I'm not one for polls, but do others think the 8 is a "make or break" car for Mazda ?

Personally I believe, as its the "Halo" car for the whole range, it is a M/B car for them. Alot rests on this car for Mazda, and they are in danger of letting slip this opportunity, especially as there is still no delivery date.

I have been on this forum a while now, and threatened to cancel once before. This seems churlish now as the car is so near (?) but I'm all out of patient and goodwill.:confused:


AnilS.

mate,


You come so far, the car is definately going to be here in November. I have the letter same as you. We are now only talking 4 weeks or so. Not long considering the 7 months we have already waited.

I feel the same way but now we got the letter if they cock that up
think they might have a number of lawsuits coming there way if they dont make november.

As you say, this is a halo car for Mazda. It has got to attract attention, get good press coverage, look good and be the kind of car people admire (before they decide they can't really justify the expense and buy a 6 instead). I think they are definitely on to a winner on that score.

It has also got to enhance Mazda's reputation for innovation and engineering excellence, so it has to be really reliable too in spite of the huge quantity of new technology. Hopefully they've got that covered.

Unfortunately, I don't think the issues that concern us right now (slipped delivery dates and possible horsepower shortfalls) are really key to the success of the RX-8 project as far as Mazda is concerned, so they are not really receiving the same attention.

Anyway, I am happy with "November" (which I am of course interpretting as November 30th) as a delivery date. Just so long as they stick to it.

I don't think that the RX8 is a make or break car for Mazda as sports cars are not their core market. Family saloons , small cars and the MX-5 are their main market and they trade on reliability and value rather than excitement.

A successful RX8 may bring about a change in customer perception of Mazda but I don't think the failure of the RX8 will kill Mazda , but it would prabably kill the rotary.

The make or break cars for Mazda are the 6 and the 3.

We are too low volume to make that much difference.

As said, make or break is lot sof volume on new cross platform (2,3 and 6) cars.

The RX-8 wont ever make money cause of its realtivly low volumes, as such is ahalo car, but mazda have to be VERY carefull with the 8, any problems may drag their reputation down, 1 reason for no turbo I would have thought.

One thing is for certain though: a succesful RX-8 will bring about a new RX-7 :D

As usual , the ace is right on the money....

That is what we really want.
A no frills , fast , lithe , slap you in the face, NormAspirated RX7....

and for that to happen , the RX8 has gotta work commercially , not just as an automotive curiosity.

RX-7 should be a fair go-er if the 8 sells (which it has so far).

Shortened RX-8 chasy, loose the rear doors + stiffer body.

1.5 2 rotor for 300bhp, 1200kg , low £20k's

Sounds good :)

its been said already i dont think this is make or break for mazda the mx5 will continue to sell in its role as a very good hairdryer.

The 6 series has been critically acclaimed even though it looks crap. The wife has a 323 which for its price is superb.

Mazda are a very reliable car manufacturer so that image isnt going to change.

However, this car will make or break the rotary concept. I think the engine is a sound idea but the eco-friendly aspect (more like lack of) is something that will need to be researched, only the success of this car will contribute to that.

Its just managing to scrape under the emissions issues. Going forward the rotary has to become more fuel efficient and eco-friendly otherwise Europe with its stringent rules will mean we never see a rotary again.

Flagship maybe......... make or break NO.

Too small volume compared to MX5 and 6 even the new 3.

It will be a great car, we already know that and in it's class will sell well I feel.

For those wishing to cancel, I agree with your sentiments but, it will make no difference to Mazda, they can sell your car in an instant with such strong demand.

I'm looking forward to cruising in mine in the next month or so:D

Cheers
Oilman

Originally posted by morganrogers
As usual , the ace is right on the money....

That is what we really want.
A no frills , fast , lithe , slap you in the face, NormAspirated RX7....

and for that to happen , the RX8 has gotta work commercially , not just as an automotive curiosity.

I dont know about the NA thing.........

The Mazda mechanic(s) who said that the RX7 is a possibility if the RX8 goes well, also said that the Renesis, given the proper cooling, is an amazing engine for turbo ;)

Since the rotary doesnt give a dime about lowering compressions, new gaskets, stronger pistons etc etc, its just a matter of slapping on the turbo(s), installing a VERY decent I/C, upgrade fuel, water and oil pumps, and be about your business :cool:

Can you say "1308cc, 350HP in stock form" ? :eek: :eek:

Well - much as I respect the rotary knowledge of 'the ace' I;m gonna disagree on this.

