Quote from waggie945:
I'm 6'1" and my head did not hit the roof of the car, unlike what Rearden-Metal mentioned in his post about the G35, which I also noticed. 
I too looked at the G-35, and I am not quite as tall. (6 feet even). And like you guys, my head brushed the top of the G-35 with the sunroof. But with a little seat and wheel adjustment, I could have lived with it. But I decided I really wanted a convertible more than a luxury car. I knew the G-35 was not going to issue a ragtop. The Z-350 convertible was just about to become available, but I did not like the interior of the Z as much as the Infinity. The Infinity is outright luxurious compared to the Nissan Z.
I ended up with the BMW z4. Plenty of headroom, a ton of legroom.
When the RX-8 came out, a very interesting thing happened. Mazda made an error in their horsepower rating. I forget the exact numbers, but they over stated the horsepower by something like 40 HP. To make up for this, they offered the people who bought the cars (before correcting their HP rating) a choice of a full refund if they returned the car, or a rebate of $500. My neighbor had bought one. He had it for about a week, and though he liked the car a lot, he decided that he liked the idea of a convertible. I didn't know the guy except to wave to, but he lives on my street. He saw me in getting out of my car one day, and asked if he could sit in it. He is 6'5 or so. Towers over me by a lot.
He went back to Mazda, got a refund, and bought the Z4. It is amazing that the Z4 has that much head room. The RX-8 just looks roomier from the outside, but according to him, the BMW was better for his size (maybe he just talked himself into it).
I know if I put the seat all the way back in the Z4, I cannot get the clutch pedal all the way down without making it a stretch. So I can see how there is plenty of leg room for a guy that tall. But the headroom issue is something else. The convertible top is lined (there is a manual unlined top, which probably has even a bit more head room...but who's buying a BMW with a manual top??). But it just blows me away that the Z4, which really is a MUCH smaller car overall than the G-35 has that much more headroom (of course with the top down, Shaq or King Kong would have enough headroom
).
I will say, as much as I love the BMW, (and I think it's all in all the best car I have ever owned), the potential of the Wankel motor is amazing. It seems almost unfair that so much power can be derived from so little displacement.
I had an RX-7. One of the most fun cars I ever owned. 1979 (first year). Pretty damn fast for a car with a motor with the displacement of a big (not huge) motorcycle.
What I remember most about the RX-7 was that when I first got it, it took a while to get used to how smooth it was. I got into the habit of looking at the tach to be sure I had not stalled. I had tried to start the car too many times while the motor was running those first weeks. Also, there was a buzzer to let you know you had hit red line. The car revved so freely you just would not know it if you were not used to the shift speeds, or if you did not watch the tach. (The BMW also revs pretty freely, but there is a governor that cuts the fuel off at red line...(computer chips have changed cars dramatically since 1979).
All in all, the rotary is a great motor...... I think the only drawback is fuel efficiency. And I am sure they will figure that out. But it must be a significant problem since they only have used the rotary in sports cars since the RX-7 was introduced. Prior to that, the rotary motors were used in very plain family cars...station wagons and typical early 70's "box cars". I think there was even a little pickup truck with a rotary motor.
Gas was a lot cheaper in those days.
Peace,
RS
