s2000 and rx8 are two different cars, one is a 2-seater soft-top roadster while the other is a 4 seater coupe. It depends on individual needs. Both cars are fun to drive.
if my car insurance wasnt so riduculous this would be the easiest decision ive ever made.. still im thinking of getting a 2008 alfa romeo gt which is still pretty damn sexy :)
i really want to know exactly how much legroom there is in the backseat of an 04 model. i'm 5'7" and i'm wondering if i can fit another person in the seat behind me.
@9ballprodigy you surly can m8, I'm 5'10'' my and have people sitting behing me all the time (I even sit back there my self from time to time just cause the seats in the back are so confy)
even got a friend who is 6'3 and it's not a big problem sitting behind him ether ^^
@superfragger He is driving on the right side. Mazda is Japanese company who drives on the left hand side of the road. This it was designed for Ireland/UK/Australia/Japan roads. Feck the rest of ye
Cars that drive on the left are right hand drive.
So you sir are the moron, and undoubtably american.
If i want your views on intercourse with my sister or drinking non alcoholic beer,ill give you a shout, but please dont comment on car videos i wish to watch because you offend my intellegence.
@woodywhippet First off, cars are driven from the right hand side in Japan, just like in the UK (where you live), henceforth why it's called RHD (right hand drive). Secondly, I'm not American, I'm Canadian, and we do indeed drive on the left hand side here. Thirdly, I was just kidding, but I've noticed that the handbrake is always in the way on RHD cars.
I've had my RX8 for a couple of months now, not much I can say about the car other than it really is the first car I have ever owned that has it all ( for me anyway ). I gave up a bit of HP and torque by buying an auto. but make no mistake it's got plenty of up and go and you really have to love those paddle shifters.
My car is loaded ( other than GPS ) handles awesome, very comfortable on long trips and a great Bose sound system,,,,,,great car !!
aha +1 to u bro. i get rude comments from some of my friends all the time about the horrible things about the car ie blowing apex seals lack or torque w/e. truth is that it's a lovely car to drive and amazingly comfortable. Its decently fast when i want it and comfy in traffic. As long as you take care of the car it will be fine. And as other people said, the sound/handling of this car gives me a smile everytime I drive it even if its just to work.
@shuya80 .. I KNOW I HAVE TO SAY IS ONE OF BEST LOOKING CARS IN THE MARKET ... COMFY, AND WITH A BEUTIFUL ENGINE.... TRUST ME IM A ALL OUT NISSAN GUY .... BUT I HAVE MAYOR RESPECT FOR THIS CAR ... IS JUST BEUTIFUL... IM PLANNING TO GET ONE FOR THE SUMMER
My current ride is a cherry 79 rx-7 w/ 100 hp and 100tq. I live at the base of a mountain. I smile every time I grab the keys. Every time I start her up. Every time I switch a gear.
The rotary is not ultimate speed or uber efficiency. It is about the true soul of a sports car.
The RX-7's and 8's are pure sports cars. Coupled with an engine to match.
If you care to contest, you have never enjoyed an RX-7 on a nice twisty road. Or like I said before, you're a giant homo
The Rotarty is high revs- sure it has low torque but can u name any other engine that can turn at 3000rpm and drive at 9000rpm at the same time. You cant. or a engine thats 1.3 L but puts out 232 hp. yeah u cnat
Plenty of engines out there can turn 3000 and drive at a high RPM but who would want to? There is no need to. I can put out that miserable 232 h.p. at 3000 RPM or lower and have about 3x the torque of the rotary. Stupid rotard. You can keep your useless revs.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Rotary engine is junk. Even the reviewer in the vid finds it difficult to give praise to the engine. He states all is forgiven because it revs high. LOL...Rotary is junk. All those revs and no power.
I test drove one today and it was a pretty fun car to drive but it wasn't even close to the power of the g35 I also drove. but for some reason I liked the rx8 better.....go figure. lol
if u actually put these rx8s on the dyno it will put out 170-190 whp on the dyno...but it will beat the Mk5 gti at a stand still but on a 80 roll the gti wins. on the bendies rx8 hand dwn will own the gti..
I also have an 09 rx8r3 and I love it (except I wish they hadnt taken away the tri-mode ilumination) I think its worth mentioning though that my uncle owns a garage with a dyno and every stock sports car he has ever dyno has had similar reductions in power vs manufacters claims in hp. I just hear people all the time say yea but it dynos 40hp less then they claim, well yes and so does the 350z, 370z, corvette, evo and so on. All of them rate from the crank to show more hp not just Mazda.
hell yeah. I love my 8 to death. Those that "hate" the rotary have no idea what it can do and only know about cars from their playstation games. I can't stand people that always say, why did you get that car it only has 230bhp. My car has xxxbhp turbo charged blah blah. These people shouldn't be allowed to drive since all they know is the video game and specs. Oh well let them miss out on one of the best cars ever made.
@number9ninja Rotary engines are very inefficient for their capacity their worse than 2 strokes. Mazda choose to hide this fact by quoting the capacity of only 1 chamber which we all know it has three. Its a bit like calling a 3.0L V6 a 1.0L twin. So the RX8 actually has a 3.9L engine and only produces 225 BHP plus you have to scream it to 9000rpm to get it. Pretty crap engine but nice looking car.
@wajalama Actually I said the true capacity of the RX8 is 3.9L and is most comparable with the Z370 V6 which has about 100bhp more and way better fuel economy. But feel free to explain the technical details of your argument....or do you not know anything about engines?
@Manoo62 Capacity? Capacity? How about YOU explain how you got the idea that the 13B's true "capacity" is "3.9" liters, when every other automobile magazine, car show, even Mazda themselves say that it is a 1.3 liter 2 rotor engine? Unless you work at Mazda and they've been duping everyone into believing that it really is a 1.3, not a *laugh* "3.9"..?
@wajalama Mazda only quote the volume of 1chamber 654cc on each rotor (1308cc). They choose to ignor the fact there is three chambers on each rotor i.e. 3924cc. Insurance companies and sports governing bodies are not so gullible. However they still downrate them to 2/3 their true capacity which puts the performance similar to piston engines as they are so inefficient.
@Manoo62 An Rx-8 has a rotary engine with two rotarys at 654cc each. A rotary creates three chambers based on its shape which is how produces it's power. By this logic a V6 wouldn't have 6 but 12? Because the pistons move upon and down leaving two chambers in each piston, correct? Have you ever looked at the rotary engine in person? I own one and it's tiny compared to my old Camry's engine. Saying a rotary engine is inefficient is stupid.
@bluematt777 Have you ever seen the inside of either engine??? two chambers for each piston what the fuck!?!?!!? All you need to know is that in one complete revolution of the Rx-8 rotor it will draw in 3.9 Litres of air and fuel. Almost a 4litre engine which only produces 225bhp and does 18 mpg and you think that efficient?? The Nissan 370 produces over a hundred more bhp and does better mpg...and its a smaller engine.
@Manoo62 lmao.. my homework? it only fires on 2 sides of the rotor per revolution.. hence 1308cc. technically its a 2.6 which guess what... is still smaller than 3.7. last time i checked anyways.. have a nice day :P idiot.
@tableoftisch I see your just another load mouth internet clown digging a hole for yourself.
Each of the three chambers on each rotor is 654cc, each chamber fires every revolution, thats 3 in case you cant count. For a twin rotor thats 6 firings per revolution making 3.9L. Maybe you need to check again clown.
