1.6L Rotary for the next RX7?
07-28-2007, 01:50 AM
#126
Super Moderator
Whatever Mazda does they should be shooting for 300HP to 350HP to keep up with the Nissan 350Z and other cars in its market. A new underpowered RX will just kill the market for this car and basically that would be stupid of Mazda while they have been sitting on a 3 rotor able to put out around 300-350HP NA for YEARS. YEARS.... that is just so sad to think about... for YEARS the 3 rotor has been sitting around and nobody at Mazda thinks to do something with it....
3 rotor or FI a 2 rotor, put get the HP numbers and 0-60 to 1/4mile times down. Its about performance and being competitive in the market, not screwing your supporters over with "raped" 4 port engines missing an oil cooler or doing nothing for years to increase 6 port HP numbers while the competition HP number and 0-60 keeps getting better.
Somebody at Mazda or Ford has to have some shred of common sense and respect for the rotary market. Its not that you can't have a kick *** powerful rotary (at 350HP) , its just that somewhere in the decision process at Mazda, somebody or a group is making very, very bad decisions.
3 rotor or FI a 2 rotor, put get the HP numbers and 0-60 to 1/4mile times down. Its about performance and being competitive in the market, not screwing your supporters over with "raped" 4 port engines missing an oil cooler or doing nothing for years to increase 6 port HP numbers while the competition HP number and 0-60 keeps getting better.
Somebody at Mazda or Ford has to have some shred of common sense and respect for the rotary market. Its not that you can't have a kick *** powerful rotary (at 350HP) , its just that somewhere in the decision process at Mazda, somebody or a group is making very, very bad decisions.
having an engine that would use 30% PLUS more gas.
07-28-2007, 04:03 AM
#127
I question if the issue was truly just emissions and fuel consumption versus bean counter thinking that they would get a higher profit ratio with a cheaper to build engine and miscalculations on acceptable HP output.
The RENESIS came about by engineers redesigning the rotary engine to meet emission and fuel consumption. It appears this was a more "back door" or low support effort from Mazda that once it appeared the idea of the hard core rotary technicians working on it would work Mazda executives then gave support.
Why not make a major effort to redesign the 3 rotor 20B? Had Mazda engineers been successful with emissions and fuel consumption, we are talking about a car that would easily make competitive HP goals for the market. You are talking domination of the market.
However, in hindsight (which is usually closer to 20/20), Mazda then would make a series of blunders despite the RX-8 series having some success by underpowering the RX-8.
250HP NA, had they been able to deliver it, would have been very competitive based on the power to weight ratio of the RX-8. But, they did not. Mazda undershot their stated objective and it may have been ultimately better if they did the engineering work to have met it. The RX-8 competition, for example the 350Z, was able to match the RX-8 and exceed in terms of 0-60 to 1/4 mile performance.
Since 2003, numerous cars have danced all over Mazda flagship cars in short distance performance, including cars in its inventory. Mazda has yet failed to answer the challenge and its 4 to 5 years into production of the RX-8.
Sales of the RX-8 have suffered because it could not keep up with its competition in HP. While in almost every other area; handling, looks, interior, etc.... The RX-8 IS a winner. In fact, give the present RX-8 another 75HP to 100HP and its still a winner, if now starts to be dominate in the class. This is without a major body redesign.
What Mazda did to the 4 port Auto and 5 speed manual was madness. Mazda "raped" that engine on purpose and spent plenty of time and money doing it. All for what? This did not help them as an under performing engine would only hurt their sales and reputation, except for those interested in just looks and interior space. They would easily best been served with standardizing on a 6 port and saving the R&D and money with developing an FI version of the 6 port.
How is it that pro-tuners (Mazsport, Pettit...) can accomplish what Mazda can not? The underpowering of the RX-8 has done nothing but hurt sales and Mazda's reputation. If we talk the same car, with Mazda putting in a 335HP engine, Mazda KOs all near-price competition. The car would have sold through the roof. Underpowering the engine may seem cost effective, but ultimately its self-defeating as sales will be down. So its not cost effective to go down this path. Especially with other options, FI or that 3 rotor collecting dust, sitting around.
