Mazda chose the Wankel, called it the rotary
11-11-2008 | 02:58 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Hayward,
Mazda chose the Wankel, called it the rotary
A nice article about the Wankel engine in the SF Chronicle today.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DTL&type=autos
Forty years ago, a panel of auto journalists picked the NSU Ro80 as European Car of the Year. Now mostly forgotten, the Ro80 was a German sedan with an aerodynamic shape that presaged the Audi 5000 and Ford Taurus of the 1980s. As important as its trend-setting styling, though, the Ro80 featured the first Wankel engine in a mass-produced car.
Potential game-changers in the auto industry have often ended up as blind alleys. Dinosaurs at least have birds as their living legacy, but innovative cars like the Tucker, Corvair and Citroen DS can be found only in the automotive fossil record. Carmakers have learned that it doesn't always pay to innovate.
But for a brief time in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it looked as if real innovation was taking hold in the form of a new powerplant that was lighter, smoother, simpler than a reciprocating piston engine and also capable of producing more power for its size. Companies from American Motors to Mercedes-Benz rushed to license Wankel engine technology.
Felix Wankel, an engineer at NSU, had been experimenting since 1954 with a simpler internal-combustion engine. His elegant design consisted of a rounded triangular "rotor" that spun in an oval combustion chamber. As the rotor moved in its eccentric orbit around a central shaft, the area of the three combustion chambers (one for each side of the triangle) contracted, creating compression and thus power.
But an obstacle to engine longevity emerged: It was hard to get a good seal on the combustion chambers where the rotor tips, or apexes, met the inside of the chamber.
Before the Ro80, there had been attempts at Wankel-powered cars - NSU's own Wankel Spider and the Mazda Cosmo sports cars - but the Ro80 was the revolutionary engine's first shot at the big time. If things had gone as planned, BMW wouldn't be the only prestigious three-letter brand of German cars today.
Initial orders for the 1968 NSU Ro80 were brisk. Soon, however, NSU was dealing in damage control.
In late 1968, the German magazine Auto Motor und Sport reported that half of the 191 Ro80 owners it had surveyed said that engines had been replaced under warranty. In neglecting to test the cars in real-world stop-and-start driving conditions, NSU snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The culprit turned out to be bad bearings and ineffective rotor tip seals; the warranty claims that resulted nearly drove the company to bankruptcy. NSU eventually merged with Volkswagen.
However, in a protracted deal involving a cast of many - including Felix Wankel and, oddly, a group of Israeli bankers - several former NSU shareholders retained control of licensing rights to the engine. Still, it fell to the Japanese to perfect the power plant.
Toyo Kogyo, the parent company of Mazda, was one of about 18 NSU Wankel licensees. In the late 1960s, Mazda decided that its future lay in differentiating itself from Toyota and Nissan. The first rotary-powered Mazda to make an impact in the United States was the RX-2, introduced in 1970.
The RX-2 was a small coupe roughly the size of a Toyota Corolla, but with the pep of a small V-8. Enthusiasts gushed over the smooth and ample power.
C.J. Batten was the first design engineer that Ford hired for its Wankel development program in 1971. In a recent interview, Batten said that Ford began looking at the Wankel because its archrival, General Motors, "had one that was nearly production-ready" for its Chevrolet Monza coupe.
In an interview, Batten recalled evaluating a Mazda and being impressed. "The RX-2 with a little over 100 horsepower would run like a 200-horsepower Mustang," he said. Batten reckons that the advantages in packaging and smoothness weren't enough to overcome the reciprocating engine's advantage of incumbency.
GM's president, Ed Cole, was a proponent of the Wankel. In the early 1970s, GM showed several Wankel-powered midengine Corvette design studies that would have been world-class sports cars. Car magazines said the sleek mid-engine 'Vette was a sure bet for production. Cole also planned to use the Wankel in mainstream cars.
Batten recalls that as wishful thinking. He said the accountants who held the purse strings pointed out that Chevrolet could already sell every Corvette it could build. Why was a more advanced, more expensive car needed? The logic was hard to dispute, and the Corvette would soldier on until 1984 with its 1963-vintage platform.
