Rotary Engine Reliability
07-10-2015, 05:37 PM
#51
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had to bump up my for sale thread and thought I'd poke in one more time
I also thought it was funny how you'd post a video of the Rx8 getting last place. Assuming you missed the conclusion in part 3?. You can even watch EverydayDriver and see both drivers put the Rx8 in second and last place respectively. And what reviewer doesn't love something about the car they are reviewing? Every enthusiast forum or video reviewer will say favorable things from every make and model they review. That says nothing about the topic of the thread which is about reliability.
I also thought it was funny how you'd post a video of the Rx8 getting last place. Assuming you missed the conclusion in part 3?. You can even watch EverydayDriver and see both drivers put the Rx8 in second and last place respectively. And what reviewer doesn't love something about the car they are reviewing? Every enthusiast forum or video reviewer will say favorable things from every make and model they review. That says nothing about the topic of the thread which is about reliability.
Last edited by von; 07-10-2015 at 05:47 PM.
07-10-2015, 06:28 PM
#53
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had to bump up my for sale thread and thought I'd comment one more time in hopes that some readers will come to a consensus based on facts instead of bias. The thread topic is regarding Rotary reliability and the motion is that rotaries are unreliable.
No doubt, failed engine claims outnumber original engine claims on this forum. To further negate original engine claims, you'd have to prove secondary vehicle owners weren't lied to. At least one rotary mechanic on this forum has claimed that to be the case thus further negating original engine claims.
We have two forms of data to suggest rotaries are unreliable. First what is considered reliable? Statistical analysis shows that the average person keeps a car for 11 years at 15k miles per year or 165k miles with 200k end of life according to New York times research. So any engine that falls short of this could be considered unreliable because it falls below average.
I have empirical and anecdotal evidence that proves Rotaries fall below this average thus by definition are unreliable. First, empirical evidence. A Mazda dealership manager told me they have replaced almost every rotary they sold (Anyone can look up this data as I'm sure Mazda records it) minus the later models probably due to low sales numbers and low mileage on existing cars. Then you have forum data or anecdotal evidence showing many members on this very thread admitting their second or third engine replacement, and interestingly enough are the ones defending its reliability (proving bias). Finally, at least one mechanic on here can prove that the few anomalies out there with 100k miles have had an engine replacement from a previous owner unknowing to them. Regarding the pro rotary video in this thread claiming KABOOM at 80k, I'll grant you 100k with all the hassle of extra special care it needs to reach that figure and we are still at the average life of a typical engine from the 1960s according to research by the New York times.
So claiming the rotary is reliable using average figures from the 1960s is not a strong case for reliability. Anyone can see, the average miles for a Rotary falls way under average for vehicles built in the 21st century thus making my claim true that Rotaries are unreliable engines. What about Ferrari engines one asked? If you go to that forum, you will get the same exact responses I see here and pictures of 100k mile odometer readings etc. Even if your statement is true regarding Ferrari engines, at least you're getting *ussy and a smile on your face in return. The rotary is just outclassed these days. What would you call an engine that has Honda civic torque with F-150 gas mileage and 1960's reliability? Even 3-500 hp engines are achieving 30+ mpg and are expected to last longer than a Renesis. Furthermore, low sales figures leading to cancellation and bad resale value seem to strengthen my argument on just how bad the Renesis design was and what people believe its true value to be.
Fan boy ad hoc attacks, red herrings and other fallacies against this claim Is not proof against the motion, but rather a bitter admittance expected of one with no intelligent rebuttal
For the record, not knocking the driving experience. Despite the Honda civic torque, exotic fuel mileage and 1960s reliablity, I still find it fun to drive while it lasts. I simply don't make claims that aren't true regarding its reliability.
I'm busy and am rarely online so I won't be responding to comments. Good luck everyone
No doubt, failed engine claims outnumber original engine claims on this forum. To further negate original engine claims, you'd have to prove secondary vehicle owners weren't lied to. At least one rotary mechanic on this forum has claimed that to be the case thus further negating original engine claims.
