Mazda RX-8: rotary sports car spinning into history

By Jez Spinks | April 06th, 2012

FIND DEALS

Time is fast running out if you want to buy a brand new rotary-powered sports car, with just a handful of Mazda RX-8 coupes left in Australia before Japanese production ends in June.

Mazda Australia says availability is now extremely limited, and the company has even dropped the RX-8 from its official website. Demand has naturally dwindled, with just 78 RX-8s sold in Australia in 2011 compared to the model’s first 18 months on sale when more than 2500 sales were accrued.

The Mazda RX-8, which debuted in 2003, has succumbed to tightening emissions regulations that the current version of the Japanese car maker’s distinctive, piston-less engine couldn’t be fettled to meet. The four-door coupe, with its innovative rear-hinged back doors, could become a sad milestone in history as there are no guarantees Mazda will be successful in attempts to improve its next-generation Wankel rotary in key areas.

Mazda says it continues to develop a new rotary and is striving to improve its efficiency as well as low-end torque.

The RX-8′s 1.3-litre engine was notable for its lack of pulling power in its bottom range but compensated in many endearing ways, especially with its smoothness, unique monotone soundtrack produced by a blend of the engine and exhaust notes, and lust for high revs. It produced its peak power of 170kW at 8200rpm.

The rotary, however, also became renowned for high oil consumption in addition to relatively poor fuel economy and emissions – with the six-speed manual version having a fuel-consuming rate of 12.9 litres of premium unleaded per 100km and CO2 emissions of 308 grams per kilometre.

Mazda’s global boss, Takashi Yamanouchi, told CarAdvice at the 2011 Tokyo motor show last October that the plan for the RX-8′s successor was still unclear. Yamanouchi said it was also possible the company could offer just one sports car in the future, combining both the next RX model and its famous roadster, the MX-5, the next generation of which is due next year still powered by a conventional, four-cylinder engine.

Yamanouchi said the company had two choices for the new rotary, with the engine either powering the driven wheels alone as with the RX-8, or the engine acting as a ‘range extender’ as part of a hybrid set-up with an electric motor.

The RX-8′s demise after nine years means it fell well short of the lifespan of the fondly and highly regarded rotary-powered RX-7 that covered four decades, from the late ’70s to 2002.

Sponsored Ads

F1MotoGP

Personally I never liked the Mazda RX and the rotary engines.
German car company made rotary engined cars. NSU Ro 80 was a technologically advanced large sedan-type automobile produced by the West German firm of NSU from 1967 until 1977. The rotary engine design was inherently thirsty (typically 15-18 mpg.
- Ford Fairlane
  
  Hear about the HJ/X holdens that were exported to japan,renamed Roadpacer then had an engine swap to a 13b.
  
  Not one of Mazda’s better ideas.
JHP

make mazda rx-9, but replace the thirsty, unreliable rotary engine with turbocharged 4 cylinder engine.
- Drac
  
  Wouldnt be an ***RX*** model without a rotary now would it?
  - JHP
    
    well, people used to say ‘subaru without awd system??? that’s not a subaru now isn’t it? and subaru would never produce such monstrosity”
    well, now we have, subaru BRZ, i know its as same as toyota gt86, but who cares. and they used to make rex, which was running in fwd system.
- Sydlocal
  
  Are you still stuck in the 70s? Just go and ask anyone who races rotary engines in motorsport and they will tell you the rotary in that environment is far from being unreliable. In fact you would find the opposite is actually true. Even Alan Moffat said that when he was racing the RX7 in the 80s. Plus Mazda rotaries had one of the best reliability records for the Le Mans 24hr. Over in the US, more rotaries are raced in club level events than any other engine. Rotaries are also popular in ultralight aircraft etc in the US, now do you think they would use them if they were as unreliable as you are saying?
  No argument about being thirsty though as they are not the most thermally efficient engine around. However having said that the 787b won Le Mans because it was so economical (and reliable too, it only blew a headlight globe and they did a precautionary wheel bearing change as it was a little warmer than normal) that they could run it flat out for the whole race, unlike the M-B or Jag that would have ran out of their fuel allocation if they tried that. It is all relative I guess.Half the problem with people driving them on the roads is that they don’t warm them up properly, something that is way more important for a rotary than a reciprocating engine.
Devil’s Advocate

Wonder how the RX8 would have gone with their MZR 2.3 DISI turbo from the MPS twins (if it would fit that is)….
SuperGT

What’s wrong with people going on about RX-8 with turbo-charged 4 cylinder? Why don’t you just go buy 3 MPS then?

