P00Man

why dont both of you stop whining at eachother?

you both make good (somewhat) and valid (somewhat) points, but apparently both of you are too pigheaded to acknowledge that either engine form is not the only solution and that both have advantages over the other.

so please, stop the whining, though its informitive at times, the baby-talk and idiotic verbal assualts take away anything that can be gained.
________
Vapezilla

7to8

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rx8daniel
[B]The 1st and 2nd gen RX-7s were very reliable cars. However, for those who can rememer with me, Consumer Reports always warned to stay away from the manual tranny version of the car.
What other reason could there be than this exact situation - lots of clutch action to make the car move. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe by the late 2nd gen and through the 3rd gens the clutch became less of a problem.


I have a first gen RX-7 GSL-SE and the clutch was fine until 85000 miles..no transmisson problems...great car >I have had it for 17 years and am going to park it next to my RX-8.

wakeech

heh heh heh... true enough.

nothin' personal 5.0THIS, sorry dude.

Skyline Maniac

Congrats guys :D

Infiniti vs Mazda, LOL

Hercules

I don't think so.. The RX-8 is a more niche car than the G35 just due to the rotary engine, the lower straight line power and suicide doors.

If I didn't like the uniqueness and innovativeness of the RX-8 over the G35 then I'd probably be getting a G35 Coupe now. However power isn't paramount to me -- handling and fun factor are. I think C&D shares my view and that's why the RX-8 took top honors. I think more than a few magazine writers/editors share my view in fact, which is why the RX-8 thus far, has gotten rave reviews

But it won't be Infiniti vs Mazda until the RX-7 comes out... then we will all be yammerin and yackin about which is better. Being biased, I'll put my early vote in for the RX-7

rx8daniel

Granted many buyers of the RX-8 are on the younger side of the buying spectrum - we're not getting a lot of great-grandparents - but I'm 42 - and can't wait for the RX-8. For those of us who enjoy the smoothness and reliability of the rotary, there is simply no comparison. I will say Infiniti has a very nice and more practical version of the 350Z in their G35 - but with no RX-8 out there I'd be looking at a Mazda 6s very seriously.

Skyline Maniac

Hercules, you mentioned uniqueness, which is very important. Regardless of what I drive, I think it is important for auto manufacturers to keep an open mind on new technology. Mazda is known for innovations and testing new technologies. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. A quick review of Mazda history will show that this is a company that survived through taking daring chances.

If there was no rotary, there 'd with only ONE type of engine for the human race - piston. I can't imagine that..... (almost like Microsoft vs Apple war, only it has to do with internal combustion engines) Kind of make you wonder sometimes though, if Rotary is as great as Mazda claims it to be, then why don't they use it for ALL their cars? Does the rotary have to stay at such small displacement, and limited to be used only on light weight sport cars? I'd bet a rotary powered motocycle would be something to behold.

rael

I think its less an age but more of a car substitution. Mazda are clearly targeting specific car owners irrespective of age by offering a product they consider to be better.

To be honest were it not for the RX8 I would not be buying Mazda. I think there is superior build quality in the market without a substantial premium.

rael

wakeech

the deal with the wankel type is, as i said before at length, you can't really design it to have a ton of torque. in an application like towing, you'd need an engine that pulls HARD at low rpm to get all that mass moving, unless you really don't mind replacing your clutch/tyres (whatever does most of the slipping) every other week (buzzing and dropping, using gears to make the torque).
also, the wankel type DOES suck up a lot of gas for a passenger car engine, and although emissions aren't a problem anymore (with better cats and expiration system internally now) with HC's, you'd still be better off with a tinier, sipping piston engine which (with a long stroke) can be very driveable at low rpm all the time.

no, Mazda doesn't "have" to keep the rotary at "such a small" displacement (which is actually at 2.6L of capacity... read my long post on the page before), but this seems (for whatever reason) to be a really nice size for them to make it. on the next RX-7, the word on the street is that it'll get a RENESIS that's beefier by a few hundred cc's (which'll add up to tons more power).
as for "only light weight sports cars", the engine (as i said above) really doesn't have many other natural applications... and sports cars that are light weight are inherently better than heavy sports cars always.

