I've seen a few comments suggesting that Mazda will supercharge or turbocharge the Renesis to increase horspower, and, of course, low end torque. :) I've gone on record saying that the car needs more torque, but I do NOT want to see a forced induction rotary again and would never buy one. I'd rather have a NA Renesis with less torque than a turbocharged/supercharged rotary.

Remember all the problems with previous FI rotaries? Have we forgotten already? The well-deserved reputation for poor reliabilty, durability, and usually driveability? Once the extra air is inside the engine, it does not know if it got there via a supercharger or a turbocharger. No matter how it got there, it's more air, more oxygen, and more pressure. Supercharging the engine is no more the answer than turbocharging it again. I hope Mazda has learned from its mistakes.

Forced induction is not the answer- more, or bigger rotors are. Or perhaps three rotors that are narrower than the current ones, perhaps 1.5 liters in total displacement three rotor vs. 1.3 liter two rotor.

I like low-end torque but I also think the way for the car to keep its character is to keep it normally aspirated. Mazda will find a way to wring a few more ponies and pounds-feet out of it, I'm sure. :) This is just the first time around.

Amen :)

we certainly haven't forgotten that the turbo systems on previous Mazda wankels have adverstly effected the engines durability and cost, but i wouldn't say driveability... ;)

sadly though, we aren't the ones making the decisions; but, i am confident that Mazda will see that all out performance at the cost of anything isn't what most people want, and will certainly factor in the life of the engine no matter how the increase in performance is garnered.

but, as a footnote, i have no idea where people are getting the idea that the RENESIS will be supercharged: in only the Millercycle Millenia have i heard of supercharged Mazdas, and i still have very serious doubts about an rpm-dependant compression system on such a high rpm motor, in an application where people will expect very flat, broad, and simple driving dynamics regardless of the rpm.
... i know some people, and they know some things, and i've heard nothing about this supercharging what not, other than that one article which claims to have insider info, and Dan+Bern's tip from the Mazda engineer about it being built to "take boost"... :confused:
wider rotors it seems the most likely to be.

I'm with you 100 percent on the "please don't force induce my Renesis" argument. I too want to have my car for a long time.

I prefer three Rotors as a first option and secondly, two bigger rotors.

And, keep the 6 speed manual also.

Forced Induction done right is not going to be terribly detrimental to the life of the rotary. From what I understand the 3rd gen suffered from major overheating problems. This coupled with the sequential turbo charger caused major problems. Most 3rd gens are also modified and running one bar of boost, while not necessarily running with correctly tuned ecu. That has to be hard on any engine. What's to say that running a low boost turbo or supercharger would cause to many problems. I am all for boost. I have a really hard time seeing anything for the renesis in the neighborhood of a 3 rotor coming out. And the engineering for such, will be a feat in itself. I bet we will see the wider rotors though. As to the supercharger everyone is talking about there was an article where Mazda mentioned this was something they were working on. Hell if I can find it though

I'm hoping power to be gained with the the Renesis is done without boosting also, mainly for the sake of simplicity. I always thought, IF it does get boosted, my preference would be to go with a supercharger, but wakeech brings up a possible good point about rpm dependence. However, I thought a directly connected compressor may be more likely to supplement the bottom-end and midrange of the motor. I know most turbos seem to provide meaningful boost only when the rpm's are up, and the throttle is wide open. (although I heard Volkswagens tend to have little turbo lag)

I would like to see a 3-rotor based on the same internal dimensions as the 13B, in the new RX-7. (at least as an option) Such an engine could be easier to produce, using existing tooling, and would have the advantage of even smoother running due to the counterbalancing effect of the rotor timing of 3 rotors. Has anyone else thought wider rotors, and therefore, a longer eccentric shaft, could lead to more flexing, causing problems at higher rpm's? (yeah, I know, I suppose shaft and bearing diameters could be increased)

actually, as far as the E-shaft goes, usually, a longer shaft can handle MORE torque, because the twisting force is applied to the metal spread out over the longer span. Whether this extra torque handling capability will outweigh the extra torque applied by the larger displacement, I can't say, but trust me when I say that the longer the shaft, the better the torque handling capabilities. (I deal with shafts that handle over 1.5 million ft-lbs) but trust me, it isn't in a car.. :)

I could see your point about a longer shaft handling more "twist", but a longer shaft supported at both ends would have a longer unsupported area, which would allow more movement perpendicular to the shaft at that area, wouldn't it? I'm thinking in terms of the forces the rotors place on the eccentric shaft to cause it to rotate, throughout their "stroke" in the chamber.

