Looks like the 8 isn't going anywhere as many has thought.

Check this out.......

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060815/FREE/60814014/1041/CARNEWS


Sad to see the Supra will not be in the picture, but we will have the Lexus LF-A(500HP).Sure tuner companies will still be pleased with this beast ,as well as the GT-R. I am shock Nissan is milking the rededign for the 350Z, this is the longest any Z has gone without a redesign!

so is the kabura type car a go or no go :P? just within the month i read it was a no go, now i see it is a go? lol any how good find daily :ylsuper:

2010? Sweet, that is when my car payments are done.

well the chart is askew. the cx-7 already is at the dealers. the cx-9 that it says will debut in 2008 will be at the dealers in 4-5 months- a year before they say. and my current understanding of the RX-8 redesign is it will be in 2008- real year 2008 for the 2009 model year. of course that could have changed and i not heard about it. 2008(for US 2009 MY) would be 5 years- right in line with the gameplan for the car. 2010 would be way too long in a car's lifecycle to even bother.

alfy dont believe any "no go" on the kabura type car until you hear it from a Mazda executive.

Do I even believe this? Evo X doesn't come out until 2009 after all that hype? RX-8 goes 6 years before being redesigned?

well the chart is askew. the cx-7 already is at the dealers. the cx-9 that it says will debut in 2008 will be at the dealers in 4-5 months- a year before they say. and my current understanding of the RX-8 redesign is it will be in 2008- real year 2008 for the 2009 model year. of course that could have changed and i not heard about it. 2008(for US 2009 MY) would be 5 years- right in line with the gameplan for the car. 2010 would be way too long in a car's lifecycle to even bother.

That makes sense if the chart is askew. That would make the Evo X be 2008 (as expected).

Hmm.... there's a listing for a Mazda CX-5? Wha? Never heard of that before... anyone know anything?

alfy dont believe any "no go" on the kabura type car until you hear it from a Mazda executive.

true, i just seen the possiablity :P

well the chart is askew. the cx-7 already is at the dealers. the cx-9 that it says will debut in 2008 will be at the dealers in 4-5 months- a year before they say.
The chart says "Model Years", and that may explain the discrepancy. For instance, I believe all CX-7's are considered to be 2007 models, even though they were in dealers in the middle of 2006.

I'm happy to see the M6 redesign for MY2008, which means it'll be in dealers in a little over a year. Hope to see a continuation of the manual-equipped sedan with, hopefully, a 3.5L engine that'll now more easily keep up with the competition.

Hmm.... there's a listing for a Mazda CX-5? Wha? Never heard of that before... anyone know anything?
I think its the new Tribute.

well it didnt earlier :) if the CX-9 is to be a 2008 they cant sell any before the new year- which would be weird them sitting on the lots in december and not be allowed to sell them. maybe they will hold them until jan 1?!?

that M6 would have been here earlier if not for some engien issues- my understanding of the delay(besides the platform stretch making it slightly bigger inside than the fusion sized version of the platform is that instead of using the ford version of the 3.5 they are "Mazda-izing" it like they did with the 4cylinder. maybe even DI.

that M6 would have been here earlier if not for some engien issues- my understanding of the delay(besides the platform stretch making it slightly bigger inside than the fusion sized version of the platform is that instead of using the ford version of the 3.5 they are "Mazda-izing" it like they did with the 4cylinder. maybe even DI.
My gf has decided to put off her vehicle purchase for a while, and this may play into her (our) hands. She really likes the 6 and the CX-7, and I suggested to her that she wait until the new 6 hits the lot before she makes a purchase. She really prefers cars to trucks (she's a good egg) and wants a manual (an even better egg), which still leaves a very short list of cars to choose from if you want something mid-sized with a big-engine option, and is an even SHORTER list if you don't have an unlimited budget (a 545i would be great, but....).

I just hope the new 6 is worth the wait.

If not force her to get a MS6 :D

well the chart is askew. the cx-7 already is at the dealers. the cx-9 that it says will debut in 2008 will be at the dealers in 4-5 months- a year before they say. and my current understanding of the RX-8 redesign is it will be in 2008- real year 2008 for the 2009 model year. of course that could have changed and i not heard about it. 2008(for US 2009 MY) would be 5 years- right in line with the gameplan for the car. 2010 would be way too long in a car's lifecycle to even bother.

