Doesn't that sound nice? Just imagine an RX8 with a
turbo!That thing would compete with the most fastest
supercars. Tell me what you think.
:cool:

No.

No turbos.

We've discussed this over and over again... hopefully Mazda is listenening.

I believe that the 250hp will satisfy my power requirements; however, if I did want more power please make it a three rotor. No turbo for me please.

Not again. I'm a pretty deranged driver with 180hp. 250 is plenty for me.

A report from rotary news said that the MPS version will NOT be turbocharded. Instead they will increas the rotar width. This is not an offical report, just speculation, but I hope they are right.

They gave both the Protege and the 6 a turbo, so why would they shun their flagship sportscar?

But yeah, turbos suck. I mean, if I was a protege enthusiast, it would really piss me off that Mazda was making a totally fast badass version of the protege. :rolleyes:

i agree that Mazda has to keep this car reliable, but if they COULD in fact add a small, light pressure turbo with little-to-zero effect on reliability (even if it meant more maintenance), i'd be all for it... turbos freakin' ROCK!! :)
but true, i'd love to see a more muscly rotor...

Let's say Mazda will produce another RX-7, and they don't want it to be turbocharged (as they've already said) Why not create a 3-roter engine that has rotors about the size of a 10A's rotors? I am against turbocharging a rotary personally because of the reliability thing that has been discussed at length in this forum and others. As of now, there is a '94 FD at my local Mazda dealership that has been in the repair bay for close to a month because a mechanic turned his wrench the wrong way and the car experienced turbo failure (Geez they were so delicate, but so powerful at the same time, ironic isn't it?:confused: ) Anyway, the thought of a 3-rotor RX-7 coming to america will give me an orgasm. You think the reason it hasn't been done is because Mazda is really concerned about the weight distribution and they want to keep the engine behind the front axle? I dunno somebody tell me something.

nah, they'll not bring a three rotor... you've got to think of other problems (and big fat costs) inherent in that design, like the mega long bolts needed to assemble the block...
the idea of wider rotors is really really cool, especially if they give the next 7 a redline at 10 000 rpm, aggressively geared to match (kill the fuel economy!! PLEASE!! ;))... that extra couple of cc's ought to make a HUGE difference in bottom end torque, and with a vehicle wieght around the 2800 lb. mark, look out everything...

back on topic, turbos aren't bad if they work well...

and it is funny about that performance tradeoff, speed for reliability... racers have this same tradeoff too: F1 cars make between 800 and 900 horsepower, but their engines blow up every few hundred kilometres...
same thing with the FD, except the tradeoff was there, and the system was overengineered...

I'm against turbos not because of reliability (though that's part of it), but because there's NOTHING like the throttle response from an NA engine, and there's no 'hot weather' lag.

Originally posted by 1.3 liter
I am against turbocharging a rotary personally because of the reliability thing that has been discussed at length in this forum and others. As of now, there is a '94 FD at my local Mazda dealership that has been in the repair bay for close to a month
This is yet another example of how the reliability argument against turbos is completely based in ignorance.

The FACTS are that there have been turbo RX-7s every year since 1982, and the vast majority of them are actually very reliable. Putting it another way, Series 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 RX-7s were all turbocharged and series 6 (93-95) was the only one with major problems. This is NOT because turbo rotaries are inherently unreliable, but because all of the bugs in the FD's twin turbo setup weren't fixed before it was brought to market. And even 93-95 FDs can be made quite reliable if you perform the so-called "reliability upgrades" and proper maintainence.

I have yet to see a single decent, intellegent, or coherent argument why a moderately sized single turbo RENESIS wouldn't be a very good thing.

Originally posted by Hercules
I'm against turbos not because of reliability (though that's part of it), but because there's NOTHING like the throttle response from an NA engine, and there's no 'hot weather' lag.
Have you ever actually driven a car with a nice new ceramic ball bearing turbo? Because the response is quite nice, and quite honestly, you sound like you haven't.

