ZoomZoomH

iTrader: (1)

just FYI, the current 2.0 MZR engine in the new MX-5 has LESS TORQUE (141 ft/lb) than the 6 port RENESIS (159 ft/lb)... so the whole "too little torque" talk is completely inaccurate when referring to the MX-5, as it never had any torque to begin with either

RichardK

Corvette is just an example. There are loads of powerful RWD 2 seater cars out there, the Miata's USP is the balance of economy, power and price. Make it more powerful and more expensive, and people might choose an Elise instead, or an S2000, or BMW Z4...

From what I know of the Renesis, it isn't the answer to making a faster Miata. It would not be any better than the S2000, in that both cars need high revs (which makes them harder to drive smoothly for novice drivers), would be worse on fuel, have higher oil consumption. It wouldn't be a commercial success. Fans of the rotary engine may well buy it, but Mazda doesn't care about that - the RX8 sells to fans of rotarys, sure, but it also sells to everyone else because it is an unbeatable package. Frankly, I think if it had a V6 of similar output - if possible - at the same weight, you wouldn't be able to move for RX8s, they'd be as common as Camrys.

I happen to like that it has a rotary, I like the idea, I like the car. But the rotary isn't my only reason for purchase.

I'm not a fan of turbos in the Miata. The idea of the car is to replicate a British sports car, and those cars are simple, snorty, tractable and accessible. Turbos begin to add complexity and dilute it. Forget tracks, think country lanes - you want a nice square to long-stroke engine, good gearing, and a good chassis and gearbox to make the most of it.

I'm standing by my practical application of the Renesis in an MPV, and I think the other practical use of it would be a motorbike - a latter-day Commander without the British bike incontinence and reliability issues. The RX8 would almost certainly be an equally good car with a good V6 (Mazda, to the best of my knowledge, don't make a good V6, they either make tiny breathless ones like the MX3, or lumpen unreliable things like the MX6 'valve-eater'). Hell, a cut down RX8 with a 150-180bhp 4 cylinder would probably be a very popular car indeed with many buyers.

I know I should be advocating more use of rotary engines and would do so if arguing from an idealistic viewpoint, but I'm trying to present a logical, marketing oriented view. From an emotional viewpoint, I want a Renesis powered Citroen C6, a Renesis powered Miata, a Renesis powered Fiat X1/9... etc

ZoomZoomH

iTrader: (1)

and my personal opinion is, that the MX-5 will NEVER be offered with a rotary engine, even as an option. One of the BIGGEST appeal of the MX-5 is that it provides VERY ECONOMICAL sporting fun, something that the RENESIS simply can't offer when compared to the 2.0 MZR

ZoomZoomH

iTrader: (1)

and Richard basically said what i just said, except longer and more detailed

RichardK

From my POV, I care WHERE the torque is more than how much is made (don't worry, I am prepared for the driving experience of the RX8, I can enjoy both).

I like revving a car. I don't like revving many modern 16v motors because they get coarse when extended; my Sera redlines at 7.5K as will my RX8, but the RX8 whirrs smoothly up to that speed, the Sera sounds like it wants to kill me for being cruel to it.

I much prefer 8 big valves in my four cylinder engines

I don't think that the RX8 has 'too little torque' for the MX5, what I think is that it has too little torque in return for the added fuel consumption and market-perception of complexity (which should be addressed with good marketing, but never will be because the marketing bods at Mazda know that the instant you point out the RX8s differences in technical terms, the buyers won't go near 'em).

BaronVonBigmeat

^^^ Umm, what? I seem to dimly remember a print ad for the RX-8 making a big fuss about the Renesis, and I know there was an RX-8 TV ad I saw a couple of years ago that mentioned it.

About a V6 RX-8...no, I doubt they would be common as Camrys, not if you're talking about a top-heavy DOHC V6. The beauty of having a low center of gravity is that you can have great handling without resorting to rock-hard shocks/springs/sways and tires that wear out every 12,000 miles like some of the RX-8's competitors.