@Manoo62 dude i love cartoons! howd you know? lol ok listen buddy.. it goes fire-fire-skip-fire-skip-fire-fire-skip-fire-skip-fire-fire the rotor goes around 1 n 1/3 times per rotation of the eccentric shaft (thats the 'crankshaft' in case you didnt kno anythin about rotary engines) you're a fuckin idiot, shut the fuck up, i bet you drive a prius lmao BWAHAHAHA!
@tableoftisch oh I see, so everyones an idiot except you, yeh that sounds believable.
Jeez I've heard it all now "fire-fire-skip-fire-skip-fire-fire-skip-fire-skip-fire-fire" there are NO 'skips' in the firing order!! 1 & 1/3 times a revolution!!!! where do you get this shit from??? You seriously havent got a clue have you retard? As you will see in any video animation of a rotary engine it fires THREE time per rev on each rotor, SIX in a cycle. But there allllllll wrong...apparently...dickhead
@Manoo62 lol those videos are DEMONSTRATIONS of how a rotary works, i know thats a big word but trust me it has nothing to do with demons... or masturbation... im not saying any of them are wrong.. except the one on ur site is backwards LMAO BWAHAHAHAHA!! shut up already geez :)
@tableoftisch DEMONSTRATIONS of how a rotary w o r k ssssss
Now all you have to do is look up what Mazda quote for the chamber volume and you will have learned two new things about rotarys in one day. That will be a record for you....
@tableoftisch Now all you have to do is put the two together numpty. Six firings in a cycle and.....errr......654cc each....doh that sounds like 3.9litres divvy!
@Manoo62 lmao wow.. cuz u can add that makes everyone else wrong? just to sum up.. u think its a 3.9 ltr, the rotors turn at the same rate as the e-shaft, and the spark plugs fire at the same time, and u drive a prius.. do u kno how many fuel injectors it has? lol how about ports? lol avg weight of a rotor? how long does a 'cycle' actually last? how far does your retardedness go? i really wana find out. divvy!!!? lmao :o
@tableoftisch "cuz u can add that makes everyone else wrong?" no just you it would appear.
"u think its a 3.9 ltr" no, I know it is.
The speed of the e-shaft is irrelevant, you dont adjust the capacity of a piston engine when you change gear. The thermodynamic cycle of an engine is independent of the output shaft grearing.
spark plug phasing is completely irrelevant.
I dont know anything about the prius, a bit like you and rotary's
@Manoo62 ok im gona end this even though i'm havin so much fun. r u sittin down? grab paper n pencil. the rotor consists of three sides or chambers, as the first one passes the intake ports fuel n air are sucked in, it then rotates, compresses, and the spark plugs fire on the other side of the housing, the combustion is pushed out thru the exhaust port as the rotor turns n the cycle starts over again. the second chamber follows the same pattern, now pay attention here, the 'skips' i refer to
@Manoo62 occur at the third chamber.. which does not draw in fuel, only air, it is still compressed n ignited using left overs from first two chambers, since it does not draw in fuel it is not used to classify the size of the motor, hence 1308cc. and since there are 2 housings it is tech a 2.6 ltr, and if you do research youll see that its classified in the 2.5-3.0ltr engine catagory.. or didnt u watch this video? lmao have a nice day asshole
@Manoo62 and before you say 'but the videos...' like i said.. they are DEMONSTRATIONS! showing where air and fuel go in and spark happens. BWAHAHAHA and all this is common knowledge to people who pay attention!!! have fun being a loud mouth on the internet douschebag
@tableoftisch Did you think of that all by yourself tosser? Entertaining but the biggest pile of shite I have ever heard. You are really hitting new lows, even for a retard. Do you want to provide any links that agree with your bizarre views on how a rotary works? Or is it just limited to tableofpish world......
@Manoo62 weird, dont remember saying that. i think i remember saying im done arguing with a fuckin dumbass, maybe you should learn how to read.. and i kno that its not sold there anymore, u guys tightened your emission, duh!
@number9ninja They'er crap, rotary engines are very inefficient for their capacity their worse than 2 strokes. Mazda choose to hide this fact by quoting the capacity of only 1 chamber which we all know it has three. Its a bit like calling a 3.0 V6 a 1.0 twin. So the RX8 actually has a 3.9L engine and only produces 225 BHP and you have to scream it to 9000rpm to get it. Pretty crap engine but nice looking car.
@Manoo62 You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. 2 rotors in a Renesis, 654cc each = ~1.3lt. Show me another NA engine producing >192HP/liter .
Tiff is great but in this occasion I was disappointed by his choice. Stock 350z is nowhere near the 8 in handling and fun-to-drive. Not a drivers car, more like an American coupe, all grunt but no sophistication, better suited for highway cruising.
@Grrrrreekman Its a common misconception but exactly what mazda want you to think. However their own literature quote each of the six chambers in the engine as being 654cc. Google 'Rotary Engine Displacement' the first site to come up will be rx7.com/ techarticles_displacement where you will find confirmation.
Its a 3.9L, it uses fuel like a 3.9L but only has the power of a 2.0L, thats why no one has bothered with rotary's in the last 60 years, there crap.
@Grrrrreekman Its a commen misconception but exactly what Mazda want you to think. Even their own literature quotes each of the six chambers is 654cc. Google 'Rotary Engine Displacement' the first site to come up will be rx7.com/ techarticles_displacement where you will find confirmation.
Its 3.9L, it uses fuel like a 3.9L but only has the power of a 2.0L which is why in 60 years no one has bothered with rotary engines, because their crap.
@Manoo62 Apples and oranges, rotary and piston engines are too different to be directly compared in terms of displacement. Your method gives 3.9lt, the Japanese gov. (not Mazda) says its 1.3 based on rotor face only and accepted by all auto manufacturers and others say 2.6 (displacement per crankshaft revolution, e.g. for best engine awards). All more or less arbitrary and meaningless. The only important factor is the power-to-weight ratio, and this is what makes the rotary a great engine.
@Grrrrreekman No one uses or accepts 1.3L as the capacity except the manufacturers (or fools). For comparison purposes 2.6L is most commonly used but the actual capacity still remains 3.9L. The only important factor is that rotary engines are not used in any applications where power to weight is not CRITICAL i.e. microlights. This is because they CANNOT compete with piston engines on ANY other basis. How obvious does it have to be why rotary's are not used for any engine applications?
@Manoo62 Why would manufacturers accept Mazda's marketing without objection and allow the Renesis to win all these awards? Int. Engine of the Year and Best New Engine 2003, "2.5 to 3 liter" size award for 2003 and 2004, Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 2004 and 2005. May I remind you of the R26B, 654cc x 4 rotors=2616cc that was rated by FIA @ just 4,708cc for Lemans.
Rotaries are great for sports and race-cars. RX7 is one of the most successful racers, and RX8 one of the best handling cars ever
@Grrrrreekman Governing bodies, insurance, tax office etc are all happy to downrate the capacity by 2/3 because they all know they only produce 2/3 the power of a piston engine as well. The awards are recognition of the development work by Mazda. If you think that rotary engines are so much better than piston engines why are they hardly used for ANYTHING in the last 50-60 years?
@Manoo62 All these agencies earn more money if they rate it @ higher displacement, they have no reason to accept Mazda's marketing. E.g. in Greece (as most of Europe) the 3.5lt 350z costs almost twice the rx8 due to taxes.
Also, these awards are the most sought out awards in the automotive industry, they don't just give them away. Rotaries on paper are way better engines but pistons were easy and rotaries needed more tech. So pistons dominated everything (like wintel vs mac!). Wait for hydrogen!
