I thought I read somewhere about a 250kw (335hp) rotary engine for a future faster RX-8, can anyone confirm this? I was thinking that if this is true then Mazda could use the 184kw (246hp) standard RX-8 engine in the next RX-7 which I assume will be cheaper than the RX-8.
By the way a great little Forum! :)

I'd like to see a 20B in it, or whatever the 3 rotor Renesis will be called (if there ever is one). However, a turbo is the most likely way Mazda will substantially increase the power of the (standard 2 rotor) Renesis. A jump of nearly 100HP could be accomplished with serious porting, but it would get away from the whole 'zero overlap' the Renesis is known for, and increase emissions.

Why turbocharge the thing for an extra hundred HP, with all the reliability problems that brings when you could just add a 3rd rotor and have an additional 100HP for almost no extra complexity and probably no more weight than a turbo and intercooler units.

true, but then you run into size and cost issues...
whatever the case, i heard about a report in a post a while ago about development of a 2.0L RENESIS, but i dunno... it doesn't seem like the kind of engine for the 8... or even the 7. Most of the guys on the board were more interested in the reincarnation of the "rotary pickup" whatever-it-was-called...

but, to get back to the origional thought, that's a helluva lot of power for a smallish sports-sedan, with an "affordable" (at least for many [not most though] of you Americans) price tag of $30 000...
it'd just be way too expensive, and it'd scare away potential buyers, i think (it'd be one hairy beast in bad weather, on top of higher inherent costs associated with higher performance)...

I'd like to point out at this point that I'm not american... LOL.

Driving on the correct side of the road, I wonder if we'll get the car before the US too... since they can just retro-fit the Jap model??

Mabe, but I've got my flame retardant undies on now anyway... ;-)

You know asbestos causes chafing:D

For those that want a high performance sportscar with a lot of power, the RX-8 is not the car for you. I think most of those really interested in this car (including myself) are willing to compromise some performance for utility and affordability. The 8 I'm sure can be driven hard, and be a delight to drive everyday.

250 hp in a car that weighs less than 3000lbs (2970 I think) is more than adequate to provide the thrills most of us want. Depending on how the insurance companies classify this car (coupe, sedan, sportscar) will make a big difference in cost of ownership. And while the power rating of the engine doesn't claddify a vehicle, it will make it more expensive to insure as it increases.

questions, really.

I don't know if this has been discussed, but, what is 13B (I assume 13 is for 1.3 displacement)?
What is the "zero overlap"?
Why is this 50:50 weight distribution so important?

hope I don't sound too clueless...:confused:

no way man!! don't worry about it, only a couple of months ago, i hadn't the foggiest about the rotary, and nary a year and a half ago, the my only automotive intrest was F1, but has blossomed of late...

anyhoo, to answer your q's RX-pecting:
the 13B everyone talks about was the last design of Mazda's Wankels; the "13" was for the 1.3L displacement, and the "B" denotes it was the second major design concept, which leads me into your second question...
i don't know (anything) about the A series motors, but in the B series, the inpiration ports are through the side rotor housings, and the expiration port is through the peripheral rotor housing (where the apex travels around...). Also, in the later model (but mayeb the S4's as well?? not sure...) 13B NA's (where the technology REALLY was, not the turbos) there is also a 6-port inpiration system, which has two extra (but smaller) secondary ports above the "main" secondary ports in the intermediate rotor housing. These extra ports would open and close (so the inspiration cycle timing was different: the port would be open for longer -> same as increasing valve lift and duration in a piston engine) with a cylindrical "rotating" valve, which was actuated using exhaust pressure (which could be screwed up with an aftermarket, low back-pressure exhaust, but that's another story) to open at a certain range of RPM.
SO, after all that, the thing that the RENESIS has over the 13B is that it has true "zero overlap" which the guys mean to say "zero timing overlap" between the inspiration and expiration cycles. The RENESIS has side expiration ports, rather than a peripheral one, so they may be located closer together (just better timing all together), larger in area (means better breathing, like a well-ported 13B out-of-the-box), and there is zero overlap between the cycles, cutting on emissions.

the 50:50 front/back weight ratio is "important" because it will mean the car has close to equal normal force on all four tyres (assuming that side to side is balanced as well), which means that there shouldn't be an uneven distribution of grip about the car; this makes the car easier to control and predict, giving the driver greater confidence and leeway when driving spiritedly. It doesn't manufacture grip, or magically cause the car to go quicker through a corner: it's just easier to drive, and because of that balance will corner straight and easily.

