******** Thirsty!!! *******

 

You do realize that all the other car companies dropped developpement because of the thermal inefficiency as opposed to the piston engine. In simpler terms the piston engine was able to provided the same performance for less gas. This was a simple economic decision by the other car manufactures. Look at the volume of rotaries Mazda sells as opposed to pistons. They to understand this fact but use the rotary as a differentiator from the other manufactures. It is more of a sales tool then a technical advantage. Hell they had to hobble the MS3 so it wouldn't out run the RX in 0-60mph.

I like the rotary and it is unique but lets face reality. A piston engine is simply more efficient and no amount of development into a rotary will change that fact of physics. Enjoy your car but be realistic.

 

Well you cant be so blunt about it, I mean there are other factors involved in the Piston vs Rotary battle. Look at the rx7, back in the day when the FD came to the US, it dominated all of its competition and the only draw back was the cost, but still. Anyways we buy sports cars because we want to have fun, not worry about mpg =P I understand your point though, freaking camrys and other econoboxes run faster than us in terms of straightline speed. A good point in owning a rotary though is its low center of gravity, its 4 banger rival would probably the subaru's boxer and the porches.

 

A spinning top..........................

 

Piston = Woman on top position

Rotary = Rotating 69

 

rant mode on. Too bad you are blatantly wrong on 2 out of 3. I keep having to tell people this over and over again but they never seem to comprehend this. The rotary is not torqueless. It is SMALL!!!! ANY small engine has relatively low torque compared to a larger engine! What is so hard for people to comprehend about this??? It's a simple concept. If we had a 5.7 liter rotary, it would have tons of torque. You don't buy a small engine and then complain about lack of torque. That's plain dumb. For it's size it is no worse than anything else therefore it isn't low in torque it is right where it should be.

The rotary is a very reliable engine when taken care of. Many have gone hundreds of thousands of miles until they literally wear out. You only hear about the bad stories online. You never hear people start threads that say "hey my engine didn't blow up today". You get a skewed outlook on reliability if you only look at forums.

It is thermally inefficient. That is it's downfall. Fortunately the fact that it is compact and lightweight for it's output gives it advantages that piston engines don't have. This along with the fact that it can be made to run on almost any fuel with very liitle and sometimes no work and now you've really got an engine that has potential compared to piston engines. If gas mileage is your issue than you probably aren't going to buy a big engine that has lots of torque so pick one. Which is more important.

Each engine has it's advantages and disadvantages but when people spout out complete and utter ignorant horsecrap like this, it really pisses me off. Rant over.

 

Too complected for you to undrestand!

 

As Smashing Pumpkins once said..."Despite all my rage, it is still just two rats in a cage" (slightly modified to better fit)

 

 

A whirling dervish..................

 

It's like a small lite weight piston engine that has less power and gets gas mileage like a big V-8.

 

Thank you..............................+1

 

First off, why do you think I'm ignorant just by the fact that I state that the rotary engine has no torque? I guess almost everybody on this forum knows this. The size of the engine has it's advantages in distributing a good weight distribution in the car and all that crap. But let's face it, if Mazda doesn't do anything on improving the image of the rotary and fuel efficiency (which is the nature of he beast to be not so fuel efficient), I don't expect the rotary engine to last for much longer, and it will be a nice museum piece.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not complaining... I am just stating what everybody knows... I love my Rx8, and I LOVE MY ROTARY!. It gives me a completely different driving joy that I have never experienced before!. I am a first time rotary owner, and if I'm able to buy more rotary cars in the future, I probably will.
..........................

Yes, it is ovious that the rotary engine is small, therefore they are low in torque...
So no, I'm not wrong 2 out of 3. I think it might be 1 out of 3, because it might actually be reliable.

 

Damn this sounds familar. Didn't I read this after the first "gas crisis", in 1975? And again in 1996?? In fact, wasn't 2005 gonna be the last year of the RX-8?? Oh no, wait—it was 2006. No… 2007. I read it right here! Gee, guess it was—what's the word?—oh yeah… wrong!

 

A 1.3L piston engine would not have more power. It would just be weak and annoying. The power output of the rotary is extraordinary for a 1.3 with no FI.

Oh, and you spelled 'light' wrong.

 

You know what car has a 1.3L piston engine? My old Geo Metro and I can assure you THIS car is much much MUCH faster, although it does eat gas like a V-8; but for me the former outweighs the latter. In my opinion if the engine doesn't suit you then modify your engine, put in another engine, or buy another car.

 

Weak is weak no matter how you slice it. It's like saying, for a 5 year old that kid is really smart..... but in the big picture theres not a lot a 5 year old can tell you.

Feel free to spell check, I didn't.

 

I don't know. How about the fact that it has plenty of it for an engine it's size. A Viper has no torque....compared to an ocean liner. It's got plenty.

I still don't think you understand so I'll disagree and hold the number at 2. By stating you are wrong on one account it is still an admission of being wrong though so I'm happy with that.

 

 

 

I use the Metro to explain the difference in power efficiency compared to a piston engine. Granted it is the upgraded Metro engine. 1L (55hp;58tq)vs 1.3L (70hp;74tq)

Renesis High power (238hp; 124tq)...


How do I describe the rotary --- Smooth (Rev the engine and the car does not jerk to one side like a piston engine)

 

runs on black magic and hamsters

 

A blender.

 

232 bhp is not weak. And if the 5 year old could fit far enough back in my engine bay to give my car 50/50 balance then fine. I don't know what the hell that means so here's the point:
Little rotary engine allows for a balanced sports car. Little piston engine allows for a floundering econobox. The major competition from a big V8 is a rumbling slob with a low rent interior.

It has nothing to do with a 5 year old.
Spell-check would not have picked up the word "lite" as it is spelled correctly. It is just not the right word.

 

I don't think the child labor laws would allow you to put a five year old in your engine bay but go for it if you want. I wouldn't do it though as the deflooding procedure is really nasty.

The thread asked how would "you" describe the rotary not how would "Shinka - Dona" describe the rotary.