MAZDA Tokyo Motor Show site up!
http://www.mazda.com/motorshow/

 

Was hoping to see a 16X powered coupe in a few years..... R3 suddenly looks a lot more attractive.
________
Laguna Bay II Condo Pattaya

 

As posted in the other thread:
Mass market rotary, as well as a series hybrid. Granted, not the sports car we are all hoping for, but for me it lends hope that 1) Mazda is willing to have more than 1 rotary car, and 2) Mazda isn't stopping development of the rotary, and 3) alot of consumer data from rotarys with fairly constant RPM, heat, and cooling ranges has to provide alot of usage data for Mazda, which can only be beneficial to us enthusiasts.

 

+1 I'll probably keep my car for another year or so, but beyond that, if there's no replacement RX-8 on the horizon, I'll be looking to pick up a R3 as well...especially if all the series-II engine improvements have resulted in a more reliable rotary engine.

 

My apologies. What I was trying to say and missed the mark on was that my understanding of the 16X patent identified rotor preferable rotor widths that were previously used on the 12A and 10A, with the width of the 10A being the better one from a combustion efficiency stand point. To that end, I would find it perfectly acceptable if there was only about a 300cc increase in displacement versus the 13B-derived Renesis, if it meant they adopted the width from the 10A and the improvements in efficiency that they need in order to actually bring the engine to market.

Again, my apologies for not having expressed that properly.

 

People thought sports cars were dying or dead in the early 80s and 90s because of ever increasing safety and emissions regulations. Then Mazda came out with the RX-7, and the MX-5 practically brought back drop tops. So, I think a back to basics approach needs to happen again.

Mazda had a similar problem with the RX-7's 12A to meet economy and emissions standards.

I guess I should add a *durrr*Mazda needs to make 3 rotor twin turbo supercharged RX-7*durrrrr*

 

i was actually pretty excited for the tokyo motor show.. >.<

 

It would be a quite a sad day if Mazda killed the rotary engine. The reality of the matter is in these times it does seem illogical to spend money on a car that will arguably be very low volume. One of the things about designing a car that's so difficult is everything is planned years before the car hits the road. It's impossible to know what the world will be like when the car finally comes out. Perhaps, if the 16x does come out around 2012 or 2013, it will beat the perfect time, right when the economy is (hopefully) in full steam recovery.

It is hard to market the rotary as most people don't understand things like weight and balance. Most people want to see HP figures, 0-60, and 1/4 mile. A lot of people I know who claim to be enthusiasts think I'm nuts for not having gotten a Camaro or v8 Stang instead of my R3, their reasoning being the aforementioned performance parameters. My retorts in the name of weight distribution, balance, and handling go in one ear and out the other, in most cases.

The one thing I'm hopeful for is that, besides the engine, Mazda is willing to put money in to developing a low volume sports car because the various new technologies developed can be eventually adapted by their lessor vehicles, a reason why other automakers seem to be okay with taking a hit on Halo products as the technologies have to be developed anyway.

In any case, I'm glad I got my 2010 R3, as it's a scary thought that perhaps one day I won't be able to buy a new rotary. Lets hope that day never comes.

 

After 6 plus years with my 8 and all the money I put into it, I have come to believe that the rotary isn't a viable choice, particularly in these green times. The only real benefit the rotary brought was packaging for balance. When you look at it that's all the RX8 really has going for it great balance. But balance at the cost of power, torque, mpg, reliability. If 1 of these were sacrificed only , I could live with it but not all. I've said many times I would be fine with all the maintenance and reliability and even the mileage if it was making an extra 100 hp. Mazda's finally realized in this day and age they can't put out a competitive rotary powered sports car that makes the power to be competitive, gets reasonable gas mileage, and is reasonably reliable.

