[wallinbl]

I've loved the RX-7/8 since I was around 10 or so. No real reason, just the looks I guess. My Volvo is aging and I'm getting tired of having it fixed. I figured why not go buy the car you've always wanted, right? So, if the rotary engine is so great, why is it only used in one car (and a boatload of airplanes)? Would you buy one?

(I know this isn't a car forum, but I'm sure a few know some things about cars around here.)

[Paco500]

I think what you will read here, as I've read it many times on these forums, it that they are great engines, very high-revving and quick, but have reliability issues, go though oil like water, and need to be rebuilt every 60k(?) or so.

I think that's what I've read.

The cars look cool though and the ones I've driven were a hoot.

[spice003]

its patented so no body can copy them , they wish they could though

[ajprice]

I've definitely heard about them drinking oil like a great big oil drinking thing, but they are supposed to be great engines. As far as I know early RX cars weren't that reliable, but newer ones are ok. Don't know about them being rebuilt.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by spice003 

its patented so no body can copy them , they wish they could though

It's used in all sorts of airplanes that aren't made by Mazda.

[TETENAL]

The Wankel-engine was invented more than 50 years ago, so there are no patents on it any more.

Wankel engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Goldfinger]

Rotary engines are somewhat cool but they drink a lot of fuel and hove no torque down low. Not worth it IMHO.

[jebjeb]

Great engines but generally consensus is that they lack torque, have maintainence issues and have poor fuel economy.

But they are small and light and very interesting!

[jebjeb]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Rotary engines are somewhat cool but they are drink a lot of fuel and hove no torque down low. Not worth it IMHO.

Great minds think alike!

[centerchannel68]

I think the lack of torque is more than made up for by their EXTREMELY high redlines. And rebuilding the apex seals at every 60k isn't that big of a deal, the engines are so simple that I'm pretty sure even my mom could be talked through it. If I were you, I'd get another volvo, USED, and save up 10-15k and buy a really nice, clean 1993-1995 RX7 twin turbo. The RX8s just don't have the power, handling, or looks of the older RX7, imho.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

If I were you, I'd get another volvo, USED,

Not getting another Volvo. Has not been as reliable as advertised and parts are very expensive. Very few mechanics will even touch them, so often, you're going to the dealer most of the time because they will touch it.

and save up 10-15k and buy a really nice, clean 1993-1995 RX7 twin turbo.

Yeah, I can't believe how much they are still going for.

The RX8s just don't have the power, handling, or looks of the older RX7, imho.

My wife insists on a back seat and likes the pseudo four door thing because the kids can get back there. Plus, I'd say the RX8 has enough power for me. You're looking at 5.3 vs 5.9 seconds for 0-60. I'm not overly obsessed with power.

[G4ME]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Not getting another Volvo. Has not been as reliable as advertised and parts are very expensive. Very few mechanics will even touch them, so often, you're going to the dealer most of the time because they will touch it.

i guess this is a prime example of your mileage may vary.

+347K miles (knocks on wood)

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by G4ME 

i guess this is a prime example of your mileage may vary.

+347K miles (knocks on wood)

Engine runs great, and I'm sure it would last plenty longer, I'm just getting sick of fixing all the little problems. I've replaced a zillion bulbs and wiring harnesses due to some kind of electrical issue no one can find. I've been through four batteries in seven years. I've replaced all kinds of sensors that broke when the thing they were monitoring was just fine. This thing has been in the shop (not counting oil changes) 32 times in seven years, including 5 times in its first year. Never any major issue with the engine, but always $300-500 a pop thanks to the high price of Volvo parts.

When you look at the JD Power ratings for long term reliability, the S40 sucks.

[d4nth3m4n]

boost in, apex seals out. if you're looking for a DD, get an NA engine.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Not getting another Volvo. Has not been as reliable as advertised and parts are very expensive. Very few mechanics will even touch them, so often, you're going to the dealer most of the time because they will touch it.



Yeah, I can't believe how much they are still going for.


My wife insists on a back seat and likes the pseudo four door thing because the kids can get back there. Plus, I'd say the RX8 has enough power for me. You're looking at 5.3 vs 5.9 seconds for 0-60. I'm not overly obsessed with power.

1. You must have a newer volvo. Older ones are more reliable.

2. They don't cost that much, for what you get. Their resale value is more affordable than Supras of the same year...but the number one king for japanese sports car resale value is hte NSX. They're still 25-50k, 10 years later. Insane.

3. You mentioned both, so I mentioned the better car. If you have to have a car that does family duty, I'd avoid the RX8 entirely and get a Subaru WRX wagon. Reliable, 230hp, AWD, fun to drive, and it's a wagon with 4 doors.

[IceEnclosure]

I'd get the Subie wagon too! Nevermind that they sound wicked with a simple cat-back exhaust.

