Well I know this topic has been beated to death....

But did anyone else notice that in the Road and Track RX-8 insert, under the mazdaspeed section, it says "look for this car to come with a 300 plus bhp turbocharged rotary"

Originally posted by hornbm
Well I know this topic has been beated to death....

But did anyone else notice that in the Road and Track RX-8 insert, under the mazdaspeed section, it says "look for this car to come with a 300 plus bhp turbocharged rotary" Still speculation. I read an article from the lead rotary engineer at Mazda who said that he'd preferably like to increase rotor width and find more weight saving methods instead of using forced inductuion and related plumbing.

Originally posted by Hercules
Still speculation. I read an article from the lead rotary engineer at Mazda who said that he'd preferably like to increase rotor width and find more weight saving methods instead of using forced inductuion and related plumbing.

Herc,

Honestly, I would prefer the forced induction & plumbing. That will enable us that are buying the RX-8 now to mod our cars later. I'd rather do that than having to worry about dropping in a new engine $$$ or trading our cars in for the MPS version.

Add the parts mod along with aero kit, spoiler, etc, and you almost have an identical Mazdaspeed version of the RX-8.

Don't know how much each option would weigh, but I would think a wider rotor (engine) would weigh more than the turbo parts. Anybody have an idea?

since we're paper engineering i would have to totally guess at 10mm wider rotors would weigh less than 2 turbines + plumbling. unless you're talking about like 200mm wide rotors or something...

Originally posted by lefuton
since we're paper engineering i would have to totally guess at 10mm wider rotors would weigh less than 2 turbines + plumbling. unless you're talking about like 200mm wide rotors or something... This is not to mention of course, that Mazda has had a bad history with rotaries and turbos and even if they can get it working 100% without a problem, the 'idea' of marketing a car that was terrible in this regard due just to the turbo and overheating causes a severe problem.

It's smarter to go naturally aspirated, because first; turbos can be installed aftermarket. There is no throttle response better than a naturally aspirated car, I don't care how non-laggy the FI is. And lastly, since Mazda has had a shaky history doing this in the past it's a lot easier to sell the car.

And that's what Mazda is doing... while we may all love the car for its performance price and looks, Mazda is out to make money. It's a business. And any good business knows that the best way to make money is to offer a product that appeals to the most people and draws the biggest revenue.

Going with turbos will alienate a lot of buyers who have had experience with the old RX-7s. The idea that the RX-8 right now is naturally aspirated is one of the reasons that I started looking into this car and now have one on order. Had the RX-8 been turboed directly from the factory I'd be worrying too much to even have investigated rotary engines and what they were all about; now I'm better informed about it.

Besides the MAIN reason I like to see naturally aspirated is because it does wonders more for engineering than going with FI. Look at BMW for example; their engineers have refused to resort to turbos to get the power from their engines. What has resulted is probably the best engines in the world being developed. The I6 from the M3 makes 333 horsepower, with a mere 3.2L displacement. No other company can match that in piston power. The fact is, that if Mazda decides to take the hard road, they will benefit the development of the rotary far more than just slapping a turbo on and making it work.

I'd rather they get 300 horsepower from engineering work than from a cheap and easy FI method. It's that kind of striving to succeed attitude that I appreciate much more than taking an easy way out.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Originally posted by Hercules
I'd rather they get 300 horsepower from engineering work than from a cheap and easy FI method. It's that kind of striving to succeed attitude that I appreciate much more than taking an easy way out.

Of course, this is just my opinion.


Wouldn't increasing dispacement be "cheap and easy" too? Personally, I'd like to see a higher compression ratio that yields something like 280 HP with a 10,000 RPM redline. If you then drop off 200 pounds, I'd be in heaven. :D . Of course, I'm not a "torque" guy so this option would not be for everyone.