The 3 rotor has been sitting for years. I just can not believe a serious Mazda R&D team could not get it into a min. acceptable range for emissions and mpg. Yes the 3 rotor engine would/might cost more (because who knows what cost savings you might figure out), but how much did producing underpowered 4 ports and 6 ports at the same time cost Mazda overall?
The RENESIS came about by engineers redesigning the rotary engine to meet emission and fuel consumption. It appears this was a more "back door" or low support effort from Mazda that once it appeared the idea of the hard core rotary technicians working on it would work Mazda executives then gave support.
Why not make a major effort to redesign the 3 rotor 20B? Had Mazda engineers been successful with emissions and fuel consumption, we are talking about a car that would easily make competitive HP goals for the market. You are talking domination of the market.
However, in hindsight (which is usually closer to 20/20), Mazda then would make a series of blunders despite the RX-8 series having some success by underpowering the RX-8.
250HP NA, had they been able to deliver it, would have been very competitive based on the power to weight ratio of the RX-8. But, they did not. Mazda undershot their stated objective and it may have been ultimately better if they did the engineering work to have met it. The RX-8 competition, for example the 350Z, was able to match the RX-8 and exceed in terms of 0-60 to 1/4 mile performance.
Since 2003, numerous cars have danced all over Mazda flagship cars in short distance performance, including cars in its inventory. Mazda has yet failed to answer the challenge and its 4 to 5 years into production of the RX-8.
Sales of the RX-8 have suffered because it could not keep up with its competition in HP. While in almost every other area; handling, looks, interior, etc.... The RX-8 IS a winner. In fact, give the present RX-8 another 75HP to 100HP and its still a winner, if now starts to be dominate in the class. This is without a major body redesign.
What Mazda did to the 4 port Auto and 5 speed manual was madness. Mazda "raped" that engine on purpose and spent plenty of time and money doing it. All for what? This did not help them as an under performing engine would only hurt their sales and reputation, except for those interested in just looks and interior space. They would easily best been served with standardizing on a 6 port and saving the R&D and money with developing an FI version of the 6 port.
How is it that pro-tuners (Mazsport, Pettit...) can accomplish what Mazda can not? The underpowering of the RX-8 has done nothing but hurt sales and Mazda's reputation. If we talk the same car, with Mazda putting in a 335HP engine, Mazda KOs all near-price competition. The car would have sold through the roof. Underpowering the engine may seem cost effective, but ultimately its self-defeating as sales will be down. So its not cost effective to go down this path. Especially with other options, FI or that 3 rotor collecting dust, sitting around.
The 3 rotor has been sitting for years. I just can not believe a serious Mazda R&D team could not get it into a min. acceptable range for emissions and mpg. Yes the 3 rotor engine would/might cost more (because who knows what cost savings you might figure out), but how much did producing underpowered 4 ports and 6 ports at the same time cost Mazda overall?
Last edited by sosonic; 07-28-2007 at 04:05 AM.
07-28-2007, 07:01 AM
#128
White RX8 R3
I question if the issue was truly just emissions and fuel consumption versus bean counter thinking that they would get a higher profit ratio with a cheaper to build engine and miscalculations on acceptable HP output.
The RENESIS came about by engineers redesigning the rotary engine to meet emission and fuel consumption. It appears this was a more "back door" or low support effort from Mazda that once it appeared the idea of the hard core rotary technicians working on it would work Mazda executives then gave support.
Why not make a major effort to redesign the 3 rotor 20B? Had Mazda engineers been successful with emissions and fuel consumption, we are talking about a car that would easily make competitive HP goals for the market. You are talking domination of the market.
However, in hindsight (which is usually closer to 20/20), Mazda then would make a series of blunders despite the RX-8 series having some success by underpowering the RX-8.
250HP NA, had they been able to deliver it, would have been very competitive based on the power to weight ratio of the RX-8. But, they did not. Mazda undershot their stated objective and it may have been ultimately better if they did the engineering work to have met it. The RX-8 competition, for example the 350Z, was able to match the RX-8 and exceed in terms of 0-60 to 1/4 mile performance.