there were NSU manufactured motorcycles, but they found that a single rotor engine was pretty lumpy at low rpm... and for low displacement engines (ie: 50-250cc) a single piston 2-stroke is probably lighter, smoother, just-as if not more powerful (there's been so little development of the wankel in this application), and not much more complicated.
on the other hand though, yes, i would certainly think that the wankel would eat a 600-1000+cc 4-stroke motor bike engine for breakfast, where it would be smaller, lighter, and far FAR more powerful.

Lensman

'The RX-8 is going to be in the middle as it's a 'compromise' car for a family that can't afford to have a Miata to get some thrills in ...'

I REALLY didn't want to hear this from someone as authoritative as Hercules. Despite having put a deposit down on the RX-8 I may well reverse my decision and go back to my first choice of the 350Z. Not happy AT all!

zoom44

don't take one man's word for it, especially Herc's. to get a real driving impression of the car go read dan's and bern's write-ups from their laguna seca run. these guy's are both hard core rotor nuts and they came away very impressed!

Lensman

On reflection I think that Hercules' comment about the Miata (or MX5 as we Brits call it) wasn't as dubious as I first thought. At first reading it implied the RX-8 to be inferior to the MX5 but that clearly isn't so. The handling is at least as good and the power substantially better. It's true that the design is a compromise and I should applaud that and not get upset by it. I think the weight of 'low torque = bad' comments throughout this thread just got to me and I freaked out a bit. I did the obvious thing and looked at some S2000 reviews: nearly all express the opinion that the high revving low(er) torque engine is a delight to use and that the car is more fun than a barrel full of stoned monkeys. I'm kinda happy that I ordered blue now because I'll get to read many genuine owner reviews before I have to commit to delivery and that should nail the truth!

Hercules

Ooo I didn't even notice your complaint

Yea I didn't intend to say the Miata was superior to the RX-8. The RX-8 is a compromise car in that it's not full performance or full usability... much like the BMW 3 series and such. The no-compromise design would likely be found in the RX-7.

P00Man

rx-7 is going to be a beast to behold.....pure sports machine to misuse many another sport vehicle!
________
Rent guarantee forum

zerobanger

the 87 turbo II ran 0-60 in 6.6, the 91 TII ran 0-60 in 6.3. The FD ran 0-60 in 4.9-5.2.

zoom44

i was wondering that too and spent some time carefully going thru the article and the pics and this is one glaring error that i found



it's hard to see in this scan so everyone grab their copies of the mag......

go ahead get it.......

we don't have all day people.......

ok everyone look at the pic with csaba melonhead in the back seat. you can just see part of the other back seat that is closer to you. IT'S CLOTH!!! don't try to argue i have looked at every pic of the cloth and that my friends is cloth. still not convinced? fine look at the backof the driver's seat. NO SEA OF PLASTIC! why? BECAUSE IT"S A CLOTH SEAT!!

also in the part about the g35c they say fully loaded the car came out to nearly $38,000 dollars! well that's a substanial amount over the loaded rx-8 so it better have more amenities and nicer LEATHER for that price!

wakeech

:o pardon me. :D i'm a big FC fan... oops. heh heh.

well, maybe i was thinking the NA's?? anyways, my point is that i regard the TII as a car more than fast enough for me, and the RX-8 is faster than that, in every way you can think of... in short, the RX-8 is friggin' quick.

zoom44

go get your copy of the mag keech and turn to the proper page! GLARE!:D

edboc

As a rotary fan, and someone that wanted to buy an RX-7 instead of a M3 (didn't happen because I couldn't find one), I am pretty excited about the C&D article. I have been reading that the 0-60 times would be about 6.5, but I guess those were underestimated. I think it was a great idea to have 4 doors, and the styling of the car seems to be much better than the 350Z and G35. I've driven both the 350z and G35, and wasn't incredibly impressed with either one. I guess I'm spoiled by my car. One question that my friend brought up is why wasn't the 330ci or 325ci included in the test.

