Hi All ,

l have posted pics and the full write up on our Mazdarotaryclub.com forum of an article theat came out yesterday in an English Mag called Autocar of the RX-8 on track in Japan , there is also a tech side bar on the engine . Sorry l didn't put them up in here , not that good on these pewtery things in fact l gave up trying on our site and got a mate to install em for me !!

All the Best Clive@mazdarotaryclub.com

Direct link: http://www.mazdarotaryclub.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=174

I haven't had time to read it yet, but I'm not holding out much hope - they are showing the old yellow car in the article!

I hate to say it but it looks like they were driving the concept. The seats, design of the front and the led lights on the sideview mirrors just scream concept. On positive note the car sounds like itsvery refined and quiet which is a sign that some of us can mod for more performance at the cost of a loud sounding engine by adding free intakes and exhaust systems

Hi Clive,

Welcome to the forum and very nice post.

Thanks for the link Grimace.

Combined 28 - 30 mpg !??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I can only hope. :o

Brian

"At high revs, attained with eerie ease it must be noted, the only thing that deters you from revving past the red line and up to 9000 rpm and beyond is an annoying - but necessary - ringing sound..." :D

Ah yes, the overrev buzzer. Piston-engine plebes, are you paying attention? :D

i took some time yesterday and posted the newer pics (turn signals, bigger ducts etc.) over at mazdarotaryclub.com so they could see the difference. most of the posts so far have been about the plastic over the engine

Some good hard data can be found in this article. Even though they show the old car, it sounds like what they drove was the new one. Excellent find. Most note-worthy:

Turns lock-to-lock: 3.0 . That's a bit high, I would have prefered 2.5-2.7 turns. Oh well, BMW uses 3.4 turns lock-to-lock, and it's steering feel plenty precise, so I am probably nit-picking. At least @3.0 turns lock-to-lock it won't feel as darty as my current car on the freeway.

Weight: 1300 kg estimated (2860 lb.) If this is correct, the car has lost a bit of weight (130 lb.)! Always good news!

Fuel economy, combined driving: 28-30 MPG. Methinks this is a little overly optimistic. :D One can hope though. I wonder where they got this number from? :confused: It does say at the bottom of the data box is small print "All figures manufacturer's claims" so either Mazda has come out with some crazy breakthrough or its a misprint.

Brakes: 4 piston calipers, ventilated discs, 323 mm front, 302 mm rear

The link to the third page is wrong. Use this link: http://www.mazdarotaryclub.com/forums/forum-photos/autocar_uk_nov-2002/autocar_03.JPG

Interestingly, this article also suggests the rear seat is cramped for full-size adults.

"Steering wheel adjusts in both planes" - does this mean it tilts and telescopes?

Power steering assist is electric, as in the S2000! Didn't know they were going to forego the usual hydraulic pump! (Maybe I missed that somehow over the past few months.) The author liked the steering feel a lot.

I suggest making this thread a sticky.

Originally posted by Grimace
Some good hard data can be found in this article. Even though they show the old car, it sounds like what they drove was the new one. Excellent find. Most note-worthy:

Turns lock-to-lock: 3.0 . That's a bit high, I would have prefered 2.5-2.7 turns. Oh well, BMW uses 3.4 turns lock-to-lock, and it's steering feel plenty precise, so I am probably nit-picking. At least @3.0 turns lock-to-lock it won't feel as darty as my current car on the freeway.

Weight: 1300 kg estimated (2860 lb.) If this is correct, the car has lost a bit of weight (130 lb.)! Always good news!

Fuel economy, combined driving: 28-30 MPG. Methinks this is a little overly optimistic. :D One can hope though. I wonder where they got this number from? :confused: It does say at the bottom of the data box is small print "All figures manufacturer's claims" so either Mazda has come out with some crazy breakthrough or its a misprint.

Brakes: 4 piston calipers, ventilated discs, 323 mm front, 302 mm rear

The link to the third page is wrong. Use this link: http://www.mazdarotaryclub.com/forums/forum-photos/autocar_uk_nov-2002/autocar_03.JPG

Interestingly, this article also suggests the rear seat is cramped for full-size adults.

"Steering wheel adjusts in both planes" - does this mean it tilts and telescopes?

Power steering assist is electric, as in the S2000! Didn't know they were going to forego the usual hydraulic pump! (Maybe I missed that somehow over the past few months.) The author liked the steering feel a lot.

I suggest making this thread a sticky.
They also say it's cramped in a 3 series BMW, but I fit back there okay... granted it's not a full-size sedan but it serves its purpose.