@Grrrrreekman They dont, Mazda says 1.3L but everyone generally uses 2.6L as the simplest comparison (but NOT equivalent) to piston engines.
HYDROGEN!?!?! It will never happen it will always cost more to produce and compress the Hydrogen than you would ever get back from combusting it, or running it through silly fuel cells. Its even more dead end thchnology than rotary engines. You certainly pick em.
@Manoo62 Almost all EU countries classify it as 1.3lt and tax it accordingly.
Hydrogen is currently one of the best ways to store energy for mobile use. As oil reserves decline many new technologies will be released (or rather allowed to be released by the oil dictators). High efficiency solar panels and fusion will make hydrogen an abundant, cheap and clean energy for cars. And wankels are ideal for this.
@Grrrrreekman I think we have established the true capacity of the RX8.
Hydrogen will NEVER be used in main stream combustion engines because it costs too much. Even if you had a free electricity supply its still doesnt work. Why bother making H2 when you could run an electric car directly for almost nothing?
@Manoo62 What we established is that displacement comparisons between rotaries and piston engines are meaningless. I remind you of diesel that was considered a failure a few decades ago, and now 50% of cars in EU run on it.
Electric cars that depend on batteries can't succeed. Batteries are heavy, with low capacities, are slow to charge, and wear out easily. All battery cars that have been made so far have failed miserably. With hydrogen you have a readily available energy like petrol.
@Grrrrreekman The comparision is only meaningless when you are defending the indefensible, its the last line of defence.
Diesels became popular due to fuel tax changes only, there has been long slow resistance but economics have forced people.
Electric car are not viable at the moment, but when battery technology improves they will be the future (sadly). Until then its more likely that LPG will bridge any oil gap. A big souce of H2 is LPG, why bother if you can burn the LPG? It'll never happen.
@Manoo62 Equivalence formulae for engines are always arbitrary. You're a piston guy and swept volume displacement is how you understand engines. Things that really matter though, from an engineering point of view, are power/weight, total volume, consumption, cost and reliability. The fact is that a 13B-MSP + peripherals weights almost half that of an equivalent (power/consumption) v6 engine and half the volume which allows the rx8 to be a superior engineered car (front midship).
@Grrrrreekman Power to weight/volume is the only advantage for a rotary engine. Fuel consumption, reliability, cost to manufacture are all far more important none are good areas for the rotary. Just look at how many V8 are being used by the likes of Audi & BMW where once there was almost none.
LPG IS a half way measure that could bridge the gap before electric is viable. It doesnt have to come from fossil fuel, like alcohol (another good option) it can be grown.
@Manoo62 Rotaries as you know are much less complex engines, thus very easy and cheap to build and extremely reliable as a design. No valves, conrods or crankshafts to fail. e.g. 787B won Le mans on reliability and economy (3spurk plug-unstable idle) not total speed. Renesis' only problem basically is sealing mainly due to carbon build up and thermal expansion, which can be fixed (better com.chamber lubrication and ceramics). Pistons are at the apex of their evolution, rotaries need a bit more
@Grrrrreekman Rotary's are no less complicated than a 2 stroke engine (3 basic moving parts). They are way more expensive to produce than a 2 stroke engine. They are less fuel efficient and only marginally smaller than a 2 stroke. So there are still no advantages for pursuing rotary technology.
@Grrrrreekman It certainly is opposite a typical BSFC for a rotary is abou 0.60-0.65 a good piston engine would be about 0.45. Are you seriously trying to tell me rotary's are good on fuel, lol. 2 stroke engines are way cheaper to make. If mass produced they may be cheaper than a 4 stroke but they will never be mass produced. Emissions are similar at best. Power delivery! their completely gutless until you scream the engine to death, and thats a good thing?????
@Manoo62 Your numbers are not correct. 6-port Renesis average BSFC is around .47 lb/hp-hr)@6000 rpm. (some 4p can fall to .41 as RB26). A good modern piston can drop bellow .30. Typical 2-stroke >.65. Rotaries are not as good on fuel as modern 4s pistons but better than 2s.
About costs google is your friend. And interest about wankels is high lately, never say never.
Power is a matter of preference, true sports cars are screamers not torque tractors. Linearity is the issue, flat power curbs.
@Grrrrreekman I think you will find that the figure of .47 is purely calculated from A/F ratios for a 1.3L engine which is bollox. A 2 stroke is not very efficient but its better than a rotary. Real world fuel consumption figures are pretty conclusive. Rotary's will only have a place in racing if the governing bodies ignor their real capacity. Luckily they are not as dumb as the people who think the rx8 is a 1.3L. Flat torque curves are only good if they have high values unlike the rx8.
@Manoo62 And hydrogen is clean and abundant and LPG isn't. LPG is a half measure like batteries, which will always have their natural limitations. Hydrogen in IC and fuel cells are the future, see Honda.
@Grrrrreekman Better batteries or some other storage technology will need to be developed to make electric cars work. But I dont see H2 ever playing a part, I would be interested to know where the abundant supplies of H2 are?? Honda are trying to do the best with current technology to provide an alternative today but its pretty weak. I dont see anything thats going to ever make H2 viable it cost way to much to make compress and distribute.
@Manoo62 Hydrogen is the other storage technology. Fuel on can't be grown on this scale for our needs, not enough for food already. Hydrogen is abundant as water, all we need is a better renewable source for the electrolysis. E.g. current research on photovoltaics talks about 80%+ efficiency in the near future! Also nuclear fussion (expected around the time oil reserves are depleted) will provide abundant clean energy at the plant.
@Grrrrreekman H2 could only ever be a stop gap fuel alternative but highly unlikely when compared to methane. Which doesnt have to come from food sources i.e algae. Its never going to replace the worlds energy needs but will ease the burden until a long term solution is found. Nuclear is the only alternative 'today' and Europe is currently moving that way. You would never use one clean energy source (electricity) to produce another energy (H2) at a reduced efficiency, its never going to happen.
@Manoo62 And hydrogen is not viable today but will be in the near future if research is allowed to proceed freely. Industries often put their comfort and obscure interests above technological superiority. The best technology doesn't always win.
@Grrrrreekman The best technology doesnt always win but Hydrogen has so few plus points it will never be viable. It would be discounted on safety grounds alone.
@Manoo62 Hydrogen is non-toxic, is less flammable than gasoline, disperses quickly in the atmosphere and modern tanks are very safe (more so than normal gas tanks). This isn't 1937 anymore :-)
@Grrrrreekman It might be less flammable but its a hell of a lot more explosive and VERY prone to leaks. It produces several chemical reactions in the atmosphere that can reduce the ozone layer and increase methane life span. Neither being very desirable. Battery technology is getting way more development and will always be a lot more convienent as an energy carrier than hydrogen.
@sabahanboy ya i raced one in my sunfire and beat one . 2007 6 speed to , and i have a 98 sunfire. damn rx8's are fast, not. he was catching up in the long end though
I've always wondered why didn't they relocate the handbrake to the other side for the UK version. He's right about the 80's style digital clock though, it's totally out of place and ruins the whole dash.
lol, im no automechanical engineer, (which seems like there are a lot of them in these comment pages) but as a driver, as long as it works fast, reliable, and without hesitation, I will take any engine.
So have fun driving your wannabe RX7 you damn hypocrite. I hate faggots like you who think they're always right about everything when they're not. You're still a fucking poser who doesn't know jack shit about rotary engines. I think you hate it because you probably don't even know how to fix one or even how it works. Lol, what a loser.
