When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
-for those who haven't, it's pretty interesting. As the narrator in this video states - we don't know if the guy actually achieved the results stating, but modding the spark plug holes and offsetting compression in a way where the rotor isn't fighting itself seems to be a rather straight forward concept, although you'd think Mazda would have experimented with this idea by now.
I think Mazda has made it clear time and again that they're not giving up on the Rotary - the challenge - as others have already said here - has to do with emissions standards + demand. Mazda has the money to make it, but the demand for it in it's last years of productions couldn't justify it's staying. It doesn't matter how great you make something, in the corporate world of automobiles, it's only great if people are willing to buy it; at the end of the day, it's not smart to mass produce a car with such a small market.
On a rant, it always irritates me listening to naysayers complain about how many of them "failed" and how unreliable they are. I write them off as people who are too lazy to maintain their vehicle, and can't seem to comprehend that less moving parts = less to fail, IF properly maintained. And as far as MPG goes, personally, if you can afford the car, you probably don't really care... people don't buy performance cars for their fuel mileage. As other companies continue to produce low mileage performance cars, I'm leaning harder towards the belief it's all about govt. emissions and marketability..
Last edited by Tyler Simpson; 09-26-2015 at 04:08 AM.
Reason: Added link to video
yeah but the video is crap for several reasons.one is he has no idea what he's talking about, and the other is he has no idea what he's talking about. oh and ridiculous welding skills.
1st you'll get no combustion through that spark plug slot
2nd Mazda has tried leading deep recess in test motors AND production motors. Most recently in the single rotor hybrid design meant to burn NG as seen in their own test vehicle and also in a motor built by a company called AVL in the audi etron that first showed with the wankel generator
here is a pic of a secret rotor on the left and on the right is the one by AVL on the right. the secret one really is that. I cant talk about where the pic came from but i can tell you it was a fully from billit motor and meant to run something other then gasoline and not from Mazda.
top secret background obscured to protect the innocentAVL for Audi A1 etron
3. There is no combustion leakage forward through the gap created by the spark plug hole because of the pressures in both chambers and the sweep. the hot exhaust gasses are because there is never a cooling cycle in the sparking chamber, never an "off " stroke, it's sparking every time the coil can handle. and in fact some of the would be exhaust in the Renesis is swept around into the intake as a sort of EGR to keep emissions down.
To be clear, I've never had a rotary engine failure across a half-dozen different RX's. (Though my RX-8 shows sub-70 PSI compression, it still runs great.) I have nothing negative to say about Mazda's glorious (truly) rotary-engined past. I think the Wankel rotary has a bright future in specific applications (UCAV aka killer drones, EV range extenders). I'm just pessimistic about Mazda's rotary-powered sports car future. I am not in the cult that blindly believes Mazda will overcome the laws of physics and realities of global commerce if we just believe enough.
Last edited by wankelbolt; 09-27-2015 at 08:23 AM.
The Army Research Lab apparently commissioned a study in 2010-11 to study the Wankel rotary and a half-dozen different combustion chamber shapes. Here's the paper from 2011: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a545309.pdf
A rotary engine has many advantages compared to a reciprocating engine, such as higher power density, smooth operation, simple design, low vibration, compact size, and light weight. But, it has also disadvantages like higher fuel consumption and more frequent maintenance requirements. However, these drawbacks have been steadily improved upon for gasoline-fueled rotary engines by some manufacturers, such as Mazda. Recently, the rotary engine has become attractive to some applications, where the merits are becoming more important. Today’s advanced combustion control and sophisticated fuel injection system may make the rotary engines more efficient and [quiet]. Manufacturing accuracy and materials technology may resolve the issues of sealing leaks.
The Army Research Lab apparently commissioned a study in 2010-11 to study the Wankel rotary and a half-dozen different combustion chamber shapes. Here's the paper from 2011: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a545309.pdf
I found it surprising how important the amount of seal leakage is (pages 50 to 52). Even modest improvements in sealing effectiveness can have quite dramatic fuel economy effects.
Same with the use of low thermal conductivity materials and coatings for the rotors (page 60).
I found it surprising how important the amount of seal leakage is (pages 50 to 52). Even modest improvements in sealing effectiveness can have quite dramatic fuel economy effects.
