the market, is denied its proper glory because of its engine.

I'm not sure why the rotary is such a failure; whether it has inherent flaws or just suffers from a lack of development. I do know that it ruins this car.

The Mazda 2.3 turbo is a good engine. Except for being very slightly more nose heavy this car would be amazing with that engine. It's time for Mazda to put that engine in this car. Hell, offer both and see what the take rates are.

@no_slushbox:
While I agree the 2.3Turbo would be great, the rotary is what makes an RX car and RX (stands for Rotary Experiment). Or maybe Rotary Experience... Not sure. Either way, without a rotary it's not an RX anymore but something different.

Anyway, the smooth turbine like acceleration of the rotary is sweet if you've never experienced it. It really is different.

And as mentioned in Part 2 comments, just keep the revs high. It's actually good for the engine and great for that torque/acceleration people crave. 9000rpm in a rotary is similar to 3k in a Piston b/c E-shaft turns at 1/3rd the rotor.

"A really nice used 93-95 RX-7; they're gorgeous"

Here here.

Do like that red interior, though.

@killerfish:
Then call it an MX.

I was very close to buying an RX, but passed on it for the reasons above, namely, poor fuel economy, burns oil, and questionable long-term reliability.

@Seth L:
"Then call it an MX."

Yep, that's fair and works for me! :)

The oil burning is overstated though. What's a couple bucks extra in oil once a month? Takes less than 2 minutes to top off while re-fueling. I'm surprised that folks on Jalopnik are bothered with some extra 'care' on their vehicles.

I'll give ya the fuel efficiency and reliability thing. On RX8club.com, there are quite a few with >100K miles and equally quite a few with blown engines. No real correlation on years/etc. for blown engines either. I have an 04 and have no issues at all - go figure.

I find these strangely attractive. Must be the weirdness factor. Maybe it's the doors as my Tupperware car has the same configuration. They are great when you are parallel parked next to the curb. They suck in parking lots...

@Seth L: I would definitely be driving an RX-8 but for the engine, I came very close on my last purchase.

I kind of like "PX", a least in terms of sales I think the piston experiment would be much more sucessful.

@killerfish: Revving for power isn't the deal breaker, it's the fuel economy and the possibily of a modern, properly maintained car having engine problems.

@no_slushbox:
Who buys any sports-like car for fuel economy! :) There's plenty of dinosaurs down there for oil...it's just deeper.

Reliability is a fair concern, but remans engines go for around $3k. Not great, but not crazy either.

Ok, I don't know why I'm defending so much. It is a WEIRD car. That's why I love it!

That is what people miss on these cars, the powerband is wide and strong, but starts at 6 and goes to 9. Once you adjust your thinking to deal with that, torque and power complaints go away.

My RX-7 is below 3000 rpm when it's idling or when it is off, and at 2100lbs and 180hp it'll run with a 300C up t0 120 mph.

3,000lbs. I didn't realize it was so light. That's pretty close to the Boxster, Z4, s2000, and it seats 4.

The first gen S2000 was lackluster in the torque department, but by god get it above 6500rpms and have fun!!! By far the most enjoyable car I have ever driven, although I would not like it as a DD.

Revving the piss out of an engine has it's place as does low end torque.

Oh, and as was pointed out in part 2. This car really grows on you, styling wise.

It's more like Anne Hathaway than Britney Spears. It won't turn your head like Brit circa 1999, but 10 years later you won't have to hide your face when you take it out. this car, like Anne is going to look as good, or better, at 40 than it does now.

@no_slushbox: Au contraire, mi amigo. The rotary MAKES this car. Have you seen the engine? It's tiny and weighs less than nothing. It's practically bolted up behind the firewall, barely a pimple on the face of the tranny bell-housing. This car wouldn't be able to change directions like a greyhound on crystal-meth with anything else.

Add this to reasons you want to buy this car...

"You want a coupe with rear wheel drive, 4 decent seats, a 6 speed manual, and don't want to spend more than $30-35k"

Simple question, but this is a formula that's rare in the marketplace today and was equally rare back in 2004 when it came out. This is the criteria I used to buy my RX-8 and I certainly did not mind the oil consumption (barely noticeable) and the fuel economy (better than the Jeep Wrangler it replaced).

And before you mention the G35 coupe, the RX-8 was a step above in cabin space. At 6'1", my head was touching the roof and the back of the driver seat was just about touching the rear seat...and no I wasn't driving like a homey either.

Forgot to add...

Good luck finding an unmolested last-gen RX-7. They've all been ruined.

I've always believe that Wankels (and its derivatives), are better suited to bikes, where a highly responsive high revving engine with lots of power and not much torque makes more sense.

Recently, Motocszyz (look em up, especially the C1), put an offset I-4 longitudinally in a chassis, the two cranks contra-rotate (to cancel torque induced roll), and the final drive sits turned 90 degrees to allow for a chain drive.

I'm actually starting work with a few friends who work at in a NASCAR shop down here in NC to do the same thing but with 2 (Very small) contra-rotating rotors.

