The RX-8 failed because it is uglier, less powerful, and less of an overall sportscar than what most consider its predecessor -- the RX-7.

You just can't do that. It's like when the Mustang II's got put out in the 70's, complete with the same damn motor out of the Pinto. They were a kick in the ***** to any Mustang driver.

If the RX8 had been marketed under a completely different name and the RX7 nameplate kept alive in limited production, I feel it would've done better. Expectations kill.

 

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like the RX8.
On the other hand, I don't like the current crop of Chrysler/Dodge cars, but obviously others do.

 

RX8 isn't a successor to or replacement for the RX7. Mazda names many or most of their Rotary powered cars with the prefix of "RX". There's been a RX2, RX3, RX4, and the RX7 & RX8.

Why the RX8 isn't more popular?

At $27K for a manual version, it's not cheap. Rotaries don't have much torque unless you rev the living tar out of them. As a result, the unaccustomed buyer will feel their RX8 is a slug. The car's Chevrolet SS concept-like styling is a bit over the top. Someone already mentioned the "buzzyness" some people note due to it's relatively light weight (around 2900 pounds). Also mentioned is disappointing fuel economy (it needs premium, and at 18 and 25 mpg, has worse mileage than a 3700 pound GTO). Some people are still screamish about the durability of Rotary's engine seals (the achillies heal to a rotary).



As for the Mustang II, it was a hit out of the ballpark for Ford and probally the best timed (or most lucky) introduction of a new car in history. They were very good cars and very well made considering other cars of the day. I could go through the differences between the Pinto & Mustang chassis, but I think Proudpony is even better at it than I am by far. The "2" came out with the German made 2.8 V6.....(with dual exhausts! ) and the 5.0 the following year, and a manual behind it the year after. The base 4 cylinder was a waste, and as I remember, was only bought by the MPG concerned crowd.

The 302s of the day were deceptive. You look at the horsepower ratings, and think the cars were dogs, but then you'd see the torque ratings and be dumbfounded. If I remember, the 302 had something like 120-130 horsepower, but something 250 lbs/ft of torque.... on par with regular pre LM1 Chevy 350s

The new 79 Mustang made the "2" look dated, but it wasn't until the 1980s and Ford started evolving the 5.0 HO engines where some started looking at Mustang IIs as unwanted stepchildren.

 

Nice thread detour. The only RX8's at work are driven by two hot chicks, so I forgive Mazda for that piece of crap.

I'm with Guy's original post, though. So far as I'm concerned, HP has gone far enough. I have the same concerns about a 400hp car in the hands of every teen who wants one in 8-10 years. It's time to take a serious look at vehicle weight, and start doing something about it.

 

When I was wandering around a dealer lot with a healthy surplus back in January, the salesman was talking $22-23K. If someone actually wants one, I imagine there's a deal to be had. Styling-wise, I still hear people talk about the car favorably (and considering RX8 was out first, it's probably more accurate to say the SS concept has RX8-like styling). I don't know that I'd call it over-the-top nowadays. I agree the car has a lot going against it for mainstream appeal, including a shoddy mechanical rep at the shops I've talked to. AND in case it matters, it appears to be something of a "chick car" from my personal observation.

On topic, I agree with Branden's comments that it is insane to think about driving a 400 HP car without even giving it a second thought. Others have commented that increasing weight has offset these gains and I agree. In time, perhaps the weight-saving materials will become more economical for mass production vehicles. You can't argue with more safety and it should be a top priority even if it does add weight.

It's great that these 400+ HP cars are now attainable at $30-40K, but it presents some harsh realities as Guy mentioned when younger drivers will have the keys down the road. Which presents another dealer story as I was speaking with a Pontiac salesman (late 20's) today about a GTO test drive in which he had to rely upon defensive driving training to recover after multiple spins on the interstate. Never missing the opportunity to turn it into a sales pitch, he went on to tell me how he sold a GTO to the woman in the car with him for her son as a graduation present (from med school). While I , it calls for another topic to be revisited: should advanced licenses be required for cars that present a greater challenge to drive safely? A video game-like class system so to speak, based on criteria like HP, weight, dimensions. That couldn't hurt in the ill-prepared SUV driver front either.

 

I agree that many lightweight cars fit under some common undesirable qualities... however so do many powerful cars - they often fit under some undesirable qualities as well.

My point was that what excites me more than gains in power, is loss in weight WITHOUT compromise, and technology is definitely allowing us to do that.

Over time we can make a car much quieter while simultanously reducing the weight of sound reduction materials. How? Through better high tech materials, better strategic placement, and even through electronic technologies such as sound wave inversion! Look at the new Acura RL. Significantly less weight used in sound deadening than the previous gen, yet I'd describe the previous gen as downright unpleasantly noisy in the cabin, compared to ANYthing else in its class - and the new gen is very competetive in terms fo noise. Granted they 'wasted' a lot of that weight savings by adding an AWD system... but that's another option, when you save weight you can add additional feature content without actually gaining weight, overall.

 

Well, I'm not so sure. The new Jag XK supposedly goes to great lengths to reduce weight, with its all aluminum body, yet it comes out at 3700 pounds or so, when measured on a scale by a 3rd party. No question that new materials allow for weight reduction, but new government/market requirements seem to stick the weight back on and more.

By they way, loss of weight without compromise excites me too. I'd love to see a 3300 pound four-seater, V6 300hp sedan or coupe. I just don't expect to see one any time soon.

Yeah, that new RL weighs 4000 pounds. I wonder how much that SH-AWD adds. Speaking of that, what do you think about Acura tuning their new SUVs on the Nurburgring? I look at it and think, "what's the point? It's an SUV", but I know you often have a different point of view.

 

I think it's a great idea. It's obvious that people want to drive SUV-sized cars these days, or is that car-like SUVs? Either way - they're just bigger sized taller riding cars, these days... and people typically couldn't care less about off road abilities - they care about room for their kids, creature comforts, and from there it's just a question of which they enjoy driving more. So with the new MDX's semi active suspension setup, for example, they can get the practical benefits of driving a smallish SUV, with more of an approximation of, say, driving a sporty 4-door sedan like a 3-series.

'Best of two worlds' seems to be a great marketing plan in almost any segment.