Before the RX-7

A 20B powered REPU... neat tow vehicle.

noooo torque

Buzz Killington wrote: leaf springs?!?!?? seriously...what the hell kind of sports car uses leaf springs, for Duntov's sake? i would happily house any of those old mazders, including (and maybe especially) a REPU.

RX-2 used coil springs. RX-3 used leafs. RX-4 used leafs,RX-5 used coils,and rear disk brakes.RX-7 we all know used coils,and by 86 had independent rear suspension. The 79-85 rear use a Watts linkage to locate the rear axle side to side,and it is weird setup with the pivot point not being in the centre of the axle.

The RX-2,3,4,5 were never meant to be sports cars,and therefore leafs were the norm for most cars back then(2,5 excluded). That didn't stop people from racing them,but in my opinion the leaf springs cars weren't the best setup for that sort of thing.

From what I recall, the RX-4 was the 929 with a whizzy engine.

More likely the 929 was an RX-4 with a boinger.

Why was there no RX-6? I mean it went 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. Why did Mazda skip 6?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill ya.

They did also make an RX-87 but they never sold in the US. Those models are super rare even in the few markets they did sell them.

The RX-3 and RX-7 were known as Savanahs in Japan. That is the only direct link between models that I am aware of.
I raced ITA RX-3's during the early 90's and no other car could touch one of those cars. It was great to see a field of 8-12 of the suckers fly around RA. My lap times at RA would get me into the top 5(barely) of the GT2 field at the Runoffs.
RX-4's were slightly faster in a straight line but the RX-3 was the better all-around racer. There were only two or so RX-2's racing in the SE and just didnt handle as well as a 3. We used a home-made panhard rod and very large 1" or bigger rear sway bar to keep everything underneath the car

grimmelshanks wrote: noooo torque

that, dear boy, is why God made gearboxes.

the bottom line is that rotary cars aren't intended to be cars in which you can lay back listening to smooth jazz, shifting with two fingers and jumping into holes in traffic whenever you happen to notice them. they expect you to be DRIVING, and that includes being in the correct gear (which is easy b/c of the engine's otherwordly smoothness). if you are, you will never complain about a lack of thrust. but if you want to cruise around at 35mph in 6th gear, then it ain't gonna bail you out.

oh alright so i have this tractor i need pulled to my house from los angeles, would you mind taking care of that for me with a sa rx7? lol. i only mentioned rotarys' inherent lack of torque in the context of a tow vehicle. i know they require a certain finesse, and i know they do quite well, in their element

Jeff wrote: RX coupe prices are nuts. Yes, they are fairly rare having mostly rusted away years ago. But even rat traps sell for several grand. I had an Rx-3 sp in the early 80's. It was a pain in the ass but when it was working, it was a hoot. I had a couple of Cibie Super Oscars on it and used to take it out on the old dirt roads in MI late at night.

I was about to say "..that was you?.." until you mentioned Michigan, and dirt. There was a guy like you in MS that the bane of my existence when I owned my first BMW 2002. He'd creep up on my in the middle of the night when I was "practicing", and proceed to demonstrate that I had much to learn about handling a car at speed.

I don't really have anything else to add to the conversation, just wanted to tell you that I thought it was seriously cool that you chose a pic of one of the old Busby GT Light/C2 Lolas for your avatar.

Gp.C2 class winner, Le Mans 1984. IIRC, it had a bridge-ported 13B in it.

EDIT: got to see it at The Mitty in about 2006 or so.

Buzz Killington wrote:

grimmelshanks wrote: noooo torque

that, dear boy, is why God made gearboxes. the bottom line is that rotary cars aren't intended to be cars in which you can lay back listening to smooth jazz, shifting with two fingers and jumping into holes in traffic whenever you happen to notice them. they expect you to be DRIVING, and that includes being in the correct gear (which is easy b/c of the engine's otherwordly smoothness). if you are, you will never complain about a lack of thrust. but if you want to cruise around at 35mph in 6th gear, then it ain't gonna bail you out.

QFT, and I don't even own one (but my good friends have let me drive quite a few)! You think keeping a small displacement piston engine "on the cam" for the sake of power over torque requires some work? Try it in a rotary. I personally think it's fun, and "educational". It certainly required me to change my driving style..

i actually find my RX-8's powertain to be pretty flexible on the street...once in a while i get caught in too low a gear, but that's usually in the name of fuel economy and b/c my exhaust is a (sweet sounding) straight pipe w/ just a resonator. but it's no LS1.

grimmelshanks wrote: oh alright so i have this tractor i need pulled to my house from los angeles, would you mind taking care of that for me with a sa rx7? lol. i only mentioned rotarys' inherent lack of torque in the context of a tow vehicle. i know they require a certain finesse, and i know they do quite well, in their element

LOL...well geez, in that case anything this side of a Cummins has "no torque."

