From http://www.autoweek.com/article/20091020/TOKYO/910209982

The next-generation rotary engine from Mazda, unveiled at the 2007 Tokyo show under the code-name “16X,” does not meet sufficient performance and fuel economy guidelines the automaker requires for a production model.

Seita Kanai, Mazda Motor head of R&D, said work continues to be done to improve the rotary's thirsty nature.

“The 16X demonstrated the possibility, but that performance is not good enough. We are doing r&d which will incorporate more new technology,” Kanai said.

The code name refers to the increase in the current engine's displacement, from the current 1.3 liters to 1.6 liters. The 16X was to be finished in time for the next-generation RX-8 sports car, to be launched in 2012 or so.

When unveiled in 2007, the 16X enlarged the elliptical shape of the combustion chamber, and enlarged the rotor's eccentric center stroke. Mazda also planned direct injection fuel delivery in a rotary engine for the first time. However, Mazda also noted that the changed shape would affect the combustion process of the air-fuel mixture.

Kanai declined to say whether it's back to the drawing board for the 16X.

“The 16X is more a profile of a rotary still in our concept stage,” Kanai said. “It needs more evolution.”

Should I say "duh" ? Forget about the other "outsider's", In Japan alone Mazda is already far far far far FAR behind the competitions.

I think in order for 16x to get some "good performance" numbers. I think they have to incorporate more exotic material. Aluminum side and int plate is a good start. but Look at the not really that big Nissan, they have been using Aluminum ALLOY for quite some time.

Mazda doesnt want to repeat the RX-8's "semi-failure". so ... its gonna be a while b4 Mazda release Another Rotary, 2012 is kinda early if u ask me, I say 2014 is the earliest

Hrm. Nowhere does it mention when these statements were said. The article was last updated today, but the only other date reference is the 2007 auto show....2 years ago.

I would be inclined to call this rumor or theory without anything more solid.

The article is dated from today, in the URL. Or at least was posted today.
It seems pretty likely that a reporter spoke to mazda's R&D guy at the show today/yesterday and got those responses. Was anyone really expecting this engine to be available before 2012/2013?

Yeah, that would be an assumption. The problem is, it doesn't say that, and it is only referencing the 2007. It makes the article appear very dated, even though it isn't, especially in contrast to the already existing public comment from Mazda stating a 30% more fuel efficient rotary recently. Maybe they don't feel that +30% isn't enough, and their internal goals are even higher. His comments don't mean that it isn't ready or isn't an improvement, just that it hasn't (as of whenever it was actually said) met their internal goals.

No i wasnt expecting it to be ready before then but would have liked to see more progress on it then it falling short both in performance and fuel economy

my wish list:

all aluminum (include the sides + rotors)
or maybe 'later' timing for the DI setup (instead of the 'mild' way-btdc one)

overall i think the new dimensions are a-ok.

between the two i pick aluminum.

far out wish:
a new center design that would make n-rotor setups easier (aka center bearing, etc) down the line. Maybe have a bit more space for the exhaust ports, too?

changing the dimensions gives them a bit of a clean sheet to fix more things that would be left due to cost/redundancy in the 13* series engines.

get it right an make this overall design last 30 years!

Repost..

I agree with nycgps, I cant see any new rotary now on the horizon..

As I said in another post we should be seeing more about the 16X and even a body at the TMS...NOW!!!.

Yes we viewed the Taiki, but the 16X was a dog from what I have been told, it would overheat and emissions were way too high for the next decade.

OH well...back to the drawing board..it could be quite a wait.

If you are thinking a new rotary, IMO you have about 18 months before the 8 finishes.

I cant see Mazda redesigning the rear end for the new US collision regs for the 2011-12 MY

2012 is the MY for the new MX-5/Miata.

