Mazda RX-8 Sporty Intentions

Mazda RX-8 is a real puzzle. It's fast, it's sporty, it has four doors well two of them are half doors but what is it? A replacement for the last Mazda RX-7 was always going to be difficult. The RX-7 was a fairly light and powerful coupe a genuine two-seater. So, with the new Ford management wanting bigger sales, the designers brainstormed many different ideas. Eventually, they came up with this unique concept: a two-door car with two extra half doors to make it easier to get into the back.

They retained the sporty styling of previous RXs, and the Wankel rotary engine, which is small and light. This should have resulted in a car that was shorter than other four-seaters or two-plus-twos. And that's the first question: Is this a four-seater as Mazda says, or a two+two? The second question: Is the rotary engine, now made only by Mazda, and only for the RX-8 is worth retaining? Would they have been better with a compact V-6?

Sleek and individual looks

To be sure, the Mazda RX-8 is a good-looking car, with its long nose and smooth coach roof blending into a short tail. It has quirky little front fenders, which stand out from the body with air outlets behind them. Neat and different without being outlandish. It is also compact; Mazda didn't fall for the fad of making the car wider and longer for the sake of it. Basically, you feel it's a nice car.

The inside is neat, with a small instrument panel in front of the driver, a central console and tall tunnel which runs right through the passenger compartment it forms a backbone to the body, like that on the Honda S-2000, and inspired by Lotus cars of yesteryear.

How good is the Wankel rotary engine?

At one time the Wankel rotary engine was seen as the future power unit for all cars. NSU installed one on the Ro 80, Citroen used a small engine with a single rotor, and GM was keen on the idea. “Technological density”, complex manufacturing, poor fuel consumption and emissions prevented that revolution happening. However, with the advent of modern catalysts, emissions are no longer a problem.

Compact and smooth

So what's good about rotary engines? Well, instead of the pistons going up and down, there's a rotor, roughly triangular, which oscillates round a chamber almost like a figure of eight with a wide waist as the gas is compressed and expanded. There are no valves because as the rotor sweeps past open intake ports it draws the air in, and then pushes it straight out the exhaust ports, similar in this way only with a two-stroke engine. Most of the rotary engines built had two rotors and chambers, like the RX-8.

The result is a very compact engine which is very smooth smooth as a turbine is a common comment. Not far out.

Unfortunately, the shape of the combustion chamber is more or less fixed by the shape of the rotor housing and is not good for efficient combustion. So the rotary engine is not very efficient, and gas mileage is poor. Also, it is expensive to build.

Mazda is the only company that has kept developing rotary engines, and has tried all sorts of combinations of ports and layouts to improve performance. The engines in the RX-8 must represent the ultimate. The capacity, equivalent to 2.6 liters in a conventional engine, remains unchanged, but the power has been increased gradually.

Twin turbo dropped for high revving units

There was a twin-turbo version in the more sporty RX-7 which produced 239 bhp at 6,500 rpm and 217 lb ft (294 Nm) torque at 5,000 rpm, but now you get a fast-revving and whining engine without turbos. One develops 192 bhp at 7,000 rpm, with 162 lb ft (220 Nm) torque at 5,000 rpm, while the other develops 231 bhp at 8,200 rpm, with 156 lb ft (211 Nm) torque at 5,500 rpm. The more powerful one is a real screamer, and develops a bit less torque than the less powerful job. Hmm.

The most powerful engine in the RX-8 develops 9 bhp and 44% less torque than the old turbo engine, so real performance is not up to the standards of the RX-7 but you get two extra seats. See what I mean by a puzzle? Let's see if we can find some answers.

The engine is very short about 17 inches long compared with about 24 inches long for a compact V-6. So the car is 7-10 inches shorter than it would be with a three-liter V-6. Look under the hood for a small engine and you'll be disappointed; the engine is covered by a huge plastic cover just as if it where a V-6. If you peer underneath, you can just see the main housings.

Good clear instruments, nice driving position

Still, what you want to do is jump in and get driving. You've got a clear rev counter in front of you and no speedo as such just a small digital speedo in the bottom of the rev counter, where it's a bit of a distraction until you get used to it. Then it works well.

The gear lever is so short it hardly stands out above the tunnel, which would be fine if there weren‘t this handbrake with a guard on it. It's like the handle of a sabre which won't go down far enough. And it's between you and your gear lever (this is in a right-hand drive car). A design fault, more irritating than problematic.

Start her up, please. Oh, Ok, just a little whine as the revs go up to well over 2,000 rpm while the engine is cold. Soon drops down to a normal idle. And we're off, using a few more revs than you might expect, but you get used to the idea that this behaves like an old-fashioned engine with no bottom end.

It's at its worst when you reverse up a slope. You need a lot of revs, and if it's a bit tight you have to slip the clutch, which is not recommended. The car doesn't like it at all.

Whining rotors must be kept spinning at speed

That aside, the car is a joy to drive almost all the time. The seat seems fine, visibility is good, and the steering is nicely weighted. Press the throttle and off she goes. Whereas lots of engines hurtle off and gradually run out of steam, the rotary engine is the other way around.

