TR Forums

Ok, I'm going to be coming into a bit of money soon & decided I've gone long enough driving my truck. I want a sporty car again! The 2 models I've whittled down to are the Mazda RX8 & the Mitsubishi Eclipse. I used to own a 1990 Eagle Talon TSi & loved it, that's why I'm including the Eclipse in my short list. I'm looking around 2005-2007 model year for both just because there seems to be a lot of choices within the price range I've set for myself. For example, here's a 2005 RX8 GT for $11.5k & here's a 2006 Eclipse. I'm very intrigued at the RX8's ability to get 250HP with only a 1.3L engine. From the reviews I've read it seems to be a very fun car to drive.
The Eclipse is a little bit bigger, but it does have either the turbo 2L or the V6. I think both would be fun cars to have, but I just want to see if any of you fellow gerbils have any input into my dilemma.

The RX-8 is a very fun car to drive. After having the luxury of driving and riding in my brother in law's RX-8, here's my impressions:

1. It's low to the ground and corners like no one's business on a paved road. Driven properly, it's like a roller coaster. A good one.
2. It glues itself to the road, and the car feels solid around you. This doesn't feel like a super-powered sedan that can go fast but wobbles and creaks, it's a pure sports car.
3. Since it's low to the ground, it's a bit harder to enter and exit the vehicle...
4. ... and it's relatively small inside. You can fit two people and a bag of groceries. You can Tetris some passengers in the rear seat, but it's not optimal, especially for long trips.
4. The car feels light and nimble in addition to being so. This is compared to my WRX, so it could just be the difference in the feel of AWD vs. RWD, as the WRX has only a slightly higher curb weight.
5. In challenging weather the RX-8 is ineffective. RWD just can't cut it if you lose traction. My brother in law has an old Subaru that he takes out whenever it rains or snows.

The RX-8 is a fun car, but as with any car, go into it knowing its limitations. Really, there's nothing on this planet that can replace the feeling of cruising at rpm that most cars can't even get to when they redline. I consider it the on-road cousin to my WRX. If you go the RX-8 route, you're gonna have you some fun

Honestly I wouldn't go with either. RX8 while very cool and fun sports car tends to be quite unreliable due to the rotary engine. Yes, the one that gets 250hp from 1.3L of displacement. These are very sensitive to maintenance and since you're buying used you'll never know what previous owner did or didn't do. It's not uncommon for those engines to go before 100K miles.

I'm not a fan of the newer Eclipses either. They're heavy and from that I gather not super reliable either but I suppose a bit more reliable than RX8s. If I were you I'd take a look at the 350Z or newer Miatas as well as S2000. Much better cars all around.

The modern Eclipse has more in common with a Pontiac Grand Am then it does with the old Talon. If it's really down to those two I would take the RX-8, just beware maintenance costs.

RWD please, though I prefer the last gen RX-7 twin turbo (preferably not riced out and abused).

The main issue with the RX-8 is that it's quite likely that the only people who know how to fix engine issues are the stealerships. Mom & Pop shops won't know how to deal with the Wankel unless they've owned one. Wankels also suck oil, as the tip seals on the rotor lobes are nowhere near as efficient as piston rings. The motor in the RX-8 is far better in this regard than all of the RX-7 motors, but it is something to remember.

Driving-wise, the RX-8 is much like a Honda V-TEC in that there is no torque anywhere on the curve. To get anywhere in a hurry, you'll be quite familiar with redline and the stick-shift. That said, a Wankel is a dream to run to redline as you just don't get the thrash we've come to expect from blown inline-4 motors. And yes, the RX-8 is a pure 2-person car. Its rear seats are as useful as the rear seats in a 911.

Between the two, the RX-8 in a heartbeat.

And, with snow tires and a limited slip diff, RWD is fine in the winter.

However, just because it's a "1.3L" engine, don't expect it to be efficient at all. (And, it depends on how you calculate the displacement. There are calculations that put it more like a 2.6L 4-stroke.)

bhtooefr wrote:

However, just because it's a "1.3L" engine, don't expect it to be efficient at all. (And, it depends on how you calculate the displacement. There are calculations that put it more like a 2.6L 4-stroke.)

