Will the x16 kill premix
04-17-2008, 09:10 PM
#26
Registered
They didn't "make it". They prototyped it.
Really, its just a casting change. Its not like its a big deal when you operate your own foundry.
The Renesis is just a differently machined REW with "advances" that were experimented with 20 years ago when it comes down to it.
Rotary engines were designed and advanced on a shoe-string budget compared to the expenditures for the big manufacturers. They exist mostly because of the efforts of dedicated, enthusiastic and motivated individuals at Mazda.
All of those Samurai are gone now.
With the high BSFC, the terrible emissions, the stringent CAT life requirements and, frankly, the lukewarm reception of the car buying public for an under-powered coupe that sits at the bottom of its market, there really isn't any reason to make the 16X.
The only reason that the RX-8 still exists now is to amortize the tooling investment cost. Even the "update" was just meant to help keep the collision dollars in-house.
I'd love to be wrong, but between Kyoto and gas prices, there will be no market for the RX-8 or anything similar in 2 years.
Really, its just a casting change. Its not like its a big deal when you operate your own foundry.
The Renesis is just a differently machined REW with "advances" that were experimented with 20 years ago when it comes down to it.
Rotary engines were designed and advanced on a shoe-string budget compared to the expenditures for the big manufacturers. They exist mostly because of the efforts of dedicated, enthusiastic and motivated individuals at Mazda.
All of those Samurai are gone now.
With the high BSFC, the terrible emissions, the stringent CAT life requirements and, frankly, the lukewarm reception of the car buying public for an under-powered coupe that sits at the bottom of its market, there really isn't any reason to make the 16X.
The only reason that the RX-8 still exists now is to amortize the tooling investment cost. Even the "update" was just meant to help keep the collision dollars in-house.
I'd love to be wrong, but between Kyoto and gas prices, there will be no market for the RX-8 or anything similar in 2 years.
04-18-2008, 08:34 AM
#28
the "real" leaders in America are trying to do a slow wean from gasoline by the general public. The price of gas will continue to rise--slowly--so to not cause chaos--but to cause an increasing difficulty in using it. This is to help motivate and change this gasoline dependance we now have. Keep your eye out for 2010.
Dont ask me how I became aware of this. But, also, dont say someone didnt did not warn you.
The rotary is dead as far as a mass appeal. The hydrogen concept is WAY off, mainly because of it costs more to produce and distribute than the it does with other fuels.
It is up to us to have fun while we can.
olddragger
Dont ask me how I became aware of this. But, also, dont say someone didnt did not warn you.
The rotary is dead as far as a mass appeal. The hydrogen concept is WAY off, mainly because of it costs more to produce and distribute than the it does with other fuels.
It is up to us to have fun while we can.
olddragger
04-18-2008, 08:36 AM
#29
Registered
If gas hits $4 a gallon I'm going to start riding a scooter or motorcycle to work and I get 35+ mpg in a Civic. Enough is enough. The RX-7 will forever remain a play car that rarely moves as a result.
04-18-2008, 09:43 AM
#30
Registered
Thread Starter
Mazda Maniac makes some very good points, some I had not even thought of. The word is we are also seeing the last of the V8's in the current muscle cars. That being said, I'm a be fan of "Never say never" The Rotary is a natural for a high-bread. It's light weight helps negate the increase wight of the electrical drive system. It's lack of torque is well complemented by the eclectics high torque. The biggest problem is no one has ever put out a high bread aimed at the sports car market.
Another thought would be a way to recapture the heat lost through the exhaust. BMW is working on just such a system and with the rotaries higher exhaust temperature this would be a good fit.
Now I know these are all hypothetical suggestions and I do believe the future will belong to small displacement, FI, direct injected vehicles or diesel's but there is enough new ideas out there to keep hope alive as slime as it may be.
So from a completely hypothetical view I wounder about premixing and the x16.
Another thought would be a way to recapture the heat lost through the exhaust. BMW is working on just such a system and with the rotaries higher exhaust temperature this would be a good fit.
Now I know these are all hypothetical suggestions and I do believe the future will belong to small displacement, FI, direct injected vehicles or diesel's but there is enough new ideas out there to keep hope alive as slime as it may be.
So from a completely hypothetical view I wounder about premixing and the x16.
04-18-2008, 09:49 AM
#31
jersey fresh
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
outside of the discussion of whether the engine will see the light of day, Direct-injection greatly increases the PSI that the fuel is set to inject by, what effects would this have on Premix added to the system?
04-18-2008, 09:57 AM
#32
Registered
The rotary won't go on and it isn't dead. Not by a longshot. We will continue to see one. The real question is will we see one as the primay powerplant in future vehicles or will it be supplementary to a hybrid system?
