Mazda sticks with rotary power

[CodeRedR51]

No, I just don't care. I care about actual on pavement performance regardless of the size of engine for a car of this type. 1.3L, 2.5L, 3.0L or 5.7L doesn't matter to me as much as how the engine performs in the real world for what you pay for it and what the competitors are doing. Its the physical power being put on the road surface that does matter on the road. I'd like to see well north of a naturally aspirated 320bhp for the rotary, I really would. It just isn't going to happen soon enough (or at all). I still think if they keep this engine adding forced induction makes everything good again temporarily. Putting a band aid on the knife wound it would be, but at least it could still put up a fight.

Umm, 3-Rotor says hello. 300hp + N/A with little or no effort. That's what's great about these motors, you can keep stacking on the "cylinders" to make more power.

Yea, the retarded reason of it being unreliable, inefficient and under powered.

N/A rotary engines can be plenty reliable. I've seen plenty last over 200k miles. Under powered for a 1.3 liter engine? Yeah, OK.

 

[Azuremen]

N/A rotary engines can be plenty reliable. I've seen plenty last over 200k miles. Under powered for a 1.3 liter engine? Yeah, OK.

They are reliable minus the flooding issues that Mazda was having, and the oil consumption that adds that extra bit of user attention to it.

Trying to argue the are efficient is kind of hilarious though. The MPG figure to performance numbers on the RX-8 are a joke compared to many cars that are quicker (like a Civic Si) and get significantly better mileage. Hell, my old M3 is a 3L Straight 6 and is still faster and get better MPG and its using what amounts to a nearly a 20 year old design for an engine. In a car that weighs more.

 

[CodeRedR51]

They are reliable minus the flooding issues that Mazda was having, and the oil consumption that adds that extra bit of user attention to it.

Trying to argue the are efficient is kind of hilarious though. The MPG figure to performance numbers on the RX-8 are a joke compared to many cars that are quicker (like a Civic Si) and get significantly better mileage. Hell, my old M3 is a 3L Straight 6 and is still faster and get better MPG and its using what amounts to a nearly a 20 year old design for an engine. In a car that weighs more.

I never said anything about the mileage. That, sir, I can agree on.

And they are designed to burn oil. A negative, sure. Certainly not the right kind of car for someone who is scared to open the hood = majority of the population.

 

[Tornado]

If they'd use modern DOHC V8's that don't need umpteen liters of displacement to make power and torque, I wouldn't mind.

I would question the idea of swapping in what would most likely be a larger and much heavier engine that would destroy the weight balance of the car, but of course Hp/L makes it all worth it.

 

[Zenith]

I would question the idea of swapping in what would most likely be a larger and much heavier engine that would destroy the weight balance of the car, but of course Hp/L makes it all worth it.

This. I still haven't found any valid reason as to why hp/L isn't the most useless measurement in the world. It just seems to be a bragging point for the ignoramuses of the turbo crowd and muscle car haters.

 

[eSZee]

WHy are we talking hp/L?
Can't wait to see an LS1 in an fr-s. With that chassis, people might actually have a point in being against it other than hating for hating's sake.

 

[eight6er]

This. I still haven't found any valid reason as to why hp/L isn't the most useless measurement in the world. It just seems to be a bragging point for the ignoramuses of the turbo crowd and muscle car haters.

In some countries your tax is decided by the size of the engine, so for us it's very valid, if I can have a car with 1.3L tax and the performance of a 2.5L. Tax for 1.3L is 333 euro and a 2.5L is 1116 euro a year. Besides if you think it's a useless measurement, try telling that to almost every motorsport team in the world.
Just because you're a muscle car fan and they don't do well when it comes to hp/L, you have to hate on people who like cars with high hp/L engines.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Besides, pushrod motors hate revs.

 

[Zenith]

In some countries your tax is decided by the size of the engine, so for us it's very valid, if I can have a car with 1.3L tax and the performance of a 2.5L. Tax for 1.3L is 333 euro and a 2.5L is 1116 euro a year. Besides if you think it's a useless measurement, try telling that to almost every motorsport team in the world.

Fair enough, helps your taxes and that's a valid point, but it still doesn't apply to performance. Race cars who abide by restrictions are a different matter, obviously.

Just because you're a muscle car fan and they don't do well when it comes to hp/L, you have to hate on people who like cars with high hp/L engines.

Did I seem like I was "hating"? If you look at the wording I think it's clear that I wasn't. Maybe I'm a bit annoyed at Euro fanatics holding that over me as if it's the ultimate measure of a car's worth, but no, I appreciate a tiny engine with a lot of power for its size.

Besides, pushrod motors hate revs.

Torque.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Torque.

Lack of traction.

 

[eight6er]

Did I seem like I was "hating"? If you look at the wording I think it's clear that I wasn't. Maybe I'm a bit annoyed at Euro fanatics holding that over me as if it's the ultimate measure of a car's worth, but no, I appreciate a tiny engine with a lot of power for its size

Just the way you said "ignoramuses", sounded like you were hating.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Torque.

Torque and revs are not mutually exclusive. Torque is a displacement thing, revs are an airflow thing.

Lack of traction.

