This is another possible window for rotary survival, making it an optional engine on the Miata or other vehicle. Mazda is an acknowleged champ of flexible manufacturing techniques, so the cost to them should be reasonable and vastly cheaper than developing a rotary-only car. People make engine choices for virtually every model car these days, depending on their individual priorities. Even a Series II Renny with a few tweaks and a taller 6th gear would do 25+ mpg and still go like stink (for reasonable folk) in a light car.

 

But, why would anyone bother?
Do you think it makes sense to detune the MZR just to make the 16x a viable option?
The rotary would have to be the "base" option with the MZR as the upgrade.
I doubt there is much bottom room on the scale to cheapen the MX-5 with a 16x as a base option.

 

You guys should remember that the original Rx-7 came out during bad economic times with high oil prices and inflation (1979 was first model year). At the time revious rotaries had also not been doing very well. The upmarket Rx-5 Cosmo was a complete disaster and sales of the other models had fallen off due to concerns about reliability, fuel economy, and emissions.

Yet Mazda made the Rx-7 anyway, and it was a big success. They could have abandoned the rotary engine then but they didn't. They also drastically improved fuel economy as the Rx-7 progressed by switching to a leaner-running catalytic converter setup instead of the older thermal reactor that German cars were using at the time.

 

It's just about there with the automatics already. Very tall 5th and 6th, and 25 mpg is not that hard to obtain...

 

Huh? The USA MZR puts out 170 hp, still less than the 4-port's 212 hp. The MZR engine is on the way out anyway.

Why? 1) Face 2) Passion for the rotary (which you don't understand) 3) to be not-Honda-Toyota-Nissan-Ford-etc.

There is no logical reason to buy a car like the Miata in the first place, much less the RX-8, there are a zillion other cars which will get one from A to B in greater comfort and with less cost. Say the rotary is a $1500 option over a base Miata. They might sell only ~1200/year but many of those sales would go to people who would not consider the Miata without a rotary. Even if it's "unsuccessful", and they lose $1000/car, they gain both a lot of free press because every magazine is gonna do an article on it, plus they retain the title of being the only manufacturer daring enough to offer a rotary. Mazda exists as a car maker only because the rotary put them on the map. BMW will always offer a straight 6, not because in this day that's the best way to do it, but because it's who they are.

You keep arguing that the rotary is stupid and that you only stoop so low as to mess with it 'cause it makes you money (but not enough money). Are you saying we are all stupid for buying one? You also said in this thread that rotary owners are cheap-asses. Check my vbgarage and you'll find $2100 of BHR products on the list. Were I "smart-according-to-MM", I would stay away from the rotary, have gotten an S2000 or Boxter or Elise or the like (and yes I can afford one), and BHR would have exactly $0 or my cheapass money. Surely if you are as clever and astute as you claim, you can connect the dots.

"If you ain't having fun, we ain't doing it right," according to the BHR home page.

What's your contribution?

 

Hmm let's see here.

well I spent at least 8-9 grand on my 8 alone. and believe it or not I spent about the same just to fix the FC up and its not even done yet, far from it, for example, I just got a pair of used Authentic Mazdaspeed seats from Japan for my FC. Those cost like 1.5K already. some people call me crazy cuz I got that FC roughly about 400 bux after I sold the exhaust on it. The shocks and spring I spent alone worth more than the car already.

with the money I spent + all other expenses, I can easily get a car that cost 2 even 3 times as much as the 8. I must be a cheap ***

Anyway, it sounds like Mazda is really stupid to continue anything Rotary related. but this is not the first day and it won't be last. It's their company's image

some people might never heard of Rotary engine cuz their father thought it's pos cuz he overboosted his S4 and it boost creep on him cuz he was stupid enough not to port the manifold and boom. Its not even the first time people asked me like "Does Mazda still make Rotary engine?" I was like yea they never gonna give it up, then they were like that's unbelievable they thought they stopped making it already so they moved on to Toyota and stuff, they will start looking at Mazda in the future again.

 

I think MM was talking about the turbo'ed 2.3 MZR.

Stock MZR can go around 300 hp, but anything over that u better get some reinforced pistons like the ones from Cosworth.