Not much later, Cole retired and the Arab oil embargo underscored how thirsty the early Wankels were. GM's Wankel program came to a sudden halt. Ford ended its development program.
The cancellation of GM's Wankel even had a ripple effect on American Motors, which had engineered its futuristic, glassy Pacer to take a GM-built Wankel. Instead, AMC had to make do with a heavy cast-iron 6-cylinder.
The only automaker other than NSU and Mazda to market a Wankel-powered production car was Citroen, a company that celebrated eccentricity. But Mercedes-Benz expressed an interest, teasing enthusiasts in 1970 with the brilliant C111-II research car that had gullwing doors and a 370-horsepower four-rotor Wankel that could reach 180 miles an hour.
The 1974 Arab oil embargo hit Mazda hard. Its small RX-2 could barely manage 15 miles a gallon, about half as much as the comparably sized Corolla. The RX-3, a larger successor, added a wagon body style. But that car was bigger and heavier and had even worse mileage.
Mazdas piled up at dealers and at the ports, so the company hedged its bets with piston-engine cars while it improved the rotary's cleanliness and efficiency. In 1978, it introduced the car that made the best use to date of the rotary's distinctive qualities. The 1979 RX-7 was a milestone; at a time when sports cars were growing flabby, the RX-7 was light, nimble and basic with an engine so rev-happy that a buzzer had to be installed to let the driver know when the engine speed had reached the danger zone.
Mazda's new strategy was to reserve the rotary for its specialty cars, while using piston engines in the rest of its line. Mazda's rotary design reached its pinnacle with the Renesis engine introduced in the 2003 RX-8, the most powerful, efficient and cleanest naturally aspirated Wankel yet. And because it is also well-suited to run on hydrogen, it may have a future beyond the odd four-door coupe that it currently lives in.
Early Wankel cars seldom appear for sale in the United States. The Ro80 is somewhat popular as a collectible in Britain, though many have been refitted with more reliable Mazda engines. Prices run around $15,000. A Wankel Spider recently sold on eBay for $17,000.
First-year Mazda RX-7s are bargains at $4,000 to $6,000. The 1967 Mazda Cosmo is the most collectible early Wankel car. In 2007, a seller at an auction in Australia turned down an $83,000 bid.
This article appeared on page A - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DTL&type=autos
Forty years ago, a panel of auto journalists picked the NSU Ro80 as European Car of the Year. Now mostly forgotten, the Ro80 was a German sedan with an aerodynamic shape that presaged the Audi 5000 and Ford Taurus of the 1980s. As important as its trend-setting styling, though, the Ro80 featured the first Wankel engine in a mass-produced car.
Potential game-changers in the auto industry have often ended up as blind alleys. Dinosaurs at least have birds as their living legacy, but innovative cars like the Tucker, Corvair and Citroen DS can be found only in the automotive fossil record. Carmakers have learned that it doesn't always pay to innovate.
But for a brief time in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it looked as if real innovation was taking hold in the form of a new powerplant that was lighter, smoother, simpler than a reciprocating piston engine and also capable of producing more power for its size. Companies from American Motors to Mercedes-Benz rushed to license Wankel engine technology.
Felix Wankel, an engineer at NSU, had been experimenting since 1954 with a simpler internal-combustion engine. His elegant design consisted of a rounded triangular "rotor" that spun in an oval combustion chamber. As the rotor moved in its eccentric orbit around a central shaft, the area of the three combustion chambers (one for each side of the triangle) contracted, creating compression and thus power.
But an obstacle to engine longevity emerged: It was hard to get a good seal on the combustion chambers where the rotor tips, or apexes, met the inside of the chamber.
Before the Ro80, there had been attempts at Wankel-powered cars - NSU's own Wankel Spider and the Mazda Cosmo sports cars - but the Ro80 was the revolutionary engine's first shot at the big time. If things had gone as planned, BMW wouldn't be the only prestigious three-letter brand of German cars today.
Initial orders for the 1968 NSU Ro80 were brisk. Soon, however, NSU was dealing in damage control.
