ASH8

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2577C0008045DA

In Sydney last week, Mr Yamanouchi said Mazda’s investment in the next-gen rotary would not only be offset by its appearance in at least one future sportscar, but by its application as a hydrogen-burning powerplant in models such as the RX-8 Hydrogen RE test vehicle.

During a visit to Melbourne in April, Mazda’s global sales, marketing and customer service boss, Masazumi Wakayama, told GoAuto that his company’s resources would not allow the development of a third sportscar beyond the MX-5 and RX-8.

Whether Mazda decides to release a top-shelf sportscar, GoAuto understands it is highly unlikely to wear the iconic RX-7 badge, which Mazda insiders say will be preserved in history rather than being potentially tarnished by an inevitably heavier, larger successor.

As I have said many times, Mazda will not use the RX-7 name again, they have never done it before with an Exported Rotary...meh.

ALL GOOD NEWS ABOVE!

HiFlite999

iTrader: (2)

Good news! Though I'm a bit skeptical about a full 50% reduction in specific fuel consumption. I'll bet that the new engine includes a unique catalytic converter design as well.

paulmasoner

iTrader: (1)

it would almost certainly have to, to meet emissions standards through the production life cycle. but IMO they wont reach that goal in the next gen, i'd be surprised to see 35+%

deadphoenix52

thank god theyre leaving the rx7 name alone

CyberPitz

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that. Coming from the RX-7 myself, leave it as a piece of history. It was wonderful while it lasted, now lets move on and make the RX name even better. No point in clinging to nostalgia.
On topic of the thread: This is indeed good news. Then again, at this time, any news about the advancement of the rotary is good.

ASH8

There is no reason why Mazda will not build on the RX-8 name, particularly if new RX~ still has 4 doors, which it appears it will....so they could use RX-8 name gain.... IMo

Dirt_Nasty

iTrader: (2)

I couldn't agree more with the above.

Mazda has stated many times how much the rotary is at it's core values and the what not. I would say that they have advanced the rotary in roughly 40 years, more than the piston was 40 years into it's existance. Also, seeing the apparent ease of hydrogen coversion it seems that the biggest rotary boom is yet to come. The future is one where petrol is going to run out as many of us try to forget sometimes. Unfortenatly, the infrastructure to support hydrogen is a ways away.

Red Rex

iTrader: (1)

Mazda keeps making all of these promises about the rotary. The 16X was up and running and just needed a body to go into, and then the SKY engines came out and Mazda decided to scrap the 16X and try something more advanced and modern. So I'm sure in a few years when Mazda finally applies the SKY tech to the rotary engine, another engine development will occur and Mazda will want to start all over again. If anything these reports just make the new rotary car that much further away. 50% reduction in fuel consumption? Yeah right.

paulmasoner

iTrader: (1)

wtf makes you think that? there is a HUGE difference between up and running, and ready for production and a body. AFAIK there is nothing to even hint at ready for production, in fact quite the opposite.

this is like the 4th time today i've seen crazy posts from you, just stop

9kBeep

it is reasuring to hear mazda would rather leave the rx7 badge alone and leave is as a piece of history, trying to bring back the past a second time around is always very risky, and i would hate to see them potentially ruin something that has been such a success in the earlier sport cars. ESPECIALLY with something as unique as the rotary engine. as far as the hydrogen aspect of the new rx- goes, i saw this on an episode of top gear.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

honda made a car that is being produced (the last i heard only in california so far) that can run solely on hydrogen via the hydrogen fuel cell. quite amazing how it all works. if i remember correctly, filling the car is similar in price to gasoline right now, but extracting hydrogen costs about the same as drilling for oil, but with the benefit of producing no emissions. also we will never have to worry about running out of recources as hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. obviously the two cars arent going to run the same because the rotary will run on the hydrogen as its main source of fuel, and the honda uses it to power a generator which powers an electric motor, but regardless... its progress. i personally see the rotary making for great progress within the next decade!

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

I see 50% as entirely possible.

Current EPA ratings are ...18/22? 50% increase would be 27/33

27 is already possible on the Renesis, even if highway, with the right driving, changing the transmission, etc...

Is it something most will ever see? No. But before you completely denounce it, I am merely saying that it is simply possible. Improving thermal efficiency will make it more efficient just by itself. Improving torque will allow lower RPM cruising. Reducing weight of the rest of the car can easily see a few MPG. I'm sure they will improve the aerodynamics as well. And I don't even know the actual impact of the direct injection or 14:1 compression ratio.

