If you are planning to swap the Renesis with a 3-rotor engine in a RX-8, contact these specialists:

http://www.pettitracing.com

http://www.pfsupercars.com

bah i dunno if i'd want to put a 20b into an rx8....

maybe a renesis 20b, but not the ones that are out right now....


plus putting a 20b into an rx7 or any other car right now is going to cost an arm and a leg, i'd hate to think how much it might cost for a new rx8.

If Mazda builds 3-rotor RX-8 in mass production, it would cost a lot less than a tuner-built car.

Ideally, the engine should be all-aluminum with side intake/exhaust ports and no turbo.
Estimated power is 360 hp.
The base price should be around US$40,000.

This car can beat the BMW M3. Mazda will find many buyers for such a car.
:D

Pure speculation. I don't expect Mazda will make a 3 rotor. They have allready said the 7 will have thicker rotors and that the MPS 8 will be tuned to produce 300. So no 3 rotor. It will have to be something a tuner creates. Which could be possible but I seriously doubt.

If Mazda wants to compete in the Speedvision or Grand-Am GT series, this is the way to go.

A 3-Rotor RX-8 can race against Porsche 911, Corvette, NSX...etc.

The beautiful thing about rotary is that it doesn't fall into the "there is no replacement for displacement" category. The advantages of keeping the housings for two rotors may not be in power but in weight. And juice the Renesis to 300-330 horses with 220(ish) torque, add a lightweight sports car and you'll have a car that will destroy Corvettes and M3s.

Tommy Matano said the following about 3-rotors:

"Well, you know, you can pass one or two cars through emissions, or safety, but when you are going it with a mass produced car, it is a completely different story! When you are talking about thousands of cars, you run into problems of consistency, and it is very hard to get the 3 rotor tuned right, for mass production. And how much would they pay for a 3 rotor? And how many would we really sell. I do hear talk about the 3 rotor a lot, but they don't realize how expensive it really is".

The good thing about 2-rotors is that it is very easy for Mazda to use the dynamic charging effect in the intake to increase volumetric efficiency of the other rotor. 3-rotors make this much more difficult to increase volumetric efficiency evenly on 3 rotors. A 3-rotor will also require an additional iron intermediate housing that will comparitively more weight. A 10mm increase in rotor width will easily add more displacement while adding a total of 20 mm to the aluminum peripheral housings (very little weight).

Horsepower figures without weight figures are meaningless but the general public is not aware of this. Mazda does not need to get caught up in a horsepower race when they have the perfect engine to turn things into a weight race.

No other manufacturer has the capability to produce an engine as small, as light and as powerful as the rotary. Honda tuned the hell out of the s2000 engine but it is still bigger, heavier, produces less hp and less torque than the renesis. Early estimates even have the rx-8 beating the lighter s2000 in fuel economy!?!?!

Mazda needs to emphasize their individuality by creating a next rx-7 as light as they can. They are afforded the opportunity to do this because a small impractical RX-7 will attract a different market than the practical RX-8 even if they are priced similarly. Nissan has great V6s that produce a lot of power and torque but they can't put it in a car under 3000 lbs. Why should Mazda participate in a horsepower war when they have the ability to produce a small lightweight car with unmatched acceleration, handling and braking for the price? How many people would buy a small 2600 lb rx-7 with 285 hp/180 torque that could go 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and cost $32,000 US? :eek:

Brian

thank you, thank you, a million times thank you...

your clarity of thought is a godsend to this forum. not to mention, you're one crazy mofo... what's up with that speed thing around the circuit?? holy jesus christ man... :D y'know we love it :D

Originally posted by Buger
How many people would buy a small 2600 lb rx-7 with 285 hp/180 torque that could go 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and cost $32,000 US? :eek:


define small, and you've got yourself a deal!

as long as its somehwere along the same lines as the FD im sold on it. Honestly like put me on the waiting list i want one.:D


thanks for the info buger... go tri-lams!