Yeah, it drinks gas like water.

having driven both types of cars, my vote goes with the RX8.

FireGryphon wrote:

bhtooefr wrote:

However, just because it's a "1.3L" engine, don't expect it to be efficient at all. (And, it depends on how you calculate the displacement. There are calculations that put it more like a 2.6L 4-stroke.)

Yeah, it drinks gas like water.

I've heard this before. Forgive a total engine noob, but why does the rotary engine gulp down fuel so viciously despite being a smaller engine than comparative non rotary engines?

Synchromesh wrote:

If I were you I'd take a look at the 350Z or newer Miatas as well as S2000. Much better cars all around.

The 350Z & S2000 are out of my price range & I sure as hell wouldn't be caught in a Miata unless I was drunk & some hot chick was driving me home.

bhtooefr wrote:

And, with snow tires and a limited slip diff, RWD is fine in the winter.

However, just because it's a "1.3L" engine, don't expect it to be efficient at all. (And, it depends on how you calculate the displacement. There are calculations that put it more like a 2.6L 4-stroke.)

It's not going to be driven in the snow, so winter driving isn't an issue. I'm sure it's nowhere near as bad on gas as my current money thief I call my 2003 Blazer. The 4.3L Vortec is a great engine, but a small block 350 gets better mileage.

Are you sure those are the only two options on the table? The RX-8 is a great driver's car, but as other have said, it's neither economical nor necessarily reliable. If you know of a good shop that specializes in rotaries, you can probably skate by on the latter (cozy up to some club racers and find out where they take their cars; at least half of them in my neck of woods seem to race RX-7s), but what I hear from many people is that a 13B-REW needs to be rebuilt every 100,000 miles. Period. As for the Eclispse... well, anymore its just a fat, bulbous hairdesser's coupe; no trace left of the zippy rally-star DSMs of days past.

It'd start a little above your current range, and there's the matter of convertible-ness and no rear seat to consider, but early S2000s are starting to dip into ~$10K territory. Apart from the engine architecture, it's a very similar car to the RX-8.

EDIT:

MaxTheLimit wrote:

why does the rotary engine gulp down fuel so viciously despite being a smaller engine than comparative non rotary engines?

A rotary engine doesn't provide as effective a combustion chamber as a piston engine, leading to incomplete combustion of the air-fuel mixture in the chamber. In addition, a non-trivial portion of the expanding gases in the chamber can escape around the apex seals, reducing the energy that's transferred to the crankshaft. A lot of the Wankel's great power-to-displacement ration has to do with its rev-happiness rather than combustion efficiency; with no reciprocating valvetrain to control and only two (counterbalanced) major moving parts, it tolerates very high RPMs. Since horsepower is just torque multiplied by engine speed, this obviously has power benefits. That's also why the Wankel has a reputation for gutlessness, since it only starts to make its rated power at the high end of the tachometer.

Hoser wrote:

I sure as hell wouldn't be caught in a Miata unless I was drunk & some hot chick was driving me home.

You need to be more confident in your manhood! Miatas are fantastic and inexpensive drivers' cars. The only people who buy into the girly-car stigma are people who haven't driven one in anger.

MaxTheLimit wrote:

I've heard this before. Forgive a total engine noob, but why does the rotary engine gulp down fuel so viciously despite being a smaller engine than comparative non rotary engines?

rotary engines are much more efficient in terms of power production, with a traditional reciprocating engine you have a lot of losses from friction and the fact that up/down motions need to be converted to rotating motions; with a rotary engine you have less internal friction thanks to the force being produced in an angular fashion; this leads to faster and higher revving engines; the faster and higher an engine revs, the quicker it produces power and consequently the quicker it needs fuel.

@Hoser: If you liked the 1g Eclipse and want to buy fast fun while staying under $10k, what you should be looking at is a 2000-2004 Celica GT-S (not the GT), a 2000-2005 Subaru Imprezza WRX, a 2003-2005 Lancer Evolution VIII, or any S2000 -- all with a manual transmission, of course. (You might have to search a bit longer to find a WRX or Evo that is under $10k and not beat to bits, but they're plausible options.) As noted, both the RX8 and the recent Eclipses have much to recommend against.