Originally posted by RX-8 Zoomster
Honestly, I would prefer the forced induction & plumbing. That will enable us that are buying the RX-8 now to mod our cars later. I'd rather do that than having to worry about dropping in a new engine $$$ or trading our cars in for the MPS version.

Add the parts mod along with aero kit, spoiler, etc, and you almost have an identical Mazdaspeed version of the RX-8... As long as Mazda doesn't do something like lower the compression for a turbo engine or include a stronger e-shaft.

---jps

It's smarter to go naturally aspirated, because first; turbos can be installed aftermarket. There is no throttle response better than a naturally aspirated car, I don't care how non-laggy the FI is. And lastly, since Mazda has had a shaky history doing this in the past it's a lot easier to sell the car.

True for turbos, but not necessarily for supercharges.
With a sc throttle response is usually good, and Mazda had good history with sc Millemia. Besides, sc is light.

Originally posted by Hercules

It's smarter to go naturally aspirated, because first; turbos can be installed aftermarket. There is no throttle response better than a naturally aspirated car, I don't care how non-laggy the FI is. And lastly, since Mazda has had a shaky history doing this in the past it's a lot easier to sell the car.

I'd rather they get 300 horsepower from engineering work than from a cheap and easy FI method. It's that kind of striving to succeed attitude that I appreciate much more than taking an easy way out.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

I agree with hercules. The RX-8 should be naturally aspirated. More parts in an engine, moving or not, will decrease reliability. Simple engineering goes a long way ("KISS= Keep It Simple Stupid). I would rather see a three rotor engine to increase torque.

Originally posted by Hercules
The I6 from the M3 makes 333 horsepower, with a mere 3.2L displacement. No other company can match that in piston power.

What about Honda with the S2000 and most Ferraris ?

Originally posted by neit_jnf


What about Honda with the S2000 and most Ferraris ?

Though both Honda and Ferrari make some impressive engines, I don't think either makes a 6-cylinder that puts out numbers like the M3. Honda makes a great 4-cylinder and Ferrari makes great 8 and 12-cylinder engines.

Look at BMW for example; their engineers have refused to resort to turbos to get the power from their engines. What has resulted is probably the best engines in the world being developed. The I6 from the M3 makes 333 horsepower, with a mere 3.2L displacement. No other company can match that in piston power.

Ummm, Honda still leads the way in the most HP/liter in any production piston engine, and it took BMW ten years (after Honda) to produce a 6 cyl. to reliably rev happily up to 8 grand! In addition, BMW did it with an I-6 (verses a V-6 for Honda). Some of BMW's work should have been cut out for them because it is my understanding that I-6's require less balancing for higher RPM's. Why Honda doesn't "engineer" a more powerful V-6 (over 320 HP) for the NSX is beyond me.


I'd rather they get 300 horsepower from engineering work than from a cheap and easy FI method.

I totally agree with that. However, in the end, it's about how well the car can perform, either against its competition or in comparison to the RX-7. I hate to bring up the numbers card, but those performance values (0-60, 1/4 mi., skidpad, etc.) hang heavy with potential buyers. I don't think Mazda would add either to the Renesis this time around unless it could be done reliably. There certainly would be no issue with torque if a turbo or SC were added. I wonder what type of HP/torque figures were talking about with a bigger (2.0L) Renesis? How well would a RX-8 (or new RX-7) perform with this new bigger rotary? Then there is the question of gas mileage: Would it be acceptable or absurdly low? Whatever path Mazda takes with the Renesis, I just hope it performs and does it reliably.

True BMW has had this reputation. However, the next generation BMW engine series will include a ~380hp turbocharged inline six as the engine that comes before the /M version. This is because quite simply it is impossible to extract more than 343bhp from the 3.2I6. So, yes, even BMW has to drop the hardcore NA reputation for turbos. Which I find unfortunate but temptingly understandable.

