RX8 or Honda Civic Type R

[Zaphrox]

So…I'm trying to decide whether or not to buy a new car and here is my predicament....

I have a 2005 RX8 Hi Power with 48000kms on the clock which I bought in Jan 2008. It is going in for its last service under the service plan tomorrow.

Now, I have seen a Honda Civic Type R for R209000 with 38000kms on the clock - pretty much the same price as I got the RX8 for.

I love the RX and hasn't given me a days problem, but the services and if anything does pack up will be costly. The Civic is under service plan until 2013 and is also has a warranty for another year or so.

What would you do and which is the better car to drive?



- OR -

[Anthro]

Service costs immediately comes to mind..and Honda is for the win.

[Screeper]

Civic for sure. Rx-8 - awesome car but service costs and *gulp* repair costs on that vehicle are too scary to comprehend.

[Frozenfireside]

Yeah I agree with these guys but there is an issue with choosing the honda.

yes the new Honda is great and all but lets not forget that the old Honda was, in Mr.Jeremys eyes, a better car.
Thus you could look at getting one of the old models instead. I checked the jap sellers and a really nice car is $10 K. Yes there are import fees but really it´s going to be a lot less than R300K.

I am in the UK at the moment and there are two neighbours with privately imported DC5 integras and they love their cars. Reliable, fast,handles very well and not expensive.

A DC5


I would rather get the old Civic than the new one but that´s just me and mine boy racer attitude. I know you might want the luxuries that the new car will give you.

[DAE_JA_VOO]

I would go with the Honda. I'm biased though, because that's one car I'm DYING to have. I've test driven it three times

[KALSTER]

Apart from the expensive services and parts, I'd go for the RX8 hands down! Beautiful car and practical. That rear axle of the Civic (thanks Jeremy ) is no good. And I think it is slower and a worse handler than the Mazda, no?

[DeeVeeDee]

The Mazda.

Before i got my Nissan Hardbody 3.3V6 I was going to get the RX-8 Hi power Ive done quite some research on them they are awesome.
even the guys from top-gear think so.

But after my Nissan i will never drive a car again!

[naughty]

i would not go with the Honda at all because of the normally aspirated Vtec engine - i would hate to be revving high up in the power range all the time just to have some vooma - imagine living at 8000RPM in each gear - it would be like living with a chainsaw and i would go absolutely potty

the main problem for me with the honda is that lower down in the rev range it does absolutely nothing abd this is borne out in most of the reviews - so if you want a track day special then the honda would be nice - but if you want a daily driver which you wont drive spiritedly all the time i would rather stick to the Mazda

it all depends on your driving style - the honda is fine for the aggressive bully boy type of driver IMHO whilst for quiter refined driving still with a bit of oomph i would stay with the mazda which can still give you a bit of go when required to only with less fuss

[Hex_Rated]

Doesn't the Mazda rev to 9k RPM, being a rotary?

[Frozenfireside]

Doesn't the Mazda rev to 9k RPM, being a rotary?

Yes it does but the Honda Type R cars are also very high revving although not quite as high.

I would take a Type R engine over a rotary on running costs alone.

[KillerByte]

Yeah rotary engines are great for sprinting but they have a habit of drinking more petrol than sasol can produce. I would kill for an RX8 just to say I have a Wankel Rotary engine (cue school boy ROFLOL)

[SykomantiS]

The whole point of a VTEC engine is to have decent torque all over your rev range, not only above the 5k5 rpm mark. Yes, the engine excels when vtec kicks in, but you don't have to rev the living daylights out of it to get usable power. From an economical point of view, VTEC wins. Rotaries are heavy on fuel, and even heavier on maintenance costs. Also, if I remember correctly, you you to overall a rotary every 200k km. There's also that inconvenience of the two stroke oil...

[GreyWolf]

The whole point of a VTEC engine is to have decent torque all over your rev range, not only above the 5k5 rpm mark. Yes, the engine excels when vtec kicks in, but you don't have to rev the living daylights out of it to get usable power. From an economical point of view, VTEC wins. Rotaries are heavy on fuel, and even heavier on maintenance costs. Also, if I remember correctly, you you to overall a rotary every 200k km. There's also that inconvenience of the two stroke oil...

Among my friends we have a joke : VTec, all the lag of turbo with none of the rewards. Its an awesome system, but don't expect anything remotely "kicking in". What the Honda does offer is bullet proof construction, and a comparatively high resale value.

As for the rotary overhaul every 200km, might have been true for the 1980's rotaries, but the Renesis engine found in the RX8 has no such issues. A friend of mine owned a 5 speed RX8 for a while and it never gave him issues. HOWEVER! he sold it because of the high fuel consumption. Do you know what he got instead? A Lumina SS V8! Yeah, them rotaries be THIRSTY! One more point to consider, you can run the Renesis on hydrogen, AS IS!