How am I a hypocrite. Do you even know what the word means? You make no sense. I do NOT like the rotary and do NOT have one. I recognized the chassis that Mazda made only. No hypocrisy here moron.
Ok I know this is months old already but aji me and you are having it out on another video. This is just what im talking about. Is this all you do with your life? Flame the rotary engine on youtube?
You know I got to ask you. If you spend all your time on youtube saying that rotaries suck and not much more. Not much supporting facts other then that makes me think... Did someone shove a rotary up your ass when you were being bent over? Did you walk in on Dr Wankel doing the jackhammer on your mom? Why don't you turn 10 yr old and move on with your life? Your making a fool out of yourself. Stop playing video games. Getting a DL would be a good place to start
That's right! I bet if you look at the reviews of the rx7 you won't find any reviews questioning the styling like the Rx8. You are a fool and need to do some research before you open your mouth.
Styling just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder numb nuts. The majority of people agree that the RX8 styling is much better then previous generations, and 10x better then the old dinosaur looking RX7 of the 80's. Styling improved in the 90's aside from the shitty flip-up lights, and 2004+ styling is the best yet. Get with the times dude! I bet you're still rocking a mullet hair style from 80's... ROFL!
'no one likes' I guess you base that statement in the extensive 'research' you've carried out huh cup cake? "As of October 2006 the RX-8 has won at least 37 international motoring awards including 2003 International Engine of the Year, the 2003 Japanese Car of the Year, Australia's Wheels magazine's Car of the Year for 2003, the 2004 Singapore Car of the Year, the 2004 U.S. Best Sports Car, and several UK Best Car Awards.
So no one likes apart from all the motoring journalists and experts that gave it awards. But I'm sure you're educated opinion is much more valid than any of those chumps huh champ? ;-)
Well if it won anything( you are proably lying) it certainly didn't have anything to do with its looks!
LOL. Awards are find but when your award winning car is in the shop to have the engine rebuilt all those awards don't mean shit. The car is junk. S2000 is far better.
oh my lord, that is not 240p!!!!! its 40p
xBuzz996 1 month ago
Are those Lego's or Pixels?
TheLastMag 2 months ago
240p... we meet again.
InibriatiMovies 5 months ago 2
i like how many times audi keeps making its way into the review, its a mazda for Christ sake.
chill540 5 months ago
aaah... 240p... we meet again...
NFStyleOfficial 5 months ago
Only worth buying over the s2000 if you need 4 seats
TheVtieg6 7 months ago
@TheVtieg6
s2000 and rx8 are two different cars, one is a 2-seater soft-top roadster while the other is a 4 seater coupe. It depends on individual needs. Both cars are fun to drive.
leolim79 7 months ago
if my car insurance wasnt so riduculous this would be the easiest decision ive ever made.. still im thinking of getting a 2008 alfa romeo gt which is still pretty damn sexy :)
MrGuitarlover24 9 months ago
Epic quality...
TofflaN95 9 months ago
recorded with calculator
SuperFablefreak 9 months ago 2
The hand brake lever gets in the way because the driver's seat is on the wrong side of the car. Simple as that.
danthemanpatrick 10 months ago
28 dislikes = 28 Mondeo Owners
gocrytoyourmama 11 months ago 28
thumbs up for it being tough to argue with idiots!!
tableoftisch 11 months ago 2
The E brake does not get in the way if your american(:
marlinbike 1 year ago
OVER 9000 REVS!
bigchicken24 1 year ago
i hate how everyone disses fifth gear and compares them to top gear. yes top gear is better but fifth gear has a WAY smaller budget
nogooddisplayname 1 year ago
5th gear always failed..top gear much better to view
skilkiller10 1 year ago
i really want to know exactly how much legroom there is in the backseat of an 04 model. i'm 5'7" and i'm wondering if i can fit another person in the seat behind me.
9ballprodigy 1 year ago
@9ballprodigy yes!
xbartosx 1 year ago
@9ballprodigy you surly can m8, I'm 5'10'' my and have people sitting behing me all the time (I even sit back there my self from time to time just cause the seats in the back are so confy)
even got a friend who is 6'3 and it's not a big problem sitting behind him ether ^^
torba23 1 year ago
The handbrake is only in the way because you're driving on the wrong side, moron.
superfragger 1 year ago 17
Comment removed
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@superfragger He is driving on the right side. Mazda is Japanese company who drives on the left hand side of the road. This it was designed for Ireland/UK/Australia/Japan roads. Feck the rest of ye
timsmail24487 11 months ago
@superfragger
I think youll find that this car is Japanese.
Japanese people drive on the left
Cars that drive on the left are right hand drive.
So you sir are the moron, and undoubtably american.
If i want your views on intercourse with my sister or drinking non alcoholic beer,ill give you a shout, but please dont comment on car videos i wish to watch because you offend my intellegence.
woodywhippet 7 months ago 8
@woodywhippet First off, cars are driven from the right hand side in Japan, just like in the UK (where you live), henceforth why it's called RHD (right hand drive). Secondly, I'm not American, I'm Canadian, and we do indeed drive on the left hand side here. Thirdly, I was just kidding, but I've noticed that the handbrake is always in the way on RHD cars.
superfragger 7 months ago
@superfragger yes, read the comment again, spend some time to soak it in and then realise you have said exactly what i did.
woodywhippet 7 months ago
lol that handbrake doesnt get away in america XD
monkeyman1627 1 year ago
why does tiff needell need to talk like that?
aaronsclee 1 year ago
Some people hate rx8 couse they can not own it ,I love mine no problems ,
I had over the years datsun 280, nissan 350, toyota supra & never before
enjoy a ride like now. if I want to save money in gas i drive my miata.
check "rx8 mx5 my sport cars"
alfredomnzn 1 year ago
You honda ricers can keep on enjoying your car sound like a blowdryer, I'll keep on loving my rx8 and it's smooth rotary engine.
LongToungedFreak 1 year ago
@LongToungedFreak I beat an rx-8 in my sunfire hahahaha
jordanfromgoosebay 1 year ago
@jordanfromgoosebay And then you woke up
LongToungedFreak 1 year ago
I agree top gear is better. But tiff is the man. When i grow up, i want to drive like him.
infectrus 1 year ago
I've had my RX8 for a couple of months now, not much I can say about the car other than it really is the first car I have ever owned that has it all ( for me anyway ). I gave up a bit of HP and torque by buying an auto. but make no mistake it's got plenty of up and go and you really have to love those paddle shifters.
My car is loaded ( other than GPS ) handles awesome, very comfortable on long trips and a great Bose sound system,,,,,,great car !!
jeanmunn 1 year ago
i dont car what this moron said, if jeremy clarkson like it , i like it
black200sxser 1 year ago 14
aha +1 to u bro. i get rude comments from some of my friends all the time about the horrible things about the car ie blowing apex seals lack or torque w/e. truth is that it's a lovely car to drive and amazingly comfortable. Its decently fast when i want it and comfy in traffic. As long as you take care of the car it will be fine. And as other people said, the sound/handling of this car gives me a smile everytime I drive it even if its just to work.
shuya80 1 year ago
@shuya80 .. I KNOW I HAVE TO SAY IS ONE OF BEST LOOKING CARS IN THE MARKET ... COMFY, AND WITH A BEUTIFUL ENGINE.... TRUST ME IM A ALL OUT NISSAN GUY .... BUT I HAVE MAYOR RESPECT FOR THIS CAR ... IS JUST BEUTIFUL... IM PLANNING TO GET ONE FOR THE SUMMER
black200sxser 1 year ago
@black200sxser Think for yourself!
lucrativeelfmongrel 1 year ago
@black200sxser LOSER!!!!!