I heard they where going to speed things up for the rx-8, not sure what it means but i am under the impresion that it was move fowerd a year

Mazda sunk some money into the RX8/Miata/Kabura platform, so I expect as they said, it to be around a while before a full redesign takes place. Hell, the FD was in existance from 1993 to 2002, thats a run if there ever was one. The miata was basically unchanged for almost as long (not counting the facelifts).

Lower volume cars don't get the makeover as fast for obvious reasons, they need time to recoup the costs. Besides, short of making it lighter weight (which could be done will more aluminum such as doors, subframe, and braces) I'm not sure how much stiffer or better handling you can get a car.

I expect some derivative of the RX8 platform to be in production for 10 years

Mazda sunk some money into the RX8/Miata/Kabura platform, so I expect as they said, it to be around a while before a full redesign takes place. Hell, the FD was in existance from 1993 to 2002, thats a run if there ever was one. The miata was basically unchanged for almost as long (not counting the facelifts).

Lower volume cars don't get the makeover as fast for obvious reasons, they need time to recoup the costs. Besides, short of making it lighter weight (which could be done will more aluminum such as doors, subframe, and braces) I'm not sure how much stiffer or better handling you can get a car.

I expect some derivative of the RX8 platform to be in production for 10 years

the change will not be 100%, only looks and power the platform its going to stay the same, the kabura type car will use the same platform and you can expect a 5 year production run for that car, so the chassis is going to be in use from 2003 to at least 2014 ( if the kabura goes into production in 2009).

Most research costs are usually recouped by using a platform in multiple applications. A 2 or 2+2 lightweight RWD coupe based of the RX8 would sell well and shouldn't compete two much with existing products. I'd bet a turbo for in a Kabura instead of a Rotary unles they can eek out some more power and better MPG. I'd love to see a 2500lb coupe with similar or better power than an 8.

they wouldnt need to eek out more power for the rotary in a kabura if the car is light. and the mpg would be pretty good also, at least that is what i think.

Because Mazda isn't bringing out a new RX-8 till the '09/10 MY. IMO i think this is good for current 8 owners. No refresh,no updates except in color changes, and optional equipment meens our cars will still look the same as day one when they were introduced in the 04, meening that our cars will always reamain fresh and up to date. Not like Mazda did a bad job anyway with the styling, its rather timeless than timely like everything else on the road today.

If Mazda would just bump up the Hp in the 8, that would be the only thing i would like to see for this life span of the 8, but keep the design as is.

Because Mazda isn't bringing out a new RX-8 till the '09/10 MY. IMO i think this is good for current 8 owners. No refresh,no updates except in color changes, and optional equipment meens our cars will still look the same as day one when they were introduced in the 04, meening that our cars will always reamain fresh and up to date. Not like Mazda did a bad job anyway with the styling, its rather timeless than timely like everything else on the road today.

If Mazda would just bump up the Hp in the 8, that would be the only thing i would like to see for this life span of the 8, but keep the design as is.

agree 100% they just need to add more power for 8 rotary. as for the kabura with the current ren engine. i wuldnt think they need to put a turbo or what not in it, since i think it would be a lght car. (this is for the person talking about eek power )

Because Mazda isn't bringing out a new RX-8 till the '09/10 MY. IMO i think this is good for current 8 owners. No refresh,no updates except in color changes, and optional equipment meens our cars will still look the same as day one when they were introduced in the 04, meening that our cars will always reamain fresh and up to date. Not like Mazda did a bad job anyway with the styling, its rather timeless than timely like everything else on the road today.

If Mazda would just bump up the Hp in the 8, that would be the only thing i would like to see for this life span of the 8, but keep the design as is.

for us enthusiast a bump in hp is enought, but to the general public buyng and old desing is not going to work.

for sales to pick up theres got to be a refresh exterior

now i understand, yah the 2010 8 should look different from the current. i miss read . i thougth he meant like from now til 2010 :P god im such a newb lol.