We have two forms of data to suggest rotaries are unreliable. First what is considered reliable? Statistical analysis shows that the average person keeps a car for 11 years at 15k miles per year or 165k miles with 200k end of life according to New York times research. So any engine that falls short of this could be considered unreliable because it falls below average.
I have empirical and anecdotal evidence that proves Rotaries fall below this average thus by definition are unreliable. First, empirical evidence. A Mazda dealership manager told me they have replaced almost every rotary they sold (Anyone can look up this data as I'm sure Mazda records it) minus the later models probably due to low sales numbers and low mileage on existing cars. Then you have forum data or anecdotal evidence showing many members on this very thread admitting their second or third engine replacement, and interestingly enough are the ones defending its reliability (proving bias). Finally, at least one mechanic on here can prove that the few anomalies out there with 100k miles have had an engine replacement from a previous owner unknowing to them. Regarding the pro rotary video in this thread claiming KABOOM at 80k, I'll grant you 100k with all the hassle of extra special care it needs to reach that figure and we are still at the average life of a typical engine from the 1960s according to research by the New York times.
So claiming the rotary is reliable using average figures from the 1960s is not a strong case for reliability. Anyone can see, the average miles for a Rotary falls way under average for vehicles built in the 21st century thus making my claim true that Rotaries are unreliable engines. What about Ferrari engines one asked? If you go to that forum, you will get the same exact responses I see here and pictures of 100k mile odometer readings etc. Even if your statement is true regarding Ferrari engines, at least you're getting *ussy and a smile on your face in return. The rotary is just outclassed these days. What would you call an engine that has Honda civic torque with F-150 gas mileage and 1960's reliability? Even 3-500 hp engines are achieving 30+ mpg and are expected to last longer than a Renesis. Furthermore, low sales figures leading to cancellation and bad resale value seem to strengthen my argument on just how bad the Renesis design was and what people believe its true value to be.
Fan boy ad hoc attacks, red herrings and other fallacies against this claim Is not proof against the motion, but rather a bitter admittance expected of one with no intelligent rebuttal
For the record, not knocking the driving experience. Despite the Honda civic torque, exotic fuel mileage and 1960s reliablity, I still find it fun to drive while it lasts. I simply don't make claims that aren't true regarding its reliability.
I'm busy and am rarely online so I won't be responding to comments. Good luck everyone
Last edited by von; 07-10-2015 at 11:45 PM.
07-10-2015, 07:17 PM
#54
Most diesel engines I've seen/owned have lasted over 200k miles, hell I know of a diesel engine that my uncle had that still ran at 500k(not that well, but it ran). So by extension of the logic of the post above, all gasoline engines are unreliable.
07-10-2015, 07:26 PM
#55
I had to bump up my for sale thread and thought I'd comment one more time in hopes that some readers will come to a consensus based on facts instead of bias. The thread topic is regarding Rotary reliability and the motion is that rotaries are unreliable.
No doubt, failed engine claims outnumber original engine claims on this forum. To further negate original engine claims, you'd have to prove secondary vehicle owners weren't lied to. At least one rotary mechanic on this forum has claimed that to be the case thus further negating original engine claims.
We have two forms of data to suggest rotaries are unreliable. First what is considered reliable? Statistical analysis shows that the average person keeps a car for 11 years at 15k miles per year or 165k miles with 200k end of life according to New York times research. So any engine that falls short of this could be considered a lemon because it falls below average.
I have empirical and anecdotal evidence that proves Rotaries fall below this average thus by definition are unreliable. First, empirical evidence. A Mazda dealership manager told me they have replaced almost every rotary they sold minus the later models probably due to low sales numbers and low mileage on existing cars. Then you have forum data or anecdotal evidence showing many members on this very thread admitting their second or third engine replacement, and interestingly enough are the ones defending it's reliability (proving bias). Finally, at least one mechanic on here can prove that the few anomalies out there with 100k miles have had an engine replacement from a previous owner unknowing to them. Regarding the pro rotary video in this thread claiming KABOOM at 80k, I'll grant you 100k with all the hassle of extra special care it needs to reach that figure and we are still at the average life of a typical engine from the 1960s according to research by the New York times.