Originally posted by m477
They gave both the Protege and the 6 a turbo, so why would they shun their flagship sportscar?
The RX-7 is the flagship sportscar. ;)

Originally posted by m477
This is yet another example of how the reliability argument against turbos is completely based in ignorance.

So are you arguing then that turbos do not make cars less reliable, or engine lifespan shorter?

Originally posted by m477
Have you ever actually driven a car with a nice new ceramic ball bearing turbo? Because the response is quite nice, and quite honestly, you sound like you haven't.
Lag is from boost pressure drop. ;)

Originally posted by NOTA V6

The RX-7 is the flagship sportscar. ;)

You mean it used to be their flagship sportscar. Currently, it's the RX-8. The RX-7 has been discontinuted, and any future RX-7 is only a rumor at this point.

Originally posted by NOTA V6
So are you arguing then that turbos do not make cars less reliable, or engine lifespan shorter?

Of course they do, since they add more complexity. However, they can be made so that the hit to reliability is minimal. Some people are claiming that ANY turbo rotary would necessarily have as many problems as the 93-95 FD, but the reality is that with today's technology, Mazda could develop a turbo renesis that could easily go 150k+ miles on original engine and turbo, while adding only a relatively small amout of cost and weight. Similar to the turbo protege.

Personally, I think that a 2006 RX-7 should be at least as fast as the 2002 RX-7, and a turbo 1.3l would have more power (and TORQUE) than an NA 1.4l. If they could make it really light, then 1.4l NA would be enough. Otherwise, it would sadden me to see Mazda moving backwards in terms of performance while other car companies are making progress.

hey now, i don't want to get all persnickety, or critical of anyone, but i wouldn't be so quick to judge a turbo necessarily a better performer than a small displacement increase. i know that you could put on a way bigger turbo, but then again you could then also have a really big displacement increase, right?? i don't think that the next 7 (which i doubt will be an "FE" by name... just a hunch... the first one was an SA after all, and this next one'll be on a totally difference chassis/suspension setup than the FD) will be the sort of car to outrun a 911Turbo just on power and low mass alone, or the sort of car which will burn a hole in your pocket: Mazda will be filling the mid-$30k to low-$40k US dollar range, just above the 8...
so, to prevent high costs and unaffordable gas, insurance, and taxes, the next incarnation of the greatest sports car ever won't have the legs of a Z06, turbo or not.
so, this brings me (the scenic way ;) ) to my point that a small turbo setup mayn't be the best solution for the car: an aggressively geared, lighter and smaller, higher revving, larger displacement (~1.4L or whatever) RENESIS for the next 7 may in fact be a wholly better solution, even power and torque (at the wheel) wise than a taller geared, heavier and larger, lower revving, smaller displacement (the 1.3L) turbo RENESIS...
i'm simply suggesting, this MAY be the case. i don't think that either of us is an engineer (i'm at least 50% right ;) ), so we can't really tell yet, can we??
so, let's not be all judgemental before we really see what's gonna happen.

btw: Mazda WAS building and selling right-hand-drive RX-7's i think as late as earlier this year, and not an RX-8 has been produced for market yet, so NOTA's statement is (at this moment) a little more accurate... but yes, eventually, you'll certainly be correct.

Well, I AM an engineer, just not a mechanical engineer. :p:

Anyway, I don't see why a turbo wouldn't be cost effective. So you start with the RX-8 platform which has a base price of $26k. Remove the rear doors, seats, make it shorter, etc. and that would put you at about $24k. Add the factory turbo setup, realistically about $4k. Then, the car will probably need bigger brakes to deal with all that power, so add another $2k. So now you have a C6 beater for $30k flat. Even with every option it would still be under $35k. You think people wouldn't want that?

So Mazda wil do it, maybe they won't. Who knows. I'm just saying that they could if they wanted to.