I don't see why everyone is complaining about the power in the 8. She makes 230 hp. Now if they lightened up the car itself by getting rid of the suicide doors that would atleast free up 100-200 lbs. making for some extra pull. Plus the vehicle does have 18 in. heavy rims which add to drivetrain power loss. Complaining about 230 hp out of a 1.3 L is just plain wrong

I don't see why everyone is complaining about the power in the 8. She makes 230 hp...Complaining about 230 hp out of a 1.3 L is just plain wrong
I lol'd.

This has been debated on her a bahzillion times. If the Kabura or whatever Mazda wants to call it if and when it comes out is a 2 or 2+2 and is able to drop 500 or so pounds it should be pretty fast with the existing Renesis. The RX8 is no slouch IMO but HP and torque sells sports cars. If you could drop the weight and boost performance even by 40-50hp you would have on bad ass sports car.



The RX8 is a great car but if you could get another 75-100 hp out of it, another 75 lbs of torque, up the mileage by 5 MPG and eliminate the possibility of flooding it would be the perfect sports car IMO.


I don't see why everyone is complaining about the power in the 8. She makes 230 hp. Now if they lightened up the car (#) itself by getting rid of the suicide doors that would atleast free up 100-200 lbs. making for some extra pull. Plus the vehicle (#) does have 18 in. heavy rims (#) which add to drivetrain (#) power loss. Complaining about 230 hp out of a 1.3 L is just plain wrong

Now if they lightened up the car itself by getting rid of the suicide doors that would at least free up 100-200 lbs. making for some extra pull.Well let's be honest—if the typical American buyer + spouse would each drop 50-75 lbs (looking at news footage from The Mall of America, that sounds about right), they could have their faster, lighter RX-8 right now. ;)

The RX8 is a great car but if you could get another 75-100 hp out of it, another 75 lbs of torque, up the mileage by 5 MPG and eliminate the possibility of flooding it would be the perfect sports car
Technically, it's not really a sports car to begin with, it's a sport coupe. "Real" sports cars don't have four doors and don't have rear seats that you can actually USE... And yes, I consider the rear seats of this car usable, unlike the rear seats in "real" sports cars that have vestigal rear seats like the 911.

Getting away from semantics, don't you think the Renesis has been developed about as far as it could be without FI? Don't you think that Mazda has pretty much given us the best they can give us without breaking the bank? Throw in the FI hardware and there goes the affordability aspect, down goes the reliability, and up goes the insurance. The only other option is a third rotor, which would do nothing for affordability either.

If you want a rotary-powered car, you can ask for more HP or torque but you won't get an additional 5mpg (another of your requirements) at the same time.

Sounds like what you want is an RX-8 with a piston engine.

well guys, my 20b cosmo is getting constang 16 to 18 mpg thats a 20b twin turbo engine with 80's technology and the car weight 3200 lbs

now you are telling me mazda cant make a more economical engine today?
has anyone thoug that the renesis is just too small to move a 3000lbs car?
what happens if you put a small engine in a large car? it ends up consuming more fuel than a well mach engine to chasis.
a larger more torqui engine can use a taller final gear a 3.90 or something giving better hiway mpg.

aren't these great news, I will be done paying for mine by beginning 2009, which means I will most likely get into the new design 8... unless they make a turbo mazdaspeed 8... then all bets are off...

now you are telling me mazda cant make a more economical engine today?
I'm telling you that I think that Mazda has given us the most economical rotary that they could. In the current climate, or even the climate of the last few years, being able to advertise better fuel economy would be a boon. Can you think of a single reason why they WOULDN'T give us better fuel economy if they COULD?

And no, I don't think that the RX-8 is too heavy for the Renesis.

The rx-8 already has too many concessions due to mileage and emissions requirements.

Just wait for your warranty to expire then get a turbo for your 100+ hp boost.

I'm telling you that I think that Mazda has given us the most economical rotary that they could. In the current climate, or even the climate of the last few years, being able to advertise better fuel economy would be a boon. Can you think of a single reason why they WOULDN'T give us better fuel economy if they COULD?

And no, I don't think that the RX-8 is too heavy for the Renesis.

