I also wanted to know exactly what "rework" was done. No straight answer was ever given regarding specifics.

Canzoomer called Mazda and I believe was told something about dipsticks.

Some people, eccles for instance, had two stickers. Here are a couple links to threads with this topic.

Port campaign (with picture)

Port campaign

 

If anyone decides to write Mazda again... I think one needs to stick it pretty clearly to them... how did 250ps published for the Japanese model become 238hp for the US model. The original "micommunication" figure of 247hp would match the JDM figure...

Data from my JDM dealer brouchure...

Maximum Power Output (net*)
RX-8 Type S: 184kw (250ps)/8500rpm
216N*m (22.0kg*m)/5500rpm

Maximum Torque Output (net*)
RX-8/RX-8 Type E: 154kw (210ps)/7200rpm
222N*m (22.6kg*m)/5000rpm

Gas Emissions:
Adjustment limit OR Low Emissions Certification Level:
Heisei 12 (2000) Standard Emissions 50% Reduction Level (benign-low emissions)


Although, having said that, I find it hard to believe that Mazda found out/ figured out about EPAII and the cat life at such a late date requiring them to re-flash the ECU in port. At the same time the "miscommunication" seems like a cover-up too...

I just noticed and added "net*" next to the power output figures. It says at the bottom "*'net' is measured as approximately the same condition as the engine loaded in the vehicle." So... does this mean rwhp or simply the engine has full emissions equipment, etc. and this is the crank hp number?

 

But I think from the Cat's perspective it doesn't know how many pistons or rotor combustion chambers there are - it is getting a flow of exhaust gas from all manifolds combined. Assuming comparable fuel consumption, likewise a similar amount of air will be used to burn it, and thus comparable amount of exhaust gas per mile or unit time. I still don't see where the rotary's cat would be getting either more or hotter exhaust gas unless the rotary is somehow extracting more heat energy from the fuel.

 

My take 1: The rotary engine breathes comparably to a 6 cylinder engine but in a package smaller than a 4-cyl engine. Heat has less means to escape because of the small size of the engine so it goes with the exhaust gases. And with the high redline of the engine we get high heat contentration.

My take 2: Maybe the thermal efficiency of the rotary engine is less than a piston engine so less energy is converted to mechanical power and more wasted as heat?

My take 3: A combination of the above

I don't believe the rotary engine has considerable more friction than a piston engine. I would think it has less. Maybe the more surface area between the rotors and the housings have more friction but the engine as a whole, having so few moving components compared to a piston engine has much less friction.

 

If Mazda is trying to build a fan base and wishes to sell and compete with other makes, they have to come clean. While we don't have all the facts about the reflash issue,EPA,mpg ect. and I do not wish to slander Mazda either because I really love and enjoy the car, I do however feel they have to straighten up this mess due to the fact of the rotarynews info and from respected Mazda reps regarding the EPA conditions. If this really isn't true, I have a hard time believing the cars low mpg and rich condition isn't related. I have had many cars and they all fell well within EPAs criteria and rating, this includes driving in the exact same conditons as I drive the RX8 now! Sorry but I do not consider a consistent 12/14 mpg normal when EPAs target is 17 city with 15mpg their extreme low? I hope Mazda has a fix that will give better mpg and power, it can only make all of us a lot happier and say you know, Mazda is one heck of a car company!