|
I never knew what the RX stood for, interesting. This is what a rotary should look and sound like : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDL0QqOjmAc  I use to have a black on black 91 GXL with a mild porting and some other poo poo. I remember mixing 2-stroke in with the fuel due to some problem with the oiling system. The 'rats nest' was almost certainly improperly removed, so idling was always a game of chance. You would also smell of gas and oil after riding in it for any amount of time.. Holy poo poo do I miss that thing.. To bad almost every FC in Ohio seems to have rusted back into the earth. Dr.Caligari fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Sep 14, 2014 |
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
kastein posted:Based off some info I found on driftworks, I can put a toy 22re, 3vze ( IIRC the RX-8 uses the same six speed as the newer 6-spd Miatas do (the RX-8 was derived from the Miata platform, stretched and made into a hardtop). Anything that bolts into a Miata should largely work, barring fitment/space issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 03:11
|
|
), 5vzfe, 1uz, 2uz, 1jz, 2jz, chryco 3.9/3.7 v6, 5.2/5.9/5.7/4.7 v8, 2.8 CRD, jeep 4.0 or 2.5, amc 304/360/390/401 v8, or a chevy 3800, iron duke, 2.8/3.1/3.4 v6, or ls4 from a late model impala ss into one with all junkyard parts. Not sure I trust the source info though... can anyone verify that an rx8 uses an r154 aisin/toyota trans?
|
Turns out the bellhousing is integral on the rx8 6 speed and the guys on driftworks were smoking some good poo poo when they posted the info I based that on, unfortunately. It is probably mazda/rotary engines only like you said, barring an adapter plate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Yeah, never trust drifters for technical information. They're like the Jawas of the car world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Sandcrawler for sale, low miles, mechanic owned and maintained, NEVER BEEN JUMPED
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Don't buy it, that thing has a bad motivator! They tried to rip me off with that 'crawler last week!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Also not sure about the RX8 but they usually put Getrag boxes behind the rotaries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Any chance of dropping the 2.3 DISI turbo from the MS3/6 into an RX8? That'd be one hell of a fun car at that point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:I never knew what the RX stood for, interesting. I think this is the correct sound. http://youtu.be/LxAfpiNlxBA E: loving mobile Literally Lewis Hamilton fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
e: Fixed in the time it took to write a snarky post. e2: Nope, still hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
OEM 93-95 RX-7s look pretty dated at this point. Most of y'all are thinking of the refresh we never got (with the round tails, better front end), and most of the big wheeled versions you see on the interwebs with nice paint and everything. Also Japan kept on pumping them out for 10 years, so the refresh and Gran Turismo days helped. I love them, but to say that they're not pleasant remains of good 90s styling is disservice to how kind of quaint they are at this point. They're also getting really rare at this point so rarity makes you not get sick of them. I find it amusing that y'all are talking about how unreliable the RX8 is when compared to the FD it's a 90s Civic. Also remember you could buy a hell of a car for the price they were selling FDs for back in the day (35k-42k base to loaded in '93, around 70k(Two Evos worth of a car!!) today), given the fact that at 60k you were out an engine. I've never gotten into RX8s. My Mom has one and it drives well enough, I don't think she revs it high enough though. The whole rotary worship going on in the design is embarrassing, along with the way too happy front end of the first generation. RE-Amemiya/Mazda Speed/C-West make some fiberglass bumper covers that make it look better, but the proportions are still not anywhere near as good as the outgoing FD. The refresh R3 model was nice, but it was too little too late. Also the stock stereo blows.  RX8 R3 interior with Recaros. The 350z/370z are poorly proportioned and ungainly IMO. Too much like their Altima distant cousin/R35 GTR big brother. Octopus Magic fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Octopus Magic posted:along with the way too happy front end of the first generation. The 2nd gen is the one that got the grin. I won't disagree that the looks are not the best (though better than the 350Z), but they're livable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
nm posted:The 2nd gen is the one that got the grin. I won't disagree that the looks are not the best (though better than the 350Z), but they're livable. The grin is better than the Austin Healey-esque  faceEdit: Sports cars should look pissed off or at least quizzical. See the 1995-1996 Eclipse grin to the 1997-1999 scowl.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:Yes, I present for Fo3's education, the Mazda RX-4 wagon: Umm, the first car I ever owned was an rx3, my second car a rx4. And I still have unfinished project cars in my driveway, an rx3 and a rx4 (I just kept buying rx3s and rx4s until I found some with less rust than the first two). I know what RX means. Read what I said. Something something 13b turbo or 20b to be called an rx still... The thing I was trying to convey was that rx cars in their day offered high performance for their era compared to piston cars, the rx8 did not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Talking about Mazda sticking the 13B/20B in a production car when the RX-8 came out is a crack-baby fever dream. Those engines were un-buildable because of tightening emissions standards. The main revolution in engineering the RX-8 offered was a rotary that ran relatively clean and the penalties were crippling fuel economy and relatively crap power. It was a lovely engine resulting from a last-gasp engineering effort; they all knew rotaries were ultimately doomed. My understanding was that the older rotary cars offered unique performance and were extremely light compared to a piston-engined car of similar performance; certainly the last RX-7's weighed about the same as an S15 but with way more power and sophistication. They weren't as fast as the GT-R or Supra or what have you, but they were a LOT lighter. I'm production vehicles built to legislation and marketed at the public, obviously. What the aftermarket could do with them is a completely different story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