MaxTheLimit wrote:

why does the rotary engine gulp down fuel so viciously despite being a smaller engine than comparative non rotary engines?

Even aside from the above-noted efficiency issues, as well as the not-yet-noted debate over how to correctly report the displacement of a Wankel when comparing against conventional piston designs, there's the simple issue of how much power you're trying to get out of it, and how much time you spend in the high power region. In all small engines, high output comes from higher RPMs, where you're burning more fuel per unit time, and/or from using forced induction, in which you increase the fuel burn rate by increasing the density of the air entering the combustion chamber.

That's why, for example, a Lancer Evo X has a 16/22mpg fuel economy rating in spite of having a displacement of just 2.0L.

Hoser wrote:

Synchromesh wrote:

If I were you I'd take a look at the 350Z or newer Miatas as well as S2000. Much better cars all around.

The 350Z & S2000 are out of my price range & I sure as hell wouldn't be caught in a Miata unless I was drunk & some hot chick was driving me home.

Early S2ks are in the $10-12K range now, just check your local Cl. Considering Honda reliability (on a stock car of course) I'd say you're safe with buying even a 80K example from the right person.

As for Miatas you're extremely wrong. I own one and there is positively nothing girly about it. Mine came stock with very hardc0re racing Bilstein shocks, manual-tranny only, no power options at all, no power steering, thick antiroll bars, etc and it pulled close to 1G on wider wheels with no other mods. There are all sorts of mods for these including engine swaps that can make upwards of 350hp in a car that weighs about 2300lbs. My engine is all stock and there is no other car even close to this price range that delivers nearly as much fun. Trust me, I test-drove them all. I would buy another one in a heartbeat over any other cars mentioned in this thread so far. After all, they got their own racing series (Spec Miata). How many other cars can claim that?

Just ask bhtooefr, he owned (or still owns?) one.

MaxTheLimit wrote:

why does the rotary engine gulp down fuel so viciously despite being a smaller engine than comparative non rotary engines?

They don't use a lot more/less gas than any other gas engine. its horsepower that uses the gas. A piston engine is generally .5-.55 pounds of fuel per horsepower/hr, and rotaries are around .6 pounds of fuel per horsepower/hr figure gasoline at about 6lbs/gallon and do the math.

As far as rotary engines, my sisters rx7 we built for her in around 89-90 is still going just fine.

You have to be willing to accept the horsepower penalty. You will handle very well and with great driving skill can hustle an rx around, but any v8 (really any other sports car made) sports car will eat you alive on any straight section longer than 200yds no matter how much speed you carry through the turns. It usually gets old fast watching a $3,000 mustang GT from 1990 run off and hide no matter how much they wheel hop though the turns.

Synchromesh wrote:

Early S2ks are in the $10-12K range now, just check your local Cl. Considering Honda reliability (on a stock car of course) I'd say you're safe with buying even a 80K example from the right person

No s2k is safe all the s2k engines are crap. They will not stand any amount of prolonged High Rpm operation. A Neon has a much better engine. Forget about finding a replacement, they all have the rod hole through the block. Go to car-part.com and search. figure about $4,000 for an engine that runs. Honda reliability died in 1997, every honda made an automatic since then has a complete pos transmission with internal filter doomed to an early and expensive grave. ever since 2003 honda has went to bend tabs for attaching bodies, and any 12 year old can rip any body panel off with their hands. Don't like how a panel fits.. hell just push on it you can move it anywhere you want without loosening any bolts.

Hoser wrote:

Synchromesh wrote:

If I were you I'd take a look at the 350Z or newer Miatas as well as S2000. Much better cars all around.

The 350Z & S2000 are out of my price range & I sure as hell wouldn't be caught in a Miata unless I was drunk & some hot chick was driving me home.

Really? I "upgraded" from a Miata to an RX-8 two years ago. A couple of months ago, I sold my RX-8 and bought another Miata. Do yourself a favor and drive a Miata at least once, and drive it like you stole it. I recommend the NB with the sport Bilstein package, it is just an absolute blast to drive. Best smiles per gallon in a production car.