ASH8

I like that mate...'miataphile'.
I like your thoughts, many here continue to rant about HP being too light on in the Miata/MX-5, god it becomes BORING.
Many have never driven an MX-5, and until you have, you can't understand how you can fall in love,(sorry) with the driving experience...and thats what its all about, particularly with the top down on a sunny day, there is nothing like it!..., when at Mazda, every time I took one home , or, during the day, I would think, boy I would love one of these, never got to, not yet anyway...midlife crisis almost here.
As I said a rotary donk would IMO make the 5 even better, and it would sell, of course not in the numbers of the MX-5, but it would sell very well, and thats the problem, even IF Mazda considered it, how much would it take away from existing sales.
From an engineering point, I still think it can be done, even if there needs to be a mild bonnet bulge.

EDIT. I just checked out your pics, boy, you have used up a few of your kidneys on your Miata Mods!, lots of dollars, very immaculate, blown too, colour is a bit Ford GT like, suits that model Miata...top job!

As for the RX-8, well here is a guy who knows how to have the very best of what Mazda has to offer, what a great combination, you have the best of both worlds...If you don't mind me asking, which one is your favourite,......let me guess, the Miata on a warm sunny day, the 8 every other day, so I think the 8 wins here...only just

RichardK

Mentions it has a rotary engine (and perhaps the US market print ads made more of s fuss; the RX7 was more popular there), but doesn't actually tell you anything about it beyong it being a rotary engine.

I'd want a 12V V6, maybe not a pushrod, but top-heavy is perhaps a little harsh. Remember that most people don't care quite so much, and the differences are quite minor.

And FWIW, I know of plenty of cars with excellent handling, normal engines, and don't eat bushes, have rock hard suspension, or eat so many tires (the RX8 eats tires). As an example, I'm not a fan of the 350Z, but on Top Gear, the 350Z achieved the same track time as the RX8, and I consider it soft. However, the advantage the RX8 has here is £4-7K lower cost (and IMO, better looks).

I'm looking forward to my RX8. I think I'm going to love the engine. But, I don't think it makes total sense on paper. You want low CofG and good torque, there's always boxer engines - fancy an RX8 with a flat four?

lshu

Once you drive the 8, it will make perfect sense.

The Renesis is so compact that it fits completely behind the front axle, and its weight is concentrated in a low and small area, resulting in a exceptionally low center of gravity. Large V6s such as the VQ from the 350z are not only are heavier but the weight is more spread out, making it hard to match the CofG of the 8. Also, Jeremy stated on that same Top Gear episode that the 350z's ride is indeed harsher than that of the RX-8, so you'll probably think the 8 is reaally soft. You also think the 8 eats tires, read through 350z forums and you'll find that many members have had tire feathering problems on the track.

Responding to the topic, I believe that rotary applications in other Mazda cars besides the 8 would not do as well as their piston counterparts for one major reason. Most people who buy these cars want something fun, but as low maintenance as possible. I'm sure most miata drivers would like to have the benefits of a rotary engine, but would not like to worry about mileage, flooding, adding oil etc. This argument definitely applies to the rotary MPV idea I read earlier. Could you imagine a soccer mom popping the hood to add oil after dropping off the kids to soccer practice? Or stepping on the gas to deflood the car?

I would vouch for keeping just one rotary car in Mazda's lineup, to keep it as a unique enthusiast vehicle that makes owners feel special.

ASH8

Sorry Ishu....BULL DUST!

I wish people would get OFF the OIL USE/CHECKING thing, its way over the top in comments, it depends how much you use your 8 to how much it consumes, they say check fortnightly, but in most cases once a month will do, your dip stick does not ALWAYS have to be on the FULL mark all the time. After awhile you will find a regime that suits you.

FLOODING is also a non event, yes some early owners had problems, which was mainly due to the 8's starter and battery size, not enough capacity/amps, they were renewed.
Those that had flooding issues were because they were starting the car and moving it a few yards and switching off, the engine still cold, restarting and pumping the pedal again and again.
The only thing you should do when you start a cold 8 is to let it warm up a little until you turn if off, if you are not going any distance.

As far as I am concerned the only "extra" task you have to perform over other cars is the oil topping up...if thats too much for you then don't buy a rotary, or dare I say don't be a lazy ***.

These are NOT major issues, there are many owners of conventional engined cars that flood them, because they have poor starting skills/methods.

RichardK

The reason I have a 1.6 Beetle Cabriolet is the 2.0's alleged appetite for oil.

And yet, I don't care that I have to check and top up the RX8.

