No more wankel?

RexSeven wrote: Tell you what: Mazda can make one more lightweight RWD sports car with the 16X in it. If the 16X does not live up to its promise, then Mazda drops rotary development. If it does, then carry on, Mazda.

As far as I'm concerned, they can let the rotary die and I won't mourn. I'm not saying I'm not curious about the 16X and its swap potential should it turn out to have weight more in keeping with its size than previous rotaries...

That being said, if they're going to do it, please think FD RX-7 and not RX-8. The former is one of the most lustworthy cars to hit serial production, and the latter is one of the most ungainly shapes ever to darken a roadway.

Or better yet, SA/FB. You know, affordable performance. Mazda can make a more FC-like GT car or FD-like twin-turbo giant killer too, but they have to be upper-rung versions and not the only versions. If no one can afford the MX-7/RX-7, be it powered by a boinger or magic spinning triangles, it will die a quick death just like the FD did in the US back in 1995. And unlike the FD, it won't last long in Japan since car culture is in a decline in the homeland.

DILYSI Dave wrote: The RX8 would be a very interesting car with the Mazdaspeed 3 engine in it.

Yup that would have been a real car.

Yeah, b/c RX7's and RX8's really suck at motorsports. berkeley them. I guess you making fun of an RX8 is ok, but someone making fun of an old crappy GTI, turdbo dodge, poor-man's Porsche, gay Miata, Neon, Escort, old BMW etc. is not acceptable. I've never understood the hate for the RX8 here. It just seems so hypocritical.

If rotaries were better and more efficient than piston engines, everyone would be using them.

Sorry rotorheads but the almighty dollar speaks and auto makers get the best bang for their buck from a piston engine.

Shawn

(Humorless guy here) Why do some folks enjoy pissing on parades? It's like on BAT, there's almost always guys who feel the need to talk about how ugly a given car is. Whatever happened to "it's not my cup of tea, but some folks really seem to like them"? I really enjoyed my FC. If it had more headroom I'd probably still have it. A great car? No. A fun car? You bet. As enthusiasts methinks that we should welcome anything that's fun.

Rotarys are amazing engines. You dont have to change anything to make 500-600whp with just boost and porting. No forged rotors, light/bigger valves, no cams, etc etc.

The rx8's mistake was lack of a turbo(s). The FD + modern tech would have made a much better engine. Or am I just talking about a renesis + turbo idk. But lower reving ("only 8K") and the super torquey nature of a small oem turbo setup would have been much better.

Or hell just make a 3 rotor. 50% more every where kills all arguments.

~Alex

Otto Maddox wrote: There is nothing wrong with the RX-8 that a more efficient engine and a better looking body couldn't fix.

Agreed, if it's such a great motor why is there only one car on the market with it?

I hope they put the new "Wankel" in something. Having choices is good.

Come to think of it, it was the wankel that stopped me from buying any generation of RX-7, and the RX-8.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: In reply to emodspitfire: If the Rotary was never efficient, why did the EPA rate the '79/'80 Rx-7 at 29/30 mpg (hwy) with the 5-speed manual? If there is anything to complain about, it's emissions, but then who on this board really cares about that anyway.

Uh, I do.

And while the Rotary from over 30 years ago had decent milage numbers, the most recent ones did not. So.

A more realistic question- how much money is Mazda spending on a product that has sold less than 10k a year for a LOONG time vs. on products that can make money?

I for one hope the continue with the development of it.

For a long time I have thought they should throw the Renisis in the Miata then fit it with a hard top hatch, restyle it a bit and call it an RX-7. It just seems to easy not to. The 16X is supposed to be even better.

That would probably the only new car I could see spending money on thought partly for nostalgic reasons. My first car was an 85 RX-7 GSL-SE and I still have an 84 SE (which is getting a LS1/T56), an 83 5.0 T5, and 79 GS w/ 47k miles. I am not a rotary purist but I do believe they have their place. I want the 84 to be FAST. The 83 is a Lemons car we got witht the V8. The 79 I am hardly going to touch and I still want a nice clean stock GSL-SE.

Gas mileage aside I never understood the hate. As a whole the non turbo rotaries are very reliable cars. I bought a 79 once for $1000 sight unseen and drove it from Kansas City back to FL averaging 24mpg @ 75mph. Only issue was a brake braket that came loose which I tightened up. The car still runs today.

The main reasons I cant get behind the Miata is that everyone and their hairdresser has one, the styling (very subjective) and the motors are completely uninspiring to me. Tom's Flying Miata turbo aside I have never driven one and thought "Wow I really enjoyed ringing that out, the motor seemed so eager". They always seemed gutless with no energy up top. The rotary is as a generaly rule gutless (a stock SE with working 5th and 6th ports is not bad though) but it is very willing to rev and take a beating.

