RX-8 or WRX?

Hmmm, could one find an RX8 with blowed up, no longer spinning magic triangles and wedge a MS3 engine in?

mistanfo wrote: Hmmm, could one find an RX8 with blowed up, no longer spinning magic triangles and wedge a MS3 engine in?

The magic triangles usually die when any one of the one quadrillion seals die. Because of how common the problem is, especially at higher mileages, the seals themselves aren't outrageously expensive and can be replaced.

ww wrote: I keep hearing all these complaints about the rear facing child seat causing problems with the front passenger seat and I just can't figure out what the problem is. I have 3 kids age 5, 3, 1 that fit in my 2000 Impreza Outback just fine. The rear facing seat goes in the middle where the seat can be cinched down BETWEEN the two front seats minimizing the interference with the front seats while keeping the seating angle for the child seat where it's appropriate. If you have only one child, this is ideal for another important reason, it keeps the baby as far away from the sides of the car as possible improving their chances of avoiding injury in the event of an accident. My other two kids sit on either side. We've made several trips in the Outback Sport from the Bay Area to Disneyland in LA and packed all our crap in the back of the wagon INCLUDING the stroller.

One of the biggest variables in this equation is the carseat itself. Our kids (2 years and 7 months) are out of infant car seats, and are in Brittax Marathons. These things are gigantic, and it's even more obvious when they're rear-facing! I have two of them in the back seat of our '06 RAV4 and there's about 8" of room in the middle between the two seats. There's no way any other carseat would fit between these two monsters, and the RAV4's rear seat is actually pretty roomy depth and width-wise. Our saving grace is that the rear seat slides back and forth several inches. We have the rear seat slid all the way back, which enables us to have the front passenger seat back a decent amount before hitting the car seat behind it.

We previously owned a 2000 Saab 9-3, and even with the rear-facing Marathon in the middle of the rear seat, I had to slide the seat forward a notch or two so it could clear the car seat (and I'm only 5'10"). With a rear-facing Marathon in the rear passenger seat of that car, the front seat would have to have been slid up so far that no one could sit in it. That's one of the main reasons we sold that car and bought a minivan.

A lesson learned is to take your car seats and try to fit them in the various vehicles you're considering. I like the Brittax Marathons, but with certain vehicles they just don't fit, especially when in rear-facing mode.

I can't fit the child seat in the center without moving the driver's seat forward. For my size, I need to place the seat behind the passenger seat.

My 100k mile WRX seems as if it has at least another 100k in it, easy.

Nate90LX wrote: How is either option going hold up over time. I put 20,000-25,000 miles on my car each year, so will the WRX and RX-8 survive to 200,000 or 300,000 miles. I would like to buy this car and keep it for a while.

I think both will hold up well.

I've seen plenty of high mileage Subarus and a couple of WRXs with 200k miles.

I haven't seen too many high mileage RX8s yet. They don't seem to get as much usage as the Subies. However, I have seen plenty normally aspirated rotaries hitting 200-300k miles and lots of spirited driving. Mazda made a late change to the RX8 motor with regards to the oil injection which fixed a design problem. I believe they also extended the warranty on the motor to 100k miles.

I see a lot of people talking about trying to fit a rear facing seat. If its hard to fit in a WRX wagon, I don't see how you will fit it in the RX8 rear seats.

While my carb'd 12A probably shares nothing with the Renesis 13B in the RX-8, I can point out that mine has 232xxx miles on it without a rebuild and still competes in autocrosses. RX-8's should hit 200K miles easy.

Also my 91 Loyale Subaru (I know :( ) had over 200K on it when I last saw it with only timing belts being done in addition to tune-ups and oil changes. I know of plenty of 150K+ WRX's.

It really is going to come down to personal preference as both are great cars.

Nate90LX wrote: How is either option going hold up over time. I put 20,000-25,000 miles on my car each year, so will the WRX and RX-8 survive to 200,000 or 300,000 miles. I would like to buy this car and keep it for a while.

"Rotary" and "200k without a lot of headaches" don't seem to go together--but that could be my own prejudices.

I'd vote more for the Subie in terms of longevity, but even the, I wonder how long the turbos last. I know turbo Volvos run forever, but I don't know how long an EJ20/25 is good for. Is the money for major engine work worth it at 150k miles???

<--used to Honda anvil-like durability, so can't relate

gamby, Come on up when the snow stops and I'll give you a ride in an all-original, never-rebuilt, 232xxx mile 12A rotary. With working A/C, emissions, and everything. It also made almost 100 autocross runs and 35 drag strip passes last season. All I do is change/add oil. Original coils, distributor, carburetor, etc.

^ gaddamn.

gamby wrote:

Nate90LX wrote: How is either option going hold up over time. I put 20,000-25,000 miles on my car each year, so will the WRX and RX-8 survive to 200,000 or 300,000 miles. I would like to buy this car and keep it for a while.

