i am seeking opinions on the diference btw piston cars and rotors...
Thinking about it, it is hard to find many pros for the rotor engines, and i guess it is an important part to make my decition on a buyback or not.
As of right now i stand iin the point of view that there must be a reason why mazda is the only company to persue this technology with sooo many other car makers out there, whys is it that no one else wants to mess around with rotors?
The 8 being my very first rotor car, i must admit that i am exited for it. i like to be diferente and having a non-piston car gives me that sence since 99.5 % of the cars i see on the road are pistons. But at what cost, is it really better? so far this engine has proposted to me with to pros, one being real quiet for the 'power' it generates and the 2 is just that is diferent (a psycological matter) but thats it a major turn off is that consuming 1.3 liters, it gives out CRAZY horrible mpg. And there is people who wish to have a 3 rotoe 2.0 displacement in the 8 what kind of mileage will you get? 10? .. the other major con is that it gets hot as hell, it like having a personal heater without turning on tha heater. 3 the poor power output for gas consumption.. less than 200 at the wheels.
so with all said what are really the good things to look for in the 'renesis' engine or a rotor engine .
Why doesn't other companies try to develop this type of engine, are they really reliable? what about cutting up with future technologies such us fuel cell systems? is mazda going to develop the rotor engine into that new era all by itself? i guess i really am new to the rotor engine world.! really shifting towards a piston one (sti?)
Thanks for you input in advance, this might help me understand a little better the dynamics of this engine and pershaps even to keep it..

Gotta reply to this one.

When I first asked my grandfather, a fellow car nut, about the rotary, he said "They say it is the engine of the future. And it is, because it is not here yet!" The latter sentence referred to the fact that only Mazda had the rotary and it was in a much inferior position to piston engines in the marketplace. This was in the early 1980s. He also related they had a lot of pep but burned a lot of gas. Similar to today- not a whole lot of change in 20 years.

I think in 24 months the rotary will be gone from the USA as a gasoline engine, never to return. Too many drawbacks- heat, poor fuel economy, low torque, missing power, lots of seeming production line variations in terms of wildly fluctuating mpg/power among board member vehicles, as well as PR problems for Mazda and all the issues reported on this board. But mostly, I think it will be dead because of the power and torque produced in relation to the gas burned. NOT ACCEPTABLE. As much as I like the rotary, I don't see the point of it at all anymore. "It's smooth, has few moving parts and sounds cool" and "only Japanese engine to win LeMans" doesn't cut it. From an engineering and efficiency standpoint it is a bad answer for a passenger car.

Back to my grandfather's statement. The rotary COULD have a bright future- as a hydrogen engine. Piston engines detonate when burning hydrogen. Conversely, rotaries run very well on hydrogen, and Mazda has demonstrated this.

Our fossil fuels WILL run out someday. We can make ethanol, or electolysize (sp?) hydrogen from seawater using electricity from nuclear power. If we start burning hydrogen (I want an internal combustion engine, none of this fuel cell crap!) Mazda will be WAY ahead of the game. The engine of the future: the hydrogen-burning rotary. From Mazda. A good reason for them to continue pursuing it, and probably part of the reason they do.

Originally posted by DonG35Miata
Gotta reply to this one.

When I first asked my grandfather, a fellow car nut, about the rotary, he said "They say it is the engine of the future. And it is, because it is not here yet!" The latter sentence referred to the fact that only Mazda had the rotary and it was in a much inferior position to piston engines in the marketplace. This was in the early 1980s. He also related they had a lot of pep but burned a lot of gas. Similar to today- not a whole lot of change in 20 years.

I think in 24 months the rotary will be gone from the USA as a gasoline engine, never to return. Too many drawbacks- heat, poor fuel economy, low torque, missing power, lots of seeming production line variations in terms of wildly fluctuating mpg/power among board member vehicles, as well as PR problems for Mazda and all the issues reported on this board. But mostly, I think it will be dead because of the power and torque produced in relation to the gas burned. NOT ACCEPTABLE. As much as I like the rotary, I don't see the point of it at all anymore. "It's smooth, has few moving parts and sounds cool" and "only Japanese engine to win LeMans" doesn't cut it. From an engineering and efficiency standpoint it is a bad answer for a passenger car.

Back to my grandfather's statement. The rotary COULD have a bright future- as a hydrogen engine. Piston engines detonate when burning hydrogen. Conversely, rotaries run very well on hydrogen, and Mazda has demonstrated this.

Our fossil fuels WILL run out someday. We can make ethanol, or electolysize (sp?) hydrogen from seawater using electricity from nuclear power. If we start burning hydrogen (I want an internal combustion engine, none of this fuel cell crap!) Mazda will be WAY ahead of the game. The engine of the future: the hydrogen-burning rotary. From Mazda. A good reason for them to continue pursuing it, and probably part of the reason they do.


if so then why bother and go thru this all embarresement with the 8 ? if future comes in the way you say, people will look back and remember this times, what will it make it better in the future, their word? again?
and so you say that right now pistons are the way to go, right? .. maybe we should do a poll too, pistons or rotor

Originally posted by U. N. O.
if so then why bother and go thru this all embarresement with the 8 ?

I have been asking myself that question for a month now. Why ARE they going through all this embarassment? They had to have a clue as to the fuel consumption.

"if future comes in the way you say, people will look back and remember this times, what will it make it better in the future, their word? again?"

Because it won't be what they say, but how the product performs. That is what the problem is now- product performance in the real world. If they can make a rotary burn hydrogen and produce more power than a fuel cell, as well provide a driving experience akin to what people will have now, then they will have a winner. Who knows how far in the future this could be.

I have to be honest, that when I first started looking for a car, I had no intention of buying another Mazda, nor did I have much knowledge about rotaries. I really didn't care.

However now being a bit more read about the car, the engine, and the reason it exists and if things play out properly... will continue to, I can give you a few words on this.

First DonG35 is right about one thing, it *is* the engine of the future. But for sports cars, and also for hydrogen (as mentioned). Mazda themselves have admitted that the rotary is not suitable for passenger cars and more suited to sports cars. As well it should be.

First, it's smooth. You can rev the hell out of it and it LOVES it. That's part of my fun in a sports car. Second, it's very *lightweight*. If you look at cars like the McLaren F1, the Ferrari Enzo, they are KILLING for mere pounds of weight. The RX-8 saves lots of weight by using a rotary instead of a traditional piston engine.

It's also small. The RX-8 engine itself is about the size of a beer keg. In fact it's so light, you can likely carry it yourself (provided you're able bodied enough to carry a keg!). Piston engines with similar power output cannot compare.

Now the torque issue... okay I admit, it's not a torquey engine. It's only in America that people obsess with the 'off the line' power and torquieness of the motor. However when you're saving so much weight, the torque becomes a non issue. You *do* have to wind out the gearbox to get the power out of the motor but even then, the car is very powerful.

In the end, look at it this way. A 1.3L (or even 2.6L if you're so inclined) produces ~240 horsepower. Nissan needed a 3.5L engine to make this power. BMW uses a heavier I6 to produce power like this. That's the beauty of the rotary. You add another rotor or increase the width, and you have gobs more power. At the price point of the RX-8 I think, that it wasn't feasible to do that because where the RX-8 is positioned in respect to other cars. It would have been nice to have 280 horsepower, but then it would also cost more money.

So to be frank... if you don't 'get' rotaries, or don't like them, you likely never will. But I'm having a blast driving a car that has a rotary engine, as are many others. And in the end, isn't that all that matters?

do either of you own a rx8

Maybe someone can point me in the right direction -- but why do rotary engines come out producing a much poorer MPG than a piston engine?

I'm not a scientist or enginer, but I would have thought that with a rotary engine being such an elegantly simple, more powerful and smaller machine that it would easly do much better than the average 4 pistoned engine?

Originally posted by mikeb
do either of you own a rx8

yes. preorder mine in fact, the second one to get the car in my area.

Originally posted by mikeb
do either of you own a rx8

Only Don doesn't.

I think I would do a little more research and board searching before I spent too much time listening to Don "Occam's Razor" G35Miata.

Every car -- every engine has strengths and weaknesses. The rotary has many strengths for a sports car -- as highlighted by Herc. It also has a few weaknesses but I would not list Torque, missing HP, etc amoung them. Buger has posted many great thoughts on torque, hp etc. if you search or I would suggest a great article Paul Yaw has written Torque vs. Horsepower (http://www.yawpower.com/tqvshp.html) .

You will notice that Mazda is not putting the Renesis in the 6 or the Tribute or the MPV. It is however in sports cars (maybe even the Miata as an option). It's amazing that for such a poor engine the experts have named it the "International Engine of the Year 2003" (http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/ieoty.html)

Originally posted by Hercules
A 1.3L (or even 2.6L if you're so inclined) produces ~240 horsepower. Nissan needed a 3.5L engine to make this power. BMW uses a heavier I6 to produce power like this. That's the beauty of the rotary. You add another rotor or increase the width, and you have gobs more power. At the price point of the RX-8 I think, that it wasn't feasible to do that because where the RX-8 is positioned in respect to other cars. It would have been nice to have 280 horsepower, but then it would also cost more money.


true, nissan takes 3.5 liters but thats where my question is, their mpg is better. consuming waaay more they produce more power ofcouse but consume less..
engine is lighter and smaller, you add 3 one or increase the width then waht will we get 15 mpg at the sticker and 10 when in practical use?. and you last point is that a 280 hp rotary would cost a lot more, so pistons are more affordable. so what if the engine is smaller/lighter the question remains, does it perform equal, superior, or inferior than a piston? i guess the technology/time is not right for this type of engine just yet..

Originally posted by RXhusker
I think I would do a little more research and board searching before I spent too much time listening to Don "Occam's Razor" G35Miata.

Need I remind you, RXhusker: The Occam's Razor theory was correct and I was right. The Renesis was down on power simply because it was not a 247 hp engine. The simplest explanation was the correct one.

Do you want to make a bet based on my 24 month prediction? I have paypal and we can settle up that way. Hercules is a good guy and he can moderate and hold us both to the bet, and we are betting on September 11, 2003. It is easy to remember September 11th. If Mazda will be selling a 2006 model year rotary-powered car in September 2005, I will pay you $50. If they are not selling any more rotaries for the 2006 model year, you will pay me $50. Do you accept the wager?

Originally posted by RXhusker
It's amazing that for such a poor engine the experts have named it the "International Engine of the Year 2003" (http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/ieoty.html)

perhaps because of the poor and missleading information release by the company? becuse i am sure if they take an engine right now from one of our cars, they would probably think twice about that award , don't you think? if it is an award because of all the engeneering behinde it and all the time involved and the size and the wight, etc, etc. yes it deserves it but what about what real people really cares about, performance/price/usability(mpg) in comparison to other cars in the class. I guess mazda shoot up high and it ended being in a harder fall

Originally posted by bwayout
Maybe someone can point me in the right direction -- but why do rotary engines come out producing a much poorer MPG than a piston engine?

