Mazda future plans- the rotary lives

[SwampSurvivor]

5 months ago, I forgot that Mazda existed. I really like them as of late ... If I end up buying another new car, it's going to be a Mazda for sure.

They're really doing some neat things.

 

[mechanicx]

The rotary sure does rev smooth though, smoother than most straight 6's or a v12, almost like an electric motor. You can hardly tell if the engine it at 2k RPM or 8k RPM.

 

[bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: beast3300
Now that's sweet!!! The RX8 is a turd.


Originally Posted By: beast3300
I guess I should revise my statement. In my opinion the RX8 was a turd compared to the RX7.


No matter how you revise your statement, its still going to be wrong.

Comparing the RX-7 and the RX-8 is like comparing a Corvette with a Corsica. One is a full on sports car, and the other is a 4 door car. Two entirely different markets that the cars are being aimed at.

The RX-7 was a sports car first and foremost.
The RX-8 is a 4 door sports car, so it has extra weight to carry around, and is longer in the wheelbase than the RX-7 was, so you can't directly compare the two cars against each other.

Now, when you compare the RX-8 vs say the Nissan Maxima, the RX-8 feels lighter, handles better, brakes better, feels more naturally balanced, and you can actually drive it at a track at track pace, without under steering all over the place due to FWD.

Compare it against the Camry, and the first thing that happens is that you wake up behind the wheel, and realize that driving is FUN! A smile forms on your face, and you enjoy driving.

Compare it to a Malibu, and you wonder why the suspension is so firm, and can't help but wonder why it doesn't wallow through the corners, and feel your wrists dealing with a heavier steering wheel, and wonder why you can feel things so much better, giving you more confidence in the corners to add a bit more speed.

Compare it against the Subaru BRZ or Scion FRS, and you realize that you can actually put passengers in the rear seat, without having to chop their legs off first, saving you from having to clean out all that blood in the back, later.

But, you can't compare it to an RX-7.

The only things they have in common are 4 tires, and a funky little engine that goes HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

BC.

 

[SteveSRT8]

obviously someone has never driven an RX-7 Turbo II.

 

[bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Leave the rotary for race cars,if they want to use it.For everyday driving,the torquey piston engine has it all over the Wankel.I wonder what rotary torque off idle is? Cant be all that great.


Why does every think the rotary engine doesn't make torque?
It does.

Compare it current new to the market competition, the Subaru BRZ Scion FRS. With a 2 liter Flat 4 piston engine, they only make 150 ft-lbs of torque.

The RX-8 engine, with only 1.3 liters of displacement, makes 159 ft-lbs of torque.

Heck, the Mazda Miata, with its 2 liter 4 cylinder engine only makes 140 ft-lbs of torque.

If you made the rotary engine bigger, it would make even more torque. Add another rotor to it, and it makes even more torque.

How much torque do you expect from a 650cc x2 combustion chamber, anyway?

BC.

 

[beast3300]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Originally Posted By: beast3300
Now that's sweet!!! The RX8 is a turd.


Originally Posted By: beast3300
I guess I should revise my statement. In my opinion the RX8 was a turd compared to the RX7.


No matter how you revise your statement, its still going to be wrong.

Comparing the RX-7 and the RX-8 is like comparing a Corvette with a Corsica. One is a full on sports car, and the other is a 4 door car. Two entirely different markets that the cars are being aimed at.

The RX-7 was a sports car first and foremost.
The RX-8 is a 4 door sports car, so it has extra weight to carry around, and is longer in the wheelbase than the RX-7 was, so you can't directly compare the two cars against each other.

Now, when you compare the RX-8 vs say the Nissan Maxima, the RX-8 feels lighter, handles better, brakes better, feels more naturally balanced, and you can actually drive it at a track at track pace, without under steering all over the place due to FWD.

Compare it against the Camry, and the first thing that happens is that you wake up behind the wheel, and realize that driving is FUN! A smile forms on your face, and you enjoy driving.

Compare it to a Malibu, and you wonder why the suspension is so firm, and can't help but wonder why it doesn't wallow through the corners, and feel your wrists dealing with a heavier steering wheel, and wonder why you can feel things so much better, giving you more confidence in the corners to add a bit more speed.

Compare it against the Subaru BRZ or Scion FRS, and you realize that you can actually put passengers in the rear seat, without having to chop their legs off first, saving you from having to clean out all that blood in the back, later.

But, you can't compare it to an RX-7.

The only things they have in common are 4 tires, and a funky little engine that goes HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

BC.


So when is one's opinion wrong exactly? I don't care if the RX8 was made of pure gold and Zeus drove it. I think it's a turd.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: beast3300
So when is one's opinion wrong exactly?

When it doesn't make sense in light of the facts.

I'm not saying yours falls into that category, BTW. Just answering your question.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Leave the rotary for race cars,if they want to use it.For everyday driving,the torquey piston engine has it all over the Wankel.I wonder what rotary torque off idle is? Cant be all that great.


Why does every think the rotary engine doesn't make torque?
It does.

Compare it current new to the market competition, the Subaru BRZ Scion FRS. With a 2 liter Flat 4 piston engine, they only make 150 ft-lbs of torque.

The RX-8 engine, with only 1.3 liters of displacement, makes 159 ft-lbs of torque.

Heck, the Mazda Miata, with its 2 liter 4 cylinder engine only makes 140 ft-lbs of torque.