Turbos , while fun, are always a compromise.

Need more power ? Cant be bothered to engineer it in ? Bung on a turbo ! Lazy , lazy , lazy !
For me at least , the NA aspect of the Renesis while making all those horses (double my old NA rotary) is the real genius.

I for one will be hoping for a larger NA rx7 ! ! !

They wont go near another turbo rotary purely for reliability reasons. Even if they engineed one well, plenty of people are gona up the boost n chip them like mad, and thrash them into the ground.

80% (pulled out of hat) of peoples rotary worries are down to the 3rd gen rx-7's turbo heat problems. Plus its twin turbo was so expensive (eaqual to another engine) that it pushed the price way up - and also contributed to its leary handling tag.

I dont think they'll go for a turbo because of these reasons alone, prehaps a supercharger, but I dont think there as suited to rotaries?

3rd gen RX was about £20K in the USofA.
Only in the UK was it £35K and it killed it dead !

So the sequential turbo (while expensive) cannot have been the sole reason for hefty price tag....

Well, like I said, the mechanics that said those things about the RX8/RX7 also said that "this is just a hypothesis" ;) No one knows if the RX8 will do SO good as to warrant a new RX7......

However, unfortunatelly you can do only so much with an N/A rotary (as with any other N/A internal combustion engine). You can ditch all cats, you can enlarge the throttle body, you can bridge-port the hell out of the engine, but you will still end up with a 1308cc N/A rotary engine producing no more than 300HP.

Slapping on a turbo is neither as simple or as easy as morganrogers makes it to be. Its not the "easy way out", nor is it a "compromise". F/I is just a different way of increasing the HP/torque output of an internal combustion engine. Simple as that. The fact that the rotary engine has increased operating temperature in comparison with a piston engine is the only and major problem for Mazda. Thats why I said that this requires a very decent I/C, and upgraded pumps all around. But the above setup will send the HP over the 350HP mark easily ;)

As for the "problems" that you are all mentioning, apart from the S1 version of the FD ('92-'93, very few models), which indeed had overheating problems built-in :o , all the other -newer- models had none. Its only the stupidity and/or misinformation of the owners that led to the bad name for the FDs (and the rotaries in general)........

Originally posted by The Ace
Well, like I said, the mechanics that said those things about the RX8/RX7 also said that "this is just a hypothesis" ;) No one knows if the RX8 will do SO good as to warrant a new RX7......

However, unfortunatelly you can do only so much with an N/A rotary (as with any other N/A internal combustion engine). You can ditch all cats, you can enlarge the throttle body, you can bridge-port the hell out of the engine, but you will still end up with a 1308cc N/A rotary engine producing no more than 300HP.

Its most likely to be a 1500cc 2 rotor, so somewhere over 300bhp, will do a light car for mid £20k.

Originally posted by The Ace
Slapping on a turbo is neither as simple or as easy as morganrogers makes it to be. Its not the "easy way out", nor is it a "compromise". F/I is just a different way of increasing the HP/torque output of an internal combustion engine. Simple as that. The fact that the rotary engine has increased operating temperature in comparison with a piston engine is the only and major problem for Mazda. Thats why I said that this requires a very decent I/C, and upgraded pumps all around. But the above setup will send the HP over the 350HP mark easily ;)

As for the "problems" that you are all mentioning, apart from the S1 version of the FD ('92-'93, very few models), which indeed had overheating problems built-in :o , all the other -newer- models had none. Its only the stupidity and/or misinformation of the owners that led to the bad name for the FDs (and the rotaries in general)........

Its not what the problem is, its what the public percieve. Any new RX-7 has to compete against a lot of cars, some of which will sell more just because of its badge (porsche boxter etc).

We know a NA rotary , now rotor tips etc are fairly sorted, is a reliable motor. The public perviece them as unreliable in the extreem, uneconomical (still there!) and dirty (one reason for missing a few HP for euro stage 4).