In late 1968, the German magazine Auto Motor und Sport reported that half of the 191 Ro80 owners it had surveyed said that engines had been replaced under warranty. In neglecting to test the cars in real-world stop-and-start driving conditions, NSU snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The culprit turned out to be bad bearings and ineffective rotor tip seals; the warranty claims that resulted nearly drove the company to bankruptcy. NSU eventually merged with Volkswagen.
However, in a protracted deal involving a cast of many - including Felix Wankel and, oddly, a group of Israeli bankers - several former NSU shareholders retained control of licensing rights to the engine. Still, it fell to the Japanese to perfect the power plant.
Toyo Kogyo, the parent company of Mazda, was one of about 18 NSU Wankel licensees. In the late 1960s, Mazda decided that its future lay in differentiating itself from Toyota and Nissan. The first rotary-powered Mazda to make an impact in the United States was the RX-2, introduced in 1970.
The RX-2 was a small coupe roughly the size of a Toyota Corolla, but with the pep of a small V-8. Enthusiasts gushed over the smooth and ample power.
C.J. Batten was the first design engineer that Ford hired for its Wankel development program in 1971. In a recent interview, Batten said that Ford began looking at the Wankel because its archrival, General Motors, "had one that was nearly production-ready" for its Chevrolet Monza coupe.
In an interview, Batten recalled evaluating a Mazda and being impressed. "The RX-2 with a little over 100 horsepower would run like a 200-horsepower Mustang," he said. Batten reckons that the advantages in packaging and smoothness weren't enough to overcome the reciprocating engine's advantage of incumbency.
GM's president, Ed Cole, was a proponent of the Wankel. In the early 1970s, GM showed several Wankel-powered midengine Corvette design studies that would have been world-class sports cars. Car magazines said the sleek mid-engine 'Vette was a sure bet for production. Cole also planned to use the Wankel in mainstream cars.
Batten recalls that as wishful thinking. He said the accountants who held the purse strings pointed out that Chevrolet could already sell every Corvette it could build. Why was a more advanced, more expensive car needed? The logic was hard to dispute, and the Corvette would soldier on until 1984 with its 1963-vintage platform.
Not much later, Cole retired and the Arab oil embargo underscored how thirsty the early Wankels were. GM's Wankel program came to a sudden halt. Ford ended its development program.
The cancellation of GM's Wankel even had a ripple effect on American Motors, which had engineered its futuristic, glassy Pacer to take a GM-built Wankel. Instead, AMC had to make do with a heavy cast-iron 6-cylinder.
The only automaker other than NSU and Mazda to market a Wankel-powered production car was Citroen, a company that celebrated eccentricity. But Mercedes-Benz expressed an interest, teasing enthusiasts in 1970 with the brilliant C111-II research car that had gullwing doors and a 370-horsepower four-rotor Wankel that could reach 180 miles an hour.
The 1974 Arab oil embargo hit Mazda hard. Its small RX-2 could barely manage 15 miles a gallon, about half as much as the comparably sized Corolla. The RX-3, a larger successor, added a wagon body style. But that car was bigger and heavier and had even worse mileage.
Mazdas piled up at dealers and at the ports, so the company hedged its bets with piston-engine cars while it improved the rotary's cleanliness and efficiency. In 1978, it introduced the car that made the best use to date of the rotary's distinctive qualities. The 1979 RX-7 was a milestone; at a time when sports cars were growing flabby, the RX-7 was light, nimble and basic with an engine so rev-happy that a buzzer had to be installed to let the driver know when the engine speed had reached the danger zone.
Mazda's new strategy was to reserve the rotary for its specialty cars, while using piston engines in the rest of its line. Mazda's rotary design reached its pinnacle with the Renesis engine introduced in the 2003 RX-8, the most powerful, efficient and cleanest naturally aspirated Wankel yet. And because it is also well-suited to run on hydrogen, it may have a future beyond the odd four-door coupe that it currently lives in.
Early Wankel cars seldom appear for sale in the United States. The Ro80 is somewhat popular as a collectible in Britain, though many have been refitted with more reliable Mazda engines. Prices run around $15,000. A Wankel Spider recently sold on eBay for $17,000.