And there's obviously a demand - look at the turbo protege, they can't make enough of those things because they keep selling out so damn fast.

If they need to make a lower-priced NA in addition to the turbo model to keep the bean-counters happy, that's fine. I just hope they don't leave the enthusiasts out in the cold on this one.

edit: double post

oh, i'm all for a sub $40k corvette killer... and if they use turbos to do it, all the better :D i still really love 'em...

my point was just that if Mazda's target horsepower was ~300, or maybe a bit less, than a small displacement increase might be the simpler, lighter, and cheaper way to do it over a turbo system.... but oh ya, for a V8 killer, turbo all the way, with a whistling wastegate, and a loud-as-a-bus BOV... damn, that'd be sick.

and for the sake of the company, the idea of the rotary engine, and ya, for the enthusiasts too, i'd love to see a "track dominating" RX-7 reborn... then to have 'em go back to Le Mans and kick some more ass, or even to the CART series, which is suppost to have it's engine rules deregged or something, right?? i dunno if that's still the way it'll be, but maybe, just maybe, the rotary can again fly in some premier racing series...

Originally posted by wakeech
...then to have 'em go back to Le Mans and kick some more ass, or even to the CART series, which is suppost to have it's engine rules deregged or something, right?? Dude, where've you been? CART settled on a spec engine to be made by Cosworth several months ago.

A Mazda rep mentioned that they are looking into developing an RX8 for the Speed World Challenge GT series, but even then, who knows if it would make any of the 2003 races. And as good as that series is, I don't think anyone considers it a "premier" racing series.

---jps

heh heh, were've i been?? in the back seat of an Impala with my girl... and i've never been interested in CART... i went to the race in Vancouver to watch the touring guys that race afterwards... F1 is where i'm at.
btw: having spec engines sucks... i'm sorry to hear that had to happen to CART...

well, even if the Speed World Challenge isn't a premier racing series, i'm not disappointed to find out Mazda's gonna enter SOMETHING rotary in SOME racing series!! :)

Originally posted by wakeech
heh heh, were've i been?? in the back seat of an Impala with my girl... :)
now see if it had been me i would have had to say, in the back seat of an impala with his girl! i don't know how you held back wakeech!

that would be bad ass man a RX8 with a turbo, that sucker would fly dude, and you can be sure they will be real soon

How about this instead of "Mazda RX8 Turbo" ...

Mazda RX8 3.2L 20B-MSP

Now, that'd I'd buy over any turbo/supercharger.

alex

z

Originally posted by m477
This is yet another example of how the reliability argument against turbos is completely based in ignorance.



I have yet to see a single decent, intellegent, or coherent argument why a moderately sized single turbo RENESIS wouldn't be a very good thing.


The fact is that if you add a turbo to any car, you effect it's longevity and overall long term reliability. A turbo model of this car will simply not have the longevity of a N/A Renesis. A lot of it is because of the driver. You can't expect every driver to take it easy on car, and/or not modify it in some way. It is one more thing that can go, cause more problems, and ultimately lead to engine failure. If you modify, you take away the life of engine, plain and simple. I know I am stating captain obvious here, but that's just the nature of turbos. I still think they should make a deluxe limited monster version of the rx8. It will be costly, but this car does deserve more punch to match it's looks. Whatever is needed to make this car compete with the big boys and be as fast as it looks, I am sure Mazda will add to this car in future.

Originally posted by alex
How about this instead of "Mazda RX8 Turbo" ...

Mazda RX8 3.2L 20B-MSP

Now, that'd I'd buy over any turbo/supercharger.

alex

oh i couldn't agree more, i see a trend going N/A, lets just make the displacement just a wee bigger...if 1.3L can make 238 horses, does your projected 3.2 make around 500 natural horses?

who wants boost? we want power now!!!