oops!! was gonna link this, forgot...

http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com

it's taught me much of what i know, and all that i've forgotten...;)

Speaking of insurance, back in May my wife called our insurance company, and they actually had a quote for the RX-8. We are married, over 25, no accidents or tickets, in FL, and they quoted us about $450/6 mos. Not too bad all. Our '98 Wrangler 4-banger had been running us about $350/6 mos. The CSR went on to say that it was a good thing we weren't getting the new Z, because the insurance for that is going to be astronomical. I have no problem trading 30 hp or so for the difference in insurance premiums.

hey that's pretty cool!! i wonder what the insurance'd be for me (but i'm in Canada) for a 19 year old kid... not like i can afford it!! ;) (i'm just a rotor head...)

Have a bit more respect for yourself...

You shouldn't be describing yourself as a "kid"... (at least in the UK that term would be reserved for the younger child... say under 15/16)

I can't tell people how to live their life, god knows mine isn't perfect.... but take charge, if you REALLY want somthing... go get it. Sure you can't get an RX-8 tomorrow... but in a few years who knows, you might have been able to save some.

I sure can't afford one now, but I'm sure as hell gonna have one.. (assuming everything is as it seems)..... I might not get one for the first 6 months or a year, but that might be good, let them work out the bugs!

BlueAdept is right, Wakeech

Don't put yourself down like that! I myself am 21, and there's no way I could ever buy the car by myself. But, saving up, you could make a substantial down payment on it (mayB w/ help from family) that'd make the payments more friendly. Plus, don't forget, my Canuk collaborate, us folks up here's gonna get lower range prices, ay!

Chin up Wakeech :D your car is in sight!

huh?? putting myself down?? it's just who i am!! i just don't take stuff seriously, and i just wanna have a good time...
it's not that i mind not being able to buy the car!! whoa whoa whoa!! i'm saving for a second gen (post '88) 7, but that's still a ways off...
and btw, i am just a kid!!:D i couldn't live any other way!!

thnx anyways though, guys...

To make the story brief, Mazda's original production engines were the 10A and 12A. The 10A died after 1973 in all markets, but the 12A remained available until the mid-1980s in RX-7s. I believe that the engine may still be available for industrial use, as versions powered by natural gas were being used for refrigeration applications some years ago. The 10A and 12A used the same basic rotor geometry, roughly speaking, with the main difference being the rotor width.

There was a 13A. It had totally different geometry and was offered only in one car, the extremely rare R130/Luce of the early 1970s. Fewer than 1,000 were built. The car was primarily sold in Japan, but a very few made it to locations such as Australia (not officially). This was Mazda's only front-drive rotary car, and the engine was optimized for this application.

The 13B, based on the 10A/12A geometry, followed right after the 13A, but Mazda had to use the "B" suffix since there already was a 13A. Hope this clears things up. I can't really add much else to the excellent discussion of "zero overlap" and 50/50 weight distribution above.

Did I understand it correctly that the Renesis is a developed 13B (13B-XXXX) where XXXX is a revision I can't remember?

I'm sure I saw that somwhere... RENESIS is just a marketing name.

So far I'm really impressed with the Renesis. The side exhaust ports should have been done years ago.
Renesis is to Mazda what Northstar is to Caddy.

This site keeps getting better and better. There are many very interesting posts. i too am new to rotary engines, but thanks to a lot of you, am learning quicky.:p

I'm learning quickly... the problem is that I'm learning that I want one of these cars... and I can't have one...

i know! all this talk about the rx-8 makes me want it even more..

i know what you mean.
my kingdom for an ounce of new info on the rx-8!
an ounce doesn't sound like much but its a very little kingdom.:D

hey blue adept, that evolution you were thinking of was the side expiration ports, which allow the intake and exhaust cycles to be much closer together without any overlap, improving nearly every characteristic of the engine...

also, i think the whole thing is some kind of aluminum alloy, rather than the aluminum alloy / iron alloy (some kind of steel), multi-layerd sandwich... that's where i think all the weight savings has come from (just speculation, but it was a huge percentage over the 13B-REW, which couldn't just be from elimination fo the turbo system...)

Originally posted by red_base 95
You know asbestos causes chafing:D

For those that want a high performance sportscar with a lot of power, the RX-8 is not the car for you. I think most of those really interested in this car (including myself) are willing to compromise some performance for utility and affordability. The 8 I'm sure can be driven hard, and be a delight to drive everyday.