My take on Turbos for RX-8 is that it MUST be possible for at least aftermarket forced induction. Otherwise, competition (TT 350zx, WRX, etc) will outpower RX-8 if only a "stroker" kit is offered, which I dont think would be that much less difficult of an install than turbo's. If only a stroker kit is offered and supported, RX-8 will be relegated to a niche car. Furthermore, was it not the case that the peripheral port location caused most of the reliability issues with RX-7's?




Originally posted by Hercules
Besides the MAIN reason I like to see naturally aspirated is because it does wonders more for engineering than going with FI. Look at BMW for example; their engineers have refused to resort to turbos to get the power from their engines. What has resulted is probably the best engines in the world being developed. The I6 from the M3 makes 333 horsepower, with a mere 3.2L displacement. No other company can match that in piston power. The fact is, that if Mazda decides to take the hard road, they will benefit the development of the rotary far more than just slapping a turbo on and making it work.

I'd rather they get 300 horsepower from engineering work than from a cheap and easy FI method. It's that kind of striving to succeed attitude that I appreciate much more than taking an easy way out.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Originally posted by Sputnik
As long as Mazda doesn't do something like lower the compression for a turbo engine or include a stronger e-shaft.

---jps

Any turbo engine has to have lower compression to allow for more boost.


And furthermore, its not talking about the regular rx-8 being turbocharged, but the MAZDASPEED RX-8 being turbo charged. So there will allways be a N/A option available to those who dont want a turbo.
The artical never said weither they would go with twin turbos or not. My guess is they'd go with a single turbo setup for simplicity and weight.

However, the next generation BMW engine series will include a ~380hp turbocharged inline six as the engine that comes before the /M version. This is because quite simply it is impossible to extract more than 343bhp from the 3.2I6. So, yes, even BMW has to drop the hardcore NA reputation for turbos. Which I find unfortunate but temptingly understandable.
I have also heard this and was at first very disapointed. But the turbo engine isn't their highest end engine. It is, like you said, made to bridge the gap between the 330 and the M3. This makes it more acceptable because it does not force the true NA enthusiases to buy a turbo. Still, I am sad to see BMW turbo their cars.:(

since we're picking at m3 motors leme jus say there is a guy in NJ with a 1400HP i6 97' m3 motor in his car =) about 12grand into the motor...

The M3 engine we speak of here may not be the poster child of reliability. The E46 M3 engine has experienced a substantially uncommon amount of engine failure (see link). http://members.roadfly.org/jason/m3engines.htm It's possible that BMW may have reached limits in extracting big reliable HP numbers from small displacement, high reving N/A engines. Maybe thats why they are moving to turbos in some future models. But since the rotors in a rotary engine only turn at one third Eshaft speed, wouldn't a larger displacement (wider rotors) rotary go a long way in making more reliable power levels? Just a thought.

I think the I-6's require longer connecting rods than comparable V-6's (comparable in displacement). I believe they either require extra rod bearings or beefed up rod bearings because of the travel and angles the connecting rods follow being all the cylinders are inline. Longer connecting rods, more travel for piston movement, and sharper angles during connecting rod travel all make a reliable 8 thousand RPM redline an interesting engineering project. Oh, well, maybe the turbo version will prove more reliable than this one.

Originally posted by hornbm
Any turbo engine has to have lower compression to allow for more boost... Not necessarilly. Mazdaspeed did not change any internals for the Protege'.

---jps

I agree rxtreme to an extent. I've read that the piston speed in the E46 engine is very close to that of their F1 program. That 's asking alot of an engine for everyday use and it's a trade off that BMW accepts to get the level of performance that was targeted for the E46 car. If you want to spin a piston engine at those kind of rpm's you typically go with an over square combo, big bore short stroke. You make more power at the upper register but lose the torque down low that BMW needed, a lesson they learned from the first E30 M3. From the E30 they learned that torque is a more important trait in the U.S. marketplace than over in Europe where high reving over square engines prevail. One nice thing about the rotary is that everything mentioned above is irrelevant. They do share the same trait as an over square piston engine though, not enough torque! That's where the turbos help. I don't think my RX7 would be as much fun to drive without the (yes complex heat generating), turbos.