Originally posted by CraziFuzzy
(I deal with shafts that handle over 1.5 million ft-lbs) but trust me, it isn't in a car.. :)

So, you're in the porn industry?

:D

It is a crying shame that I was beaten to that punch line. Life must go on however. Back to the topic at hand. Personally, I would be absolutely thrilled to see a three rotor engine in the near future. Although I would be just as happy to see a return of the twin turbo system of the 3rd gen. I was under the impression that most of the reliability problems from this system came from either a lack of cooling, or a poorly managed engine. Both of which could be addressed with a little tlc from mazda's engineers.

Originally posted by DonG35Miata
...Remember all the problems with previous FI rotaries? Have we forgotten already?... Have you forgotten that unmodified FC turbos lasted as long as other factory turbo cars of the time? Have you forgotten that the reliability issues with the FD engines was not because it was turbocharged, but in how it was designed and implemented? Mazda's error with the FD was not with the fact that they turbo-ed the car, but with the fact that they tried to make a complex system work for too little money. As a friend of mine says "They tried to make a $50k car for $30k". And to get to that price point, they ended up sacrificing reliability and longevity.

If they don't make that same mistake with the next forced induction car, then things shouldn't be so bad.

---jps

Have you forgotten that unmodified FC turbos lasted as long as other factory turbo cars of the time? Have you forgotten that the reliability issues with the FD engines was not because it was turbocharged, but in how it was designed and implemented? Mazda's error with the FD was not with the fact that they turbo-ed the car, but with the fact that they tried to make a complex system work for too little money. As a friend of mine says "They tried to make a $50k car for $30k". And to get to that price point, they ended up sacrificing reliability and longevity.

Right on brother! The FD's enemy was heat, pure and simple. In fact, the J-Spec FD's front nose was redesigned to make for better airflow and numerous changes were made under the hood to improve longevity. The 2003 model FD had even more power and torque than the last US-Spec model and was more reliable to boot. If Mazda introduces forced induction into the RX-8, it will most likely be in a single turbo configuration, which is has been a rock solid design for Mazda in the past.

I think that a forced induction model could be built to be easier on gas than a bigger motor would, plus give the benefits of extra power.

Originally posted by KKMmaniac
I could see your point about a longer shaft handling more "twist", but a longer shaft supported at both ends would have a longer unsupported area, which would allow more movement perpendicular to the shaft at that area, wouldn't it? I'm thinking in terms of the forces the rotors place on the eccentric shaft to cause it to rotate, throughout their "stroke" in the chamber.

See, this is where my inexperience with rotaries comes in to play. (I'm just an engineering guy) Does the E-Shaft have a bearing between rotor housings? or is it supported only on the ends?
if it is supported in the center, than this will absorb the extra lateral forces. If not, than yes, these extra forces could be a concern with the longer shaft and flexing forces. Ideally a shaft like this should have a center bearing, but like I said, I'm a little new to rotaries.

Edit: Keep in mind, that it would take a LOT of extra forces to cause a problem, and if you are already talking about building a new longer E-shaft, you ought to be designing in the exta strength needed.

Yeah, the e-shaft on the two-rotor engine is unsupported in the middle, only front and rear mains. They can use a one-piece center housing then, and still assemble/disassemble the engine. (see link) http://www.rx-8.mazda.co.jp/products/driving10.html

The 3-rotor has a two piece shaft with a tapered (I think) coupling, with an extra bearing between the front and center, or rear and center rotors. (I don't remember which it is)

Originally posted by CraziFuzzy
actually, as far as the E-shaft goes, usually, a longer shaft can handle MORE torque, because the twisting force is applied to the metal spread out over the longer span. Whether this extra torque handling capability will outweigh the extra torque applied by the larger displacement, I can't say, but trust me when I say that the longer the shaft, the better the torque handling capabilities. (I deal with shafts that handle over 1.5 million ft-lbs) but trust me, it isn't in a car.. :)

You know I would trust you but you are wrong. If you are an engineer you better review your sophomore strength of materials class. A longer shaft of the same cross sectional properties cannot handle more torque. Does this little equation ring a bell?