250 hp in a car that weighs less than 3000lbs (2970 I think) is more than adequate to provide the thrills most of us want.

I agree totally, but I was just wondering if anyone had heard of a more powerful RX-8 coming out, maybe for racing? or is the 184kw (246hp) the only version coming out at this stage?

um, not sure... someone mentioned something about a detuned version which'd be cheaper... but no, there won't be a more powerful model, 'cause then there'd be no place to push the RENESIS (whilst keeping it NA... which i think Mazda wants to do to keep the engine affordable) for the RX-7, something around 280 HP...

I got a quote from my State Farm Agent here in Dallas. Based on a cost of $30K, my premium would go up by $78.00 per sisx months over my '99 Miata. The toal would be $516.00 per six months. That's clean record, drive to work, major liability coverage, etc. Not bad!!!

If the final cost is $35K (estimate loaded to the gills) my premium would go up by $114.52 every six months over the Miata. Still, quite acceptable :)

Sad to say but it looks like I've answered my own question.

There's a bit of info about a future 250kw (335hp) Turbo RX-8 that could come out around 2004. http://auto.ascii24.com/auto24/e/2001/1018/e21nsh_kt9999_21.html?sm

aging?? AGING?? he called the 3rd gen RX-7 aging?? gimme a break...
and on top of it, this goof ball is (as far too many do) lines up the 8 against the new Z... jeez... (in reference to Christopher's linked article...)

nice find, but i really doubt the turbo would make its way into production 8s... the reason is it'd just be way too expensive to sell... okay, maybe they'd get MAZDASPEED to contract a kit, make 1500 or something for 2004, but there's no way that they'd make it an option... it'd be suicide (thinking that would be a $5-$6K option)
for the 7?? sure, i could see that easily... it's almost obvious... but this article states a new 7 for 2004, which is a year earlier than someone else sourced it from "an insider"... hope that this guy is right!! ;)

hey, the guy who wrote this article is a goof!! the 3rd gen RX-7 aging??? NO WAY!! well... maybe a bit... but no one would say that about the NSX (before the new one came out this year...)

also, i really don't think the turbo 8 would be a production car, or have the engine as a factory option... suicide, it'd never sell to offset the cost (considering it'd be at least a $5K or $6K option... and FOR SURE $4K if that's the only one they produced...)
now, i could see MAZDASPEED making a limited edition, contracting out whomever to design the kit, and build 1000-2000 (obviously depending on how sales go next spring) for 2004...
oh, another neat thing about that article... the RX-7 for production in 2004?? i hope he's right!! it could use that turbo RENESIS... ;)

don't believe most of that article. it's @ a year old. he smostly speculating. what was that comment about the "barn-like" doors not being definened enough? i thought that was the point. looks like a coupe but is actually a four door.

i don't know anything more than what's in discussion here,but the few articles i read from a year back [mags/net] mention a 335hp version to appear later,but no real info besides that.So did they about an 180-200hp version,for EU at least,due to appear appear in '04.
Japs aren't like the Germans for sure.If they where,we would have known Everything 2 yrs prior to the presentation for sure...

if they want to make a higher power version why not just make a bigger engine? this one is 1.3l and makes 250bhp. why not just make a 1.8l or 2.0l? i know the one argument i'm going to hear is "more weight" but turbos add weight and heat too. what are the other reasons. everybody knows the old saying " there is no replacement for displacement" or " the only thing better than cubic inches is more cubic inches". :D

One advantage of the turbo approach is that I'd imagine a turbo/super add-one would also be smaller and less expensive than another rotor assembly, in addition to the weight issues you've already mentioned.

Yeah I would love to see a larger displacment or another rotor (I would like another rotor added on more)

I know the 2.0L is possible the did do the R&D for a 20A in the 70's but they only made one and because of the fuel criss they stopped R&D on bigger engines altogather but as I can speculate this might have been the REPU's orignal powerplant but I have no proof they also had a 15A in development this was a widened 12A. they were 90mm wide while the 13B 80mm wide housings. The 20A was bigger in all dimensions. I would like to see a 15A renesis. The torqure was awesome from that thing.

hey rototlewski- how's the humidity in hell these days?;)

and patrick how much more expensive could it be than any other company offering 4,6 and 8 cylinder piston engines? mazda is already putting 4s, 6s and the renesis in there cars so instead of an 8cyl just supersize the rotary. :D

im thinking about fuel consumption....