Besides 98% of the time I'll be driving alone, and as long as people can come with me I really don't care much for their comfort :P

the guy who tested it sent the needle past 9000 and broke the rotor tip seals =[

Originally posted by Takumi
the guy who tested it sent the needle past 9000 and broke the rotor tip seals =[
And translated what did he do to the car? :confused:

I guess I'm just in a pessemistic mood tonight, but in the article the author said that he kept swinging past the redline and as a result, the "rotor tip seals" broke. I know that he was probably really pushing the car to test its performance but isn't it still a bad sign that he managed to damage the engine in just 4 laps? Seeing as the peak horsepower of the car is way up in the high rev range wouldn't it be easy for anyone to fly past the redline? I know that if I do get this car, I'll probably never try to push it right to its limits but seeing as I could easily make a few mistakes, what are the chances of me damaging the engine?

oops, sorry about the redundancy of my post, I missed the 2 before mine.....

It appears that the author who wrote the section:

"...and several times during my test drive the needle sailed past 9000 before my resolve and the engine's rotor tip seals broke."

really didn't know what he was talking about. Since the article is from Autocar UK, it may be a slang or translation problem to the "English" that I understand. Does anyone from the UK understand what that means?

He clearly could not have broken the apex seals several times or even once.

Brian

yea i dont know what i was talking about i thought i put a question mark at the end of my sentence
so to repost

the guy who tested it sent the needle past 9000 and broke the rotor tip seals ?:confused:

Originally posted by Hercules

They also say it's cramped in a 3 series BMW, but I fit back there okay... granted it's not a full-size sedan but it serves its purpose.

Besides 98% of the time I'll be driving alone, and as long as people can come with me I really don't care much for their comfort :P

Hi ,

l sat in the toy yellow show car back in July and was real impressed by the leg room front and back, the way they appear to have achived is constucting very thin front seats.

Hope this helps.

All the Best Clive@mazdarotaryclub.com

Originally posted by Buger
It appears that the author who wrote the section:

"...and several times during my test drive the needle sailed past 9000 before my resolve and the engine's rotor tip seals broke."

really didn't know what he was talking about. Since the article is from Autocar UK, it may be a slang or translation problem to the "English" that I understand. Does anyone from the UK understand what that means?

He clearly could not have broken the apex seals several times or even once.

Brian

He means he revved it past 9000 but backed off before the rotor tip seals broke. Just a very poorly worded sentence. He should have wrote: "...and several times during my test drive the needle sailed past 9000 before my resolve and before the engine's rotor tip seals broke."

Originally posted by Grimace
Turns lock-to-lock: 3.0 . That's a bit high, I would have prefered 2.5-2.7 turns. Oh well, BMW uses 3.4 turns lock-to-lock, and it's steering feel plenty precise, so I am probably nit-picking. At least @3.0 turns lock-to-lock it won't feel as darty as my current car on the freeway.


My car is 2.7 turns. It's been changed on all BMWs for 2002+. :p I like it this fast, though it feels a bit oversensitive for countersteering. Not that you should be drifting anyway. ;)

English translation alert...

They guy meant that he got over 9000RPM several times before he chickened out because he was WORRIED that he MIGHT break somthing... It doesn't suggest that he DID brake somthing.... Infact it suggests that he had a good try and nothing did break.

Edit: - Didn't they say that the production version would redline at 9000 and the buzzer would be at 9500... I really doubt that they would let you take it anywhere near the speed that could hurt it... I'd guess that the buzzer also has a rev limit on it... or at least that there is a rev limit below 10K.

Originally posted by Takumi

the guy who tested it sent the needle past 9000 and broke the rotor tip seals ?:confused:

Originally posted by fuz


My car is 2.7 turns. It's been changed on all BMWs for 2002+. :p I like it this fast, though it feels a bit oversensitive for countersteering. Not that you should be drifting anyway. ;)

My (or rather R&T's) mistake. R&T must have made a misprint in their recent sport sedan shoot-off a few scant months ago.
But many of the cars in the test were well over 3 turns lock-to-lock, so I'm not worried. Every recent review of the 8 that has been popping up raves about the steering feel.

Originally posted by BlueAdept
Edit: - Didn't they say that the production version would redline at 9000 and the buzzer would be at 9500... I really doubt that they would let you take it anywhere near the speed that could hurt it... I'd guess that the buzzer also has a rev limit on it... or at least that there is a rev limit below 10K.


There was a guy on the RX-7 forum who accidentally shifted into 2nd gear at 80 MPH...he meant to put it in 4th. The peak hold function on his ECU indicated that he had hit 10,000+ RPM during that little mistake, but his engine was fine. Redline on the RX-7 engine was only 8,000 RPM.

Based on that, I'd guess that there is considerable room designed in above the redline, and brief or accidental excursions beyond the redline should not cause any damage.

Edit: Here is the link to the thread, if you are interested:
http://www.rx7club.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82724&highlight=owned

A very dumb newbie question here - can rotaries have a rev-limiter (instead of buzzer)?

Originally posted by pelucidor
A very dumb newbie question here - can rotaries have a rev-limiter (instead of buzzer)?

Yes, they can...in fact, the 3rd gen RX-7 has both. The buzzer starts in at about 7,500 RPM, but you can still keep revving unitl somewhere around 8,000 before the limiter cuts you off.

