 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mazda / Mazda Miata / March 2008Sharper Mazda RX-8 heralds new flagship
The new range-topping model will be based on the RX-8 RS that has leaked on internet sites ahead of its debut at January's Tokyo Auto Salon. The RS itself adopts subtle visual enhancements on top of the RX-8's revised front and rear styling that is being showcased at the Detroit motor show before both models reach Australia mid-year. A rear spoiler and larger, wishbone-style alloy wheels are added to the new four-door coupe's more aggressive front end, which features wider and deeper grille and side air intakes. New headlights, tail- lights and body-coloured bottom rear bumper complete the other major visual changes. The range-topping RX-8 will share the same, carried-over 177kW rotary engine as the regular model, although improved performance and handling will be achieved through less weight and an uprated suspension. _____________ Used Car Donation Car and Autos Zone http://www.zone-car.com > The new range-topping model will be based on the RX-8 RS that has > leaked on internet sites ahead of its debut at January's Tokyo Auto > Salon. I'm amazed they shift any, given current fuel prices. I suppose it's OK compared to a big V8. > I'm amazed they shift any, given current fuel prices. I suppose it's OK > compared to a big V8. It's not that much different from a 350Z. The new engine should be a little less thirsty.  SignatureLanny Chambers St. Louis, MO '94C > In article <fsbe6s$2km...@energise.enta.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's not that much different from a 350Z. The new engine should be a > little less thirsty. 2008 EPA estimates are 18/25 for the 350Z and 16/22 for the RX-8 with manual, despite the Z weighing roughly 300 lbs. more (depending on trim level). Maybe not way different, but 12.5-13.6% is enough to feel it at the pump. I also seem to recall the drivers at C&D found real-world mileage to be toward the low end of the EPA range when the RX-8 was driven in spirited fashion. I'm not going to argue that the Wankel engine isn't pretty cool as a mechanical curiosity, but 16/22 mpg on a 3050 lb. car, with a whopping 159 ft-lbs. of torque, is just pitiful. This sounds a little crazy, but the new Cobalt SS is arguably a performance peer of the RX-8, and not necessarily just in a straight line - IIRC it is Nurburgring-tuned and broke its class record there by quite a few seconds. C&D says it should get 22/30 mpg. Apples and oranges, mayhap. But what is all that extra gas getting you? I'm liking the orange here. > I'm not going to argue that the Wankel engine isn't pretty cool as a > mechanical curiosity, but 16/22 mpg on a 3050 lb. car, with a whopping > 159 ft-lbs. of torque, is just pitiful. And it's ugly too! IMO, the RX-8 is a disjointed collection of random details with no overall style. It's all vents and creases and bulges and slots and crap. The 350Z doesn't look bad at all -- except for those door handles... SignatureGrant > The 350Z doesn't look bad at all -- except for those door > handles... We don't agree on that, I liked the first generation of "Z" cars and I think it's been downhill ever since in the looks department. SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >> The 350Z doesn't look bad at all -- except for those door handles... > > We don't agree on that, I liked the first generation of "Z" cars and I > think it's been downhill ever since in the looks department. I thought the 300zx turbo was bitchin' when it came out. It was a lot of car, at the time. > I thought the 300zx turbo was bitchin' when it came out. It was a lot of > car, at the time. Yes, I drove a '92 Turbo with a few power mods one time. Very fast car, and I liked how it looked too, especially the front end. Pat Don't forget that the first 300ZX was the biggest disaster in the model's history! It was 1979 IIRC. The twin turbo and it's NA stablemate were great and great looking but along with their competition just got too pricey! Chris 99BBB >> I thought the 300zx turbo was bitchin' when it came out. It was a lot of >> car, at the time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pat > Don't forget that the first 300ZX was the biggest disaster in the model's > history! It was 1979 IIRC. No, they switched over to the 280ZX until 1983, basically a heavier and more gaudy 280Z, then released the 300ZX. That car was quite horrific in looks and performance. :-) > The twin turbo and it's NA stablemate were great and great looking but along > with their competition just got too pricey! > > Chris > 99BBB Yeah, they were around $30,000, and that was back in 1991. The owner of the one that I drove went with a used NA Miata, which inspired me to buy my own after I drove it. The 300ZX was fun, but the inexpensive and low-power Miata was the more fun car to drive. Surprising at the time, fully understandable now. A local shop owner had a 1991 300ZX running over 600 hp, but I never got a ride in that one. Pat OMG, you're absolutely correct. I got the year right but forgot it remained 2.8 liters when it first went 'luxo' in 1979! That's the one I think was the low point. Chris 99BBB >> Don't forget that the first 300ZX was the biggest disaster in the model's >> history! It was 1979 IIRC. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Pat > > I'm not going to argue that the Wankel engine isn't pretty cool as a > > mechanical curiosity, but 16/22 mpg on a 3050 lb. car, with a whopping [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > random details with no overall style. It's all vents and > creases and bulges and slots and crap. Definitely it ain't a smooth beauty, but I think it's kind of cool in its own way, at least in dark blue or silver (maybe its appearance in X-Men is influencing me). The reason I sounded a bit harsh is that I actually really wanted to like this car. It seemed to promise world-class handling and (unlike our beloved Miatae) respectable speed, along with 4-seat practicality and a dose of distinctiveness, for <=30K. I can't help but wonder if any of a number of other engines might raise its gas mileage from bad to at least mediocre, without sacrificing its essential character and performance. I guess it might not be an RX-8 anymore, but it might be a heckuva car. Eric In article <723d5f5c-5e2b-457f-b29b-1c7abad1b3d9@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > The reason I sounded a bit harsh is that I actually really wanted to > like this car. It seemed to promise world-class handling and (unlike > our beloved Miatae) respectable speed, along with 4-seat practicality > and a dose of distinctiveness, for <=30K. We have to keep the mileage in perspective. Brand new 2007 RX-8s can still be found for as little as $23k. With the money you'd save over, say, a 350Z, you could buy rather a lot of fuel. Personally, I can get past the quirky styling--after all, you can't see much of it from inside, and other folks' opinions are their problem. The oil consumption "issue" is way overblown, typically by people who lack direct experience. My problem is that, if I have to suffer a fixed roof, it'd better come with substantial cargo room...and the 8 ain't got it. The rear seats don't fold, and the hatch area is blocked by the rear tower brace. I realize these things help make the chassis nicely rigid, but an 8 will never do as my "big" car. Our 3, though, serves admirably. SignatureLanny Chambers St. Louis, MO '94C > Personally, I can get past the quirky styling--after all, you can't see > much of it from inside, I didn't much like the interior either, but non-DIN radios are one of my pet peeves, and IIRC, the RX-8 has a particularly annoying oval opening for the radio. It was definitely fun to drive... > I realize these things help make the chassis nicely rigid, > but an 8 will never do as my "big" car. Our 3, though, serves > admirably. My Miata is my "big" car. My small car is a Yamaha FJ. :) SignatureGrant Edwards grante Yow! This is a NO-FRILLS at flight -- hold th' CANADIAN visi.com BACON!! Do you think they could get that darn Speed-3 turbo in there?! That would be great. Actually, it would totally screw with Mazda tradition so, it ain't going to happen. Actually, if they can de-tune it for the Speed-3 they could turn up the thrust for a Speed-8! And give it the same reliable power it has in the CX-7 for the standard RX-8. Again, certain things Mazda just isn't going to screw with so we're wasting our breath! cd 99BBB On Mar 26, 9:20 am, Grant Edwards <gra...@visi.com> wrote: > > I'm not going to argue that the Wankel engine isn't pretty cool as a > > mechanical curiosity, but 16/22 mpg on a 3050 lb. car, with a whopping [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > random details with no overall style. It's all vents and > creases and bulges and slots and crap. Definitely it ain't a smooth beauty, but I think it's kind of cool in its own way, at least in dark blue or silver (maybe its appearance in X-Men is influencing me). The reason I sounded a bit harsh is that I actually really wanted to like this car. It seemed to promise world-class handling and (unlike our beloved Miatae) respectable speed, along with 4-seat practicality and a dose of distinctiveness, for <=30K. I can't help but wonder if any of a number of other engines might raise its gas mileage from bad to at least mediocre, without sacrificing its essential character and performance. I guess it might not be an RX-8 anymore, but it might be a heckuva car. Eric It's amazing how 'love-it / hate-it the RX-8 styling is. I consider myself a student of car design and I completely disagree with Grant on the disjointed styling. I think it's a very cohesive / modern design. To me, the 350Z isn't bad looking by any means but it's just OK and from some angles it looks incredibly heavy which you'd probably agree never afflicts the RX-8. The 'updated' RX-8 is a disaster to my eyes. They are just slapping on corporate look alike pieces and tacky scoops and grills. To me it's sad that they've let the car die on the vine and now they are going to shoot it in the proverbial head. It won't be a pretty death. The car needs torque and improved fuel mileage, both in a pretty big way. The looks didn't need updating. Seriously, anybody who hated it before will still hate it and anybody who thought it was beautiful will hate that they changed it just for the sake of change and 'corporate look'. That sucks! Chris 99BBB >> I'm not going to argue that the Wankel engine isn't pretty cool as a >> mechanical curiosity, but 16/22 mpg on a 3050 lb. car, with a whopping [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The 350Z doesn't look bad at all -- except for those door > handles...
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.