Mazda sticks with rotary power

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It's a well established fact that the Furai has been dead, one way or another, for quite some time now. We finally learned how and why.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Thought it was still around, Top Gear must pay!

 

[CodeRedR51]

Disappointing news.

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...w-mazda-boss:-rotary-is-a-no-go#ixzz2l16HIhUM

100k cars a year? The RX-7 itself never even got close to that. I fear we may have seen the end.

 

[Keef]

Totally understandable. They are continuing research - it's a daunting task given that every other manufacturer has been developing their piston engines for over 100 years. Mazda is the only company who has been developing the rotary and for a much shorter period of time. What they achieved with it is exceptional and there's no harm in waiting for them to turn it into something viable in today's world of over-regulation. Diesel options would be great.

 

[niky]

Mazda already has a special, unique gasoline engine series in production. The SkyActiv-G engines.

High compression, smooth, relatively powerful.

Those, they can sell. A rotary... no.

While it was a lovely dream, the reality is it's not a very practical engine. Maybe when hybrid technology allows them to run one as a generator or only at WOT when needed, sure. But right now, it makes no sense to spend millions on a motor that will only lose them money.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

This is what worries me:

If we are going to adopt it, it has to be a product that can generate at least sales of 100,000 units a year. We have to be able to achieve a profit.

The RX-7 peaked at around 50,000 units in 1986. Even if it was comparably efficient, powerful, and all else equal to a piston engine (which, actually, isn't really the point) I doubt they could move more than 100,000 units. Consider the sales of the Scion FR-S. It is being considered by most to be a sales hit, and it's shifting a bit less than 3,000 units per month, optimally. Do the math, and that's less than 36,000 cars a year. Not even Ford is moving more than 100,000 Mustangs a year. The fact that this new Mazda president won't consider a car that sells less than 100,000 a year is very worrisome. You have to balance brand identity/character with production & sales output, if you don't have the former, you will lose the latter. Mazda has never, ever been a volume seller, and they are better for it. While it is disappointing that the RX-7 won't be returning soon, it bothers me more that Mazda has taken up this business approach.

Also too, the MX-5 achieves nowhere near 100,000 annual sales (try just a shade over 6,000), where does this new philosophy leave the flagship sports car?

I don't like where this is going.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Solution: Give us a Rotary option in the new MX-5 so that those who want a Rotary can have one.

And I disagree completely with everything you're saying @niky.

 

[ShobThaBob]

No sports car in the US does around 100k a year.

 

[niky]

And I disagree completely with everything you're saying @niky.

You would.

But in all seriousness, the Rotary is a dead-end. It sounds cool in theory, but in practice, it's just not worth pursuing versus piston engines.

-

The MX-5 should be safe. Despite the low numbers, you can share engine technology (as Mazda has been doing all this time) with the Mazda3 and 6, and even some suspension and platform technology. There's no half-billion* dollar engine program attached to it to bring things down.

(Which is about what it costs to develop a new conventional engine... might be more or less in the case of a new Rotary, likely more.)

 

[LongbowX]

Mazda needs a strong partner (like it had in Ford) in order to consider reviving the rotary for limited applications. They barely have the financial ability all by themselves to create all-new cars, they have to save as much as they can and build cars only for a large market. It's sad, but unfortunately the reality...

 

[RocZX]

One and only way Mazda could sell 100K rotary cars a year. Is if they do what they did with the RX3, they make a coupe, sedan and a station wagon. It wouldn't effect a the sales of other models cause they would been priced higher and they would be performance focused.

 

[Keef]

No sports car in the US does around 100k a year.

Who said the rotary has to have a sports car application? This is why Mazda is still doing R&D, figuring out what the engine is best suited for and how to make it work well.

 

[Tornado]

Consider the sales of the Scion FR-S. It is being considered by most to be a sales hit, and it's shifting a bit less than 3,000 units per month, optimally. Do the math, and that's less than 36,000 cars a year. Not even Ford is moving more than 100,000 Mustangs a year. The fact that this new Mazda president won't consider a car that sells less than 100,000 a year is very worrisome.