@kingedwin: From what I understand, there are some features (like the twin turbo) not on the RX8 that would not offset the added weight. The (FD) RX7 also has some funny transmission mount that is heavy and up high that I presume isn't in the RX8. So I'm not sure if it is as good for swaps.

@j6r: But you can do that in Forza, so obviously it'll work in real life.

Brilliant car except for the Wankel. Will Mazda's 2.3 turbo fit in it?

It's a really a simple equation.

Raise your hand if you want a rwd manual sports car.

Keep it up if you have a kid or two that you have to tot around a few times a week. (They don't care that they can't see out the back because they're looking at their Nintendo DS most of the time.)

Now keep that hand up if you can't spend more than $30k.

Bonus points if you like to be unique.

There you go. Everybody left should give the RX8 a fair shake because there's precious little else to turn to.

@Fitty7lax: There's a nice clip of Jay Leno showing off his Suzuki RE5 Rotary on jaylenosgarage.com. From his description, it doesn't sound like it works all that much better in a bike.

Don't forget about the roomy trunk as a +1 to this car.

The overall concept of this car- a sportscar that can fit actual adults in the back- is fantastic. So I really want to like the RX-8, but that engine simply has no place in a world where gas costs $4/gallon.

I know saying this is probably heresy on Jalopnik, but Mazda needs to lose the rotary. Or at least offer the turbo 4 as an option (as someone else suggested above).

@no_slushbox:

Lack of development money is a big deal. Think of it this way, Mazda is the only company out there that really does work on the engine. The engine is called a "Wankel Rotary", but it may as well be called a "Mazda Rotary" as there's only one source.

And Mazda can only devote a small portion of their engine budget to the rotary--the rest goes to developing other revolutionary engines, like the 2.3L DISI engine. Just consider the amount of money, say, Mercedes spends on its engines as compared to the total amount of money spent on the rotary. There's going to be a huge difference. And each traditional engine benefits from advances made to other traditional engines, but of course that doesn't happen with the rotary.

Really, it's shocking the engine has survived at all!

As far as putting the DISI into the RX-8: as much as i hate to admit it, it probably makes sense. The DISI engine makes more power and gets better fuel economy--and it's as rock solid as a high strung turbocharged engine gets. For all the people who don't care about perfect 50/50 weight distribution and saving every last pound having a DISI-8 instead of an RX-8 would probably make more sense--the car would sell better.

I just hope that, if they do that, they'll keep the RX-8 (or some rotary engined car) around. It'd be a loss if the engine finally died for real.

@j6r:

The packaging of the Renesis is also much smaller than any comparable engine, even if the Renesis is heavy for its size. It's that packaging advantage that helps keep the CoG low and in the middle of the car--even if you were to replace it with a big aluminum engine that weighed the same the CoG would almost certainly change. (This wasn't an issue with the old RX-7 engines as they were bigger, heavier, and had lots more turbo + plumbing to get in the way as was noted.)

30k? I've bought two brand-new RX-8s (one found a wall at Pacific Raceway), and paid less than 30k OTD for both of them. If I'd had to pay more than 30k, no way I would have gotten one. However, for 26k OTD? Mine.

Also, being 24, even though I pay 200$/mo in gas for the thing, it kinda pales in comparison to the 400$/mo in insurance and 400$/mo in loan payments. Whenever I think about dumping the RX for something more fuel-efficient, I keep remembering that.

@nirad:No place in a world of $4/gallon gas?

The main rivals, 350Z and Infinity G's only get a mile or two better a gallon in the city.

The milage issue way overblown. I get 18mpg in a RX8 and 20mpg in a Legacy turbo over the same routes.

Come to think of it, I've missed my quotidian wankelry session...

I test drove this, the m3 coupe, 350z, and an evo a few years ago. Liked the car alot, but went with an sti instead. The motor was just weak for that mpg rating. I actually wanted the rotary because it was something new to play with that I hadn't before. Oil burning is no worry.

It really is pathetic off the line. I came from a 94 Firebird Formula 6speed. So the lack of torque felt even worse. Still happy with my 04 sti though.

A 3 rotor or a turbo version is what it needed.

What's up with the quoted 0-60 figure? Motor Trend (in 2004) said they got 0-60 in 5.8 seconds in one test, and 6.0 in another. Has the car changed or are they full of crap?

Heretics, the lot of ya.

The rotary is the RX series. Only one or two others nailed it - it needs the third rotor. Lag-free, turbine smooth torque.

@1300ccsoffury:

They're there, just in dwindling amounts. I bought a completely stock (minus catback and radio) 1994 with 52k miles for around $10k.

Its engine developed a case of low compression on the back rotor and is off in rebuild land. As much as I'm not excited about this, I don't think much else in the combined price range comes close.

Also, I take the train to work and own another car.

@pitchpitch:

That being said, I haven't been able to Wankel in a month and a half. It's starting to hurt.

@1300ccsoffury: A family friend has a black '93 RX-7 Grand Touring model with approx. 15K miles. Sadly, it's hail-damaged to hell. Apparently part of the cars low weight was due to ultra-thin body panels.