I'm not a scientist or enginer, but I would have thought that with a rotary engine being such an elegantly simple, more powerful and smaller machine that it would easly do much better than the average 4 pistoned engine?

I guess one of the reasons is its cycle rate...idle speeds are higher than a regular piston (recipro.) engine.

good point

good point rxhuster

What would be considered more efficient?

A 1.5L 3-rotor?
Or 1.5L 2-rotor?

3 small rotors or 2 larger ones?

Originally posted by Hercules
INow the torque issue... okay I admit, it's not a torquey engine. It's only in America that people obsess with the 'off the line' power and torquieness of the motor. However when you're saving so much weight, the torque becomes a non issue. You *do* have to wind out the gearbox to get the power out of the motor but even then, the car is very powerful.


Not only American's are obsessed with off-the-line performance. The Lotus Elise 135 has a 135bhp & 126lb-ft engine...how fast is it off the line? its in the mid 5s....of course its waaaaay lighter...1700lbs and its only an inline-4 1.8...climb up to the Elise 190 and you got yourself a rocket with rubber landing gear (I meant tires. :D )

And its not the best example, but the one I had more at hand.
Ohhh, yes, going back to the topic....I don't think an engine ca be so flawed and yet get an award of any kind. I am pretty confident that the engine has to be an enormous improvement over the previous iterations; although this is my first rotary. :D

Originally posted by DonG35Miata


Need I remind you, RXhusker: The Occam's Razor theory was correct and I was right. The Renesis was down on power simply because it was not a 247 hp engine. The simplest explanation was the correct one.

Do you want to make a bet based on my 24 month prediction? I have paypal and we can settle up that way. Hercules is a good guy and he can moderate and hold us both to the bet, and we are betting on September 11, 2003. It is easy to remember September 11th. If Mazda will be selling a 2006 model year rotary-powered car in September 2005, I will pay you $50. If they are not selling any more rotaries for the 2006 model year, you will pay me $50. Do you accept the wager?

Dang Don you really are deluded :confused: The Renesis engine is 247 H.P. (as J-SPEC configured) -- the US ECU map is currently limiting power output to 238 HP. That is not the rotary engine -- it is the emissions control system limiting top end power. Your x-files'esq Occam's Theory (poorly applied I might add) could just as easily be interpreted to show that the J-SPEC RX-8 makes 247 so the simplest path of logic would point to the differences between set-up and point to the ECU changes for the North American and Euro markets. By the way, Occam's Theory can not be "correct" or "incorrect", your hypothesis attempting to apply Occam's Theory may only be proven to be correct, or as in this case incorrect.

I don't practice betting or gambling, but feel free to check in in 2006 -- Yes, I am 100% confident the 2006 RX's will be hitting the highways and byways.

and another question that will help and i am sure it has asked before. IF and only IF our cars/engines are the way they are because of ecu re-do because of epa/usa espec, thats this mean that japan spec cars are to 247 hp? and under what consumption of gas? (mpg)

Originally posted by U. N. O.


perhaps because of the poor and missleading information release by the company? becuse i am sure if they take an engine right now from one of our cars, they would probably think twice about that award , don't you think? if it is an award because of all the engeneering behinde it and all the time involved and the size and the wight, etc, etc. yes it deserves it but what about what real people really cares about, performance/price/usability(mpg) in comparison to other cars in the class. I guess mazda shoot up high and it ended being in a harder fall

I guess if you take the time to read the criteria used and how the judges scored each entry you will realize that your "what real people care about" areas are those that they used for consideration of the award.

I really think people can become jaded reading these forums -- go to any other board for any other car and you will find at least as many issues, problems, malcontents and conspiracy theorists as for the 8. Check out the Z boards, Audi boards, BMW etc., etc. You would think that all of these cars stink and have the worst quality control in the world.

The RX-8 is a great car using many criteria and it has it's downsides (like all cars). I love to drive it everyday and it has surpassed my expectations in terms of quality, performance, comfort, etc.

I've got to concur with Don on this one. The benefits of the rotory do not exceed their costs IMHO. Sure, it is smaller and lighter with a pistion engine with comparable power. This works real well in a racing environment (to a point...I guess if u went through a tank every lap that could be a problem!!!), but in the real world with power limitations due to poor fuel economy and high emissions, its advantages are lost. While the Honda engines are not quite as small, they can produce more power, have better torque curves, have better reliability and have much better fuel consumption and less emissions.

In reality, the only way the rotory can compete is in a small 2X2, 2 seater or a roadster. However, Mazda refuses to commit to this design and instead chooses a model (true four seater, semi- luxury) that its not suited for.

The rotory does have the intangible qualities to rotorheads, but its not enough to persuade the common man.

Originally posted by RXhusker
Dang Don you really are deluded :confused: The Renesis engine is 247 H.P. (as J-SPEC configured) -- the US ECU map is currently limiting power output to 238 HP. That is not the rotary engine -- it is the emissions control system limiting top end power.

LOL I am deluded? Denial isn't a river in Egypt, you know...

THE RENESIS DOES NOT MAKE THE 247 HP AS WAS ADVERTISED IN THE USA. It can be 247 hp J-SPEC or 900 hp Mars-Spec and it does not matter. We are talking US engines here. Spin it all you want. I don't care if it is an ECU, or exhaust, or phases of the moon. The engine does not make 247 hp. Most people on here don't even think it is making the 238 hp number you gave.

Boy am I sorry I posted again. I do see some evidence of some lucid thought here, but not much!

Didn't think you would take my bet. :) See you in 2006 though. I'll be back to make my victory post. Just put it in my Palm Pilot schedule.

Originally posted by RXhusker


-- Yes, I am 100% confident the 2006 RX's will be hitting the highways and byways.


i feel that maybe but unless something serious is done about it, it will die eventually, just as it did with the rx-7s maybe 2006 will be the last year, that will make the cicle of 3 years in the market... meanwhile, pistons will get better and better it seems.. the thoought of a 2.5L 4cilinder, tubot at low psi can generate 300 hp is very compromising and to avera 18-20 in city driving!

we have to wait for wakeech i think for a complete explanation on the fuel consumption issue. i don't keep that stuff in a part of my brain i can easily access not do i feel like doing the search.
but my quick found piece of flotsam remembers talk about the amount of time spent engineering piston engines by every company in the world that produes them vs. the amount of time spent by basically just mazda over the last 40-50 years. plus the piston engines with their amazing amount of moving parts have more "adjustability" to play with. with rotories it is basically 4 adjustments: displacement, size of ports, shape of ports and placement of ports. those can get very tricky and take alot more time and study to achieve the desired effect.

I'm just glad that the old Hercules is back !

Good post Herc.

Originally posted by U. N. O.



i feel that maybe but unless something serious is done about it, it will die eventually, just as it did with the rx-7s maybe 2006 will be the last year, that will make the cicle of 3 years in the market... meanwhile, pistons will get better and better it seems.. the thoought of a 2.5L 4cilinder, tubot at low psi can generate 300 hp is very compromising and to avera 18-20 in city driving!

ahh, see the rx-7 didn't "die" as you put it. it was continuosly in production until the line was shut down to retool for the rx-8. it was not sold in the states because it could not meet the emissions standards coming into effect at the time and because of the blow they took when the gen3's had heat problems cuased by rushing production of the sequential twin turbo. those turbo related problems were fixed after the car left our shores and the car had no problems like that again all the thru the last one to roll off the production line last year(or was that this year already, i always get the date wrong :o )

revhappy which Honda engine has a better T curve than the renesis and what is your criteria for better?

I dont blame rxhusker for not making a bet
thus far mazda has not proved themselves to be a safe bet

Originally posted by Smoker
I'm just glad that the old Hercules is back !

Good post Herc.

under which point? ?

Originally posted by DonG35Miata


LOL I am deluded? Denial isn't a river in Egypt, you know...

THE RENESIS DOES NOT MAKE THE 247 HP AS WAS ADVERTISED IN THE USA. It can be 247 hp J-SPEC or 900 hp Mars-Spec and it does not matter. We are talking US engines here. Spin it all you want. I don't care if it is an ECU, or exhaust, or phases of the moon. The engine does not make 247 hp. Most people on here don't even think it is making the 238 hp number you gave.

Boy am I sorry I posted again. I do see some evidence of some lucid thought here, but not much!

Didn't think you would take my bet. :) See you in 2006 though. I'll be back to make my victory post. Just put it in my Palm Pilot schedule.

I wouldn't say most people don't think it makes 238 HP -- more of your false logic. A few malcontents -- most of whom don't even own the car keep that myth alive.

BTW - under your "Occam's Razor" theory I will hypothesize that your Palm Pilot will not still be in operation in 2006 (simplest line of logic is that based on average life expectancy of the Palm product it will not function for 2 more years) so i hope you remember to check in.

In your now famous Occam's Razor post you never said anything about USA -- you said the Renesis engine -- using Japan tests and dyno's doesn't produce the HP -- see your own quote ---

Using Occam's Razor on the RX-8, with the tests from Japan and the dyno numbers as evidence, it would seem that the Hi-Power Renesis just doesn't produce the advertised horsepower. That's all. Simple, Logical. And unfortunate. :(
[/QUOTE]

I guess you had better put your Occam's Razor theories on the BMW and Porsche boards because the BMW M3 or 911 don't make the advertised HP - the dyno doesn't produce accurate results on these cars either due to the sophisticated engine management systems.

Hope you enjoy your Mini -- everytime I check that board it makes me glad I got an 8 -- talk about product problems and defects :eek:

Originally posted by mikeb
I dont blame rxhusker for not making a bet
thus far mazda has not proved themselves to be a safe bet

Seems to me I took the bet -- just not the dollar bet - based on my principles and values :D $50 bucks in nothing -- but I don't place wagers for money based on my own personal beliefs. This doesn't reflect my confidence in the 8 or in Mazda.

Originally posted by U. N. O.


under which point? ?

all of it.

Originally posted by zoom44


revhappy which Honda engine has a better T curve than the renesis and what is your criteria for better?

The S2000 and the RSX-S. The RSX-S's toque curve was very close to the original Renesis torque curve that was published late last year. The new Renesis torque curve drops like a rock after 6,250 RPMS. In fact, its sort of similar the EVO's. Of course, the EVO produces a lot more wheel torque and there are pretty cheap solutions to making it pull to redline.

Originally posted by RXhusker


Seems to me I took the bet -- just not the dollar bet - based on my principles and values :D $50 bucks in nothing -- but I don't place wagers for money based on my own personal beliefs. This doesn't reflect my confidence in the 8 or in Mazda.

hope is always the last resort for the despered ones..


so RXhusker , would you say that at this age in time the rotor engine is a better "bet" ( :D ) than a piston? if so why?

