Let’s play a little game
A person will post a car he/she believes to be underrated. The rest will try to make fun of the car and convince that the car indeed deserves the reputation it gets, while the poster will have to defend it. I believe a game like this can allow for people to share interesting facts about certain cars.
To get the game flowing, the first person who comments on the car gets to post on the next one and OP is only allowed to defend the car once.
I’ll start:
First off, let me start saying that this thread will scalate quickly, because, you know, internet
→ Looks ugly, it’s like they smashed togheter 2 ugly cars. The rx-7 looked sexy, good amount of curves and pop-ups, this one doesn’t even look fast.
→ Rotary engines are waaaay overated, if you want a engine with high power, low weight and less moving parts, just get a turbine.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
#MORE TRIANGLES
@Sillyworld
Looks are subjective. I think it looks very pretty unique in a way that no other car has managed to emulate.
Aren’t turbine engines godawful on surface applications? A wankel rotary while also more suitable for aircraft applications isn’t hampered at all at low altitudes.
Also note about Rotary engines is that the 13B-MSP RENESIS in the RX-8 is literally a 30 year old design at the end of it’s life cycle and it’s biggest change is only having side ports. Not to mention that the only driving force in their development is a relatively small independent car company with not even a tenth of the resources Toyota or VAG has. While it is not fair to say the wankel should be compared to an equivalent piston engine of the 50s as the Rotary has benefited from advances in internal combustion technology such as fuel injection and turbocharging, even then for an engine that remain relatively unchanged internally it was a pretty big achievement. People like to say it gets very bad mileage and while yes it absolutely does, it’s equally torqueless rival the S2000 barely gets 2 MPG more (16 plays 18) and it’s other pudgy rival the Nissan 350Z gets one more (16 plays 17)
Nevertheless it is the rotary’s packaging and compactness that allows Mazda to make a 4 door saloon capable of matching Honda’s best sports car effort in handling. It could match a much more powerful Nissan 350Z and BMW M3 E46 in the TG Test Track. The Clarkson himself said:
“It handles, too. Unlike most coupés this one sends its power to the proper end of the car —— the back. So the front does the steering, the rear does the driving and you sit in the middle wondering why all cars don’t feel this way; so balanced, so right and omigod I’ve just gone past 7000rpm again and it’s all gone blurry”
Also the RX-8 in all of it’s torqueless glory actually has slightly more torque than the AP1 S2000. (159 lb/ft plays 153 lb/ft)
K done, Silly’s turn.
@Deskyx actually I was just “testing” (or teasing really) and I’m glad I received a civilized response.
Yeah, looks are subjective and there are sort of variables related to them (such as target demographic, the era the car was designed, the purpose of the car), but I can almost assure that the rx8 won’t be remember in a few years as “one of the most beatiful cars” 
the design isn’t timeless (old jags) or aggressive enough (viper), nor sexy (aston martin).
A turbine will maybe only work with a CVT IMHO, I just said that because power vs weight is the usual thing that most people reffer when talking about rotaries, HOWEVER, talking about more real stuff, the block of the engine is relatively light because of the low displacement, but when you took into account the weight of everything else that is attached to the engine (like the turbo piping), it should weight something more close to reciprocal engines (maybe a few kg less than a LS) I still have to check that, I haven’t found good data on that.
Also, for how the engine works, there is some sort of “conversion rate” between reciprocal vs wankel (in order to compare apples to apples) and IIRC a 1.3L wankel should be compared to a 4L reciprocal engine (gonna post the souce on that later) and if that’s correct, a 4L engine is waaay better in almost any aspect (but weight) than a rotary.
I can’t say, I haven’t drive any of those cars but yeah, compactness and lightweight is always a good thing.
Hahahahaha i don’t think Clarkson is actually certified for saying that stuff. It actually most be a really hard take on actual journalist with engineering background, Clarkson is more a celebrity than an actually authority on how cars handle, sure he drive lots of things, but at the end, his job is entertain than rather inform or educate
Torque is rather irrelevant, but the power-curve isn’t. If it’s paired to a good gearbox, there shouldn’t be any problem. And I sort of remember the S2000 having an awful gearing, but I can be wrong.
The thing why I dislike the RX-7/8 is the fact it is sort of untouchable, it can’t be criticized, and that is something that gives me fuel to go against it.
Calling the RX-8 a 4-door saloon is like saying a bicycle with training wheels is a quad bike.
RX8 is NA lol.
The unmodified 13B-MSP Renesis Engine has a weight of 112 kg (247 lbs), including all standard attachments (except airbox), but without engine fluids (such as coolant, oil, etc.). The 13B-REW of the RX7 FD is 400 lbs+ because of it’s insanely complicated turbo system.
And while it does make power three times in a combustion cycle, people and racing bodies agree its about 2x.
The cars are about as polarizing as the elections… You either believe they are absolute trash or believe they are god’s gift to the earth and can do no wrong.
And I’ve gone and defended it again… Anyone wants to post another car?
derp
the engine is way underpowered for it’s displacement, even from back when it was made
It was also pretty quick for the time, and very aerodynamic.
Had like 0.32 drag, and they could usually pull 0-100 in 7-8 seconds.
Atleast I have a car 
A lot of soccer-mom mobiles wreck that car on the 0-100.
Examples, and also not for the time it was released in.
Also in the later 80’s it could apparently do 0-100 in under 7 seconds.
It is completely unknown out side of Auto Enthusiasts.
It’s named after socks
WHAT A BEAUT… powered by a mighty… “whatever came up for sale in a scrapyard that week” engine…
It was a great car, without any serious investors.
kinda like a reverse DeLorean.