Torque = [(Max Allowable Shear Stress) X (Polar Moment of Inertia)] / Shaft Radius

The only difference in regards to torque for two shafts of equal sectional propoerties but differing lengths is angle of twist.

Not only reliabilty is a problem with forced induction but the extra costs associated with it. Do we want to the Japanese manufacturers prices themselves out of the market again like they did in the mid 90s with all those expensive turbo cars (Supra T, 300ZX TT, RX-7)?

I think the RX-8 packaged just about right now with a decent amount of HP, styling, tech and cost. Looks like Nissan doesn't want to make the same mistake also with their non turbo 350Z.

Heat is the main problem for turbo FI autos in general, and faulty boost timing coupled with an inadequate cooling design in the 7's rotary block (inadequate for turbo apps anyway) created a disaster waiting to happen. My understanding is that the repositioning and resizing of ports within the Renesis was brought about partly because of the previous problems associated with OEM FI models with the idea being to dissipate more heat. while the porting for the 6MT RX-8 looks pretty involved as far as connecting any FI system, I'm fairly confident it will be done eventually. Posi pressure Eaton Roots style (NOT centrifugal) S/C applications should provide some good gains in low and midrange HP and torque. I think the draw toward superchargers is a direct result of the heating problem (turbos share engine oil, so if it isn't setup right you're basically screwed across the board) since S/C systems are generally self-contained and retain far less heat. The pressure concern is noted, but the general consensus is that the block will take a ten pound boost, which should be more than adequate for anyone who still wants to use this car on the open road. Doubt we'll ever see a twin turbo application again given the advances in singles, and though that whine and growl as it spools up is satisfying...so is blowing by the guy who's turbo is still winding up:D once we realize the potential the 8 has, 911s best beware

What about all the blown apex seals? Surely extra pressure in the chamber had something to do with those...

It will be interesting to see what happens in the future with the Renesis. I still like the idea of bigger, or more rotors. Could Mazda make a 3-rotor with narower rotors, so it has the same physical dimensions as the current 1.3L Renesis?

I would imageine the blown seals have more to do with the engine overheating causing than with the pressure. The seals see a LOT of friction, and I would imagine they are probably the hottest part of the engine.

Originally posted by MRX
...Do we want to the Japanese manufacturers prices themselves out of the market again like they did in the mid 90s with all those expensive turbo cars (Supra T, 300ZX TT, RX-7)? And the 3000GT VR4, MR2...Originally posted by DonG35Miata
...What about all the blown apex seals? Surely extra pressure in the chamber had something to do with those... While FI engines don't normally last as long as a NA engines, alot of the apex seal problems on FI rotaries were caused by excessive pre-detonation. It's all in the tuning...

---jps

i originally thought this was thread was about no one force inducing their engine, but i'll have to agree w/ the majority of you guys out there, i don't think mazda should sell the renesis force induced...but just leave it to the owners to take it upon themselves =)

Originally posted by lefuton
but i'll have to agree w/ the majority of you guys out there, i don't think mazda should sell the renesis force induced


Is that what the majority thinks? Not according to this poll:

http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3189

At the moment I write this post, there are twice as many people who think Mazda should offer a forced induction version of the Renesis as there are people who think Mazda shouldn't.

Is this poll accurate? Or have the nay sayers just declined to vote up to this point in time? The only way we'll know for sure is if everybody votes.

And before you ask: Yes, this was a thinly disguised plug to encourage more people to vote in my poll :D

Originally posted by DonG35Miata
What about all the blown apex seals? Surely extra pressure in the chamber had something to do with those...