The next gen RX-7 has to do a few things. Has to be quick ( 250bhp-300bhp at least), light (1200kg ish) and under £30k.

But still theres an awful lot of competition in that range.

Originally posted by RobDickinson
Its most likely to be a 1500cc 2 rotor, so somewhere over 300bhp, will do a light car for mid £20k.

Its not what the problem is, its what the public percieve. Any new RX-7 has to compete against a lot of cars, some of which will sell more just because of its badge (porsche boxter etc).

We know a NA rotary , now rotor tips etc are fairly sorted, is a reliable motor. The public perviece them as unreliable in the extreem, uneconomical (still there!) and dirty (one reason for missing a few HP for euro stage 4).

The next gen RX-7 has to do a few things. Has to be quick ( 250bhp-300bhp at least), light (1200kg ish) and under £30k.

But still theres an awful lot of competition in that range.

Whether its 1308, 1500, or even a 3-rotor engine, it will still be an N/A engine. I just mentioned the restrictions of N/A in comparison with F/I. However a 3-rotor RX7 would kick some major ass :D

And I dont think that the next RX7 will have "only" 250-300HP. This was the case with the FD, and that was 10 years ago. The latest FD (SpiritR :eek: ) had 280HP, and was about 1200Kg anyway......so I'm guessing that Mazda, if they decide to go ahead with this, will be aiming at more than 300HP (if they go F/I then more than 350HP), and around the same weight......

Dont know about the price though......the FD was fairly expensive, so I guess the new RX7 will be too. And again I disagree about the reliability issues: the "public" (i.e average Joe Doe) should stick to their SUVs, pick-ups, and Corollas. Everyone has to treat and operate each machine like its manual says. If they dont know how to, just dont buy it (and keep their mouth shut when discussing this machine ;) ). You and I know that this is not true, since all these people will start talking about the "problems" they had, because of their ignorance and/or stupidity, but still.....

...........ah, its a lost cause anyway, so why bother ?

Originally posted by The Ace
And again I disagree about the reliability issues: the "public" (i.e average Joe Doe) should stick to their SUVs, pick-ups, and Corollas. Everyone has to treat and operate each machine like its manual says. If they dont know how to, just dont buy it (and keep their mouth shut when discussing this machine ;) ). You and I know that this is not true, since all these people will start talking about the "problems" they had, because of their ignorance and/or stupidity, but still.....

...........ah, its a lost cause anyway, so why bother ?

I don't know about anyone else but I've never had the chance to read an owners manual before buying a car. Many people buying the RX8 will be unaware of things like the oil usage issues. It's a strange eliteist attitude you have with this car (or rotarys), don't you want mainstream recognition for this car or engine?

Ace, unless you misse dmost of the late 90's and early 00's , mazda was in a world of crap.

Ford bailed them out and now have them back on track again - but its not like ford are makin huge profits to help out if times get tough either. They've just announced 3000 more job losses in europe:/

Whatever mazda make, it has to make money, and not damage their reputation, they cant afford it.

When I said 250-300bhp + 1200kg , thats a minimum they must meet.

Yes the last rx-7 was 280bhp in japan , but that wasnt with new euro emmisions, and was with a turbo.

I dont see a turbo on the rx-7 unless they realy want to compete with things like the boxters, TVR's etc.

A 3 rotor would be nice, but heavier, and tons more money, 3 rotor (20b)is equivelant to something like a 4.0 v10 and would be priced simlaly, imagine the fuel costs lol - and that has to be considered. 2nd gen RX-7 was a comparative faliure because of the low power causing mazda to gear it so low it was too uneconomical.

A 1500cc 2 rotor would hit 300bhp, right on the money, which is looking likely. Prehaps a turbo 'sport' version would be 350+, prolly priced in boxter teritory tho.

Originally posted by AndyPearce
I don't know about anyone else but I've never had the chance to read an owners manual before buying a car. Many people buying the RX8 will be unaware of things like the oil usage issues. It's a strange eliteist attitude you have with this car (or rotarys), don't you want mainstream recognition for this car or engine?

I surely wish that all those who bought the FD actually read the manuals, paid attention to what Mazda and its dealers told them, and actually cared for their car. I also most certainly want mainstream recognition for the RX8, because that will bring a new RX7 that much closer.......

