randyrx8

C&D, R&T unexperienced???? JUst who reviews would you recommend???

Engine of the year just because it is a rotary??? are you kidding?? wheather it is or is not, I would hope other parameters were involed in the decision of "Engine of the year"-- you meaningless things like performance, reliabilty and efficiency.

Rotary alone would make it win catagories like "innovative" "unnusual" maybe even "quirky",



I researched what I bought a production sport car, that sould have been enough.

But, by the way, They all absolutely loved the car!, I have videos of them driving the car.

Car Key's is a part of MotorWeek (PBS) Not that i am a fan of PBS just that it was one of a dozen video reviews I was able to download.

Are you stating I will get better mileage with higher RPM's? I have not tried that.

Meowloud

-Just because they are from a major publication does not make them experienced. A lot of times, a magazine/publication will send a junior to do a story that they deem not top priority. Many of these guys, this is their first or similar rotary experience.
-Ohhh, all you had to mention was PBS :D
-It is called Centrifical force. It has less friction as a pistion.

KrustyKlown

Um...it is a sports car.. I don't think it is a problem/bug. It is a feature. Im serious though. Plus a majority of people on here are saying their MPG is improving (mine included) as they put more miles on the car which is what should happen with a rotary engine.

Plus as Meow said.... It is a wonderful piece of engineering. Even if you don't like the MPG.

sferrett

Or, perhaps like most people who will own this car, it was not an issue.

The short trip procedure is in the manual and isn't an inconvenience unless you're a habitual car-mover. The basic gist is - make sure the car is warmed up before you shut it off. Pretty simple really.

Simon.

Katchoo

Oh oh! My pants are about to be flooded after reading all of the above!

*runs to the bathroom*

randyrx8

You did'nt answer what reviws would you believe?

As for PBS I don't like them either, the point is I got every review I could find, from many viewpionts. Including one by a women since that seems to be importatnt to you.

What is called Cetrifical force?

As for less friction, what the point of less friction, if it cant effiecently transform Fuel to energy. with so mech less friction it shoud be more efficient

jdl

PSSST, perhaps you're thinking of "centrifugal", or possibly "centripetal"? And what do you suppose this force has to do with friction, in this context?

Meowloud

I do not know about specific reviews, or even reviewers. My point was, be sure to check these 'sources'. I would guess to say that some/most have not had experience with a rotary engine. I guess that to be true due to the fact that a rotary engine hasn't been commercially on the market in many years. I also wouldn't blindly trust a review just because I can buy the magazine it is in at any location I stop my vehicle.

And oops, sorry, I'll just put it this way... I had some distractions last night. I am relating the rotary to centrifugal force (centripetal force requires external manipulation). Rotary engines are internally balanced with spinning counterweights, thus, friction is reduced compared to the forcable change of direction in a piston chamber.
Also, the (3) main moving parts in a rotary engine, compared to AT LEAST (40) main moving parts in just a simple four cylinder engine... gives rise to the conclusion that the rotary would be more reliable, hence Engine of the Year.

Senseny

Meowloud, IMO your assertion about reviewers not being familiar with the rotary isn't really valid. Most reviewers with magazines like Motor Trend, Car and Driver are clearly familiar with the Rx7 (whch has only been off the US market for 10years). Most reviews I read (and I also read a lot) compared the renesis to the 13B-rew and earlier NA 13B's. At least this was the case in the enthusiasts magazines. Certainly there are also plenty of 90's and 80's Rx's around for these journalists to become familiar with.
The engine of the year designation is probably still valid because of good NA horsepower and its low emissions, but part of that award was definitely given for the supposed gains in fuel economy that Mazda was originally touting (and I believe it was given before the hp revision). Rotary engines should be more reliable because of the three moving parts issue, but in the past that certainly was not the case due to apex seals. Mazda also deserves accolades for the development of reliable, long lasting apex seals over the last 20 years.

Meowloud

Thanks Senseny, I would hope this to be the case with anyone who calls themself a Car Review Professional. I guess this is one of my pet peeves, for one to take everything they read at face value only because it is published. Look at the forum for example, you see one thread about flooding (etc.) and it is therefore written in stone. Nothing is usually researched, and especially no research about the author. If you were against mazda, rotary, etc. it is a good way to spread propaganda.

Senseny

Meowloud, I have seen reviews where it was obvious that the writer didn't know a rotary from a 4 cylinder. I disregard those reviews (except for driving impressions--which can have validity). BTW, I was not told by my dealer about flooding. I knew it was an issue on earlier rotaries, but didn't think anything of it with this car, because I thought that was engineered out. Then I saw people were having issues here and I quickly adapted my habits to avoid it. So in some cases these complaining threads are helpful. But, I can understand the frustration with seeing all of these complaints ad nauseum.

GTF-RX-8

Never a flooding or hard start problem here. I drive short distances alot.

schnobb

Um....I'm new to rotaries, but not necessarily new to cars at large, but I think I have a possible reason that the flooding "feature" is left out of car reviews...