Same with the use of low thermal conductivity materials and coatings for the rotors (page 60).
Yup. That's why I keep saying materials science is the key to the rotary's future. Breakthroughs in materials are necessary to improve sealing and thermal efficiency to the point where it will be viable as the prime-mover in a new sports car.
The 16X as it was years ago was considerably cleaner than ever.
The 16X is MUCH lighter than a 13B
The 16X takes no more space than a 13B
The 16X makes much better torque numbers
A new chassis can be VERY light as Mazda has proven with the ND MX-5
The 16X has already shown drastically better fuel mileage than the 13B MSP-RE
The case to come to market is not too bad at this time
Yeah. I don't agree with the naysayers that insist it can't or won't happen, but I also don't agree with the people that get all excited and push for performance numbers that would push the car significantly outside of where Mazda has always been with road car performance, and/or into cost ranges that are approaching or surpassing double their current highest priced car. That just isn't reasonable at all.
a 200-220hp 2-rotor engine (detuned for longer lifespans, remember how the 100hp 13b has no problem topping 200,000 miles), and in a 2,500-2,600lb car would be roughly what I'd expect. Mazda won't want a sports car as heavy as the RX-8, their entire corporate direction is lighter lighter lighter, and in order to stay in the ~12-14lbs / hp range that they almost always have, that means the engine peak power drops correspondingly, which in turn drops the weight of things like drivetrain parts and brakes, and the engine power reduction also has significant financial gains in warranty/repair/lifespan/reliability/public-perception areas, plus a cheaper more affordable car for the public to buy. All good things for the company.
I'm positive that if anyone wants a higher power option, Mazda will be content to let them figure that out on their own dollar, footing their own repair costs, etc... It simply doesn't make sense for Mazda to produce a car with 300hp or more in a car with 2,700lbs or less, priced at a point where far less people can even buy it, with a greater headache, financial cost, and larger PR problem around warranty and repairs. Sure, it looks good in magazines, but again, pointing you back to the 2016 ND. They said they never once set performance benchmarks, never once tested a 0-60, never once put it on the skid pad for G numbers. Mazda just won't build a sports car to that level, or if they do, it will be a limited Mazdaspeed run, and not at all the base model.
To make a car with 200-220 hp would be a bad decision. Why would they make a car with less power than their last car which was ridiculed for having too little power?
Weight? Weight loss couldn't possibly be that big of an issue unless you're making a car smaller than the average American could fit in. The 8s main advantage was the room that it had. What small sport coupe had as much room as the 8? The 8 touted at the time it came out that it had more rear seat room that the 3 series BMW. I've sat in the back of an 8 and was comfortable enough, and I'm 6'1" and over 220 lbs.
The RX8 was the perfect car, size wise, weight, packaging, chassis etc. Except for looks. It looked a little weird. The 8s only achilles heel was the engine...only. Even being almost 15 years old now, if mazda re-introduced the exact same RX8 now except that the engine had much better mileage, made more power, and was more reliable, I'm convinced it would sell better than before (still needs better looks).
To blame the car because the engine wasn't powerful enough, reliable enough, or efficient enough is not good engineering. The 8 was already under 3000 lbs. Maybe they could save another 100-200 lbs. making a car as small as the MX5 is not a good idea. They already have the Miata. To get it to 2500 lbs, you'd have to make a car as small as the BRZ, which I couldn't even fit into and close the door. I believe that's the real reason the BRZ don't sell as well anymore. All the small people who wanted one already have it. I bet if they kept tabs on how many people visited the dealer and realized how small those cars are and walked away, we'd all be surprised. Even the salesman after seeing me try and get in told me it was too small. He basically just waved his hands and said it was too small and walked away.
Of all the engines weaknesses the biggest one was mileage. I was getting 13 mpg at one time, that's ridiculous. MPG, I'm sure was the biggest bar to ownership for most, and that's the posted. I'm sure if someone did real research and saw the real world mileage they'd be immediately scared away. Emissions? Either you pass or fail, owners don't care about that. Performance? That's a biggie as well. Numbers people will look at numbers and make decisions accordingly and never even test drive it. Reliability? you don't really appreciate unless you own or have owned one.
