I guess you're not tainted there with the ricer 7's like they are around here. Someone who looks like they should be driving a VTAK Civic scoop them up around here. I guess that happens when you don't live near any decent sized city.

 

Well, you're not alone. I've had way better interactions from RX-7 owners.

 

I bought my '90 FC for $2700 and it looks pretty nice. Some feel I paid too much but I disagree. It's in very good shape and runs well which is hard to find. I flew across the country and bought it from nothing more than pictures and drove it back 1300 miles. It was pretty cheap but by no means is it something that I don't care about. I would race it around before I would an RX-8 because quite frankly in a durability test the RX-7 (3rd gen excluded) would kill the RX-8. I didn't buy it to trash it though. I bought it because I like it and in my opinion is the best of the RX-7's. It is also my daily driver and gets about 100 miles put on it a day. 145,000 miles and running strong. I couldn't even flood it if I tried! I bought my garage kept '84 GSL-SE from the original owner for $300. That's another good car but the 1st gen just isn't my style. People will pay thousands for those cars.

 

Oh I know there are some people who truly care about the cars. But for some reason, Joplin, MO seems to invite more of the Civic type people. The kind that will ride up to you at a stop light and bounce of the rev limiter wanting you to race to the next light. Installing a gigantic muffler for the loudness and stickers all over. Considering the 7's I've had from owners around here *Severed OMP lines without them running premix, old as **** oil, ghetto rigged FMIC's, upping the boost as high as possible, then watching the boost creep hit 15 PSI on the stock 1987 RX7 turbo, while they claim it's OK....* this place is full of people who just don't care. It makes me a sad Panda

 

I always wave at 8's and 7's. If I actually see a 7 parked and the owner is there, obviously I ask about the car because I love 7's.

 

I think that despite the perception that the 7 is more well known, the 8 is far more mainstream. So you get a lot of people in 8s who are douche bags (present company excluded), and have now respect for heritage of the rotary. But there are many performance car owners who respect the 8. An R35 owner at work told me he loves my car, and I was shocked. I completely expected him to be a douche, lol.

 

I think the main problem is a good deal of rx8 owners dont even know what the hell a rx7 is.

As a converted rx7 to rx8 owner, I always wave at rx7's. I barely ever wave at 8's tho. They just dont seem to care. The 7 community is a much tighter one.

 

I pretty much only get comments from non rotary owners. I have never once had an RX-8 person approach me and ask about my RX-7. It's strange how many people still like that old car.

 

You need to live by other 8 owners then I talk to any rotor head or car guy for that matter. To be honest most rx7 owners want nothing to do with rx8 owners. Just about every conversation I had with a 7 owner they will with in a few minutes find a way to slam the 8.

 

Many RX-7 owners don't like the RX-8 for having 4 doors and for weighing a lot more than the 7. Many also don't like the Renesis out of ignorance. They just don't look at the RX-8 as a pure sports car. Nevermind the fact that the RX-8 is faster than all RX-7s but the 3rd gen and can out handle ALL of them! I drive a 20 year old car that uses technology from a quarter of a century ago, is no faster in a straight line than the average compact car today, and has fuel economy worse than some SUV's. I just like it for what it is and could care less what car is faster or better. Many others don't feel that way though. They need to be thought of as being better than everyone else.

 

that is true rotary god

 

I live right between Baltimore and DC. Not huge cities but I'd say they're decent sized.

We get a bit of both the ricers in 7's and the "real" car guys. Usually the ricer rx7's are in pretty bad shape, barely run, etc...

In any case, to get back to the topic of this thread, I'm hoping Mazda releases the 16x if for no other reason than to continue to have a rotary-based sports car available. I'd be happy with 280 HP and 25-27 MPG in a well-balanced car. I'm happy with my bone-stock RX8 as it is.

Ken

 

I feel the same way, except with a first gen 7. The suspension is as "simple" as the engine, and gives the drive character, perhaps even charm.

 

This is a post of a real car fan.

 

Or we could go back to greeting each other as NSU Ro80 owners did in Germany, by waving while holding up a number of fingers indicating the number of engine replacements they'd had.

 

Close. The number of fingers they held up stood for how many apex seals had been replaced.

 

Just something worth mentioning whether you're worried that Mazda has thrown in the towel or are sure they haven't and wonder what they might be up to. FIrst a bit of background info though: Rotaries have cast iron rotors which are holding the engine back due to their weight. Currently they're necessary for keeping heat in the working chambers rather than pissing it away into the oil system (since there's oil flowing inside the rotors). Without them fuel efficiency would be worse, as would emissions due to lower combustion temps.

Now for comparison, cast iron pistons haven't been seen since the steam engine days (with RPMs in the hundreds). So rotaries are still in the steam engine days when it comes to the materials and mass of the main moving parts. The throttle response, power and torque lost moving those stupidly heavy parts could be recovered though by using aluminum rotors but then heat would be lost and the whole thing would suck. However you could coat the rotors in a heat insulating surface (plating doesn't work since the surface is not thick enough) which would retain heat and lighten the rotors. The whole drivetrain becomes lighter and the combustion temperatures are hotter which means a better burn (more torque, better mpg, lower emissions across the powrband).

