Does the next rx car really need to have 350+ hp? I think a 275-300hp NA rotary engine in a coupe version of the ND getting mid to upper 20's mpg and priced just below the current 370z, would be pretty damn competitive.

 

Interesting read guys. Pity there isn't a decent rendition of the shinari concept coming out. Unlike the ft86.

Two questions: why didn't the 16x come out in the updated s2 8, and what was the point of it if they never used it?

 

Manufacturers have to have an engine ready for a given car several years before that car's introduction. They would have had to have the 16x ready by like ~2006 or so to get it into the series 2. As late as 2010, they were still saying that development on it was at a standstill, and it wasn't hitting their performance goals. Whatever those goals might have been. Toss in all the SkyActive tech, and I can bet that they were already moving into Sky-R, having only really played with the 16x for a few years.

 

I agree 100%. There is no need for that much HP. If they could lighten the car to 2500-2700 lbs I think a legit 250-275hp would be plenty in something priced similar to the current 8.

 

You are correct. Only one thing I will repeat; the 16X has always been 'skyactiv' as much as their piston program was 'skyactiv'. Before the term existed the new targets were set for all their powertrains. They stopped the Mazdaspeed RX-8 concept to focus research time and funding into a new direction 6 years ago. That became 16X. Is the latest move completely different from 16X? I'm patiently waiting to find out.

Paul.

 

I really hope the new rotary tech comes in a package like this. A new RX-8 with the 4 doors like it is now (the one I would buy) and 2 seat versions called the RX-9 or call it the 7 again. They could even look similar except for the doors. I love having the options. They could even give the 2 seat version a turbo or two for the fanboys. That is a recipe for some win right there.

The Eight is exactly what I need out of sports car. If the eight did not have the 4 doors, I would be driving a Mazda 3, Evo, or WRX right now.

 

the more I think about it the more I think that Mazda was already doing the sky active concept with the RX8. Look at all the special features this car has to save weight:
1- the engine rotors are lighter than the previous engines
2- carbon fiber driveshaft
3- special metals in the roof
4- very lightweight hood and truck
5- very lightweight interior padding and components
6- very lightweight a/c system
etc --you get the point.
The Rx8 was a huge success in many ways. I cannot think of another car like it in the world?
One reason milage suffered is the damn ethanol we have to live with. When I use pure gas--mpg goes up noticeabiliy and the engine seems to run better.
Mazda does need a signature car and when they recover from their present situation it will get very interesting.

 

@Paul:
You obviously know more about this than the normal public, but in my opinion,I think it is no more a '16x' as we theorized about any more than the 13b-msp was to the 12a guys. We will leapfrog the "known" 16x (I.e., just a 13b-msp with narrower rotors, greater eccentricity) as it became inferior to their more recent designs before it was complete.

I expect the same thing happens with other manufacturers of any industry. In the R+D, they make big enough changes to report on, but then realize that it's not going to perform as desired, rethink the pattern, and that iteration was just another discarded design. Has value in what was learned from it, but not marketable.

Remember when Eric Meyer talked about designing an intake? He said that they started with 2 feet of tubing sticking out past the nose, and dyno'ed, cut off an ich, dynoed again, cut off another inch, etc...

Telling someone that you started at 2ft doesn't mean that it was the best they found, and the 23 'other' iterations of this 24 inch intake were discarded in favor of the one that performed best. Learned from those other 23 lengths though.

 

Agreed OD. Have you seen the weight of the CX-5 AWD? It's shockingly low for an AWD car, much less an SUV.

Fantastic

 

I test drove one the other day while my Eight was in for a oil change. It is a nice SUV. If I needed a RAV 4 like car that would be the one I would get.

 

You're missing my point:

Skyactiv is a marketing term but it relates to a push within Mazda over a recent period. They set NEW goals that relate to the world market, environment etc. The current RX-8 has nothing to do with that. They announced in 2010 that they intended to increase the fuel economy of their global line by 30% by 2015. They had already begun the R&D for this in piston engines (Petrol and diesel), automatic transmissions, manual transmissions, chassis, suspensions, as well as rotary engines.

Paul.

 

You can never have enough power...

 

Sounds like Charles is hung like a light switch-lol. A 350 HP rotary would be great but I hope they deal with the lack of torque.

 

The big thing is the economy. If it improves people will buy new Mazdas, if it tanks people will be buying old Mazdas.