The M3 engines that failed were created during a specific build date. That's why now all the engines are perfect.

And they are NOT moving towards turbos so I don't know where you read that. Their engineers, if you read Car and Driver a few months ago, despise the idea.

Time will tell if they're perfect!! I'm not willing to plop down 50k plus to find out, are you? The turbo part was not in reference to the M cars. I saw it on another web site, can't remember which right now, that it was being considered for one of the upcomming sedan models. Please understand I'm not bashing BMW as I also own a 330ci that I'm quite happy with.

Originally posted by racrx
Time will tell if they're perfect!! I'm not willing to plop down 50k plus to find out, are you? The turbo part was not in reference to the M cars. I saw it on another web site, can't remember which right now, that it was being considered for one of the upcomming sedan models. Please understand I'm not bashing BMW as I also own a 330ci that I'm quite happy with. If I had the money for an M3 you'd be I'd buy one. The engines have had no problems after that build date, and everything is under warranty so it's no big deal :)

The E46 I-6 still has the same engineering as the other E46's--really long stroke and blistering fast piston speeds. They may have repaired the oil delivery problems to the rod bearings but that still doesn't take away the amount of stress being placed on the long connecting rods and associated bearings as a result of that piston speed. As racrx mentioned, Honda can get away with it because of their over square design on the F20 (S2000 engine) and the NSX's "V" design vs. inline further helps to reduce stress on the aforementioned parts. Anyway, this is getting off subject--I really don't care if they turbo the renesis or not. Just make it reliable and perform. If they can turbo the car and make it (or close to) as reliable as a NA rotary, wouldn't that be a engineering feat in itself? Let this NA RX-8 build the publics' confidence back in the rotary and then introduce a reliable turbo rotary (if that's the path Mazda wants to take). Just my opinion.

someone get mazda to shuv a 4rotor rotary into the next rx7 and the fuck with piston power =P

:D :D :D

Originally posted by Hercules
The M3 engines that failed were created during a specific build date. That's why now all the engines are perfect.

And they are NOT moving towards turbos so I don't know where you read that. Their engineers, if you read Car and Driver a few months ago, despise the idea.

http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carnews&loc_code=&content_code=09295784

This has been floating around on the web for a while now. I guess it is still at the unofficial, but I would say it is well past hearsay at this point. The article has a date of may 1, 2003, but i believe autoweek released it sometime before this.
September would probably provide the most definite answer.

Regardless of however unfortunate the move to inclusion of a non /M turbo engine is, it is arguably as necessary for BMW to include as would be the automatic transmission. N/A vs. Turbo will be argued well into the next millenium, but only by a select group of individuals who know better than the vast majority of auto consumers what to get. For the consumers, all that matters is available power that they can compare to and amaze themselves with in wonder, a number to which they can refer when placing themselves along an imagined linear hierarchy. But essentially the point is, the I6 cant reliably get to 380hp, and a tuned 4.4l V8 is probably too costly or heavy. It also provides just enough of a difference to the normal v8 that certain demographics might appreciate. Plus, who would do a better job of a factory turbo than BMW?

In any event, BMW's hardcore status quo is maintained by the F1-derived NA 5.0L V10 for /M. At least for me it is, even if the engine isn't actually F1-derived.

Just make it reliable and perform. If they can turbo the car and make it (or close to) as reliable as a NA rotary, wouldn't that be a engineering feat in itself? Let this NA RX-8 build the publics' confidence back in the rotary and then introduce a reliable turbo rotary (if that's the path Mazda wants to take). Just my opinion.

Well put rxextreme! Turbos or not, just make it perform and give us bomb proof reliability.

