3 Rotor Motor
 

Now the stakes are getting higher and higher in the performance arena. Lexus will unleash a V-8 in the Is-300, maybe being named IS-430. Big engine, small car ='s phenom performance.

Mazda must compete with these monster motors with a monster 3 rotor motor or even 4 rotor motor. This will effectively negate any perceived torque deficiency, yet will keep the high revving performance that the rotary is known for, keeping Mazda on the top ent of the performance spectrum where they belong.

Mazda has previously manufactured a 3 rotor motor in the Eunos Cosmo. Furthermore, 3 rotors is preferable to any type of forced induction.

Waddyathink?

Re: 3 Rotor Motor
 

You, know.... I can't argue against anything he said!...

Absolutely,... we WANT, we NEED at 3 rotor renesis. Forget forced induction!

I hope Mazda doesn't join the stupid horsepower war that is going on now. Altimas and Accords with 240 HP? Give me a break. Who needs that kind of power? Give me better handling than these understeering pigs. I'll gladly trade 40 HP, especially if we got the Euro accord here.
More motor = more weight over the front wheels = sloppier handling. No one who is in the horsepower war is working to get the handling right. Which is why the Mazda6 is shining so brightly right now. It may be down a few ponies, but it can carve up a road better than its competitors.
If Mazda should join any war, it should be the "add lightness" war. Of course, its an easy war to win when no one shows up.

Of course we shouldn't just add power without concideration... but I think there are more powerful cars which do handle well.

I'd just prefer to see a 3 rotor renesis than a turbo ... Of couse there are people who will use it in a horsepower war, but I believe there are real applications for that sort of motor.

Adding lightness is always a good thing!

yes, i'd have to agree that a three rotor RENESIS would seriously S#!T KICK a comparably sized V8 ('cause a 2.0ish 3 rotor is just like a 4.0L 9 cylinder) in power, and would easily compete torque-wise (not that it matters)...

stuck in the next gen RX-7, whoa baby...
let's assume that the RX-8 is in fact going to come out with a 245bhp (hp, not ps) 2 rotor... accounting for frictional losses and added rotational mass, i'd overshoot the inneficientcy saying that max power would be about 135%: 331 hp...

or, let's say that the (undoubtedly) higher state of tune Mazda would have for the RX-7, would have a 145% output: 356 bhp!!

i could see that... think of an RX-7 as a world beater... any price range... holy crap... (BTW, how much power does the Z06 trimmed LS1 V8 make??)

but Don, a 4 rotor??? :eek: that's a little nuts man... if Mazda was in the $300K super-exotic market, with a mid-engine setup (only way to fly), MAAAAAAAYBE i could see that, but no one needs 600 friggin horsepower (it's the equivalent of a 5.2L V12...) in a stock trimmed vehicle... but a competitor with the Viper?? well, ya, okay maybe that too, but Mazda makes sports cars, not muscle cars, right?? hmm...

Z06=405 bhp with like 385 ft lbs of torque

if that's what Chevy's bringing, a 3-rotor RX-7 would hang, quite litterally with it... but at what, equal or (more probably) greater price than the Z06??i hope that Mazda doesn't get into the price tag wars as well... but hp wars are alright... :)
JUST GIMME A NEW 7!!! so as to decrease the value of the FD's... ;)

Re: 3 Rotor Motor
 

Small car + Big Engine = Nose heavy & poor handling.

A V8 IS430 would be utterly laughable on a handling course. It would be a Japanese Mustang! Sure, it would be fast as hell in a straight line.....but where's the fun in a straight line?

We are getting the (vasty better looking) European Accord here. It's called the Acura TSX, available spring 2003. Priced at around $25k, only available with the 200hp 4 cylinder 2 liter engine from the RSX-S. Still FWD so IMO not a competitor to the RX-8.

Re: Re: 3 Rotor Motor
 

I showed this post to the guy I'm working for and he couldn't stop swearing... LOL.

He did (Once he'd calmed down)... point out that this is NOT an american V8... it's all alloy and pretty light so it could be possible to balance the car and make it handle OK...

He's had a load of TVR's all with large alloy V8's and will claim that they handle well so there is a danger that he does have a point... especially since the IS300 was so under powered!

If you consider the the dimensions of the rotary engine generally don excede the size of the transmission housing, I bet they could stuff a 3 rotor into an RX-8 or RX-7 without going forward.

Looking at my 1982 RX-7 GSL, I bet I could do the same thing. It might push the shifter back about 5 inches, however.

Change the balance of the car? I think it would actually be about the same. The added weight is low and the transmission moves towards the center of the car as well. All good things and the added HP will definately make up for the extra weight!!

WOW what a daydream :D

Re: Re: Re: 3 Rotor Motor
 

The IS300 already is nose-heavy for a rear-wheel drive car. Front/rear weight distribution is 54/46. Add a larger engine (alloy or not, the current I-6 isn't that heavy) and things will get worse. Plus, the IS300 is already on the heavy side overall, at over 3400 lbs. It isn't that its under powered, its that it was overweight. 150-200 lbs shaved off that weight, plus a mild massaging of the I6 was what was called for, not a V8. Remember that this is the same bulletproof I6 that was in the Supra. I don't understand the necessity to do a new engine when the old one had gobs of potential.

pelucidor, I've been following the development of the TSX closely. Should be a nice car, depending on how Honda prices and specs it. The TSX is the car the US Accord should have been. You're absolutely right, its no competitor for the RX-8, but I know a few people (my parents included) in the market for a new sedan in the next year, and that might be the ticket, or the Mazda6 (twins seperated at birth!)