Mazda even claimed it didn't meet any of their guidelines. They didn't get the performance or mileage. If they had gotten 1 there would be hope. Barring some new unseen technology I don't believe the rotary will live much longer at Mazda. They keep sinking money into this technology that doesn't get them anywhere and in this economy that won't cut it. They should just focus on, and it would be easier to focus on, getting better balance out of a piston engined car.

Finally, when it comes down to it would I buy another rotary powered car in the future. NO! As much as I love my car I wouldn't buy another. Mazda's not going to put an underpowered unreliable sports car out again with Hyundai having the Genesis, Nissan's better all around Z, cheap Mustangs, Camaros (whose v6 is quicker than the 8 for less money) and now even Toyota and Subaru coming out with coupes. With all that competition even less 8s would get sold.

There are a few who would put up with the 8s quirks but given all that comp they wouldn't have to

 

This haunts my dreams nearly every night....

 

People have been saying this about the rotary for the past 50 years...and yet here we are and Mazda has produced more than 1 million rotary powered vehicles. You may be right this time around, but so far history has proven you dead wrong.

 

'We met the enemy and they are us'.

Would anyone here consider buying an RX7/8 with a 16x getting today's power, but with 30 mpg? I suspect the choice Mazda has is either 300 hp @ 20 mpg or 200 hp @ 30 mpg. (My RX-4 had 110 hp and did 25 mpg in 1976.)

example:

http://jalopnik.com/5103947/nice-pri...rx+4-for-18500

This car-magazine-inspired push to 300+ hp cars is insane! The steep increase in CAFE requirements plus a likely return to $4/gallon gas will change the auto scene (again). (I bought the RX-4 new after it had sat on the lot for a year and a half because of its bad gas mileage. $4500 vs $6500 MSRP; history repeats.)

Demanding 300 hp / 30 mpg is fine, but it's likely you won't get your wish. For me, the big plus for rotary power is that the low weight and compact size lets a car be designed in such a way that the handling is spectacular. Sticking an I4 in the RX8 is unlikely to fit and still leave that driving experience we all love. The Rotary scene in the 70's dreamt of the rotary being installed in a car designed for it. If you look at the engine compartment pics for the RX2/3/4, it's clear the small size of the rotary is wasted. The -8, cannot exist without a rotary.

I would much rather have an RX-9 with 200 hp/30 mpg, or even 150 hp/35 mpg than have no rotary choice at all - which I suspect will eventually be the case. All or nothing will get nothing.

 

I have to disagree with you there. I'm the other way. I'd rather have power over mileage. A 3000lb RX8 with 150 or even 200 hp that gets 40 mpg isn't what I want. I'd take one with 320hp that gets 18mpg though.

The thing that might help the rotary is electric hybrid. Why Mazda isn't looking into this is weird.

 

I don't think the rotary is dead. All I get out of that article is that even with development of the 16X being what it is, the engine is still not what it needs to be in order to meet emissions and mileage wants and needs of buyers. Nowhere does that say they gave in and quit. In fact it just tells me that they've teased us with what they are working on and have shown us that they have made great strides over the Renesis which is much nicer than the 13B. To me it's exciting to see that "good enough" in regards to the rotary isn't in fact good enough. It's got to be correct and that's what has always hurt the rotary in the eyes of many. I think we'll see another rotary car yet. When or how soon is anyone's guess and it seems that many think that if they don't release a new car tomorrow or next week that the opportunity has passed. It hasn't. The 3rd gen was only sold in the US through 1995 yet another rotary came back when people said it was dead. Here we go again. My how people forget so fast.

This time is a bit different though. The economy sucks and isn't going to get better until the current regime is outsted. Oil prices are volatile and gasoline jumps 30 cents at so much as a fart being smelled on Wall Street. It is having a good side effect though which is often missed. Automotive technology is progressing at a faster rate than it has in any of our lifetimes not only in terms of safety but also efficiency. While some would say that the rotary is going to be hurt by this as piston engine technology keeps improving and electrics come into play, I disagree. Keep in mind that in the 100+ years that the piston engine has been in development, it has gone through dozens if not hundreds of iterations and changes. The rotary for all intents and purposes is currently hovering at generation 3 or 4. It has lots of room to get better and more efficient.