Torque doesn't cause loss of traction. Horsepower and gear multiplication do.

 

[Azuremen]

Besides, pushrod motors hate revs.

Who needs revs when the engine setup weighs the same as a turbo rotary, makes similar, if not more, power, and gets better MPG and is more reliable?

Revs aren't always a good thing, and certainly increase the internal stresses on a motor at exponential rate.

 

[homeforsummer]

Revs aren't always a good thing, and certainly increase the internal stresses on a motor at exponential rate.

That's true, but does the same actually apply to rotaries? In reciprocating engines stress increases with revs but in a rotary the moving parts are going round and round rather than up and down, so I expect the stresses are lower. It's one reason rotaries seem so happy to rev.

 

[Azuremen]

That's true, but does the same actually apply to rotaries? In reciprocating engines stress increases with revs but in a rotary the moving parts are going round and round rather than up and down, so I expect the stresses are lower. It's one reason rotaries seem so happy to rev.

Physics still applies, and moment of inertia still has v^2 in it. The stresses aren't as severe because you don't have the linear motion and thus the sheer and linear forces related that require nicer tolerances so things don't bounce off each other and break in general.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Who needs revs when the engine setup weighs the same as a turbo rotary, makes similar, if not more, power, and gets better MPG and is more reliable?

That would be missing the point of a sportscar..

 

[homeforsummer]

That would be missing the point of a sportscar..

The alternative argument is that if you can't afford to run a sports car whether there's any point to having it in the first place

 

[Azuremen]

That would be missing the point of a sportscar..

Last I checked, a sports car was usually built to, I dunno, perform well. The fact that an FD3S has better weight balance, acceleration, consumption, and reliability with an LS1 than with the 13B turbo doesn't make it less of a sportscar, it just makes it a smarter one.

This seriously can't be your argument...

Well, wait, from what I've seen from you in the past, it could be, but I hope it isn't.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

I just happen to prefer originality, not crossbreeding this and that in the hopes that it'll work. What was that style called again, something along the lines of OEM+ ?

 

[CodeRedR51]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/moscow-motor-show-2012/moscow-motor-show-mazda-commits-rotary

Speaking at the Moscow motor show, Mazda boss Takashi Yamanouchi has reaffirmed the company's commitment to the rotary engine. He revealed plans to launch a new range extended car using the engine next year, and to keep developing rotary applications for use in future sports cars.

 

[Tornado]

Range extended, eh? Revvy, lightweight rotary far back from the front and a torquey electric motor at the back? Hm...

 

[CodeRedR51]

I just want a Rotary in the new Miata. Not as the main engine, but mainly as an available option.

 

[Danoff]

The rotary has been part of Mazdas research portfolio since 1961, and has been in production since 1967.

Don't Mazda own the rights to the Rotary engine?

Patents only last 20 years from the date they are filed... not the date they issue, and you have a limited time to file for a patent from when you make it public. So Mazda definitely cannot exclude anyone from making a rotary engine.

 

[zedextreme8177]

I just want a Rotary in the new Miata. Not as the main engine, but mainly as an available option.

As silly as this may sound, I want to see rotaries as an option/standard in all of Mazda's lineup

 

[oopssorryy]

Range extended, eh? Revvy, lightweight rotary far back from the front and a torquey electric motor at the back? Hm...

This is something I've been thinking about. It would really get rid of most of the rotaries issues. Instant torque, imoroved MPG, thought the weight balance would probably take a hit.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Not a bad way to continue on the Rotary story. Purists may fling poo at Mazda for this, but honestly I think it's a genius way of continuing the tech.

 

[Kent]

Pretty sure you can own the concept of rotory, would be like owning a patent on a V style engine. That said, hybrid rotary sounds good but the price would certainly go up... Probably more than what turbo would cost. So in the case of a ms3 Id probably stick with the turbo.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm a self proclaimed purist. I'm all for this development. I can't think of a more suitable engine for range-extender/series hybrid duty aside from a jet-turbine, but a jet turbine makes even a rotary look like a gas sipper. For an every day car, the combination of the silent (listen to a stock rotary at idle, the engine makes essentially no noise) smooth, compact, powerful, lightweight, and mount-anywhere nature of the rotary combined with the equally smooth, silent, compact, and effortless torque of an electric motor is a combination that I can't really find fault in. Both power units are so small that they would have essentially no influence on body design, meaning designers can create new shapes we have not really seen before.

Also, due to the fact that only a small portion of the typical battery load is needed because the power source is onboard, I think a car of this configuration can really break the mold for electric performance cars. Again, this is strictly for every-day-driver kind of cars. For me, no electric car can ever be considered a sports car, but that's just my personal opinion.

Now if only Mazda would start look into turbo-compounding in addition to the range-extender, then I think we would finally see the Wankel rotary supersede the otto cycle...

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

The rotary/electric "hybrid" setup sounds like an interesting idea. More like a locomotive, with the motor just generating electricity and all drive from the electric motor. I wonder, though, how well the rotary handles running at a constant speed for a long time. I know they're somewhat popular with light aircraft builders, and that's a constant speed application.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

They are much more efficient when run at a constant speed, apparently.