So claiming the rotary is reliable using average figures from the 1960s is not a strong case for reliability. Anyone can see, the average miles for a Rotary falls way under average for vehicles built in the 21st century thus making my claim true that Rotaries are unreliable engines. What about Ferrari engines one asked? If you go to that forum, you will get the same exact responses I see here i.e. didn't perform maintenance and you get pictures of odometers reading 100k miles etc. Even if your statement is true regarding Ferrari engines, at least you're getting *ussy and a smile on your face in return. Not to mention even Corvettes double the fuel mileage and likely to have way less engine failures despite having insane horsepower. The rotary is just outclassed these days. What would you call an engine with Honda civic torque with F-150 gas mileage and 1960's reliability?
Fan boy ad hoc attacks, red herrings and other fallacies against this claim Is not proof against the motion, but rather a bitter admittance.
Low power, torque and reliability for the amount of gas, oil, emissions and price is simply outclassed by the engines of the 21st century. Low sales figures and ultimately its cancellation should be the final nail in this debate of a Rotaries value. There is a reason why you can pick them up for 20% of their original price.
I'm busy and am rarely online so I won't be responding to comments. Good luck everyone
No doubt, failed engine claims outnumber original engine claims on this forum. To further negate original engine claims, you'd have to prove secondary vehicle owners weren't lied to. At least one rotary mechanic on this forum has claimed that to be the case thus further negating original engine claims.
We have two forms of data to suggest rotaries are unreliable. First what is considered reliable? Statistical analysis shows that the average person keeps a car for 11 years at 15k miles per year or 165k miles with 200k end of life according to New York times research. So any engine that falls short of this could be considered a lemon because it falls below average.
I have empirical and anecdotal evidence that proves Rotaries fall below this average thus by definition are unreliable. First, empirical evidence. A Mazda dealership manager told me they have replaced almost every rotary they sold minus the later models probably due to low sales numbers and low mileage on existing cars. Then you have forum data or anecdotal evidence showing many members on this very thread admitting their second or third engine replacement, and interestingly enough are the ones defending it's reliability (proving bias). Finally, at least one mechanic on here can prove that the few anomalies out there with 100k miles have had an engine replacement from a previous owner unknowing to them. Regarding the pro rotary video in this thread claiming KABOOM at 80k, I'll grant you 100k with all the hassle of extra special care it needs to reach that figure and we are still at the average life of a typical engine from the 1960s according to research by the New York times.
So claiming the rotary is reliable using average figures from the 1960s is not a strong case for reliability. Anyone can see, the average miles for a Rotary falls way under average for vehicles built in the 21st century thus making my claim true that Rotaries are unreliable engines. What about Ferrari engines one asked? If you go to that forum, you will get the same exact responses I see here i.e. didn't perform maintenance and you get pictures of odometers reading 100k miles etc. Even if your statement is true regarding Ferrari engines, at least you're getting *ussy and a smile on your face in return. Not to mention even Corvettes double the fuel mileage and likely to have way less engine failures despite having insane horsepower. The rotary is just outclassed these days. What would you call an engine with Honda civic torque with F-150 gas mileage and 1960's reliability?
Fan boy ad hoc attacks, red herrings and other fallacies against this claim Is not proof against the motion, but rather a bitter admittance.
Low power, torque and reliability for the amount of gas, oil, emissions and price is simply outclassed by the engines of the 21st century. Low sales figures and ultimately its cancellation should be the final nail in this debate of a Rotaries value. There is a reason why you can pick them up for 20% of their original price.
I'm busy and am rarely online so I won't be responding to comments. Good luck everyone
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sifu
RX-8 Parts For Sale/Wanted
3
08-30-2015 10:51 PM