Blown apex seals are usually due to detenation, which is caused by improper tuning (too lean). There are a large number of heavily modified TIIs and FDs that are running a LOT more boost than stock, the last a long long time (when they're properly tuned). Many people even daily drive them.

Blown apex seals are usually due to detenation, which is caused by improper tuning (too lean). There are a large number of heavily modified TIIs and FDs that are running a LOT more boost than stock, the last a long long time (when they're properly tuned). Many people even daily drive them...from M477's post

that is exactly why seals were destroyed. many people just threw the usual intake/ catback exhaust combo and forgot to upgrade the fuel system and engine management. i know some that had an engine rebuild and got the 3mm seals to safe guard against detonation, but eventually a new engine would be needed because their fuel delivery was inadequate. no matter how thick the seals are, proper tuning is what protects the engine.
obviously, allowing the engine to breathe more freely will increase boost, leading to lean conditions. as a "rule", more than 2 mods will require upgrading the fuel system.

also, letting the car sit for long periods of time led to deterioration in the apex seals. even if you can't drive the car, let it idle in the garage for fifteen minutes once a week, and your rotary engine will last a while.

don't ask me how i know this. :(

Originally posted by Sputnik
Have you forgotten that unmodified FC turbos lasted as long as other factory turbo cars of the time? Have you forgotten that the reliability issues with the FD engines was not because it was turbocharged, but in how it was designed and implemented? Mazda's error with the FD was not with the fact that they turbo-ed the car, but with the fact that they tried to make a complex system work for too little money. As a friend of mine says "They tried to make a $50k car for $30k". And to get to that price point, they ended up sacrificing reliability and longevity.

If they don't make that same mistake with the next forced induction car, then things shouldn't be so bad.

You took the words right out of my mouth. This pretty much sums it up ... rotary turbo's can be reliable. But it's the rats nest of vacuum hoses, solenoids, and actuators that isn't

Yo,


I don't think Mazda will offer a forced induction version of the Renesis. Why? Look at all the cars that have recently ceased production in Japan:

Supra (Turbo Inline 6)
RX-7 (Turbo Rotary)
Silvia (Turbo 4)
Skyline GT-R (Turbo Inline 6)

It seems like all the major Japanese manufacturers are moving away from turbos (Except Mitsubishi and Subaru). I've heard that it's because of new smog/polution regulations that Japan is going turbo-free.

I think Mazda is on the right track with the Renesis, get as much power as you can via normal aspiration. I drive a 1989 RX-7 GTUs which has been called "The Turbo II without the Turbo." I can rev the heck out of that thing all day with no worries about boost creep, detonation, boost spikes, fuel cut, etc...etc...

Most of the people I know who drive turbo rotaries are on their 2nd and 3rd motor. Forget that.

Kevin
1989 GTUs "The 787B was normally aspirated. I wonder why?"

Originally posted by RarestRX

It seems like all the major Japanese manufacturers are moving away from turbos (Except Mitsubishi and Subaru).

not entirely, you can get a turbo in protege (ala mazdaspeed).

Turbos are still around in Japan, for most brands. The next GT-R will be forced induced one way or another. The next gen Supra will probably also havd FI, unless they can manage over 100hp/L on a 3.5L engine.

As far as reliability of rotary engine, I don't really think people have that much faith in new technology. Only time will tell whether or not the Renesis will be a reliable engine. ROtary engines are tricky to work on, since only qualified mechanics and specialists would know what to do with them. This means there is a chance a know-nothin' mechanic might screw up somewhere down the line, and that Mazda can make a killing out of service fees because of supply and demand. We'll see though, Mazda claims great reliability with the Renesis - hell, Mazda claims a lot of things. I hope the rotary will be reliable though, because if not..... then who knows what will happen to the next RX7.

When something goes wrong with a rotary... it's generally major.

Being that it only has 4 parts and something is broken... it's REALLY huge if one of those 4 isn't workin :p

But honestly... when's the last time an ENGINE died? It's generally something before that, like the tranny, electronics, etc... I think the same thing will happen here.