The biggest breakthroughs on the Renesis were really in 2 areas. The first was the exhaust ports which led to better timing and emissions. The second was drive by wire which allows different maps for different loads depending on gear selection but then again all engines are going to this anyways. The 16X has led to some breakthroughs on what has been known to work as well as some things that apparently weren't understood for all this time. Rotor width to length being a prime example.

In the past, Mazda just widened rotors when they wanted more displacement. This was easiest as tooling wasn't very complex. No changes to rotor geometry. Just a change to width. From a design standpoint it wasn't very difficult to make parts wider. Now apparently they've figured out what the most efficient ratios are for width vs height and they can work on this aspect. They've been working on direct injection for over 30 years now!!! They've got plenty of experience with it. The difference now is that we've got the technology in place to make it work better. I think that's been a big hinderance to the development of the rotary. They've had great ideas but lacked the technology to accomplish it. The drive by wire intake manifold on the Renesis being a prime example.

Without drive by wire, in order to get the proper amount of air through each runner at different loads when only certain runners are open, you have to have different throttle plate area for each of these scenarios. With drive by wire, it can be programmed to be whatever it needs to be independant of what your foot does. However without drive by wire, any attempt to do this mechanically is a compromise at best. Case in point, all of the RX-7 intake manifolds. They all had 3 throttle plates and what was effectively a dual plane manifold. The primary throttle plate opened slightly before the secondaries and only fed the primary ports. At part throttle cruising all the air for the engine went through this plate and only through the primary intake ports. However when you floored it, all 3 plates opened sending air to all runners. At low rpms this wasn't the best for power as you killed port velocity. There was a slight hesitation as a result when you got on the throttle hard. Their solution was to add yet another set of throttle plates in front of the secondaries that were vacuum actuated. When manifold vacuum suddenly changed from a hard throttle input, these plates closed (they couldn't quite close all the way) and gradually opened up as rpms rose. This eliminated the hesitation but added complexity and restriction. They first used this back in 1984 on the GSL-SE 1st generation RX-7. What their ultimate goal back then was is exactly what the RX-8 intake is today. They just lacked the technology to make it work so it was a compromise. Direct injection has most likely faced the same issues.

The side exhaust ports were actually tried in either the late 60's or early 70's and found to be very beneficial. Why didn't they do it then? It was due to a lack of technology. Back then fuel metering and hence oil metering were very crude by todays standards. Oil consumption was very high. They had a hard time with carbon buildup in the exhaust ports and ultimately with side seals breaking as a result. They couldn't make it work reliably so they abandoned it in favor of the easy solution which was peripheral exhaust ports. Any rotary engine that has side intake and peripheral exhaust ports is even on the best day a severe performance and efficiency compromise. What was the technology breakthough that made the side exhaust port possible? There were a few areas. First is the improved computer control over oil metering (which sady they somehow still messed up for 5 years) and better fuel metering. The side seal shape also changed and is now a wedge shape to help keep carbon out of the grooves. This machining wasn't feasible back then. They have also discovered the cutoff seal which helps emissions but more importantly keeps heat and carbon buildup away from the oil control rings.

The point of all of this rambling is to point out that technology is finally catching up to their design ideas that they've had for decades. Imagine what the rotary could be today if they had the computer and machining technology 40 years ago that they have today. The Renesis and all of it's ideas were in their minds back then. They just didn't know how to produce it. The rotary as we know it could be nearly 40 years more advanced than it is today. The good news is that with technology, they are catching up to where they could have been had they not been limited by a lack of it.

I don't see this announcement as being the death of the rotary. To me it screams that they've got so many things they want to try and have yet to accomplish that they aren't going to settle for something less than what it should be in their minds. That actually signifies that they may finally be getting it right. They've always had the problem that they've tried to rush things and it's hurt them. Maybe that logic is finally gone.

