I thought this would be cool to compare specs since these two cars both have quad (suicide-style) doors.While they are both in two totally different performance and price categories it makes an interesting comparison. Its interesting to note that while the RX8 has a smaller engine it has almost a 100 HP advantage over the Quad coupe, but on the other hand the RX8 only has a 14 lb/ft. of torque advantage over the Saturn.

http://autos.msn.com/compare/choose....del2=10703&pt=


Saturn Quad Coupe (QC)
Mazda RX-8 (RX)


Base Engine (QC) 2.2L 140 hp I4 (RX) 1.3L 250 hp Rotary

Horsepower (QC) 140 @ 5800 RPM (RX) 250 @ 8500 RPM

Torque (QC) 145 lb/ft. (RX) 159 lb/ft.

Displacement (QC) 2189 (RX) CC 1308 CC

Fuel Economy City (QC) 26 mpg (RX) 21 mpg

Fuel Economy Hwy (QC) 33 mpg (RX) 23 mpg

Exterior Dimensions

Curb Weight Manual (QC) 2778 lb (RX8) 3011 lb

Wheelbase (QC) 103.2 in. (RX8)106.4 in.

Track Front (QC) 58.8 in. (RX8) 59.1 in.

Track Rear (QC) 58.4 in. (RX)59.3 in.

Length (QC) 185 in. (RX) 174.3 in.

Width (QC) 67.9 in. (RX) 69.7 in.

Height (QC) 56 in. (RX) 52.8 in.

Interior Dimensions

Standard Seating (QC) 4 (RX) 4

Front Headroom (QC) 38.9 in. (RX) 37.8 in.

Rear Headroom (QC) 36.5 in. (RX) 36.2 in.

Front Legroom (QC) 42.2 in. (RX) 42.7 in.

Rear Legroom (QC) 32.7 in. (RX) 32.3 in.

Front Shoulder Room (QC) 54 in. (RX) 54.8 in.

Rear Shoulder Room (QC) 51 in. (RX) 53.2 in.

 

Does the RX8 really only get 23 mpg HWY, or is that a typo?

 

Rotary engines have historically had very poor gas mileage.

You would think that a 1.3 liter rotary engine would get better gas mileage

On the otherhand this 1.3 liter engine also pumps out 250 HP

According to the official Mazda Rx8 site @ www.mazdarx8.com the RX8's fuel economy is actually 18/24.

 

Older rotaries got bad gas milage because the intake and exhaust ports were often open at the same time. They have changed the design now, and that no longer happens. They should do better now.

I think the RX8 is going to be totally bad *** once someone develops a turbo kit for it.

Unfortionatly due to the new design of the intake and exhaust ports, the renesis engine is limited to two rotars.

 

I agree, when a turbo version of the RX8 (oem or aftermarket) will make it one very fast car (it will also be exensive too).

At first I thougt the RX was going to a larger car then it actually ended up being. It wasnt until I saw it at the LA autoshow did if realize how small it was going to be. The interior and exterior dimensions or very close to my Ion Quad Coupe (daily driver) as well as the lb/ft of torque. Other than the rear suicide doors and overall dimsnsions these two cars are in to totally different classes.

I dont think Im going to scare any RX8 owners at a stop light with my Quad-Coupe, but with my Z28 its a different story.

 

SHOCKING NEWS!!!

According to the official Mazda "RX8 spec/tech booklet" states that the RX8 equipped with the automatic-tranny (conventional type) 210 HP version only does 0-60 in 9.5 secs, and this is well over 3 secs slower the the 250HP manual version.

The Ion sedan uses a similar sluggish conventional auto-tranny as the auto-RX8 and its 0-60 times are far worse then the CVT Ion quad coupe.I believe that the 140hp Saturn Quad coupe equipped with its new CVT tranny probably does the 0-60 faster than the 210hp auto-equipped Mazda Rx8.


I think the low torq and high reving Renesis Rotary engine performs horrible when held under the limitations of a conventional automatic-tranny. I dont believe anyone has created a CVT tranny for rear wheel drive only cars yet since CVT's only seem to be made for FWD's and/or those FWD's that have AWD as an option.

 

250 hp @ 8500 rpm and not much torque Must be a pig off the line.

 

For sure. You simply can't use all 9,000 RPMs on the street with an auto and hold it there to make any power. A manual RX8 is a must....in fact I can't believe they would even offer an auto coupled to that screaming, torqueless powerplant.

 

In manual form the Quad Coupe is 233 lbs lighter then the RX8 but I since a CVT tranny is lighter then a conventional-type tranny I wouldnt be suprised the a CVT Quad-coupe is closer to 300lb lighter then an automatic RX8.

 

Isn't the RX8 a dual-rotary engine? That would mean it has 2 1.3 liter chambers right, for a total of 2.6 liters? I know that with some of the older rotarys the rating they gave on displacement wasn't the true rating for the engine....

Anyone know FOR SURE on the RX8?