Originally posted by Buger
Honda tuned the hell out of the s2000 engine but it is still bigger, heavier, produces less hp and less torque than the renesis. Early estimates even have the rx-8 beating the lighter s2000 in fuel economy!?!?!
Also, you forgot to mention that the renesis will rev to 9,000rpm smoother and without much, if any, extra stress to the motor. No reciprocating engine, no matter how well designed or built, will handle revving so high as well, period.

It would be very interesting to see if the power and weight of the RX cars will finally make people reallize that it's not just how much hp a car has but rather that the weight too has a major factor in the car's performance. But then again, we'll always have the muscle car people and the Fast and the Furious crowd that probably will never understand any of that....

Strider-

Thanks for the info, Buger.

Why does Mazda use cast iron intermediate housing instead of aluminum?

Making a 3 rotor is the only way to go. You wont be able to make enough torque with just making the rotor housing wider. you might get just 30ft-lb of torque or about 50 horsepower. Torque is what makes cars go. not horsepower. I love the rotary but there is only so much that can be made by N/A engine. I know because I own 2 RX-7. If you made it a 3 rotor you could use alot of parts allready made. which is cheaper than making every thing over for a wider Rotor engine.

Another thing I just though about is that when you slow the speed of the rotors down by having a 3 rotor you get better emssions and making more power. If you made a 3 rotor you would need a 2 center housing that would hold a stationary gear and allow for the E. shaft to be added on like on a 20B. Plus intake and exhaust. That's pretty much it. You can use part from the other cars. they are strong enough. The weight would not be that much more. I could be used in the next Rx-7 and a truck or in place of a V6 or V8. That would help keep the cost down.

I don't think you can get over 200 ft-lb of torque with just wider rotor engine. I do think you can get it with a 3 rotor engine. Much more.

Originally posted by Supercharger
Thanks for the info, Buger.

Why does Mazda use cast iron intermediate housing instead of aluminum?

I believe that cast iron is mainly used because of it's lower thermal expansion, lower thermal conductivity and lower price.

Moller uses all aluminum housings for his flying car but I don't know the cost or complications involved with it.

Originally posted by MWG
You wont be able to make enough torque with just making the rotor housing wider. you might get just 30ft-lb of torque or about 50 horsepower. Torque is what makes cars go. not horsepower. I love the rotary but there is only so much that can be made by N/A engine. I know because I own 2 RX-7. If you made it a 3 rotor you could use alot of parts allready made. which is cheaper than making every thing over for a wider Rotor engine.
Hi MWG,

Although you may think that a 3-rotor will be cheaper than a 2-rotor, you might not have read my post above:

http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=24588#post24588

from Tommy Matano: "I do hear talk about the 3 rotor a lot, but they don't realize how expensive it really is"

Torque is what makes cars go but rpms get added to the equation for hp and weight is what affects everything.

Given the following info:

Car A:
engine: ... 150 hp, 250 ft-lbs torque

Car B:
engine: ... 250 hp, 150 ft-lbs torque

The 2 cars have the same weight, same size wheels/tires, are both geared to have shift points at the same speeds, and have the same shape for their torque curves (scaled of course).

Which car do you think would accelerate faster?

Brian

Originally posted by MWG
Another thing I just though about is that when you slow the speed of the rotors down by having a 3 rotor you get better emssions and making more power. If you made a 3 rotor you would need a 2 center housing that would hold a stationary gear and allow for the E. shaft to be added on like on a 20B. Plus intake and exhaust. That's pretty much it. You can use part from the other cars. they are strong enough. The weight would not be that much more. I could be used in the next Rx-7 and a truck or in place of a V6 or V8. That would help keep the cost down.