This isn't your average jellybean.

I have found that automatic rx-7's are cheaper, too ... I wonder how hard a manual swap is? I'm all about stupid multi-week projects.

The RX8 is an amazing car. Don't be scared of something you know nothing about. The gas mileage is comparable to other SPORTS cars. The oil consumption is always tossed around when people talk about rotarys' but LITTLE do they know its DESIGNED to burn oil. With that said the increased oil consumption is HARDLY noticeable.

Please, really, if you are on the fence about this car.. just test drive it, you will fall in love with it and overcome all the negatives.. I did.

I love my car.

@dculberson: Might as well just buy the manual; you won't save enough money on the automatics to pay for the manual swap.

The 2.3 DISI will be significantly heavier when you consider that not only is the bare engine slightly heavier, there's the added weight of the turbo and plumbing. Not to mention you'll have a more forward weight distribution, and a higher center of gravity. A few percent here, a few pounds there, and a few inches somewhere else might not sound like much, but it all adds up and I'm sure the engine won't be nearly as magical. Remember engineers kill for tenths of percents, ounces, and fractions of an inch.

I own an RX-8, and it is an amazing car. Sure, every 3750 miles I change the oil, and every time I go autocrossing, I eat up about half a quart of oil.

Daily driving though, it's a head turning sports car that few people have or recognize. I see 350Zs and S2000s around town all the time, but I could count with both hands the number of unique RX-8s I've seen.

People whine about gas mileage, but I see it mainly as an issue of getting your heads around the idea that a 1.3L sucks gas like a 3.0L V6. It's a sports car. If you expect 30mpg, go back to your Corolla.

Hell, I've had people come up to me and ask if that 1.3L is a 4 banger. I usually tell them it's a 3 banger (one piston per combustion chamber on a rotor). It's ignorance.

Stupidity aside, the car has served me well. Engine issues crept up from time to time (nothing serious), but they were resolved with some basic maintenance (the engine practically reminds you that it is time). If you're good enough, replace the apex seals every 80,000 miles, and the O-ring seal every time you do a clutch job.

How hard can it be? It's a sports car, not a Honda Civic. It's not going to last if you don't put some work into it.

For all your work, it rewards you with an AMAZING drive. My daily driving has turned from meaningless dribble to something I look forward to everyday. It's that kind of a car, one that puts a smile on your face.

Until I go to the gas pump that is. I rev the piss out of the engine while daily driving (~5000rpm shifting, and I take it to 9000rpm at least once a week to kick out carbon buildup), so I get about 11mpg. I remember when I drove like a grandma though in this car, thinking that anything above 3000rpm is causing unnecessary wear and tear to the engine, and I got about 19~21mpg.

Then I went to a track day or two, and AutoCross/RallyCross with this car, and I got used to the idea of revving the piss out of the engine.

Oh right..., forgot to mention. What you lose in fuel consumption, you'll prolly gain back in brake pads. :p

And I'm only half kidding. There are some parts of town where EVERYONE brakes to make the turn. Yet the RX-8 will do the same turn with no drama or fuss.

At the same time, you'll start to think everyone's a moron, braking when they obviously don't need to. I get quite a bit of road rage just watching the taillights in front of me light up for the slightest bend.

Guess the oddball mentality of the car transfers to this owner. :p

Comment on 2008 Mazda RX-8, Part Three Owned both a Mini and an RX8... I have owned a brand new 2004 Mini Cooper S (manual). Loved it. Had it for 4 months till someone totaled it. Poor baby never ever even got to experience its first oil change. High speed head on collision, the car saved our lives. But I digress... I found a sweet deal on a 2yr old 2004 RX8. Very low mileage, the original owner bought it as a result of a midlife crisis. Even tho I thought I would never find a car to match my love for my Mini, I test drove it and immediatley fell in love. Driving it is amazzzing. I have to admit, I love it more than I did my Mini. And more and more now that Minis have become so popular. Who wants to be like everyone else?? The styling of my car is so sexy (so much more so than the new one). I am a young female and the oil issue has never been a prob for liitle 'ol me. Oh and I have never had any mechanical problems. A big plus is those awesome , dare I say the word, suicide doors!! Dealing with the back seats of the Mini was a huge hassle. And btw, who buys a sports car in a manual??? Kinda defeats the purpose.

Comment on 2008 Mazda RX-8, Part Three RE: Owned both a Mini and an RX8... ..Oops! Silly me, I meant to write: who buys a sports car in an automatic, seems to defeat the purpose.

Hi all, I leased an '07 because it is quirky & unique and also because I wasn't sure if that rev-happy engine would last to 100k. Do I enjoy merging onto a highway in 2nd gear, screaming up the on-ramp at 8000 rpm?! Bet your rear diff I do. "Oh, there's no torque down low." People, it's a rotary, rev it for god's sake! This is the most enjoyable car I have driven in my 14 years behind the wheel. Btw - stick w/the cloth seats as they keep you in place and won't give you a sweaty back in the summer.