There is a reason why the car is named “RX”, and the car is fantastic as it is, I could only with better fuel efficiency, but this is just a small price to pay for such a lovely car to drive.
- Devil’s Advocate
  
  That is why I was “wondering” as I used to actually have a 3MPS and loved the way that engine produced it’s torque. It was a very strong engine and I was just wondering what it would be like in the superior chassis of the RX8. *sarcasm* Funny, I never knew RX meant rotary engine. *end-sarcasm* Of course they would have to change the name, but it doesn’t hurt to wonder! I am not denying the the character of a rotary and how unique that makes the RX8 feel as my family have had rotaries since the early 70s with my dad’s 10a RX3 and now my brother’s worked 380rwhp FC RX7 turbo.
  
  Considering they are having a “hiatus” with the rotary engine, what is wrong with making a suggestion of an alternate powerplant for one of Mazda’s best current chassis so they can keep it going? An RX8 (whatever they would re-name it) with the MZR turbo is better than no RX8 at all, which is where they are heading…
falcodore

They’ve whacked that rotary in some great little cars over the years. It will be a sad day when they end production of it. I will keep watching the Rolex Grand Am series just so i can hear those wonderful triple rotor RX-8s scream around the track, they sound like nothing else. RX-8 won the last race at Barbor Motorsport park too. : )
http://profile.yahoo.com/LOHEGNJELUC5SEYBUDZJJ2N5BQ Matt

If they could meet emissions and produced enough power, I don’t think fuel consumption would be that big of an issue for Rotary buyers.
- Sydlocal
  
  Produce enough power? I thought 170-180kw (230-245ish hp) was pretty good going for a normally aspirated 1.3L engine. Name another NA engine of that size that comes anywhere near it. Maybe put it in something lighter like the MX5!
  Torque is another thing, but if you are willing to pay for the extra fuel keeping the rotary where it likes it best (5000rpm+) it is not an issue. Either that or stick a turbo on it, then you can have the best of both worlds!
  - Springvale Boi
    
    1.3L in a rotary engine is equivalent to 2.6L or 3.9L piston
    4-stroke engine depends on how you look at it.
    - Sydlocal
      
      Where does the 3.9 come from? It that because you have multiplied the swept volume x3 due to the 3 chambers of the rotor? Don’t forget that the rotor itself is only rotating at one third the eccentric shaft speed so only one chamber is doing “work” per eccentric shaft revolution per rotor.
      I can understand where people get the 2.6 due to 1 combustion per eccentric shaft revolution per rotor as opposed to 1 combustion per 2 revolutions per cyl of a 4 stroke piston engine. However having said that, does that mean that a 250cc 2 stroke motocross bike is in reality a 125cc engine and the capacity is doubled to bring it into line with a 4 stroke due to the 2 stroke, like a rotary, having twice as many combustion events as a 4 stroke piston engine for a given rpm? I didn’t think so, it still has a swept volume/capacity of 250cc and is classed as a 250cc engine. If a 2 stroke can be classed as such, why can’t the rotary?
      At the end of the day, a rotary is a 4 stroke engine and in the case of the 13B it has a swept volume/capacity of 1308cc. I can understand and agree with the X2 formula for racing equality purposes, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the actual swept volume of the chamber is only 1308cc. It makes sense it is producing more power for the same capacity because less energy is wasted because the rotors don’t have to keep making 180 degree turns every half a revolution, this on top of being able to rev higher.
      Even if you still don’t agree, name another production, mass produced car engine of that physical size and weight that produces that much power?
jg

Terrible car. Its a gas guzzler despite being small! Ditch the torque-less unreliable rotary and put in a turbo 4 pls Mr Mazda. The interior space is modest at best, do not buy if you are 6’2″ or taller. Funky-looking, thirsty, nifty without being fast, over-priced and handles well – that’s the RX8.
Golfschwein

At a motor show a few years ago, I was gob-smacked that I could actually sit in the back of the thing. At my height of 6′ 1-3/4″ or 187 cm, my roominess test has always been to set up the driver’s seat as I would like it, then pop in the back to see how it shapes up there. It worked. I had clearance everywhere, if only by a few millimetres. Still, clearance is clearance.
bob

Was cool in 2003. But Mazda never really changed anything on it over the years. At least not in a big way. It’s gotten way too old.
Matthew Werner

If rotaries were the bees knees, more car companies would be putting them under the bonnet
- Springvale Boi
  
  If you want an alternative to piston engines, it’s the duckz nutz