revhappy

You got that right!!!! I've been toying around with the idea of getting an old Miata as a daily driver. Two things have held me back: New Jersey Winters and New Jersey Crime.

Of course, if I can get some nice raises....the Elise looks awfully tempting!!!

Hercules

Sorry but there are a lot of stupid posts in this thread already, but this tops them all so far.

The rotary engine has had development of only a handful of engineers and the money from a small automobile manufacturer with very limited funds.

In contrast, the piston engine has had development from every automobile manufacturer. It's had billions upon BILLIONS of dollars of research money spent on it. Innovations from different companies are forming better and better engines.

This comparison you make is absolutely ludicrus. Reverse the tables and give the rotary the role the piston engine has had for the last ~100 years. Let every manufacturer, every brilliant engineer, and the billions in research be spent on it. Logically speaking, the rotary would be at a much farther pinnacle than a piston engine would.

In the end it's a matter of preference. We all know you went with the ballsy and gutsy Evo. It has that low down torque that most Americans appreciate. Sadly to let you down, most folks on this board aren't completely taken with that low down punch, nor gas mileage, nor accelleration. It's about for us, and please tell me if I'm taking the census of this forum incorrectly, the most 'smiles per mile.' The rotary engine helps us to accomplish those smiles. The attractive packaging of the RX-8 helps us. The telepathic handling, lightweight and agile feel, rear wheel drive and slick shifter help us. The price also makes our smiles not have the cracks that are in Ferrari drivers of wrinkles to work for the excessive cash for their automobiles.

I think as time progresses, and if another major manufacturer decides to take the 'plunge' and start researching and developing the rotary engine (I can see BMW do this, because they are seeing huge losses in their hydrogen piston engine prototypes, though who knows how likely that is..), the rotary will have a success and power output (and who knows, maybe even fuel consumption) that would shame comparably sized piston engines with their 100s of moving parts.

Simplicity, linearity, smoothness, weight, size and uniqueness make the rotary the best engine design in the world. Automotive engineers the world over acknowledge this. There are drawbacks to it sure, lots of them -- but give it time. As the rotary becomes more accepted by mainsteam society and it's not an automotive faux pas to work on this engine, manufacturers will line up to buy Mazda's designs and improve on them. In the end car companies are businesses. And when you see an engine that has the capability to be more reliable, produce more power, be far less in production costs well... you can take a chance on it. Back when Mercedes, GM and the rest failed it was a quick exit back to piston engines and the abandonment of the rotary. Mazda persevered and did all the leg work. Now it's time for other automotive companies to step up, license the engine design, and start to improve the rotary in ways that us lay folk could never fathom.

If you told Henry Ford ~100 years ago that the piston engine in his Model Ts would be cranking out 300 horsepower and give reasonable gas mileage as well, he wouldn't believe it. Things like Variable Valve Timing, DOHC, better exhaust headers, that were not even FATHOMABLE by that generation are now a reality. Is it so hard to believe the rotary does not inherently possess in it properties that have not been properly discovered by engineers?

I'll take the gamble and say yes. Naysayers will continue to march to their own drum beat. But in 10, 15, 20 years when everybody is driving a hydrogen powered rotary car that still gives oodles power... I will be there smiling and thinking... "I told you so."

Cheers.

U. N. O.

this is what i am looking to discuss too.. not that the fact that the car is a flaw, by allmeans, it is not. It is an extraordinary piece of work/art .But practicality ... why wouldn't others persue the technology, i am sure it is one brain (mazda) vs. many others (GM, and such) that decided not to perhaps because they really saw a way of future for market demands.

U. N. O.

thanks for your input. i guess yes 10 , 15 , or 20 years in the future ( i was hoping to have flying cars :D , may be my grand kids will have that joy) this type of engine will be the way to go, mean while ... and i am not trying to be nayer just want to really learn more on this diferences for the time being..
one separated question for you, what kind of power can we expect out of this engine in turbo version (you think) and gas consumption? would it be worth it ? ($$ wise)

RX8-TX

I still cant believe that car will be legal(ized) for the US.
The Elise weights what a Harley....I wonder how much will they go for?

RXhusker

Doesn't Mazda now own the sole rights to the Wankel engine That alone precludes others from pursuing the rotary technology to a great degree. Even if they wanted to invest in rotary technology they would have to license it from Mazda.

Hercules

I think it's more likely you will see increased rotor width than a FI application just due to past experience with the mass audience and the RX-7's problems. Nobody wants to start off on that note. However I think you will see ~300 horsepower from the RX-8 with decreased weight and a stiffer suspension for the MPS series of it.

The RX-7 should be 300 horses out of the box (or thereabouts), and be the pure sports car that everybody that dislikes the RX-8 about. The RX-8 isn't a pure sports car, it's a compromise car to be sure... but it's a damn good compromise if it puts a grin on my face that even a 350Z cannot.

Hercules

I think in a few years as it becomes increasingly clear that hydrogen is the path of the future, that the rotary engine will make its mark and major automakers will start to license it.