Also, I'll just add, I see lots of unnecessary hate for the RX-8 here. Yes, it uses oil -- it's designed to do so, and I didn't think it was a big deal to add a quart every third or fourth fillup or so. Yes, it's not very fuel efficient -- neither are other sports cars in its price range. Yes, the rear seats are small -- but only if you're comparing them to a sedan. I found them much more comfortable and way easier to get in and out of than any 2-door. The only thing I can't really argue with are comments on its power delivery -- if you want usable torque at any rpm, then a rotary-powered car is not for you. OTOH, if you can look at 5,000 rpm as less "time to shift" and more "just getting started -- I've got 4,000 more to go!", then there's lots of fun to be had.

I went back to the Miata because I missed the convertible, and I do lots of autocross. The RX-8 performed great, but she needs a track to run around on, and I didn't have the time/money/effort to take her to one on a regular basis. The Miata is very at home dodging cones.

RX8 has that hopeless 13B-REW rotary, it has all the downsides of a rotary engine in regards to reliability and none of the upsides of it either because its got barely any power and torque, if you want a rotary engined sports car, look at an FD RX-7, the turboed ones.

Also you have to warm them up for a few minutes before you even dare to take off, otherwise you'll foul the spark plugs and flood the engine as they pump in **** of fuel when they're cold, then you have to drive it carefully until it reaches operating temperature. When I was working at Honda, we had a Mazda dealership next to us and every day there would be 5 or 6 RX8s come in on tow trucks just because of this issue. They also suffer carbon build up issues and to clear that out, you need to drive it hard to clean it out (thats pretty fun, lol) but as you can guess, fuel economy suffers, big time. Its fairly hard to drive because its lack of torque so you have to give it lots of revs and accelerator, and being a naturally aspirated rotary, it doesn't really do much under 6000 RPM either. They need the engine pulled down to replace the apex seals every 100,000km and they use a lot of oil, every time you fill up the car you should check the oil level, its not uncommon to use a sump full of oil in about 5000km of driving.

On the upside, they handle fairly well and its has a nice interior and you might fit in the seat comfortably if you're not a fat 6 feet tall bastard like me.

It sounds fun to drive when you want to give it some, shifting gears all the time to keep it on the ball, but it will get old after a while on your daily run.

Basically, on the RX8:

- Slow in a straight line
- Uses lots of fuel
- Not very reliable

I've also had experience with the Honda S2000 working at a Honda dealership, a Toyota Corolla will murder you off the line until you hit 6000 RPM plus. It just don't do anything other than make noise under that point.

Also damn you for your cheap car prices, 2004 RX8s are just dipping under $20,000 here now in Australia for a high kilometer "only driven to the shops woman driver" (Worst kind of driving for an RX8) type.

What budget do you have to spend? I'm sure Chevrolet/Ford have some hero models you can pick up cheaply?

My cousin has a early 90s (first gen) MX-5 (your Miata?) with about $10,000 worth of engine work done to it, its such a light car and damn it goes quick now, that is a drivers car even in standard condition, it just has a reputation for hairdressers.

The Miata is basically a modern interpretation of the 1960s Lotus Elan, that doesn't break down often. (And is a good 700-1000 pounds heavier...) Excellent cars.

I still have mine, but it's a bit rusty, and needs engine work, and is non-running. (It's got something like 205,000 miles, so...)

Oh, and third-gen Miatas are basically short wheelbase piston engined RX-8s, chassis and suspension-wise. (In fact, the first thing everyone who isn't looking for a soft cruiser does, is grab the RX-8 performance suspension bits, if they didn't get upgraded suspension from the factory, and they're not going for something better.) They're widely considered to be softer than the first two generations of Miata, though.

Other things to look at... the MR-2 (the 3rd-gen is rather nice, from what I hear), the Pontiac Fiero if you want to go cheap (stick with a 1988 GT, though, or be prepared to get one of the 88 GT-like suspension retrofits)... although small mid-engine cars tend to not be practical as anything other than a pleasure vehicle, unless you put your cargo in the passenger seat, or they have a Porsche badge on them (the 914 and the Boxster were both decently practical exceptions to that rule.) And I'm not recommending an early Boxster.