SMOKEYahsan 1 year ago
My current ride is a cherry 79 rx-7 w/ 100 hp and 100tq. I live at the base of a mountain. I smile every time I grab the keys. Every time I start her up. Every time I switch a gear.
The rotary is not ultimate speed or uber efficiency. It is about the true soul of a sports car.
The RX-7's and 8's are pure sports cars. Coupled with an engine to match.
If you care to contest, you have never enjoyed an RX-7 on a nice twisty road. Or like I said before, you're a giant homo
nodebat 2 years ago
"I smile every time I grab the keys. Every time I start her up. Every time I switch a gear."
Me too, and it's not even my favorite car. LOL
tvr390se 2 years ago
I have owned 4 RX-7s and one day will own an RX-8 most likely.
Rotaries are not for torque, they are for sports cars.
Rotaries are for mountain roads, and downshifting like you've got a pair.
You have to ride out the RPMs for good jollies and row through the gears.
Anyone who is hating on the RX-8 and defending the S2000 is a homo
Torque is awesome and I love it, but I can't not love the Rotary Engine.
nodebat 2 years ago 2
Rotary is high revs and no go. The engine is garbage. The reviewer forgives the engine but I don't.
aji8 2 years ago
aji8 you dont know shit about anything.
calummatthews 2 years ago 2
I know plenty and i know you are an idiot.
aji8 2 years ago
The Rotarty is high revs- sure it has low torque but can u name any other engine that can turn at 3000rpm and drive at 9000rpm at the same time. You cant. or a engine thats 1.3 L but puts out 232 hp. yeah u cnat
calummatthews 2 years ago 2
Plenty of engines out there can turn 3000 and drive at a high RPM but who would want to? There is no need to. I can put out that miserable 232 h.p. at 3000 RPM or lower and have about 3x the torque of the rotary. Stupid rotard. You can keep your useless revs.
aji8 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Rotary engine is junk. Even the reviewer in the vid finds it difficult to give praise to the engine. He states all is forgiven because it revs high. LOL...Rotary is junk. All those revs and no power.
aji8 2 years ago
Too funny, so many drawbacks to this car.
JUNK
aji8 2 years ago
... Not junk noob
LordFabs 2 years ago
Your not the one that watches the videos seeing how your too ignorant to accept that rotaries are not bad at all
ChaseSpeer 2 years ago
very cool
Luyada 2 years ago
how much cylinders? xDDD hahahaha
CIKO32123 2 years ago
I test drove one today and it was a pretty fun car to drive but it wasn't even close to the power of the g35 I also drove. but for some reason I liked the rx8 better.....go figure. lol
tony1228810125 2 years ago 2
if u actually put these rx8s on the dyno it will put out 170-190 whp on the dyno...but it will beat the Mk5 gti at a stand still but on a 80 roll the gti wins. on the bendies rx8 hand dwn will own the gti..
bud has a 08 GTi and i have a 09 RX8
sirboppel 2 years ago
I also have an 09 rx8r3 and I love it (except I wish they hadnt taken away the tri-mode ilumination) I think its worth mentioning though that my uncle owns a garage with a dyno and every stock sports car he has ever dyno has had similar reductions in power vs manufacters claims in hp. I just hear people all the time say yea but it dynos 40hp less then they claim, well yes and so does the 350z, 370z, corvette, evo and so on. All of them rate from the crank to show more hp not just Mazda.
jasonsr3 2 years ago
the corvette is terrible, the zr1 only puts down 500 of its 640 bhp onto the road.
coolerdude44 2 years ago
but it rips some cars apart even with 500hp
xarnoldx10 2 years ago
im thinking about getting a used 2006. wondering if they are good and what peoples opinion on them are? any advice? thanks
cfreaper23 2 years ago
hey...dont underestimate rotary power.....it can be freakin powerful.....
sabahanboy 2 years ago 24
hell yeah. I love my 8 to death. Those that "hate" the rotary have no idea what it can do and only know about cars from their playstation games. I can't stand people that always say, why did you get that car it only has 230bhp. My car has xxxbhp turbo charged blah blah. These people shouldn't be allowed to drive since all they know is the video game and specs. Oh well let them miss out on one of the best cars ever made.
genocyde83 2 years ago 5
Those comments are mostly from kids who probably only drive civic's (or take the bus) and can only "dream" of owning a RWD car that has 200+ WHP.
h2h2h2h2 2 years ago
Amen to that. Besides we can always turbo charge or even drop in a 3 or 4 rotor engine and get some serious power if wanted.
genocyde83 2 years ago
@genocyde83 hi man but RX7 is better than RX8...rx8 is detuned...no turbos even
signeduplate 1 year ago
@genocyde83 Nice educated response. You sound like a two year old.
PDub814 1 year ago
@genocyde83 lol i love my 8 to. pretty good first car.
good1apollo 1 year ago
@sabahanboy 235 bhp? in a 1.3? i dare anyone to argue a rotary engine power after you say that!
number9ninja 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@number9ninja Rotary engines are very inefficient for their capacity their worse than 2 strokes. Mazda choose to hide this fact by quoting the capacity of only 1 chamber which we all know it has three. Its a bit like calling a 3.0L V6 a 1.0L twin. So the RX8 actually has a 3.9L engine and only produces 225 BHP plus you have to scream it to 9000rpm to get it. Pretty crap engine but nice looking car.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 Sure...calling the Renesis's actual displacent 4.9 (or 5.0) just proves how much you know about engines.
Compare the 13B-MSP to a Mustang 5.0 V8 and then talk some sense.
wajalama 1 year ago
@wajalama Actually I said the true capacity of the RX8 is 3.9L and is most comparable with the Z370 V6 which has about 100bhp more and way better fuel economy. But feel free to explain the technical details of your argument....or do you not know anything about engines?
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 Capacity? Capacity? How about YOU explain how you got the idea that the 13B's true "capacity" is "3.9" liters, when every other automobile magazine, car show, even Mazda themselves say that it is a 1.3 liter 2 rotor engine? Unless you work at Mazda and they've been duping everyone into believing that it really is a 1.3, not a *laugh* "3.9"..?
wajalama 1 year ago
@wajalama Mazda only quote the volume of 1chamber 654cc on each rotor (1308cc). They choose to ignor the fact there is three chambers on each rotor i.e. 3924cc. Insurance companies and sports governing bodies are not so gullible. However they still downrate them to 2/3 their true capacity which puts the performance similar to piston engines as they are so inefficient.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 An Rx-8 has a rotary engine with two rotarys at 654cc each. A rotary creates three chambers based on its shape which is how produces it's power. By this logic a V6 wouldn't have 6 but 12? Because the pistons move upon and down leaving two chambers in each piston, correct? Have you ever looked at the rotary engine in person? I own one and it's tiny compared to my old Camry's engine. Saying a rotary engine is inefficient is stupid.
bluematt777 1 year ago
@bluematt777 Have you ever seen the inside of either engine??? two chambers for each piston what the fuck!?!?!!? All you need to know is that in one complete revolution of the Rx-8 rotor it will draw in 3.9 Litres of air and fuel. Almost a 4litre engine which only produces 225bhp and does 18 mpg and you think that efficient?? The Nissan 370 produces over a hundred more bhp and does better mpg...and its a smaller engine.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 you're on crack too. a 3.7 ltr v6 is smaller than a renesis? lmao.. thats a good one buddy!! made my day :P
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@tableoftisch As I said, in one complete revolution of the Rx-8 rotor it will draw in 3.9 Litres of air and fuel, do your homework you idiot.
