We all know the Renesis has no torque and very little power, on top of being really thirsty. It's only good quality is the 10k redline, which is why it annoys me that Mazda flaunted it as being such an innovation. Anyway, I only rant about this because whilst looking through some RX7 classified ads, I noticed that the old twin turbo 13B got 17/25 MPG to the Renesis' 16/22, and it had more torque and power. How the hell does a car company go backwards in technology?

 

Troll

 

The federal emissions & safety regulations were not the same back then.

You are also comparing a turbocharged car to one without and one that cost over $40,000 back in the mid 1990's

 

And how fast is the 7 twin turbo???? And how fast is the 8 Not turbo stock????
THANK U very much.....
And if ur worried about mpg buddy ur better off with a smart car lmfao

 

I think you're overlooking the fact that the RENESIS makes almost as much power in NA form as the FD 13B made with twin turbos. Doesn't sound like a step backward to me.

The redline is hardly the main advantage. The real advantage is the small size and light weight, which are key to the 8's main strength: balanced and nimble handling that is superior to other cars in its class.

I'm not talking about skid pad numbers, I'm talking about how effortless and joyful it is to throw into a hard turn and slide. When the wheels break free only the sound tells you, the car doesn't even twitch and maintains complete controllability without any effort to correct; not many cars are like that.

The grass is always greener on the other side, I guess.

 

Didn't the twin turbo 13b win some kind of award like "engine of the century most likely to catastrophically fail"?

Maybe they were biting off more than they could chew...

I'm no RX expert but i'm pretty sure they were taking a completely different approach with the RX8. Not necessarily going backward.

 

My signature has merit in this thread.....

enjoy feeding the troll guys.

 

The trolls are hungry.

 

lmfao.. nice thread bro

 

Nicely said and to the point.hah

 

rotarys are not as efficient in terms of MPG and power compared to piston engines. i think everyone here knows that

 

looks and handling of rx8 over hmm economy car that looks like turds and drives like ****......hmm u be the judge...

 

Yeah the Renesis sucks, you should buy something like a pontiac.

 

ls2 gto ftw

 

Making almost 200hp per liter is not efficient?

 

Check out OP's sig lol

 

lol yup !

 

with that Torque and v8 style MPG... ya that HP is pretty impressive, but the torque and MPG from a 1.3L being that bad is what brings it down my friend.

 

The Rx8 is a light car, we really don't need a lot of torque. The car is meant to be driven at high rpm anyway. As far as fuel efficiency goes, for such a small engine producing that much power, it is pretty efficient. Imagine the fuel mileage of a 1.3L piston engine producing 230 hp. The new engine will have direct injection and other technologies that will improve power and fuel efficiency. The rotary hasn't been developed as much as the piston engine so I'm sure better things will come with time. Imagine if every car manufacturer was investing money in the development of the rotary.

 

you are right about that there hasn't been as much research and development on the rotary. but the reason why they don't make a 1.3L piston engine with 230HP is because they don't need to. they can make a little bigger engine with better MPG and power. so there is simply no need for a engine that small. look at a STI engine 2.0L not that much bigger and makes MUCH BETTER POWER. can you image a STI engine in a rx8... thats would be nuts

the rx8 is light and your right doesn't need much torque, yet people still say the rx8 is to slow. and other brands like a 370z which is still a light car for the most part has over 100 TQ / 100HP over a rx8...


in the end the piston is better in terms on efficiency all around as of this moment.

 

I disagree rx8r3mike. Most of the newer piston engines are direct injection which we are not. Look at the new 16X for instance. Mazda has hinted out little things here and there. Like a huge improvement on fuel economy with direct injection, as well as producing over 300hp out of a 1.6L. Also don't forget the weight advantage. Even the rx7 was known for its cornering ability. Our light weight engine makes 50/50 weight an easier possibility. Especially for a 4 door.

Fuel economy is up to you. I was able to pull off 25.9mpg by driving this baby with a vacuum gauge. It required patience but it is doable. Also don't take for granted our high rpm fuel mileage. Track driving I can pull off 14mpg while keeping in the 7-10k RPM range. My old 427 mustang was lucky to get 8-11mpg on the track.

Also if you look at track times the 350Z a 3.5L engine runs almost identical lap times as our 8 does. This is comparing a 2.6L engine (if you follow the normal formula for our motors regarded by most sanctions) to a 3.5L. Now the 370Z is a huge improvement but I am really excited to see how the 16X compares with its narrower rotors, which increases the torque and the direct injection which allows for better fuel mixture.

 

The reason the RX8 has low torque is not because it's a rotary, it's because it's only a 78 cubic inch non-turbo engine.

 

Owned: This comes from Mazda

" 30 percent more fuel efficient than the previous Renesis rotary. Impressively, Hitomi stated that the 1.6-liter 16X is slightly more fuel efficient than the automaker's standard 2.0-liter gas engine."

 

That would put the 16x in the ~30 mpg hwy range... with possibly MORE than 300 hp?

IF Mazda can pull this off AND make it emmissions compliant, we are looking at a quantum leap forward.

 

i'm wondering how you're making 200 hp per liter without boosting? especially to the wheel

the ren is a good engine and does what it was designed to do. it was a more efficient and reliable solution to the old 13b's from the 7's.. It wasn't designed to make huge power. I think it's that fact that disappoints people.. the 8 LOOKS fast, but it has a hard time producing big numbers.