[OreoCookie]

A friend of mine has an RX-8 (lucky bashtard) and he says, he can do 120 (km/h) in second gear :wow:

[Gossamer]

RX-8 hits 184...pretty sure that's mph

[jdrumstik]

honestly, with kids, don't get a RX8, your better off with a WRX, cause, honestly, that's what I'm buying in a couple of years. RIght now my 89' Oldsmobile suffices. although I do find myself crying at times . . .

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by jdrumstik 

honestly, with kids, don't get a RX8, your better off with a WRX, cause, honestly, that's what I'm buying in a couple of years. RIght now my 89' Oldsmobile suffices. although I do find myself crying at times . . .

Honestly?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

3. You mentioned both, so I mentioned the better car. If you have to have a car that does family duty, I'd avoid the RX8 entirely and get a Subaru WRX wagon. Reliable, 230hp, AWD, fun to drive, and it's a wagon with 4 doors.

The van goes where there kids go, and my car has one kid in it maybe once or twice a week when there are separate places for each kid to go. It's 95% of the time a car for one adult. There's hardly ever anyone in the front passenger seat of my car.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

1. You must have a newer volvo. Older ones are more reliable.

It's a 2000. I bought it because of the reliability Volvo's were supposed to have. Didn't turn out all that well.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

A friend of mine has an RX-8 (lucky bashtard) and he says, he can do 120 (km/h) in second gear :wow:

A wrx can do that in 2nd gear also. I've driven a few, and you can hit about 60-65mph before you need to shift into third, if you shift at redline. Maybe a bit more, but it wasn't my car, so I wasn't pushing it too hard.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

It's a 2000. I bought it because of the reliability Volvo's were supposed to have. Didn't turn out all that well.

Yeah dude, you should have read more. OLD volvos are reliable, but newer ones do not have the build quality of the older ones, or the reliability, longevity, etc. Older 'bricks' can hit 400-500k.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

A friend of mine has an RX-8 (lucky bashtard) and he says, he can do 120 (km/h) in second gear :wow:

I think my car does about 117ish.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

This thing has been in the shop (not counting oil changes) 32 times in seven years, including 5 times in its first year.

Holy crap! Sorry to hear about that. I've put 100,000 very hard miles on a 2001 S40 and have had no issues with it. However, I do know late model Volvo's inside and out and keep up on scheduled maintenance to Volvo spec. Keep in mind, replacing a certain amount of sensors and bulbs is normal. These are general maintenance items you would be replacing on a BMW or Mercedes too.

4 batteries in 7 years does indicate a severe problem however.

[the_glassman]

Get the 8 you'll love it. As an owner of two RX-7's and a Subaru Impreza RS, I can tell you flat out I've had less problems with my rotary vehicles. Do they take a more diligent owner? They sure do. The rotary engine is a wonderful, mysterious little engine. You have to keep an eye on the oil level because they engine injects oil into the engine for lubrication for the rotors apex seals. Mazda recommends regular non synthetic oil over synthetic so there is no need to use expensive fully synthetic oils. Also while the gas mileage is far from ideal you can use the lowest rated octane.

Naturally aspirated (lacking a turbocharger) rotary engines will literally run forever. There are many folks with over 200,000 + miles on their first and second generation RX-7's. I'm one of them. The turbocharged models get a bad reputation due mostly to incompetent mechanics and owners. The basic NA two rotor does lack torque but more than makes up for it winding it out past the 9,000 RPM redline. After dumping over $1200 in my late model Subaru to get it to pass a simple inspection, only to have more problems creep up I'll be purchasing an RX-8 myself.

I suggest you check out www.rx8forum.com for more information.

Why isn't there more rotary powered vehicles out there? To put it bluntly Mazda is the only company that could get it right. Dozens off other manufactures took out licensing agreements with NSU/Wankel including, Nissan, Toyota, Isuzu, Mercedes, Curtis-Wright, John Deere, Suzuki, and GM just to name a few. In typical GM fashion the company spent more than any of the other manufactures trying to develop the rotary engine. Like most of GM's it was a dismal failure for many reasons. Eventually after the oil crisis most manufactures stopped plans to introduce and produce rotary engine vehicles.

The only company that seemed to improve on many of the infant engines shortcomings was a small Japanese manufacture Toyo Cork Kogo (Mazda). There research and dedication has lead to continuous improvement that was highlighted with an outright win at the 24 Hours of Lemans with the only non piston powered vehicle to ever win the even as well as still the only Japanese manufacture to ever win.

There are a lot of misconceptions on rotary engines and instead of trying to answer each I'll just provide a few good links that you can check out if you are interested.

Wankel engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Wankel Engine History
MAZDA:History of the Rotary P1 | History of the Rotary Engine
Mazda 787B - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

Keep in mind, replacing a certain amount of sensors and bulbs is normal. These are general maintenance items you would be replacing on a BMW or Mercedes too.