MAZDA Tokyo Motor Show site up!
http://www.mazda.com/motorshow/

my wish list:

all aluminum (include the sides + rotors)
or maybe 'later' timing for the DI setup (instead of the 'mild' way-btdc one)

overall i think the new dimensions are a-ok.

between the two i pick aluminum.

far out wish:
a new center design that would make n-rotor setups easier (aka center bearing, etc) down the line. Maybe have a bit more space for the exhaust ports, too?

changing the dimensions gives them a bit of a clean sheet to fix more things that would be left due to cost/redundancy in the 13* series engines.

get it right an make this overall design last 30 years!

Mazda test Aluminum Rotors 20 or so years ago. the engine actually ran very well, I think it was MX03 concept. based on the 3 Rotor engine they had back then. (20B)

its just that the production cost will be too high (for their targeted MSRP) So they stick with Cast Iron.

but now, more and more companies are moving on to more exotic material/process. I guess its time for Mazda to move outa Cast Iron too. Its cheap"er" but its heavy and doesnt transfer heat fast enough.

The first link was english to me...

Reading it now, alot of repetition in phrases. Although this bit
Mazda has now commercialized two models powered by the hydrogen rotary engine: the RX-8 Hydrogen RE and Premacy Hydrogen RE Hybrid.
Since 2007, we have also been collaborating in HyNor (Hydrogen Road of Norway), a national project to promote and expand the hydrogen infrastructure of Norway. First overseas leasing has begun in Norway in 2009.

Since Mazda's hydrogen rotary engine uses hydrogen fuel, it offers exceptional environmental performance with zero CO2 emissions. In addition, should the hydrogen fuel run out, a convenient dual-fuel system enables the vehicle to immediately switch to gasoline. The Premacy Hydrogen RE Hybrid exhibited at this year's Tokyo Motor Show has a series hybrid system. A hydrogen rotary engine connected to a generator produces electricity, which is used by an electric motor to drive the wheels.

...is one indication that they haven't given up on the rotary. Granted, petrol is better for enthusiasts, but I have to believe that there are still lessons and development learnings from a rotary powered by hydrogen. Since they have gas as an alternative fuel as well, I'm sure this is the case. Mass market too. Also a series hybrid, which is awesome. Fairly controlled RPM, heat, and cooling ranges from being a hybrid has to teach them something, from what I feel anyway. Lots of consumer data on it should be generated.

For some reason, Plug-In car doesnt make sense to me. I drive around the city a lot and it sucks that I have to charge it every so often. Sure a "Gas" station with 330 Volt plugs can charge it to 80% in 30 minutes. but, 30 minutes ? and how fast can we charge it with our pathetic 110v 60 Hz outlet ? seriously.

Hydrogen might not make sense now, it still needs a lot of work, someday it might make sense.

It's the most abundant element in the freaking universe, as far as we know. We have to make it work!

Until we can *efficiently* harness that power... the technology behind it in cars will stay where it is today.

What will the hippies complain about if we get hydrogen to be viable for cars? :P

For some reason, Plug-In car doesnt make sense to me. I drive around the city a lot and it sucks that I have to charge it every so often. Sure a "Gas" station with 330 Volt plugs can charge it to 80% in 30 minutes. but, 30 minutes ? and how fast can we charge it with our pathetic 110v 60 Hz outlet ? seriously.

Hydrogen might not make sense now, it still needs a lot of work, someday it might make sense.

Come to Australia for a 240V (or 450)...
Yep, that is one issue your forefather's got wrong..not enough Juice.

Not sure if you guys have seen the Mazda Taiki vid with the 16X engine...
This vid was done when in Australia...
Check out the indicator lights that actually shine through the body work, and the dash tacho is SICK!...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w5NLMg33vMI&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w5NLMg33vMI&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

^What kind oil and premix does it require? :bootyshak

^What kind oil and premix does it require? :bootyshak

:bootyshak:cwm27:

^What kind oil and premix does it require? :bootyshak

Come on man, after all the 20w50 haters post. Answer is obvious.

0w10 all the way !!!

Who cares about science ! All people cared these days are what "Manufacture recommends !!!" .... yeah right ... next minute I know they do their oil change in their backyard ...

where are the rear axles?

In the REAR....look closely..

Not sure if this has been posted yet..