The RX-8 isn't necessarily BAD, it's just a compromise. It is well-regarded for excellent chassis dynamics, the thing revs really, really high, it's just that it's not an appliance, and it's not fuel efficient.

Another car you might want to look at is a MazdaSpeed 6 - they handle really well (pretty much all Mazda's do, for that matter), the turbocharged 2.3 liter engine they have provides plenty of power (270 hp) while being quite a bit more reliable than the rotary in the RX-8. They are AWD as well, so you can slap on some snow tires, and go and have some real fun when it snows. And they have a back seat that is useful.

Yeah, but you can have fun with RWD, too.

cass wrote:

No s2k is safe all the s2k engines are crap. They will not stand any amount of prolonged High Rpm operation. A Neon has a much better engine. Forget about finding a replacement, they all have the rod hole through the block. Go to car-part.com and search. figure about $4,000 for an engine that runs. Honda reliability died in 1997, every honda made an automatic since then has a complete pos transmission with internal filter doomed to an early and expensive grave. ever since 2003 honda has went to bend tabs for attaching bodies, and any 12 year old can rip any body panel off with their hands. Don't like how a panel fits.. hell just push on it you can move it anywhere you want without loosening any bolts.

My 2000 Acura Integra begs to differ. Aside from maintenance it has been very reliable up to its current 135K miles. My uncle's 2005 Accord that he almost 100K on in 4 years begs to differ as well. His car was an automatic too. I know plenty of people with newer Hondas that had no issues for years. The only automatic that actually had an issue was the earlier 5-speed tranny coupled with some V6s on Acura TL, Odyssey and I believe some V6 Accords. Those really do go. Other than that their drivetrains are bulletproof. They wouldn't be selling over 400K Accords per year for 2 decades if they were unreliable. Mind you, most of those are automatic. What I do agree with is that they stopped making fun cars. That happened somewhere closer to end of 2000s when S2k got canceled. Civic Si is ok but a little blah and I won't even go into CRZ. But reliability is not something they don't have.

As far as S2k, I heard they were minor issues with differentials or rear axles on AP1 but I never heard anything about them blowing engines. Where did you get that info? I'm not saying specific individuals aren't able to do it with their special ways but I don't think it's a widespread phenomena.

I'll pass 200,000 miles on my third Honda product (Acura CL) before the end of this year. My 1998 Accord and 1990 Accord were both running great when I sold them with more than 200,000 miles each.

New Hondas do seem to be missing some of the fun-to-drive character that used to permeate the entire line. The 1990 Accord EX had a stiff suspension and quick steering. You won't find that in a Honda today.

I personally don't like either the RX-8 or the Eclipse. The RX-8 is underpowered and much too gas-thirsty and the Eclipse is too heavy (3400 lbs!) for a coupe.

Coincidentally, I just test drove a bunch of cars yesterday - the Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T, the 2012 Mustang V6, and the MINI Clubman S and Countryman S.

The Hyundai Genesis Coupe was surprisingly well sorted and a great handler, and the 2L turbo has more power than the Eclipse 2.4L (210 hp vs 162 hp). Visibility was much better than the Eclipse, and the rear seats were commodious enough to seat a 6-ft passenger (albeit not comfortably). In R-design trim, it also comes with a Torsen LSD and in all guises it has Brembo brakes, so they're packing some good hardware in the cars.

The Mustang was a big disappointment. Interior build quality was poor (the dash looks like it came off a production car in the mid eighties), and even with 90 hp more than the Hyundai, it was not as responsive on the throttle. The car handled like a whale, with a soft and wallowy suspension and lots of body roll. NVH noise was uncomfortably loud. It came off my list less than 5 minutes into the test drive.

The highlight for me yesterday was the Countryman S. Despite being the "big" MINI, it was still a damn sight lighter than the Eclipse (2882 lbs) and the engine (with overboost) was very torquey and responsive. Interior was very roomy for 3 adults (as tested) and the handling was very good. So was the road-handling, which absorbed bumps and road imperfections while still being taut and responsive in mid-corner. The downsides were the long action on the clutch and surprisingly expensive options ($250 for an armrest? @_@). It's still the car I liked the best and would like to stretch to afford if I could.

