Raptor2k

There are no more flooding issues and 30 mpg out of a sports car is absurd.

SSJ 909

Why is 30 mpg absurd?
There is pleny of technology which will allow it to happen.
Just because the major car companies have not updated their cars mpg performance much in the last few decades dont let that fool you.

Shoafb

Maybe not 30mpg but it will have to be as efficient as a piston engine. People aren't going to buy 18mpg AND mediocore HP/TQ

sosonic

If mazda does not want to FI the 2 rotor, they need to go 3 rotor to stay NA.

A good 3 rotor redesign would give the power and FI potential most people want. The trick would be emissions and gas mileage, but that would be the point of the re-design.

Mazda puts out another underpowered NA 2 rotor and they will kill the RX line.

PoorCollegeKid

Hoping for piston engine numbers out of a rotary is likely pushing the bar a little too high. While the rotary will continue to improve, piston-matching power and fuel economy in the same package is not a realistic goal for the engine they have now. A DI rotary might come close to PFI piston numbers if everything works out (a downsized, TC/DI rotary would come even closer to a NA/PFI piston engine) but the rotary design is just inherently less efficient than a piston layout, making it extremely unlikely that Mazda can put out a 13B with 250 hp/28-30 mpg and still meet emissions regulations.

The Corvette manages nearly 30 mpg in a heavier, much more powerful car, the Elise/Exige twins get around the same mileage out of a high strung 4 cylinder, and the turbo Solstice/Sky manage even better. So, it's not unprecedented, though it is unlikely to see a rotary end up with that kind of gas mileage. The real problem, as is often mentioned in this forum, is the balance between power and mileage. The average enthusiast wonders why they should settle for a 230 hp, 18 mpg car when they can get a 300+ hp, 25 mpg car instead. Rotorheads understand that this is one of the downfalls of the engine and are willing to accept it, but Mazda will have to change at least one of those numbers in order to continue attracting the average sports-car buyer.

When Mazda releases the new rotary (when ever that may be) I'm sure it will be a substantial improvement over the Renesis. Hopefully, that will be enough to sell cars and convince Mazda that the rotary is worth sticking to. IMO, Mazda would do well to stick the engine in a lightweight platform and use the low mass of the vehicle to further boost fuel economy, lower emissions, and increase performance, but there's no way of knowing what they'll do. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Shoafb

[QUOTE=PoorCollegeKid;1889506]Hoping for piston engine numbers out of a rotary is likely pushing the bar a little too high. While the rotary will continue to improve, piston-matching power and fuel economy in the same package is not a realistic goal for the engine they have now. A DI rotary might come close to PFI piston numbers if everything works out (a downsized, TC/DI rotary would come even closer to a NA/PFI piston engine) but the rotary design is just inherently less efficient than a piston layout, making it extremely unlikely that Mazda can put out a 13B with 250 hp/28-30 mpg and still meet emissions regulations.

That is the bar it has to reach. If it can't be as efficient as a piston engine.... Why use it? Just to say you have a Rotary?

Otherwise it is doomed to a niche market with little support.

tjbourgoyne

I love doomed niche markets, only reason I bought the car.

mac11

iTrader: (1)

[QUOTE=Shoafb;1889628]If MPG and HP numbers are all that you measure a car and motor by it seems a rotary is not for you.

And for the number of cars sold the RX cars have a very good aftermarket.

rotarygod

Keep in mind that an LS1 gets good freeway mileage because it is turning so damn slow! Look at the final gear ratio vs the RX-8's. If you take an engine half the size and spin it twice as fast, it'll use the same amount of fuel. You need to factor time into the mix and not only go on displacement. The rotary isn't the most efficient engine for it's displacement but it's also not the least. It's average. It is efficient for it's physical size. What's the point of it? It's simple, small, powerful for it's size, and has a very concentrated center of gravity that is lower and narrower than other engines. HP per cubic inch the Renesis is more powerful than the great LS engines. However it's physical lack of size makes people fail to realize this as most only compare one aspect rather than everything.

Floyd

It seems lost on a lot of people that one of the main advantages that the rotary has is not in power or gas milage, it is in the compact packaging. Why do you think the RX-8 handles so well?

rx8wannahave

I was too quick in the other thread...this sounds positive!

Jedi54

iTrader: (7)

just make a 1.6 Renisis and I'll be happy.

sosonic

Put out a 350HP rotary engine and people can forgive gas mileage issues. Actually, by 2010 and how much the HP numbers for other cars are going up, you may need to put out an 400HP rotary.