Thank you protoconvert for finding that bit of BMW news. Hercules had me thinking I was hallucinating. (LOL):D

Originally posted by Hercules
The M3 engines that failed were created during a specific build date. That's why now all the engines are perfect.



hrm, i got the biggest kick out of reading about those motors blowing up and checkin out the pics people had. from what i remember they were not out of a specific build date at all... there was a much high instance of it happening around nov/dec '01? or so but there were still occurrences with build dates earlier that year and into 2001. and now they all better be damn near perfect, the bavarians have a reputation to uphold hehe

Originally posted by rxtreme
I think the I-6's require longer connecting rods than comparable V-6's (comparable in displacement). I believe they either require extra rod bearings or beefed up rod bearings because of the travel and angles the connecting rods follow being all the cylinders are inline. Longer connecting rods, more travel for piston movement, and sharper angles during connecting rod travel all make a reliable 8 thousand RPM redline an interesting engineering project.

Nope. The rods aren't an issue at all in I-6 vs. V-6 - it's the crankshaft length that is a problem in high rpm use. Because the crank on an I-6 is so much longer, it's much more difficult to make the long crankshaft stiff enough and to design around torsional flex and harmonics problems. In other words, it's relatively easy to design a high-revving V-6!

Regards,
Gordon

Originally posted by rxtreme



I totally agree with that. However, in the end, it's about how well the car can perform, either against its competition or in comparison to the RX-7. I hate to bring up the numbers card, but those performance values (0-60, 1/4 mi., skidpad, etc.) hang heavy with potential buyers. I don't think Mazda would add either to the Renesis this time around unless it could be done reliably. There certainly would be no issue with torque if a turbo or SC were added. I wonder what type of HP/torque figures were talking about with a bigger (2.0L) Renesis? How well would a RX-8 (or new RX-7) perform with this new bigger rotary? Then there is the question of gas mileage: Would it be acceptable or absurdly low? Whatever path Mazda takes with the Renesis, I just hope it performs and does it reliably.

Hey, if the number concern you, don't order one and maybe mine will come sooner. If 0-60 and 1/4 mile is what you are concerned about, ante up $5k more and get a Mustang Cobra. The RX-8 (and the Miata/Protege) are not just about straight line acceleration. They are about balanced performance and value. In an earlier post I said I worked SCCA F&C (flagging and comm) and I regularly see Gen2 RX-7's still winning in ITS against BMWs and others. And a well-driven Spec Miata wins against other larger displacement cars. Rarely do I see an S2000 on the track except at SoloII events where they rule BS, even besting M3 times in SS. Balance, balance, balance...that's where Mazdas rule.:headsmack

the germans said "NEIN!" to turbos for the uhhhhhhhh 7something, whichever 7 is the lux-limo model. id like to see them go NA because the rotary is so far behind in development when compared to pistons which BMW (along with others) has almost perfected. As we all know, the true power of the rotary is yet to be discovered.
________
Magic dragon dispensary santa barbara (http://dispensaries.org)

piston power is no where near to be prefected...stop dreaming...

the germans said "NEIN!" to turbos for the uhhhhhhhh 7something, whichever 7 is the lux-limo model. id like to see them go NA because the rotary is so far behind in development when compared to pistons which BMW (along with others) has almost perfected. As we all know, the true power of the rotary is yet to be discovered.