04-18-2008, 10:37 AM
#33
Administrator
iTrader: (7)
04-18-2008, 12:48 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thermoelectrics, look up Peltier and Seebeck effects. See this for some additional info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect
There was a company named Melcor (not sure if it is still around) that manufactured devices like this (they moved some of their manufacture to China, they were headquartered in NJ). There was another company in Houston (the name eludes me at the moment) as well as some additional manufacturers. This could be one of the ways (assuming it is not cost prohibitive) to re-use some of the exhaust heat and convert it back into electrical energy (somewhat of a hybrid system). However. the Seebeck effect is not very efficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect
There was a company named Melcor (not sure if it is still around) that manufactured devices like this (they moved some of their manufacture to China, they were headquartered in NJ). There was another company in Houston (the name eludes me at the moment) as well as some additional manufacturers. This could be one of the ways (assuming it is not cost prohibitive) to re-use some of the exhaust heat and convert it back into electrical energy (somewhat of a hybrid system). However. the Seebeck effect is not very efficient.
Mazda Maniac makes some very good points, some I had not even thought of. The word is we are also seeing the last of the V8's in the current muscle cars. That being said, I'm a be fan of "Never say never" The Rotary is a natural for a high-bread. It's light weight helps negate the increase wight of the electrical drive system. It's lack of torque is well complemented by the eclectics high torque. The biggest problem is no one has ever put out a high bread aimed at the sports car market.
Another thought would be a way to recapture the heat lost through the exhaust. BMW is working on just such a system and with the rotaries higher exhaust temperature this would be a good fit.
Now I know these are all hypothetical suggestions and I do believe the future will belong to small displacement, FI, direct injected vehicles or diesel's but there is enough new ideas out there to keep hope alive as slime as it may be.
So from a completely hypothetical view I wounder about premixing and the x16.
Another thought would be a way to recapture the heat lost through the exhaust. BMW is working on just such a system and with the rotaries higher exhaust temperature this would be a good fit.
Now I know these are all hypothetical suggestions and I do believe the future will belong to small displacement, FI, direct injected vehicles or diesel's but there is enough new ideas out there to keep hope alive as slime as it may be.
So from a completely hypothetical view I wounder about premixing and the x16.
04-18-2008, 01:06 PM
#35
Peltier is even worse. Gasoline is still more efficient.
Manufacturers, tinkerers and scientists have been playing a shell game with fuels and power sources for years.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily people are fooled (smart people too and, worse yet, our legislators) into believing the hype about one "alternative" or another without understanding net efficiency.
Hybrid cars in general are a good example.
Forget the actual function of the device - have you ever thought about the energy costs and the massive environmental impact of building a hybrid?
By the time the poisonous metals for the batteries are shipped across the Pacific twice to avoid environmental impact laws, you have already consumed more than twice the fuel the car will "save" and poisoned whole regions of China and North America to make the batteries.
Manufacturers, tinkerers and scientists have been playing a shell game with fuels and power sources for years.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily people are fooled (smart people too and, worse yet, our legislators) into believing the hype about one "alternative" or another without understanding net efficiency.
Hybrid cars in general are a good example.
Forget the actual function of the device - have you ever thought about the energy costs and the massive environmental impact of building a hybrid?
By the time the poisonous metals for the batteries are shipped across the Pacific twice to avoid environmental impact laws, you have already consumed more than twice the fuel the car will "save" and poisoned whole regions of China and North America to make the batteries.
04-18-2008, 01:31 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well of course gasoline is more efficient, however with using a thermoelectric device you are simply converting energy (heat) that would be exhausted to the atmosphere to electricity, potentially increasing the overall efficiency of the system. I was not comparing the efficiency of Seebeck to Gasoline (Carnot cycle, or any other similar cycle of your choice), but rather using Seebeck to complement the gasoline engine (reusing some of the waste heat). The system, in this case, is defined as the powering system for a vehicle. In reference to using waste heat to convert back to energy, you would be talking about the Seebeck effect, not Peltier. Peltier and Seebeck are, in a way, reciprocals of one another. The Peltier effect describes using current to create a heat pump whereas the Seebeck effect describes using the dT to create a current. In the sense of converting waste heat into electrical energy, you would be discussing the Seebeck effect. You could use an array of these devices to convert some of the waster exhaust heat back into electricity. Overall, yes the energy gained using these devices would not be very efficient. However, manufacturers must start somewhere. These devices are already in use in such things as satellites, using minute dT's to create minute amount of electrical energy.