Of course. But note that the person you're responding to said "torque off idle." The problem is not peak torque, or even the size of the torque curve; the problem is low-end torque.

I don't mean to point the finger at anyone here, but I want to make some general statements. Never forget that most people want driving to be as thoughtless an experience as possible. It's hard for people like you and me to understand, but it's the natural outcome in a nation where driving is so often a chore to be endured rather than a pleasure. People don't want to have to think about it, and they don't want any fuss associated with it. Hence, they prefer engines that make torque at low RPMs: the torque is available immediately and doesn't involve much engine noise.

People are also taught to be averse to high RPMs as a matter of engine longevity. For most piston engines (and maintenance habits), that makes sense. It's going to be hard to convince them that the opposite is true of a rotary.

Thus, an engine that is relatively weak at low RPMs is simply deemed a weak engine. If the torque comes in above the RPM range in which most drivers start wetting their pants or getting annoyed by the noise (~4k), it might as well never come in.

 

[OVERKILL]

Nick, I see you are posting about Mazda now, your new love

LOL!!!!

Just buggin' ya bud

 

[MrCritical]

I only have one comment.

Check used car listings for Mazda cars with rotary engines (RX-Anything)

2nd-3rd selling point on 50-60% of them is always "new engine".

 

[Audios]

Originally Posted By: MrCritical
I only have one comment.

Check used car listings for Mazda cars with rotary engines (RX-Anything)

2nd-3rd selling point on 50-60% of them is always "new engine".


My friend has an Rx8 for sale. 3rd motor, 2nd catalyst. And he took care of it.

 

[d00df00d]

Manual or automatic?

Series 1 ('04-'08) or Series 2 ('09-'11)?

By "took care of it," do you mean he drove it mildly?

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter

If you made the rotary engine bigger, it would make even more torque. Add another rotor to it, and it makes even more torque.

How much torque do you expect from a 650cc x2 combustion chamber, anyway?

BC.


The main problem with that rotary motor is horrid MPG. Seriously 16city and 23 highway EPA with 155 ft-lbs of torque. Make it bigger slap that old gas guzzler tax on the thing. Subaru/Miata offer similar torque however at least offer MPG.

 

[mechanicx]

Yeah rotaries have lower thermal efficiency. They make a good furnace throwing off heat lol. I think they also put out more pollution but not really sure. This is most likely the real reason GM and others gave up on them long ago, and not because they could make it mechanically workable and only Mazda could as Spazdog always sugggests.

 

[Shannow]

Surface area to volume ratio means that the rotaries lose massive quantities of heat that could be converted into go.

Massive seal lengths (apex and side seals) per unit volume mean that they are difficult to seal, and inefficient.

There's no real reason for them to exist as a motor vehicle engine, and unless are given a reasonable workout, they mess up too (NSU spider versus Ro80 explain why).

The things that make them bad "modern" engines are the things that allow them to burn hydrogen...burn coal/uranium at 30% efficiency, turn it into hydrogen at 10% efficiency, and burn it in a rotary at 15% for a total less than 5 % efficient process.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed rotaries, like I enjoyed my carbed and cammed V-8s, but making a rotary a "modern" engine is like putting lipstick on a pig.

Even using it as an APU on aircraft was sort of sensible...on a car less so.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Pollution was the exact reason given by GM for the halting of the rotary development program. They also got a huge break on their contract with NSU by not producing any quantity of units. They may have been difficult to seal but the facts are that the overwhelming majority of them ran for many miles without a hiccup. They're just very different.

Despite the so-called 'disadvantages', the rotary remains a sweet running smooth driving honey of an engine for a car. Having a peaky powerband is not always a negative. My friends newer BMW M3 V8 is a bit slow to come up on the power too, basically gutless at low engine speeds, but it is still fun to drive.

 

[bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: Audios
Originally Posted By: MrCritical
I only have one comment.

Check used car listings for Mazda cars with rotary engines (RX-Anything)

2nd-3rd selling point on 50-60% of them is always "new engine".


My friend has an Rx8 for sale. 3rd motor, 2nd catalyst. And he took care of it.


Yup, lots of early RX-8 cars have engines that fail.
Because the owners don't know what they're doing when it comes to maintenance, and don't know to tell what a misfire feels like, nor do they replace ignition coils when they go bad.

Most of the people who bought early RX-8's were not driving enthusiasts, and treated them like every other car on the market, hoping the car would never have problems, and never cared about things like making sure you don't flood the engine, because you have to move your car out of the driveway to get someone else's car out of the garage.

Plus, there were design flaws in the Series I cars, that were addressed in the Series II cars. Convertors and engines aren't being replaced in the Series II cars at the rate that they were replaced in the early Series I cars because of these changes. Series II engine failures are extremely rare in comparison.

Better cooling system and better rotor housing oiling, plus higher Eccentric Shaft oiling has decreased Series II engine failures by a huge rate.

So yes, while there have been lots of failures, and the cars suck down gasoline at the same rate that a Maserati Grand Turismo does, the driving pleasure received from the car is bar none.

Some of us can live with the trade off, while others can't.
Their loss, not mine.

BC.

 

[artificialist]

I still remember having to explain to a man that the engine in his 134,000 mile RX-8 is totally dead even though he had his oil changed every 3,000 miles with the proper conventional Pennzoil.