You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access
to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to start new topics, reply to conversations, privately message other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join RX8Club.com today!
Daimler-Benz made several Rotary Combustion Engine (RCE) prototypes from 1962 into the early 70s. Some were developed for small sedans, but the one of most spectacular vehicles ever to flaunt a rotary was the two-seat C111, complete with gull-wing doors. The engine was placed mid-ship. Sixteen prototypes were built.
The MB C111 had three- and four-rotor engines, first shown in 1969 and 1970, respectively. The three-rotor could generate 280 bhp and move the car 0 to 60 in 4.9 seconds.
The four-rotor developed as much as 400 horsepower, though it was usually tuned for the street at 305 horsepower. The engine had a displacement of 2.4 litres. There were interesting innovations such as a variable length intake and an anti-lock braking system (ABS). The car weighed 2900 pounds, but was capable of 185 mph. When tuned for 350 hp it did 0 to 60 mph in under 4.8 seconds. The body was changed from the previous year by adding air scoops in the front and cut-aways in the rear roof.
If they could propel a 2,900 lb car to 60 Mph in 4.9 seconds with a NA 280HP Wankel then I wouldn't worry about the performance of a modern 250 HP Wankel. Granted the Merc engine was 3 rotor but I still think we can expect 6 seconds or less 0-60.
This ad is not displayed to registered and logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on RX8Club.com!
Originally posted by Phoenix-IT If they could propel a 2,900 lb car to 60 Mph in 4.9 seconds with a NA 280HP Wankel then I wouldn't worry about the performance of a modern 250 HP Wankel. Granted the Merc engine was 3 rotor but I still think we can expect 6 seconds or less 0-60.
I hope so, but the 3 rotor up's the horsepower AND the torque. The Renesis is a great engine, but unless it has more than 162 lbs/ft torque, it's not going to be tremendously quick. That doesn't bother me, I still like the car a lot, and am considering buying one.
well, the S2000 has been clocked stock running low 5s (I believe I've seen 5.2) and it has even less torque. We'll just have to wait and see about the RX-8.. these niggling details are the difference between a superstar and a dud.
QUOTE]Originally posted by velociti
The Renesis is a great engine, but unless it has more than 162 lbs/ft torque, it's not going to be tremendously quick. That doesn't bother me, I still like the car a lot, and am considering buying one. [/QUOTE]
velociti, I’m quoting wakeech who I believe said it best, watch what you say about the t-word in here.
Originally posted by wakeech …you don't want to mention the "lack" of the t-word... Rich probably doesn't want to post another 3500 word essay to convince you it's not as bad as you think... (basically, the WORK (force times distance) is what makes the big difference, and power is how fast it can do that)
if you're not convinced, there are many MANY threads in which Rich has argued down, backed up by numerous references, the preceived "lack" of torque in the RENESIS.
Save a tree, eat a beaver... :p
Really? I don't know that I agree. Surely a lot of people will be cross shopping the two. They're both affordable nicely performing 4-seat sedans from non-prestigous marques. What the WRX gives up in fit & finish and aesthetics it takes in utility and price. They're both on my short list.
Originally posted by Macabre Really? I don't know that I agree. Surely a lot of people will be cross shopping the two. They're both affordable nicely performing 4-seat sedans from non-prestigous marques. What the WRX gives up in fit & finish and aesthetics it takes in utility and price. They're both on my short list.
Yes but in driving dynamics, AWD and RWD are two different beasts.
Not to say people will be cross shopping, as they are both fun cars in their own right, but you give up a little on the WRX and the RX-8 both, in different areas, and gain some in different areas as well.
It's like comparing an M3 and an S4. You can do it, but the dynamics of the car are very different and thus, make them two different beasts. Both have good points and bad, but if I am shopping around, it's between the G35 Coupe and the RX-8, more than likely. Right now the RX-8 is ahead by a longshot.
Originally posted by Quick_lude The interior of the Mazda looks so much nicer though.. Quiet Hercules.. :p
What??? I didnt' say I liked the G35 Coupe, just that in this price range and class, it's the only other car I *can* consider. I don't think I'd buy it even if the RX-8 wound up sucking (which won't happen hehe).
I'd probably buy a 98 M3 or something, 240 horses, good balance, great handling, and the interior I so desire
Originally posted by Macabre Different indeed but both have a lot to offer in their own way. There's a lot to be said about a torquey turbocharged AWD compact, but a RWD NA is classic.
Oddly I wouldn't consider the G35 at all. That's a little too far towards the luxury end for me. I'm hoping the RX-8 feels much more visceral than the G35 or 330i.
Ditto that. 330 is a great car but for the money... nahhh. The RX-8 should be faster than that (though I really don't care much for that), and the handling should hopefully be even better.
G35 is the other car in my price range which is why I said it, though I'm not really considering it. The two cars I was comparing was the RX-8 and 330 for the most part, and since the RX-8 allows me to go faster, handle better, look cooler, and save money... it's a no brainer!