RX8-TX

And we cannot help it.....we always go for the same example.

j/k:p

RXhusker

If you really want to learn some of the differences -- the Yamaguchi book is great (our pre-order gift). This article on the Mazda Performance site is also a good read from a technical perspective Rotary vs. Piston

RX8-TX

It all rests on this rotary's iteration results (long term), I agree. If the engine turns out to be reliable, and they can mass produce it effectively & efficiently, they will most likely give it more applications. Seems like the 8 was a shy attempt to gather as much public as possible.

A true sports version will likely have a higher sticker price, and attract less people...for obvious reasons.

Hercules

I can substitute a lot of cars in there... G35C... 330Ci.... WRX...

The S2000 is the only car I enjoyed driving more but given that it's obscenely loud inside, impractical, has a crap stereo and of course, costs more... I could not justify it.

The RX-8 was excellent for what I was looking for. The car that was the most fun to drive without the expense of being a two seater. The G35C was the runner up in reality over the S2000 because of the back seat, but its tendency to plow the front end severely on hard turns, its terrible back seat and even worse shifter, I opted for the more fun, albeit the less powerful of the two.

P00Man

The rotary, from a design standpoint, is simply a better engine.
AON (as of now), it is also better (in a lot of ways) than a piston, at least the one in my car. I have been getting really good mileage (18-20's, never really calculate it) i drive over 20mi a day (yeah, i know thats very little, to and from school, to and from my bro's house, thats 20 right there, plus whatever else i do) and use 1/4 a tank a week (depending) which is about 400miles to the tank. i really have no idea how people get 10, 11, 12, anything less than id say 17.5 is probably a defective engine, or god knows what. I fill up with 2 dollar per gallon premium though, so maybe that has something to do with it

True it has low torque, but its only a 1.3L engine, which im sure has something to do with it. Being only 1.3L (a lot smaller than a 4-banger, mind you, or at least the 2.0L people keep talking about) it puts out 238hp in US form. I find that to be pretty potent

in piston vs rotary, the rotary is the better engine, period.
by its design it is simply better, and i dont say this as a fan boy or anything of that nature. I only say it with the thought that the simplest things are best. Anyone can get anything to work with enough parts, but true genius always searches for simplicity. To do with 3 things what another person takes 300+ to do is an acheivment. Its smarter, its purer, its better.

Just look at e=mc^2 (how profound an equation...) its so simple, so beautiful.

i dont feel like going on, or typing this in a way that makes any sense, take from it what you will
________
Philippine girl Webcams

P00Man

the above post is PURELY piston v rotary, it does not take into account anything other than the basic designs of the engines themselves
________
Fix Ps3

DonG35Miata

That's what I said.

revhappy

Another post that just exudes class!!! Makes me wonder why you don't moderate anymore with such an even-tempered, balanced personality. Anyway, I digress.

You can make all of the arguments about piston engines being around longer, etc. When the first internal combustion engine vehicles came out they outperformed the horse and buggy, which had been around for almost 2,000 years! The point is that its a poor argument. There have been threads on here that have suggested that the rotary engine may NEVER get good gas mileage (relative to piston counterparts). It still has emissions issues (per Mazda's HP admission) and is LOSING ground to the piston engine over the last 10 years. We've waited over forty years for the "engine of the future" to take off. How much longer should we wait????

I am well aware of the rotary's advantages and ALL enthusiasts would welcome its success. However, the rotary has A LOT of proving to do with the masses (rotorheads will always love the engine for its uniqueness). Until it accomplishes this, it is best suited for a light roadster IMHO.

revhappy

That's one point where I hope you are right on!

revhappy

$38,500....190 HP Tweaked Celica GTS Motor. I think $2,000 more for a few options.

revhappy

I doubt they are going to be able to add ~ 80 Horsepower and not get image tarring gas mileage. Also, if it is made in large enough volumes, it could possibly hurt Mazda's CAFE compliance.

I expect more like 250 HP and 2,800 lbs.

canzoomer

If it is so light, why does the car weight roughly the same as the 350Z or other competitive cars in it's class?

Do you think that the same chassis with a V6 would weigh a lot more?

If so I guess the 8 is a pretty darned heavy car to start with.

Or am I missing something here??

Ike

That's one thing that has always puzzled me. The RX-8 weighs about the same as my WRX, and AWD systems are not light. How much weight are you really saving with a rotary over your average turbo 4 cyl.? Or are you really not saving anything and the claim is it's the weight distribution of the rotary that makes it "better"?

sixspeed

You might be flying sooner than you think!

http://www.moller.com/skycar/m400/


Is this the car of the future?

Oh, and what engines are they using?? :D


-andy-

ChrisW

I thought the 8 was at least 200 pounds lighter than the 350Z. And it's got 2 extra seats.

Yes. And more to the point the extra weight would all be at the front. To stop the car understeering like mad you would have to really firm up the suspension and lose the good ride quality.

A big V6 would make it a different kind of car (a lot more like a 350Z).

revhappy

Its the suicide doors (and the related bracing) and all the amenities inside the car. Last year at this time, people were expecting 2,900 lbs or less.

Hercules

And at 2940 lbs (without the leather and sunroof), and 3029 lbs with that... I don't think its terribly off.