The final result should be greater than the sum of the individual gains, multiplicative percentages if you will. 50% average gain is only a 22% increase of what is already possible today, in our admittedly inefficient engine.

I'm sure they can do it.

Spin9k

I'm all for preserving the good name of the RX-7 but...

Well, in the 'glass is half empty' category, this quote is not exactly inspiring..."inevitably heavier, larger successor" doesn't just make one salivate for the resultant next gen rotary car...and esp. considering... (at least this wasn't spoken by Mazda itself!)

"The 1993-'95 RX-7 proved to be an impressive all-around performer. It was light, agile and fast. Zero-to-60 times were in the 5-second range."

1+1 = 0 or.. I can see the future press headlines already...

"The 2014 RX-X proved to be an unimpressive all-around performer. It is not terribly light, but considering its weight agile enough, but still slow compared to its competition. Zero-to-60 times were in the 6-second range, similar to its underpowered predecessor, the RX-8."

On the half full side let's hope the editor's parting insight proves more correct and the possible future car is “much more serious” than its coming competition.

bvisser

Just my opinion,

With the ambitious fuel consumption goals I could see this new engine not being lights out on engine performance numbers, kind of like when the rx8 was introduced. I would love to see another sporty coupe in the spirit of the rx7 though.

Agreed that any new rotary news is good.

PhillipM

Should be even better than the 10-15% it gets on piston engines given the shape of the rotary combusion chamber is worse, provided they can get stratified charge with it.

paulmasoner

iTrader: (1)

absolutely. i can/have done it.

i'm not denouncing the possibility, but i will be surprised to see 35% or better.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

35% is only 24/29, entirely doable.

zoom44

direct injection i usually seen as a 15% to 20% improvement.

that compression ratio is a misunderstanding. the sky g and d engines shown so far are 14.1 . the reference was "apply the sky engine tech to the rotary" which the writers have taken to mean everything including that 14-1.

in the 13b geometry its been shown that increase in compression over what the renesis has don't offer any significant gains in efficiency. it could be different with the 16 x of course. but just dont take that 14.1 as gospel.

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

You guys are funny.

Take the current motor and look at the mileage you get when you drive it to potential (which is about 180 to the wheels and 17 MPG).
Now, do the math - what will it take to add 50% more power AND 50% more fuel efficiency? (~270 HP to the wheels AND ~26 MPG.)
Not one or the other. Not in alternation. Simultaneously.
Because that is what the next rotary will need to accomplish just to meet the status quo. (Which isn't even really that impressive considering the current crop of cheap performance cars.)

Razz1

Why not?

After all we don't have the hour of power anymore.
The Crystal Cathederal is bankrupt so......................

We ahave to have something to believe in.

14:1


Mu ha ha.......

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

WTF are you talking about?

Put down the bong, please...

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

True. I don't take any of this as gospel

Too much of it is wide open for what they could be doing, assuming that they will do this or that is probably too far off the mark. 40 years into the piston engine, I bet there is alot of common tech that is used today that they couldn't even dream of, or if they did, couldn't see how it was possible.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

Agreed MM. Just like most people aren't thinking that the 500hp 30mpg muscle car isn't actually getting 500hp at 30mpg People don't use the power they brag about at the same time they are getting the mileage that they brag about.


Just curious, have to measured how much airflow is needed to maintain an 8 at highway cruise? I know what my AP tells me, but until I start my calibration service with you (you accepted a postponement), my MAF readings are probably inaccurate.

So taking that airflow, we can get to the HP needed, and then we can calculate what the efficiency would have to improve to if we keep the same mass and coefficient of drag, or how those would need to change if we kept the same efficiency.

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

The Renesis consumes between 35 and 50 g/sec at 4000 RPM sustained cruise (depending on gear).
Just for comparison, an AccessPORT-tuned (~300 HP and 26 MPG) MazdaSpeed 3 consumes about 27 to 32 g/sec under the same conditions.

RufusVonStorm

It will take DI, better materials, plus a miracle and 2,400lbs curb weight

c'MON MAZDA joo can doo eet

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

So I did a bunch of searching around, thinking about it, and typed up a post trying to detail out what is needed, but realized that I only can answer the coefficient of drag and weight question, which if we leave the engine alone, would need to get to about 2,000 pounds and a 0.2 coefficient of drag.


The knowledge of how volumetric and thermal efficiency effect volume of gasoline amount used per unit of air is beyond me. I probably should sign up for your class.