Waho! where to star

firts the renesis was develop with limited funds and time as the rx-8 development was not oficial and most engineniers work on the car on there free time as voluntiers, second the rx-8 weight's 300 pounds more than an rx-7 and has a NA engine, my fc gives better fuel milage, mazda should have gone with a larger engine or force induction. there's no way a 4.44 rear diff its going to give you good gas milage.

The rx-8 its a great car but there are a lot of things mazda could have made better just based on there own expirience, every problem that the rx-8 has have where fix on other rotary models.

Im sure the next rx-8 its going to be almost perfect since theres a lot more R&D going into this car

aha thats a miconception i have been wanting to address. this falacy of better fuel efficiency in the FC etc. its simply untrue. an FC has what hp at the crank? 160 NA? and was rated 17 city 25 highway for mpg. it also weighed in at @ 2600 or less ilbs.

the rx-8 weighs at least 300(if not 400) ilbs more has at least 50 more horsepower and is rated 18/24 . 25 highway with the new 6speed auto. that is a substantial increase in fuel efficiency for the engine. to get rated slightly better city and the same highway with more weight and more horsepower shows the Renesis is the more fuel efficient power plant. put this power plant in an FC and the FC would get BETTER mileage while enjoying more power. put the FC engine in the RX-8 and we would be paying a gas guzzler tax

they will gain more efficiency by going to DI. it may not get rated higher , because they will up the power. but more power with the same mpg rating IS an increase in fuel efficiency.

hope the redesign in 2010 includes a roadster model. would love to see the renesis in roadster flavor.

well I get 20 to 26 mpg on my fc and it is a turbo, not a lot of rx-8 owners are getting that

im not discussing that the fc engine is more eficient, you just help me make my point the renesis in a 2700lbs car would be just right.

the renesis is a completly superior desing to any rotary engine before it the problem is packaging and setup, this engine would be at home in an rx-7 but for the rx-8 I think it would have beeng better to use a larger engine.

how bout we don't turn this into another MPG thread

^^Ditto

Renesis in a two seater, i.e rx-7 car, or Kabura = good power/weight ratio, perhaps better mileage will result. DI would be nice. Problem solved. A three rotor from Mazda would be unlikely.

For those who say horsepower ratings sell, just always try to give in 0-60 times in advertising whenever possible. Assuming it's good, and assuming Mazda actually decides to advertise whatever future rotary sports car.

well I get 20 to 26 mpg on my fc and it is a turbo, not a lot of rx-8 owners are getting that

im not discussing that the fc engine is more eficient, you just help me make my point the renesis in a 2700lbs car would be just right.

the renesis is a completly superior desing to any rotary engine before it the problem is packaging and setup, this engine would be at home in an rx-7 but for the rx-8 I think it would have beeng better to use a larger engine.

I completly agree with this. Maybe what Mazda should do is have 3 generations of the rx8, the four seater sports car, then maybe even go back to the rx7 with 2 seats. Still, I think more options should have been made availabe for this car. i.e. factory turbo, higher hp n/a model... Which I thought they have done in Japan... and a few other places..

hmmm somebody do an experiment!!! drop the renesis in a 1st or 2nd gen, use manual tranny with 4.10 or 3.90 gears, 7500 rpm redline with 8000 rpm fuel cut and test the mileage!!

you just help me make my point the renesis in a 2700lbs car would be just right.
He didn't make that point, not at all... And neither have YOU.

While you are correct that a 2700lb car with this engine would be a hoot, you have not shown us how this car is too heavy for a 230+hp engine. It seems your only "evidence" is that the RX-8 gets no better mileage than the turbo model of 15+ years ago, which doesn't have any relation to the subject. :dunno: I will agree with you that 6th gear could be, and should be, taller... Like the OD gear in a Corvette box. Just 3000rpm (instead of 3500-ish rpm) at 75mph would be a good start... The yawning gap between 5th and 6th gears be damned.

Please illuminate we uninformed folks as to how Mazda dropped the ball by giving us too little motor for the RX-8. Is your only argument that the mileage is essentially the same as the FC Turbo? The way I see it, the '8 weighs 20% more than that car yet makes 50% more hp, and it is the RX-8 that's underpowered??