The battery issue you discuss is another issue, although a very scientific view of approaching the issue (cost/benefit). I am not arguing for/against the practical use of Seebeck/Peltier devices, but merely throwing out an idea. Smart people being "fooled" depends on your sense of perspective. Copernicus would have once been considered a smart person that had been "fooled". In some instances they turn out to be pioneers and, in others, simply smart people that have been fooled. But that is neither here nor there. This idea is only one of countless that could yield efficiency "increases" through technological development. The question is whether or not it is practical (cost/benefit, etc.). Just ideas to toy with....
The battery issue you discuss is another issue, although a very scientific view of approaching the issue (cost/benefit). I am not arguing for/against the practical use of Seebeck/Peltier devices, but merely throwing out an idea. Smart people being "fooled" depends on your sense of perspective. Copernicus would have once been considered a smart person that had been "fooled". In some instances they turn out to be pioneers and, in others, simply smart people that have been fooled. But that is neither here nor there. This idea is only one of countless that could yield efficiency "increases" through technological development. The question is whether or not it is practical (cost/benefit, etc.). Just ideas to toy with....
Peltier is even worse. Gasoline is still more efficient.
Manufacturers, tinkerers and scientists have been playing a shell game with fuels and power sources for years.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily people are fooled (smart people too and, worse yet, our legislators) into believing the hype about one "alternative" or another without understanding net efficiency.
Hybrid cars in general are a good example.
Forget the actual function of the device - have you ever thought about the energy costs and the massive environmental impact of building a hybrid?
By the time the poisonous metals for the batteries are shipped across the Pacific twice to avoid environmental impact laws, you have already consumed more than twice the fuel the car will "save" and poisoned whole regions of China and North America to make the batteries.
Manufacturers, tinkerers and scientists have been playing a shell game with fuels and power sources for years.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily people are fooled (smart people too and, worse yet, our legislators) into believing the hype about one "alternative" or another without understanding net efficiency.
Hybrid cars in general are a good example.
Forget the actual function of the device - have you ever thought about the energy costs and the massive environmental impact of building a hybrid?
By the time the poisonous metals for the batteries are shipped across the Pacific twice to avoid environmental impact laws, you have already consumed more than twice the fuel the car will "save" and poisoned whole regions of China and North America to make the batteries.
04-18-2008, 01:54 PM
#37
Registered
Thread Starter
Yet the technology advances from increased demand. Lithium Ion batteries are relatively non toxic and a new "Extend Lithium Ion" (not to be confused with the marketing term) Battery is on the way in the next year or two. These batteries use a nano silicon string to increase energy store by a factor of 10. Here is an article on a similar nano battery technology in the works.
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=5210.php
At present I think that turbo diesel are far better alternatives but the hybrids are driving the technology forward and in time the energy consumption issues of production and shipment will shift.
As for poisoning the land you are correct but there are changes under foot. Pollution is starting to cost the Chinese more in health issues then they benefit from ignoring it so they are changing. One of my staff's fathers owns a battery factory in China and gave up making NiCa batteries a couple of years ago because of the backlash the toxins were causing.
You make good point but I don't think you can condemn a whole technology in its infancy. We need to give it some time to mature.
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=5210.php
At present I think that turbo diesel are far better alternatives but the hybrids are driving the technology forward and in time the energy consumption issues of production and shipment will shift.
As for poisoning the land you are correct but there are changes under foot. Pollution is starting to cost the Chinese more in health issues then they benefit from ignoring it so they are changing. One of my staff's fathers owns a battery factory in China and gave up making NiCa batteries a couple of years ago because of the backlash the toxins were causing.
You make good point but I don't think you can condemn a whole technology in its infancy. We need to give it some time to mature.
Peltier is even worse. Gasoline is still more efficient.
Manufacturers, tinkerers and scientists have been playing a shell game with fuels and power sources for years.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily people are fooled (smart people too and, worse yet, our legislators) into believing the hype about one "alternative" or another without understanding net efficiency.
Hybrid cars in general are a good example.
Forget the actual function of the device - have you ever thought about the energy costs and the massive environmental impact of building a hybrid?
By the time the poisonous metals for the batteries are shipped across the Pacific twice to avoid environmental impact laws, you have already consumed more than twice the fuel the car will "save" and poisoned whole regions of China and North America to make the batteries.
Manufacturers, tinkerers and scientists have been playing a shell game with fuels and power sources for years.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily people are fooled (smart people too and, worse yet, our legislators) into believing the hype about one "alternative" or another without understanding net efficiency.
Hybrid cars in general are a good example.
Forget the actual function of the device - have you ever thought about the energy costs and the massive environmental impact of building a hybrid?
