Test Drive: 2007 Mazda RX-8

[3pac2k6]

why are people complaining about reliability?
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...00&cardist=252

[e60.deluxe]

Rotaries have the advantage that the same "displacement" can be used to compress and cumbust at the same time. a 4 stroke engine takes 2 cranks to cumbust the entire "displacement" while a rotary only takes 1.

technically its still a 1.3L engine, but a more efficient per crank one.

but in the "to be fair" sense, most regulatory bodies, such as Japanese government (who taxes on displacement), awards and racing (which classify and restrict by displacement) consider a multiplication factor of 2.

[vetkiller]

RX8=POS But then again I hate Mazdas because inside and out....they look and feel terrible.

[vetkiller]

OOOoooh one car.

[KingMarineM16a4]

Originally Posted by e60.deluxe

Rotaries have the advantage that the same "displacement" can be used to compress and cumbust at the same time. a 4 stroke engine takes 2 cranks to cumbust the entire "displacement" while a rotary only takes 1.

technically its still a 1.3L engine, but a more efficient per crank one.

but in the "to be fair" sense, most regulatory bodies, such as Japanese government (who taxes on displacement), awards and racing (which classify and restrict by displacement) consider a multiplication factor of 2.

There's your explanation, lol...

[sk33ny]

Originally Posted by KingMarineM16a4

There's your explanation, lol...

Thanks for pointing that out >.>

[I-NTEC]

i really think that more than 80% of the people on this website have no knowledge of cars and pretend that they do just because they read magazines and test drive cars every weekend, this thread is stupid. the rx-8 was a failure, its not fast, it handles decent and brakes the same, someone on here go get a rx -8 ill get a 02 s2000, meet me at any track in the country and ill never go above 8 grand and still abuse a rx 8. the rx8 is in a rwd class and the way it performs it needs to be in a fwd class, comparing it to a 350 z and s2000 is a indecency to those cars. period.

[sk33ny]

Originally Posted by I-NTEC

i really think that more than 80% of the people on this website have no knowledge of cars and pretend that they do just because they read magazines and test drive cars every weekend, this thread is stupid. the rx-8 was a failure, its not fast, it handles decent and brakes the same, someone on here go get a rx -8 ill get a 02 s2000, meet me at any track in the country and ill never go above 8 grand and still abuse a rx 8. the rx8 is in a rwd class and the way it performs it needs to be in a fwd class, comparing it to a 350 z and s2000 is a indecency to those cars. period.

I wouldnt go as far as calling it a failure, there nice cars.

[slow4drsi]

Originally Posted by Capt Canuck

Wow! Have to disagree on all those points. Not sure where you get clunky from? There's no real perceptible difference in the 'feel' of the two power wise. They're high reving 4's and act accordingly. No way is it an S2000 wannabe! They're different segment cars. RX8 belongs with the 350z, TT and the S200 with a Z4 and the like.
Maybe you need to take another one out and see if it feels any better.

if it belongs with 350z and audi tt and z4 it's gonna be way way way at the back...................

[sk33ny]

Originally Posted by slow4drsi

if it belongs with 350z and audi tt and z4 it's gonna be way way way at the back...................

I think hes saying it belongs in that group because of its price and because its RWD.

Out of all of these, the 350z seems to be the best bang for your buck. After that, the RX-8 is looking pretty damn good. Makes me wonder what car magazine somebody *coughs I-NTEC* got there information out of?

Quick comparison, all information is prodived by Yahoo! Autos.
Base Model 2007 Mazda RX-8 - $26,435 MSRP - 1.3L R2 232HP
Base Model 2007 Nissan 350Z Coupe - $27,900 MSRP - 3.5L V6 306HP
Base Model 2008 Honda S2000 - $34,300 MSRP - 2.2L I4 237HP
Base Model 2008 Audi TT - $34,800 MSRP - 2.0L I4 200HP
Base Model 2007 BMW z4 - $36,400 MSRP - 3.0L I6 215HP

[e60.deluxe]

funny top gear tested all those cars several times, and the 350Z and RX-8 had the best laptimes (actually identical laptimes) with the Audi TT, Z4 and S2000 lagging behind.

id like to see a "fwd" class car with 70 less HP than a RWD car get the same laptime.

and the RX-8 was the cheapest and the TT was the most $.

[TheChosenGuy]

Am I the only one that thinks the Z4 and S2000 are hideous cars? They may perform well but they are UGLY. I would never intentionally drive a car that I thought was ugly. I don't really care about the RX-8 because I really want(ed) a MS3 but I got stuck with my Civic.

[e60.deluxe]

Originally Posted by TheChosenGuy

Am I the only one that thinks the Z4 and S2000 are hideous cars? They may perform well but they are UGLY. I would never intentionally drive a car that I thought was ugly. I don't really care about the RX-8 because I really want(ed) a MS3 but I got stuck with my Civic.

they look alright. i wouldnt call them the great lookig, but they are far from ugly. in fact out all all the cars mentioned in the last few posts, i would say that the Audi TT is the only one id classify as good looking.

The Z4 and 350Z are overly aggressive without class, and the S2000 looks like a girly take on the BMW Z1. but they arent ugly.

i hate the Mazda 3 wagon, but the 4 door is good looking in a fun little car sort of way.

[sk33ny]

Originally Posted by e60.deluxe

i hate the Mazda 3 wagon

Somebody needs a quick lesson.

Wagon:


Hatchback:


Would you consider this a wagon? If so... your retarded.


Now you know the difference

[TheChosenGuy]

Originally Posted by e60.deluxe

they look alright. i wouldnt call them the great lookig, but they are far from ugly. in fact out all all the cars mentioned in the last few posts, i would say that the Audi TT is the only one id classify as good looking.

The Z4 and 350Z are overly aggressive without class, and the S2000 looks like a girly take on the BMW Z1. but they arent ugly.

i hate the Mazda 3 wagon, but the 4 door is good looking in a fun little car sort of way.

I'm the opposite of you. I hate the look of the Z4 and the S2000. If I was given one of either of those I would sell it. I wouldn't be seen driving them. I love the look of the 350z. I used to love the look of the Audi TT but I guess you could say I've grown out of it. I love the MS3 hatchback and I hate the Mazda 3 sedan-it's fugly at the back; looks like a large, shapely ass.

[sk33ny]

Originally Posted by TheChosenGuy

looks like a large, shapely ass.

You say it like its a bad thing.

[TheChosenGuy]

Originally Posted by sk33ny

You say it like its a bad thing.

Very much so. I'm in with the skinnier crowd.

[e60.deluxe]

Originally Posted by sk33ny

Somebody needs a quick lesson

nope, i think you do. a Wagon is a modified sedan. you basially extend the roof the the end of the trunk and square it off with a verticle door.

what do you know, the Mazda 3 5 door does that.

the only difference between the 2nd pic and the 1st pic is that the dodge had a way bigger trunk to square off.

a hatchback is its own body style.

[sk33ny]

Originally Posted by TheChosenGuy

Very much so. I'm in with the skinnier crowd.

Somebody cant be skinny with a nice ass?

[e60.deluxe]

Originally Posted by TheChosenGuy

looks like a large, shapely ass.

and the hatchback/wagon looks like a larger, unshapley ass. it looks like the entire back half of the car is an un shapley ass.