First-year Mazda RX-7s are bargains at $4,000 to $6,000. The 1967 Mazda Cosmo is the most collectible early Wankel car. In 2007, a seller at an auction in Australia turned down an $83,000 bid.
This article appeared on page A - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle
11-11-2008 | 03:15 PM
#3
In the late 1960s, Mazda decided that its future lay in differentiating itself from Toyota and Nissan.
excellent read for those unfamiliar with the young but rich history of the Wankel rotary egine
11-11-2008 | 05:08 PM
#5
RX-8 = Japanese MG
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
From: Bay area, CA
I hope Mazda pulls its head out of its backside and offers an RX-style car with a high revving turbo 4 cylinder. (aka stop screwing up an awesome car with a crap engine)
STis & Evos easily and reliably make 400 WHP and still get better gas mileage than a NA Renesis.
I will take it all back if someone ever gets over 50,000 miles on a turbo Renesis making over 350 WHP.
I will also take it all back if the ******, er, Wankel engine ever attains good hp & torque per unit of fuel consumed AND does it reliably for 100k+ miles.
Until then, gimme a break! Oh, wait a minute, seeing how I'm on my THIRD engine Mazda is already giving me 'breaks'...apex seal breaks, that is.
Wankel RIP !
STis & Evos easily and reliably make 400 WHP and still get better gas mileage than a NA Renesis.
I will take it all back if someone ever gets over 50,000 miles on a turbo Renesis making over 350 WHP.
I will also take it all back if the ******, er, Wankel engine ever attains good hp & torque per unit of fuel consumed AND does it reliably for 100k+ miles.
Until then, gimme a break! Oh, wait a minute, seeing how I'm on my THIRD engine Mazda is already giving me 'breaks'...apex seal breaks, that is.
Wankel RIP !
Last edited by SlideWayz; 11-11-2008 at 05:10 PM.
11-11-2008 | 06:39 PM
#6
Super Moderator
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,869
Likes: 327
From: Australia
I hope Mazda pulls its head out of its backside and offers an RX-style car with a high revving turbo 4 cylinder. (aka stop screwing up an awesome car with a crap engine)
STis & Evos easily and reliably make 400 WHP and still get better gas mileage than a NA Renesis.
I will take it all back if someone ever gets over 50,000 miles on a turbo Renesis making over 350 WHP.
I will also take it all back if the ******, er, Wankel engine ever attains good hp & torque per unit of fuel consumed AND does it reliably for 100k+ miles.
Until then, gimme a break! Oh, wait a minute, seeing how I'm on my THIRD engine Mazda is already giving me 'breaks'...apex seal breaks, that is.
Wankel RIP !
STis & Evos easily and reliably make 400 WHP and still get better gas mileage than a NA Renesis.
I will take it all back if someone ever gets over 50,000 miles on a turbo Renesis making over 350 WHP.
I will also take it all back if the ******, er, Wankel engine ever attains good hp & torque per unit of fuel consumed AND does it reliably for 100k+ miles.
Until then, gimme a break! Oh, wait a minute, seeing how I'm on my THIRD engine Mazda is already giving me 'breaks'...apex seal breaks, that is.
Wankel RIP !
But then again, Nissan V6 owners having engines replaced because of excess oil consumption must be happy, and Porsche owners who have had complete engine replacements must also have a crap engine. And the millions of Toyota's with engines that sludge up..another crap engine.
Obviously an 8 year Mazda engine drive train warranty is not long enough for you?
BTW what Mazda do you own again?
11-11-2008 | 06:55 PM
#7
Rx8_4eVeR
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
From: San Jose, Cali
Ha, as I was reading I was thinking of quoting the same line, damn you
11-12-2008 | 08:21 PM
#8
Registered
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 58
From: NYC
I'm glad you don't work for Mazda.
Last edited by New Yorker; 11-12-2008 at 08:24 PM.
11-12-2008 | 09:38 PM
#9
I hope Mazda pulls its head out of its backside and offers an RX-style car with a high revving turbo 4 cylinder. (aka stop screwing up an awesome car with a crap engine)
STis & Evos easily and reliably make 400 WHP and still get better gas mileage than a NA Renesis.