First of all, the 7 series doesn't need turbos because of the big engine options available for it, V8 or V12, take your pick. And all U.S. market 7's are luxo models. No M7 to date. And while yes the Germans have come a long way in piston engine development (valvetronic), the Japanese are the ones to thank for all the wonderfull piston engine wizardry we enjoy today, (V-tec, V-VTI, etc). The germans are just catching up! Valtronic (BMW) is a very new and unproven technology. Yes it is a huge advancement but also very complex. Let's hope it does well. V-tec and V-VTI on the other hand have been around sine the day the earth cooled and is a proven reliable piece of engine technology. Nissan is getting 360HP from a 3.5Liter V6 in their Maxima, Honda 240 HP from a 2.4L 4cyl, Toyota 180HP from a 1.8L four and all without turbos. All japanese reliable and come with excellent warranties. But the real surprise of the year has to be the Renesis engine that you say is "so" far behind in development. 250HP from 1.3liters and no turbos!!! And it meets California LEV2-A standards. Thats development! It didn't happen over night though. Mazda, and Mazda alone, (even the Germans gave up on thier own technology!) has been re engineering the rotary engine since 1995 and before (RX-01). Even when FoMoCo told Mazda to shelve the rotary, a hand full of hard core rotary engineers took it upon themselves to keep developing the rotary engine after hours on their own time un beknown to the Ford brass. I hoist a beer in honor of these men for if it were not for them, and Mazda, this forum may not have ever been born and our only choice of engines would be boingers. And finally, until we can find a way to remove friction, parasitic drag, and increase volumetric efficiency to 100% , and achieve 100% complete combustion, no engine, piston or rotary, will ever be perfect!! If Mazda has made the Renesis as reliable as most piston engines of today, I'd say the development of the rotary is right on schedule. Thanks to Dr. Felix, NSU, Mazda and, hopefully the car buyer themselves, the return of the rotary engine will be a great success story in it self.
Cheers:cheers:

A. german gave up on rotary engines because its wasnt an efficient engine when it was tested. (Mbenz developed a 4rotor engine and had a car in 89' or so go 250mph 1st rotary car to do so.)

B. BMW's valve tronic is a much better system than vtech,ivtech,ivvt...bmw is yes much more complex and provides results japs could only wish.

C. European Auto industry is the LEADER in piston engine development... Take a look at F1 tech from France/Germany/Italy and also take a look at Lemans 24hour race....NO PISTON POWERED JAPANESE ENGINE HAS EVER WON THAT RACE!!! supra's tried for many years to do it but the engine kept blowing up.

D. WERD! the rotary engine is the most amazing engine and needs more $$ dumped into development because its has a bigger potential than the piston powered cars. Mazda has done an amazing job with the thing and if rx8 sales stay high like the preorders have been so far then we'll see a more power and more efficient rx engine...

C. the engine results that japanese production cars are getting is nice but compare them to what bmw shows and dont just say the engines are great bcause the power output they show...360NA hp from a 3.5v6 ok that those are nice numbers but look here BMW 3.2L i6 372HP (m3 csl engine) and this engine is #1 engine in MPG,reliability,stability according to that foundation who awards the best engine of the year per class.

European engines may be #1 in F1, but until this year most CART engines came from either Honda or Toyota and now they've both moved to the IRL. IMHO that's a pretty good track record right there (no pun intended.)

Wouldn't the cheapest way to add more power especially torque to the car is to slap on another rotor? You can use existing rotor housing and just requiring a new E-shaft right? But of course the added weight might not be what they wanted although they can make smaller rotors, (half the size?) with 3 of the together.. that shouldn't weigh much more although more power you'd think...

First post btw.. HI :cheers:

RacingDynamics,

A) So just give up on any further development and let the Japs carry the rotary torch right?

B) You can't say it's better because it's to new, not enough time on it to prove reliability. More advanced, yes, and don't think for a minute that the japs are boo hooing over valtronic and have given up on any further piston engine developements. This is just an age old tradition of one-upsmanship that has existed between the japs and germans for years with the japs shooting first and the germans one uping them.

C) Totally dissagree!! Honda dropped the bomb on F1 in the late 60's and early 70's with their F1 program, and don't forget what Ayerton Sena and Nigel Mansel were driving when they dominated. If we're just talking piston engines, look who dominates Moto GP. The Toyotas (GT- One's) of Lemans did NOT suffer engine failures!! They were all gear box failures of non toyota origins, and blown Michlen tires (sabatoge from the french LOL). And of course we all know what Mazda did with the R26b rotary.