Originally posted by RarestRX
Yo,


I don't think Mazda will offer a forced induction version of the Renesis. Why? Look at all the cars that have recently ceased production in Japan:

Supra (Turbo Inline 6)
RX-7 (Turbo Rotary)
Silvia (Turbo 4)
Skyline GT-R (Turbo Inline 6)

It seems like all the major Japanese manufacturers are moving away from turbos (Except Mitsubishi and Subaru). I've heard that it's because of new smog/polution regulations that Japan is going turbo-free.

I think Mazda is on the right track with the Renesis, get as much power as you can via normal aspiration. I drive a 1989 RX-7 GTUs which has been called "The Turbo II without the Turbo." I can rev the heck out of that thing all day with no worries about boost creep, detonation, boost spikes, fuel cut, etc...etc...

Most of the people I know who drive turbo rotaries are on their 2nd and 3rd motor. Forget that.

Kevin
1989 GTUs "The 787B was normally aspirated. I wonder why?"

The reason that turbos have been downplayed in Japan is that the Japanese automakers can reach the 277 Horsepower pseudo-legal limit with just a normally aspirated engine. They have no incentive to build complicated turbo charged engines if their simpler normally aspirated engines are making as much power as Japan's government allows.

Wether Mazda wants to admit to it or not I guarantee that 277HP was the design target of the Renesis they just fell a little short.

Personally, I think there will be a supercharger kit for this guy because it is simpler and gives the extra torque that the engine needs. High RPM is a non-issue IMO. Even High RPM VTEC Hondas can be supercharged effectively.

http://www.jacksonracing.com/pages/details/images/tuper2.gif

Although I'm not the biggest fan of Jackson Racing. They've had pretty good results with the VTEC's. The variable valve timing that kicks in just before 6000 RPM does give tuners fits, but the supercharger is still gaining horsepower all the way up to the 8500 RPM fuel cutt-off whereas the normally aspirated starts leveling of at 8000 RPM.

Jackson make a really nice kit for the Miata so they are willing to do Mazda cars as well. If Mazdaspeed doesn't come out with a kit, I would be willing to bet that someone does.

Also the problem with forced induction is going to be tapping into the complicated intake and exahaust manifolds. fortuneately a supercharger only has to tap into one of them. From an aftermarket standpoint that is a big plus.

-Mr. Wigggles

The Rotors are being incresed in width by 10mm for the next gen RX-7. If the RX-8 comes out in the MPS version it will be this configaration that we will probabaly see.

3 Rotors weigh too much.

Supercharging ???? My question why ????

Turbocharging not at this stage with the Renesis.

However the MPS mazda6 is turbocharged due here late this year.

I would have to say turbocharging will be left for the RX-7 as simply. RX-7 owners love it :D

Originally posted by Maestro
The Rotors are being incresed in width by 10mm for the next gen RX-7.

Is this fact or fiction? Can someone point me to all this 4th gen RX-7 info? A lot of people here talk about it but I haven't read very much.

Originally posted by Maestro

3 Rotors weigh too much.

The power gained would more than make up for the weight gain and the torque would be much appriciated. Plus you don't have the stress of force induction...but as some have said the rotary holds up well with FI...I don't know cause I've never owned one. Just have heard the stories of the 3rd gen.

Originally posted by Maestro

Supercharging ???? My question why ????

This engine doesn't need that much...just a little more torque across the revs. Supercharging makes a lot of sense. Look at the Jackson Racing superchargers for VTEC engines....a perfect solution for the RX-8. Small gain in torque across the revs (well not that small...around 40% gain). No need for fancy piping and intercoolers. Best of all...no turbo lag. If the RX-8 had around 300-320 hp we could be looking at a car that would run low 13s instead of mid 14s. Not to mention a 300hp RX-8 would mop the floors with most sports cars and hang with the exotics on any track. Also, the supercharger would add very little weight to the engine.


