Choosing a new car...RX-8?

[arbitor]

that's right, simply put more people in a car to reduce the insurance goup!

Its slowed its 0-60 thus droppping it an isurance group, and thats what i have been told by the owners club.

howard the mazda is probably a little out, i know its ot much quicker, and is brand new, my cars 7 years old.

[arbitor]

the 0-60 figure isn't a particularly accurate measure of things anyways - if a car will hit 60 in 2nd that it'll have a higher 0-60 ( which is why a saxo is geared as such ) you also have to be prepared to really hurt your clutch.
something like 30-70 in gear acceleration is a better measure imo.

Agree, was just referncing the 0-60 as a sprint was mentioned.

[Vimeous]

RX8 just doesn't feel as fast as it should. 3 MPS is faster in a more brute force kinda way.
The Zed is great but like the S2000, TT etc they're in a totally different price and insurance league.

The Rex is designed to drink oil, say 1l every 3k so just figure it in before you buy. Also ignore the official fuel consumption it's reckoned to be optomistic by more than 25%! Finall cost point is that although it's a Mazda and therefore holds its value better than most, there are loads available. Buy nearly new with warranty but don't expect residual miracles. The Zed, Skip and TT will all hold their value better.

Despite all that I've almost pursueded one cousin into a Rex and my Sis was tempted but she was offered a stunning deal elsewhere.

'Ere Moby (ello Guv ) how does an S15 compare?

If you don't mind a front-driver why not a DC5 Integra? Stonking car and cheaper than an S2000!

[arbitor]

Every one thats ever driven a dc5 i know of has fallen in love, insurance price is nothing short of ridiculous

[J4MES]

Its slowed its 0-60 thus droppping it an isurance group, and thats what i have been told by the owners club.

complete balls. get your facts straight.

[Butuz]

RX8 just doesn't feel as fast as it should. 3 MPS is faster in a more brute force kinda way.

Exactly. The RX8 is let down by its engine. Its flat and torqueless - and thats why the 3MPS with it nice turbo kick will always feel (and probably be) faster in anything more than 0-60.

Personally i believe this will be the last outing for the rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishel rorary (if Mazda has any sense). Mazda have been flogging a dead horse with it for years, and whilst it has improved, it still guzzles petrol, guzzles oil, needs frequent rebuilds, sounds a bit wierd and even while doing all of this - produces dissapointing power.

If mazda had offered the 4 pot turbo out of the MPS in the RX-8 they would have doubled their sales, there would probably be be a couple in every street, and this thread wouldnt exist because you wouldnt need to ask " should i"......

Butuz

[TeePee]

The rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishel design is simply better than a reciprocating engine.

If it had as much development it would be more powerful, use less fuel and be more reliable. Think how the different engines operate. A recip had dozens of moving parts flying back and forth, a rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishel just has parts turning. Simple, smooth and powerful. What it needs, of course, is proper development and a third rotor.

[Butuz]

Not questioning the design matey - just questioning what you actually get in your engine bay now! Its had 30 years of development and has gotten pretty much no where has it not?

Butuz

[TeePee]

30 years compared to how many for the recip?
Look at the difference between the renesis and the 13b! The technology is simply improving so much it just needs a chance, and I applaud Mazda for giving it one. What they need is to improve the renesis so that it can take a turbocharger reliably (boosting works better on rotaries!), and add that third rotor. Imagine 400hp for a two rotor setup.
Rotaries are very popular within the experimental aviation community simply because of all the benefits, especially reliability, and turbocharging or at least turbo-normalizing are especially desireable.

[badass]

complete balls. get your facts straight.

I agree that sounds like complete balls, but I know for a fact that both Peugeot and Citroen's official figures dont give either car justice.
Normally, it is nearly impossible for a normal driver to get within 0.5 seconds of manufacturer claimed 0-60 times.
I have managed to get my 0-60 0.2 seconds faster than Citroen's claimed figures using proper timing gear and some calculations. The car was completely standard and 7 years old!
Citroen also claim a 15.8 second quarter. I have a timing slip saying 15.7 seconds.
I aint no Michael Schumacher either.

[arbitor]

The only reason i have posted that, is becuase thats what i was told, and when you think about it theres not really that many reasons they would do a 0-60 test laden with people and luggage is there?

And this is what i have been told by the people that have created the owners club forums and website.. So i fail to see how you could know more about a car they have devoted a lot of time to, when you probably havnt owned one..

[J4MES]

How about because it's about as plausible as the 0-60 times you quote - manufacturers will always attempt the best 0-60 (albeit with a standard setup, which may well be 2-up with half a tank at most) and insurance companies aren't that stupid (besides the fact that the insurance group has so many factors other than just 0-60, i.e. manufacture costs, parts cost, manufacture location etc. etc.).

OT:

If the rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishel engine could be produced as either a. a frugal small capacity N/A engine or b. a diesel then it would have a fighting chance of becoming accepted, but it's just too quirky for some (and has associated petrol/oil consumption worries, even if they're unfounded) - I still think an RX-8 is the right choice though imho