By the time the poisonous metals for the batteries are shipped across the Pacific twice to avoid environmental impact laws, you have already consumed more than twice the fuel the car will "save" and poisoned whole regions of China and North America to make the batteries.
04-18-2008, 05:22 PM
#40
But Capitalism has its down-side and commodities like fuel are a major source of abuse - especially when the Government interferes with the market the way it does.
There is NOTHING out there with the potential of gasoline at the moment or in the near future.
That is NOT to say that we shouldn't be researching a replacement.
But to ignore the possibilities of the one most-researched and most-developed solution is irresponsible.
04-18-2008, 05:49 PM
#41
Lubricious
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 3,425
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
04-18-2008, 07:33 PM
#43
Registered
Nano tube capacitors! Back yard solar/thermal plants!
And the 8 will be a collectors item!
Who knows what problems nano particles will cause. Perhaps as much as the miracle of chemicals. No good thing goes uncorrupted.
The price of gas has nowhere to go but up. If it falls due to availability, the same guys calling for a gas tax holiday will raise taxes to promote efficiency. We are going to have European prices, and we will develop their driving habits.
Won't stop the Ferrari owners, and I will save up to drive my 8. Meanwhile I am shopping for a good scooter....
And the 8 will be a collectors item!
Who knows what problems nano particles will cause. Perhaps as much as the miracle of chemicals. No good thing goes uncorrupted.
The price of gas has nowhere to go but up. If it falls due to availability, the same guys calling for a gas tax holiday will raise taxes to promote efficiency. We are going to have European prices, and we will develop their driving habits.
Won't stop the Ferrari owners, and I will save up to drive my 8. Meanwhile I am shopping for a good scooter....
Last edited by jeffe19007; 04-18-2008 at 07:40 PM.
04-18-2008, 10:38 PM
#44
Lubricious
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 3,425
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=66
keep in mind the pollution generated by exploration, drilling, pumping, transporting, refining, and combustion of petroleum necessary to power an internal combustion car for 100,000 miles.
04-18-2008, 10:59 PM
#47
Here's the top 10 countries the united states gets oil from:
1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil
04-18-2008, 11:24 PM
#48
Only when they run the Koni Challenge or the Rolex series.
I can only stand "Pinks" with a bottle of tequila and a Browning semi-auto.
I was talking about main-stream TV where the dollars are really spent, not on specialty cable.
Even on Discovery/Comedy Central/NatGeo/Hitler Channel they only run ads for the 3 and CX-9.
I can only stand "Pinks" with a bottle of tequila and a Browning semi-auto.
I was talking about main-stream TV where the dollars are really spent, not on specialty cable.
Even on Discovery/Comedy Central/NatGeo/Hitler Channel they only run ads for the 3 and CX-9.
04-21-2008, 09:30 PM
#50
I don't think the 16X will kill premixing. They would program the ECU to inject the minimum amount of oil to pass EPA tests.
So you would need another ECU flash to get back more oil or premixing to adequately protect your engine.
I agree with the point that Mazda may look at some type of system to trap particulates and pass EPA emissions. A system that cleans up exhausts enough to pass EPA standards, seems interesting. I've been curious why we have not seen more work on exhaust filters. It also would seem that car companies can leverage this as a way to get more money out of drivers, it they are the one selling and replacing them.
I think Mazda CAN do it, but it would require R&D and internal battles at Mazda. It is hard to say if the Rotary Samurai at Mazda could win out against the bean counters and Anti-Rotary crowd in their company.
So you would need another ECU flash to get back more oil or premixing to adequately protect your engine.
I still dont think the premix will be as effective here. In the current Engine the fuel/air mixture is carried along part of the combustion chamber before it is ignited. It has time to contact the engine surface to lubricate. With direct injection the fuel can be injected right were combustion will happen allowing less fuel mixture to contact the engine surface. End result is less lubrication.
As to the EPA issue Mazda my have to use technology similar to those in diesels to trap particulates (unburnt oil). Not sure how or if this would work but it seems a good place to start.
As to the EPA issue Mazda my have to use technology similar to those in diesels to trap particulates (unburnt oil). Not sure how or if this would work but it seems a good place to start.
I think Mazda CAN do it, but it would require R&D and internal battles at Mazda. It is hard to say if the Rotary Samurai at Mazda could win out against the bean counters and Anti-Rotary crowd in their company.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Digitz0070
Series I Aftermarket Performance Modifications
55
07-25-2017 08:40 PM
R3Dream
Series II Technical and Trouble shooting
48
03-12-2016 01:44 PM
tommy26Germany
Series I Trouble Shooting
11
09-29-2015 10:33 AM