Here's what a new rotary car needs to be in order to be successful in today's market. First of all it has to be light. That means it can't be large. The modern tendency to get bigger and bigger has hit the absurd. The Skyline being a great example. That thing is only a fraction of a cubic foot smaller in area than the Titanic was and weighs about 7 lbs less. It's gargantuan. It's a joke. A very powerful overrated joke. It's not all that great looking and costs 4 times more than it should. It isn't a sports car. It's a fast unreliable money pit on wheels which interestingly enough was the complaint of Japanese sports cars of the early 90's. The difference was that back then they were overpriced in the $30K segment as opposed to the $100K segment. Once again, they've forgotten what works. Just say NO to a rotary powered supercar. It's unneccesary and a dumb idea.

Get back to the roots of what a sports car is. It doesn't have to be the fastest thing on the road. It has to be fairly small and lightweight. It has to handle superbly and be agile. It's got to be a car that makes a corner look like a mere inconvenience rather than a daunting task to propel 4000 lbs through. It needs to be decently quick but if other cars are faster in a straight line, that's ok too. A true sports car is a 2 seater. Get the 4 seat crap out of your heads. Those should be called touring cars. Porsche has fallen prey to the 4 doo sports car failure with the Panamera but it may as well be called a Lite SUV.

Here's my criteria for the next rotary sports car.
1: 2600-2700 lbs.

2: 2 rotor engine.
A: 1.0L to 1.2L displacement.
B: All side port
C: Direct injected
D: Turbocharged
E: 250 honest horsepower
F: 22/32 mpg

3: 2 seater coupe.
A: No 2+2 option
B: No convertible
C: No targa top

4: 6 speed manual transmission
A: No automatic option

5: Traction control as an on/off option

6: ABS standard

7: It can not look anything like the front of the new 3!

8: Sized similar or very slightly larger than a Miata but no larger than the 3rd generation RX-7.

9: $30K price point.

That's it. Simple. No add ons. No bling. If it could hit .98 G in the skidpad which is what the last RX-7 could do, hit 0-60 in around 4.5 seconds with the 1/4 mile coming around 13.5-13.8 seconds flat, which should be possible with that power to weight ratio, it would sell. Forget the big heavy power trend. Don't follow it. You'll never make the rotary reliable enough. Stick to sports car roots and people will buy it.

 

Why not just build the power on a switch?
several cars on the market have adjustable tuning parameters from the factory. I'd be fine with a 150HP car that had a switch for 300HP... Then I could tool around town to save gas, and flip the switch when I wanted to play.

 

You mean 5.5 seconds, correct? I agree with you though, the RX7 route would be more practical. I would also be less interested. The RX8 tried to be too much. Unless they could get 300 or more honest hp out of the 16X I wouldn't even make a 4 door/seater but would go for small two seater. I put my car on the scale at Englishtown Raceway park and it came back as 2700 and something lbs. I have a base 6 speed. I think they could get a 2 seater down to 2500-2600.

 

Would you ever flip the switch back once flipped? Be honest, no.

 

We can either get a minimalist car true to sports car roots that would sell well and be what most people want or we could hold out for the holy grail of rotary sports cars for a few rotary fanatics and never see anything ever again. I know which one I'd choose. If you want 300 hp from the factory, go buy a Camaro. Sorry to be a realist.