Car Reviewers drive cars. They probably even own a car they care about. I'm going out on a limb here, but people who care about their cars usually don't start/stop their engines at random. It's not particularly good for the engine to begin with. Oh, and did I forget to mention that they drive cars? So when they start them, it might be to drive them, not just to listen to the sound for 45 secs and turn it off *oops*...

Basically, what I'm suggesting is that flooding is not a problem that one would normally encounter with their car if they use it as it was fundamentally designed (pushing aside the mechanical super-feats), to be driven from place A to B. This problem would only occur if those two places are exceptionally close to each other, or are in fact the same place. yada yada blah blah blah...

You wouldn't try to run your car on the freeway in second gear, would you (not that it can't be done)?

You wouldn't put scotch in your gas tank and expect it to run better?

These are conventions of running a modern car, the rotary has one more convention: It actually is more important not to start and stop your engine without letting it heat up.

my .02

peace

bowlhead

Just for the records, I did my research and was aware of the mpg and flooding debate. My mpg actually is pretty good, but yes, I was stupid, full of adrenalin and had just started the car up when the fire siren went off, and being a volunteer, shut down the engine to jump in my other car that has my fire gear, (since with the spare kit option, trunk space is sparce) and I knew as I was driving to the fire, that the 8 was probably not going to restart, yup, towed to the dealer that afternoon.

WildOne

I was never told by the dealer and I did my research before I bought the car otherwise I wouldn't have known. After two test drives and a lot of searching for what I wanted, I bought it. I already knew about warming the car up, but the salesman never said a word about it, and when I questioned him about it he was very reluctant to admit it. I didn't care I wanted the car and learned about the "possible" flooding before I made my purchase. So far I haven't flooded it and I have had it for almost 10 months. :p

Zootx8

I think I told the dealer more than he told me, but seriously, gas mileage has improved - I got somewhere south of 18mpg on the highway with both my 86 and 87 N/A's, and I get close to 23 going 85 on the highway now... I speculate that I get 24 mpg highway going 55-65, but I got stuck in traffic for three hours and that tank ended at 19. Anyhow, every rx I've owned except my 8 has flooded, I think I finally learned how to take care of these engines to keep them starting.

dragula53

no engine at higher revs is going to get better mileage.

And I have no idea what centrifugal or centripetal force has to do with anything related to comparing the pros and cons of rotaries versus pistons.

things like thermal efficiency, heat soak, combustion cycles... that is what you should look at when you try to compare one to the other.

or if you must, compare emotionally, and talk about the happy buzzing hornet noise coming from beneath the hood.

Zootx8

the happy buzz hornet noise is why i can never see my life without a rotary. mechanically roatries are more efficient, but themally is a different story.

Roaddemon

I do what she said not to with my 8, all the time, winter or summer. I have never had a problem starting my car or flooding. My wife drives 2.5 miles to work. Car never warms up all the way in winter. She never has trouble starting it. Car has the latest flashes and I burn 87 octane. Maybe that has something to do with my car never flooding.

srm858

When I bought my 8 in August of 2003, I had never driven a rotary engined car or even known anyone who had. I've rebuilt several engines and have done more work on cars than the vast majority of people. I read the manual when I got the car and glossed over the flooding section, thinking that must be some weird, rare occurence. I figured the new engine would work like a modern piston engine, just rev higher than most and be very smooth. The mileage rating of 18/24 supported what I had read about the new engine, it got much better mileage than the old version.

Well, after 2 floods and consistent 18mpg, I'm just not that impressed with the engine. I love the car, but I honestly would prefer a Honda 4 cylinder over the rotary. They are great engines, lots of horsepower, reliable, and no quirks. We should expect great things from our car and should not have to say things to the effect of "flooding and low mpg are part of the fun!".

Mugatu

iTrader: (1)

how the heck did this thread get resurrected from april 2004?

Roaddemon

There is a new revised flash that came out 1/20/05. It deals with the very problem your having with flooding. Have the dealer reflash your car. I'm kinda of tired of having all these flashes and reflashes too. But the car is worth it. I had a 95 ES V-tec accord 4 cylinder. Very nice car. Honda makes the best 4 cylinders in the world. But they can't beat the smoothness, high reving, linear power of the rotory. The rotory is more fun than even the high tech engine in the s 2000. Keep the faith. Mazda will get the flashes right eventually.

samsonite1

FWIW, I had the 1/20/05 flash and my car that never flooded, flooded.

It flooded on 1/21, 1/23 and was a hard start on 1/23, 1/24 and this morning.

Dealer said that there are new spark plugs coming that will help...bla bla bla.

Roaddemon

Sorry to hear it. I hope I don't have that flash. looks like the biggest problem with the 8 is the ecu software glitchs. Why did'nt Mazda get that sh"t straightened out before production? I love everything else about the car and think it's well made with an excellent engine.

czr

iTrader: (3)

Samsonite, why did you have it re-flashed if there were no problems to begin with? Did Mazda send a recall letter out? I thought the reflash was for CEL problems.