 

For comparison. See NY below. The next generation MX-5 will have a 200 HP piston motor (if it goes to the next generation).

All illogical reasoning. You shouldn't buy a car for what it is not.

In the grand scheme of things, that is correct. If buying a car is based on its nature as an appliance, then there is not much out there that beats a Honda Pilot or Odyssey.
However, if you are looking to purchase a car that falls into the category of the RX-8 or the MX-5, then the choices you make are based on the choices available. The MX-5 has much lest competition these days, compared to the RX-8, anyway.

I never placed myself in a strata where working with the rotary was "stooping".
It is a compromise.

Stupid? That is your word. Misguided? Depends.

We've spent an enormous amount of time educating the customer base. There will always be people such as yourself that will make informed choices (though those choices can often be equated to picking Seventh Day Adventism over Unitarianism). However, for every well-informed customer or well funded person there are a hundred cheap, stupid people. The exception to the rule does not guide the market any better here than in the new car market.
Spend any amount of time at a Mazda gathering and you will understand the "flavor". It is way more interesting than a Honda gathering, but it is a bit like watching "Mad Max" in a trailer park.

Correct. YOU having fun is the goal. Where we find our fun is a different story.

 

I wonder when Porsche will stop making the 911 rear engine model?

Anyway--- I think one thing that keeps me going is the "possibilities" that exist from the rotary engine. By design it is a much simplier engine. By design it will always be a smoother running engine. It has the possibility to make a good amount of power and due to its physical size it can be placed in adventacious positions.
With enough time and development the rotary will offer as much as any IC engine. The advances in new metals/materials and engine technology could be a big difference.
The laser sparkplug, I think, could have an enormous impact, to be able to place the "spark" in a better position in both trailing and leading just boggles my simple mind. Direct injection with its cooling affects and charge positioning in synergis with that====..........!!
Emissions could be greatly reduced as that little left over stuff would no longer be there and combustion would be much more complete.

Possibilities is what keeps me going.
Tried and true--thats for my DD and its boring.

 

Ok, I'll connect the dots for you. I find it not particularly fun to be told my choice to buy a rotary is, to use your word this time, "misguided", especially by someone that's so prominant in that field. 99% of people in business understand that saying to one's customers that they were "misguided" in making the choices they did to end up as customers is not good for business.

The BHR efforts at education (your word) are noted and appreciated. Many others have done this as well, though most would call it something more like "sharing information". Just as in a classroom however, information is only part of teaching effectiveness. Very seldom is the teacher putting the student down an effective technique even some students are acknowleged as better than others.

While hardly enough experience to be statistically representative, my time at Mazda meets has at no time reminded me of a visit to a trailer park. That it does to you, says volumes about how you think about this community. At the Indy meet last year, one might come to that conclusion if only one considered incomes of, by my estimation, $100,000/yr, poverty-striken. At DGRR, the value of the cars there ranged from $1000 to $100,000. All were justifiably proud of what they had accomplished with their cars with the resources they had to accomplish it. All were accepted in the conversation circles. A couple of the low-income guys said how cool that was. Odds are that they will be back, and with more cash to spend on BHR stuff, next year. If they feel welcomed by BHR that is.

 

I think you are trying very hard to feel offended, which is fine if it makes you feel accomplished.

Rotary owners are not interested in reason, practicality or objective results - they are interested in being rotary owners.
I do my best to make that compromise the best it can be.

 

Quoted for accuracy


Which means that there will always be a chunk of us that refuse to listen to "reason" and choose the "inferior" path in this regard, regardless of the weight of the argument against us. But then, to us, we simply place more weight and value on different things than others.

To me, I enjoy the rotary, deficiencies and all, and I do not enjoy piston engines. And for me, pursuit of that joy is perfectly reasonable, and choosing the less enjoyable path is simply not reasonable.


Sending my wife on a cruise every year is hardly practical, and for most, it isn't even reasonable. But I've found that doing so prevents even more costly hospital trips due to stress. It's cheaper and more pleasant for everyone involved to send her on a cruise than to deal with 2-4 ER visits and hospital stays a year.