Report: 2012 Mazda RX-8 to be Evolutionary, Not Revolutionary

"With the rotary's aforementioned aversion to fuel-economy, torque and emissions laws, though, it'll be a tough sell. The fact that Mazda already has a two-seat sports car in the Miata and a rotary-powered sports car in the RX-8 makes a third sports car that essentially combines the other two a tough proposition, especially in these cash-strapped times"

http://wot.motortrend.com/6584246/auto-news/report-2012-mazda-rx-8-to-be-evolutionary-not-revolutionary/index.html

and even more troubling 16 mpg city/22 mpg highway

...seriously, get off the mileage complaint already. I swear people only have a problem with that mileage because the 1.3L gets stuck in their head, and they expect better performance from a 1.3L piston engine. Seriously. If you take the motorsports displacement of 2.6L, get a piston engine of the same size, and pump it up to where we are at in power output, you aren't going to get much better.

And for the record, I just returned a rented PT Cruiser for this business trip, where it burned 8 gallons over 163 miles. Yes, 20.3mpg. Yet, I can't find a single review that complains about it's poor gas mileage for a small 4 banger. *


GET OFF THE MILEAGE COMPLAINT ALREADY AND LEARN TO BUY A SPORTS CAR



*Note: To be fair, I can't find a single review outside of these boards that mentions it's other drawbacks either:
So I landed in BWI this morning, take the shuttle over to the rental car facility, find they didn't actually get me a car for my reservation, and....
...end up with a PT Cruiser. First time driving one, and here are a few of the text messages I was trading shortly after driving it:

- They gave me a PT Cruiser. I'm crying inside. Outside too.
- After 5 minutes, I got to 70mph and could visibly see the shaking of the steering wheel
- The Corolla may be boring, but there is a certain adrenaline excitement from not knowing if your next breath will be your last as your vehicle throws itself into the trees off the highway
- I keep checking behind me for the trailer it feels like I'm pulling. I haven't seen it yet, but the only thing I can think of that would be worth hauling is a car defibrillator
- I brought my radar detector with me, but I feel hooking it up where other people can see it is too embarrassing
- The pleasant feeling and knowledge of turning heads as I drive by in my 8 has been replaced by the certain knowledge that the only thing I am turning is stomachs. Including mine. I'm nauseous.
- The tires squeal like a stuck pig before I even start turning the flimsy steering wheel. Filing their objection before I even get a chance to persuade them to point the car where I want it to go.
- The suspension is actually quite stiff, not what I expected. About the same as my 8. Although my 8's suspension compliments it's handling and promotes control, this one is more like a 200 year old wooden roller coaster badly needing maintenance.
- There is a deceptive surge of power when you take your foot off the brake and nail the gas. The surge lasts for less than one rotation of the tires.
- The gas pedal seems to have been designed as a subliminal message to avoid hitting it too hard. The first 5% feels like you are pushing against a bag of cotton balls, the last 95% is a stronger spring than my 8's clutch.
- I think I have a pair of cats under my front wheels. Every time I even tap the brakes, I hear something crying.
- I want to crash this thing as my good deed for the day.

I literally was puking my guts out for several hours last night from the nausea induced by the 3-hour drive back to the airport in it. I kid you not.

corvette 29mpg highway, or almost 33 if you granny it.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4320856.html

miata 30mpg

elise 30+mpg
http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f3/lotus-elise-consumer-reports-33-mpg-23725/

cayman 27mpg

so there you have it. i do a LOT of highway driving. in fact, 80% of my driving is highway. over a tank of gas i see 17-18mpg.

that is just PITIFUL for the power out.

It's not so much the city, its the highway mileage that is so annoying. No matter how much you baby it on the highway, the most you will get is 22-23. Most cars you can get 28mpg highway cruising

Direct combustion injection is a horrible idea for the rotary. You'd be scooping carbon directly into the injectors every rotation. Bad Idea.
Aluminum would work well if you could get the aluminum to oxidize internally to give it a thin layer of super strength. (welders know what I'm refering to)
Although I must say. The car is made out of aluminium. So shouldn't they be buying it in bulk anyways?
I honestly think they need to look into the atomization of the fuel as it enters the combustion chamber and look for a much leaner mixture. Possibly also look at the gear ratios as it runs to the back tire.