Originally posted by zoom44


all of it.

sorry but how vegue...

i rose a couple of questions about that post can YOU answer them?

Originally posted by revhappy


The S2000 and the RSX-S. The RSX-S's toque curve was very close to the original Renesis torque curve that was published late last year. The new Renesis torque curve drops like a rock after 6,250 RPMS. In fact, its sort of similar the EVO's. Of course, the EVO produces a lot more wheel torque and there are pretty cheap solutions to making it pull to redline.

again .. the whole PISTON vs ROTOR dilema..

Originally posted by revhappy


The S2000 and the RSX-S. The RSX-S's toque curve was very close to the original Renesis torque curve that was published late last year. The new Renesis torque curve drops like a rock after 6,250 RPMS. In fact, its sort of similar the EVO's. Of course, the EVO produces a lot more wheel torque and there are pretty cheap solutions to making it pull to redline.

Does anyone has the time and will to interpolate the 3 power / tq figures? If possible, actual dyno'd non modded vehicles (at least moded but keeping the same characteristics of the curves)

Originally posted by revhappy


The S2000 and the RSX-S. The RSX-S's toque curve was very close to the original Renesis torque curve that was published late last year. The new Renesis torque curve drops like a rock after 6,250 RPMS. In fact, its sort of similar the EVO's. Of course, the EVO produces a lot more wheel torque and there are pretty cheap solutions to making it pull to redline.

agreed but with one caveat: the us torque curve, as we still need to see stock japanese curves(unless i have missed them) from one or more of the owners there.

Originally posted by U. N. O.


sorry but how vegue...

i rose a couple of questions about that post can YOU answer them?
he said good post herc. you asked which point. i answered all of it meaning that was a good post by herc. now what were your questions about his post?

here they are:
and you last point is that a 280 hp rotary would cost a lot more, so pistons are more affordable.

he meant that a 3 rotor would cost more than the 2 rotor pushing up the price of the current car, above where Mazda and us consumers would like it.

so what if the engine is smaller/lighter the question remains, does it perform equal, superior, or inferior than a piston? i guess the technology/time is not right for this type of engine just yet..
yes to a similarly sized NA piston engine it does it's job better in just about every way except fuel consumption. my guess is your guess is wrong. but they are just guesses.

Originally posted by RXhusker


I wouldn't say most people don't think it makes 238 HP -- more of your false logic. A few malcontents -- most of whom don't even own the car keep that myth alive.

BTW - under your "Occam's Razor" theory I will hypothesize that your Palm Pilot will not still be in operation in 2006 (simplest line of logic is that based on average life expectancy of the Palm product it will not function for 2 more years) so i hope you remember to check in.

In your now famous Occam's Razor post you never said anything about USA -- you said the Renesis engine -- using Japan tests and dyno's doesn't produce the HP -- see your own quote ---

[B]Using Occam's Razor on the RX-8, with the tests from Japan and the dyno numbers as evidence, it would seem that the Hi-Power Renesis just doesn't produce the advertised horsepower. That's all. Simple, Logical. And unfortunate. :(

I guess you had better put your Occam's Razor theories on the BMW and Porsche boards because the BMW M3 or 911 don't make the advertised HP - the dyno doesn't produce accurate results on these cars either due to the sophisticated engine management systems.

Hope you enjoy your Mini -- everytime I check that board it makes me glad I got an 8 -- talk about product problems and defects :eek:

FYI I never did get a Mini- for the reasons your quoted, problems and defects. I have two nice cars with 29,000 and 19,000 miles on them, so I am standing pat.

Do whatever mental gymnsatics you want. All the tall about ECUs, Occam's Razor, etc don't mean a hill of beans whether it comes from you or from me. What matters is #1 the Renesis is not remarkably powerful and #2 it sucks gas WAY out of proportion of its performance or power level. I think the rationalizations of U.N.O., canzoomer, TomsterRX8, and Chadr regarding the car and the rotary are accurate and will reflect the public at large. The marketplace isn't stupid and won't support such a product for long.

Originally posted by DonG35Miata
The marketplace isn't stupid and won't support such a product for long.

#1 Both of you calm down! please?
#2 How long has the Sebring been on the market?

quote:Originally posted by bwayout

Maybe someone can point me in the right direction -- but why do rotary engines come out producing a much poorer MPG than a piston engine?

I'm not a scientist or enginer, but I would have thought that with a rotary engine being such an elegantly simple, more powerful and smaller machine that it would easly do much better than the average 4 pistoned engine?

Originally posted by RX8-TX


I guess one of the reasons is its cycle rate...idle speeds are higher than a regular piston (recipro.) engine.

Hey, RX8-TX thanks for an answer that I can understand!

:)

I hope that Mazda's engineers are working on slowing the idle speeds or trying some kind of hybrid combination to get better MPG ...

Originally posted by zoom44


agreed but with one caveat: the us torque curve, as we still need to see stock japanese curves(unless i have missed them) from one or more of the owners there.

The key is that an engine must be well-rounded to succeed. It can produce 10,000 HP and get 100 MPG, but if it fails US emissions, its not going to be on our shores.

I even have my doubts about the Japanese RX8. To get obliterated that bad by the new ITR (in the US it'd be the RSX-R with ~ 217 hp and ~ 2700 lbs.)and the S2000 seems to indicate its not making its high-end power (I'm not convinced it was "sticking ports").

The bottom line is that the Honda 4 bangers are better small engines for sporty cars in the real world because they are more well-rounded.

What matters is #1 the Renesis is not remarkably powerful and #2 it sucks gas WAY out of proportion of its performance or power level.

on #2 you are correct the mileage is lacking, but i think you exaggerate some there with the "WAY out of proportion". just 2 differing opinions

but on #1 i'm here to tell you that you are wrong. this engine IS remarkably powerful for it's size and weight.

I think the rotary engine will have a great future. I see the poor MPG issue as not so much of an issue, its most likely because of "green" engines. I wont be surprised if RX-8 owners will be reporting a better MPG a year from now.

With regards to torque, sure the current Renesis does not have a lot, but thats a factor of displacement. We cant expect a 1.3L engine to have gobs of torque like a V6/V8. The 159lb/ft is what the average 2.0L 4 cylinder engine is getting. However, Mazda can solve this dilemna if they do like Subaru has done with their engines ... add a Turbo!

Originally posted by revhappy
The key is that an engine must be well-rounded to succeed. It can produce 10,000 HP and get 100 MPG, but if it fails US emissions, its not going to be on our shores.

I even have my doubts about the Japanese RX8. To get obliterated that bad by the new ITR (in the US it'd be the RSX-R with ~ 217 hp and ~ 2700 lbs.)and the S2000 seems to indicate its not making its high-end power (I'm not convinced it was "sticking ports").

The bottom line is that the Honda 4 bangers are better small engines for sporty cars in the real world because they are more well-rounded.

I could agree with you...if you allow me to add & rephrase your last sentece: "The bottom line is that the Honda 4 bangers are better small engines for sporty cars in the everyday world because they are easier to find mechanics for, been around for a couple hundred years, and they are made by Honda."

:)

Originally posted by U. N. O.


hope is always the last resort for the despered ones..


so RXhusker , would you say that at this age in time the rotor engine is a better "bet" ( :D ) than a piston? if so why?

Rather vague question and you are asking for my OPINION so here it is:

SUV - Piston
Pick-up Truck - Piston
Mini Van - Piston
Family Sedan - Piston
Semi Truck - Piston (diesel)
SPORTS CAR - ROTARY

This is my opinion based on what I prefer. High reving, lightweight sports cars. Others prefer brute power with little refinement (Mustang, etal) Many people forget that it is not the power to the wheels that makes the rotary great for sports car applications -- it is what the inherent benefits of the rotary bring to the table for engineering the REST of the CAR. Handling, feel, sound, body design, weight distribution, etc. Any engine can make HP - it is the unique characteristics of a particular engine that make it the right fit for a specific application.

People also forget that the RX-8 is not just the Renesis engine. It is the total driving package that Mazda's engineers have put together. We don't sit around talking about the Miata's engine -- we talk about the way it drives :D Same goes for the 8. If I was 5'8" and didn't have kids I may have gotten a Miata -- but I can't sit in it and my kids can't come with us :(

Originally posted by bwayout




Hey, RX8-TX thanks for an answer that I can understand!

:)

I hope that Mazda's engineers are working on slowing the idle speeds or trying some kind of hybrid combination to get better MPG ...

hey you didn't like my muddled-brain answer? :p and did you see my answer in the other thread concerning hybrids?

Originally posted by RXhusker

People also forget that the RX-8 is not just the Renesis engine. It is the total driving package that Mazda's engineers have put together. We don't sit around talking about the Miata's engine -- we talk about the way it drives :D Same goes for the 8. If I was 5'8" and didn't have kids I may have gotten a Miata -- but I can't sit in it and my kids can't come with us :(

I agree wholeheartedly. And thank goodness people talk about the whole package rather than just the engine... can you imagine people noy buying the 350Z because it has a maxima engine? :D

I dont think the MPG for the RX-8 is that bad, I mean its only 1MPG lower than my (soon to arrive) 350Z. Its quite acceptable for a sports car.

Originally posted by zoom44


hey you didn't like my muddled-brain answer? :p and did you see my answer in the other thread concerning hybrids?

:D Hey Zoom, how in heaven did you reach 3000 posts??

And Bwayout: take my explanation with a grain of salt; I am no mechanic nor engineer.

Originally posted by revhappy



The bottom line is that the Honda 4 bangers are better small engines for sporty cars in the real world because they are more well-rounded.


ahh... nevermind RX8-TX basically said what i was going to about developement time. remember what honda four bangers were like 20 years ago? give it time
;)

and ya know the rotary is actually more "rounded" right? those four bangers are kinda square by comparison:D :p

Originally posted by RX8-TX


:D Hey Zoom, how in heaven did you reach 3000 posts??



responding in this thread:D ;)


my answer btw about hybrids in the other thread so ya's don't haveta do no searchin:

"oh but they have! Mazda has already shown a rotary-electric hybrid powered vehicle as a concept several years ago at the car shows. they have also shown a hydrogen burning rotary prototype and i have read or heard or perhaps just made it up on my own, but i am sure that they have/are currently mating the hybrid system to the hydrogen rotary! how's that for Green they are also mentioned in the yamaguchi book."

Originally posted by zoom44


hey you didn't like my muddled-brain answer? :p and did you see my answer in the other thread concerning hybrids?

no ... not yet. but I'll keep looking!

:D

Originally posted by zoom44


responding in this thread:D ;)


my answer btw about hybrids in the other thread so ya's don't haveta do no searchin:

"oh but they have! Mazda has already shown a rotary-electric hybrid powered vehicle as a concept several years ago at the car shows. they have also shown a hydrogen burning rotary prototype and i have read or heard or perhaps just made it up on my own, but i am sure that they have/are currently mating the hybrid system to the hydrogen rotary! how's that for Green they are also mentioned in the yamaguchi book."