[SykomantiS]

I call BS on the SS being lighter on juice. RX8's are supposed to give around 11l/100km. I can't see how a supercharged V8 could be lighter on fuel. If it was, that dude probably never took his car for a service Rotaries are thirsty, yes, but no more than an equally powered V6 or V8. Unless you start modding the crap out of it, Fast & Furious style, then of course, all bets are off I've heard about some of the older 13BT's going as low as 3km/l, but then again, we're talking about a drag car, not street legal and not normal.

I'm not 100% familiar with the renesis motor, but as technology improves, doubtless so will reliability and component lifetime. It's still way less than a conventional 4 stroke, though.

As for the VTEC joke, you're right. It's a joke. Not even a good one. (the joke, I mean)

[GreyWolf]

I call BS on the SS being lighter on juice. RX8's are supposed to give around 11l/100km. I can't see how a supercharged V8 could be lighter on fuel.

Lumina SS is not supercharged. You can fit one on, but it doesn't come from the factory that way. The reason the Lumina is more fuel efficient than the Rotary is because you have ot rev the RX8 to get any torque out of it, whereas the Lumina pulls like a steam train from 0rpm. Its the same reason a BMW M3 is more fuel efficient at normal driving speeds than a Prius. No I am not joking, was proven on TopGear.

[naughty]

Its the same reason a BMW M3 is more fuel efficient at normal driving speeds than a Prius. No I am not joking, was proven on TopGear.

you cant take any stock in that test - the prius was run flat out not at normal driving speed and all the Beemer had to do was keep up. so obviously the car going flat out would use a lot of fuel whilst the beemer being a performance car would be more or less idling at the prius top speed

drive both flat out and the beemer will obviously go faster but will be thirstier than the prius - and drive both carefully the prius will again be slower but will definitely be far more frugal than the beemer

look at that episode again - the prius was definitely driven as fast as it could go and the beemer was just keeping up so that would count as beemer at normal driving speed with prius totally balls-to-the-wall

[GreyWolf]

yeah, but a prius flat out IS normal driving speed

To give further credence to my argument, the 2010 Prius has a LARGER 1,8l engine than the old one, which had a 1.6l. Dispite this, the new Prius has better fuel economy than the old one.

[SykomantiS]

yeah, but a prius flat out IS normal driving speed

To give further credence to my argument, the 2010 Prius has a LARGER 1,8l engine than the old one, which had a 1.6l. Dispite this, the new Prius has better fuel economy than the old one.

Same thing with my 92' Honda ballade 1.5 SOHC. Basically what you have is a car with a body disproportional to the engine size. Meaning, a car of that size and weight actually needs something with more oomph than they've given it to begin with. Poor design, IMHO.

Apologies on the SS, I thought it was a supercharged motor, as the normal lumina s is a naturally aspirated v6.

Anywhoo:

Under the bonnet

The SS is powered by a new light alloy 6.0 litre V8 with 270 kW on tap at 5 700 r/min and an almighty 530 Nm at 4 400 r/min.

Average fuel consumption during our test period was just under 15 l/100 km, but buying this car automatically assumes you'll develop a closer relationship with your fuel card.

vs the RX8's 11km/l, I'm still calling it BS.

[GreyWolf]

You can call BS all you want m8, I am telling you that my m8 sold his RX8 because it was thirsty, and now he has a Lumina and doesn't complain. It might also have something to do with the fact that he has the older 5.7l SS, not the new 6l one.

[SykomantiS]

I can see how that 300cc's might help...

[KALSTER]

Remember the RX8 runs a 1.3L rotary engine if I am not mistaken, which means 3 x 1.3L = 3.9L. Rotary engines are more thirsty on average AFAIK anyway.

[Frozenfireside]

It has 2 chambers (technically it´s two different engines combined to make 1.3l) of 650cc.
The design is very thirsty. The original rotary was 2 litres and came out during a huge oil crisis. It wasn´t popular.

[SykomantiS]

I never said they weren't. I know first hand just exactly how thirsty they can be. Doesn't change my opinion though. The SS is still more so, even the 5.7L will be 14.something, maybe 13.something liters to a 100 km. The RX8 would then still be lighter on juice. (just exactly why are you multiplying 1.3 with 3 anyway? Because of the combustion every 1/3 rotation?)

Anyway. This is not about the SS vs RX8.

[KALSTER]

(just exactly why are you multiplying 1.3 with 3 anyway? Because of the combustion every 1/3 rotation?)

From a vague memory, which turns out to be wrong. Seem there are various ways to work it out, but it still comes to more than 1.3L though.

I never said they weren't. I know first hand just exactly how thirsty they can be. Doesn't change my opinion though. The SS is still more so, even the 5.7L will be 14.something, maybe 13.something liters to a 100 km. The RX8 would then still be lighter on juice.

I wasn't necessarily agreeing with GreyWolf. Just thought I'd add to the conversation with an interesting tidbit to consider, which then turned out to be wrong. I don't have any experience with V8's or Wankels.

I'll bow out then.

[SykomantiS]

No biggie If you do find out how to calculate it though, gimme a holler.