Greasyman

I've often wondered why Mazda is the only company (that I know of) that has consistently marketed rotary powered cars to the American public. I've assumed that there is someone in a high-level position of power who just has a thing for rotaries, and they build them for the love of it, not because it's going to be a big money maker for Mazda.

If the RX 8 had been powered by a familiar V6, they probably would have sold 5x as many, but for some reason Mazda keeps spinning out rotary powered cars. Anyone know what goes on behind the scenes at Mazda?

Jedi54

iTrader: (7)

well, at the moment they're not spitting out anything rotary but I get where you're going.
The rotary IS Mazda, it's the embodiment of who they are as a company; the little company that could. When you consider that only 4% of cars sold in America are Mazda it speaks to their Never Stop Challenging mentality.
They don't do it for the money. Sure, they're not out to lose a fortune on it and I'm sure they'd like to some day MAKE money on the rotary again but for them it's a passion to keep trying to make something work that no one else has been able to do so on a large scale.

sonicsdaman

iTrader: (3)

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

What's the deal with this stupid thread?

CelestialGryphon

iTrader: (1)

+1 for Jeds being informative. The truth is at one point in time NSU tried to do the rotary thing as well. However, instead of, say, learning from what Mazda did and certain American corporations did with Apex Seals done right and the right materials used in keeping the engine alive, the modern day contemporary rival of Mazda died off in the late 70's, early 80's. Mazda COULD have gone the conventional route. But where's the fun in that? Most Mazda's are just that, fun. Yes, you have your boring vehicles in every range and in every price point, but pretty much every Maz I've driven has been fun. Mazda said "This is a terrible idea. Let's keep doing it!" and learned every time they did something up until the 8. Lord knows where they got ideas for the renny, they did not learn well from the 13b. They did however build the most single high compression engine they could with an estoric and unique design. Let's look at a company that hasn't made it. Say.... Saab.

200.mph

iTrader: (9)

this thread is bad and op should feel bad

Greasyman

I agree with that. I remember reading a review years ago that praised the Protege 5 for it's "Mazdaness", meaning its fun factor. It seems every Mazda, even the most utilitarian, has a little extra sportiness dialed in.

jaimesix

Obviously this guy "Greasyman" does not like rotaries.

Only someone that has no interest in rotaries would ask such question.

This thread is offensive to rotary enthusiasts.

wtf ?

Where is the moderator when one is needed ? I do not think I would last one day if I were to go into a Harley Davidson group to as why Harleys should be allowed on streets.... even if I may not like Harleys, I respect the fact there are millions who do like it.

I do not go kicking hornet nests.

Delete this thread !

jaimesix

This whole comment :

//////////////////////////
I've often wondered why Mazda is the only company (that I know of) that has consistently marketed rotary powered cars to the American public. I've assumed that there is someone in a high-level position of power who just has a thing for rotaries, and they build them for the love of it, not because it's going to be a big money maker for Mazda.

If the RX 8 had been powered by a familiar V6, they probably would have sold 5x as many, but for some reason Mazda keeps spinning out rotary powered cars. Anyone know what goes on behind the scenes at Mazda////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

This whole comment is a stupid attempt at insulting people that like rotary engines.

Get the hell out of here . Get out !

New Yorker

If the RX-8 had been powered by a V6, it would not be an RX-8. The car was literally designed - shrunk wrapped, if you will - around the tiny engine. Standing a mere 13" tall, the Renesis neatly fits very low in the car, behind the front axle; it's virtually a mid-engined car. It's the reason why the 8 is so light on its feet and can change direction so effortlessly; it's why the 8 outhandles all but a handful of other cars on the road, including many costing several times its price.

So no, there could not be a V6-powered RX-8.

Greasyman

Anyone who thinks my question was an insult towards rotaries or Mazda did not understand my question at all. Not at all. If I didn't like rotaries, I wouldn't have just bought an RX 8.

I asked that question because I'm interested and enthusiastic about both Mazda and rotaries, and I want to know something about the history of Mazda's dedication to it. It's no different than if I'd just bought a Vette and wanted to know why Chevy, unlike any other major American companies, has devoted itself to building a high performance V8 sports car for decades.

I was expecting answers such as: Back in 1962, Mazda's chief engineer, became interested in the rotary, finding its lack of reciprocating parts and simplicity and elegant solution to many of the issues that piston engines suffered from... ...the program was nearly canceled upon the arrival of the new CEO... ...it took a great deal of convincing by team leader so and so... ...however having built their reputation upon the rotary... with the success of the RX-7... ...after their great victory with the 787B at LeMans... ...feeling there was still much potential remaining in the concept, design leader such and such...

You know, that sort of thing. A little history lesson.

Greasyman

I think you put that very well, and what you just described is one of the main things that made me want an RX. Thank you for your rationality.