Since 2003, numerous cars have danced all over Mazda flagship cars in short distance performance, including cars in its inventory. Mazda has yet failed to answer the challenge and its 4 to 5 years into production of the RX-8.
Sales of the RX-8 have suffered because it could not keep up with its competition in HP. While in almost every other area; handling, looks, interior, etc.... The RX-8 IS a winner. In fact, give the present RX-8 another 75HP to 100HP and its still a winner, if now starts to be dominate in the class. This is without a major body redesign.
What Mazda did to the 4 port Auto and 5 speed manual was madness. Mazda "raped" that engine on purpose and spent plenty of time and money doing it. All for what? This did not help them as an under performing engine would only hurt their sales and reputation, except for those interested in just looks and interior space. They would easily best been served with standardizing on a 6 port and saving the R&D and money with developing an FI version of the 6 port.
How is it that pro-tuners (Mazsport, Pettit...) can accomplish what Mazda can not? The underpowering of the RX-8 has done nothing but hurt sales and Mazda's reputation. If we talk the same car, with Mazda putting in a 335HP engine, Mazda KOs all near-price competition. The car would have sold through the roof. Underpowering the engine may seem cost effective, but ultimately its self-defeating as sales will be down. So its not cost effective to go down this path. Especially with other options, FI or that 3 rotor collecting dust, sitting around.
The 3 rotor has been sitting for years. I just can not believe a serious Mazda R&D team could not get it into a min. acceptable range for emissions and mpg. Yes the 3 rotor engine would/might cost more (because who knows what cost savings you might figure out), but how much did producing underpowered 4 ports and 6 ports at the same time cost Mazda overall?
The RENESIS came about by engineers redesigning the rotary engine to meet emission and fuel consumption. It appears this was a more "back door" or low support effort from Mazda that once it appeared the idea of the hard core rotary technicians working on it would work Mazda executives then gave support.
Why not make a major effort to redesign the 3 rotor 20B? Had Mazda engineers been successful with emissions and fuel consumption, we are talking about a car that would easily make competitive HP goals for the market. You are talking domination of the market.
However, in hindsight (which is usually closer to 20/20), Mazda then would make a series of blunders despite the RX-8 series having some success by underpowering the RX-8.
250HP NA, had they been able to deliver it, would have been very competitive based on the power to weight ratio of the RX-8. But, they did not. Mazda undershot their stated objective and it may have been ultimately better if they did the engineering work to have met it. The RX-8 competition, for example the 350Z, was able to match the RX-8 and exceed in terms of 0-60 to 1/4 mile performance.
Since 2003, numerous cars have danced all over Mazda flagship cars in short distance performance, including cars in its inventory. Mazda has yet failed to answer the challenge and its 4 to 5 years into production of the RX-8.
Sales of the RX-8 have suffered because it could not keep up with its competition in HP. While in almost every other area; handling, looks, interior, etc.... The RX-8 IS a winner. In fact, give the present RX-8 another 75HP to 100HP and its still a winner, if now starts to be dominate in the class. This is without a major body redesign.
What Mazda did to the 4 port Auto and 5 speed manual was madness. Mazda "raped" that engine on purpose and spent plenty of time and money doing it. All for what? This did not help them as an under performing engine would only hurt their sales and reputation, except for those interested in just looks and interior space. They would easily best been served with standardizing on a 6 port and saving the R&D and money with developing an FI version of the 6 port.
How is it that pro-tuners (Mazsport, Pettit...) can accomplish what Mazda can not? The underpowering of the RX-8 has done nothing but hurt sales and Mazda's reputation. If we talk the same car, with Mazda putting in a 335HP engine, Mazda KOs all near-price competition. The car would have sold through the roof. Underpowering the engine may seem cost effective, but ultimately its self-defeating as sales will be down. So its not cost effective to go down this path. Especially with other options, FI or that 3 rotor collecting dust, sitting around.
