Sharper 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

john wrote:
> 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.

In article <fsbe6s$2kmo$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Zog The Undeniable <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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.

--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
'94C

On Mar 25, 4:11 pm, Lanny Chambers <la...@hummingbirds.net> wrote:
> In article <fsbe6s$2km...@energise.enta.net>,
> Zog The Undeniable <hrothga...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.

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.

On 2008-03-26, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
> 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...

--
Grant

Grant Edwards <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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.


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

On Mar 26, 9:20*am, Grant Edwards <gra...@visi.com> wrote:
> On 2008-03-26, eara...@spymac.com <eara...@spymac.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
> > 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.

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

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:54:52 -0700, XS11E wrote:

> Grant Edwards <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> 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.

In article
<723d5f5c-5e2b-457f-b29b-(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> 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.

--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
'94C

On 2008-03-27, Lanny Chambers <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! This is a NO-FRILLS
at flight -- hold th' CANADIAN
visi.com BACON!!