Oh so here it is! You must have hit "submit reply" while I was still typing ...

;)

Originally posted by RX8-TX
... Bwayout: take my explanation with a grain of salt; I am no mechanic nor engineer.

OK!

:D

Any mechanics nor engineers out here that can give me a simple answer?

Originally posted by RXhusker


Rather vague question and you are asking for my OPINION so here it is:

SUV - Piston
Pick-up Truck - Piston
Mini Van - Piston
Family Sedan - Piston
Semi Truck - Piston (diesel)
SPORTS CAR - ROTARY

This is my opinion based on what I prefer. High reving, lightweight sports cars. Others prefer brute power with little refinement (Mustang, etal) Many people forget that it is not the power to the wheels that makes the rotary great for sports car applications -- it is what the inherent benefits of the rotary bring to the table for engineering the REST of the CAR. Handling, feel, sound, body design, weight distribution, etc. Any engine can make HP - it is the unique characteristics of a particular engine that make it the right fit for a specific application.

People also forget that the RX-8 is not just the Renesis engine. It is the total driving package that Mazda's engineers have put together. We don't sit around talking about the Miata's engine -- we talk about the way it drives :D Same goes for the 8. If I was 5'8" and didn't have kids I may have gotten a Miata -- but I can't sit in it and my kids can't come with us :(


thanks.. thats what i am looking for. but i totally understand and agree with you about the WHOLE car , but i was trying to leave aside that issue and concentrate in engine only, thats the difference i want opinions on, i mean the S2000 is good looking in the outside, the inside has a lot to improve yet is a work or art too for a performance sports car. the same with the Z yeah it has a maxima engine but it doesn't matter what other applications it has as long as it performes the way it does!
i mean with this mpg too i think even a ferrari does better. I will pass by the ferrari dealership tomorrow and look at the window sticker for it.

Originally posted by Tweety-nator
I think the rotary engine will have a great future. I see the poor MPG issue as not so much of an issue, its most likely because of "green" engines. I wont be surprised if RX-8 owners will be reporting a better MPG a year from now.

With regards to torque, sure the current Renesis does not have a lot, but thats a factor of displacement. We cant expect a 1.3L engine to have gobs of torque like a V6/V8. The 159lb/ft is what the average 2.0L 4 cylinder engine is getting. However, Mazda can solve this dilemna if they do like Subaru has done with their engines ... add a Turbo!

wrong , the mpg IS an issue. sure a 2.0 4 cylinder produces the same torque but it consumes less ! wayyy less, imagine this engine now with a turbo as u sugest! i am afraid of the mpg, and that oil light going on and off like crazy once the turbo kicks in..

Originally posted by U. N. O.



thanks.. thats what i am looking for. but i totally understand and agree with you about the WHOLE car , but i was trying to leave aside that issue and concentrate in engine only, thats the difference i want opinions on, i mean the S2000 is good looking in the outside, the inside has a lot to improve yet is a work or art too for a performance sports car. the same with the Z yeah it has a maxima engine but it doesn't matter what other applications it has as long as it performes the way it does!
i mean with this mpg too i think even a ferrari does better. I will pass by the ferrari dealership tomorrow and look at the window sticker for it.

Ehhhhh....a 360 Modena does 11 / 16 mpg & a 575 does 10/17

Ahhhhh....and the Enzo does 8/12

Source: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/bymakemodelNF.shtml

Originally posted by zoom44


on #2 you are correct the mileage is lacking, but i think you exaggerate some there with the "WAY out of proportion". just 2 differing opinions

but on #1 i'm here to tell you that you are wrong. this engine IS remarkably powerful for it's size and weight.

IMOH not to dash you or to start a fight but i think you are being very bias in your sayings.. lets put aside the factor that we all have spent $30k in this car and have a cold look at the diferences btw. pistons and rotary, reglardless we own one or not, thats my hole point..!! so maybe we can conclude in this time right now until other forms of combustions come what is more reasonable a piston or a rotary engine for an sports car..

Originally posted by U. N. O.


IMOH not to dash you or to start a fight but i think you are being very bias in your sayings.. lets put aside the factor that we all have spent $30k in this car and have a cold look at the diferences btw. pistons and rotary, reglardless we own one or not, thats my hole point..!! so maybe we can conclude in this time right now until other forms of combustions come what is more reasonable a piston or a rotary engine for an sports car..

We cannot help but being biased....its like being a football team fanatic or something like that.... :D

Giving my last word on your hypothesis....I think the best engine for a sports car is a Porsche flat-6 engine and that is a pistons engine...oh, wait....I went far away from our league....well, if they can produce rotaries, and keep prices moderate and accesible (not Corolla accesible....you know what I mean!;) ) I will go for a rotary, and will say that it is the right time for one....
But that my friend...is my biased opinion. :cool:

Originally posted by RX8-TX


Ehhhhh....a 360 Modena does 11 / 16 mpg & a 575 does 10/17

Ahhhhh....and the Enzo does 8/12

Source: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/bymakemodelNF.shtml

cool thanks i will make a quick stop by ther thougt to day dream:D

Originally posted by U. N. O.


wrong , the mpg IS an issue. sure a 2.0 4 cylinder produces the same torque but it consumes less ! wayyy less, imagine this engine now with a turbo as u sugest! i am afraid of the mpg, and that oil light going on and off like crazy once the turbo kicks in..

his other post said -I dont think the MPG for the RX-8 is that bad, I mean its only 1MPG lower than my (soon to arrive) 350Z. Its quite acceptable for a sports car.- so his opinion differs from yours as to what is acceptable from a sports car.

and the oil light going on and off is a known problem with a limited amount of cars, which is just a first year of a new car kinda problem which is easily remedied by a) getting the replacement pan from mazda and b)keeping your oil topped off.

Originally posted by RX8-TX


We cannot help but being biased....its like being a football team fanatic or something like that.... :D

Giving my last word on your hypothesis....I think the best engine for a sports car is a Porsche flat-6 engine and that is a pistons engine...oh, wait....I went far away from our league....well, if they can produce rotaries, and keep prices moderate and accesible (not Corolla accesible....you know what I mean!;) ) I will go for a rotary, and will say that it is the right time for one....
But that my friend...is my biased opinion. :cool:


but why would you take a rotary over the piston ? what pro factors are u basing off?

Originally posted by zoom44



ahh... nevermind RX8-TX basically said what i was going to about developement time. remember what honda four bangers were like 20 years ago? give it time
;)

and ya know the rotary is actually more "rounded" right? those four bangers are kinda square by comparison:D :p

Precisely, the piston engine has advanced much more in the last 20 years. We've been hearing for forty years to give the rotory time. I think we will have to wait for hydrogen-powered vehicles.

For now, the rotory is best suited for a miata-sized car.

U.N.O., canzoomer, TomsterRX8, and Chadr

Great that you can pick *four* malcontented owners and take their views over the many happy RX-8 owners who post repeatedly on these boards. I can barely find a thread anywhere on these boards where some people have chipped in to complain, often about things which are completely unrelated to the actual topic of the thread.

There are plenty of people who love the car - in fact many more than those who are unhappy. They have sold thousands of these things to date. Last I heard, the number of people in the U.S who were taking the buy-back options were a very, very small minority (less than 50 out of the thousands of owners). So let's see... lots of happy owners.... a few who aren't, and for some of them it is more of a trust issue than a matter of liking or not liking the car.

The engine is not only a beautiful concept, it is also an extremely effective one. It is designed for a specific purpose, and it fulfils that purpose very effectively. By its very nature it is extremely reliable. It produces a great power vs weight ratio. A very flat torque curve. Small size.

The only true downside of the Renesis that I can see is the gas mileage. And even that isn't as bad as some people here make out. Personally my own mileage has been about what I expected (18 mpg during the break in with city driving). Some people have had better, and lots of people are seeing their mileage improve dramatically as they get some more miles on the car.

Is it perfect? Nope. But it bloody well rocks and that's the simple truth! ;)

Originally posted by U. N. O.


IMOH not to dash you or to start a fight but i think you are being very bias in your sayings.. lets put aside the factor that we all have spent $30k in this car and have a cold look at the diferences btw. pistons and rotary, reglardless we own one or not, thats my hole point..!! so maybe we can conclude in this time right now until other forms of combustions come what is more reasonable a piston or a rotary engine for an sports car..

come come on put em up put em up!!!;) but really i did put aside my ownership on the one point, i thought, and i stand by the statement- the renesis puts out what i think and many others agree is a tremendous amout of power for an NA motor of it's size and weight. and it is that very premise power to size/weight that makes it a great engine for a sports car. it's dirth of moving parts make it very reliable, so the only question that remains is the gas mileage. it's a sports car so it will get inherently less mileage that a regular family car. so "we" can't "conclude in this time right now until other forms of combustions come what is more reasonable a piston or a rotary engine for an sports car" only you can decide what mpg you are comfortable with in your sports car. i can live with it considering the rest of the car and this is where you can't put aside the fact of ownership, the only way to know if you can conclude for yourself if you can handle it or not is to own it and see.

Originally posted by revhappy


Precisely, the piston engine has advanced much more in the last 20 years. We've been hearing for forty years to give the rotory time. I think we will have to wait for hydrogen-powered vehicles.

For now, the rotory is best suited for a miata-sized car.

right and if honda was basically the only company working on the 4cyl for the last 40 years how far along would it be. the rotary took an exaggerated length of time to get there because of the lack of developement by other companies. as for the size of the car it might do better but then many of us wouldn't have bought the car, lacking the 4 seats. i agree it's a precarious balance but this car is damn fine.

Originally posted by aussie77


Is it perfect? Nope. But it bloody well rocks and that's the simple truth! ;)

Aussie77 couldn't be more correct. This car kicks ass. It's nowhere near as bad as some of the more vocal members of this forum would have you believe. Apparently, they've never driven a sports car before, or else they would have been prepared for the gas mileage. My car is apparently defective, since the lowest I've gotten is 16mpg, and only on my first two tanks. I'm at 2,500 miles, and getting a steady average of 18-19 city and 25-26 highway. That's better than the Taurus SHO I drive occasionally, and about the same as the Boxster I had for a week. Or perhaps I just figured out how to drive this car better than some.

Why do I like this car? The engine is so quiet and vibration-free it's amazing. I've never heard or felt anything like it. The car has a very capable amount of power, and the torque pull is so linear it's disgustingly easy to hit obscene speeds without noticing. The handling is also clean and sharp, and the suspension doesn't fling you around-the car almost feels like it's dancing around hairpin turns.