"Rotary" and "200k without a lot of headaches" don't seem to go together--but that could be my own prejudices. I'd vote more for the Subie in terms of longevity, but even the, I wonder how long the turbos last. I know turbo Volvos run forever, but I don't know how long an EJ20/25 is good for. Is the money for major engine work worth it at 150k miles??? <--used to Honda anvil-like durability, so can't relate

<----- used to Honda transmissions magically blowing up as soon as you add 2whp to them. (cai.)

My last civic went through 5. FIVE transmissions in less than a year. That was what made me give up on hondas and go back to Toyota.

Amazing engines.... trannys leave something to be desired, at least for me.

gamby wrote: "Rotary" and "200k without a lot of headaches" don't seem to go together--but that could be my own prejudices.

It's all about the apex seals. Turbo a rotary and you'll be doing a rebuild every 75k to 100k. The turbocharger just annihilates the apex seals in those engines. However, a well-maintained naturally aspirated rotary is a fine, sufficiently dependable car. If a seal goes, it's something you can fix in your garage as long as you aren't terrified of taking apart and engine but even that on a naturally aspirated rotary is a rare thing below 200k-300k.

Doesn't mean mileage isn't horrendous though...

mgrinshpon wrote:

gamby wrote: "Rotary" and "200k without a lot of headaches" don't seem to go together--but that could be my own prejudices.

It's all about the apex seals. Turbo a rotary and you'll be doing a rebuild every 75k to 100k. The turbocharger just annihilates the apex seals in those engines. However, a well-maintained naturally aspirated rotary is a fine, sufficiently dependable car. If a seal goes, it's something you can fix in your garage as long as you aren't terrified of taking apart and engine but even that on a naturally aspirated rotary is a rare thing below 200k-300k. Doesn't mean mileage isn't horrendous though...

Sounds like you have fallen victim to too many internet stories about people who don't know how to properly mod turbo rotaries. Mod them poorly and they won't last. Triple the power on them with a big frickin' turbo and you'll have a higher probability of failure but then again so will any OEM motor at triple the HP it was designed for.

I've personally done 140k miles on one of my FC Turbo II rotaries. It was still going strong when I sold it. Good friend of mine did 132k miles on his FD motor - also with mild mods. You'll hear plenty of owner accounts along these lines from people that know what they are doing.

Sometimes its not the horse - its the rider.

I will say that rotaries have been reliable for me. Two I have owned went over were around 200k. One was making great compression but was pulled at 195,000 to streetport, the other went to the junkyard at about 230,000 with worn coolant and oil seals and smoked like a forest fire. I have owned two that have seen the north side of it and put over 60k miles on them and have only been left stranded twice. Once because of a missed shift (blown clutch), one because the coolant temp sensor came unplugged causing it to run full rich. I bought a 79 RX-7 sight unseen for $1200 and drove it from Kansas City to FL with no real issues and managed to get 24mpg at 75 mph. It to has worn oil control seals and smokes above 4k. Hopefully the Lucas Oil "trick" will work as a band aid.

Something about coming down to Florida seems to have cursed them though as none of them are running quite right at the moment.

If it makes any difference my fiances 2000 Impreza wagon does not see much better than 24mpg on the highway and routinely around 22mpg if the speeds are closer to 80. Mileage around town is roughly 18, though it may need new O2 sensors. It has new plugs and wires, synthetic fluids etc.

I have heard stories of the horrible mileage of RX-8s though I have no first hand knowledge. When I drove it I couldn't keep my foot out of it which doesn't help economy.

We had an RX-8 around the office here last year. I put around 500 miles on it of mixed driving. I averaged 17 mpg or so. (requires premium gas) I wasn't beating the car, but I wasn't gentle either. This did include a few highway slogs at 80mph or so. Doing this exact same routine of driving my 97 M3 gives me 24.5 mpg or so.

I loved the driving experience of the RX-8, much more so than driving a stock WRX which I also like. It was actually one of the best balanced, and most enjoyable cars I've driven in a long time.

That said, I couldn't bring myself to consider the Mazda because of it's horrific fuel economy. Even though the WRX only gets 22mpg or so, it is a bit more practical than the RX-8.

Here's the RX8 we reviewed: http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/new-cars/2008-mazda-rx-8-40th-anniv-edition/

There's 02 and 09 WRX reviews in the new cars section, too, as well as our WRX project cars.

The best argument for an RX8 is driving one! I own one and have ridden with people who can drive and they handle scary good!

And i get 20mpg in mine with about 60/40 highway/town driving. The best millage i have ever gotten was 24mpg on a 6 hour drive to FL.

Greg Voth wrote: Something about coming down to Florida seems to have cursed them though as none of them are running at the moment.

Fixed.

Eh, both cars get crappy fuel economy. If you're wanting to save money on gas, start looking at a different class of car.

Yes, rotaries and 4wd are both bad for fuel economy.

Imagine if they made a 4wd rotary car!

dj06482 wrote: One of the biggest variables in this equation is the carseat itself. Our kids (2 years and 7 months) are out of infant car seats, and are in Brittax Marathons. These things are gigantic, and it's even more obvious when they're rear-facing! I have two of them in the back seat of our '06 RAV4 and there's about 8" of room in the middle between the two seats. There's no way any other carseat would fit between these two monsters, and the RAV4's rear seat is actually pretty roomy depth and width-wise. Our saving grace is that the rear seat slides back and forth several inches. We have the rear seat slid all the way back, which enables us to have the front passenger seat back a decent amount before hitting the car seat behind it. A lesson learned is to take your car seats and try to fit them in the various vehicles you're considering. I like the Brittax Marathons, but with certain vehicles they just don't fit, especially when in rear-facing mode.