On the other hand, I REALLY hate attitudes and comments like "well, although Mazda and the dealer and the mechanic and the guy at the newsstand told me that I should take care of the oil level, I never really cared and didnt even check once, so now that my engine is fried, I really blame Mazda for not making the FD idiot-proof" :mad:

You catch my drift ? Its not that I dont want people to test, and check, and criticise the RX8, its just that I dont want people to blame the car/Mazda/dealer/mechanic for their ignorance, stupidity and/or indifference to this machine's operating instructions

Originally posted by The Ace


I surely wish that all those who bought the FD actually read the manuals, paid attention to what Mazda and its dealers told them, and actually cared for their car. I also most certainly want mainstream recognition for the RX8, because that will bring a new RX7 that much closer.......

On the other hand, I REALLY hate attitudes and comments like "well, although Mazda and the dealer and the mechanic and the guy at the newsstand told me that I should take care of the oil level, I never really cared and didnt even check once, so now that my engine is fried, I really blame Mazda for not making the FD idiot-proof" :mad:

You catch my drift ? Its not that I dont want people to test, and check, and criticise the RX8, its just that I dont want people to blame the car/Mazda/dealer/mechanic for their ignorance, stupidity and/or indifference to this machine's operating instructions

I don't know about Belgium but in the UK I doubt that many salesman will warn people about the oil checks etc when they order (or in our case pre-order) the RX8. I'm sure they'll mention it when the car is delivered to the customer but it's a bit late at that point and some people will assume that like piston engines, the manufacturer is just being cautious and covering their own arses. Because people are used to very robust , low maintenance engines in their car , the extra care and maintenace it requires could be it's achilles heel as far as mainstream acceptance of the rotary goes.

I can see both your arguments:

1. read the instructions or it's ur own fault

2. blown engines = bad press despite any warnings


wouldnt it be possible to have a multistage oil level gauge and when it gets near empty ( if stupidly ignored) the engine cuts out.

I can hear you sayin what happens if ur doin 100mph in the outside lane and the engine cuts out!! but this does kinda happen with the fuel gauge too and surely better to happend than a seized engine :-)

just a thought,


Paul

From TheAce
Slapping on a turbo is neither as simple or as easy as morganrogers makes it to be. Its not the "easy way out", nor is it a "compromise".

Just for the record , I never meant to imply it is simple - I am sure I wouldn't be able to do it on my black and decker workbench.
As for 'easy way out' or 'compromise' - well , I think you are wrong.
It's OK , that is your opinion , but mine is that it is a compromise. Forced induction is an easy way to big power. I know people who have had 180bhp from their saxos by bunging a turbo on it - and this is a little 8valve 1.6. And realistically , all it involved was a bolt on turbo kit and some remapping of fuel supplies. A turbo is, relative to NA mods, an quick and dirty way to big power.

A far more elegant solution would be some kind of larger NA design (with appropriate porting etc) , and this would have the double benefit of increased reliability and a better chance with Joe Public. Plus a NA rotary is a thing of beauty in my warped mind..... ;)

All opinions expressed , purely my own (etc etc....)

Would be best to have a low oil light come on when you get to the low oil line on the dipstick.

I know my focus doesnt, low oil light wont come on until the oil level is way to low.

but people expect modern cars (at least 4-5yo ones) to only need work on them during the scheduled services.

If you need to do anything in between serviced people phreak, there just not used to it anymore. Prolly why tons of people drive round with bald tyres, low pressure tyres, no brake lights etc.

Its partly the manufacturers fault anyhow. Tjere making cars need less regular maintanance, which is good, but also making them much less able to be maintained by yourself - which means dealer revenue.

Turbo's on light sportscars are a generaly a bad idea anyhow.

Tag and uneven power delivery cause all sorts of problems I'd rather not have.

IMO a turbo goes a long way to ruin what rotaries are good for - liniar power delivery, and a quick throttle responce. Ok , they do up torque too, a big failing of the rotary.

Look at the publics view of the 3rd gen rx-7 (if they have a view, not exactly a well known car).

Unreliable - down to turbo heat.
Uneconomical - drank like a fish.
Leary - turbo + light + RWD = backwards.