Isn't a rev limiter just a fuel cut off switch attached to a data feed from the tach?

Originally posted by Aesculapius
Isn't a rev limiter just a fuel cut off switch attached to a data feed from the tach?

That's one way to do it. You can also cut the spark with similar results.

but then your HC's go through the roof (won't pass any emissions tests on the limiter, by a LOOONG shot...)
these days, don't they simply use a combination of the two, under computer control to keep the revs from going too high??

All rev limiters are built into the ECU software these days. I get the impression that ignition cut is nicer on the engine than fuel cut too, that's why the rev limiter is ignition but over boosting which is much more dangerous has a fuel cut because it may ignite without a spark.

BTW, I've heard of heaps of stories of rotaries over-revving and living to tell the tale it's one of their strong points. Years ago there was a poll of people on the rx-7 list who had grabbed the wrong gear and not one blew an engine. Try that on the E36 M3 list! I've seen 9500rpm on my motor before without any drama.

-pete

Originally posted by wakeech
but then your HC's go through the roof (won't pass any emissions tests on the limiter, by a LOOONG shot...)
these days, don't they simply use a combination of the two, under computer control to keep the revs from going too high??

Are there any EPA emissions tests/requirements at the redline? I don't know much about the requirements for emissions, but I always thought the requirements were only for cruising and idle conditions. Enlighten me! :)

HA HA HA!!! lordy i HOPE not!!!
i'm just being my friendly, green, and know-it-ally self...

oh, rpm_pwr, what do you drive?? a 7?? or an E36 M3???

Originally posted by rpm_pwr
All rev limiters are built into the ECU software these days. I get the impression that ignition cut is nicer on the engine than fuel cut too, that's why the rev limiter is ignition but over boosting which is much more dangerous has a fuel cut because it may ignite without a spark.

BTW, I've heard of heaps of stories of rotaries over-revving and living to tell the tale it's one of their strong points. Years ago there was a poll of people on the rx-7 list who had grabbed the wrong gear and not one blew an engine. Try that on the E36 M3 list! I've seen 9500rpm on my motor before without any drama.

-pete

I have a TII with stock internals, full exhaust, intake and fuel-cut defender, if you want power, you shift at 7500...redline is 7000. I have maxed out my tach several times(8000+rpms) and I mean MAXED it out(2nd gens also had rev limiters) and I hit my limiter...8600rpms...these engines can take it...but I do think they'd need to put a scatter-shield on the tranny in order for it to go any higher.

Also, they said 0-62 is 6.3...I imagine 0-60 will be more like 6.0-6.1 seconds

If the posted redline line is 9000 revs, I hope the buzzer comes on at 9250.
A modern rev limiter would probably cut the fuel to one rotor @ 9500, and if that didn't do the trick to bring the revs down, the other rotor could drop out @ 9750, and finally the spark cut out at 10000.

If you dumped that air/fuel mix into a hot catalytic converter, not a good thing.

Originally posted by MikeW
A modern rev limiter would probably cut the fuel to one rotor @ 9250, and if that didn't do the trick to bring the revs down, the other rotor could drop out @ 9500.

If you dumped that air/fuel mix into a hot catalytic converter, not a good thing.

It's way easier than that... think about it... your throttle input is just an electronic link into the ECU ANYWAY, so all it's gotta do is back you off.... disconnect your right foot... scale it anyway, until your revs are inside the limit... then you don't have to worry about HC's or going too lean etc...

The key to "Fuel Cut" is the CUT part... there is no fuel being introduced, so there is no air and fuel to mix, therefore nothing to detonate.

You'd run into problems with Fuel Reduction, but not Fuel Cut.

What's that bull about the RX-7 being about straightline performance and nothing else at the end of the article??? Did anyone else notice that...what's wrong with that statement?

Originally posted by KiyoKix
What's that bull about the RX-7 being about straightline performance and nothing else at the end of the article??? Did anyone else notice that...what's wrong with that statement?




I didn't even need to read that article to know that those editors were odviously smoking something :mad: It really ticks me off when people don't know sh*t about the history of the cars they are testing.

I agree.

Agreed, There are people within mazda that are making a very hard push to remind all the employees about the history of Mazda, the rotary and racing.

This is shown in their commercial on SpeedVision/Channel (whatever) .. http://www.rotaryscene.com/movies/MazdaAd.mpeg
Their next target is educating the media on what Mazda is all about, and how they found themselves again.

Originally posted by Grimace
Fuel economy, combined driving: 28-30 MPG. Methinks this is a little overly optimistic. :D One can hope though. I wonder where they got this number from? :confused: It does say at the bottom of the data box is small print "All figures manufacturer's claims" so either Mazda has come out with some crazy breakthrough or its a misprint.


Note that the British gallon is bigger than the gallons here in the U.S. Yes.....I know...it doesn't make much sense...
The mess us up by giving us the english system of measurement, then they muck it all up again....

1 British gallon = 1.20095 US Gallons