I think Mazda deserves a lot of applause for having the guts to bring this engine back- and I'm glad I get to experience it this time around, since I missed the RX-7 on the first run. And as well as this car drives, I'll bet it stays around for a long time. They're already talking about making it into a convertible AND a two-seater(check Automotive News two weeks back- but of course, I'm sure some of you won't believe them either-)- somehow, that doesn't imply to me that this engine is going to die any time soon. Whether or not the nay-sayers on here have decided for Mazda, which they seem to think they have. So yes, I think the rotary was the right fit for this car, and I can't wait to drive the next incarnation.

Originally posted by U. N. O.

but why would you take a rotary over the piston ? what pro factors are u basing off?

A rotary over a piston...well, if I could get a car with the same comodities, same style appeal (not saying its the best for everyone, Im saying that I do like it personally,) and most important: the same range of options....I would think about it.

The rotary was an extra in my case. I never owned a wankel. But I didn't have any other decent options with the same characteristics (forget about the Wankel)...if the RX8 was piston based and called differently, it might have caught my attention anyways.

Trust me, I have a lot to learn about this engine and about the car. But we are in 2003! I seriously doubt that ANY car manufacturer (you name it: Detroit or Asia) will release a seriously flawed product into the market (Japs have a tendency to commit suicide when honor calls.... :eek: )

Again, I am still to prove myself right through experience: after 100k miles we'll talk again.... hopefully.

Originally posted by zoom44


right and if honda was basically the only company working on the 4cyl for the last 40 years how far along would it be. the rotary took an exaggerated length of time to get there because of the lack of developement by other companies. as for the size of the car it might do better but then many of us wouldn't have bought the car, lacking the 4 seats. i agree it's a precarious balance but this car is damn fine.

Oh, the rationalizations!!!!:eek: The rotary projects form several manufacturers were thrown away precisely for the rotary inherent problems (fuel economy, emissions, perhaps even the proliferation of automatic transmissions).

Below is a link that shows that this latest rendition of the rotary may actually be worse in relation to its piston counterparts then it was 10 years ago.

http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4446&perpage=15&pagenumber=4

The rotary is a great idea on paper, but it hasn't really worked that well in the real world....yet.

Originally posted by revhappy


Oh, the rationalizations!!!!:eek: The rotary projects form several manufacturers were thrown away precisely for the rotary inherent problems (fuel economy, emissions, perhaps even the proliferation of automatic transmissions).

Precisely! (Im having a deja vu...I think we went through this topic a little while ago....) whenever other manufacturers tried to get their hands on the Wankel concept, they found it to be a 'real' challenge to get it to work on a profitable iteration. Why would they invest money and time on it? if the piston engine was already there and ready to make money for them.

On the other hand Mazda (still pissed at you for f'ing up the HP specs, alright?!) simply kept going with the wankel. I am sorry but I scraped the link you posted, the thread is waay long.

They are the sole holders to develop such technology. Why would any other company invest money on something that 1) Doesn't belong to them. 2)Is way behind development in comparisson to a reciprocal engine ??

They somehow have the gutts to keep investing money on it, behind the marketing people and executives...there has to be a brain, someone who either is 1) suicidal 2) brilliant 3) has a lot of money to waste, that sees the rotary as a viable platform.

Don't you think?:o zzzz zzzz zzzzz

Edit: darn it, I have to take a grammar class again....I suck.:p

Originally posted by U. N. O.


wrong , the mpg IS an issue. sure a 2.0 4 cylinder produces the same torque but it consumes less ! wayyy less, imagine this engine now with a turbo as u sugest! i am afraid of the mpg, and that oil light going on and off like crazy once the turbo kicks in..

wrong, the mpg IS an issue or may NOT be an issue, depending on who you talk to. Just kidding :D

You are correct, the Renesis consumes more than the typical 2.0 4 cylinder, but it produces more horsepower as well. I was just saying that 18MPG is acceptable for a sports car. As I mentioned earlier, it is only 1MPG lower than my 350Z that is arriving in November. I am hoping that my 350Z will get the advertised MPG, but if doesn't I'll just mark it off as just needing to be broken in.
Not trying to dismiss your concerns, just presenting a differing view. I hope you get better MPG as your car breaks in.

By the way, thanks for backing me up Zoom44. I did know about the oil pan thing. :D

Originally posted by RX8-TX


Precisely! (Im having a deja vu...I think we went through this topic a little while ago....) If any other manufacturer tried to get their hands on the Wankel concept, they found it to be a 'real' challenge to get it to work on a profitable iteration. Why would they invest money and time on it? if the piston engine was already there and ready to make money for them.

On the other hand Mazda (still pissed at you for f'ing up the HP specs, alright?!) simply kept going with the wankel. I am sorry but I scraped the link you posted, the thread is waay long.

They are the sole holders to develop such technology. Why would any other company invest money on something that 1) Doesn't belong to them. 2)Is way behind development in comparisson to a reciprocal engine ??

They somehow have the gutts to keep investing money on it, behind the marketing people and executives...there has to be a brain, someone who either is 1) suicidal 2) brilliant 3) has a lot of money to waste, that sees the rotary as a viable platform.

Don't you think?:o zzzz zzzz zzzzz

I believe some other manufactuers (GM???) had plans to produce rotary powered cars and cancelled them when 70's oil crisis hit. I really don't know why Mazda sticks with it, but most of their production is still piston powered. If the RX8 flops, perhaps they will can it altogether. It would be unfortunate, because the engine would still be great for a Miata.

Originally posted by revhappy


I believe some other manufactuers (GM???) had plans to produce powered cars and cancelled them when 70's oil crisis hit. I really don't know why Mazda sticks with it, but most of their production is still piston powered. If the RX8 flops, perhaps they will can it altogether. It would be unfortunate, because the engine would still be great for a Miata.

I just have one last comment: I am not religious, but I have faith.




j/k :D .....about the 'last' comment.

Originally posted by revhappy
It would be unfortunate, because the engine would still be great for a Miata.

I think you want to get rid of the Ford and get yourself a little convertible, right??! :D :D

Originally posted by RX8-TX


I think you want to get rid of the Ford and get yourself a little convertible, right??! :D :D

You got that right!!!! I've been toying around with the idea of getting an old Miata as a daily driver. Two things have held me back: New Jersey Winters and New Jersey Crime. :(

Of course, if I can get some nice raises....the Elise looks awfully tempting!!!:cool:

Originally posted by revhappy


Precisely, the piston engine has advanced much more in the last 20 years. We've been hearing for forty years to give the rotory time. I think we will have to wait for hydrogen-powered vehicles.

For now, the rotory is best suited for a miata-sized car.
Sorry but there are a lot of stupid posts in this thread already, but this tops them all so far.

The rotary engine has had development of only a handful of engineers and the money from a small automobile manufacturer with very limited funds.

In contrast, the piston engine has had development from every automobile manufacturer. It's had billions upon BILLIONS of dollars of research money spent on it. Innovations from different companies are forming better and better engines.

This comparison you make is absolutely ludicrus. Reverse the tables and give the rotary the role the piston engine has had for the last ~100 years. Let every manufacturer, every brilliant engineer, and the billions in research be spent on it. Logically speaking, the rotary would be at a much farther pinnacle than a piston engine would.

In the end it's a matter of preference. We all know you went with the ballsy and gutsy Evo. It has that low down torque that most Americans appreciate. Sadly to let you down, most folks on this board aren't completely taken with that low down punch, nor gas mileage, nor accelleration. It's about for us, and please tell me if I'm taking the census of this forum incorrectly, the most 'smiles per mile.' The rotary engine helps us to accomplish those smiles. The attractive packaging of the RX-8 helps us. The telepathic handling, lightweight and agile feel, rear wheel drive and slick shifter help us. The price also makes our smiles not have the cracks that are in Ferrari drivers of wrinkles to work for the excessive cash for their automobiles.

I think as time progresses, and if another major manufacturer decides to take the 'plunge' and start researching and developing the rotary engine (I can see BMW do this, because they are seeing huge losses in their hydrogen piston engine prototypes, though who knows how likely that is..), the rotary will have a success and power output (and who knows, maybe even fuel consumption) that would shame comparably sized piston engines with their 100s of moving parts.

Simplicity, linearity, smoothness, weight, size and uniqueness make the rotary the best engine design in the world. Automotive engineers the world over acknowledge this. There are drawbacks to it sure, lots of them -- but give it time. As the rotary becomes more accepted by mainsteam society and it's not an automotive faux pas to work on this engine, manufacturers will line up to buy Mazda's designs and improve on them. In the end car companies are businesses. And when you see an engine that has the capability to be more reliable, produce more power, be far less in production costs well... you can take a chance on it. Back when Mercedes, GM and the rest failed it was a quick exit back to piston engines and the abandonment of the rotary. Mazda persevered and did all the leg work. Now it's time for other automotive companies to step up, license the engine design, and start to improve the rotary in ways that us lay folk could never fathom.

If you told Henry Ford ~100 years ago that the piston engine in his Model Ts would be cranking out 300 horsepower and give reasonable gas mileage as well, he wouldn't believe it. Things like Variable Valve Timing, DOHC, better exhaust headers, that were not even FATHOMABLE by that generation are now a reality. Is it so hard to believe the rotary does not inherently possess in it properties that have not been properly discovered by engineers?

I'll take the gamble and say yes. Naysayers will continue to march to their own drum beat. But in 10, 15, 20 years when everybody is driving a hydrogen powered rotary car that still gives oodles power... I will be there smiling and thinking... "I told you so."

Cheers.

Originally posted by revhappy


Oh, the rationalizations!!!!:eek: The rotary projects form several manufacturers were thrown away precisely for the rotary inherent problems (fuel economy, emissions, perhaps even the proliferation of automatic transmissions).

Below is a link that shows that this latest rendition of the rotary may actually be worse in relation to its piston counterparts then it was 10 years ago.

http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4446&perpage=15&pagenumber=4

The rotary is a great idea on paper, but it hasn't really worked that well in the real world....yet.


this is what i am looking to discuss too.. not that the fact that the car is a flaw, by allmeans, it is not. It is an extraordinary piece of work/art .But practicality ... why wouldn't others persue the technology, i am sure it is one brain (mazda) vs. many others (GM, and such) that decided not to perhaps because they really saw a way of future for market demands.

Originally posted by Hercules

Sorry but there are a lot of stupid posts in this thread already, but this tops them all so far......


thanks for your input. i guess yes 10 , 15 , or 20 years in the future ( i was hoping to have flying cars :D , may be my grand kids will have that joy) this type of engine will be the way to go, mean while ... and i am not trying to be nayer just want to really learn more on this diferences for the time being..
one separated question for you, what kind of power can we expect out of this engine in turbo version (you think) and gas consumption? would it be worth it ? ($$ wise)

Originally posted by revhappy
You got that right!!!! I've been toying around with the idea of getting an old Miata as a daily driver. Two things have held me back: New Jersey Winters and New Jersey Crime. :(

Of course, if I can get some nice raises....the Elise looks awfully tempting!!!:cool:

I still cant believe that car will be legal(ized) for the US.
The Elise weights what a Harley....I wonder how much will they go for?