D) I concur

E) First, only a hand full of people will be able to afford the CSL M3. Second, I'll say it again. The S54 engine has not proven to be reliable, stop kidding your self!! Read this again if you haven't already http://members.roadfly.org/jason/m3engines.htm. I don't care what the reasons were or the build dates are. Engine failure is engine failure period. They're reputation is tarnished and therefore no reliability awards!! I'm not spending 50k plus for any car with this reputation, sorry. The foundation that gave this engine #1 in reliability is full of crap!! If they repair this damaged reputation in the next few years by exhibiting a better engine reliability then kudos to them. I suspect that engines days in that iteration are numbered anyways. If the next M5 and M6 get crazy V10's then look for the next M3 to have a V8. There is a reason the the E46 test mules had 2 fitted with V8's. Just a prediction. Besides, Audi is starting to put the heat on BMW with the next S4 and RS6.

RACRX

I am not taking any sides but gotta pipe in to correct some serious b.s:

1. Toyota CART engines where designed and built in the USA by American engineers and manufacturers.

2. Honda's IRL engines are not designed or built by Honda but are totally subcontracted to a specialty race engine company. I think it is Illmor. This is not the norm for Honda.

3. Isn't the M3 CSL engine rated at 352 hp, not 372 hp?

4. VVT has been around for many decades and was first developed by Italians.

5. Valvetronic is not much more complex than Honda's iV-Tec stuff. Valvetronic does all that iV-Tec does and eliminates the weight/cost of a throttle body and cruise control actuator in addition to removing any pumping losses associated with a throttle body.

6. An ancient technology Chevy LS6 engine weighs less than the BMW S54 or a highly tuned Nissan VQ yet produces more power and more torque and is more fuel efficient than either. Hmmm?

Originally posted by babylou

6. An ancient technology Chevy LS6 engine weighs less than the BMW S54 or a highly tuned Nissan VQ yet produces more power and more torque and is more fuel efficient than either. Hmmm?

heck, the ls1 is nearly as good as the ls6 and right around the power of the bmw/nissan motors for egads cheaper too.

THE supra's ..even with out the tranny problems they had no chance at winning the GT class.


M3 cls is rated at 352HP according to BMW magazine...sorry had a typo there...

The world has made a place where companies can come out and prove to everyone they are the leader in engine tech. We call them Lemans 24h and F1...BMW has won more Leman tittles than any other car company. And F1 is currently dominated by europeans...so this tells you right now EURO/american engine development is #1

Production engine development is also rated by that foundation...i forget their name everytime...but they look at every engine produced and pick out 10top engine for every engine size class...and so far as of 2002...1.5,2.5,3.0,3.2,4.4,4.6,5.0, (Liter )engines have been from BMW.....then a lot of the jap companies take the spots...but most of the spots are euro...

dont get me wrong here...I LOVE japanese cars and their engines because their great engines. But in the world of pro sport...

Hmmm. The great debate continues. As for the Germans, you ignore completely what MB/AMG does with superchargers. If you didn't see the latest Motor Trend on Speed, you missed a MB CL55, unrestricted chip, posting the second fastest top speed of 187mph, second only to a Lambo Muriceilago(?). Now, that's a very expensive car without doubt. But go down to the low end where the C32 AMG sits. It's a really fast car and I doubt that reliability of the engine is an issue. Sure, it doesn't have the rep of an M3, but it's a four liteluxo sedan. So, one could dismiss turbocharging by the Germans, except for Audi who does it well, but don't forget the C32, SLK32, CLK55, E55, S55, CL55, SL55 and the soon to be on sale, S600, SL600, CL600, all with twin turbo V12s. Oh, and who rules in German Touring racing? Not BMW, not Audi (lately), but for the last two years, MB CLK!:D

Having said all that, I'm still buying an RX-8:D

BEST ENGINE IN THE WORLD ..... ROTARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D :D :D :D

BEST ENGINE IN THE WORLD ..... ROTARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While this debate was enjoyable, it ventured to far away from the topic of this forum. So I'll leave this alone and end it being in total agreement with you on your above quote! :D :D :D
Cheers!!