The 3 rotor has been sitting for years. I just can not believe a serious Mazda R&D team could not get it into a min. acceptable range for emissions and mpg. Yes the 3 rotor engine would/might cost more (because who knows what cost savings you might figure out), but how much did producing underpowered 4 ports and 6 ports at the same time cost Mazda overall?
Can not agree more...
07-28-2007, 10:53 AM
#129
I question if the issue was truly just emissions and fuel consumption versus bean counter thinking that they would get a higher profit ratio with a cheaper to build engine and miscalculations on acceptable HP output.
The RENESIS came about by engineers redesigning the rotary engine to meet emission and fuel consumption. It appears this was a more "back door" or low support effort from Mazda that once it appeared the idea of the hard core rotary technicians working on it would work Mazda executives then gave support.
Why not make a major effort to redesign the 3 rotor 20B? Had Mazda engineers been successful with emissions and fuel consumption, we are talking about a car that would easily make competitive HP goals for the market. You are talking domination of the market.
However, in hindsight (which is usually closer to 20/20), Mazda then would make a series of blunders despite the RX-8 series having some success by underpowering the RX-8.
250HP NA, had they been able to deliver it, would have been very competitive based on the power to weight ratio of the RX-8. But, they did not. Mazda undershot their stated objective and it may have been ultimately better if they did the engineering work to have met it. The RX-8 competition, for example the 350Z, was able to match the RX-8 and exceed in terms of 0-60 to 1/4 mile performance.
Since 2003, numerous cars have danced all over Mazda flagship cars in short distance performance, including cars in its inventory. Mazda has yet failed to answer the challenge and its 4 to 5 years into production of the RX-8.
Sales of the RX-8 have suffered because it could not keep up with its competition in HP. While in almost every other area; handling, looks, interior, etc.... The RX-8 IS a winner. In fact, give the present RX-8 another 75HP to 100HP and its still a winner, if now starts to be dominate in the class. This is without a major body redesign.
What Mazda did to the 4 port Auto and 5 speed manual was madness. Mazda "raped" that engine on purpose and spent plenty of time and money doing it. All for what? This did not help them as an under performing engine would only hurt their sales and reputation, except for those interested in just looks and interior space. They would easily best been served with standardizing on a 6 port and saving the R&D and money with developing an FI version of the 6 port.
How is it that pro-tuners (Mazsport, Pettit...) can accomplish what Mazda can not? The underpowering of the RX-8 has done nothing but hurt sales and Mazda's reputation. If we talk the same car, with Mazda putting in a 335HP engine, Mazda KOs all near-price competition. The car would have sold through the roof. Underpowering the engine may seem cost effective, but ultimately its self-defeating as sales will be down. So its not cost effective to go down this path. Especially with other options, FI or that 3 rotor collecting dust, sitting around.
The 3 rotor has been sitting for years. I just can not believe a serious Mazda R&D team could not get it into a min. acceptable range for emissions and mpg. Yes the 3 rotor engine would/might cost more (because who knows what cost savings you might figure out), but how much did producing underpowered 4 ports and 6 ports at the same time cost Mazda overall?
The RENESIS came about by engineers redesigning the rotary engine to meet emission and fuel consumption. It appears this was a more "back door" or low support effort from Mazda that once it appeared the idea of the hard core rotary technicians working on it would work Mazda executives then gave support.
Why not make a major effort to redesign the 3 rotor 20B? Had Mazda engineers been successful with emissions and fuel consumption, we are talking about a car that would easily make competitive HP goals for the market. You are talking domination of the market.
However, in hindsight (which is usually closer to 20/20), Mazda then would make a series of blunders despite the RX-8 series having some success by underpowering the RX-8.
250HP NA, had they been able to deliver it, would have been very competitive based on the power to weight ratio of the RX-8. But, they did not. Mazda undershot their stated objective and it may have been ultimately better if they did the engineering work to have met it. The RX-8 competition, for example the 350Z, was able to match the RX-8 and exceed in terms of 0-60 to 1/4 mile performance.