I will take it all back if someone ever gets over 50,000 miles on a turbo Renesis making over 350 WHP.
I will also take it all back if the ******, er, Wankel engine ever attains good hp & torque per unit of fuel consumed AND does it reliably for 100k+ miles.
Until then, gimme a break! Oh, wait a minute, seeing how I'm on my THIRD engine Mazda is already giving me 'breaks'...apex seal breaks, that is.
Wankel RIP !
STis & Evos easily and reliably make 400 WHP and still get better gas mileage than a NA Renesis.
I will take it all back if someone ever gets over 50,000 miles on a turbo Renesis making over 350 WHP.
I will also take it all back if the ******, er, Wankel engine ever attains good hp & torque per unit of fuel consumed AND does it reliably for 100k+ miles.
Until then, gimme a break! Oh, wait a minute, seeing how I'm on my THIRD engine Mazda is already giving me 'breaks'...apex seal breaks, that is.
Wankel RIP !
11-12-2008 | 11:10 PM
#10
is adjusting valve lash
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
From: hollywooood!
slide,
i hope horsepower isn't the only thing you've got to stack up against other cars...
cause i just don't see "mitsubishi" when horsepower/reliability/fuel efficient in the same sentence.
i think even honda are more suitable to that title than mitsubishi or subaru.
i dunno where you get 400whp from, cause i haven't found a single STi or EVO MR with 400 available from any so-cal dealership.
every car has its strong suit, thats for sure. and the renesis is doing a mighty fine job doing in excess of 150hp per liter.
you aren't really coming in here stating the almightyness of mitsubishi and all-wheel drive are you?
is that the perfect car? or just your definition of it?
i hope horsepower isn't the only thing you've got to stack up against other cars...
cause i just don't see "mitsubishi" when horsepower/reliability/fuel efficient in the same sentence.
i think even honda are more suitable to that title than mitsubishi or subaru.
i dunno where you get 400whp from, cause i haven't found a single STi or EVO MR with 400 available from any so-cal dealership.
every car has its strong suit, thats for sure. and the renesis is doing a mighty fine job doing in excess of 150hp per liter.
you aren't really coming in here stating the almightyness of mitsubishi and all-wheel drive are you?
is that the perfect car? or just your definition of it?
11-13-2008 | 09:00 AM
#11
I hope Mazda pulls its head out of its backside and offers an RX-style car with a high revving turbo 4 cylinder. (aka stop screwing up an awesome car with a crap engine)
STis & Evos easily and reliably make 400 WHP and still get better gas mileage than a NA Renesis.
I will take it all back if someone ever gets over 50,000 miles on a turbo Renesis making over 350 WHP.I will also take it all back if the ******, er, Wankel engine ever attains good hp & torque per unit of fuel consumed AND does it reliably for 100k+ miles.
Until then, gimme a break! Oh, wait a minute, seeing how I'm on my THIRD engine Mazda is already giving me 'breaks'...apex seal breaks, that is.
Wankel RIP !
STis & Evos easily and reliably make 400 WHP and still get better gas mileage than a NA Renesis.
I will take it all back if someone ever gets over 50,000 miles on a turbo Renesis making over 350 WHP.I will also take it all back if the ******, er, Wankel engine ever attains good hp & torque per unit of fuel consumed AND does it reliably for 100k+ miles.
Until then, gimme a break! Oh, wait a minute, seeing how I'm on my THIRD engine Mazda is already giving me 'breaks'...apex seal breaks, that is.
Wankel RIP !
If they make an RX without a Rotary, it wouldnt be an RX. They would probably call it an MX. I have 72K in my original engine and youve had how many? Damn, sux for you, keep up with maintenance next time. Better yet, read around the forum and learn how to drive your car so it wont keep letting you down instead of trolling an RX8 forum talking about EVOS AND STI's
11-13-2008 | 11:23 AM
#14
RX-8 = Japanese MG
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
From: Bay area, CA
No troll am I; nor am I an Evo/STi fanboi. I love the 8's looks, interior, handling, and slick-shifting 6 speed.