Originally posted by U. N. O.



this is what i am looking to discuss too.. not that the fact that the car is a flaw, by allmeans, it is not. It is an extraordinary piece of work/art .But practicality ... why wouldn't others persue the technology, i am sure it is one brain (mazda) vs. many others (GM, and such) that decided not to perhaps because they really saw a way of future for market demands.

Doesn't Mazda now own the sole rights to the Wankel engine :confused: That alone precludes others from pursuing the rotary technology to a great degree. Even if they wanted to invest in rotary technology they would have to license it from Mazda.

Originally posted by U. N. O.



thanks for your input. i guess yes 10 , 15 , or 20 years in the future ( i was hoping to have flying cars :D , may be my grand kids will have that joy) this type of engine will be the way to go, mean while ... and i am not trying to be nayer just want to really learn more on this diferences for the time being..
one separated question for you, what kind of power can we expect out of this engine in turbo version (you think) and gas consumption? would it be worth it ? ($$ wise) I think it's more likely you will see increased rotor width than a FI application just due to past experience with the mass audience and the RX-7's problems. Nobody wants to start off on that note. However I think you will see ~300 horsepower from the RX-8 with decreased weight and a stiffer suspension for the MPS series of it.

The RX-7 should be 300 horses out of the box (or thereabouts), and be the pure sports car that everybody that dislikes the RX-8 about. The RX-8 isn't a pure sports car, it's a compromise car to be sure... but it's a damn good compromise if it puts a grin on my face that even a 350Z cannot.

Originally posted by RXhusker


Doesn't Mazda now own the sole rights to the Wankel engine :confused: That alone precludes others from pursuing the rotary technology to a great degree. Even if they wanted to invest in rotary technology they would have to license it from Mazda. I think in a few years as it becomes increasingly clear that hydrogen is the path of the future, that the rotary engine will make its mark and major automakers will start to license it.

Originally posted by Hercules
... even a 350Z cannot.

And we cannot help it.....we always go for the same example.

j/k:p

Originally posted by U. N. O.



thanks for your input. i guess yes 10 , 15 , or 20 years in the future ( i was hoping to have flying cars :D , may be my grand kids will have that joy) this type of engine will be the way to go, mean while ... and i am not trying to be nayer just want to really learn more on this diferences for the time being..
one separated question for you, what kind of power can we expect out of this engine in turbo version (you think) and gas consumption? would it be worth it ? ($$ wise)

If you really want to learn some of the differences -- the Yamaguchi book is great (our pre-order gift). This article on the Mazda Performance site is also a good read from a technical perspective Rotary vs. Piston (http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=perEngineRotaryPi ston&vehicleCode=RX8)

Originally posted by Hercules
I think in a few years as it becomes increasingly clear that hydrogen is the path of the future, that the rotary engine will make its mark and major automakers will start to license it.

It all rests on this rotary's iteration results (long term), I agree. If the engine turns out to be reliable, and they can mass produce it effectively & efficiently, they will most likely give it more applications. Seems like the 8 was a shy attempt to gather as much public as possible.

A true sports version will likely have a higher sticker price, and attract less people...for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by RX8-TX


And we cannot help it.....we always go for the same example.

j/k:p
I can substitute a lot of cars in there... G35C... 330Ci.... WRX...

The S2000 is the only car I enjoyed driving more but given that it's obscenely loud inside, impractical, has a crap stereo and of course, costs more... I could not justify it.

The RX-8 was excellent for what I was looking for. The car that was the most fun to drive without the expense of being a two seater. The G35C was the runner up in reality over the S2000 because of the back seat, but its tendency to plow the front end severely on hard turns, its terrible back seat and even worse shifter, I opted for the more fun, albeit the less powerful of the two.

The rotary, from a design standpoint, is simply a better engine.
AON (as of now), it is also better (in a lot of ways) than a piston, at least the one in my car. I have been getting really good mileage (18-20's, never really calculate it) i drive over 20mi a day (yeah, i know thats very little, to and from school, to and from my bro's house, thats 20 right there, plus whatever else i do) and use 1/4 a tank a week (depending) which is about 400miles to the tank. i really have no idea how people get 10, 11, 12, anything less than id say 17.5 is probably a defective engine, or god knows what. I fill up with 2 dollar per gallon premium though, so maybe that has something to do with it

True it has low torque, but its only a 1.3L engine, which im sure has something to do with it. Being only 1.3L (a lot smaller than a 4-banger, mind you, or at least the 2.0L people keep talking about) it puts out 238hp in US form. I find that to be pretty potent

in piston vs rotary, the rotary is the better engine, period.
by its design it is simply better, and i dont say this as a fan boy or anything of that nature. I only say it with the thought that the simplest things are best. Anyone can get anything to work with enough parts, but true genius always searches for simplicity. To do with 3 things what another person takes 300+ to do is an acheivment. Its smarter, its purer, its better.

Just look at e=mc^2 (how profound an equation...) its so simple, so beautiful.

i dont feel like going on, or typing this in a way that makes any sense, take from it what you will
________
Philippine girl Webcams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/asian-girls/)

the above post is PURELY piston v rotary, it does not take into account anything other than the basic designs of the engines themselves
________
Fix Ps3 (http://fixps3.info/)

Originally posted by Hercules
I think in a few years as it becomes increasingly clear that hydrogen is the path of the future, that the rotary engine will make its mark and major automakers will start to license it.

That's what I said. :)

Originally posted by Hercules

Sorry but there are a lot of stupid posts in this thread already, but this tops them all so far.

The rotary engine has had development of only a handful of engineers and the money from a small automobile manufacturer with very limited funds.

In contrast, the piston engine has had development from every automobile manufacturer. It's had billions upon BILLIONS of dollars of research money spent on it. Innovations from different companies are forming better and better engines.

This comparison you make is absolutely ludicrus. Reverse the tables and give the rotary the role the piston engine has had for the last ~100 years. Let every manufacturer, every brilliant engineer, and the billions in research be spent on it. Logically speaking, the rotary would be at a much farther pinnacle than a piston engine would.

In the end it's a matter of preference. We all know you went with the ballsy and gutsy Evo. It has that low down torque that most Americans appreciate. Sadly to let you down, most folks on this board aren't completely taken with that low down punch, nor gas mileage, nor accelleration. It's about for us, and please tell me if I'm taking the census of this forum incorrectly, the most 'smiles per mile.' The rotary engine helps us to accomplish those smiles. The attractive packaging of the RX-8 helps us. The telepathic handling, lightweight and agile feel, rear wheel drive and slick shifter help us. The price also makes our smiles not have the cracks that are in Ferrari drivers of wrinkles to work for the excessive cash for their automobiles.

I think as time progresses, and if another major manufacturer decides to take the 'plunge' and start researching and developing the rotary engine (I can see BMW do this, because they are seeing huge losses in their hydrogen piston engine prototypes, though who knows how likely that is..), the rotary will have a success and power output (and who knows, maybe even fuel consumption) that would shame comparably sized piston engines with their 100s of moving parts.

Simplicity, linearity, smoothness, weight, size and uniqueness make the rotary the best engine design in the world. Automotive engineers the world over acknowledge this. There are drawbacks to it sure, lots of them -- but give it time. As the rotary becomes more accepted by mainsteam society and it's not an automotive faux pas to work on this engine, manufacturers will line up to buy Mazda's designs and improve on them. In the end car companies are businesses. And when you see an engine that has the capability to be more reliable, produce more power, be far less in production costs well... you can take a chance on it. Back when Mercedes, GM and the rest failed it was a quick exit back to piston engines and the abandonment of the rotary. Mazda persevered and did all the leg work. Now it's time for other automotive companies to step up, license the engine design, and start to improve the rotary in ways that us lay folk could never fathom.

If you told Henry Ford ~100 years ago that the piston engine in his Model Ts would be cranking out 300 horsepower and give reasonable gas mileage as well, he wouldn't believe it. Things like Variable Valve Timing, DOHC, better exhaust headers, that were not even FATHOMABLE by that generation are now a reality. Is it so hard to believe the rotary does not inherently possess in it properties that have not been properly discovered by engineers?

I'll take the gamble and say yes. Naysayers will continue to march to their own drum beat. But in 10, 15, 20 years when everybody is driving a hydrogen powered rotary car that still gives oodles power... I will be there smiling and thinking... "I told you so."

Cheers.

Another post that just exudes class!!! Makes me wonder why you don't moderate anymore with such an even-tempered, balanced personality. :confused: Anyway, I digress.

You can make all of the arguments about piston engines being around longer, etc. When the first internal combustion engine vehicles came out they outperformed the horse and buggy, which had been around for almost 2,000 years! The point is that its a poor argument. There have been threads on here that have suggested that the rotary engine may NEVER get good gas mileage (relative to piston counterparts). It still has emissions issues (per Mazda's HP admission) and is LOSING ground to the piston engine over the last 10 years. We've waited over forty years for the "engine of the future" to take off. How much longer should we wait????

I am well aware of the rotary's advantages and ALL enthusiasts would welcome its success. However, the rotary has A LOT of proving to do with the masses (rotorheads will always love the engine for its uniqueness). Until it accomplishes this, it is best suited for a light roadster IMHO.

Originally posted by Hercules


I'll take the gamble and say yes. Naysayers will continue to march to their own drum beat. But in 10, 15, 20 years when everybody is driving a hydrogen powered rotary car that still gives oodles power... I will be there smiling and thinking... "I told you so."

Cheers.

That's one point where I hope you are right on!

Originally posted by RX8-TX


I still cant believe that car will be legal(ized) for the US.
The Elise weights what a Harley....I wonder how much will they go for?

$38,500....190 HP Tweaked Celica GTS Motor. I think $2,000 more for a few options.

Originally posted by Hercules
I think it's more likely you will see increased rotor width than a FI application just due to past experience with the mass audience and the RX-7's problems. Nobody wants to start off on that note. However I think you will see ~300 horsepower from the RX-8 with decreased weight and a stiffer suspension for the MPS series of it.

The RX-7 should be 300 horses out of the box (or thereabouts), and be the pure sports car that everybody that dislikes the RX-8 about. The RX-8 isn't a pure sports car, it's a compromise car to be sure... but it's a damn good compromise if it puts a grin on my face that even a 350Z cannot.

I doubt they are going to be able to add ~ 80 Horsepower and not get image tarring gas mileage. Also, if it is made in large enough volumes, it could possibly hurt Mazda's CAFE compliance.

I expect more like 250 HP and 2,800 lbs.

Originally posted by Hercules

First, it's smooth. You can rev the hell out of it and it LOVES it. That's part of my fun in a sports car. Second, it's very *lightweight*. If you look at cars like the McLaren F1, the Ferrari Enzo, they are KILLING for mere pounds of weight. The RX-8 saves lots of weight by using a rotary instead of a traditional piston engine.