Come to Australia for a 240V (or 450)...
Yep, that is one issue your forefather's got wrong..not enough Juice.

We have 240V in the US. Standard wiring is 3-phase 240V. 120 across each side for the regular 120V lights and stuff, and 240 across both sides for dryers, stoves, HVAC, etc.

Nice thing about a plug-in electric car is that it's completely clean, as long as you don't live next to the coal fired powerplant or the toxic dump for worn out batteries.

Ken

We have 240V in the US. Standard wiring is 3-phase 240V. 120 across each side for the regular 120V lights and stuff, and 240 across both sides for dryers, stoves, HVAC, etc.

Nice thing about a plug-in electric car is that it's completely clean, as long as you don't live next to the coal fired powerplant or the toxic dump for worn out batteries.

Ken

Oh OK Ken, I thought most domestic household stuff is 120V...

Here all homes and small businesses are 220-240V for everything.

Then 3 phase 440V for Heavy Businesses or Machinery..

Yes, I agree about Electric cars, Imagine if everyone started the switch, the Grid would not handle it...

Well there are 240v like Ken said, my A/C uses them.

but imagine everybody start using 240v even wire it for 330v like my uncle's factory did ... Do you guys think the power grid here can handle it ? It couldn't even handle normal load without issues. Pathetic :(

corvette 29mpg highway, or almost 33 if you granny it.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4320856.html

miata 30mpg

elise 30+mpg
http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f3/lotus-elise-consumer-reports-33-mpg-23725/

cayman 27mpg

so there you have it. i do a LOT of highway driving. in fact, 80% of my driving is highway. over a tank of gas i see 17-18mpg.

that is just PITIFUL for the power out.

The Corvette gets its advertised mileage only through turning off half of its engine at low load, if you ever actually drive it and use the accelerator the mileage drops like a stone.

The Miata and the Elise are both INCREDIBLY light cars with very small 4 cylinder engines and low power output. If the new rotary can put out 300 hp and be in a body as light as the Miata I'll take the increased fuel usage for the power and weight distribution.

Honestly I can't speak to the Cayman I don't know enough about it, but the other cars you listed are hardly fair comparisons. Try comparing it to the 370Z or the Hyundai Genesis which have 300 hp 6 cylinder motors which more closely match the output of the proposed 16X rotary. Just because its a 1.3L motor does not mean it is a 4-cylinder. RIWWP is bang on with that.

so there you have it. i do a LOT of highway driving. in fact, 80% of my driving is highway. over a tank of gas i see 17-18mpg.

that is just PITIFUL for the power out.

holy crap kersh!!! i didnt know anyone god that bad anymore unless they were BONE STOCK... hell, all i have that matters is Ray's coils, no cat, and MM's AP tune and i see like 24-25hwy:evil_laug

I'm keeping fingers crossed that over the next few years i'll squeeze another mile or two out of it... loosing rotating mass in the fly/clutch/wheels area

holy crap kersh!!! i didnt know anyone god that bad anymore unless they were BONE STOCK... hell, all i have that matters is Ray's coils, no cat, and MM's AP tune and i see like 24-25hwy:evil_laug

I'm keeping fingers crossed that over the next few years i'll squeeze another mile or two out of it... loosing rotating mass in the fly/clutch/wheels area

I got ~27 mpg 100% highway when I was commuting to Reston VA for a week when I was NA. Now... my mileage isn't the best, but I <3 boost. :aroused:

I got ~27 mpg 100% highway when I was commuting to Reston VA for a week when I was NA. Now... my mileage isn't the best, but I <3 boost. :aroused:

hehe i bet you do:smoker:

i've never recorded a 100% hwy test to see. hell the only time i ever emptied a tank ALL hwy was drving the car to Atlanta to have it shipped out here to Belgium.