I've seen Vishnu dynos of 400WHP Evos & STis...stock internals and bigger turbos + modded plumbing. The point is it's MUCH easier to make power with a turbo 4 than a Renesis. Also, the RX-8 chassis could have been engineered to stick a 4 cylinder low and behind the front axle. That it was designed for the Renesis precludes an easy swap that doesn't bugger up the car's balance.
Uh, I don't doubt that you can get 100k from a NA Renesis, just not from FI.
My 2004 6MT has been thru 3 engines so far. Yeah, you can say 'oh, if your tune was right you wouldn't have popped Apex seals', but the truth of the matter is that until the advent of the Accessport there was no way to ensure against lean conditions.
Having said that, it is still a very, very dicey proposition to FI a high-compression rotary. Look at MM, who is one of the smartest and most competent car hackers in the club, and he's popped a few engines too.
If you're happy with the car's power NA, then that's great. For those of us who like more torque than a Honda Civic, however, FI is how to turn the car into something fun.
From an engineering perspective, the Wankel engine does a terrible job of converting chemical energy to mechanical energy. The 7L 505 HP Corvette engine gets better gas mileage than the 232 HP 1.3L RX-8. Way too much of the Wankel's chemical energy gets converted to waste heat. Turbocharging is a way to recoup some of that wasted energy since the hot exhaust has a lot of enthalpy available to spin the turbo.
I don't see anything wrong with wanting Mazda to bring up it's game instead of settling for mediocrity.
I've seen Vishnu dynos of 400WHP Evos & STis...stock internals and bigger turbos + modded plumbing. The point is it's MUCH easier to make power with a turbo 4 than a Renesis. Also, the RX-8 chassis could have been engineered to stick a 4 cylinder low and behind the front axle. That it was designed for the Renesis precludes an easy swap that doesn't bugger up the car's balance.
Uh, I don't doubt that you can get 100k from a NA Renesis, just not from FI.
My 2004 6MT has been thru 3 engines so far. Yeah, you can say 'oh, if your tune was right you wouldn't have popped Apex seals', but the truth of the matter is that until the advent of the Accessport there was no way to ensure against lean conditions.
Having said that, it is still a very, very dicey proposition to FI a high-compression rotary. Look at MM, who is one of the smartest and most competent car hackers in the club, and he's popped a few engines too.
If you're happy with the car's power NA, then that's great. For those of us who like more torque than a Honda Civic, however, FI is how to turn the car into something fun.
From an engineering perspective, the Wankel engine does a terrible job of converting chemical energy to mechanical energy. The 7L 505 HP Corvette engine gets better gas mileage than the 232 HP 1.3L RX-8. Way too much of the Wankel's chemical energy gets converted to waste heat. Turbocharging is a way to recoup some of that wasted energy since the hot exhaust has a lot of enthalpy available to spin the turbo.
I don't see anything wrong with wanting Mazda to bring up it's game instead of settling for mediocrity.
Last edited by SlideWayz; 11-13-2008 at 11:27 AM.
11-13-2008 | 12:09 PM
#15
Registered
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
From: Baltimore, MD
Slide, I think the reason you'll never get anyone to agree with you is because people who by the 8 buy it because of the rotary's uniqueness.
It is of course wrought with the flaws one might expect to find in a car that gets a fraction of a fraction of the real-world road testing and development as reciprocating engines, but for most 8 owners, that's an acceptable price to pay to be different.
No offense to the silver/gray owners, but I didn't even want an 8 in that color because they were too common.
I love the sound of my 8 and the door configuration. I prefer the whir of the engine to the radio. I throw stuff in the back seat to open the rear doors when I could just as easily throw it in the trunk.
The 8 has many virtues (commensurate in number with its flaws, many would say), but the greatest of these is that it's just not a reciprocating engine, and I don't think you'll ever sell anyone on this board on the idea that Mazda should abandon the rotary.
It is of course wrought with the flaws one might expect to find in a car that gets a fraction of a fraction of the real-world road testing and development as reciprocating engines, but for most 8 owners, that's an acceptable price to pay to be different.