The Clubman S came off my list despite better handling and performance than the Countryman because of size and practicality. The Club door was more cosmetic than functional (you still had to fold the front seat down to get in), and the boot was barely big enough for a couple of suitcases. Worse, I felt packed like a sardine inside, and I'm not very big (5'8", 130 lbs).

There are still plenty of cars I'm shopping through. I tested the Mazdaspeed 3 (263 hp) a while back, and enjoyed the performance and handling. I'm also one of the few people who apparently don't mind the rapid-uptake clutch, but it is a bit noisy for long hauls. I also liked the Volvo C30 T5, didn't like the long clutch action, but the rest of the car was great (227 hp). I've also owned a Mk V GTI (200 hp) and an Infiniti G35 (307 hp) in recent years and thoroughly enjoyed driving (and owning both of them). They'd be on my buy-again list.

Anyway, I haven't decided for myself yet, but I hope my personal experiences have been helpful for the OP. Many of the cars also have pretty decent fuel economy, with good highway mpgs - Countryman S (32), Ford Mustang (31), Hyundai Genesis Coupe (30), VW GTI (30).

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I'll pass 200,000 miles on my third Honda product (Acura CL) before the end of this year. My 1998 Accord and 1990 Accord were both running great when I sold them with more than 200,000 miles each.

My '05 Civic Hybrid's up to almost 115kmiles now, and nothing ever done to it besides maintenance. I fully expect it to keep going for another hundred thou.

New Hondas do seem to be missing some of the fun-to-drive character that used to permeate the entire line. The 1990 Accord EX had a stiff suspension and quick steering. You won't find that in a Honda today.

This is certainly true of mine! Not so much my wife's '07 Civic LX. I haven't driven one of those old Accords so I can't compare, but her car is pretty sprightly and has lots of get-up-and-go for a 1.6L I-4.

Synchromesh wrote:

cass wrote:

My 2000 Acura Integra begs to differ. Aside from maintenance it has been very reliable up to its current 135K miles. My uncle's 2005 Accord that he almost 100K on in 4 years begs to differ as well. His car was an automatic too. I know plenty of people with newer Hondas that had no issues for years. The only automatic that actually had an issue was the earlier 5-speed tranny coupled with some V6s on Acura TL, Odyssey and I believe some V6 Accords. Those really do go. Other than that their drivetrains are bulletproof. They wouldn't be selling over 400K Accords per year for 2 decades if they were unreliable. Mind you, most of those are automatic. What I do agree with is that they stopped making fun cars. That happened somewhere closer to end of 2000s when S2k got canceled. Civic Si is ok but a little blah and I won't even go into CRZ. But reliability is not something they don't have.

As far as S2k, I heard they were minor issues with differentials or rear axles on AP1 but I never heard anything about them blowing engines. Where did you get that info? I'm not saying specific individuals aren't able to do it with their special ways but I don't think it's a widespread phenomena.

As the S2000 tends to get beat on a little bit more than other Hondas, I would at least run one by a knowledgeable mechanic before I bought it. As long as it got a clean bill of health I wouldn't worry too much about the engine, though. The diff on the other hand... I know a guy who's blown up two AP1 diffs in under 45,000 miles. However, he autocrosses it, and tend to do a lot of unfriendly things to the drivetrain in the process, moreso than a lot of other autocrossers I know. Apparently, though, swapping in an AP2 diff is fairly uncomplicated as these things go, and could be a cost-effective solution. Or you could just buy an AP2 and skip the issue altogether.

Hoser wrote:

Synchromesh wrote:

If I were you I'd take a look at the 350Z or newer Miatas as well as S2000. Much better cars all around.

The 350Z & S2000 are out of my price range.

There are several used 350Z's available in the Toronto area for less than the price of the two vehicles that you linked.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

There are several used 350Z's available in the Toronto area for less than the price of the two vehicles that you linked.

Really? Care to share the link please?

I used the link that you provided to Autotrader.ca and just plugged in a search for 350Z within 250 km of Toronto and sorted the results by price.

Ok, thanx.