If it makes any guesses though, my parents followed me to drop off. 2008 Accord with 18.5 gal capacity. RX-8 15.9 gal capacity. Both started the trip by filling up - parents record mileage religiously, they were on fumes when we stopped for fuel. They got their typical 26.x mpg - I was still near 1/4 tank..... whatever that roughly equates to:dunno:

Oh OK Ken, I thought most domestic household stuff is 120V...

Here all homes and small businesses are 220-240V for everything.

Then 3 phase 440V for Heavy Businesses or Machinery..

Most domestic stuff here is 120...which tends to be referred to as 110 or 115. Japan is the same. But 240 3-phase service has been standard in the US for probably 50 years. The full 240 tends to be used for the heavy stuff. And they learned to split down to 120 at the breaker panel, not run 240 to a kitchen duplex outlet and split it there.

For some reason I never understood, HVAC in commercial buildings is often 277 volts.

At least they did away with DC for everything except electric railroads.

Ken

The Corvette gets its advertised mileage only through turning off half of its engine at low load, if you ever actually drive it and use the accelerator the mileage drops like a stone.

The Miata and the Elise are both INCREDIBLY light cars with very small 4 cylinder engines and low power output. If the new rotary can put out 300 hp and be in a body as light as the Miata I'll take the increased fuel usage for the power and weight distribution.

Honestly I can't speak to the Cayman I don't know enough about it, but the other cars you listed are hardly fair comparisons. Try comparing it to the 370Z or the Hyundai Genesis which have 300 hp 6 cylinder motors which more closely match the output of the proposed 16X rotary. Just because its a 1.3L motor does not mean it is a 4-cylinder. RIWWP is bang on with that.


someone said try comparing it to other sports cars, i did. other sports cars seem to manage. and the C5 corvette gets 29mpg, and that was before cylinder deactivation technology came into play. its simply a low slung car, not a lot of drag. and it has gobs of torque. it can cruise at 1500-1700rpms at highway speeds.

and you cant compare it to the 370z or the genesis coupe because, while the mpg is the same, the hp numbers are vaaaasstttlllyy diffferent. we need aftermarket turbos to just get to their hp ranges.

changing to the cobbs economy map doesnt seem to really do anything, so i run the cobb stage 1. i have the bhr flywheel and an act hd pp and 4 puck clutch. took quite a few lbs off everything. not a bit of difference. best mpg i ever got, strictly highway, 24.5mpg. i had to travel 65mph in the right lane. i usually do 80-90mph on the highway. 4500-5000rpm is a big difference from 1700rpm on an LS v8.

Some of the people responding here aren't firing on all their cylinders either

:lol:

llolll team rx8

They need the Porsche variable vane turbocharger and add about 20 psi stock to the 16X.....

[QUOTE=blackenedwings;3293770]The Corvette gets its advertised mileage only through turning off half of its engine at low load, if you ever actually drive it and use the accelerator the mileage drops like a stone./QUOTE]

Ahh..no. My Corvette ran on all 8 cylinder cruising on the highway, it made more torque at 2300RPM than my RX-8 at 5500RPM. Even if i beat on it, the mileage is only slightly worse than the RX-8.

How much does it make at 1k rpm?

How much does it make at 1k rpm?


Enough to idle off the line in 2nd gear easier than an RX-8 does in 1st with throttle

The nature of how a rotary works will always require more fuel than a piston motor as more fuel has to be injected to ensure enough fuel is present to ignite properly due to the shape of the combustion area. That being said I've seen 27 mpg on my NA RX-8 on stock plugs on a highway only cruise. So sure I believe a C5 made 29 mpg at 1500 rpms at ~65 mph. However, I don't believe for a minute that a C5 being hammered on got anywhere near 18 mpg. I've had a small block Corvette and a LT1 Z28 (the iron block Corvette motor prior to the LS1 in the C5) and both drank fuel ridiculously. The RX-8 is thirsty in boost, but naturally aspirated I spent much less in fuel than my Z28 which I drove like a grandma for the last couple of years before I sold it.