Manoo62 11 months ago
@Manoo62 lmao.. my homework? it only fires on 2 sides of the rotor per revolution.. hence 1308cc. technically its a 2.6 which guess what... is still smaller than 3.7. last time i checked anyways.. have a nice day :P idiot.
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@tableoftisch I see your just another load mouth internet clown digging a hole for yourself.
Each of the three chambers on each rotor is 654cc, each chamber fires every revolution, thats 3 in case you cant count. For a twin rotor thats 6 firings per revolution making 3.9L. Maybe you need to check again clown.
Manoo62 11 months ago
@Manoo62 lol hope it doesnt hurt when you figure out you're retarded.
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@tableoftisch Oh I think its clear who the retard is.
Your just another in a long line of aresholes without two brain cells to rub together.
There are plenty of vids on here to educate you but you too dumb to understand them.
Run along now the cartoons will be on shortly.
Manoo62 11 months ago
@Manoo62 dude i love cartoons! howd you know? lol ok listen buddy.. it goes fire-fire-skip-fire-skip-fire-fire-skip-fire-skip-fire-fire the rotor goes around 1 n 1/3 times per rotation of the eccentric shaft (thats the 'crankshaft' in case you didnt kno anythin about rotary engines) you're a fuckin idiot, shut the fuck up, i bet you drive a prius lmao BWAHAHAHA!
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@tableoftisch oh I see, so everyones an idiot except you, yeh that sounds believable.
Jeez I've heard it all now "fire-fire-skip-fire-skip-fire-fire-skip-fire-skip-fire-fire" there are NO 'skips' in the firing order!! 1 & 1/3 times a revolution!!!! where do you get this shit from??? You seriously havent got a clue have you retard? As you will see in any video animation of a rotary engine it fires THREE time per rev on each rotor, SIX in a cycle. But there allllllll wrong...apparently...dickhead
Manoo62 11 months ago
@Manoo62 lol those videos are DEMONSTRATIONS of how a rotary works, i know thats a big word but trust me it has nothing to do with demons... or masturbation... im not saying any of them are wrong.. except the one on ur site is backwards LMAO BWAHAHAHAHA!! shut up already geez :)
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@tableoftisch DEMONSTRATIONS of how a rotary w o r k ssssss
Now all you have to do is look up what Mazda quote for the chamber volume and you will have learned two new things about rotarys in one day. That will be a record for you....
Manoo62 11 months ago
@Manoo62 i kno the chamber volumes twat lol i bet you think the spark plugs fire at the same time like they do in the videos too lmao
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@tableoftisch Now all you have to do is put the two together numpty. Six firings in a cycle and.....errr......654cc each....doh that sounds like 3.9litres divvy!
Manoo62 11 months ago
@Manoo62 lmao wow.. cuz u can add that makes everyone else wrong? just to sum up.. u think its a 3.9 ltr, the rotors turn at the same rate as the e-shaft, and the spark plugs fire at the same time, and u drive a prius.. do u kno how many fuel injectors it has? lol how about ports? lol avg weight of a rotor? how long does a 'cycle' actually last? how far does your retardedness go? i really wana find out. divvy!!!? lmao :o
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@tableoftisch "cuz u can add that makes everyone else wrong?" no just you it would appear.
"u think its a 3.9 ltr" no, I know it is.
The speed of the e-shaft is irrelevant, you dont adjust the capacity of a piston engine when you change gear. The thermodynamic cycle of an engine is independent of the output shaft grearing.
spark plug phasing is completely irrelevant.
I dont know anything about the prius, a bit like you and rotary's
Manoo62 11 months ago
@Manoo62 ok im gona end this even though i'm havin so much fun. r u sittin down? grab paper n pencil. the rotor consists of three sides or chambers, as the first one passes the intake ports fuel n air are sucked in, it then rotates, compresses, and the spark plugs fire on the other side of the housing, the combustion is pushed out thru the exhaust port as the rotor turns n the cycle starts over again. the second chamber follows the same pattern, now pay attention here, the 'skips' i refer to
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@Manoo62 occur at the third chamber.. which does not draw in fuel, only air, it is still compressed n ignited using left overs from first two chambers, since it does not draw in fuel it is not used to classify the size of the motor, hence 1308cc. and since there are 2 housings it is tech a 2.6 ltr, and if you do research youll see that its classified in the 2.5-3.0ltr engine catagory.. or didnt u watch this video? lmao have a nice day asshole
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@Manoo62 and before you say 'but the videos...' like i said.. they are DEMONSTRATIONS! showing where air and fuel go in and spark happens. BWAHAHAHA and all this is common knowledge to people who pay attention!!! have fun being a loud mouth on the internet douschebag
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@tableoftisch Did you think of that all by yourself tosser? Entertaining but the biggest pile of shite I have ever heard. You are really hitting new lows, even for a retard. Do you want to provide any links that agree with your bizarre views on how a rotary works? Or is it just limited to tableofpish world......
Manoo62 11 months ago
@Manoo62 they did this to meet emission regulations you fuck tard.. shut up already, seriously, im done with you. fuck off.
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@tableoftisch Hahahaha So basically it IS a pile of shite that you made up and no one in the world agrees with you!
BTW the RX8 is no longer sold in Europe due to emissions....arsewipe.
Manoo62 11 months ago
@Manoo62 weird, dont remember saying that. i think i remember saying im done arguing with a fuckin dumbass, maybe you should learn how to read.. and i kno that its not sold there anymore, u guys tightened your emission, duh!
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@tableoftisch Put up or shut up areswipe.
Manoo62 11 months ago
@Manoo62 lmao.. find it urself dousche, for the third n last time, i'm done wasting my time with retards.
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@tableoftisch As I thought just another big mouth idiot shooting your mouth off without knowing fuck all.
As you confirmed 4 of the 6 chambers = 2.6L and therefore all 6 chambers = 3.9L
I am glad we got that clear up arsewipe.
Manoo62 11 months ago 2
@Manoo62 lmao
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@tableoftisch You might as well thats all your good for.
Manoo62 11 months ago
@Manoo62 whats a numpty? is that 3.9 ltrs too?
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@Manoo62 u do drive a prius dont you? lol
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@Manoo62 and btw i've seen all the vids.. like the one on ur site.. your favorite one.. was made by an idiot.. like you..
tableoftisch 11 months ago
Comment removed
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@Manoo62 oh, and this just in.. the 370 has more doors too!! LMAO BWAHAHAHA
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@Manoo62 There's a difference between a Rotary Chamber and the chambers it creates. Talking about a rotary chamber is like talking about a piston.
bluematt777 1 year ago
Comment removed
tableoftisch 11 months ago
@number9ninja They'er crap, rotary engines are very inefficient for their capacity their worse than 2 strokes. Mazda choose to hide this fact by quoting the capacity of only 1 chamber which we all know it has three. Its a bit like calling a 3.0 V6 a 1.0 twin. So the RX8 actually has a 3.9L engine and only produces 225 BHP and you have to scream it to 9000rpm to get it. Pretty crap engine but nice looking car.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. 2 rotors in a Renesis, 654cc each = ~1.3lt. Show me another NA engine producing >192HP/liter .