Between my CX7 and RX8 the 7 motor would feel right at home in the 8. Gobs of bottom end torque.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the 2.3T offered in an 8 as a special Z killer in the next few years.

Between my CX7 and RX8 the 7 motor would feel right at home in the 8. Gobs of bottom end torque.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the 2.3T offered in an 8 as a special Z killer in the next few years.Will never happen.

a push back to 2010 would seem to indicate trying to get an extra few years of profit out of a model before dumping it -shrug-

I seriously doubt 2010 would be the time table. As Zoom pointed out, most models they have for 2007/2008 are hitting this year.

If they go DI in the next RX8, I think they should try developing a variable displacement system like the HEMI's. That way you can increase hwy mileage while increasing power. But if they can't do that in a 2 rotor maybe it can be done in a 3 rotor. That would make a 3 rotor more feasible. Also CVT's for the auto's would rule.

What i also find intresting....no RX-7 mentioned in any of those years as a new product that is being released. To be honest as much as we love the RX-7, i really don't think Mazda see's the same love for it.

Realistically, the RX-7 gave Mazda bad press in the 90's , with all its quirks, engine fires, bad fuel econemy, paint chipping,etc. As a business venture, resurecting the RX-7 name, may be bad business. Even though its one helluova performer in the Enthusiast eyes, its bad business in Mazdas eyes.

Yes the 8 gets slammed for its gas consumption for a small engine, seems like every mag i read , that is the main con for this vehicle. Other than that , the 8 gets praised for everything else, testers alike from every mag loves the car, it won best sports coupe every year since its introduction , and even though the 8 is nots Mazdas bread and butter vehicle , the car brings in positive feed back,(something the 7 didn't most of the time) which inturn brings in good business for Mazda, even if the 8 is Mazdas niche car.

Hopefully Mazda will bring us a high performance 2 door sports car again, or maybe further the 8 in the performance direction in the future, such as the UK performance version of the 8, Prodrive. No power adders added but tweaked suspension/lighter wheels is a step in the right direction.

If you think Mazda doesn't have love for the RX-7 you are crazy. Mazda has its finger on the trigger but the safety is on...Know your market, what battles to fight, and when the time is right...:angel:

What i also find intresting....no RX-7 mentioned in any of those years as a new product that is being released. To be honest as much as we love the RX-7, i really don't think Mazda see's the same love for it.

Realistically, the RX-7 gave Mazda bad press in the 90's , with all its quirks, engine fires, bad fuel econemy, paint chipping,etc. As a business venture, resurecting the RX-7 name, may be bad business. Even though its one helluova performer in the Enthusiast eyes, its bad business in Mazdas eyes.

Yes the 8 gets slammed for its gas consumption for a small engine, seems like every mag i read , that is the main con for this vehicle. Other than that , the 8 gets praised for everything else, testers alike from every mag loves the car, it won best sports coupe every year since its introduction , and even though the 8 is nots Mazdas bread and butter vehicle , the car brings in positive feed back,(something the 7 didn't most of the time) which inturn brings in good business for Mazda, even if the 8 is Mazdas niche car.

Hopefully Mazda will bring us a high performance 2 door sports car again, or maybe further the 8 in the performance direction in the future, such as the UK performance version of the 8, Prodrive. No power adders added but tweaked suspension/lighter wheels is a step in the right direction.

The RX7 is one of the most storied names in the sportscar business, and I don't think that the name carries any negative baggage, its simply a cost issue.

Mazda would love to have a RX7, but they need a business case for it. The Kabura would be close to the feel of the original RX7 if it had a rotary, light weight, cheap and fast.

there will not be any displacement on demand scheme used in a mazda rotary. they answered this in an interview several years ago.

Maybe we will all be suprised if Mazda just went ahead and released the 30th A.E. RX-7 right under our noses! Who really knows what goes behind the closed door sessions at Mazda? Hell, half the people at Mazda think they know what's going but in reality they are just as cluless as we are. Lets just pray the car gods will shine down on us and give us a redesigned 8 or an RX-7, besides I'm trading my 8 in at the end of next and will buy whatever rotary powered car they have out at the time!

just my .02!