No offense to the silver/gray owners, but I didn't even want an 8 in that color because they were too common.
I love the sound of my 8 and the door configuration. I prefer the whir of the engine to the radio. I throw stuff in the back seat to open the rear doors when I could just as easily throw it in the trunk.
The 8 has many virtues (commensurate in number with its flaws, many would say), but the greatest of these is that it's just not a reciprocating engine, and I don't think you'll ever sell anyone on this board on the idea that Mazda should abandon the rotary.
11-13-2008 | 12:45 PM
#16
Huge hole is huge
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,191
Likes: 1
From: Joplin, MO
If every company abandoned something that required more time and effort to perfect, what kind of shitty world would we be in now?
Instead of telling them to drop a 'shitty' engine because it's not up to snuff with what you want it to be, why not say "Boy, good luck Mazda on getting that engine perfected! I'll just get a Mazdaspeed 3 and have my torque fantasies fulfilled there!"
Instead of telling them to drop a 'shitty' engine because it's not up to snuff with what you want it to be, why not say "Boy, good luck Mazda on getting that engine perfected! I'll just get a Mazdaspeed 3 and have my torque fantasies fulfilled there!"
11-13-2008 | 12:51 PM
#17
I would rather have a car that I can enjoy a warm summer day cruising through curvy back roads than a 1/4 miles monster. Thats just me though. I can live without the neck snapping torque, my car feels fast enough as I take corners at 50mph without a chirp from the tires.
11-13-2008 | 01:38 PM
#19
I seriously doubt that there are many people on here that buy the 8 for quarter mile times and torque/horsepower. Many end up looking to boost those numbers, but that isn't why we bought the car in the first place. We bought it for the handling, the uniqueness, and most of all, the sheer pleasure of the drive.
How large of a percentage of people that buy the GT500 SuperSnake try to turn it into a road course car or cross country cruiser? Probably very very few, if any.
I spent 2 years of research before deciding to actually buy my 8, and then 4 months of searching for the exact one i want. There is no other car I would prefer to own, at any price. I may be a bit on the high side than most owners here, but hardly a pariah. The power is a tad low compared to it's competitors, but more than enough to handle any real world driving. And there will be a point in which production cars will simply not keep increasing in power. Think about it, if every manufacturer boosted the power of all of their cars every single remake, we will eventually have 400-500hp econoboxes. Seriously not going to happen. How much is enough? how much is too much? When that point of "enough" is reached, what comes next? Where else do automakers start improving?
Mazda worked on improving the handling, balance, and feel of the drive first, and with the 16x, Mazda is starting to build up the power and efficiency. And personally, that is the right way to do it. Engineer a car that can handle more power than it has, then add the power. Otherwise you end up with a classic American muscle car, and if that is what you want...then go buy one of those and stop trying to assume that we also want that as well.
How large of a percentage of people that buy the GT500 SuperSnake try to turn it into a road course car or cross country cruiser? Probably very very few, if any.
I spent 2 years of research before deciding to actually buy my 8, and then 4 months of searching for the exact one i want. There is no other car I would prefer to own, at any price. I may be a bit on the high side than most owners here, but hardly a pariah. The power is a tad low compared to it's competitors, but more than enough to handle any real world driving. And there will be a point in which production cars will simply not keep increasing in power. Think about it, if every manufacturer boosted the power of all of their cars every single remake, we will eventually have 400-500hp econoboxes. Seriously not going to happen. How much is enough? how much is too much? When that point of "enough" is reached, what comes next? Where else do automakers start improving?
Mazda worked on improving the handling, balance, and feel of the drive first, and with the 16x, Mazda is starting to build up the power and efficiency. And personally, that is the right way to do it. Engineer a car that can handle more power than it has, then add the power. Otherwise you end up with a classic American muscle car, and if that is what you want...then go buy one of those and stop trying to assume that we also want that as well.
Last edited by RIWWP; 11-13-2008 at 01:45 PM.
11-13-2008 | 02:09 PM
#20
In addition to buying the '8 for its handling (thanks to 50/50 wieght ratio and low center of gravity afforded by the small size/weight of the rotary), and best bang for the buck in its class, it was also (mostly) because it had a rotary. I've been impressed with its unique engineering since I was a kid assembling it in plastic model form. 