Perspective and priorities change from person to person, and it doesn't render anyone else's perspective or priorities any less valid than your own.

 

And I would not dissuade you.

But this thread is about what Mazda will do and their motivations are quite a different thing.

 

if it's all about practicality then everyone would got themselves at least a mini-van.

when I first got my 8 I know almost nothing about Rotary engine. I just know it's a triangle thing that moves around inside some "8" shape housing. that's it. I got it because the 8 is something in between a 2 seater and family car, great handling + seats 4 + smooth running engine. Hmm. I have no kids so that's practical enough for me.

of course now I'm proud of being a Rotary owner(2 rotary powered car owner), but back then I really never thought about "that."

 

Agreed, but there are still humans driving Mazda's direction, choices, and perspectives, and as such, still entirely subject to the same differences of perspective and priority.

And this excludes the financial card, because that is present for the corporation and individual people the same. People can drive themselves under financially from making a large incorrect investment just like a company can. A different scale, same impact.

 

While much more people in the US drink coffee, some prefer tea. A company known for it's exquisite teas has to evaluate the market and it's changes (Demographics) and all that jazz. There are ways to repackage that tea and change advertising methods to take full advantage of your specialty product. That's basic business. If you can establish that there are enough potential tea drinkers that have been unreached it remains wise to retain tea in your product lineup.

The time may come when Coca Cola is selling more water or energy drinks than traditional Coke. Coke, on the other hand, is what they are known for and it would be a shame for them to stop.

McDonald's is selling much less fries these days. I bet they are considering how to make them more attractive to a more health conscious buying public rather than terminating them for their declining numbers.

I think sports cars need to remain prominent in the Mazda psyche and lineup. Rotaries make terrific sports car engines.

Paul

 

In the big picture, far more tea is had world-wide and it is a FAR older, more established beverage. It comes in way more varieties and, for centuries, it was the centerpiece of many world economies. To this day, it is far easier to get a bad cup of coffee than a bad cup of tea.
Tea was the raison d'etre for world exploration and conquest for many centuries.
Coffee was a curiosity from the West Indies.

Rotaries make "terrific" sports car engines in the same way that tobacco makes "terrific" cigarettes. What else are you going to use it for that doesn't already have a better alternative?
It's like those people that are constantly insisting on the "superiority" of hemp, even though cotton is clearly a better material overall. Hemp has a few interesting characteristics, but everything about the availability and utility of cotton (even though it might have a few deficits as compared to hemp) make it a more economical and universal fabric.

In the big picture (as compared to the 5.2 FSI 525, Porsche H6, the 458 Italia engine, the 4.7 L AJ V8, etc), the rotary is a horrible sportscar engine.

Even compared to its actual contemporaries (2JZ, F20C, SR20, VQ, 4B11T, etc.) the rotary is mediocre at best.

The rotary is just a curiosity. That in itself might merit its elevated status to some for sure. I certainly find it compelling in its differences from the piston Otto motors.
But as the centerpiece of a manufacturer's "sportscar" lineup, it is a bit like swooning over the turbo version of the Chevy Sprint.

 

I know you've been wanting me in your debate : You did realize, I clarified "In the US" in my example and that it was just an analogy. My analogy is still appropriate for "the US".

Paul.

 

We've gone from a splash of cold water to the whole waterfall.

 

For someone with such a keen analytical, scientific mind you chose not to give some numbers or definition to your comparisons and descriptions; Renesis vs F20C or SR20 for example. Terrific vs horrible and mediocre. I will define what I think is terrific about the rotary: Nothing is smoother for the dollar. I am a BIG fan of engines that rev high (And don't complain in so doing). The power for size and weight is quite good and I love how they sound. I am well aware of their shortcomings but I am willing to pay for those qualities I just mentioned. They are the most important for me in a sports car engine.

Paul.

 

Power to weight, durability, receptiveness to modification, aftermarket support, availability, etc.

The rotary is only notable in its power vs. displacement when you ignore that its displacement-to-stroke comparison isn't valid by piston means. It suddenly becomes a 2.6 liter in that discussion.

Smooth? Yes. But what do you expect from a motor that redlines at 3000 RPM (internally)?