Tiff is great but in this occasion I was disappointed by his choice. Stock 350z is nowhere near the 8 in handling and fun-to-drive. Not a drivers car, more like an American coupe, all grunt but no sophistication, better suited for highway cruising.
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Grrrrreekman Its a common misconception but exactly what mazda want you to think. However their own literature quote each of the six chambers in the engine as being 654cc. Google 'Rotary Engine Displacement' the first site to come up will be rx7.com/ techarticles_displacement where you will find confirmation.
Its a 3.9L, it uses fuel like a 3.9L but only has the power of a 2.0L, thats why no one has bothered with rotary's in the last 60 years, there crap.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman Its a commen misconception but exactly what Mazda want you to think. Even their own literature quotes each of the six chambers is 654cc. Google 'Rotary Engine Displacement' the first site to come up will be rx7.com/ techarticles_displacement where you will find confirmation.
Its 3.9L, it uses fuel like a 3.9L but only has the power of a 2.0L which is why in 60 years no one has bothered with rotary engines, because their crap.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 Apples and oranges, rotary and piston engines are too different to be directly compared in terms of displacement. Your method gives 3.9lt, the Japanese gov. (not Mazda) says its 1.3 based on rotor face only and accepted by all auto manufacturers and others say 2.6 (displacement per crankshaft revolution, e.g. for best engine awards). All more or less arbitrary and meaningless. The only important factor is the power-to-weight ratio, and this is what makes the rotary a great engine.
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman No one uses or accepts 1.3L as the capacity except the manufacturers (or fools). For comparison purposes 2.6L is most commonly used but the actual capacity still remains 3.9L. The only important factor is that rotary engines are not used in any applications where power to weight is not CRITICAL i.e. microlights. This is because they CANNOT compete with piston engines on ANY other basis. How obvious does it have to be why rotary's are not used for any engine applications?
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 Why would manufacturers accept Mazda's marketing without objection and allow the Renesis to win all these awards? Int. Engine of the Year and Best New Engine 2003, "2.5 to 3 liter" size award for 2003 and 2004, Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 2004 and 2005. May I remind you of the R26B, 654cc x 4 rotors=2616cc that was rated by FIA @ just 4,708cc for Lemans.
Rotaries are great for sports and race-cars. RX7 is one of the most successful racers, and RX8 one of the best handling cars ever
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman Governing bodies, insurance, tax office etc are all happy to downrate the capacity by 2/3 because they all know they only produce 2/3 the power of a piston engine as well. The awards are recognition of the development work by Mazda. If you think that rotary engines are so much better than piston engines why are they hardly used for ANYTHING in the last 50-60 years?
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 All these agencies earn more money if they rate it @ higher displacement, they have no reason to accept Mazda's marketing. E.g. in Greece (as most of Europe) the 3.5lt 350z costs almost twice the rx8 due to taxes.
Also, these awards are the most sought out awards in the automotive industry, they don't just give them away. Rotaries on paper are way better engines but pistons were easy and rotaries needed more tech. So pistons dominated everything (like wintel vs mac!). Wait for hydrogen!
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman They dont, Mazda says 1.3L but everyone generally uses 2.6L as the simplest comparison (but NOT equivalent) to piston engines.
HYDROGEN!?!?! It will never happen it will always cost more to produce and compress the Hydrogen than you would ever get back from combusting it, or running it through silly fuel cells. Its even more dead end thchnology than rotary engines. You certainly pick em.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 Almost all EU countries classify it as 1.3lt and tax it accordingly.
Hydrogen is currently one of the best ways to store energy for mobile use. As oil reserves decline many new technologies will be released (or rather allowed to be released by the oil dictators). High efficiency solar panels and fusion will make hydrogen an abundant, cheap and clean energy for cars. And wankels are ideal for this.
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman I think we have established the true capacity of the RX8.
Hydrogen will NEVER be used in main stream combustion engines because it costs too much. Even if you had a free electricity supply its still doesnt work. Why bother making H2 when you could run an electric car directly for almost nothing?
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 What we established is that displacement comparisons between rotaries and piston engines are meaningless. I remind you of diesel that was considered a failure a few decades ago, and now 50% of cars in EU run on it.
Electric cars that depend on batteries can't succeed. Batteries are heavy, with low capacities, are slow to charge, and wear out easily. All battery cars that have been made so far have failed miserably. With hydrogen you have a readily available energy like petrol.
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman The comparision is only meaningless when you are defending the indefensible, its the last line of defence.
Diesels became popular due to fuel tax changes only, there has been long slow resistance but economics have forced people.
Electric car are not viable at the moment, but when battery technology improves they will be the future (sadly). Until then its more likely that LPG will bridge any oil gap. A big souce of H2 is LPG, why bother if you can burn the LPG? It'll never happen.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 Equivalence formulae for engines are always arbitrary. You're a piston guy and swept volume displacement is how you understand engines. Things that really matter though, from an engineering point of view, are power/weight, total volume, consumption, cost and reliability. The fact is that a 13B-MSP + peripherals weights almost half that of an equivalent (power/consumption) v6 engine and half the volume which allows the rx8 to be a superior engineered car (front midship).
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman Power to weight/volume is the only advantage for a rotary engine. Fuel consumption, reliability, cost to manufacture are all far more important none are good areas for the rotary. Just look at how many V8 are being used by the likes of Audi & BMW where once there was almost none.
LPG IS a half way measure that could bridge the gap before electric is viable. It doesnt have to come from fossil fuel, like alcohol (another good option) it can be grown.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 Rotaries as you know are much less complex engines, thus very easy and cheap to build and extremely reliable as a design. No valves, conrods or crankshafts to fail. e.g. 787B won Le mans on reliability and economy (3spurk plug-unstable idle) not total speed. Renesis' only problem basically is sealing mainly due to carbon build up and thermal expansion, which can be fixed (better com.chamber lubrication and ceramics). Pistons are at the apex of their evolution, rotaries need a bit more
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman Rotary's are no less complicated than a 2 stroke engine (3 basic moving parts). They are way more expensive to produce than a 2 stroke engine. They are less fuel efficient and only marginally smaller than a 2 stroke. So there are still no advantages for pursuing rotary technology.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 Its the opposite. Wankels are:
a)more efficient: BSFC ~.47 vs .65 for a typical 2-stroke (and require less oil)
b)on average ~15% cheaper to produce (if rotaries were mass produced they'd cost >50% less than pistons!)
c) A lot more reliable. Roller bearings in 2strs not very happy with the reciprocating bit!
d) MUCH cleaner
And you can't compare them in power delivery. Wankels have no vibrations. They have the smoothest and effortless rev of all engines
Not to mention the oil smell :)
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman It certainly is opposite a typical BSFC for a rotary is abou 0.60-0.65 a good piston engine would be about 0.45. Are you seriously trying to tell me rotary's are good on fuel, lol. 2 stroke engines are way cheaper to make. If mass produced they may be cheaper than a 4 stroke but they will never be mass produced. Emissions are similar at best. Power delivery! their completely gutless until you scream the engine to death, and thats a good thing?????
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 Your numbers are not correct. 6-port Renesis average BSFC is around .47 lb/hp-hr)@6000 rpm. (some 4p can fall to .41 as RB26). A good modern piston can drop bellow .30. Typical 2-stroke >.65. Rotaries are not as good on fuel as modern 4s pistons but better than 2s.
About costs google is your friend. And interest about wankels is high lately, never say never.