Originally posted by Maestro

I would have to say turbocharging will be left for the RX-7 as simply. RX-7 owners love it :D
Turbos are nice but the RX-8 really doesn't need much more power. I mean an RX-8 with 400 horsepower would be down right scary. I don't think that this is something that Mazda would produce, I could be wrong though. Now a turbo is great for the EVO because the 2.0L four stock gets only ~140 horsepower....so you need huge boost to get it to 278hp. The turbo helps do this very efficiently but the RX-8 on the other hand starts with 250 hp...it doesn't need much more so it's more of a low boost application which I think falls more into the catagory of a supercharger. I think if you're going to go by way of forced induction the supercharger (similar design to Jackson Racing) is the clear winner. You get instant on power from start to end.

Plus I read somewhere here that the engineers at Mazda said that turbos were out of the picture but a supercharged version was in the works. The reason for no turbo was something with the emissions.

I think the most likely candidate is the supercharged RENESIS even though I would really like to see a 3 rotor. I understand why though. It's much cheaper for Mazda to throw a supercharger on then to add another rotor. As long as the engine is realiable with increased torque I'm happy.

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat

Is this fact or fiction? Can someone point me to all this 4th gen RX-7 info? A lot of people here talk about it but I haven't read very much.

I think the most likely candidate is the supercharged RENESIS even though I would really like to see a 3 rotor. I understand why though. It's much cheaper for Mazda to throw a supercharger on then to add another rotor. As long as the engine is realiable with increased torque I'm happy.

trust me, this is fairly privy info.
i know others who have said the same. the 4th gen is gonna get a higher displacement bi-rotor.

the biggest problem with a 3 rotor is cost, and secondarilly weight for the application: Mazda doesn't have a market for a +375hp motor... and don't kid yourself, a 3 rotor could top 400. they dont' need that kind of power, or size.
the larger displacement bi-rotor would be much cheaper to develop, produce, and employ, while still making the kind of power demanded by the market.

if someone says "the RENESIS needs more torque" again i'm gonna scream. if you really think about it, and look at how far this motor has come from the last all motor wankel design from Mazda (the Series 5 13B found in 1989-1991 RX-7's), it's world wonder number eight.
supercharging may be an answer for some, but i've raised my concerns about it in other threads. i encourage you to search on it.

I don't care about want happens for the RX-7 for 2006. 3 rotors, bigger rotors, etc.

I care about what will be done to increase the RX-8 to the 300+ HP level where it belongs.

-Mr. Wigggles

Originally posted by wakeech

if someone says "the RENESIS needs more torque" again i'm gonna scream.

The RENESIS needs more torque... :D :D :D :D

Actually, it doesn't, but it would just be nice for passing on the highway, I mean, I have no problem dropping a gear or two, but it would just be nice if it had the response to NOT need to drop it all the time, y'know? I don't think there is much more that needs to be done to the 8, and the only thing I can think of is the need for some psi in there at the low revs, hence all the research I've been doing. I figure that there will be plenty of companies (Jackson for one) that are going to make some supercharger kits, probably some big ones, I'm thinking I'd be happy with a simple small non-intercooled SC, just or drivability, I'm probably not racing the car until I've had it for about 5 years, and I've bought a new four-door for the kids. Then I'll be putting a large, intercooled SC in it, with some serious exhaust and maybe some porting to take it on the track and just have some fun. But as long as its a daily driver, I'm gonna try to keep that simplicity that is so great about the rotary. I figure adding 2 more moving parts isn't too bad.

Hi, everibody it is my first time so here it goes:

I belive mazda is a company nown for leading edge developments and the new RX-7 should be no exeption, I will not be satisfied wiht one of the bunch sports car I belive mazdas personale feels the same way.

mazda has never taken the easy way out and I belive they will not wiht the RX-7 and RX-8.

In my opinion mazda should offer a complete line of engines( as does audi ) for the RX-7,RX-8 and new miata:

2.3 inline 4 (the one in the mazda6 for the miata)
3.0 v6 (the one in the mazda6 also)
1.3 renesis 250 hp ( I do belive the miata should have this opcion as well as the new RX-7).
1.3 FI sc or tc renesis 300hp to 320hp
2.0 tree rotor renesis 370hp to 400hp ( I think making a biger engine 1.4 or 1.5 renesis cant be cost efective if it is why dit mazda make a three rotor in the first place for the eunos cosmo?).


