Check this out

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/first_...?sid=116&page=1

Michael

 

No thanks!

 

Just love the part where that massive tank, that takes up the whole boot, only provides enough fuel for 100km... Pretty useless in Australia..

Labrat was right....

 

uhhhhhhhhhhh no..

 

Hydrogen may help in 15-20 years time , for short distance low powered travel , but the RX-8 is supposed to be a high reving performance car WTF Is Mazda doing .

Michael

 

I think some are forgetting this is dual fuel. two tanks. so a dedicated hydrogen could be practical.

then there is the issue of optimising for two fuels. LPG is a good example. to get the most from LPG you need compression ratios higher than most petrol engines can sustain. so you loose performance using LPG. the same happens for methanol so I don't see why hydrogen wouldn't suffer the same.

while the rx-8 isn't the ideal platform, a smaller lighter car with the renesis would be great fun.

hydrogen is easy to produce and it would be extremely cheep to run. biofuels aren't economical at today's oil prices and take enormous amounts of resources (land, water, electricity, fuel) to produce. hydrogen can be produced in your backyard with electricity and water.

 

So the fact that a hydrogen RX8 will go about the same speed as a blimp isnt the only reference you could make to the Hindenburg!

 

Well, it's obviously not going to appeal to this crowd, or possibly many people at all, given the performance, range and packaging problems but let's not be too dismissive.

I, for one, am glad Mazda is putting its money where the greenies' mouths are.

Hybrids, diesels, direct injection, etc, etc are only a stop gap. Sooner or later (hopefully later), viable oil reserves are either going to run out or become even more expensive. Rather than deride the current hydrogen technology, we should be cheering the car companies on to develop this further. It could well be the difference between driving and another form of horse power in the future (i.e. the neighing kind).

If you think I'm kidding - have another look at our poor planet.

 

I do agree with you that Mazda are showing that they are a progressive company with the hydrogen model. I think that electric cars are the only way we are going to get the performance we crave in something that is at least remotely environmentally friendly

 

Gross it's an AUTO!!!!

 

I think that people are forgetting that this is a technology in its absolute infancy. Have a look at the MPG and Power/torque figures of the ModelT Ford (the first Mass produced car). It had a 2.9ltr engine that produces a whoping 20HP. In the hundred or so years since then we have managed to find some 100 x that power.

The rotary engine itself is only into its 4th decade of mass production and Mazda are far from mass production (as far as I am aware) of the Hydrogen rotary, and I reckon they being very smart about finding an alternate energy source.

You can moan about its loss of power compared to Petroleum powered engines, but when we run out, how much power are you going to have then ;-)

Go Mazda Big thumbs up from me.

 

Well said Andrew!

 

One other thing...do people reckon those powere figures are RW or Engine figures? YES I am to lazy to figure it out myself :-P If its RW then wouldnt the Manual Transmission make a bit of a difference?

 

I doubt it's at the wheels Andrew. Going by dyno tests we know about (120-125), 107 RW wouldn't be the massive difference they seem to imply in power.

(at least I think they said 107 - I didn't go back to check - I'm too lazy too).

 

Well, I did go back and check. Good thing too because they were talking bhp and I was talking kw.

Here's the stats:

Engine: 1308cc twin rotor 13B engine, 192bhp@7000rpm to 107bhp@5000rpm
Transmission: Four-speed automatic with paddle-shift, rear-wheel drive
Performance: 10.0sec 0-62mph, 100mph, 2.5mpg, 0g/km CO2 (est)

I'm hopeless at converting bhp to kw (always forget the ratio) but judging by the 0-62mph figure I'd say it's got a lot less going to the wheels than any manual is gonna make up for.

 

Power (kW) = Power (HP) x 0.7457
Power (HP) = Power (kW) x 1.341

Mazda put the Auto at 141Kw @ 7,000rpm = 189BHp so yeah they are saying there is a 80-90% decrease in power with the auto. All so obvious when someone points it out LMAO!

 

We got there in the end.

Between my posting and your maths, we almost make up a viable forum member.

 

Now back to defence!

YAH TEAM!! WHOOOO

 

I agree 100%!

If we sit on our hands thinking oil reserves are infinite, then we're kidding ourselves big-time. It'll be a case of ride the old pushy down to the museum and look in awe at those wonderful, shiny self-propelled beasts our forefathers punted around.

As far as power goes, engine designers will always move ahead in leaps and bounds. When the FIA banned the use of turbos in F1 because they were "too fast", the engineers all sat down with blank sheets of paper. Lo-and-behold they came out guns blazing the following season with normally aspirated engines delivering the same, if not more, than their force fed predecessors......

Keep investigating the alternatives guys. Our driving future is in your hands!!!

 

What the hell is Mazda doing? Let some other company innovate with hydrogen.

Mazda should be trying to figure out how to make 212 HP or less Auto's go 230 HP or better. The M/T could use some HP boost too. Thats where the mazda should be focusing its brain power at.