Give Toyota a chance in F1. You have to admit they're doing remarkably well for being in their second year. I'm guessing within 3 years, they'll be a force to be recon-ed with in the F1 circuit. Look out McLaren/Ferrari/Williams....

the thing you dont understand with F1 is about enigeers with expirience...that takes YEARS!!!

F1 or any racing is a poor measure of auto technology. Due to rules restrictions in racing, road cars are much more technically advanced. Road cars must last much longer, need to be easily assembled, must meet stringent emissions standards, have to have muted NVH levels, be affordable, etc. This is a hell of a balancing act. If the products I made had to satisfy so many conflicting goals I would change professions and get a job at Starbucks or something.

Besides, several of the car companies competing in F1 farm out all of the engine work, engineering included. Mercedes uses Ilmor and Ford uses Cosworth.

There is no one nation or company that has a lock on good automotive engineering. I see good stuff and turds from each group.

motorsport is a showoff contest... a damn good one =)

Originally posted by babylou
F1 or any racing is a poor measure of auto technology. Due to rules restrictions in racing, road cars are much more technically advanced... Shyeah, right...

---jps

Originally posted by babylou
F1 or any racing is a poor measure of auto technology. Due to rules restrictions in racing, road cars are much more technically advanced. Road cars must last much longer, need to be easily assembled, must meet stringent emissions standards, have to have muted NVH levels, be affordable, etc. This is a hell of a balancing act.

But it's not what I would consider to be "advanced". They are all compromises to make the vehicle more civil, safe (thanks to idiot drivers), and environment friendly.

F1 pushes automotive technology to it's limit. Accelerate, brake, turn left, turn right--that's it--creature comforts disregarded. (too bad no more turbos)

Originally posted by evel333
F1 pushes automotive technology to it's limit. Accelerate, brake, turn left, turn right--that's it--creature comforts disregarded. (too bad no more turbos)

not really. Lou is right.

you'll find a greater number of advanced electronic systems in road cars, the usability isn't that of a disposable razor, the ergonomics conform to the user and not the user conforming to the car, comfort, aesthetic functionality, be able to protect people who're retarded when driving it in a highly un-safe driving environment (no crash-barriers, cross-traffic, lamp-posts, pedestrians, etc), and the list goes on... that's just on the consumers side.

on the manufacturer's side, the cars need to be as cheap as possible to construct (within certain boundaries: ie, the gearbox has to be mostly steel or the interior door handles must withstand yea-much torsional force) which means carry-over of existing manufacturing equipment is important, as well as ease of and speed of construction is paramount, it must be easily serviceable so that capital er-investment in mechanics is as low as possible (ie, GM won't suddenly adopt a Porsche-esque rear-engine mounting system), it must have some practical edge over its competition (why we're seeing so many "cross-over" vehicles these days) to be marketable, the company's goals, image, and philosophies ought to be reflected in all of its vehicles (otherwise those become meaningless)... there are a lot of things to consider.

on the motorsports side of things, i'd say that the engineering isn't heighted, but reduced (distilled) to its most basic of elements: it's just gotta go fast. fast is easily quantifiable, and its also easy to figure out what will make something faster. in the end, working as cheif designer in Toyota F1 in France is a far simpler thing than to be chief designer back at Toyota Corp. head office, in charge of the next Camry (well, maybe not in this example as the Camry is pretty bread-and-butter Toyota, but you get my point).

think about it this way: it takes 100-400 engineers (lower being more Minardi, the upper being more Ferrari) 10 months to design, build, and (for the most part) sort out a good F1 car, where in the auto-industry, it'll take the same number of engineers 2-3 years and 10 times the development to create an entirely new vehicle... or even longer, with more development, as is the case with the RX-8 ;)