There is always room for improvement. The RX8 is not an expensive car. If the HP could be tweaked and lighter materials used, aluminum, carbon fiber, light wheels etc. you could have a range topping Mazdaspeed RX-8. Or even better if Mazda could get some serious money for research into Rotary engines they might develop a break through technology or design just as they did when they developed the Renesis.

Just thik of how much money has been put into piston engines. Think of 1/20th of that into a Rotary research.

So with this news it seems less likely that one of the two new cars debuted at the LA auto show is going to be the Kabura. Maybe it's just going to be the CX-5 and the new 6?

i think the new 6 may make an appearance at LA- its the only thing being "accidentally" seen in spy photos. The CX-5(new tribute) might also. still hoping for a newer furthur along prototype of the Kabura based vehicle/....

There is always room for improvement. The RX8 is not an expensive car. If the HP could be tweaked and lighter materials used, aluminum, carbon fiber, light wheels etc. you could have a range topping Mazdaspeed RX-8. Or even better if Mazda could get some serious money for research into Rotary engines they might develop a break through technology or design just as they did when they developed the Renesis.

Just thik of how much money has been put into piston engines. Think of 1/20th of that into a Rotary research.


Yeah i was thinking that too....if only they put the time and resource into the rotary, it could be really special. The Renesis is a start in the right direction though...

Could this be the reason why Mazda hasn't released a MS version of the 8 yet? Maybe not enough hands on in the R&D departmant....just a thought IMO.

Yeah i was thinking that too....if only they put the time and resource into the rotary, it could be really special. The Renesis is a start in the right direction though...

Could this be the reason why Mazda hasn't released a MS version of the 8 yet? Maybe not enough hands on in the R&D departmant....just a thought IMO.


I'll tell you why......fuel cost. Gas is like 3 times the price it was when Mazda approved the R&D costs of the Renesis 6-8 years ago (remember cars take years of development before they hit production). It makes no sense for Mazda to do anything with the ineffecient rotary in today's market of high $$$ fuel.....which BTW is only getting worse. I think we can all see where Mazda is putting it's R&D $$$ and that is into DI Turbo piston engines. I am not saying Mazda won't continue to offer the rotary in low volume RX_ offerings.......but I don't see them pouring lots of $$$ into rotary R&D anytime soon.

Just my $.02

they already showed a DI rotary last year

they already showed a DI rotary last year


But I don't think that took much R&D $$$ to do. I am not saying the Renesis won't get some money for small enhancements......I just don't think it's economically feasible to spend millions on technology that will not be competitive in the next decade. The Renesis is the latest rotary in a long line of rotaries that lots of manufacturers have worked on over many decades. The constant with rotaries has always been 'fuel hungry' which is why the technology has been abandoned by just about every other manufacturer. Powerful......absolutely. But always at the expense of fuel efficiency.

I could be wrong......but the guys that write the checks are not rotorheads.....they are realists.

not according to the memo

not according to the memo


BTW, what were the specs of the DI Renesis? What was the power gain and was there a gain in fuel efficiency? I remember that the Hydrogen Renesis was substantially less powerful than it's gas gulping cousin.....don't remember what the fuel efficiency was though.

BTW, what were the specs of the DI Renesis? What was the power gain and was there a gain in fuel efficiency? I remember that the Hydrogen Renesis was substantially less powerful than it's gas gulping cousin.....don't remember what the fuel efficiency was though.

I think Zoom44 was talking about the Mazda Senku-
http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/tokyo/0511_mazda_senku/

Not only was the Rotary Direct Injected, but it had a hybrid system with a generator and battery. I think the biggest advancement (maybe not that big) was the idling-stop system, when at idle the generator and battery kicked in... and that saves a lot of gas right there.

I couldn't find anything on power /fuel efficiency. Theoretically, whatever the rotary engine is rated at would still be the peak power, however torque would probably increase... as from stops and low RPM's the electric engine would be producing immediate power, and then higher up in the revs the rotary kicks in.

[QUOTE=DrDiaboloco]

6th gear could be, and should be, taller... Like the OD gear in a Corvette box. Just 3000rpm (instead of 3500-ish rpm) at 75mph would be a good start... The yawning gap between 5th and 6th gears be damned.