Also for whoever said we need aftermarket turbo kits to hit the stock power levels for a 350Z... most of that is due to getting almost no benefit from naturally aspirated modifications. With an aftermarket turbo kit the RX-8 is easily capable of over 100 hp more than those cars stock power while losing nothing of it's handling capability. As an example, I just drove my friend's brand new 2009 STi the other day for a while, and I would bet money I could thrash that car on the street.

So I am going to summarize the MPG debate included in this thread so far:

- The RX-8 is deemed to have horrible gas mileage, in the 18-22mpg range.
- The RX-8 has been shown to have better than 22mpg highway by several owners, with 27mpg the highest reported yet
- The RX-8 has also been shown to have significantly worse mileage by several other owners.

- Other cars with lots of power and lots of low end torque can cruise at 1/3rd or less of the RPMs we do
- Other cars with lots of power and lots of low end torque can post slightly better MPG if they stay in high gear lugging it with their torque, having similar weights, better power to weight ratio.

- The RX-8 doesn't have that torque, so much sit higher in the RPM range, about 3 times higher, but does not have 3 times the fuel consumption

- We also know that the ability to make power is directly proportional to the amount of air you flow.
- We also know that the 'best' A/F ratio is around 12.5
- Therefore the amount of power is also directly related to the amount of fuel you flow.
- That means that more power WILL equal higher fuel consumption. Not exact % changes, due to how efficiently your engine uses the fuel, but generally, true.
- Piston engines with today's technology are thermodynamically more efficient than rotary engines. (I believe I saw ~85% vs ~70% quoted somewhere)



So basically, the complaints are:
1: When I am not on the gas, the MPG is only slightly worse than cars with a significantly better power to weight ratio
2: When I am on the gas, the MPG drops like a rock
3: My 8's engine isn't in perfect health.

#2 is true of all cars. Period. No one has really mentioned power-on MPG for these other cars that they think we should be as good as, because their MPG drops to single digits also.

#3 is partly the responsibility of the owner (ignition health), partly the fault of Mazda's inadequate lubrication and cooling design (compression health), which is an acknowledged and accepted by the community, and we hope that Mazda won't repeat for future rotarys. So #3 is a non-issue for the future, as long as the owner takes care of their car.

#1 is the single best answer. Drop weight so our power to weight improves. Even with identical gearing, it will require less throttle input to keep cruising speeds, although a redesign could also change the 6th gear so that our 6th gear cruise RPM at highway speed is ~2,000 or 2,500. Entirely possible if we shave 400-600lbs off the car. This will also greatly improve one of the other complaints, straight line acceleration. As well as another high point we have, handling.


So do you see why I consider the MPG complaints as baseless and not worth our time? MPG itself is still something to watch, because it is an indicator of the health of the engine, but we hardly have crappy mileage, even given the circumstances. If you do, well, I suggest you get your ignition and compression looked at.


A RX-8 with a healthy engine still makes better MPG, with complaints, than a fair number of commuter cars our there, without complaints. The outside world has to be thinking 1.3L 3cyl or 4cyl, and comparing our engine to that of the Honda Fit, the Honda Insight, the Smart ForTwo, Motorcycles, etc...

I have owned the following car

04 350z 287HP City: 19mpg Hwy:28mpg Track: 7.5mpg
05 400HP C6 City: 16.5mpg Hwy:26mpg Track:7mpg
06 232HP (Mazda HP, so subtract another 20HP) RX-8 City: 17mpg Hwy:21.5mpg Track: 9mpg

So you are comparable for city, significantly better (+20-28%) for track. 18-24% worse on highway (still better than a PT Cruiser), due to having to run at a higher RPM than the other 2 cars, since the other 2 have the torque to lug them around.

I don't get the "my mileage is worse than cars with more power" complaint, because it is fairly cut-and-dried WHY.

Thanks for the info, I can see why anyone would choose MPG as their choice of sports car. The RX-8 clearly pwns with mileage on the track.

I've always wondered if they could create and Atkinson Wankel engine. But you need forced induction to make the Atkinson effective (think Miller Cycle Millenia). Basically- the Atkinson design requires the expansion stroke to be longer than the compressions stroke. This is done on Otto cycle piston engines by leaving he intake valves open during the first part of the compression stroke. So it's theoretically possible to gain some efficiency with that same principle applied to the Wankel, but then forced induction is needed to offset the n/a power lost.