Sure Mazda could produce another 3rd gen rx-7 like car , down to its 'problems' but there a mass market company who need to make profit, there not TVR, noble, lotus etc.

Doesnt mean they have to make something usrine, but it does have to fit into the program.

I hope its 300+bhp, 1200kg, and has all the same gadgets as the RX-8 for keeping it on the road (switch-offable) which I'm sure it will be.

Personaly, the RX-8 looks a succsess already, they cant seem to make enough to meet demand, well see in 2 years though.

I also dont see a 4th gen RX-7 production a problem. It'll almost certainly be using the 8's platform (as will a new mx5 I'm sure), and same drivetrain/LSD/gearbox etc. A slightly bigger 2 rotor would fit in nicely too, I cant see it taking that much effort as they have 80% of the work done already.

here is a wee eye opener for your regarding routine maintenance on a car.
This was seen inside the handbook of my Land Rover Discovery TD5...

"check engine oil every 250 miles"

Now this car does easily 450 miles on a tank so it means checking it more often than putting diesel in.
Mazda RX8 unique with its need for frequent oil checking?
I think not..................

lol, thats kinda stupid, having to stop every half tank to check oil, wont burn that much, I hope...

Manufacturers all say that kinda thing to cover themselves, most cars dont need that , but we know rotaries do use oil, like renaults...

well i must admit i have rarely looked under the bonnet to check the oil, maybe because i have it reguarly serviced at a bone fide lexus dealership. I check tyres etc in fact i have a slow puncture at the moment which im loathed to pay for a new tyre when in 4 weeks i will have a new car (tyre has only a few thousand miles on it). just once a week i pump it up to the 34 PSI doesnt really go below 25 anyway.

Clocked up 43000 miles and i think i have looked at the dipstick maybe 3 or 4 times.


However will be changing that habit when the "baby" arrives.

cw007 - you going saturday ?

Aw, come on guys: checking the dipstick should be as much a part of your weekly check as tyre pressures and other fluid levels. This is standard procedure.

Originally posted by RobDickinson
Doesnt mean they have to make something usrine,

Is this a spelling mistake or a new word the online dictionaries don't have yet? I'm not sure what you wanted to say here.

Originally posted by specman
here is a wee eye opener for your regarding routine maintenance on a car.
This was seen inside the handbook of my Land Rover Discovery TD5...

"check engine oil every 250 miles"

Now this car does easily 450 miles on a tank so it means checking it more often than putting diesel in.
Mazda RX8 unique with its need for frequent oil checking?
I think not..................

But in reality do you have to check the car every 250, has the engine been damaged because you didn't? I suspect not and that's why some people will think (wrongly) that the RX8 manuals warning to check it every 2 fill ups can be ignored in the same way to. The public are used to manufacturers being over cautious in there manuals so unless the dealer implicitly warns a new owner of the oil issue that assumption will possibly be made again.

havent had my phone call yet u ?

Nope.
Surprise surprise....

been assured that we will get a call this afternoon from the administration girlie.

Not holding my breath however.

Originally posted by Lensman
Aw, come on guys: checking the dipstick should be as much a part of your weekly check as tyre pressures and other fluid levels. This is standard procedure.

For you maybe, the only thing I have to check on a regular basis is tyre pressure.

Originally posted by AndyPearce


For you maybe, the only thing I have to check on a regular basis is tyre pressure.

Oh to hate the US's tyre pressure sensors, then all I need to do is hoe myself out for the fuel costs..

Originally posted by AndyPearce

But in reality do you have to check the car every 250, has the engine been damaged because you didn't?

I feel as though I am a freak here then cos I DO pop the bonnet on both cars practically every weekend and check things over.If the Disco tows my 1800kg twin axle van it does use a little more oil. Reckon in total between 12000 mile services it will take 2litres and it is still only 25k old. Agricultural vehicl you see.

In fact glad I popped the bonnet on the BMW right after a BMW Main dealer service as it was leaking oil from the filter as the seal hadnt been changed. My usual placid self got a bit angry at that one.(see pic below)So observation is everything in this game.

But I do think that due to everybody becoming very litiguous these days there is text appearing in all daft places with daft comments......

Originally posted by specman
But I do think that due to everybody becoming very litiguous these days there is text appearing in all daft places with daft comments......