I'm not saying the RX should have had a V6, just that I think that a lot of people who aren't serious car enthusiasts might have been put off by an unusual engine like the rotary. I know non-enthusiasts, and even casual enthusiasts, that barely heard of them, or if they did they are very vague on what they are. A V6 they've heard of.

I bet a lot of people cross shopped the RX and cars like the 350Z, and chose the Z just because they weren't sure if they wanted a car with "that weird engine". I also would lay a lot of money on the line that Mazda knew that would be the case, but they just love the rotary so much they wanted to use it anyway. It's not often that you see a car company motivated to build something out of passion rather than a desire for profit, but that's what Mazda seems to have done.

sonicsdaman

iTrader: (3)

If you wanted to know mazdas history why not get the hay from the horses mouth

MAZDA: Chapter I?Opening a New Frontier with the Rotary Engine | History of Rotary Engine Development

MAZDA: Long and Winding Road of passion and innovation | Heritage

Greasyman

Thanks!

wankelbolt

iTrader: (21)

Right. It would be a MAZDA8. And when they turbocharged it, MAZDASPEED8.
Not "virtually". Actually. The engine is entirely behind the front axle line.
The handling is mostly due to the fantastic chassis and suspension design. (Thank you Mark Fields). Crazy rear suspension with control arms going every which-way, etc.

You know what happens when somebody drops an LS into an RX-8? It's gets better in every way. And it fits like the car was literally designed - shrunk wrapped, if you will - around the big engine. Then it can beat up on cars 20 times it's price because it has powah!

Would I ever drop an LS into my RX-8? Hell no. Because I'm rotarded and I like a challenge.

Actually, I think there is one right here on this forum, though I don't know if he finished the job.

An aluminum-blocked Buick Turbo Regal V6 would be awesome and even better than an LS. More power than the LS, about same weight as but way more power than the rotary.

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

There is a V6 swapped RX-8. Nice build too. The problem is that it makes less HP than a stock Renesis.

BigCajun

iTrader: (1)

Don't forget the Isuzu V-6.
The original 'Frankenstein' swap, but still hasn't come to life after almost 4 years.

New Yorker

There's also this insightful writeup by MT's Frank Markus, written in '07 when the 40th AE debuted:

The Wankel has much to recommend it. There are very few moving parts (no cams, rockers, valves, valve springs, etc.), which reduces manufacturing and maintenance costs. The rotors turn at 1/3 the speed of the crankshaft, so the stresses on it are far less than those on pistons moving at similar crankshaft speeds, which boosts reliability — as demonstrated by Mazda’s overall win in the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1991 (which led to banning Wankels from the race). The engine is compact and lightweight. When properly balanced, it’s smooth-running (an early single-rotor design from Germany’s NSU didn’t enjoy such balance and shook like a Harley). This is largely due to the lack of reciprocating parts and to the six combustion events that occur per crankshaft revolution (though in truth, it sounds more like a 10- or 12-cylinder engine note than a six).

Compared with competitive sports cars of today, the naturally aspirated RX-8 twin-rotor engine boasts unique power-delivery characteristics, with a fairly flat torque curve that peaks at a modest 159 pound-feet, way up at 5500 rpm. Power peaks at 232 horses and 8900 revs. There’s so little low-end torque, in fact, that launching from a stop, especially on a hill, requires more revs than one expects in any similarly powerful piston-engine car. There’s a bit less compression braking available, and the engine’s ability to hold the car on a grade when parked in gear without the emergency brake is limited.

But against these peculiarities, the RX-8 delivers turbine-smooth acceleration and immense handling benefits directly attributable to the Wankel engine. First, it weighs far less than a similarly powerful V-6, so there’s less car to accelerate, brake, or turn. Second, because it’s so much smaller than an overhead-cam vee or inline engine it can be packaged lower in the car, dropping the overall center of gravity and making the car less likely to roll in corners. The small size also allows it to be placed well aft of the front-wheel centerline, concentrating the mass within the wheelbase, which improves the polar moment of inertia and makes the car more eager to change directions.

jaimesix

There are plenty cars with piston engines to choose from.

But an RX with the rotary engine replaced for a piston engine would no longer be an RX.

No point on doing that, would be better to get a piston engined car altogether.

And for us rotary enthusiasts even less of a reason.


The RX is a rotary engined car by definition.

And the only one in the market. It is unique.

A Toyota Prius is a unique car ( although not "as" unique. There are other examples of cars like it, whereas there is only one "Mazda" example of a rotary Wankel)...in its original configuration. Getting its power plant out to replace it with some piston engine would be silly.

Plus Mazda has created a segment of rotary engine fans that will always give Mazda a special niche, at least until other brand develops its rotary. Ridding the brand of the Wankel rotary would send fans to other brands ( like it has partially happened, because some fans have gotten tired of waiting for ever for the next RX7)