Not a car that sells less than 100,000 a year. A drivetrain that sells less than 100,000 units a year; and requires completely bespoke production, development and engineering. The Mustang uses two engines that Ford puts in a truck that sells 7 times that number by itself. The BreezFrees stuff is spread across three pretty much identical models to part out the costs of the bespoke things Toyota developed exclusively for it (which still aren't as out there as a rotary engine).



Plus, Toyota is Toyota and Ford is Ford; and Mazda is only Mazda. Toyota in particular doesn't need to worry too much about making much money in the long run on the BreezFrees (which is good, because with the development time they put into the thing they probably won't). Mazda can't afford to take such a bath.

 

[Keef]

Plus, Mazda effectively put its life on the line developing their Skyactiv technology along with the new 3, 6 and CX5. Luckily they're proving to be hits. Mazda needs to focus on becoming popular before it can splurge on a difficult project like a modern rotary. Sort of like how Cadillac is taking a long time to develop a super high-end luxury car. It's not that they can't, but that doing it is very expensive and risky.

 

[05XR8]

I blame all this on the Protege and MX5. And the 300ZXTT had a hand in this too. If those cars didnt sell so well, the rotary would still be alive-in low volume any way.

 

[niky]

I blame all this on the Protege and MX5. And the 300ZXTT had a hand in this too. If those cars didnt sell so well, the rotary would still be alive-in low volume any way.

Without the MX-5, the RX8 would have been even more of a financial disaster, as there would be no higher volume sportscar with which to defray chassis development costs for the RX8. (ergo: they shared a chassis)

Without mass-market cars like the Protege, Mazda would not have the money to waste on the rotary, in the first place. Blaming that for the demise of the RX8 is like blaming the Cayenne for the death of the Cayman (if the Cayman were ever to die)... Like the Cayenne, the Protege and other "cheap" Mazdas have funded development of the rotary over the decades.

If you're suggesting however, that if Mazda had rotary family sedans and roadsters, the RX8 would have been able to go on... nope. Nada. Building a gas-guzzling sportscar is not an issue. Building a compact family car with the fuel economy of something twice the size is financial suicide.

 

[Omnis]

Why do people even like the slotary? The skyactiv and disi engines are far superior.

Even if they relegate it to range extender/serial hybrid applications, there are more efficient rotary engines than the wankel.

 

[05XR8]

Without the MX-5, the RX8 would have been even more of a financial disaster, as there would be no higher volume sportscar with which to defray chassis development costs for the RX8. (ergo: they shared a chassis)

Without mass-market cars like the Protege, Mazda would not have the money to waste on the rotary, in the first place. Blaming that for the demise of the RX8 is like blaming the Cayenne for the death of the Cayman (if the Cayman were ever to die)... Like the Cayenne, the Protege and other "cheap" Mazdas have funded development of the rotary over the decades.

If you're suggesting however, that if Mazda had rotary family sedans and roadsters, the RX8 would have been able to go on... nope. Nada. Building a gas-guzzling sportscar is not an issue. Building a compact family car with the fuel economy of something twice the size is financial suicide.

Im speaking rotary in general. Not the RX8 alone. The rotary was dead with the RX7 due to that $55K price tag I didnt want to pay in the States. Im saying, the MX5 and Protege were successful in making the rotary obsolete. I understand your points, no arguments there. I worked for a Mazda dealer and Lord knows how many tow trucks we sent to bring flooded RX8's to the service dept.

 

[Pupik]

And the 300ZXTT had a hand in this too. If those cars didnt sell so well...

Damn those twenty-year-old cars with piston-engined technology but less-attractive styling!

Face it, it's a bit of a dead-end technology, unless Mazda finds a couple billion dollars lying around.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Who said the rotary has to have a sports car application? This is why Mazda is still doing R&D, figuring out what the engine is best suited for and how to make it work well.

Yeah, I'm sure they're going to find a way to up horsepower a bunch, double the gas efficiency, and double torque output to be viable in a normal car or SUV. That's likely to happen.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Why do people even like the slotary? The skyactiv and disi engines are far superior.