Download and read the US RX-8 owners manual, its at least 50% warnings and DANGER! type message boxes. scary realy.

OK, first of all, the RX8 uses a rotary engine, which is unique. This means, whoever wants to own one, must abide by the rules, and realize that this unique engine has its own unique "issues" (not "problems" ;) ), and must be dealt with accordingly.

Second of all, how many sportscars/supercars do you know that DONT need constant care ? I suppose you brits all know about the TVRs and the Elans and the ACs and the Caterhams etc etc, and their constant need for TLC. I assure you, its the same thing with Lamborghinis, Ferraris, Mazeratis etc etc.......The only supercar maker that gives you any kind of assurance when saying "check every 20K km" is Porsche, and they still tell you to make precaution checks for various bits and pieces, fluids, parts etc.......

Now I know that the RX8 is not actually a supercar (which the new RX7 will be :cool: ), but it does fall under the same category. I know that Mazda cannot be put on the same level as Ferrari or Mazerati, but still a lot of effort has to be made (even by you and me) to convince people to treat the RX8 as they should.

And again: I dont suppose you buy a DVD, try to put in a VHS tape, expect it to play, and when it doesnt you start blaming Sony or Philips for not making this clear ? :o . Or put a bolt into the socket, get electrocuted, and then blame the PPC or the socket maker for not making them idiot-proof ?

Same deal......

And for morganrogers: at today's level of progress and technology, internal combustion engines when naturally aspirated have around 50-55% efficiency. That means that the conversion of the chemical energy into kinetic energy has an upper ceiling/limit, when considering a given displacement engine. The only way to increase this efficiency is by using other methods, such as F/I. Not only that, but turbos also use part of the energy "spent" on the heat and speed of the exhaust gases. So, to call F/I "easy" and "compromise" is the same like calling the afterburner system on a turbine jet engine "easy" and "compromising" ;)

But the RX-8 in no way compares to lotus, TVR etc, never mind ferrari etc.

Apart from the engine, its 'just' a normal mass produced sports car.

Like the TT, S3/4 , BMW 330ci etc.

Its designed and build by a major manufacturer who gives a 3 year, 60k mile warenty. Try getting that one out of TVR :P

I expect the rest of the RX-8 (not including the engine) to be as reliable as any other mazda, i.e. tops.

The engine, I'm told, as a NA rotary should be far more reliable than a piston anyhow, so long as treated correctly (serviced, and correct oil levels).

If the RX-8 requires anything like the levels of maintanance an elise or TVR requires mazda will be in deep trouble.

As for already at the tops for NA piston engine efficiency , no way. Theres still tons of things they can/will do. Rotaries are 2-30 years behind AT LEAST in terms of development. Pistons have had 1000's of people working on them for 100+years. Rotaries have had as few as 2 people at mazda working on them, and probably never more than 80. They take advantage of current tech and materials, but are still way behind in development, which may go some way to explain poor fuel efficiency and emmisions.

And what did I say ? :confused:
the RX8 uses a rotary engine, which is unique
And also:
I know that the RX8 is not actually a supercar
And finally:
I know that Mazda cannot be put on the same level as Ferrari or Mazerati
The only "problematic" area with the RX8 and the new RX7 is/will be the engine. And thats where the FD got all its bad criticism. So, its the one area that must get a lot of attention by anyone involved.

And as for the comments about the stage of evolution: even if the rotary had the same years of development behind it, it would still be at the same levels of efficiency as the piston engines. Its not a matter of specific engine internal workings, its about the level of evolution of humankind :D

Originally posted by The Ace
And as for the comments about the stage of evolution: even if the rotary had the same years of development behind it, it would still be at the same levels of efficiency as the piston engines. Its not a matter of specific engine internal workings, its about the level of evolution of humankind :D

Should it? Ithought, in theory, a rotary should be more efficient?

Pistons are vey inefficient in an up and down kinda way as a lot of energy is lost , but rotaries dont loose all that energy.

In practice there not efficient, but are relativly powerfull (although 238bhp for '2.6l' isnt great, some 4clyinders are getting 200bhp out of 2.0l).

Rotaries also dont have the same drain on them as piston engines from valves/cams etc, and can make use of the same ports for 3 'cylinders' (rotor).