The RX-3 was also sold as a wagon. The car folks think was an RX-3 4 door sedan, MIGHT have been it's piston engined "sister". Mazda sold piston and wankel-engined versions of nearly all the RX cars, tho not all were available in the U.S.

I had an RX-2 in 1975 or 76 as a rental car. Yeah, Budget rented RXs as "compacts", but with the rotary and automatic drivetrain, these were the quickest and gas-guzzlingest(?) "compact" cars you could buy.

I know Mazda sold the RX-3 as a sedan in OZ,but I have been told they also sold them here,but I have never seen one. Not that I see a lot of old school rotories here in salty New England. I would love an RX-3,or -4 wagon.

Chris

A rotary racer in Atlanta in the early 90's had a RX-3 wagon that had been breathed upon by Mike Levy(one of the guru's of rotary). It was a neat car. I have seen a few other wagons on the street since and would love to build one up as a street car. I dont know if you can find "truck port" housings anymore so you might just have to build it with RX-7 housings and drivetrain, but either way it would be an interesting car so long as you didnt need the modern conveniences.

integraguy wrote: Mazda sold piston and wankel-engined versions of nearly all the RX cars, tho not all were available in the U.S.

The piston version of the Rx3 was designated an 808; perhaps even more rare than the rotary counterpart.

In reply to friedgreencorrado:

Actually my N/A 13B has a wider power band (3500-7000rpm) than most stock D and B series VTEC motors (on the big cam lobes for ~2000 rpm). My 13B is in some ways similar to the K20A3 in my EP3 Si...pulls hard above 3500 rpm and is smooth as silk. My '88 RX-7 is geared much taller than my EP3 however. Both are fun. However, I have to say that I am really enjoying driving the RX-7. Even with 153,000 miles on her she still runs great

The Rx3 sedan was sold in the US there are questions to just which years it was sold in I have been able to confirm 72 and 73 there is some literature that states they were sold in 76 also however I have never seen one. I have seen a MIZER sedan (Rx3 piston economy version, similar to an 808) from 76. I currently own a low mileage original 72 Rx3 sedan.

As far as using Truck Housing for their bigger ports you are better off using 12a stuff from 81-5 it is far better material and surfaces. It can easily be ported

Someone also asked why no Rx6 well to get the answer you need to go back to when Mazda was designing the Rx series. The geneology of the Mazdas the Cosmo or 110s (imports were 110s, this was not imported to the us) were the first designed each were hand made. The first production rotary was the R100 however it was really a converted piston chassis the J-spec familia. Then came the Rx87 or R-130 or Luce (it went by all 3 names at various times not imported to the US), this car used a 13a engine and was front wheel drive these engine components are speicific only to this engine, the car was an Italian design. Then came the Rx2, Rx3, Rx4, (home market Capella, Savanna, Luce respectively) these were designed in that order. The next 2 were resleased in the opposite order they were designed, the Cosmo (Home market and US) or Rx5 (other imports) was the next design but was not on sale until 76, the other design was the Rotary Pickup which was released in 74.

How does all this relate to Rx6.... well in the mazda parts literature it goes like this R100=R1, Rx2=R2, Rx3=R3, Rx4=R4, Rx5=R5 and Rotary Pickup=R6

Dave

Hey Rotary Dave could you email me pics of your RX-3 sedan to cdirado at mac dot com? I would love to see it. Where did you find it?

Chris

integraguy wrote: The RX-3 was also sold as a wagon. I had one of those. It was orange. I think it was a '73. Engine would certainly rev. Engine had a 50000 mile warrenty. Rotary seals blew at just a little over 50000 miles. No help was forthcoming from Mazda. Had the engine rebuilt. Later I received $700 or so from Mazda because of a class action suit.

There is a cool rotary wagon here

Must be Lethbridge.

Rotarydave wrote: How does all this relate to Rx6.... well in the mazda parts literature it goes like this R100=R1, Rx2=R2, Rx3=R3, Rx4=R4, Rx5=R5 and Rotary Pickup=R6 Dave

Waitaminnit...the RX-6 is...is...the REPU? Now I know how Kasper Gutman felt when he found out the Falcon was a fake.

Seriously, though. I can't believe that I've never owned even one Rotary during my time as a sportscar guy. At least now that I've met you guys, I know who to call when I get serious about fixing that problem..