While I don't have exact numbers, I would say the overall gas mileage I get out of my 8 is comparable to my leased '07 impreza 2.5, which I have to hammer on in order to go nowhere fast. Even a prius can be made to get relatively poor gas mileage (<18mpg), as Top Gear has previously demonstrated.


I do however think that there is still hope for the rotary, and that a series hybrid is part of the solution - as long as battery/capacitor size is minimal. So, what's the other part of the solution? Ever heard of "Turbo compound" engines? No, I'm not talking about equipping the rotary with a turbo, and a supercharger. I'm talking about a large turbine on the exhaust where the shaft rotation is used to help rotate the crank. This technology was initially used during WW2 on aircraft engines which not only helped increase the power by a substantial amount, but it did so at the expense of practically NO ADDITIONAL FUEL!

Just to give you a brief idea of what this setup achieved, take the Curtiss-Wright R3350-TC radial engine. In non-turbo compound form, it produced 2,700HP, but by reclaiming what would be wasted energy leaving out through the exhaust utilizing turbo-compounding, the engine put out 3,500HP! When all was said and done, both versions put out about 1HP/LB, but used roughly the same amount of fuel.... for an extra 800HP!!

Power gains using turbo-compounding in a rotary would be proportionally better than what could be achieved in a piston engine, and Paul Lamar explains why:

(There's a lot to read, so sit down and enjoy!)
http://www.rotaryeng.net/sum-turbo-comp.html
http://www.rotaryeng.net/turbo-compound.html


If you already know about turbo compounding, or you read through those pages a bit, you would see the main drawback of such a setup is the need for a limited RPM range, and *that* is why it would be PERFECT for series hybrid duties.

someone said try comparing it to other sports cars, i did. other sports cars seem to manage. and the C5 corvette gets 29mpg, and that was before cylinder deactivation technology came into play. its simply a low slung car, not a lot of drag. and it has gobs of torque. it can cruise at 1500-1700rpms at highway speeds.

and you cant compare it to the 370z or the genesis coupe because, while the mpg is the same, the hp numbers are vaaaasstttlllyy diffferent. we need aftermarket turbos to just get to their hp ranges.

changing to the cobbs economy map doesnt seem to really do anything, so i run the cobb stage 1. i have the bhr flywheel and an act hd pp and 4 puck clutch. took quite a few lbs off everything. not a bit of difference. best mpg i ever got, strictly highway, 24.5mpg. i had to travel 65mph in the right lane. i usually do 80-90mph on the highway. 4500-5000rpm is a big difference from 1700rpm on an LS v8.

Kersh, I usually learn so much from you, so I'll be gentle.

1. You compared 8 Mileage to a C5 vette which makes 335 or 350 HP, and laid out valid reasons why it gets better mileage, yet didn't compare to a 350 or Genesis, cause "the hp numbers are vaaaasstttlllyy diffferent" Interesting.

2. you then stated that when you drove the speed limit (which is the EPA test speed) and got the EPA Rated Mileage... (gratz BTW... your engine is healthy) :lol:. but then showed the reason for your bad gas mileage (18 from earlier posts) was due to you usually driving between 80-90.

I'm sure you already know where I'm going with this, but allow me to point out to everyone else here, that the speed at which you travel GREATLY affects your MPG.
I got a 4 banger in which I can count on for 18-21 MPG combined because in the city im doing 45 Stop and go, and highway a constant 70-80, with spurts of 120 every so often.

As RIWWP stated, MPG is a great indicator of Engine health, but overall MPG is more affected by the driver than the engine.

mpg can't be correlated to engine health, unless you're just pumping gasoline out of the exhaust.

physics do not lie:
1/2 lb of fuel per hour per hp. firgue everything from there/
how many hp does it take to accelerate the car--to maintain the 70mph interstate speed etc.
there you have it
yes efficently does play a small affect.
OD