I'm not sure that the 3-rotor will have better emissions and I'm not sure that you really care about emissions. You just want more power right? :D

Seriously, Mazda has been quoted several times as saying that they now realize that the rotary should be kept in sports cars and not in things like trucks. Anybody can make an engine with lots of hp and torque, why should Mazda go down that road? Weight affects all aspects of performance. Acceleration, braking and handling. This is where Mazda's advantage lies.

Brian

I know he said it was expensive but you cant tell me having to make new rotor, E. Shaft, Rotor housing, intake, cost to get ready for mass proudtion is not More than using parts allready built and Making a few extra part to make it work. I know that they both are expensive but there is lots of money in the RD need to make all those parts. because larger rotors act different than smaller rotors because of the size, weight, Etc.... I think Tommy just doesn't want to do it. Kind of. I also agree that gearing makes a difference but its not like we are getting a Stock motor that rev's at 12,000 or 15,000 rpm. Also The more torque you have you can make the gear longer therefore staying in gear longer and having more time to speed up. Now if we got something like a 6 or 7 speed transmission that is like they have in Ferrari's that shifts alot faster than you or me. Even though we are really fast shifters! That would be different. When they gear it they make it shift pretty much in the same places.

Now a car like a lamborghini is still in 2nd gear when going 100 mph. Now I know it make alot more horsepower but they rev to maybe 8000 which is alot more than most piston cars. You and I know than a RX-7 handles alot better than a lamborghini in feel of road and agility. It is a lot faster than a stock RX-7 but I has like a 6 liter engine or something like that. We all love the rotary because of it avantages like weight, smoothness, it loves to rev, size, Etc.... Anyone could make the power a lamborghini makes with a engine that size. but a 3 rotor would have more torque, still be much smaller, etc... If it was put in something like the 3rd gen Rx-7 with a lower gear ratio and that would put it out of many cars league. I mean a McLauren would of course be faster but that car cost 1,000,000 plus new. A lamborghini cost 275,000. A Rx7 with a 3 rotor and lower gear ratio would be 50,000 or maybe on the far end 60,000. most likely cheaper.

The cars could be faster if they made like I saw is some other car that I cant think of right now. What they did was if you made the rear end ratio higher and made it so that the first 3 gears would be higher so you would get better acceleration in 0 to 60 and 0 to 100 then gears 4 though 6 would be set so that they were lower for highway speed and maybe 6th gear would be a cruise gear. They did this by making 1 through 3rd gears run on one shaft and then the 4 through 6 would run on another shaft in side the transmission that would make the high rear gear ratio not be so high. so you would get they best of two world you could get really good acceleration and good gas mileage and higher top speed. You would be able to use the gearing to make say 5th gear be at the torque peak so you could use gearing to make the Rx-7 or Rx-8 go 180 mph or faster, Etc.....

I think the reason I belive that it would get better emssion is because if you give the gas and air longer to burn it will be better for the cats to take out of the air as aposted to just more fuel and air, when you add a 3 rotor the acually speed that the rotor rotate at slows down becaus there is another rotor firing. Also if it is slower than you will get better thermal Effecitty. which help emssion. I do want more power and lower emssions. The reason I think mazda should go down that road is because if you make enough torque you can use gearing to make it pull alot of weight just like a truck would do. I think mazda should use the rotary engine in more cars because of it avantages. I think it would help in all cars. Plus with a rotary engine in, weight would still be down. because it is lighter than the average pistion engine. Plus if they used it in a truck or what ever they did they could turbocharge, supercharge, it for even more power in a truck. Plus no one really get perforance from a truck. Its a truck. Lighter weight means better braking, etc..... you are right that is were Mazda has a advantage, it lies in the rotary engine. Sorry for my spelling. I cant spell very well.