Also, we have only ourselves to blame. The twin turbos were semi-reliable until we (car enthusiasts) began strapping more & more aftermarket parts to the car. In stock form most of the hi-po cars are pretty reliable, it's just that the aftermarket is getting so big these days. If they did come out with a 300 hp, small turbo RX7/8, how long before people would be turning up the boost, or strapping on larger turbos.....my guess not long.

NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!


Just thought I'd be a tool.

Let sleeping threads lie.

john

how was this thread even found??? It started in 2002?

There is no reason a Mazda installed and warranted(whoever manufactured) single turbo or supercharger couldn't be a part of the renesis's future. A change to the rotor face would change compression and possibly displacemant and a lower amount of boost could keep the hp at a decent number that allows some semblance of reliability (at least compared to highly modded 7's of all gens). The issues of emissions and fuel economy would be a solvable in an FI Renesis, where three rotor applications would definitely fail in even getting to the US market. Mark my words, FI will make a return in conjunction with the rotary, or else Mazda will have to copy the Lotus Elise's model (extreme weight reduction) to keep up with current performance specs of the top line sports cars of the world. BTW, I don't have a prob with the Elise's model, as unless the next 7 really impresses with its numbers, I am definitely going to think about an Elise when my current note is paid.

Have you seen pictures of the Elise's passenger's seat? It's 3/4 size of the drivers seat with a smaller footwell. Better have a small girlfriend (or none at all)...

I could care less about the passenger seat, my wife is smaller than me (and hopefully always will be) by far and the Elise embodies all the things today that the FD did 10 years ago. Hopefully over the next few years Mazda responds with a 4th gen, no compromise rotary.

http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/787B/787_16.jpg

The car that won the LeMans Endurance Race had 4 rotors and no turbo...

So Id say, yes turbo will take some of the reliability away.
The RX7 was quite a troublesome car, while the enthusiasts may have different opinions on this, the facts remained that it is a troublesome car, for the average joe at least.

Originally posted by himitsu
[B
So Id say, yes turbo will take some of the reliability away.
The RX7 was quite a troublesome car, while the enthusiasts may have different opinions on this, the facts remained that it is a troublesome car, for the average joe at least. [/B]


No this is not neccessarily true. This all depends on what series 7 you are talking about. You guys have to remember that here in the states, we got the Red Headed step child versions of the 3rd gen(series 6 versions). Mazda (being the first to ever offer a sequential turbo system in a production car) odviously was going to have some reliability problems with that initial set-up. The series 7 & 8 were vastly improved with the much needed improvements to the vacuum system(which was the most unreliable part of the series 6 versions/US versions). Look at the Ford focus when it first came out(doesn't that car still have the recall record?). Just think how bad things would have been if that car was only available for a couple years in a particular market? Even that car has now proven itself to be reliable just like the series 7 & 8 have proven themselves. In the end, no manufacturer is perfect because thay all have to learn by trial and error.

but, rx8 is still a trouble car , it's the only new car that have so many problem so far. none of those piston car have problems. but the rx8 does, at least i have never heard of any flash from Nissan/Honda. but still it's a great car, and it will become legendary. I LOVE MY 8.

Originally posted by rx8spiritR
but, rx8 is still a trouble car , it's the only new car that have so many problem so far. none of those piston car have problems. but the rx8 does, at least i have never heard of any flash from Nissan/Honda. but still it's a great car, and it will become legendary. I LOVE MY 8.



rx8spiritR, you have to look at this with a more open mind. Nissan/Honda will use a specific engine in more than one of their vehicles. Those engines have been in service for many years and have already had the bugs worked out of them when they get put into newer vehicles. Trust me Nissan & Honda have flashed their engines as well.

A flash isn't anything major. Like I said before.... "no manufacturer is perfect because they all have to learn by trial and error". The Rx8 is a completely brand new car and has no reliability history, therefore Mazda will have to fix any problem that "will" surface so overall the car eventually becomes more reliable. All manufacturers go through this phase. Thats why I used the Ford Focus example. That car was a POS when it first came out. Now it's a really good car for what it does. Any completely brand new vehicle will "always" have problems in it's first few years of production. This has nothing to do with it being rotary or piston powered.