The 8 has style - it catches the eye - that brings in the new buyer, then the engineering becomes interesting. If someone once had an earlier one, then that memory brings them back - so folks who owned a 7 kinda want that experience again.

I saw a mock up for a 9 and it had something, but the 8 is a classic and needs to be treated with respect - that kind that puts it on the classic registry!

I would like to see something done with the 8's belt powered generator - I think it has a lot of potential - and I would like to see something that would prevent the loss of rotary power as heat...

 

I disagree. I think you can have too much power. But I think more importantly, you have to consider what you're sacrificing to achieve that power. In all likelihood, economy, reliability and cost. And frankly the last thing the next rotary engine needs is to reenforce the bad economy and low reliability reputation it has.

 

Hey! That means all those lsx and 2jz coversions are wrong!

Couple of stuff are new on msp and mazda wayyyyy underestimate some stuff on s1, they fixed them in s2 and i think s2 will have much much better reliability. Well not saying s1 is all that bad i mean some engines go over 200k with just regular maintance. But ahhh u get the idea

 

^ this guy gets it.


A high power rotary is a poster child and a rotorhead wet dream. Mazda can not afford to do this. They need a car that sells. Sure, people will want power. But a perception of poor economy and poor reliability will turn away far more people than poor power.


Armchair racers on the internet want more power. But they end up buying low power cars. They can't put their money where their mouth (and fingers) are. (in general. yes there are exceptions). It's why the V6 Mustang is always such a great seller. People SAY they want the V8 power. But more people will still opt for the lower powered one anyway when it comes down to money time. "More" being the key word. If the Mustang was only available as a V8 at the given price point, it sure wouldn't have nearly the sales under it's name as it does. Relatively few of those V6 buyers would have actually 'upgraded' to the V8 if the V6 wasn't available.

Just an example. A rather large portion of the population of the world doesn't feel a need for any more than ~200hp. Even many enthusiasts feel very little need for more than ~250hp. Anyone that truly and honestly believes that that is insufficient is in the very very small minority.

When you add in how small a minority rotarheads are, that isn't all that big of a market for Mazda.


Not convinced? Go check out Mazda videos on YouTube, where the important people of Mazda are talking about car design. Check out their latest "Defy Convention" 3 minute commercial. They specifically state in there "we make lower power cars that are faster than higher power cars." (ish, quote from memory). Mazda DOES NOT play the power game. Feel free to wish they would all you want, but they simply do not. No, power is a tertiary goal, NOT a primary one, or even secondary.



I applaud them for it.

 

Nah, I want 350bhp, stuff the mpg and emissions :D

 

found another link to support this thread further enjoy



http://www.autoevolution.com/news/ma...ogy-43384.html

 

nothing new, same stuff.

 

Drivability is more important than raw power. Everyone has seen the video of the street racing corvettes that loose control and crash into each other... (it was on Dumbest Stuff on Wheels last night...). If they were talking about the 16x in 2008-2010, then they started working on it in 2002-2004 probably. it is evolving.

A reliable, modestly fuel efficient (28-30ish hwy mpg) rotory GT car that handled like a Jag XK-R, with 0-60 times around the 6 second mark would sell if priced around $30,000. It wouldn't matter what the actual hp/tq numbers where. Low weight and balance make up for lower hp numbers. EVERYTHING is about the magic hwy mpg number now anyway.

 

there in is the primary misconceived problem. The rotary will never have "street" power. It will never in its oem state "feel" powerful. Why? Torque. Torque is what John Q is feeling when he test drives a car and thinks "Wow--this car is fast!" The oem offered 2rotor rotary engine will never have compatable torque compared to a performance oriented recip engine. Its physics.
The rotary engines offer to the automative world is smoothness,less parts and a small package( and that part is being threaten lately).
Now if new developements bring the rotary foward---who knows. But changing the shape of the housing in itself wont do it. Changing the shape will help with emissions and gas milage and maybe even make it last longer with mimimal power lost, but it will not throw it into the current recognized "performance" club. I dont see how anything short of a 3 rotor design or FI can do that.

 

In my opinion, yes. They all suck and destroy the purpose of the car. Anytime you take the rotary engine out of a car that came with one, you destroy the car. May as well send the chassis to the crusher.

 

Same exact feeling here.

Well i said about the same thing in other threads and op just told me to **** off

 

If they can seal better, they can up the compression even more which result in more power.

With lighter components, better and faster computers, more precise fuel direct injection, i dont see a problem competiting with piston engines.

Japanese law prohibit 3 rotor from happening ,not because its impossible.