FI is no problem my 1994 fd is in the 90,000km( 56,250 miles) mark and runing 14.5 psi, but mi cpu was done by petit racing and i have hat no problen wiht the engine , and my 1989 turbo fc have now 62,892 miles I am runing 10psi boost, I did replace that egine a couple of times wen I put more boost into it and dit not upgrade the fuel system.

No No No !!!!!!

RX - Stands for Rotary eXperiment (Don't ever put a primitive piston boinger in a RX)

Also in regard to the 3 rotor being too expesive to build. The cosmo was only built for 1.5 years with the actual top spec only for 1 year. reson : Not cost effective.

The renesis might be more cost effeffctive but I would say the only motor we will see possbily in the RX-8 / RX-7 will be the new larger diplacement 2rotor.


Originally posted by rotary crazy
In my opinion mazda should offer a complete line of engines( as does audi ) for the RX-7,RX-8 and new miata:

2.3 inline 4 (the one in the mazda6 for the miata)
3.0 v6 (the one in the mazda6 also)
1.3 renesis 250 hp ( I do belive the miata should have this opcion as well as the new RX-7).
1.3 FI sc or tc renesis 300hp to 320hp
2.0 tree rotor renesis 370hp to 400hp ( I think making a biger engine 1.4 or 1.5 renesis cant be cost efective if it is why dit mazda make a three rotor in the first place for the eunos cosmo?).


.

i completely agree with Maestro. No pistons in any RX series cars.

it was too bad for the Cosmo. it was supposed to be a great car; it had great power, looks, and a fine interior.

sorry I was not thinking, the piston engines for the miata(only the miata not the rx-7/rx-8) I think there should be a rotary miata opcion also (mx-5 RE).

I think the cosmo was so expensive because it was a limited produccion car and never intended to be produce in large numbers, also remember the cosmo was twin turbo, a NA 3 rotor should be far les expensive ( I belive that is why the rx-8 is les expensive than the last RX-7).


Just think 370hp to 400hp NA 3 rotor renesis on a 2,600 to 2,800 pound RX-7 then put a SC/TC on it !!!!! oh my god !!!!!!.

Read between the lines ;D

Also there has been talk about a RE powered MX-5/Miata.

Model isn't due for a update for a while yet but a RE N/A option would definately make a great little sports ragtop.

One option would be for Mazda to develop higher-power (larger displacement) RENESIS engines and leave forced induction to the aftermarket.

However, I worry that the FI efforts would be limited by high compression on the factory engines. If Mazda did some FI version themselves, we would have a very good base for boosted performance.

A 3-rotor RENESIS would be nice. 3-rotors sound fantastic and have a lot of torque. But they are a lot heavier and it might be a challenge with the side ports (middle rotor would have two shared exhaust ports). I doubt we will see this. A larger-displacement 2-rotor RENESIS for the Mazdaspeed RX-8 and a turbo version offered in a high performance version of the RX-7 would be great.

In the choice between a turbo and a supercharger, I'll take the turbo. Boost control, mounting flexibility, efficiency, no mechanical drive connection to high RPM engine, etc. all come to mind as reasons for the choice. And I'm a turbo guy, so I'm probably a bit biased.

-Max
365+ RWHP / 300+ RWTQ (last dyno @ 12.5 psi) single turbo FD

Originally posted by maxcooper
One option would be for Mazda to develop higher-power (larger displacement) RENESIS engines and leave forced induction to the aftermarket.

However, I worry that the FI efforts would be limited by high compression on the factory engines. If Mazda did some FI version themselves, we would have a very good base for boosted performance.

...

-Max
365+ RWHP / 300+ RWTQ (last dyno @ 12.5 psi) single turbo FD

Yeah, on pump gas with the 10:1 compression ratio of the RX-8 you are going to be limited to about 5 up to maybe 7 PSI before having to intercool an Eaton supercharger. That will equate to about 40% more power which may or may not be enough for some people.

It would be enough for me but others might not be satisfied. (It definitely won't make 365 RWHP :D)

-Mr. Wigggles