It's also small. The RX-8 engine itself is about the size of a beer keg. In fact it's so light, you can likely carry it yourself (provided you're able bodied enough to carry a keg!). Piston engines with similar power output cannot compare.

If it is so light, why does the car weight roughly the same as the 350Z or other competitive cars in it's class?

Do you think that the same chassis with a V6 would weigh a lot more?

If so I guess the 8 is a pretty darned heavy car to start with.

Or am I missing something here??

Originally posted by canzoomer

If it is so light, why does the car weight roughly the same as the 350Z or other competitive cars in it's class?

Do you think that the same chassis with a V6 would weigh a lot more?

If so I guess the 8 is a pretty darned heavy car to start with.

Or am I missing something here??

That's one thing that has always puzzled me. The RX-8 weighs about the same as my WRX, and AWD systems are not light. How much weight are you really saving with a rotary over your average turbo 4 cyl.? Or are you really not saving anything and the claim is it's the weight distribution of the rotary that makes it "better"?

Originally posted by U. N. O.



thanks for your input. i guess yes 10 , 15 , or 20 years in the future ( i was hoping to have flying cars :D , may be my grand kids will have that joy) this type of engine will be the way to go, mean while ...


You might be flying sooner than you think!

http://www.moller.com/skycar/m400/


Is this the car of the future?

Oh, and what engines are they using?? :D


-andy-

If it is so light, why does the car weight roughly the same as the 350Z or other competitive cars in it's class?
I thought the 8 was at least 200 pounds lighter than the 350Z. And it's got 2 extra seats.

Do you think that the same chassis with a V6 would weigh a lot more?
Yes. And more to the point the extra weight would all be at the front. To stop the car understeering like mad you would have to really firm up the suspension and lose the good ride quality.

A big V6 would make it a different kind of car (a lot more like a 350Z).

Originally posted by IkeWRX


That's one thing that has always puzzled me. The RX-8 weighs about the same as my WRX, and AWD systems are not light. How much weight are you really saving with a rotary over your average turbo 4 cyl.? Or are you really not saving anything and the claim is it's the weight distribution of the rotary that makes it "better"?

Its the suicide doors (and the related bracing) and all the amenities inside the car. Last year at this time, people were expecting 2,900 lbs or less.

And at 2940 lbs (without the leather and sunroof), and 3029 lbs with that... I don't think its terribly off.

Originally posted by canzoomer

If it is so light, why does the car weight roughly the same as the 350Z or other competitive cars in it's class?

Do you think that the same chassis with a V6 would weigh a lot more?

If so I guess the 8 is a pretty darned heavy car to start with.

Or am I missing something here??

You are not missing; you have 2 extra seats and platform lenght + everything necessary to ensure that the car does good on a side impact: which is necessary due to the lack of B pillar....remove the back seats, shorten the platform lenght.....and I bet you saved a few hundred pounds.

Regarding the weight, if you want to compare it to the 350z, how much would the Z weigh with another 2 seats engineered into the setup?

Back to the engine question though... why would Mazda spend the time, effort and money to bring this engine back to life?

Vision.

The same vision that has seen Japanese companies take foreign concepts, adapt and improve them, and them sell them back to the rest of the world for a ton of money. The vision that tells them the rotary IS the engine of the future, and when the future arrives they'll be the only company with the engineering know-how, technology and manufacturing capabilities to fulfil the need for rotaries when their time comes.

You might call that foolish, but to me it seems brilliant. If they're wrong they've lost some money. If they're right... the sky literally will not be the limit for Mazda and their rotary engines.

Or one of my favorite quotes from Macarthur:

There is no such thing as security in this world, there is only opportunity.

Kudos to Mazda for taking that opportunity.

Originally posted by Hercules
And at 2940 lbs (without the leather and sunroof), and 3029 lbs with that... I don't think its terribly off.

The 2,940 was a pre-production model that Car and Driver weighed. There was a thread on here where the car was weighed without fuel in the low 2,900's. Adjusting for a full tank ( official curb weight requirement), it was about 2,983 lbs. Not that impressive when you consider it doesn't have a spare tire or tools. Take the spare tire and tools out of the WRX and its around 3,040 lbs even though it has four true doors, seating room for five, and a turbo and heavy AWD system.

RX8-TX

Its simple, if you want the weight of the 350z with 2 extra seats just look at the G35c.

Originally posted by poison123
RX8-TX

Its simple, if you want the weight of the 350z with 2 extra seats just look at the G35c.

Thank you so much for the pointer:
G35 Coupe Base Model 3,416 lbs
G35 Leather Model 3,422 lbs
G35 Leather 6 MT Model 3,435 lbs

And a 20 gallon fuel tank.

RX8 AT w/popular options (whatever that means) 3,053 lbs
RX8 6MT w/popular options 3,029 lbs

15.9 gallon fuel tank.

Before going any further, my impressions of the G: I maybe be wrong, but the buckets and back seats of the G seemed to be much more cushy (I don't know any other word for it...sorry) than my 8s...therefore they might add extra weight.

Comparo: remove the back seats on the 8...and you could be gaining anything from 20 to over 150 pounds? (obviously getting rid of all the backbone components to make the car safe for rear passengers and the suicide doors...)

In my opinion the 8 platform has a clear advantage weight-wise. Wouldn't you agree?

RevHappy: Not that Im trying to compare a minimalist Lotus Elise in here....that thing can rip the heart out of anything in here...IMO
:D :D

Originally posted by revhappy
The 2,940 was a pre-production model that Car and Driver weighed. There was a thread on here where the car was weighed without fuel in the low 2,900's. Adjusting for a full tank ( official curb weight requirement), it was about 2,983 lbs. Not that impressive when you consider it doesn't have a spare tire or tools. Take the spare tire and tools out of the WRX and its around 3,040 lbs even though it has four true doors, seating room for five, and a turbo and heavy AWD system.

1. How is the chassis structure of the WRX?...I know its stiff, but whats between sheetmetal in the doors and structure to reinforce it ?

2. What is the wheelbase & lenght ? isnt' the Subie shorter than an 8?
:)

Originally posted by RX8-TX


1. How is the chassis structure of the WRX?...I know its stiff, but whats between sheetmetal in the doors and structure to reinforce it ?

2. What is the wheelbase & lenght ? isnt' the Subie shorter than an 8?
:)

WRX is 173.4 inches with a 99.4 inch wheelbase. The length is marginally shorter (~1 inch) while there is a significant difference in the wheelbases (~7 inches).

The WRX uses tradional doors with pillars. Its a pretty rigid chassis. It has a little too much body roll for me, but its very respectable for a mass-porduced car. Believe it or not, I still sliughtly preferred the RSX-S and Celica GTS when i was cross-shopping them 2 years ago.

Originally posted by revhappy


WRX is 173.4 inches with a 99.4 inch wheelbase. The length is marginally shorter (~1 inch) while there is a significant difference in the wheelbases (~7 inches).

The WRX uses tradional doors with pillars. Its a pretty rigid chassis. It has a little too much body roll for me, but its very respectable for a mass-porduced car. Believe it or not, I still sliughtly preferred the RSX-S and Celica GTS when i was cross-shopping them 2 years ago.

I guess the biggest advantage of the Subie is its AWD and the boxer engine (is it really noticeable..??)

I know about the RSX....I was looking at one before as well....the handling on that thing is nothing short of amazing for a FWD car.

About the dimensions, help me out:

1. The Subie & RX8 are almost identical is lenght, but the RX8 is 7" wider....1st extra weight source for the 8.

2. The steel reinforcement in place of the B pillar make up for a 2nd source for extra weight. This one is needed to keep structural rigidity on a side impact.

3. The center tunnel, which does as a spine for the chassis on the RX8...3rd extra weight source....

4. I think tires & rims are heavier on the RX8, right?

5. The fiber shaft & diff. on the RX8, should be a weight advantage over the complex AWD system of the Subie...

Shoot...Im confused...I'll go get some coffe...be back. :o

A note about lots of people asking 'Why did they ruin the interior with that THING crossing through the middle of the car?? you can' switch seats if you are on the back!!' My answer: it was a necessity....

Originally posted by U. N. O.


true, nissan takes 3.5 liters but thats where my question is, their mpg is better. consuming waaay more they produce more power ofcouse but consume less..
engine is lighter and smaller, you add 3 one or increase the width then waht will we get 15 mpg at the sticker and 10 when in practical use?. and you last point is that a 280 hp rotary would cost a lot more, so pistons are more affordable. so what if the engine is smaller/lighter the question remains, does it perform equal, superior, or inferior than a piston? i guess the technology/time is not right for this type of engine just yet..


Piston Engines get better MPG what not due to two main factors:

1) Rotary engines have poor thermal efficiency

2) The piston engine has a LOT (LOT!) more R&D than any other type of engine. Piston engines have a lot more racing experience than any other engine and racing is where ideas come from.

On the same token, look at how many different types of piston engines there are availlable, inline, flat, V, Miller Cycle, Diesle, W, etc...

Everyone is trying to come up with the best design, but the truth is there isn't one best design. Just many ways of achieving similar results.

Piston engine builders work very hard to make their engines more compact, smoother, more wear tolerant, get better MPG, & less complex. If you look at what the rotary already has by virtue of it's inherent design it fills most of those goals straight off the bat.

Antother plus for a rotary is that it absolutely destroys piston engines on NOx emissions, but at the same time has failed in the past to overcome high CO2 emissions problems. With the Renisis that has changed and I'm sure will continue to get better as more development is put into the engine. With this new development comes better MPG as well BTW.

For anyone who would like to learn more about the rotary and the why's and hows check out http://www.monito.com/wankel/

lots of good info there, especiially how the Corvette was almost a a rotary vehicle in the 60's and how Mercedes C111 SuperSports car took the world by storm with a rotary engine.

As far as someone bring up my name as being a naysaying zealot I do resent that.

I feel my arguments as to why I am returning the car have been extremely logical and unemotional. The simple truth is the car as a whole is a wonderful item. Everyday I drive it I am somewhat torn on my decision to sell it back but getting 200 miles from a full tank of $2 per gallon premium makes me remember why I am returning the car.

Having a piston vs. rotary thread on this board is pointless. The fact is that MOST people here will argue for the rotary regardless of logic and practical applications. It is like discussing religion, no matter how compelling your argument you will never change their opinion.

To me I am returning the car because it simply does not perform to the level I was told it would and expect it to. It is plenty fast enough but Mazda has lost my confidence with this car since it doesn't make the power they said it would and doesn't get the gas milage they said it would (even though it is plenty fast I expect to get what I paid for).

The milage is the largest issue for me. Include that with the down on power, the extremely weak air conditioning, the seat that is starting to creak and a few other things and I don't have confidence that in a year this car won't self destruct or be a serious problem that causes me a nightmare of time in the shop.