Normal for an unreliable car maybe. My wife's accord hasn't needed any sensors in the 50k miles we've owned it, and apart from an ignition problem, my current 92 accord has needed no sensors either (which has 155k miles). My subaru needed a throttle position sensor once... but other than that, same deal, and I've driven my Subie about 65k miles, starting with 130k.

[centerchannel68]

nice post glassman, though to be fair, your subaru seems to be somewhat of a lemon, and definitely not the general experience. Subies are generally really reliable, but they need stuff a bit more often than a honda or toyota due to a lot more drivetrain parts (awd vs 2wd). Also, subaru never seems to get rear wheel bearings right.... EVER. Even the STI.

I would really like a 1st or 2nd gen RX7... maybe later in life, but I like the first gens with the big glass windows, because they have a spec racing class for them specifically. It'd be fun to beat the snot out of a cheap, small, nimble car with such a high redline. Plus they're easy to rebuild!

[Gossamer]

The day before I turned 16 I went out for a ride in a 1987 n/a RX-7 (with a new engine) that the guy was trying to sell for $2500. I wish I could have gotten that.

[the_glassman]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

nice post glassman, though to be fair, your subaru seems to be somewhat of a lemon, and definitely not the general experience. Subies are generally really reliable, but they need stuff a bit more often than a honda or toyota due to a lot more drivetrain parts (awd vs 2wd). Also, subaru never seems to get rear wheel bearings right.... EVER. Even the STI.

I would really like a 1st or 2nd gen RX7... maybe later in life, but I like the first gens with the big glass windows, because they have a spec racing class for them specifically. It'd be fun to beat the snot out of a cheap, small, nimble car with such a high redline. Plus they're easy to rebuild!

I took the Subaru rally driving this weeked so it may just be mad at me. However, if you cruise over to NASIOC, RS25, I-Club or ScoobyMods you'll see many common problems shared with the same generation Impreza as I've previously or currently experienced. While I feel in some respects I do have a vehicle that has suffered a higher rate of defects than most others I believe the overall perception of a vehicle that it has more than a share of quirks holds true.

While at the Stealership last week I was eyeing a new gunmetal STI. I thought about trading in my time bomb and dropping the cash on a new 2007. I couldn't help but to think would this vehicle could give me more of the same problems down the road (after warranty)? Not to mention Subaru needs to clean house and fire all of the designing team as well as who ever approved the designs of the last three generations of Impreza's as they are just hideous. With just the middle update with the help off Prodrive designers being the saving grace. WRX's are also in the top five most expensive vehicles to insure. I've promised myself I would never purchase a brand new vehicle I walked away content with putting the money into my 7 year old Subaru that obviously is going to require some forms of maintenance and upkeep.


First generation RX-7's which are often referred to their chassis code of SA or FB respectively are drop dead gorgeous and amazing little vehicles. It's not uncommon to see original 12A (1.1 Liter!) powered vehicles still driving around close to 30 years after their introduction. The look is timeless as it is now as it was back in 1978. Coupled with the fact that there are several different "Spec" classes with the car, and cheap plentiful parts really do make it a fun little car.

[mduell]

They're not used in that many aircraft; a few experimentals and that's it. Perhaps you're confusing rotary and radial? Radial piston engines were very popular before the turboprop age.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by the_glassman 

I took the Subaru rally driving this weeked so it may just be mad at me. However, if you cruise over to NASIOC, RS25, I-Club or ScoobyMods you'll see many common problems shared with the same generation Impreza as I've previously or currently experienced. While I feel in some respects I do have a vehicle that has suffered a higher rate of defects than most others I believe the overall perception of a vehicle that it has more than a share of quirks holds true.

I've heard of all the problems you mentioned, but just never 'all at once' on the same vehicle before. I know older subie 4 bangers have headgasket issues... but... apart from that... the rest of the problems really aren't all that common.

[img]While at the Stealership last week I was eyeing a new gunmetal STI. I thought about trading in my time bomb and dropping the cash on a new 2007. I couldn't help but to think would this vehicle could give me more of the same problems down the road (after warranty)? Not to mention Subaru needs to clean house and fire all of the designing team as well as who ever approved the designs of the last three generations of Impreza's as they are just hideous. With just the middle update with the help off Prodrive designers being the saving grace. WRX's are also in the top five most expensive vehicles to insure. I've promised myself I would never purchase a brand new vehicle I walked away content with putting the money into my 7 year old Subaru that obviously is going to require some forms of maintenance and upkeep.[/img]

I doubt it'd give you that many problems. I've never heard of a subie htat demanded new parts as much as yours did. But... the STi will probably need new rear wheel bearings down the road, as it uses the same part number as the SVX, which fails them all the time. And yeah, insurance= retardedly high, since apparently it's common for parents to buy them a nice 'reliable' little car like a WRX or STi, so they get wrecked a LOT. I don't get it. If you liked your kids, why the **** would you buy them a car that fast for their first car!??! That's retarded.