I also think mazda is making a mistake in not using there rotay engine in more of there cars. They just cant expect a 2 rotor engine like the 13B to make as much torque as a 5.7 liter engine without adding rotors or somekind of FI. I mean lets be real it is the best engine in the world but it has limits just like the old piston engine. I Like the rotary for being different and the way it works. I mean having a piston go up and down what is so exciting. Unless it is has some kind of trick intake system to make alot of power, and then being in the right car or truck. I think that is where mazda messed up expecting to much. They should be making the RX-8, a new RX-7, and other cars using the rotary engine and making crate motor for guys like me and you who want to put a renesis in our RX-7 or rotary power cars and going wild. they should making more parts so it is easy to get a renesis crate motor. So we can put them in our cars. I mean less get real I dont want people to think of my rotary engine as a little gimick. And have them look at me say. It's he got a little cool car. I want them to say. I want what he has. A rotary engine in my car.

One more thing I've got to say today is look at all the cars out there all the cars with more torque allways have better peformance in 0 to 60, etc..... we know that our RX-7's handle better why should we be shafted on the 0 to 60 numbers. I mean Porsches have good handling and good 0 to 60 and go 1/4 mile,etc.... why should we have it. Just my two cents. I feel better now. So what do you think about what I've said.

6 posts in a row?!?! You're more of a freak than I am! :D That was a lot to skim over but I still don't think you answered whether you thought car A or car B would be faster though. Do you believe the higher peak engine torque/lower horsepower car will accelerate quicker? You are correct that torque is what moves you. Why wouldn't the higher peak engine torque car accelerate faster?

If the 3-rotor really was less expensive, produced greater power/torque, and generated less emissions than a wider 2-rotor why would Mazda not want to use it? Mazda has repeatedly stated how they felt about the 3-rotor. They considered it for the fd3s and turned it down because they didn't want the fd3s to succumb to "zevolution". More weight here means more weight has to be added there which leads to worse handling and braking unless more weight is added to improve that which means...

Mazda has a large loyal customer base of people who appreciate smaller, lighter, better handling cars for a great price. I think one of the biggest reasons why the RX-8 will be successful is because there is a VERY LARGE customer base of Miata owners that will appreciate a car with the same qualities that the Miata has but has more practicality. Whatever Mazda decides to do, it should target their loyal customer base to be as successful as it can be.

If Ford let Mazda produce a version of it's F150, how so you think it would do? If somebody wanted a big truck, wouldn't they just buy a big Ford or GM truck? I'm sure some people would still buy a "Mazda150" but how much of a chance do you think it would have of making a lot of profit for Mazda?

The Whopper has been good for Burger King. What if McDonald's wanted to create their own "whopper"? Would McDonalds take away a significant amount Burger King's customer base by making their own lettuce/tomato sandwich? Hot side hot, cold side cold? Wha???

Every question that you come accross in life is a learning opportunity. It doesn't matter whether you think of the question yourself or whether it comes to you from somebody else. Answering the questions will not always make you wiser but the person who always strives to do so is headed in the right direction.

I will quit babbling now. :D

I think car A would be faster because there would be more wheel torque. Car A would get there first because it would still get to the same speed but would do it faster because of more wheel torque to be used in accelerating the car. Now if you had it so that the Car B could use gearing to stay in gear longer because of a higher rpm then Car B would win because their is distance to gain because you spend more time accelerating. Now to make myself clear Car A would win if it doen't spin it's tires. this would make a difference. Also if mazda made as you called it Mazda150 why does any one make trucks anyway. I mean there is GMC, Chevy, Ford , Dodge, I heard that Toyota is getting in to it too. I mean why don't they stop? Mazda Truck would be different which in the whole point. I would buy one. And it would make the engine be used in Another car. Also I have that book and have seen that line. But my question is it not that much heaiver. I mean look at the 3 rotor Rx-7 that people have made they dont weight much more than a stock RX-7 if more at all. Plus the 3rd gen Rx-7 is strong enough to hold up to the 3 rotor more powerful motor. If Mazda had made the 3rd gen a 3 rotor it probley would have been behind the front axle just like the 2 rotor. So I dont know what the mazda is talking about in that line. the reason 300ZX weights more is because it is bigger than the previous models That only makes sense. The 3rd Gen didnt get much bigger. One other thing I love that post you made on the other tread with beavis and butthead. I was great. One other thing car B would take longer to rev to that same point unless you had more power. Power would move the rotor or piston faster with more force to a small degree. but rotating mass makes a difference you can get a rotary to rev faster when you make the parts lighter just like in a piston engine. Take for example a Honda S2000 motor does not rev as fast as say a renesis will for two reason because of weight and because of recipating motion it take engery to fight the down motion in a piston motor. The engery required to move a rotor is not as great because the rotor are all ways moving in the same direction. You can also rev faster if you lower the amount of friction. Like in F1 Cars they only have 2 rings in the piston motor unlike a regular car that has 3 rings. I also like that wisdom you posted. Where did you hear that or did you think of that yourself and really show us all how wise you are.