If there was a new 8 out now and say they could have solved one of the 3 issues I mentioned...mileage, performance or reliability and I could choose 1, I would choose performance. If I could choose 2 I would choose performance and mileage. Reliability, although a pain in my *** when I owned it, I would deal with. I'd be ok with interchanging mileage with reliability though. In reality though, mileage would be the bigger issue as sales would be most affected by mileage. Take the current car, exact same chassis and all, update the body to the new kodo language, and update/create a new engine. In that new engine give me as much gains in all 3 criteria I mentioned, and I'd buy one today. Come out with a new RX7 that's a small as the MX5, that I can't even fit in and you've defeated your purpose for me.
this is true. find a car that's this size, that has the room in the back seat AND trunk, that drives like this. it's damn hard. in a new car i want the same thing- a kodo rx-8 with better mileage and more power with the same size/space and driving characteristics.
and i'd accept a slight drop in driving pleasure for a panoramic glass roof. i need more light in the car. and im tired of all black inside .my next car will have a light interior
I'm sure i'll be mocked and sent to my corner for saying this, but at this point i'd be more than happy to give my money to Mazda if they'd make a v6 rx8 based sports car..I'm not going to bash the Miata, but there's just something about the way the 8 looks, and the size - for me, anyway - is heavenly...nothing else on the market today comes close to having the room and conv. of the 8. Not too big, not too small...
^ Or a well-tune twin turbo I4. I love the rotary, but I love the car as a package more. Keep the same overall characteristics as much as possible, give it the Kodo look, and I would buy one in a heartbeat. Of course, I would buy it with a rotary too. :P
^ Or a well-tune twin turbo I4. I love the rotary, but I love the car as a package more. Keep the same overall characteristics as much as possible, give it the Kodo look, and I would buy one in a heartbeat. Of course, I would buy it with a rotary too. :P
Or an I4 turbo.. Heck, turbo 6 would be even better. 😁 That'd be even better.
Give me a slightly stretched ND Miata chassis in coupe hatch arrangement, throw in a "backseat" with enough room for humans with amputated legs, beef up the drivetrain, throw in the 2.5 Turbo 4 Sky-G, and call it an MX-6. I'll be okay with that. My hopes and dreams for an RX-7/8 replacement died after the 117th rumor.
To make a car with 200-220 hp would be a bad decision. Why would they make a car with less power than their last car which was ridiculed for having too little power?
Here we go again...
Sure, toss that phrase about what they should or should not do in regards to power vs the prior generation all you want. But ... you seem to be forgetting that Mazda has done that. Repeatedly. The RX-8 was less power than the FD. The ND Miata is less power than the NC Miata.
Oh, and if you hadn't noticed, despite the ND having less power than the NC, it's FASTER. If you do any sort of math on the numbers I suggested, you would note that despite less power, such a car would still be faster than the RX-8. It is also something that Mazda is capable of doing, has shown a preference for, and it would be a cheaper cost to build. All things in favor of such a car being far far more likely than trying to be a bigger power heavier car that you continually advocate.
Originally Posted by TALAN7
Weight? Weight loss couldn't possibly be that big of an issue unless you're making a car smaller than the average American could fit in. The 8s main advantage was the room that it had. What small sport coupe had as much room as the 8? The 8 touted at the time it came out that it had more rear seat room that the 3 series BMW. I've sat in the back of an 8 and was comfortable enough, and I'm 6'1" and over 220 lbs.
The ND is ~200lbs lighter than the NC, with more room in side. I don't understand your connection between car weight and person fitment. Another point where Mazda makes it work. Less weight is always better, for every metric. "Average American" won't be a design point for them. "Average Japanese" might be more accurate.
Originally Posted by TALAN7
The RX8 was the perfect car, size wise, weight, packaging, chassis etc. Except for looks. It looked a little weird. The 8s only achilles heel was the engine...only. Even being almost 15 years old now, if mazda re-introduced the exact same RX8 now except that the engine had much better mileage, made more power, and was more reliable, I'm convinced it would sell better than before (still needs better looks).
Yes, such a car would sell better than the RX-8. I don't dispute that. It just isn't reasonable to expect since it isn't a direction that Mazda, as a corporation, has committed to going. Quite the opposite.