if they put a 3rd rotor on the renesis it would use 50% more fuel than the renesis 13b will. if they put a turbo on the rx-8, then it will keep the standard fuel consumption when not under boost.... thats the way i see it.

also, if you guys keep wondering why they compare the car to the new z.... well, i think i have an answer...

back in the day before the days of ricing out civics and moronic teenagers street racers going head to head on some damn silverscreen, there were the original import supercars. these main cars are simply the rx-7, the supra, the 300Z (atleast for us americans. some people were lucky enough to have cosmos and skylines and a few other badass rides....). well all those cars are no longer being made here in the states, so thats why the narket is being flooded with crap for civics and accords. wooooooo..... (not).... anyway back to my point: the 350Z is the first of the new supercars, basically. soon you will see all kinds of aftermarket parts for it. the rx-8 is next... followed by? well, maybe we'll see toyota release a supra sometime. on top of that, they're being released at near the same time frames.now thats what you call competetion.

so thats why i think the rx-8 is being compared to the 350Z.

any further input?

and patrick how much more expensive could it be than any other company offering 4,6 and 8 cylinder piston engines? mazda is already putting 4s, 6s and the renesis in there cars so instead of an 8cyl just supersize the rotary

It would mean they'd have to tool up another production line, if I had to guess. You can't "just supersize" the engine and be done with it. The 6-cylinder they're using in the Mazda6 is a Ford engine, BTW, not a Mazda engine, so they avoid the R&D problems of a new engine. Bolting on a turbo may mean having to use higher-quality parts in the existing line at certain points, but that's very different from researching, developing, tuning,and building an entirely new engine. It's not simply a matter of bolting on another rotor and being done.

There's a reason that Nissan is so successful with their altima/maxima/G35/350Z/etc. engine - it saves them lots of money in development and production, money that they can turn around and plow into future developments. I'd be happy to see Mazda concentrate on doing the renesis right, and plowing the profits into new advancements in reliability and power for the rotary in general, as opposed to just spening a fortune making the same technology one step bigger.

As far as other companies having lots of different engines... Designing a new engine would be a large risk for Mazda, as the R&D costs would have to be made up for in increased sales. Do you really think in the current environemnt that a new 20A engine would sell enough to recoup the costs of developing it, without stealing sales from the 13A line (i.e., the RX-8, RX-8MPS, and RX-7)? Of course, this doesn't even mention the cost of researching the new car body, suspension, exhaust, etc. that would be required to hold this larger engine, and the certification costs. Of course, if a rotary revolution happened, things could be very different. :)

There may be no replacement for displacement in terms of pure performance, but from a financial perspective, it makes much more sense for Mazda to do the necessary things to boost the 250HP NA Renesis up to 300+BHP using turbochargers, improved parts, and better cooling. Developing a new engine is *expensive*. That's one of the things that's so amazing about Mazda investing the time in the Renesis.

If I had to guess, I'd bet we're more likely to see a hydrogen-powered Rotary out of Mazda before we see a 3-rotor. Now *that* would be cool.

Originally posted by PatrickB
One advantage of the turbo approach is that I'd imagine a turbo/super add-one would also be smaller and less expensive than another rotor assembly, in addition to the weight issues you've already mentioned.

Turbo BAD. All I've seen from turbos is an increase of problems.

Originally posted by Renesis Rex
there were the original import supercars. these main cars are simply the rx-7, the supra, the 300Z

The MR2 should be in this list...

IMHO the MR2 does not make it on that list.

Originally posted by applejax


Turbo BAD. All I've seen from turbos is an increase of problems.

Yeah, maybe so... Detonation and heat issues, right? I still doubt that 3-rotor is the way to go, though. Lots of other cars (WRX for example) have been very successful with turbos. Maybe Mazda can get the turbo right this time. A small turbo or super to boost low-end torque would probably be enough, and maybe not cause as many problems?

Good post everyone,
I just wanted to clarify a point, the 13B does not stand for 1.3L any more than the 12A stood for 1.2L (because it was 1.1L).

As far as the 20A, I've seen a street legal version of this vehicle in an RX7 while still maintaining the 50/50 weight balance. It requires movement of several components such as the radiator and battery. I would love to see a 20A RX-? but I agree Mazda (Ford) will not import one at the risk of canabilizing sales.