11-13-2008 | 02:13 PM
#21
Registered Rotard
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Honestly I don't even know why you guys are talking about horsepower.. the RX-8 is all around lackluster in regards to hp/lb ft 
The RX-8 is in a funk.. a really bad funk (the suicide doors are nice but almost neglible). Give us a coupe twin-turbo Renesis that won't **** on itself on the way out of the dealership.
The RX-8 is in a funk.. a really bad funk (the suicide doors are nice but almost neglible). Give us a coupe twin-turbo Renesis that won't **** on itself on the way out of the dealership.
11-13-2008 | 02:35 PM
#22
Honestly I don't even know why you guys are talking about horsepower.. the RX-8 is all around lackluster in regards to hp/lb ft The RX-8 is in a funk.. a really bad funk (the suicide doors are nice but almost neglible). Give us a coupe twin-turbo Renesis that won't **** on itself on the way out of the dealership.
The RX-8 is in a funk.. a really bad funk (the suicide doors are nice but almost neglible). Give us a coupe twin-turbo Renesis that won't **** on itself on the way out of the dealership.Hmm, not so bad when you look at it like that huh?
11-13-2008 | 02:46 PM
#23
RX-8 = Japanese MG
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
From: Bay area, CA
Slide, I think the reason you'll never get anyone to agree with you is because people who by the 8 buy it because of the rotary's uniqueness.
It is of course wrought with the flaws one might expect to find in a car that gets a fraction of a fraction of the real-world road testing and development as reciprocating engines, but for most 8 owners, that's an acceptable price to pay to be different.
No offense to the silver/gray owners, but I didn't even want an 8 in that color because they were too common.
I love the sound of my 8 and the door configuration. I prefer the whir of the engine to the radio. I throw stuff in the back seat to open the rear doors when I could just as easily throw it in the trunk.
The 8 has many virtues (commensurate in number with its flaws, many would say), but the greatest of these is that it's just not a reciprocating engine, and I don't think you'll ever sell anyone on this board on the idea that Mazda should abandon the rotary.
It is of course wrought with the flaws one might expect to find in a car that gets a fraction of a fraction of the real-world road testing and development as reciprocating engines, but for most 8 owners, that's an acceptable price to pay to be different.
No offense to the silver/gray owners, but I didn't even want an 8 in that color because they were too common.
I love the sound of my 8 and the door configuration. I prefer the whir of the engine to the radio. I throw stuff in the back seat to open the rear doors when I could just as easily throw it in the trunk.
The 8 has many virtues (commensurate in number with its flaws, many would say), but the greatest of these is that it's just not a reciprocating engine, and I don't think you'll ever sell anyone on this board on the idea that Mazda should abandon the rotary.
Mazda should chuck the Wankel OR fix it. The more pressure they feel to fix it, the more likely that is to happen. Pressure = 1/$$$, so they will be forced to listen to the market.
It is a false choice to say "1/4 monster OR curve-carver, pick one". I want a car that does both well, and gets reasonable gas mileage to boot. Anything less and we're not calling Mazda to the excellence of which it is capable.
11-13-2008 | 03:08 PM
#25
Huge hole is huge
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,191
Likes: 1
From: Joplin, MO
That's what I'm talking about.
Mazda should chuck the Wankel OR fix it. The more pressure they feel to fix it, the more likely that is to happen. Pressure = 1/$$$, so they will be forced to listen to the market.
It is a false choice to say "1/4 monster OR curve-carver, pick one". I want a car that does both well, and gets reasonable gas mileage to boot. Anything less and we're not calling Mazda to the excellence of which it is capable.
Mazda should chuck the Wankel OR fix it. The more pressure they feel to fix it, the more likely that is to happen. Pressure = 1/$$$, so they will be forced to listen to the market.
It is a false choice to say "1/4 monster OR curve-carver, pick one". I want a car that does both well, and gets reasonable gas mileage to boot. Anything less and we're not calling Mazda to the excellence of which it is capable.