Originally posted by Buger
Given the following info:
Car A:
engine: ... 150 hp, 250 ft-lbs torque

Car B:
engine: ... 250 hp, 150 ft-lbs torque

The 2 cars have the same weight, same size wheels/tires, are both geared to have shift points at the same speeds
Originally posted by MWG
I think car A would be faster because there would be more wheel torque. Car A would get there first because it would still get to the same speed but would do it faster because of more wheel torque to be used in accelerating the car. Now if you had it so that the Car B could use gearing to stay in gear longer because of a higher rpm then Car B would win because their is distance to gain because you spend more time accelerating. Now to make myself clear Car A would win if it doen't spin it's tires. this would make a difference.
Hi MWG,

The peak engine hp and peak engine torque given for the 2 cars can give us 2 points on each of their torque curves if the rpms are known. Although car A has 250 ft-lbs of torque, it can't rev very high or it will have more than 150 hp. Although the figures for the cars were pulled out of my ( * ), diesel engines have higher torque than horsepower so car A could represent a diesel car. To make a realistic curve, the rpms for peak torque will be 1700, rpms for peak hp will be 4100. Redline for car A is a little above peak hp (4400).

Since car B only has 150 ft-lbs of torque, it must make it's horsepower by higher rpms. Of course we all know that the hp/torque equation is: hp = (torque*rpm)/5252 so the hp peak must be at least 8754 rpms for the torque to still be below 150. To make a realistic curve, the rpms for peak torque will be 6500, rpms for peak hp will be 9000. Redline for car A is a little above peak hp (10000).

Both cars are geared to hit redline at the following speeds in gears:

1st gear speed at redline: 38mph
2nd gear speed at redline: 63mph
3rd gear speed at redline: 95mph

and both cars have a 3200 lb weight, 215/55R16 wheels/tires, and same everything else.

Car A has no chance against car B... The weights for the 2 cars are the same and Car B has much more wheel torque because it's higher horsepower allows it to be geared much shorter to shift at the same speeds. Below times are approximated by cartest:

Car A (250 ft-lbs peak engine torque)
0-60: ........... 9.02 seconds
1/4: ............. 17.03 @ 81.86 MPH

Car B (250 peak engine hp)
0-60: ........... 6.17 seconds
1/4: ............. 14.85 @ 95.28 MPH

What does this tell us? More horsepower is better than less for acceleration and more engine torque does not necessarily mean more wheel torque. Of course this is nothing new and I am not wise at all for explaining this to you.

I came up with the stuff about answering questions and learning because some people are more interested in talking about everything they know (or think they know) rather than listening to what other people have to say and considering it. Knowing the definitions of a few terms and knowing a few odd facts can impress people who may not know what you are talking about but all of that can be meaningless unless what you know can be applied practically. There are many people who don't know a thing about definitions and "book knowledge" but are much "wiser" than you can imagine. I didn't mean to threadjack and I think I've blabbered enough now so I will stop here.