My 2004 AT is under 3,200 at 75, and it cruises comfortably at 80 (and ...). The gap to 3d is big, of course, but 3d is good for 80 mph. With the new 6 sp AT, the gap must be less of a problem. I haven't checked whether the 06 model kept the 04 cruising ratio.

Mitch

But I don't think that took much R&D $$$ to do. I am not saying the Renesis won't get some money for small enhancements......I just don't think it's economically feasible to spend millions on technology that will not be competitive in the next decade. The Renesis is the latest rotary in a long line of rotaries that lots of manufacturers have worked on over many decades. The constant with rotaries has always been 'fuel hungry' which is why the technology has been abandoned by just about every other manufacturer. Powerful......absolutely. But always at the expense of fuel efficiency.

I could be wrong......but the guys that write the checks are not rotorheads.....they are realists.

I agree, as we all know Mazda have over the years invested squillions of dollars in on-going development of the rotary, I can not see where any fuel efficiency improvements can be made to the RENESIS without performance sacrifice.

IF fuel prices continue to rise, I believe we wont see the rotary continue past the 8's model life.....I live and worked through it before and its happening again..
I really hope I am wrong.

BTW, what were the specs of the DI Renesis? What was the power gain and was there a gain in fuel efficiency? I remember that the Hydrogen Renesis was substantially less powerful than it's gas gulping cousin.....don't remember what the fuel efficiency was though.

The hydro RX-8 has about half the HP as a standard 8...
The hydro fuel storage tank empties after about 100KM, or 60 miles for memory...
Still very early days...

direct injection

direct injectionagreed.
A new ignition system would help too, but the only promising one that i am aware of that would work for a rotary, laser ignition, is still a ways off.

all aluminum renesis with ultra lean stratified charge direct injection and electrically assisted turbo!!!!

the displacement on demand would be so easy as to shut off the injectors at predetermined cycles (to maintain torque fluctuation balanced) while cruising in ultra lean mode.

easy 30+ mpg

My 2004 AT is under 3,200 at 75, and it cruises comfortably at 80 (and ...). The gap to 3d is big, of course, but 3d is good for 80 mph. With the new 6 sp AT, the gap must be less of a problem. I haven't checked whether the 06 model kept the 04 cruising ratio.
Well, THAT is a pisser. If the AT can be geared for 3200 at 75, why do we MT drivers need to roll at another 500rpm??

Well, THAT is a pisser. If the AT can be geared for 3200 at 75, why do we MT drivers need to roll at another 500rpm?? Gear ratios:
4 AT 6 MT
1st 2.785 3.760
2nd 1.545 2.269
3rd 1.000 1.645
4th 0.694 1.187
5th None 1.000
6th None 0.843
Reverse 2.272 3.564
Final Drive 4.444 4.444

Note 4th gear and 6th gear and you have your answer as to why.
Either change 6th or change the final drive, but mazda's gearing is pretty standard for a close ratio 6 speed.

He didn't make that point, not at all... And neither have YOU.

While you are correct that a 2700lb car with this engine would be a hoot, you have not shown us how this car is too heavy for a 230+hp engine. It seems your only "evidence" is that the RX-8 gets no better mileage than the turbo model of 15+ years ago, which doesn't have any relation to the subject. :dunno: I will agree with you that 6th gear could be, and should be, taller... Like the OD gear in a Corvette box. Just 3000rpm (instead of 3500-ish rpm) at 75mph would be a good start... The yawning gap between 5th and 6th gears be damned.

Please illuminate we uninformed folks as to how Mazda dropped the ball by giving us too little motor for the RX-8. Is your only argument that the mileage is essentially the same as the FC Turbo? The way I see it, the '8 weighs 20% more than that car yet makes 50% more hp, and it is the RX-8 that's underpowered??

I can write a 3 page long comparisong and analissis as to why the engine its too small for the car but I dont have the will nor the time to try to change your mind and convinced you and I really dont want to star an argument about hp and torque and power to waight ratio.

after all it is only my opinion :rollingla

[QUOTE=Mitch Strickler]

My 2004 AT is under 3,200 at 75, and it cruises comfortably at 80 (and ...). The gap to 3d is big, of course, but 3d is good for 80 mph.