In this thread, many people whose ideal engine is a Cummins.

alfadriver wrote:

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: In reply to emodspitfire: If the Rotary was never efficient, why did the EPA rate the '79/'80 Rx-7 at 29/30 mpg (hwy) with the 5-speed manual? If there is anything to complain about, it's emissions, but then who on this board really cares about that anyway.

Uh, I do. And while the Rotary from over 30 years ago had decent milage numbers, the most recent ones did not. So. A more realistic question- how much money is Mazda spending on a product that has sold less than 10k a year for a LOONG time vs. on products that can make money?

Sorry, that was meant to be a joke, I forgot to use a smilie

Also, yes those mileage numbers were 30 years ago, but the original arguement was that Mazda never made the Rotary efficient.

Also the Rx-8 and Rx-7 is/was a niche market car. It's a sports car not meant to be a daily driver. Mazda figured out 35 years ago that the Rotary was not a good candidate for daily driven vehicles and is happier in the upper RPM range. That's why the Rx-7 was the only model from Mazda to have a rotary after 1978. Actually, don't forget the 3-Rotor Cosmo that was Mazda's Grand Tourer (but that was never sold here in the US).

I think that the Wankel have their place in niche market vehicles.

The Rotary engine will never replace the piston engine and it's demise is inevitable, but for now Mazda can and will probably continue development of it.

The EPA website only goes back to 1984, but a 12a 5 speed was only 15-21 mileage. Even if you adjust for the new scores that's what, 19-25? Still not good.

I miss my 80 rx7....But not the mleage.

Joey

I had an RX-7. Engine blew while tooling around at 30 mph. Made me mad.

To me, the rotary never lives up to its promise. When I think of a small, rev happy engine in a light car, I expect great handling, reliability and fuel efficiency. I'd forgive a lot of faults in the rotary engine if it was bulletproof and offering up 30 MPG or so. I want to love rotaries. I used to love them. I finally realized that fixes for their inherent faults would never be found.

Oh, and the emissions thing. I care about that too.

In reply to joey48442:

I had an '84 with the 12A. 15/21 MPG mirrors my experience.

joey48442 wrote: The EPA website only goes back to 1984, but a 12a 5 speed was only 15-21 mileage. Even if you adjust for the new scores that's what, 19-25? Still not good.

No, when you adjust for the new scores mileage gets worse.

In reply to ProDarwin:

15/21 is under the new system. I think he was saying if you adjusted them back to the old rating system. They show the original sticker too on the EPA website - 17/23 MPG.

Coincidentally, 15/21 is what my 300 hp V8 Lexus is rated at. The Mazda had 101 hp, I think.

In reply to Otto Maddox:

Doh. My bad.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: Also the Rx-8 and Rx-7 is/was a niche market car. It's a sports car not meant to be a daily driver. Mazda figured out 35 years ago that the Rotary was not a good candidate for daily driven vehicles and is happier in the upper RPM range. That's why the Rx-7 was the only model from Mazda to have a rotary after 1978. Actually, don't forget the 3-Rotor Cosmo that was Mazda's Grand Tourer (but that was never sold here in the US). I think that the Wankel have their place in niche market vehicles. The Rotary engine will never replace the piston engine and it's demise is inevitable, but for now Mazda can and will probably continue development of it.

That's where I have the financial issue. How much money should be spent on a product where the return is next to nothing?

Will Mazda get any marketing attention due to the Rotary? Will that any sell enough cars to make money on the investment in the rotary?

If I were an investor in Mazda, I would be asking those questions.

Heavy investment would make sense if it were going into the 3, or anything that would put the rotary at ~100k a year. But at 5k? You have to sell them for gold prices to return the development costs.

There's a lot of love for the rotary, not a lot of buying of new cars with the rotary.

Man, I hadn't even thought of the possible fallout of failure to get a return on new rotary investment.

Mazda being among the makers of the few interesting modern cars, I'd hate to see them do anything that would cause a kneejerk conservatism or bigger issues.

I suppose it would be out of the question for the next RX-? to have the option of rotary or piston power?

alfadriver wrote: That's where I have the financial issue. How much money should be spent on a product where the return is next to nothing?

Boy, you sure try hard to make yourself sound like the person enthusiasts don't want working on cars, you know that eh? The "almighty" dollar and all of that. Even with low sales, over the past 50 years many manufacturers have made niche vehicles, and have still been successful. I understand your idea of a "successful" company is probably one that rings every living cent out of each product it makes, but we've saw what that does. Look at Honda right now, they decided to destroy their brand for the almighty dollar (like most japanese car companies have) and are starting to suffer because of it.

ransom wrote: Man, I hadn't even thought of the possible fallout of failure to get a return on new rotary investment. Mazda being among the makers of the few interesting modern cars, I'd hate to see them do anything that would cause a kneejerk conservatism or bigger issues. I suppose it would be out of the question for the next RX-? to have the option of rotary or piston power?

If it did, it wouldn't be called an "RX."

That said, i'd be all for a modern 808.