I'll attach some graphs of the comparison below:

Hi Burger,


If what you say is true than explain how the car with more torque does not accelerate faster, your saying the gearing would be set so the redline at the same mph in each of the gears. so your saying that the Torque in the 250Ft-lb would be reduced so much that it would be like having a really tall gear ratio and lower the torque at the wheel. Instead of having a Short gear ratio that would make more torque at the wheel higher. Than why arent the lower torque cars just Zooming past all the higher torque cars? your comparison is not fair because diesel torque curve is much different that a gas car. you need to diesels or to gas car engines.

Originally posted by MWG
Hi Burger,

Hi GWM,

Originally posted by MWG
If what you say is true than explain how the car with more torque does not accelerate faster, your saying the gearing would be set so the redline at the same mph in each of the gears.
The car with more wheel torque does accelerate faster! Yes.

Originally posted by MWG
so your saying that the Torque in the 250Ft-lb would be reduced so much that it would be like having a really tall gear ratio and lower the torque at the wheel. Instead of having a Short gear ratio that would make more torque at the wheel higher.
No, gearing will not reduce the wheel torque of the 250 ft-lb car, it increases it in the gears mentioned. The higher torque/lower hp car will have to have a much taller gear than the other car to go the same speeds because it can only rev to it's 4400 rpm redline (less than half the redline of the lower torque car). The car with the lesser engine torque/ higher hp can be geared to have much higher wheel torque than the other car.

Originally posted by MWG
Than why arent the lower torque cars just Zooming past all the higher torque cars?

You should be able to answer this question yourself? If the horsepower numbers were the same, the higher engine torque cars will be zooming past the lower engine torque cars. Please read this entire thread again and understand the context of your discussion. In this case, you predicted that a 150 hp car will be faster than a 250 hp car. As I mentioned earlier,

"More horsepower is better than less for acceleration and more engine torque does not necessarily mean more wheel torque. Of course this is nothing new and I am not wise at all for explaining this to you."

The whole purpose of this example was to make you think about how hp and torque affect acceleration. Like many people, you have the mistaken assumption that a higher peak engine torque car will accelerate faster than a lower peak engine torque car regardless of horsepower!

Originally posted by MWG
your comparison is not fair because diesel torque curve is much different that a gas car. you need to diesels or to gas car engines.

Whether it is a diesel torque curve or a very long stroke/short bore gas engine has no bearing at all on why the car with 100 less horsepower is slower. The curves are limited mathmatically by the simple equation that I mentioned. You have been given everything that you need to evolve your thinking. You can choose to question your previous beliefs on this subject or you can continue to rationalize away what is in front of your face.

Either way, I am at the point where I am just repeating things that I have already posted and it would be unproductive of me to continue this.

Brian

Brian,

Just want to say thanks for your posts. I have always had trouble wrapping my brain around the difference between and effect of torque and horsepower. The one equation you mentioned at exactly the right place made it all click:

(torque*rpm)/5252

I think people are assuming that a car with higher torque and the same horsepower is just naturally better. They are missing the fact that horsepower and torque are linked. I know I did. So if you have 2 cars with the same horsepower and one has higher torque then it almost by definition MUST have a lower redline. I know this is not exactly right since the curves could be strangely curved (really high pointy peak and low elsewhere) but this mental picture works for me.

What the equation implies to me is that for hp to be high with low torque then the rpms must be high to compensate. I know that this only applies at single points on a graph but again I am making the assumption that the peaks generally represent a half decent picture of the whole curve. I imagine there are some cars that have curves shaped like this: ^ where the peak numbers give a deceptive picture but in general I think that can be ignored for the sake of the big picture.

I also see now where high end torque is better. Torque at higher rpm means higher hp than if it occured at lower rpm.

I still have a way to go before I can say I grok all of this, but thanks for getting me past one major conceptual hurdle.

Hopefully this helps you to not feel that all this discussion is futile.