You are absolutely correct. We used nothing but Brittax Marathon's when my kids were born. When my wife went back to work and I needed to start doing the morning drop-off, we needed "extra" child seats for each car and because we were happy with the Brittax, we just bought two more. However, when #3 arrived, we realized there was no way to get 3 Brittax anything into the same vehicle and made a conscious effort to find a good, safe, NARROW car seat for our 2 & 4 year olds while keeping the Brittax for the infant.

What we found was the "Sunshine Kids Radian XT convertible" car seat. It's a tank and is only 14" wide at the base, 17" wide at the shoulder and it's good for children from 5lbs to 35lbs rear facing and 22lbs to 80lbs forward facing and can fold away when not in use. When I say tank, these things weigh about 35lbs alone.

We have the Radian's on the sides facing forward for the 3 & 5 yr olds and the Britax rear facing for the 1 year old and they fit fine in the Subie. Also helps to separate the "trouble makers" with the baby who they both dote on.

As they get older, we'll simply retire the Brittax's and replace it with another Radian "converted" to a forward facing booster for the oldest in the middle and the younger kids on the outside.

That arrangement will definitely generate other "social" problems between the kids, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

The more I read about the RX-8 the more I think it's the perfect car, except the gas mileage will be 24 mpg at best or less than 16 if I have too much fun. I planned to spend more on fuel than with the Focus, but I can't justify spending as much as $2000 more every year on gas. I keep coming back to getting a relatively nice Miata for the commute and get a cheaper 4-door for kiddie hauling. Some options; truck or SUV for towing, abused WRX, or Legacy GT. Both of the latter could be fun to begin rally-xing.

Nate90LX wrote: ...The more I read about the RX-8 ... gas mileage will be 24 mpg at best or less than 16 if I have too much fun...

You are an optimist!

Per Schroeder wrote:

Greg Voth wrote: Something about coming down to Florida seems to have cursed them though as none of them are running at the moment.

Fixed.

Hey the yellow one runs just fine and the white one runs but not well. The yellow one is making some sort of suspension/driveline noise now. It is speed dependent but is still there with the motor off. It ran fine from KS down to FL. It is a curse. Damn this temperate climate.

ww wrote: You are absolutely correct. We used nothing but Brittax Marathon's when my kids were born. When my wife went back to work and I needed to start doing the morning drop-off, we needed "extra" child seats for each car and because we were happy with the Brittax, we just bought two more. However, when #3 arrived, we realized there was no way to get 3 Brittax anything into the same vehicle and made a conscious effort to find a good, safe, NARROW car seat for our 2 & 4 year olds while keeping the Brittax for the infant. What we found was the "Sunshine Kids Radian XT convertible" car seat. It's a tank and is only 14" wide at the base, 17" wide at the shoulder and it's good for children from 5lbs to 35lbs rear facing and 22lbs to 80lbs forward facing and can fold away when not in use. When I say tank, these things weigh about 35lbs alone.

Great info, we'll have to look into that carseat if we ever run into space issues. I'm glad to learn that "safe" and "narrow" are not mutually exclusive!

dj06482 wrote:

ww wrote: You are absolutely correct. We used nothing but Brittax Marathon's when my kids were born. When my wife went back to work and I needed to start doing the morning drop-off, we needed "extra" child seats for each car and because we were happy with the Brittax, we just bought two more. However, when #3 arrived, we realized there was no way to get 3 Brittax anything into the same vehicle and made a conscious effort to find a good, safe, NARROW car seat for our 2 & 4 year olds while keeping the Brittax for the infant. What we found was the "Sunshine Kids Radian XT convertible" car seat. It's a tank and is only 14" wide at the base, 17" wide at the shoulder and it's good for children from 5lbs to 35lbs rear facing and 22lbs to 80lbs forward facing and can fold away when not in use. When I say tank, these things weigh about 35lbs alone.

Great info, we'll have to look into that carseat if we ever run into space issues. I'm glad to learn that "safe" and "narrow" are not mutually exclusive!

Kinda off on a tangent, but when I was a kid, I remember laying on the back deck of the family Olds 442 and looking up into the wild blue yonder. Somehow I survived to adulthood. Now kids have to be in some kind of special seat until they leave for college. What has this world come to?

I got scolded by a passer-by because I was biking, in a suburban park, without a helmet for either myself or my daughter (who was riding in a bike trailer, secured with a 5pt harness.)

I'm not saying car seats aren't important, but there are times that we will inevitably be working 'without a net.' I was probably 100 times more likely to be killed on the drive to and from the park, than biking at low speed on a bike trail without a helmet.

My dad let me drive that 442 when I was young enough to still be in a booster by today's standards.

Are we too risk-adverse these days?