Originally Posted by TALAN7
To blame the car because the engine wasn't powerful enough, reliable enough, or efficient enough is not good engineering.
I don't blame the RX-8 for anything. Just the people who constantly complain about what it isn't. It's a grand touring sports car. If you want the performance numbers you do, it will need to be a sports car, as in minus the grand tourer part. If you want a grand tourer with great performance ... there are quite a lot of those options out there.
Originally Posted by TALAN7
The 8 was already under 3000 lbs. Maybe they could save another 100-200 lbs. making a car as small as the MX5 is not a good idea. They already have the Miata. To get it to 2500 lbs, you'd have to make a car as small as the BRZ, which I couldn't even fit into and close the door.
I'm 6ft 1, and I fit in the BRZ. I also fit in an NB, NC, and ND. I don't fit in the NA. Have you sat in an FD? 2,700lbs, smaller than the RX-8, more room than a Miata. Have you sat in an ND? It's almost as roomy as the RX-8 in the driver's seat to my feeling. Even that small of a car with a rotary in it would inherently have more room in the cabin than the ND does, because of the smaller engine packagine forward. It's doable. It's completely doable.
I was going to reply to the mileage comments, but ... it's another misguided complaint about mileage. There really is no point.
Originally Posted by Tyler Simpson
I'm sure i'll be mocked and sent to my corner for saying this, but at this point i'd be more than happy to give my money to Mazda if they'd make a v6 rx8 based sports car.
Sure, make a turbo 4 or a turbo 6. But it won't be called an "RX" anything, because it doesn't have a rotary. I have always struggled to understand why people want to do something as fundamental as calling an engine by a different name than it has. A V6 is a V6, an I4 is an I4, a rotary is a rotary. If it doesn't have a rotary in it, it isn't a rotary. Sure, it could be a great car, but it isn't a rotary, so it won't have the rotary moniker.
Oh, and if you hadn't noticed, despite the ND having less power than the NC, it's FASTER.
Just imagine how much quicker it would be if they'd kept the same horsepower. Then it would be a real game-changer.
It's fantastic as it is, but not a game-changer.
But now we get the rare opportunity to see if Mazda is right, or if the ND really would be better with more horsepower. So long as the Fiata isn't stupidly overpriced (come on, it's a Fiat not an Alpha!), there will be a Miata with more power to compete with the "base" Miata.
Unfortunately the deal probably includes a requirement that the Fiata price be sufficiently higher than the MX-5 to limit competition.
Since when has Mazda ever pursued a "game changer" in top performance consumer cars?
Sure, such a car would be awesome, but it is totally contrary to Mazda's direction or culture.
Mazda even specifically said they never set performance goals or benchmarks, and never even put the ND on a skid pad or did an official 0-60 during design and development.
Think about that. Let it sink in. What does that tell you about the intent and direction of the company when it might come to a future rotary?
"Sure, make a turbo 4 or a turbo 6. But it won't be called an "RX" anything, because it doesn't have a rotary. I have always struggled to understand why people want to do something as fundamental as calling an engine by a different name than it has. A V6 is a V6, an I4 is an I4, a rotary is a rotary. If it doesn't have a rotary in it, it isn't a rotary. Sure, it could be a great car, but it isn't a rotary, so it won't have the rotary moniker.
This really isn't that hard?" [/QUOTE]
You're right. It really isn't that hard - I think you took me out of context. No one said drop a new engine in an Rx and call it an Rx. My point is that the total looks and handling package of the car are so great, and it's obvious there won't be another for a loooong time if ever - in such case, I'd rather have an Rx8 with a i4 or a V6 than not at all. Heck, call it a pinto or a Cheeto puff for all I care. No on is trying to call an engine a different name - just want a car that's similar that can keep up with today's EPA standards and look and feel as good as our RX8. And as far as fundamentally changing the names of things in the car industry goes, it's pretty standard. Slap a LEXUS badge on an Avalon and suddenly you have a ES350... 😳 It's possible. And I'd take a "Mazda R6" if they were to throw a v6 in an rx8 and call it that tomorrow over a Miata any day.
09-26-2015, 04:08 AM