True, emmissions, and a crack baby dream. I'm just saying why the rx8 doesn't work for me, and many other people as a performance car. All the downsides of having an rx, none of the benefits. That RX4 wagon with a 13B probably had about 130hp, 4cyl piston engines were like 70hp, so there's a reason to get an rx back then. I don't think the average 4cyl in a regular passenger mazda car even cracked 100hp until the 1990s, (turbo 323 gtx etc not included). E: Also, if that rx4 wagon was a 1973 AP model, it was probably at the time, the cleanest emmissions vehicle in the world. /Jezza How's that for a laugh compared to the rx8? Fo3 fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Sappo569 posted:Reminded me more of a dirt bike than a fart Seems appropriate -- the wankel engine always seemed to me like it couldn't decide whether it was a two-stroke or a four.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
No pictures, but a coworker just bought a 2004 Cavalier 5 speed for $600. 150k miles. He hasn't titled it yet, so he hasn't brought it to work yet - he says it's "a little rough", but runs/drives good. It's new enough to have an Ecotec (probably a 2.0, with the same Getrag F23 I have), so it's a terrible car with a pretty solid drivetrain. I'm actually kind of jealous, even if it is a J body. It'd make a fantastic delivery beater. randomidiot fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
some texas redneck posted:No pictures, but a coworker just bought a 2004 Cavalier 5 speed for $600. 150k miles. He hasn't titled it yet, so he hasn't brought it to work yet - he says it's "a little rough", but runs/drives good. With 150K it hopefully has had the timing chain done, if not it will need it pronto.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Talking about Mazda sticking the 13B/20B in a production car when the RX-8 came out is a crack-baby fever dream. Those engines were un-buildable because of tightening emissions standards. The main revolution in engineering the RX-8 offered was a rotary that ran relatively clean and the penalties were crippling fuel economy and relatively crap power. It was a lovely engine resulting from a last-gasp engineering effort; they all knew rotaries were ultimately doomed. The RENESIS offered the best N/A rotary power that a 2 rotor engine ever got from the factory. How is that crap power? Also FWIW from here: http://www.rx7.com/techarticles_rx8power.html quote:Keeping in mind that Mazda did not increase the displacement of the Renesis, and they managed the amazing engineering feat of reducing emissions at idle to 10% of what the 13B-REW (the Renesis’ immediate predecessor) produces at idle, and 15% of what the 13B-REW produces at cruising speeds and loads. Octopus Magic fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
I'm with Octopus Magic on this one. I still love the way the 8 looks (overdone triangles or no), and the Renesis is a fine engine that doesn't have any problems that aren't common to any rotary engine. Plus that chassis really does make a lot of evils easier to ignore. That being said I would never own one as a primary vehicle but that's not particular to the RX-8 either. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Still think an RX-8 with a BPD in it would be a lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
I like BPs but I think I'd rather have an aluminum block in an RX-8.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Octopus Magic posted:The RENESIS offered the best N/A rotary power that a 2 rotor engine ever got from the factory. How is that crap power? It's crap power because it's less power than competing piston engines, rendering the whole car pointless. The S2000 was a cheaper, lighter car with more power, waaaay better fuel consumption and a more sensible package overall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:It's crap power because it's less power than competing piston engines, rendering the whole car pointless. The S2000 was a cheaper, lighter car with more power, waaaay better fuel consumption and a more sensible package overall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:That being said I would never own one as a primary vehicle but that's not particular to the RX-8 either. I have one that I've been using as a primary vehicle for the last year and a half. Keeping it topped off on oil and making sure to redline it at least once or twice a trip has kept it going strong. 118k miles and still runs great. That said I have to agree about not getting one as your primary/only car. The worst part isn't the goofy engine or even the aesthetics. It's the two cupholders in line with the shifter that make it impossible to use the arm rest and jams straws and lids into your forearm whenever you change gears.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Unfortunately where I live means lots of short trips and not a lot of opportunities to hit redline so I'd probably choke the poor thing with carbon within a year. My wife used to work with a woman who had an 8 as a daily driver but she lived right off a highway for her commute so she could keep it properly burned out. For context, I drove my Integra hard for a little bit today (more than it usually sees these days) and burned enough carbon that it smelled like I had just discharged a firearm of some sort. Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:It's crap power because it's less power than competing piston engines, rendering the whole car pointless. The S2000 was a cheaper, lighter car with more power, waaaay better fuel consumption and a more sensible package overall. How is a 2 seat roadster a more sensible package than a 4 seater (the back seats can actually be used too) with a trunk you can actually fit things in? What other cars were even in the same space at the time the RX-8 was around? MX-5? (if the S2000 is considered in the same space, then the MX-5 has to be too) S2000? Nissan 350Z? G35? (this is a stretch) Am I forgetting anything? The closest car I can think of to the RX-8 is the FR-S/BRZ but they didn't overlap in production at all. They get a lot of the same criticism as well, low torque, not enough power, no turbo, etc... The Toyobaru definitely wins in the fuel consumption department though. Great Beer posted:That said I have to agree about not getting one as your primary/only car. The worst part isn't the goofy engine or even the aesthetics. It's the two cupholders in line with the shifter that make it impossible to use the arm rest and jams straws and lids into your forearm whenever you change gears. Panty Saluter posted:Unfortunately where I live means lots of short trips and not a lot of opportunities to hit redline so I'd probably choke the poor thing with carbon within a year. My wife used to work with a woman who had an 8 as a daily driver but she lived right off a highway for her commute so she could keep it properly burned out. How short are you talking? It's not advisable to move the car from the driveway to the street and just shut it off, but even just going around the block is enough. And as far as redlining it, it doesn't matter what gear you're in. Redline in 1st is what, 40mph? When I had mine I always wondered if load was even important when doing the "maintenance" revving. The engine is still spinning when revving to the red line in neutral. GutBomb fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
I'd say load would be important cause it'd get things hot enough to burn built-up carbon away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Load is just as important as RPM when doing an Italian tune-up. Loading it will get it hotter, faster; engines generally don't like to be revved to the limit without load, it's a bit like dry-firing a gun or bow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Considering the speed limit on my road is an (inexplicable) 40 MPH winding out first gear might even be a bad idea, especially with a yowling rotary. Also I thought first gear redline in an RX-8 was like 45-50? Anyway, don't help me justifying one as a daily driver. I am already quite adept at spending my money foolishly
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Another Iowa Cars post, and this time, with an update on how one of the previously posted cars is doing! It was like this on the other side, too. I'm not going to knock the guy for wanting to keep his car, but it is a Cavalier.     This one was abandoned outside of an elementary school. Iowa Cars Update I took this picture just over a year ago: 9/12/13  9/14/14  Iowa is not kind to any car, no matter how terrible. Going back a few pages to the cupholder placement talk, my '94 Thunderbird features this lovely cupholder that comes out of the center console:  The seats don't have arm-rests, so you lose a place to put your arm, and watch where your elbow goes, that's the trunk and fuel-door release buttons next to the holder! Also, in terrible car stuff, I was looking to get the rust patched on my own car, so it wouldn't fit in with my Iowa cars posts, and the estimate for two rocker panel holes and cleaning up under the doors came out to be $2,600 for patch and repaint. And they are the only place in town that'll do rust work. Ulfhednar fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Ulfhednar posted:Going back a few pages to the cupholder placement talk, my '94 Thunderbird features this lovely cupholder that comes out of the center console: How the hell does the other person get to their cup? You'd think cupholder positioning would be a solved problem by now. I love mine, except for the glossy plastic that seemingly gets scratched by shirt sleeves and air. Everything fits securely from a can of Red Bull to a 0.75L Camelbak water bottle, and there's even a rubber insert you can take out for easy cleaning. 
Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Mighty Horse posted:With 150K it hopefully has had the timing chain done, if not it will need it pronto. I thought it was the tensioners that let go early, not the chain? Still.. $600 car. Kind of hard to justify the expense of having a shop do the chain. The tensioner screws into the back of the block and isn't that difficult to swap. randomidiot fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:How the hell does the other person get to their cup? You'd think cupholder positioning would be a solved problem by now. I love mine, except for the glossy plastic that seemingly gets scratched by shirt sleeves and air. Everything fits securely from a can of Red Bull to a 0.75L Camelbak water bottle, and there's even a rubber insert you can take out for easy cleaning. Tall cups would still make this arrangement untenable with a manual transmission.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
My lincoln has 5 ashtrays and 0 cupholders. Priorities, folks. Now, let's see one of you defend this one.       
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Now, let's see one of you defend this one. It's a loving Daewoo, how safe could it have been to begin with?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
 How many people died in that car?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
some texas redneck posted:
14 and counting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
some texas redneck posted:
I'm not going to lie to you. We made some mistakes with the clown college student shuttle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 05:30
|
|