 

Shedding weight and bumping HP to 265'sh with a turbo is all the car really needs. If Mazda could get the car down to 2500lbs, and make it more aerodynamic the mpg would increase, performance would increase and so would the smile factor.
As for the economy, I don't think it is a regime change that can fix it. The 'faux' boom we had from 2004 through early 2007 had everyone working, building houses, vehicles, etc. Giving $350K loans out to people who made $25K so they could buy that new 3000sq foot house and another $50K loan so they could buy that monster escalade or hummer was the mistake that destroyed our economy. Now we have thousands of empty houses, office buildings and new vehicles sitting there with no buyers. The construction workers are out of a job, they aren't buying anything. The architects are out of a job, they aren't buying anything. Auto workers are out of a job. Sales people are out of a job, IT workers have less work because all the 'faux' growth has stopped and actually reversed itself. The trickle down effect from lifting all the regulations in 2004 has essentially killed the country's economy. I believe the country will have to re-tool and re-think the way it has worked for the last 40 years. The old method was a farce, an artificial fantasy world that was held in check by a few boundaries. Those boundaries were removed and the whole thing imploded.

 

was anyone surprised?

the rx8 went from 280hp

to 250hp

to 238hp

to 232hp

to a "real" 215-220hp

 

Unless they can find a way to make a 2,500lb car with whatever version of the rotary they want to use it’s just not going to be competitive in 2012. Mazda makes some of the lightest and best handling cars, they just need to put a powerful and widely accepted engine in it.

Think of how great the 8 chassis with a JDM 2.0l boxer would be. It can be mounted low and isn’t all that heavy and you can get over 300hp out of it.

People will sacrifice fuel economy for power, they won’t sacrifice it for handling.

Here are the reasons I think the RX8 doesn’t sell:

1. It’s a tad old in the tooth even with the nose job.
2. Poor fuel economy for its power.
3. Lack of power and torque
4. Fear of anything different aka Rotaraphobia.
5. Rumors of engines blowing.
6. Flooding.

I think Mazda will continue to work on rotary engines and may eventually come up with a solution and offer a new RX car but I’m guessing the RX8 has about 2 years left.

 

The problem is just that. Mazda will make a new engine, but it will have its own inherent problems and still won't make the power or mileage to make it competitive.

 

Mate, with due respect...
You have been bitching about your car for the past 2.5 years???, why don't you sell it.

You were told years ago that any (well most) money spent on an 8 will be a waste, unless you spend heaps (turbo) and then reliability goes even further out the window.

 

Honestly, reading all of this made my heart sink to the bottom of my stomach. It's almost as is I have nothing to look forward to now. This news almost cements the fact that we will see nothing rotary at the Tokyo of NYAS. I'm really devastated right now. The new rotary car was going to be my next car regardless of what it was (ie 2 seater or 2 + 2). I've been saving up and really looking forward to this. Now what? The Camaro, Challenger, Mustang and 370 don't really interest me (maybe only the NISMO)

Rotarygod has it right though. Mazda needs to keep it basic and not try too hard to please everyone which seemed to be the case with the 8. I can mostly agree with his criteria for a new rotary car too.

 

With respect, I find myself in the very awkward position of simultaneously being in agreement and disagreement with Rotarygod. I absolutely agree that a four place car is a touring car; but where I find myself witha difference of opinion is that I LIKE touring cars.

What I don't like about most touring cars is that they have no balance (or they are obscenely expensive). The RX-8, for better or worse, is a touring car, and I truly would like to see Mazda continue to produce rotary powered touring cars, such as the RX-8 or the Luce Cosmo Coupé. That isn't to say that I don't want Mazda to make a proper rotary powered sports car as well; but if I have to choose one or the other to see light of day, I'm going to pick the touring car any day.

I'd even been looking into installing the JDM back seat into my old FB twenty years ago when it was stolen and gutted.

That being said, I'd like to see the 16X project continued withn Mazda, and for them to hold off on releasing it in a product until it is ready. I concur with Rotarygod that Mazda tried to create engine solutions in the RX-7s that, for lack of suitable technology, they were not actually able to implement until the RX-8.

If Mazda is insistent on either immediately releasing something to the market or dumping all rotary development until the end of time, then I'd want them to press their series hybrid design into service. To me, dropping the rotary engine because their research and development still needs more work would be a terrible loss.