Is energy lost from side wall friction eaqual to pistons verticle momentum change?

Well, first of all lets state that the F20 engine is right now the most efficient piston engine in the world (240HP out of 2.0lt of displacement). Next are the new E46 M3 engine, and the V10 of the Ferrari.

The rotary engine has a lot of advantages over the piston engine, in theory and in practice.

1) First of all, energy and momentum is not lost in moving parts and an additional conversion from reciprocal to cyclical movement. The rotary has just 3 moving parts, and all of them are moving in the same direction, doing the same generic movement (cyclical, or almost cyclical)

2) Losses due to friction are even less. Rotaries lose energy only due to the apex seals, because the shaft and rotors do not have that much friction between them. Piston engines on the other hand have friction on the pistons, the lobes on the cams, and between gears/cams.

3) The operating limits for the rotary engine are much, much higher than those of a piston engine. This is obvious, so I wont elaborate.

4) The simplicity of the rotary engine allows for much simpler and lighter design, much more durable components, and much more efficient operation. Only taking into consideration the absence of valves, springs, valve covers, cam settings etc etc.....anyone can figure out which design is better ;)

The general problem with the internal combustion engines is their efficiency when regarded as a generic mechanism, not when you start pondering on a specific design's pros and cons. Simply put, burning fossil fuel using these machines at our current state of evolution simply has its limits, and those limits are the ones that impede their output. When comparing these engines to other forms of engines (such as H2 engines, or fuel cell, or simply electrical ones), the differences in their efficiency is staggering. And remember that the other engines are still in their embryo stages ;)

Thats why I say that F/I is a very valuable solution. Not only does it increase the efficiency of an engine, it also uses energy otherwise spent (heat/speed of exhaust gases), so the total entropy of the internal combustion engine is reduced. So, it may not be a quantum leap forward, but its still a pretty decent way to improve the efficiency of these engines.......

You have to define what you mean by efficiency. If you mean getting most work done for a given amount of fuel (fuel efficiency) then rotaries are very inefficient (at least currently).

If, as is often the case with sports car engines, you mean getting most power out of a given physical size or weight of engine then rotaries are the most efficient engines. This is because for each rotor all 4 cycles are in progress simultaneously in different parts of the rotor chamber (kind of like pipelining, if you're farmiliar with computer hardware) whereas in a cylinder they happen sequentially. So you need more cylinders (of the same displacement) to get the same power. Plus, of course, there's valves and all the other stuff.

It's almost like there's a law of nature that says you can't have both types of efficiency at the same time. For example, diesels have much better fuel efficiency than petrol engines but their power/weight ratio is terrible because they are so heavy and rev so slowly.

As you may have understood from my theoretical analysis, I define "efficiency" in the pure mathematical/chemical sense, as the rate of conversion between one form of energy (stored chemical energy in the molecules of the fuel) to another (kinetic energy).

The formula to prove the efficiency (or rather, inefficiency :D) of the internal combustion engine (whether reciprocal, rotary or otherwise) is quite simple actually, and doesnt have too many variables and additions/multiplications/divisions in it, but I just got back from the gym, and I'm just too tired.......

Maybe I'll indulge myself (and you all ;) ) another time......

Hello from Canada:

Do any of you on this thread actually have your cars yet, or is all this discussion theoretical?

Westie from Toronto

Are you trying to wind us up ????

:)

No I wasn't trying to but I guess it doesn't take much.

I honestly don't know if any of you have received your cars yet in the UK or Europe. I posted a field report on the "are you concerned about MPG" thread with a list of things to keep an eye on when you receive your 8s. The main problem we had was horrible MPG and extremely short range of the RX8.

Good Luck, Westie

First, I dont think Mazda will manufacture the any RX car outside Japan, so the price of the RX will depend on the ¥ exchange rate as much as the manufacturing cost.
I dont think it was a coincidence that RX7 was discontinued in
Japan when the RX8 came along, due to the limited number of
people at Mazda with wankel experience and if the RX8 is a huge success, it will take time to educate new engine builders, I sincerely doubt that they would run several different cars with the wankel engine.
But I hope Im wrong, it would be nice if Mazda could make a whole range of wankel cars....