Piston engines have essentially the same shortcoming of loss of heat and weight and so many are now plated/coated aluminum blocks but there's been lots of trouble with plating/coatings stripped off the cylinder walls. Not fun. Meanwhile the aerospace industry has had applicable tech that applies materials as a plasma. They have no such problems anymore but they have to use exotic materials and it's a costly process. However a car company has just announced they've finished developing a cheap version that uses cheap materials and it's going to be used on 2011 models. And that company is Ford. Now how much Mazda knew of this, if they'll be able to get a hold of the tech, etc. are all up for debate but frankly, it's the materials tech that the rotary has been waiting for.

Oh also, one final note based on what RG has been saying: Mazda needs bigger displacement rotary, not smaller. Increased eccentricity lowers revs slightly but increases Surface area to volume which increases low end torque, mpg, at the cost of a few top end RPM. Thus the 16X's size.

 

Interesting Nateb123, and esp. for a 2nd post. When you say that exotic coatings are expensive...what is expensive? $50-$200-$1000 per engine perhaps? If it made a real significant difference to rotor weight, thereby increasing power, allowing higher rpms (one would think), increasing efficiency, getting those attributes in any combination or all of them, one wonders who among us wouldn't be willing to pay the price for a superior rotary engine?

IOW what price rotary nirvana?

 

Well don't let the post count fool you. I was an apprentice at a shop that was part auto mechanic, part racing shop, part machine shop which had their own Pport FC race car. Then I studied mechanical engineering before finally settling on my current major.

As for exotic coatings, I can't really give a specific number but from what I've researched in the plasma spray coating industry, it's previously been for quite high load applications like big diesel caterpillars, jet turbines. Often those are just coated in relatively cheap materials too like chromium oxide though things can get fancy (ie. nickel-chromium-molybdenum-tungsten-iron coatings). Given that many of the mass production applications of the tech use pretty simple materials, it's gotta be a pretty costly process regardless of material costs. I'd hazard a guess that it costs something on par with WPC treatment of engine components which is about a couple thousand. Less for a car engine but not that much cheaper. Not something that makes business sense in the auto industry when you factor in the need to have some margin of profit on the product.

Also it's generally time consuming and from the sounds of it, the results in the past have sometimes been highly variable. The coating can be quite amorphous on a structural level depending on the method of application used. What makes Ford's process viable is that its quick, consistent and uses something as simple as steel wire for the plasma instead of fancy alloys, ceramics or carbides. It's an instant spray-on sleeve essentially. Remember that in Mazda's case though, even if this now only costs $1000 an engine, they now have to develop, test and tool the rotary factory to now make aluminum rotors instead of cast iron ones. Not an easy or cheap task and just material costs of the added aluminum wouldn't be insignificant. This is essentially what they're doing with the rest of the motor though which makes the idea of saying "The 16x isn't done yet" while they make it truly all-aluminum seem that much less conspiracy theory-esque

Here's a link about the process, written by the SAE so you know it's not a bunch of crap:
http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/7624

 

Thanks for the link. I'd seen a shorter story about that, but that gave more detail. Too bad Nissan is licensing the technology for the GT-R and not Mazda.

 

Alternatively, I've wondered if they could use the SIP (sheet metal insert process) that they use on the rotor housings on the rotors themselves.... It may be tricky for convex rather than concave shapes, but they've been doing it in one way for a while...

I would definitely like to see aluminum rotors in some form though.

[and real direct injection! (see PATS APU, injection at TDC)

 

The car would be very hard to drive. It's like putting a 2 lb flywheel on the car and expecting to be able to easily drive it. Not a good idea for a production car IMO.

 

The 'inertial dampening' could be made up in better locations (like the flywheel) if that turns out to be an issue. There would be less flexing of the eccentric shaft (inside the short block), less vibration, and the possibility of freer/higher revving with lighter rotors. You could make this same argument about piston engines, but I think we know what's better there so I've got to call BS on this.

I'd much prefer to have Mazda improve this area than to just say "it's part of the flywheel system" and throw up their hands. CRH has lightened things up much more than most just outside the engine and seems to think the car is still drivable.

 

Aluminum is still the wrong material. light or not, it soaks up too much heat, and an over complicated milti-layer rotor just increases the manufacturing cost. Personally I think there are better materials out there than aluminum.

 

Aluminum is not new to Rotary Engines.

There are Aluminum side housing for years. conducts/release heat better than stock cast iron housing and show very little wear. but cost couples times more so its not good for production engines.

Not to mention, Mazda even tried Aluminum Rotors. but again, it ran really good, it last longer than cast iron and might lighter, but the production cost alone will kill this car.