The F20C will happily make 2 or 3 times as much power as stock (with boost) for years on end on the track. Same with the SR. Both have a nearly endless selection of aftermarket components - lists that almost rival the LS.
Both will do this without overheating, consuming oil or progressively losing compression. Both will take extensive knocking and are an absolute breeze to tune.

As for the big end of my list, those engines are legendary and the real definition of a "sportscar" engine.

What we deal with down here in the consumer end of the "sportscar" market is always a relative compromise. The rotary is even more so.

I'm sorry that so many of you are butt-hurt by my lack of wild abandon and glee over the rotary engine. But once you strip the gold off of the altar, you are still no closer to god.

 

Although your intention may be to cause hurt or push the buttons of the easily stirred and offended, some are capable of arguing their case without upset:

I did not mention displacement purposely since I know how many ways we can 'skin that cat'. As for power to SIZE and weight it's still stellar.

Discussing how many revs the rotary turns "Internally" is semantics. How it achieves it's smoothness is not my concern, only that it does. I don't want to know why chocolate tastes so good, just give me the damn chocolate. I'm paying for it.

The rotary will always be at a disadvantage in the aftermarket support category. That is part and parcel of being the unique piece that it is. It is a minority of car buyers who need to make 3 times the power of stock and they are quite vocal on car forums. I applaud them and wish to see them make 4 times as much (I know of rotaries that make 6 times as much). This is not important to me and most potential buyers of a lightweight, well balanced sports car. I've heard horror stories regarding the stock F20C's oil consumption rivaling the renesis and they are far from bullet proof.

There's no need for wild abandon and glee over the rotary. It does not deserve worship. It's just a really fun engine that complements really good chassis. It's a 'feel good' thing. I can't force someone to smile but I sure can share a smile with someone who's happy. THE ROTARY IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. If an engine swap brings a bigger smile to you, even that makes me happy

Giddy, gleeful, Paul

 

Dot-connecting isn't your forte.

Feeling offended by you wouldn't make my top 20000 list in a sense of accomplishments, rating somewhere significantly behind a morning dump.

I'm glad to know that I'm not interested in reason, practicality, or objective results.

I'm even more glad that you are here to save me (with your legendary customer service) from my foolishness.

Overall though, the nature of your arguments against Mazda continuing with the rotary (at least in some limited way) leads me to think that they will do exactly that.

 

Were that my intention, I could do it far more effectively that through the careful, measured argument I've forwarded so far.
I am quite accomplished at rendering grown men to tears or rage. If this seems like what I am trying to do here, then you haven't seen anything.

Nah. Loses there as well.
The F20C, for instance is actually dimensionally smaller than the Renesis "keg". It is the same length from bell housing to accessory drive and far narrower. It is only slightly taller. It weighs about the same. I can easily lift both myself.

How about if the chocolate is actually re-engineered goat placenta?

And "where it is" is not particularly receptive to modification as compared to other power plants. It is a limited investment motor because it hasn't been embraced by the larger motoring community. This isn't because of some conspiracy to keep the rotary out of the limelight. It just isn't that good.
It is just a pretty little flower in a room of spitting, kicking animals.


But there is a complete famine of people that feel the RX-8 is adequately powered as a sportscar.

Now, show me one that lives through my track schedule for a whole year.
As a drag racing motor, the rotary can be quite competent, for at least a short period of time. Though, the relative ease of building a rotary motor makes up for its fragility in that application.

There are "stories" about every motor.
However, there are HUNDREDS of examples of screaming track cars with the F20C, putting down 400 HP and more with years of trouble free revving.
There are no such stories about the Renesis.
There are just the handful of us running nearly that sort of power on the track for extended periods and the investment and care is enormous for that relatively small return.

Until you have spent an extended period of time tuning other motors, it is very difficult to understand just how relatively hobbled the rotary motor is.

 

As always, religious apologists will resort to ad hominem attacks to avoid the argument at hand.

I would be perfectly content to see the rotary motor go on as a viable powerplant well into the future. I don't have anything against it in and of itself. It is just a motor.

But, obviously, a reasoned discussion about it is well beyond many people's tolerance.