Re: Re: Re: Re: 3 Rotor Motor
 

True, although 54/46 isn't terrible... You're right about it being heavy and the I6 having untapped potential... but I guess they will go their own way...

Perhaps they want to do it without a turbo for enissions or somthing? I don't know how heavy the 4.3 engine is... probably not that much heavier though.

I love I6's they sound nice! My triumph 2L I6 sounds awesome.

Any idea how heavy an IS200 is?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 3 Rotor Motor
 

I'm a fan of the sound of I-6's too. Its a shame they are a dying breed. Even BMW has a V-6 under development. :(

An IS200 weighs 2992 - 3168 lbs (depending on what transmission you opt for).

handling in what perspective grip or drift? hehe

As an alternative to the 3-rotor renesis, how about a 2-rotor with increased displacement ....say a two liter two rotor? My guess is that the power output would be similar to a three rotor, but the two rotor version would be a little smaller and lighter since it would require one less steel side plate. Maybe on the negative side, the two rotor wouldn't be as smooth though....but that's what I'd like to see.

Well mazda has made a 2.0L 2 rotor before but it was only a prototype and they never made more than 2 of them. They were taller and wider than the 13B it was called the 21A. Each chamber was 1000 and some odd cc's it made 200Hp N/A and something like 180-90flbs of torque. It didn't rev very high and was a gass hog.

well Curtus wright made a 2 rotor that they stuck in a mustang that had 80 c.i. rotors thats like 1300cc rotors! it had 195Hp
They also made a single rotor that was a 31 litre!!! the rotor was out of a bad B movie! it had somewheres around 700Hp

I just had to show this pic it just blows my mind everytime I look at it .

Maybe just one rotor of the one in the picture on the last post. Just kiddin, I too think a 3 rotor wanky moty would be a great advancement in both torque and horsepower. The weight differential would be easily handled by Mazda. Is there really a possibility of getting a 3 rotor here. What was the car that had it like and when was it made?

Re: Re: Re: 3 Rotor Motor
 

I suppose the IS300 does have the "advantage" of being set up for an I6, so it might be possible to mount the 4.3L V8 farther back in the wheelbase to maintain (or even possibly improve) weight balance. But there's no denying that, alloy or not, it will add weight.

Those TVR's were probably purpose-designed to accomodate a large V8 while maintaining proper balance....the IS300 probably wasn't. And even with alloys, that Lexus 4.3L V8 is still a porker...it weighs more than than the iron-block 4.6L SOCH V8s that Ford uses in trucks.

The Toyota inline 6 has an iron block. It is one of the heaviest inline 6 car engines around. The Lexus V8 is damn light. Look at the GS300 vs GS430 (nee GS400) 53/47 to 54/46. (with all the extra stuff you get for 10K more, that takes up a bunch of weight difference) The IS300 comes in at 53/47, so the V8 shouldn't upset the current weight distribution.



Aren't the rotors 80mm thick, so adding a third rotor would entail about 6 more inches about 3 for rotor 2 for partition, 1/2 thicker radiator?
Think RX-7 :D

"Think RX-7 :D"

yes, my thoughts exactly... :cool:

Just out of curiousity, how many people here would be willing to buy a 35-40k 3300 lb. RX-8?

*crickets chirping*

We're back to wanting more power, more torque, less weight, less cost, more options, more luxury, more colors, bigger brakes, more interior space, nicer materials, etc.

The RX-8 hits a particular mark, and making a significant change like going to a 3 rotor engine would make it a different car. Either you like the RX-8, or you don't. 250 HP should be plenty for me, as long as the handling is up to the expectations that I have after driving RX-7s and Miatas. I care more about handling and real world performance than locker room "whose is bigger" contests. The RX-8 will have virtually the same HP/weight ratio as the 350Z, and a better ratio than anything close in price that can seat 4. If it's already the best in that measure, why mess with the formula and add weight and cost to beat the others by a wider margin? I wouldn't pay for it, and I bet most of those that are asking for it wouldn't pay for it either. If Mazda came out and said that they were going to nix the sub $32k market and just make 3 rotor cars starting at $32k, I bet everyone here would complain about it.
Sure, 250 HP doesn't look as good on paper, but I don't care about bragging rights. If I get one I'll actually drive it and let the people with overweight and overpriced 400 HP monsters spend their time online talking about how weak it is. I'll be the one having real fun.

I'd be WILLING but UNable :)

I don't have that kind of cash right now. 30k is my limit, more or less.

i wouldn't complain, but i would be looking for something else to buy as it would not be what i am after. the rx8 is!:D

I agree but if Mazda could make a 3 rotor 375hp 3150lbs rx-8 a la Corvette Z06 I'd be putting a deposit down right now. :D