What was I thinking? 3d is good to 120. 2d, the gear you need for entering freeways and such, tops at 80.

Mitch

Note 4th gear and 6th gear and you have your answer as to why.
Either change 6th or change the final drive, but mazda's gearing is pretty standard for a close ratio 6 speed.
I wasn't wondering about the ACTUAL ratios, I was wondering why they didn't put a higher 6th gear in the box.

the displacement on demand would be so easy as to shut off the injectors at predetermined cycles (to maintain torque fluctuation balanced) while cruising in ultra lean mode.



what do you do about the air you are pumping through? how do you over come that pumping loss?

I agree, as we all know Mazda have over the years invested squillions of dollars in on-going development of the rotary, I can not see where any fuel efficiency improvements can be made to the RENESIS without performance sacrifice.

IF fuel prices continue to rise, I believe we wont see the rotary continue past the 8's model life.....I live and worked through it before and its happening again..
I really hope I am wrong.

I’d have to disagree. There are lots of technologies used in engines today that were never thought of 5-10 years ago or at least not widely used. Cylinder deactivation, Direct injection, combination of turbo and SC on the same engine. Just because it hasn’t been thought of yet doesn’t mean it won’t. What would a dual mode hybrid do for an RX8, or an ethanol? Just look what moving the ports or maybe it was the plugs to the side did for the Renesis? Perhaps even making slightly larger rotars would help or rotars made of different materials.

What would help is serious money and bright minds working on it. Maybe you would find nothing but them maybe there would be a major breakthrough. You don’t know until you try and if you never take risks how can you find rewards?

I for one appreciate Mazda not selling out to the bean counters and bringing the RX8 to the market. I just hope they can improve on what they have made, not everything needs to get 30+ MPG or have 400hp but I wouldn’t say no to it if they could make it.

alfy dont believe any "no go" on the kabura type car until you hear it from a Mazda executive.
Or see it on a dyno

Or see it on a dynoI could have done without your post.

I ordered a DVD about hydrogen supplementation for gas engines running alternative fuels--ethanol, turpines, CNG, even diesel. Forget about running a renesis on pure H2, I'd like to see what it could do with just 5%~7%. That's all it takes to get the main benefit of H2, which is dramatically higher flame speed. Adding a small bit of hydrogen is like adding lighter fluid to your charcoal to get it lit faster. Yes, the charcoal (gasoline) has more energy, but it lights up relatively slowly. In a best case scenario, a gasoline-air mixture's flame will travel around 5,000 ft. per second. For hydrogen, it's more like 40,000 ft/sec. The difference is dramatic enough that you really need to retard your timing to take full advantage. It has advantages for piston motors, but for rotaries with their elongated combustion chambers, the improvement would be even more dramatic, I'd bet.

BTW, be very sceptial of any device that claims to produce hydrogen on the fly by using the vehicle's 12V power supply. This is most of the H2 supplement kits available right now. They may produce a little H2 (some don't produce any apparently), but it won't be enough to make a difference in combustion--it needs to be at least 5%, thus you need to carry a small H2 tank in your trunk. Or at least that's what this guy (http://www.knowledgepublications.com/hydrogen_car_dvd/h2_car_dvd.htm) says. He goes through the calculations, and even using the most efficient electrolyzers and alternators available, you won't produce a net increase in HP or efficiency.

Technically, it's not really a sports car to begin with, it's a sport coupe. "Real" sports cars don't have four doors and don't have rear seats that you can actually USE... And yes, I consider the rear seats of this car usable, unlike the rear seats in "real" sports cars that have vestigal rear seats like the 911..

Give me a break. How is it not realy a sports car. You are putting your personal definition on it. How about ok, for a sports car: no rear seat at all, only converables, must have 18" wheels only,...get a life. Mazda added the extra doors to make the car more accessable and maintain the lines of a "sports car". In my book a car with the balance and agility of the RX8 is a true sports car. The 350Z fits your definition and it is not as good a sports car as the 8 (except for the extra hp). Just because the 8 has a useable back seat does not disqualify it from being a sports car. If it will make you happy, I will come weld your back doors shut and rip out your back seat. Poof!! A sports car.

^^
I personally would love to see that, please take his offer!