Since 2003, numerous cars have danced all over Mazda flagship cars in short distance performance, including cars in its inventory. Mazda has yet failed to answer the challenge and its 4 to 5 years into production of the RX-8.
Sales of the RX-8 have suffered because it could not keep up with its competition in HP. While in almost every other area; handling, looks, interior, etc.... The RX-8 IS a winner. In fact, give the present RX-8 another 75HP to 100HP and its still a winner, if now starts to be dominate in the class. This is without a major body redesign.
What Mazda did to the 4 port Auto and 5 speed manual was madness. Mazda "raped" that engine on purpose and spent plenty of time and money doing it. All for what? This did not help them as an under performing engine would only hurt their sales and reputation, except for those interested in just looks and interior space. They would easily best been served with standardizing on a 6 port and saving the R&D and money with developing an FI version of the 6 port.
How is it that pro-tuners (Mazsport, Pettit...) can accomplish what Mazda can not? The underpowering of the RX-8 has done nothing but hurt sales and Mazda's reputation. If we talk the same car, with Mazda putting in a 335HP engine, Mazda KOs all near-price competition. The car would have sold through the roof. Underpowering the engine may seem cost effective, but ultimately its self-defeating as sales will be down. So its not cost effective to go down this path. Especially with other options, FI or that 3 rotor collecting dust, sitting around.
The 3 rotor has been sitting for years. I just can not believe a serious Mazda R&D team could not get it into a min. acceptable range for emissions and mpg. Yes the 3 rotor engine would/might cost more (because who knows what cost savings you might figure out), but how much did producing underpowered 4 ports and 6 ports at the same time cost Mazda overall?
If they spent the money to put the 20b in the car you would have a 35k base car instead of a 27k base car. that is IF you could get it to pass emissions. Then you would have the same problem you have now with people bitching about gas mileage.
And as for the car being a flop and how much mazda lost configuring it they way they did...I would say they are probably pretty happy with production numbers of 160,000+ and counting for a small niche market car. There have been several people post up lately and say that if Mazda just gave them more power it would be a mainstream car. It will never be a mainstream car just because of the powerplant. And if you look at Mazda's history you will see they have never really wanted their rotary cars to be mainstream 200,000 sales per year cars.
07-28-2007, 06:47 PM
#130
Curves Ahead
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=cavemancan;1988564Truthfully I am not that worried about fuel economy...If it gets better then great...If it stays the same and we get more power...Awsome! Ultimately, I want an engine with good power out the box that has potential to be modded to good power numbers (like 400 wHp) relatively reliably.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I'd trade some HP for fuel economy. My next car WILL get at least 30 mpg highway. If the Renesis can't be redesigned to turn some more of that heat into power, then I'll be looking at a Miata, a Lotus, or whatever else comes along in the next three years.
I wonder if a bigger engine would let the engine idle at lower RPM. I've noticed that the 8 takes a bigger hit on fuel economy sitting in traffic than the other cars I drive.
[/QUOTE]Well, I'd trade some HP for fuel economy. My next car WILL get at least 30 mpg highway. If the Renesis can't be redesigned to turn some more of that heat into power, then I'll be looking at a Miata, a Lotus, or whatever else comes along in the next three years.
I wonder if a bigger engine would let the engine idle at lower RPM. I've noticed that the 8 takes a bigger hit on fuel economy sitting in traffic than the other cars I drive.
07-31-2007, 08:19 PM
#131
rotary courage
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: :uoıʇɐɔoן
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ Yeah, a bigger engine might actually mean better fuel economy, since you could be cruising at a much lower rpm due to increased torque.
Especially considering that when I am on the expressway in 6th gear, the engine is often at an rpm where the secondary ports are open (more air = more gas), whereas a bigger engine could be geared such that just the primary ports would be open at the same speed.
Especially considering that when I am on the expressway in 6th gear, the engine is often at an rpm where the secondary ports are open (more air = more gas), whereas a bigger engine could be geared such that just the primary ports would be open at the same speed.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jasonrxeight
RX-8's For Sale/Wanted
2
09-30-2015 01:53 PM