It gradually gets itself together, then the revs build up, then they get whining, and the car is still accelerating well when a little man whistles at you as you hit 7,300 rpm or 9,000 rpm to warn you to change gear. Which you dutifully do.

Open her up on a straight road, and she accelerates pretty well, with 0-60 in just under 7.0 seconds with 231 bhp (The RX-7 used to manage 5.3 seconds). The take-off is quite slow; there just isn't enough torque to spin the wheels. They just bite and off you go. The car is actually quicker than it feels because nothing much happens below 5,500 rpm.

Keep it spinning this means using one gear lower than you'd expect in familiar situations, like well-known corners or overtaking modest cars and she goes well. At a price in fuel consumption.

You don't get the impressive growl you get from a piston engine, more of a whine which gets excited at higher speeds.

Let the revs fall, and decide to overtake something, and you'll be embarrassed how long it takes to get past ordinary little cars. Here's a typical situation: you're behind an energetically driven small hatchback, when everyone slows down because a car in front is turning left into a lane. You both press your accelerators at the same time, and the hatchback leaps ahead. You don't catch up for 100 yards.

Despite having a mite more torque than the 231bhp engine, the 192 bhp job is more of a problem at low speeds because it comes with a five-speed box. That's a good box, but the ratios are a bit wide for the engine.

With 231 bhp you get six speeds, also a good box, and you're more likely to find the right revs. Even so, you can still get caught out, especially when overtaking. Theoretical speeds in the intermediate gears are 40, 65, 90, 123 and 146 mph. It's when you overtake at 35-45 or 50-60 mph that you need to take care.

Really nice to drive

OK, but what about on our test routes, which include long twisty sections with some good straights, and a bit on the motorway? The RX-8 is fine on motorways, cruising along very quietly indeed, and enjoyable.

Once on the twisty roads, the car impresses, too. You keep in the mid-range gears mostly second, third and fourth and you've got the power to get out of the corners well, race along the straight. Here, so long as you keep changing gear, and you don't meet much traffic, you're happy. All the while, you're enjoying the supple ride and the stiff body which helps the suspension work properly.

Good suspension and steering

Mazda is pretty good at designing suspensions that work, and the RX-8 is no exception. It has double wishbones at the front, and a multi-link set-up at the back to prevent rear wheel steer. The car comes with ABS, traction control, and stability control (DSC). These work pretty well.

The traction control allows a little wheel spin here and there you can get it easily on wet surfaces at low speeds and the DSC keeps the car handling neutrally almost all the time.

Under steer converts to over steer

At low speeds, if you lift off after powering into a corner, the car can under steer quite strongly, and on high speed corners there's the trace of under steer you want, but it can build up quite a lot. Lift off for a second, and turn the wheel in, and the car straightens up nicely.

When you try harder on slower corners, you can feel the DSC just holding the car at the point of rear end breakaway. Turn the DSC off, and you can get the rear end out, but you need to try hard as the Bridgestone Potenzas are very grippy.

So long as the road surface is smooth, the car also tracks well. But on undulating and bumpy surfaces and switchbacks the car can dance about a bit, as if the steering and suspension geometry aren't exactly matched. It does not happen often and is still acceptable for a sports car. But you need to be ready for it. That apart, road manners are good, and the brakes are excellent.

The steering is well-weighted, and gives some feedback. Overall then, this is a good sporty car.

The seats flatter to deceive. They seem just fine for an hour or so, but after two or three hours, especially over country roads, you find that they don't quite fit you as well as you thought. They are not uncomfortable, though.

What about the space? I'd call it a 2+2 with good access. Is it worth the cost of the extra doors? It just could be.

But the real question of the RX-8 is whether Mazda is being stubborn or clever in retaining the rotary engine, albeit in its latest refined state. True, it probably saves a bit of weight, but doesn't result in a very low hood, which you might expect, and is sorely lacking in torque.

On balance, I think most drivers would find a V-6 better than the rotary engine in the RX-8 even though it would make the car longer.

Where's your ideal buyer?

Potential buyers of the RX-8 are people with a young family, or people who need those rear seats occasionally and they want something sporty. Absolutely ideal, so long as you don't mind revving hard to get anywhere you'll enjoy the engine when it does whine it's way to 7,300 or 9,000 rpm.

If you'd rather have the power lower down you'd probably be better to put up with the VW Golf GTI. Or, if you can afford it, get the BMW 130, with its rear-drive handling and slightly better performance. The BMW might be too expensive though and this is where the RX-8 scores. There's nothing like it for the price!

Despite that small and light engine, the extra seats and those very stiff doors add quite a bit of weight. The RX-8 is just a bit heavier than the Golf GTI or BMW 130, and 260 lb heavier than the S2000. Surprisingly, it's a bit heavier than the Hyundai Tiburon V6 (Hyundai Coupe), but it's faster.

If handling is your thing, then you'll be happy you bought an RX-8, but if it's easy and fast overtaking, there are better options unless you need those two rear seats.