First generation RX-7's which are often referred to their chassis code of SA or FB respectively are drop dead gorgeous and amazing little vehicles. It's not uncommon to see original 12A (1.1 Liter!) powered vehicles still driving around close to 30 years after their introduction. The look is timeless as it is now as it was back in 1978. Coupled with the fact that there are several different "Spec" classes with the car, and cheap plentiful parts really do make it a fun little car.

Yeah. I like em a lot.

[pyrite]

a lot of the reliability problems in rotary engines have apparently been solved for the most part in RX-8, namely rapid rotor ware etc.. that's only hearsay though, im really not sure.
all of the reviews i've heard on the RX-8 are very encouraging, in terms of performance and reliability, but i guess we'll see in a couple of years when people have >100k miles on their 8's

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

A wrx can do that in 2nd gear also. I've driven a few, and you can hit about 60-65mph before you need to shift into third, if you shift at redline. Maybe a bit more, but it wasn't my car, so I wasn't pushing it too hard.

100 km/h is approximately 65 mph, so you can go faster in second gear -- which is not surprising since the red line is at 9000 rpm. Also, if you rev up the car, it sounds like a jet engine :wow:

[wallinbl]

Picked up the touring model last night. Haven't driven it much yet since the wife's sick and wanted me back home to help with the kids. While I normally don't lease cars, I did end up leasing this one. Financing rate for the lease was only 1.9%, so if I buy it at the end, leasing hasn't cost me much more than buying up front would have. I'm not convinced of my long term interest in the car, so leasing gives me an easy out if I decide to go back to a more comfortable car (I had driven the IS 250 as the other car I was looking at - much, much more comfortable). Love the way it drives, I just question my long term happiness with the comfort level (I have bad knees and getting in and out is a bit of a pain).

Had to get automatic due to the wife's refusal to learn stick. Not too bad, since I do have the paddle shifters to make up for it when I want to. I'm enjoying the Bose stereo - it's the first non-basic stereo I've had in a car.

[centerchannel68]

AN AUTOMATIC?! UGH. What the hell dude... seriously. You're going to sell it at the end of your lease, because an automatic sports car is just... it's just effing retarded man. Way to screw that decision up. And bose?! Christ.

[wallinbl]

AN AUTOMATIC?! UGH.

I'm not thrilled, but it's either an automatic RX-8 or an automatic sedan. you can still choose to control the shifting when you want to, you just don't have a clutch.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

And bose?! Christ.

Came with the car, so blame Mazda. It does sound better than the "standard" radio in the sport models.

[centerchannel68]

Yeah, I guess that's true (the bose system)...but the transmission!? Sorry dude. I think that's sacrilidge. Small nimble sporty cars shouldn't have autos. If the wife doesn't know how to drive one, she better learn.

[Gossamer]

Yeah, I don't understand why people would refuse to learn something like that. Are they too proud to admit they don't know how to do something, and are afraid they'll mess up? Yeah, I squealed the tires and killed it a few times while I was learning, but once I got the hang of it it was fun!

[MichiganRich]

So mduell is the only guy to question the rotary/radial thing?... makes sense, as he's usually prety sharp....

An automatic RX-8?... a questionable use of monthly payments made even worse. No torque and a slushbox is not the prescription for that car to be as fun as you imagine it to be.

What do you call 2 new RX-8s at a dealership?... a lifetime supply.

Centerchannel, it's generally not wise to use big words unless you can accurately spell them.

[centerchannel68]

It was probably a typo Mich. I'm usually a pretty decent speller; better than at least 90% of the internet anyway, so please get off my back. I don't confuse their, they're, and there, or accept/except, not/knot/, your, you're, etc, so yeah.

[centerchannel68]

Dunno, I've never heard of wankels in anything except mazdas... maybe somebody uses them for airplanes, but who knows. My car uses a flat six, but there are quite a few planes that use EG33s for a powerplant, so I didn't question it.

[Mark Larr]

The wankle engine is quite popular in home built aircraft and the Vans RV-6, 7, 8, 9 series planes.

It has been a proven reliable powerplant for them for a long time now, even though it uses a gear reduction system for torque to the propeller.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Dunno, I've never heard of wankels in anything except mazdas...

NSU has built some cars with Wankel engine. The most modern one is probable the NSU Ro 80, an amazing car that was clearly ahead of its time (take a look at the pictures, it was built in 1967!). Initially, there were reliability problems that were successfully solved. However, NSU's reputation suffered and was later acquired by Volkswagen.

[centerchannel68]

I've never heard of NSU either.