Originally posted by m477
Have you ever actually driven a car with a nice new ceramic ball bearing turbo? Because the response is quite nice, and quite honestly, you sound like you haven't.

Agreed. The MX5 Mazdaspeed boys seem to have it sorted out..try it...you'll love it, rotary or not.

In fact one of the decisions in buying an RX8 over say a Mini CooperS was long term reliability. The Cooper S has a supercharger. I was thinking how the car would be in say 5 years. Most likely at one point you would have to replace the supercharger(would wear out just like a turbo would). The Rotory also does not have pistons to worry about,as in the resulting damage if a timing belt breaks. I have spoken to people who have RX7's that have over 250,000 miles without a rebuild yet. So I would hope Mazda would stay naturally aspirated. I owned a WRX for a short will. It had great performance but I hated the turbo lag and the heat soak in the summer.The RX8 is no torque monster but even in its break in state right now,it feels better off the line then the WRX.

holy ...... what the hell.... this thread started 2 years ago got resurrected this year and now, 6months later, again. nice:)

http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20834

Properly engineered turbos are reliable, responsive and give that kick that a NA engine can't. I love turbos. My argument was that we have already seen two turbo RX-8s in OZ ; one with about 220 kW and the other reported as have 270kW. There have been no question of reliability just fantastic increases in torque and response. These are things that even the most one eyed RX-8 owner will agree is missing from the Renesis engine.
Dear Mr/MS Moderator I'm not baiting anyone just stating the fact that in OZ we have done this already and I want one from the factory!9100RPM[U]

Properly engineered turbos are reliable, responsive and give that kick that a NA engine can't. I love turbos. My argument was that we have already seen two turbo RX-8s in OZ ; one with about 220 kW and the other reported as have 270kW. There have been no question of reliability just fantastic increases in torque and response. These are things that even the most one eyed RX-8 owner will agree is missing from the Renesis engine.


actually you are missing part of the story there. the company that did the first OZ one that i think you are talking about actually blew their engine and i believe have decided to not continue with a production for-sale kit. They decide that they could not make the boost they wanted to with this motor and make it reliable. as for the Mazda Australia one: it is an exact copy of the first. The execs at Mazda Aus borrowed the first company's car and just carbon copied their efforts. Also since they havent actually done anything besides bolt it on and push it into the Car Show it hasnt actually been proven to be even drivable let alone reliable. They made some vague promise to bring it to some other event later for reporters to have a chance to drive, but so far they have not done so to my knowledge. Mazda Australia have also stated there are no plans to sell this to the public either as a package or as a bolt on kit. So, really, no one in australia has reliably turbo'd an RX-8 yet either.

Whatever Mazda does they need to put more power in the Rx-8. The cars hp simply doesn't compete with other modern sports cars.

I love the rotary and the Rx-8 styling, it fits my needs. I've been driving 7's for 16 years now and and someday I hope to get an 8, maybe I'll get a used one in a few years.

I've personally installed a S4 turbo engine in my 84 GSL-SE so I know a few things about turbos. Personally I feel a SC would be a better selection for the Rx-8--good low end torque would be great for street driving. Somewhere in the 300-350 hp range should be sufficient. If the boost is kept down to about 6 psi the engine reliability should still be pretty good. But then again, the rotary is optimal for using a turbo since it has such high exhaust gas velocity--so either way let's get some more power.

Just FYI, the S6 suffered mostly from an overly complex twin sequential turbo system with a myriad of vacuum lines. Even the freakin ECU did too much. And yea, Mazda tried to eek too much power with too little cooling--a very bad combination.

Oh and I hope you guys don't have primary/secondary fuel injectors, S4 to S6 ALL start having problems with secondary injectors coming online--seems to be a problem in the ECU design.