I simply lack the faith in Mazda right now to trust that this will work itself out on the first generation of the car. Perhaps in a few years if the car still is around I will examine them again, but presently there are a few too many issues that make me nervous.

Originally posted by Chadr
As far as someone bring up my name as being a naysaying zealot I do resent that.

I feel my arguments as to why I am returning the car have been extremely logical and unemotional. The simple truth is the car as a whole is a wonderful item. Everyday I drive it I am somewhat torn on my decision to sell it back but getting 200 miles from a full tank of $2 per gallon premium makes me remember why I am returning the car.

Having a piston vs. rotary thread on this board is pointless. The fact is that MOST people here will argue for the rotary regardless of logic and practical applications. It is like discussing religion, no matter how compelling your argument you will never change their opinion.

To me I am returning the car because it simply does not perform to the level I was told it would and expect it to. It is plenty fast enough but Mazda has lost my confidence with this car since it doesn't make the power they said it would and doesn't get the gas milage they said it would (even though it is plenty fast I expect to get what I paid for).

The milage is the largest issue for me. Include that with the down on power, the extremely weak air conditioning, the seat that is starting to creak and a few other things and I don't have confidence that in a year this car won't self destruct or be a serious problem that causes me a nightmare of time in the shop.

I simply lack the faith in Mazda right now to trust that this will work itself out on the first generation of the car. Perhaps in a few years if the car still is around I will examine them again, but presently there are a few too many issues that make me nervous.

You get my full respect in your decission. It would be hypocritical from me to deny I toyed with the idea of returning the car...but I won't.

About the whole discussion between rotary and piston, and how I (I'm speaking for myself) will never change my mind...well, I was (am) having a decent exchange of information with some people here. I am not pretendin to change their minds, nor will I. But I'm learning in the process...I don't have an answer for every question, least I know everything.

And as I said before, the rotary still has to prove itself with me after a couple 100K miles. It will be my learning experience after that. If the engine or the car itself turn out to be a mass of problems and glitches, I will voice it and say it to whoever asks me. But until the odo. hits the first critical number (75K miles) all I have are RX7 & rotary owners w/their experiences.

Originally posted by Chadr
As far as someone bring up my name as being a naysaying zealot I do resent that.

I feel my arguments as to why I am returning the car have been extremely logical and unemotional.

I have seen your posts and I concur. You have my respect for the way you present your arguments in a plain, factual, and rational manner. Like you just did.

I think the religion point hit it right on the head. It is almost like RX-8 detractors (atheists) vs. RX-8 fans (believers). The atheists put out lots of history, numbers and technical data, and the believers say that it's not all about numbers, and sometimes attack the data or the reasoning.

The atheist vs. fundamentalist argument boards are very entertaining to read. Makes this forum look like everyone singing Kumbaya.

For those of you who say torque is overrated and that power at high revs more than makes up for the lack of torque with the RX8 I would beg to differ. Torque is a beautiful thing. I had forgotten just how impressive having it is until I started test driving cars with lots of torque once my decision was made to turn in my RX8.

By far it's best attribute is that you are never really in the wrong gear should you find yourself in a situation where you need power to avoid a potential problem in traffic. My problem with the RX8 (and with my S2000) is that you better pick the right gear if you need instantaneous power or you are dead in the water. With loads of torque you can simply bull your way into the power zone. Without it you had best be a magician with the stick. You better find 2nd gear and not accidentally hit 4th gear in a sticky situation or you're not gonna have the power to gain the speed you might need. My guess is that many current RX8 drivers will not have the expertise to downshift properly in precarious situations.

So please don't make light of the piss-poor torque. You know you want more!

I think the RX8 will be the only wankel powered car for a long time and Mazda will be the only manufacturer to make wankel
powered cars. Why?
Because Mazda want to reach out for a new market and stick
out of the crowd of Japanese/Korean cars.
Other manufacturer don´t want to start over with the wankel
and be compared with Mazda´s achievements, so just like Citroën and their hydrualic suspension (also only one car on their
current programme got it the C5) the see it as a door opener for
their other more traditional built cars.

Originally posted by RX8-TX


I guess the biggest advantage of the Subie is its AWD and the boxer engine (is it really noticeable..??)

I know about the RSX....I was looking at one before as well....the handling on that thing is nothing short of amazing for a FWD car.

About the dimensions, help me out:

1. The Subie & RX8 are almost identical is lenght, but the RX8 is 7" wider....1st extra weight source for the 8.

2. The steel reinforcement in place of the B pillar make up for a 2nd source for extra weight. This one is needed to keep structural rigidity on a side impact.

3. The center tunnel, which does as a spine for the chassis on the RX8...3rd extra weight source....

4. I think tires & rims are heavier on the RX8, right?

5. The fiber shaft & diff. on the RX8, should be a weight advantage over the complex AWD system of the Subie...

Shoot...Im confused...I'll go get some coffe...be back. :o

A note about lots of people asking 'Why did they ruin the interior with that THING crossing through the middle of the car?? you can' switch seats if you are on the back!!' My answer: it was a necessity....

1) No.. The RX8 is only 1.6 inches wider.

2) Extra weight unneccesarily required with the suicide doors. 2 doors would have been sufficient as the weight of the suicide doors (and related bracing) exceeds the access benefits afforded by these doors (front passengers still must get out first). Personally, a reworking of the Japanese 2X2 RX7 would have been a MUCH better option IMHO.

3) Agreed.

4) Yes...they are 18 inch wheels compared to 16 - 17 inch wheels for the Subie. .Some have speculated the larger wheels were necessary from a visual point of view. Specifically, the long wheelbase of the car makes the vehicle look odd with smaller wheels. Thus, the design of increasing rear passenger space (i.e. increasing the wheelbase) indirectly increased weight here.

5) Agreed.

A theme of the posts I am making is that there is NOTHING wrong with a low torque, high power engine. It just needs to be in a lighter vehicle (2X2, roadster, etc.).

Piston v. Rotary

As many have posted, and as anyone who has done any research will learn, there are significant differences in the way a piston engine and a rotary engine produce power. The debate over which is "better" is merely personal choice.

Piston engines tend to have a better fuel efficiency to power ratio. Rotary engines (really the 13B and Renesis) tend to have a better engine displacement to power ratio. The comparrisons go on...

Probably the biggest difference for me as a consumer is that there are hundreds of piston engine cars on the market today and only 1 rotary engine car. It is this exclusivity or uniqueness that makes the 8 really special.

The interior design, options, and asthetics are competative with other cars, but it is the power plant that makes it unique. There are piston cars that will out accelerate the 8, or be more efficient than the 8, or provide more hp per $ than the 8, but none will be as unique and few will generate such enthusiasm or comaraderie with like minded owners.

To be sure the 8 is a compramize, fuel efficiency is likely to be lower than your current ride so long as it isn't an SUV or 5+ liter v8, reliability/defect questions will be present until the new engine and car have had some time to build a track record, and many (not all) Mazda dealerships are less than ideal and some are without local competition (a maintenance concern).

All this is a long winded way of saying, no matter how much research you do, how much rationalizing and weighing you do, none of it will matter once the car hits your emotions. At this point the reasearch, evaluations and everything else flys out the window and the cash flies out of your wallet.

good luck...

Originally posted by revhappy


2) Extra weight unneccesarily required with the suicide doors. 2 doors would have been sufficient as the weight of the suicide doors (and related bracing) exceeds the access benefits afforded by these doors (front passengers still must get out first). Personally, a reworking of the Japanese 2X2 RX7 would have been a MUCH better option IMHO.



Splitting hairs here but the front passenger need not get out first.......just needs to open the door first. Getting in and out with the front passenger in place is surprisingly easy.

Originally posted by revhappy


1) No.. The RX8 is only 1.6 inches wider.

2) Extra weight unneccesarily required with the suicide doors. 2 doors would have been sufficient as the weight of the suicide doors (and related bracing) exceeds the access benefits afforded by these doors (front passengers still must get out first). Personally, a reworking of the Japanese 2X2 RX7 would have been a MUCH better option IMHO.

3) Agreed.

4) Yes...they are 18 inch wheels compared to 16 - 17 inch wheels for the Subie. .Some have speculated the larger wheels were necessary from a visual point of view. Specifically, the long wheelbase of the car makes the vehicle look odd with smaller wheels. Thus, the design of increasing rear passenger space (i.e. increasing the wheelbase) indirectly increased weight here.

5) Agreed.

A theme of the posts I am making is that there is NOTHING wrong with a low torque, high power engine. It just needs to be in a lighter vehicle (2X2, roadster, etc.).

1) Remind me to go back to school for reading classes...darn it!

2) I think the unnecesary items are the rear seats (for another iteration of the RX or Miata like you were suggesting! :D ) The added weight on the doors was not unnecesary (Duh! for me...one is the result of the other..) simply because I like them!!....and I know you don't or you would simply go for a more standard coupe style. :D

3) Ehhhh...darn, nothing to say!
4) Agreed, long car....16 inchers would look ugly..

Ok, now we have to document all this, and FedEx it to Hiroshima for their Engineers to digest it and come up with the next RX....

Originally posted by TomsterRX8
For those of you who say torque is overrated and that power at high revs more than makes up for the lack of torque with the RX8 I would beg to differ. Torque is a beautiful thing. I had forgotten just how impressive having it is until I started test driving cars with lots of torque once my decision was made to turn in my RX8.

By far it's best attribute is that you are never really in the wrong gear should you find yourself in a situation where you need power to avoid a potential problem in traffic. My problem with the RX8 (and with my S2000) is that you better pick the right gear if you need instantaneous power or you are dead in the water. With loads of torque you can simply bull your way into the power zone. Without it you had best be a magician with the stick. You better find 2nd gear and not accidentally hit 4th gear in a sticky situation or you're not gonna have the power to gain the speed you might need. My guess is that many current RX8 drivers will not have the expertise to downshift properly in precarious situations.

So please don't make light of the piss-poor torque. You know you want more!

I think torque should be on the right range of rpms...instead of even having 300 peak (however, its likely that if you have 300 peak, you'll have a nice 50% available at lower rpms no matter what..) I would really love to get a seriously FLAT tq curve at 150 lb-ft...wouldn't that we awesome, despite it being low compared to other torquier cars?

As far as the mpg thing goes the prime fault lies with combustion shape. Rotaries have the worst area of flame propagation of any modern engine( Long and thin) The opposite would be the hemi design.
The torque thing is defintely relative. People keep making negative statements about the amount available in the 8. I too would have been pleased if it was even more or if the car was a little lighter but its really quite acceptable. This is actually the most produced by a normally aspirated production 2 rotor yet.
Also due to the very trick intake system employed this car has 90% of peak torque from as low as 3000 rpms if I'm not mistaken.
The 6 speed car also has a 4.4 rear end gear which makes for good zippy acceleration and possibly against fuel economy.
Anyhow you do have a rather flat torque curve of about 140ft/lbs
for a wide range.