P00Man

at least the m3 is pretty hot.

anyways, im very pleased about this article, i can make fun of more people now! blahHAHAHA
________
MARIJUANA HEMP

Speedbuggy

I just can't believe how ignorant some people are. Of COURSE an engine close to four times the size will make more power. Duuuuuh. Remember, this particular example of the rotary technology is very small. 1.3 liter displacement, very low size and weight, it is an engine much smaller than what goes in your average Escort or Corolla and yet puts out numbers that eats alive the large Mustang V8's of only a few years ago. That means it's a better technology. Performance is a measure of power versus weight. Pound for pound, liter for liter, it is vastly superior and the numbers prove it.

By way of comparison, 1.3 liters is 1300cc, which is around the size of the engines they use in large sportbikes these days and is actually smaller than the engines in the larger cruiser-style bikes. Yes, I mean motorcycle engines. The Kawasaki ZX-12 and Yamaha V-Max are 1200cc and the Suzuki Hayabusa is 1300cc, while the biggest Valkyrie engine is a whopping 1.8 liters or 1800cc.

Thus, when an engine comparable in size to a friggin' motorcycle engine makes impressive enough numbers to power a sportscar and do so pretty darned well, you don't think that's superior technology? Helloooo?

The Renesis is a SMALL motor, not an all out power machine. You want to play in the big leagues? Take one look at the 2.0 liter 3-rotor 20B that only gets made in japan because they don't think we can handle it. With boost, 400 horsepower is low-end, 5-600 horsepower in streetable applications is not even close to uncommon. With the side-port technology of the Renesis in a 3-rotor configuration, one could reasonably expect similar numbers with no need of boost. And all at well under half the size and weight of your vaunted V-8. I call that a replacement for displacement.

To take the argument to it's logical extreme, a rotory engine (a 4-rotor maybe?) at 4.0 liters (still smaller than the 4.6 Cobra engine) would be twice the size of the 20B and could be reasonably expected to make twice the horsepower. That would mean an astronomical 8-1200 horsepower, on pump gas stock out of the box. Without boost. Out of an engine the size of the little 4-banger they put in the Protege.

The day you can match that is the day you have an argument. Have a nice life.

Hercules

Speedbuggy you are my personal hero :p

Cept let's not get tooooo condescending now :D

Speedbuggy

Sorry Hercules, I don't usually get that harsh on people but well that guy kinda made me angry. He seemed to me like he needed put back in his place. Sorry if I was out of line.

Oh, good news for me! Mazda may be putting out the car of my dreams that I fantasized about a few months back on these boards. According to rotarynews.com , Mazda is giving serious consideration to a new RX-3 project! Nothing is confirmed yet, but the expectation is for it to be a small car under $20K with RWD, two doors, and a lower-power, higher-economy version of the Renesis. I'm expecting it to be something like either a two-door MSProtege or an updated MX-3, a sport compact car to compete with the likes of the Sentra SE-R and Neon SVT-4.

Keep your fingers crossed, and it might be a reality one day. Then those rotorheads like me who think the RX-8 is a bit too much car for a bit too much money for them can own it's little brother instead. And then the true spirit of the first generation RX-7, the idea of a fun, inexpensive rotory-powered sportscar for the everyman and not just the elite will have been reborn.

Hercules

You made all the right and good points in your response, just do it without the "I can't believe..." etc

Don't worry, I've been guilty of it too; when the RX-8 beat the G35 Coupe in C&D some time ago, you can just IMAGINE how many trolls we got on this forum... so I had a tendency to blow my fuse quickly

revhappy

I'd love to see a modern day RX3. It sounds like a perfect fit for some form of the renesis.