Power is a matter of preference, true sports cars are screamers not torque tractors. Linearity is the issue, flat power curbs.
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman I think you will find that the figure of .47 is purely calculated from A/F ratios for a 1.3L engine which is bollox. A 2 stroke is not very efficient but its better than a rotary. Real world fuel consumption figures are pretty conclusive. Rotary's will only have a place in racing if the governing bodies ignor their real capacity. Luckily they are not as dumb as the people who think the rx8 is a 1.3L. Flat torque curves are only good if they have high values unlike the rx8.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 And hydrogen is clean and abundant and LPG isn't. LPG is a half measure like batteries, which will always have their natural limitations. Hydrogen in IC and fuel cells are the future, see Honda.
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman Better batteries or some other storage technology will need to be developed to make electric cars work. But I dont see H2 ever playing a part, I would be interested to know where the abundant supplies of H2 are?? Honda are trying to do the best with current technology to provide an alternative today but its pretty weak. I dont see anything thats going to ever make H2 viable it cost way to much to make compress and distribute.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 Hydrogen is the other storage technology. Fuel on can't be grown on this scale for our needs, not enough for food already. Hydrogen is abundant as water, all we need is a better renewable source for the electrolysis. E.g. current research on photovoltaics talks about 80%+ efficiency in the near future! Also nuclear fussion (expected around the time oil reserves are depleted) will provide abundant clean energy at the plant.
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman H2 could only ever be a stop gap fuel alternative but highly unlikely when compared to methane. Which doesnt have to come from food sources i.e algae. Its never going to replace the worlds energy needs but will ease the burden until a long term solution is found. Nuclear is the only alternative 'today' and Europe is currently moving that way. You would never use one clean energy source (electricity) to produce another energy (H2) at a reduced efficiency, its never going to happen.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 And hydrogen is not viable today but will be in the near future if research is allowed to proceed freely. Industries often put their comfort and obscure interests above technological superiority. The best technology doesn't always win.
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman The best technology doesnt always win but Hydrogen has so few plus points it will never be viable. It would be discounted on safety grounds alone.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@Manoo62 Hydrogen is non-toxic, is less flammable than gasoline, disperses quickly in the atmosphere and modern tanks are very safe (more so than normal gas tanks). This isn't 1937 anymore :-)
Grrrrreekman 1 year ago
@Grrrrreekman It might be less flammable but its a hell of a lot more explosive and VERY prone to leaks. It produces several chemical reactions in the atmosphere that can reduce the ozone layer and increase methane life span. Neither being very desirable. Battery technology is getting way more development and will always be a lot more convienent as an energy carrier than hydrogen.
Manoo62 1 year ago
@sabahanboy ya i raced one in my sunfire and beat one . 2007 6 speed to , and i have a 98 sunfire. damn rx8's are fast, not. he was catching up in the long end though
jordanfromgoosebay 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rotary is a glass engine and the Rx8 is hideous.
aji8 2 years ago
i love my Mazda:) great car
Ravmunken1997 2 years ago 2
Handbrake isn't in the way when you're in America... :P
butchydude 2 years ago 2
I've always wondered why didn't they relocate the handbrake to the other side for the UK version. He's right about the 80's style digital clock though, it's totally out of place and ruins the whole dash.
h2h2h2h2 2 years ago
lol, im no automechanical engineer, (which seems like there are a lot of them in these comment pages) but as a driver, as long as it works fast, reliable, and without hesitation, I will take any engine.
Mikelaren101 2 years ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
Rotary is junk and this car is butt ugly.
aji8 2 years ago
Move away, dammit! stop spamming here your shit, dumbhead!
Pommes1983 2 years ago
So have fun driving your wannabe RX7 you damn hypocrite. I hate faggots like you who think they're always right about everything when they're not. You're still a fucking poser who doesn't know jack shit about rotary engines. I think you hate it because you probably don't even know how to fix one or even how it works. Lol, what a loser.
USSRman45 2 years ago 2
I know enough to get rid of the junk engine..
aji8 2 years ago
How am I a hypocrite. Do you even know what the word means? You make no sense. I do NOT like the rotary and do NOT have one. I recognized the chassis that Mazda made only. No hypocrisy here moron.
aji8 2 years ago
Ok I know this is months old already but aji me and you are having it out on another video. This is just what im talking about. Is this all you do with your life? Flame the rotary engine on youtube?
ChaseSpeer 2 years ago
Don't forget about the car either. In this case the Rx8 is a hideous vehicle.
aji8 2 years ago
You know I got to ask you. If you spend all your time on youtube saying that rotaries suck and not much more. Not much supporting facts other then that makes me think... Did someone shove a rotary up your ass when you were being bent over? Did you walk in on Dr Wankel doing the jackhammer on your mom? Why don't you turn 10 yr old and move on with your life? Your making a fool out of yourself. Stop playing video games. Getting a DL would be a good place to start
ChaseSpeer 2 years ago
Concentrate on the vid. I know you are interested in me and all but try to focus on the vid. O.k. moron?
aji8 2 years ago
Yeah the 80's RX7 styling is much better. ROFL!
h2h2h2h2 2 years ago
That's right! I bet if you look at the reviews of the rx7 you won't find any reviews questioning the styling like the Rx8. You are a fool and need to do some research before you open your mouth.
aji8 2 years ago
Styling just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder numb nuts. The majority of people agree that the RX8 styling is much better then previous generations, and 10x better then the old dinosaur looking RX7 of the 80's. Styling improved in the 90's aside from the shitty flip-up lights, and 2004+ styling is the best yet. Get with the times dude! I bet you're still rocking a mullet hair style from 80's... ROFL!
h2h2h2h2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What I say still stands moron. Your argument is void as you haven't changed the fact that most think the Rx8 is ugly.
You rotary losers just can't accept truth and fact. You live in your own world. It is no surprise that you like an ugly car.
aji8 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Keep on rocking that mullet 80's loving faggot.
h2h2h2h2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Keep rocking a car that no one likes fool.
aji8 2 years ago
Funny, seeing as you're the only one calling it ugly. Look in the mirror and you'll see what real ugly is. LMAO
h2h2h2h2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
By the way faggot, I bet you don't even own a car. Keep on riding that bus. Hey, I hear your mommy calling you upstairs. Fucking troll-boy.. ROFL!
h2h2h2h2 2 years ago
Keep living in your fantasy world. If that is what you think, keep thinking moron.
aji8 2 years ago
BAHAHA, faggot. Comming from someone still living with mommy and riding the bus. ROFL!
h2h2h2h2 2 years ago
'no one likes' I guess you base that statement in the extensive 'research' you've carried out huh cup cake? "As of October 2006 the RX-8 has won at least 37 international motoring awards including 2003 International Engine of the Year, the 2003 Japanese Car of the Year, Australia's Wheels magazine's Car of the Year for 2003, the 2004 Singapore Car of the Year, the 2004 U.S. Best Sports Car, and several UK Best Car Awards.
nickeroo 2 years ago
So no one likes apart from all the motoring journalists and experts that gave it awards. But I'm sure you're educated opinion is much more valid than any of those chumps huh champ? ;-)
nickeroo 2 years ago
Well if it won anything( you are proably lying) it certainly didn't have anything to do with its looks!
LOL. Awards are find but when your award winning car is in the shop to have the engine rebuilt all those awards don't mean shit. The car is junk. S2000 is far better.
aji8 2 years ago
you're comparing a 4-door luxury car with a little 2-door soft-top. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but slander is for the bogun.