Why?

Well, I know where the oil in the RX8 is going. It's lubricating the rotor tips. It's being injected into the chambers. It's being USED. It has a purpose to fulfil which consumes it, by design.

The 2.0 Beetle engine? Why? Why the hell does it use so much oil?! It isn't injecting it, it should be keeping it from being burned, not consuming it!

Anyway, Honda S2000 and Porsche owners have to check their oil regularly. There have, to my knowledge, been far more mainstream press reports of S2000s detonating because the owner didn't follow the instructions to top up the oil than RX8s.

hondasr4kids

they need to put a rotary on this

and call it a RX-7

max5roadster

Thanks ASH8! Yeah, too much power this pwoer that, but man, there is NOTHING like ringing out my miata with the top down at 7K-pure bliss! I love the 8, I love my 87 rx7 TII, but niether car has near the character of my miata. It is hands down the best car of my stable.

Now, as for a rotary in the miata. I really don't understand the distain. The rotary is light, compact, and revs freely-the perfect sports car engine! If Mazda would put the miata on a diet back to its original 2200 lbs, mileage and TQ become non-issues. Hell, even at 2400lb, mileage and TQ really won't be that bad. (Chop 400-500 lbs off your 8 and see the difference.)

Krankor

An RX-5 Miata makes complete sense to me. (Who cares that there used to be an RX-5, call it the "new" RX-5. You can buy a Chevy Impala today too which has nothing to do with my Dad's old '66 Impala). I think it would be a magnificient car. I also don't think there's a chance in hell they'll ever do it. But I'd seriously consider buying one.

BaronVonBigmeat

The more I think about it, I'm not sure a renesis-powered Miata would sell well. The car would be an incredible performer for a reasonable price, but I think a lot of people would say "lol miata chick car hurr". So, you take that red car above and give it an aggressive body kit from the factory, maybe they could even tweak the fenders to look more muscular and make room for big tires. Then, name it the RX-9 and avoid any stigma of the miata name alltogether.

RichardK

You could maybe give it pop-up headlights, and perhaps alter the tail-lights so they run in a strip across the back... and turbocharge it...

globi

Of course a RX-5 would sell well.
This is that one car that can truly show off the benefits of the rotary engine.

As I said in previous threads discussing a Renesis powered MX-5 (RX-5), the main advantage of the rotary engine is its low mass and compactness, which means:

- low weight = high power to weight ratio and high rubber to weight ratio.
- low yaw moment with 50/50 weight distribution.
- low center of gravity (at least compared to cars with inline engines, namely S2000 or Lotus Elise).

And of course the Renesis also delivers a very flat predictable torque curve over an extremely wide rpm range.

No need to bring back the RX-7, just make a RX-5 and sell it as convertible and coupe.

If you don't fit, well, tough luck. No RX-5 for You.

khtm

Why will your RX8 redline at 7.5k? Are you actually getting an auto????

globi

Actually in German the engine is called KKM or Kreiskolbenmotor which translates as orbital piston engine. The rotary engine is in fact not piston-less it is only cylinder-less.

Also Wankel orginally built a true rotary engine and called it DKM or Drehkolbenmotor which translates as rotary piston engine, however this required both piston and housing to rotate and obviously made it far more complicated.

globi

In Europe they sell a lower powered 5speed version of the RX-8.

RichardK

5 speed manual 192ps model. 4 port.

0-60 in 7.1-7.7 seconds depending on which road test you believe (7.7 for official figures, compared to 6.9 for the 230), touch more torque than the 230, top speed of 139 vs. 146 (I think that the 5th gear is still plenty overdriven, though, so should be relaxed at motorway speeds. One could assume top speed is down to where the car runs out of revs and therefore the extra 1,500rpm could account for the extra 7mph.

Given that the many road tests and so forth generally suggest the 192ps model is basically better to have - "No point spending the extra", I view the cars pretty much as equals and consider the 230's additional expense to be paying for Xenon lights and a six-speed gearbox.

RichardK

Yep, and we pay more in real terms for it too

However, we get the Bose 9 speaker setup with six disc changer as standard. Only options are Leather+Satnav, and sunroof. (Plus the accessories of course).

I must admit, if I hadn't been going for the RX8 as a budget decision, I'd have had the leather + satnav.