:cool: :D

Burger,


I have been thinking about everything you say. I'm not just stuck with my previous beliefs. I just trying to under stand what you are saying in you post. I mean I'm trying to think of a car with a higher rpm/hp peak is faster than a lower rpm/torque peak. I'm mean I see mustangs beat higher rpm/hp peak cars all the time example Acura Integra's. I know that higher/hp peak cars can be faster take for example RX-7 that are suped up will smoke a Mustang all day long. But for example I dont see stock RX-7 beating Mustang at all unless the driver is just asleep or a really bad driver. I'm mean I am just trying to understand what you are saying. I love higher rpm/hp engines. I have two RX-7 that are Examples. I mean my Rx-7's have a 4.10 rear end ratio and mustangs I think are somthing like 3.23. I guess I could make the rear end ratio higher. but then I would lose Top end speed. If the Mustang did that it would lose some to but not as much. I am just trying to understand why mustangs are allways faster than my RX-7's. You would hope that you could make the RX-7 as fast as the Mustang in 0 to 60 by gearing. but it is not that way why can't gearing make it as fast a mustang or make a mustang as fast as a Porsche. But you dont see people making them equal in 0 to 60 with gears. you all hear about more torque or horsepower. And you see that the cars are faster when they have more. I just am not understand how you say car b is faster than car A when the shift at the same speed, have the same weight,etc..... you would think that gearing would make neither car faster. Maybe you can say something that will turn on the light bulb in my head but right know with what you have posted. I just don't see your logic. Help me. any one.

I know that horsepower and torque are related but I dont understand fully the concection you are trying to make Brian. I understand if you make more horsepower at the upper rpm range you can use gearing to your avantage to stay in gear longer and be gaining power the whole time reving up. There for acclerating longer and with more force. If this is what you were trying to tell me. I knew that. but are you saying the gear in the transmission would be taller in car A and shorter in car B. I under stand that if that is true you would get a reduction in torque to use at the wheel if the rear end ratio was Say 3.23 as to 4.10 which would add usable torque to the wheel? Am I getting what you were trying to say. I really want to full understand what you were posting to see if I learned somthing new.

I canno't believe all this "Logical" discussion about the 20B into the RX 8 :eek:

A version of the 20B should go into the RX 8 because it is the coolest god damn engine that ever existed!!! End of discussion. :D

I've have not seen a recent Ferrari, or a lambro with a V6. You know why? Because they are FREAKING SUPERCARS!! No holds barred, pedal to the metal, excess.... Think about what a mazda production car with a turbocharged 20B would say to the car world?

The 20B is the engine that would answer the skeptics. It would have torque, and horsepower both. And as another forum member mentioned, the cost would not be exorbitant because the RD is already there.

Building a fatter engine is a whole new unknown. Parts will not be as easily sourced from the 13B. And how fat can you make one of these engines? doesn't volumetric efficieny suffer when doing this?

Anyways, I had to throw in my 2 cents because I cannot see the logic in this approach by Mazda, never have been able to. The rotary put them on the map, and a 20B is just the next progession.

Originally posted by Jesuscookies
Think about what a mazda production car with a turbocharged 20B would say to the car world?

It would say "Hi, my name is JC Cosmo 20B-REW". http://cp_www.tripod.com/rotary/pg09.htm

Originally posted by Superfan


It would say "Hi, my name is JC Cosmo 20B-REW". http://cp_www.tripod.com/rotary/pg09.htm

And I would say HI, EXACTLY!!!!! the cosmo is such a sweet ride, and was definetly ahead of its time. Too bad ours shores never saw it.

Drop a detuned 20B NA in a RX 8 with about 300HP. Now that would be sweet!! Even at 40K. I would be in line to buy one.

Torque Torque Torque While it is nice to have, how many
John Deer's are winning at the track? Horsepower is where it's
at! And with the rotary just twist that sucker up till your teeth
hurt.