As to the heat issues with Turbo 13Bs, it's no different than any other rotary. The 3rd gen RX-7 was just so hastely lanched that Mazda did not do its homework. Remember the R1 option in '93 with the dual oil coolers. Not an option all RX-7s (although greatly needed). The issue with the 3rd Gen RX-7s was really more of an owner's issues. Most folks wanted this amazing supercar/daily driver yet really knew anything about a rotory engine (oil and heat issues).

Turbo charging the RX-8 would be the most cost effective option for both Mazda and the consumer. However expect to pay a premium when that option comes out.

Just my 2¢ worth....

-Mike

I DON'T WANNA GROW UP, CAUSE I'M A TOYS R US KID!!!!!

MORE GAMES MORE TOYS OH BOY!!!!!!!

:D :D :D :D :D :D

ya ya, i know the old saying "You can NEVER have enough HP", but c'mon guys, i mean 255 would be enough to satisfy my desires for speed... well, only for a little while, after i forget how sucky the Echo and Matrix i drive are... :D

but seriously, a 350 HP RX-8??? that's a little wild... i mean, 333 HP M3 is considered by many to be on of those rare beasts (because it's atmoshperically aspirated, i know...), but even MORE?? in a lighter, stiffer car, with cooler doors and blah blah blah (just too much to say... ;))??? i dunno, but i'm not sure that Mazda wants to get into that M3-type niche market, super fast sedan thing...

anyway, that would steal a great engine from the future 7!! :( no!! they can't!! the 7 has to be way faster, in every way!! it HAS to... now 350 HP in a 7, okay, ya, that's a little impressive, but if the 8 had it too... well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what would happen.
not only does the 7 need the greater amount of power, it ought to have performance head-and-shoulders above, so i'm not sure that i'd like the 8 to ever have more than 300 (but that number would be fine with me!! :D)

in response to the hydrogen idea. how aboutanother alternative. how about a gas(or hydrogen)/electric ala honda. gas engine powers the rear and electrics drive the front adding another 100bhp without reducing gas milage?!

The problem with hydrogen is that it burns VERY hot... I did hear a really cool idea where somone was suggesting using a rotary engine running on Hydrogen and water!... The fuel/air mixture was used in a lower quantity but mixed with water mist.

The result was that as the fuel burned, the water was turned into steam, which provided the force to push the rotor round! This method reduced the temperature of the engine dramatically while providing encouraging results in terms of power etc...

Effectively an internal combustion steam engine! Should have lots of torque eh?

Originally posted by zoom44
in response to the hydrogen idea. how aboutanother alternative. how about a gas(or hydrogen)/electric ala honda. gas engine powers the rear and electrics drive the front adding another 100bhp without reducing gas milage?!

And this electric engine with batteries would weigh nothing, and not take up any space, I imagine? Where can I get one of those? :)

yes their would be an increase in weight but as far as space honda has managed to fit their system into a crx and a civic without losing useable space. the civic has about the same handling and acceleration and the insight has pretty could pickup as well. just a thought with the renesis being so small and light weight to begin with.

250 HP is more than enough for me. When can you really tap all of your car's potential in daily driving without endangering others (or your license)?

Originally posted by zoom44
yes their would be an increase in weight but as far as space honda has managed to fit their system into a crx and a civic without losing useable space. the civic has about the same handling and acceleration...

Yes, but you were talking about it *adding* 100bhp. Honda cut down on the size of the gas engine dramatically to get it all into that space, and acceleration in that car *is* significantly worse. Numbers I've seen show it losing at least 1 second in the 0-60 versus the original gas-powered civic, with other sources saying almost 2 seconds slower.

This is perfectly acceptable for a Civic or Corolla or Sentra. It's *not* acceptable for a sportscar like the RX-8

ya Blue, i hear ya man!! that IS a really cool idea... and i suppose it would have lots of torque, 'cause that's what the steam engines had, right?? but, i wonder how much... does anyone on the forum know how big the pressure changes in an air/hydrogen/water mist engine VS. air/gasoline engine?? that'd be cool to know...

also, i heard that because the different "stages" of a combustion cycle happen in physically different areas of the engine, overheating problems can easily be dealt with (with the proper coolant flow in the hot areas... and huge oil coolers... :D)

patrick i was thinking of this concept when i said adding about 100bhp. note the four door sports car trend.



http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2001/auto/DUALNOTE/index.html