That's why, I think you redesign the 3 rotor. It would be a killer engine. If you could somehow get a NA 2 rotor in the 325HP to 350HP range than you could get away with that, but I doubt they can make so many breakthroughs... But who knows?

The other option is make FI a buyer option. You design the Mazdaspeed RX- for release at nearly the same time as the new rotary engine.

There is are no good reasons that I could think of for Mazdaspeed not to have a supercharger or turbo RX- that could be in the 350HP to 400HP range this time around. Mazdaspeed personnel should be publicly whipped for what they did with the aborted Mazdaspeed RX-8. Hopefully, they don't pull the same crap with a new RX-

The RX-8 comp. for example the Nissan 350Z and Ford Mustang are putting out more impressive HP and 0-60 / 1/4 mile numbers. The Mazda RX- line needs to keep up.

You don't buy a sports car for gas mileage.... If you want good gas mileage than buy an eco-box.

Shoafb

It's not like there aren't any piston engine cars out there that handle just fine?

So, if handleing is = too.

MGP is Better

TQ is Better

Why is the public going to buy another RX car? ( other then to say I have a rotary engine )

sosonic

You must not have ever drove a rotary engine.

The small size of the engine and high power output for its size, allows the car to be very well balanced. Why do you think an RX-8 handles so well?

TQ is not HP. The bottom line will be performance. Be it in the turns, 0-60, etc... If you want TQ, get a truck.

You have to rev the RX-8 into the high rpm range to get TQ and HP benefits, but guess what? The rotary engine was made to be high revving. Unlike a piston engine that is getting stressed out at high rpms. The rotary engine can take the high rpms. The high revving engine is also a lot of fun.

Its crazy to want high MPG from a sports car. Sports cars are about performance 1st. Get an eco-box for high MPG.

Shoafb

My wife owns an 8

Yea the 8 handles great, so do a lot of other cars.

it doesn't matter that a piston engine does not typically rev to 9k....... it doesn't NEED to.

mac11

iTrader: (1)

Tell that to the Honda indy car engine engineers.

Shoafb

OK so Mazda needs to hire some Honda engineers then.

mac11

iTrader: (1)

I do believe that is how they[MAZDA] got started with the rotary in the first place.

RotoRocket

iTrader: (1)

German.

mac11

iTrader: (1)

Do i really have to put Mazda in there? I thought that would be implied.

WOWSaLifetaker

sorry didn't read the rest of the posts but I saw the article about it in a car mag... motor trend I think? They speculated it would be the next rx7, but I don't see why mazda would go back in #'s since the rx has always been evolving IE rx1, rx2, rx3, etc

crimson-rain

Re-gearing, hp increase, lightening the chasis, etc. with slightly better or same gas mileage; just get it down to 14s flat or better in the 1/4 and still handle like it does now. There is more than one way to make a car quicker than just adding pure power.

sosonic

Mazsport has 400HP turbo RX-8s. http://www.mazsport.net/html/rx8turbo.htm

Pettit has ~300HP Supercharger RX-8s (~220whp-~260whp) and is still going UP in their new kits and HP development. They should be able to achieve 350HP this year. Also the supercharger would fair better with meeting emission standards.... http://www.pettitracing.com/rx8/index.htm

What the hell is wrong with Mazda/Mazdaspeed that they could not do what a pro-tuner has done???

Mazda is seriously fumbling the RX line. Either they get their heads from out their butt and come out with a 300HP-325HP NA Rotary engine or they release a FI kit to give you 350HP+. If pro-tuners can do it, than Mazda must be on crack if they can't do it themselves.

8rotor8

iTrader: (2)

Frist of all, it would be a lot cheaper for you to FI the 8 yourself. The cost of R&D by Madza would only mean a markup for us consumers. Second, those options that you mentioned, they don't pass smog. Tuners often don't care about emissions when they are FI any car.

Nothing is wrong with Mazda, it's not cost effective for them to create a FI 8. There were rumors in '05 of a SC MS8, but that died like anyother rumor. If you look at the history of the motor they are doing a good job. They kept the same displacement and got about 100hp more off the NA setup. Mazda has to think of more then just power, they have to make the car reliable and easy to maintain.

If you want a car with more straight line power, you bought the wrong car. Mazda crated a car with less power that can keep up with high HP cars. I think they did a pretty damn good job.