Even if they relegate it to range extender/serial hybrid applications, there are more efficient rotary engines than the wankel.

Because they make massive power for their size & weight. (physical size, not swept volume because that is too contentious) My RX-7 is not a daily driver (1.5 liter 40mpg subcompact does that job) so efficiency is a non-issue. Sound, smoothness, top end delivery, power, response and lack of mass are all that really matter to me in an engine for a sports car. On those metric, no other engine configuration can match it. A i4 or h4 can come close to the size and weight, but not generally the power, smoothness or sound. A V6 probably comes closest, but again, not as smooth, lightweight, small, nor rev-happy generally. Inline 6 comes close in most regards, but they are huge and heavy. Even the lightest V8's (not counting motorbike based engines) are generally at least twice the weight of a comparable naturally aspirated rotary, and for me, the additional power isn't necessary in a very light (sub 2400lb) sports car. I'll probably be buying an S2000 when I'm done with grad school....if and when the F20c blows, it's going to receive a peripheral port 20b; hopefully a PPRE unit.

 

[Omnis]

Because they make massive power for their size & weight. blah blah blah blah

 

[Keef]

Yeah, I'm sure they're going to find a way to up horsepower a bunch, double the gas efficiency, and double torque output to be viable in a normal car or SUV. That's likely to happen.

Who said it has to be used in a car or SUV?

The article mentions that Mazda is currently exploring the possibility of using rotaries as generators, designing them for low-rpm, high-torque applications. This generator idea can be applied to a more pure example of a car like this:

Where a small rotary would be used as a generator to power an electric drivetrain.

Have some imagination, people. Not everything needs to be a fire-breather. Moving 100,000 rotaries a year might mean selling emergency generators at Sears.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Low RPM high torque applications that are also fuel efficient? Yes, that's why they're scrapping the idea and not moving forward with it. It's not working.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Why do people even like the slotary? The skyactiv and disi engines are far superior.

Even if they relegate it to range extender/serial hybrid applications, there are more efficient rotary engines than the wankel.

Uniqueness. That stupid LS swap you posted is not unique anymore, everyone and their grandmother has an LS swap.

Mazda can go and let the Rotary die, I don't really care anymore. There's still a bunch of them on the road and I'll likely be purchasing another SA22C in the near future. There's just nothing else like it.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Yawn.

 

[Keef]

Low RPM high torque applications that are also fuel efficient? Yes, that's why they're scrapping the idea and not moving forward with it. It's not working.

Rotaries run most efficiently at a constant RPM. There are numerous inefficiencies encountered when you accelerate a rotary, including massive fuel consumption and heat generation, as well as oil consumption increasing with RPM. Even when decelerating a rotary you are still consuming oil based on RPM despite the fact that fuel is cut. Pre-Renesis rotaries tended to have the best torque/fuel consumption/oil consumption point at around a constant 2000 rpm. This is why one of the most viable applications for a rotary is as a range-extending engine in hybrids. It'll just sit there doing its thing, requiring nothing more than the occasional oil change, and since internal friction will be low at 2000 rpm it would have a lifespan of 200,000 miles or more.

As for your "also fuel efficient" point, I'd like to point you to the fact that its much easier to modify rotaries to burn kerosene/diesel/jet fuel than a piston engine. A diesel rotary is something Mazda has been working on for years now too.

 

[Omnis]

Anyone that yawns at a V8 in such a small package is more concerned with making more noise and heat energy than mechanical force. You deserve your skeeter fart rotary.

Also, the problem with running a rotary at 2000rpm in a range extender is that you probably won't have the power density to accelerate hard through an electric motor. That's why the Accord Hybrid's Earth **** engine goes to peak HP-output 6500rpms during hard acceleration. They might be able to get around that with an elaborate ultracapacitor or low-internal-resistance battery setup, but you'd still only be able to accelerate for a small window of time before you're relegated to the rotary's 2000rpm electricity output.

 

[Venom800tt]

Funny how while Mazda puts rotary technology on the shelf, other companies propose them for other uses, namely auxiliary power units. The M1 Abrams tank may eventually get a diesel/JP8 burning rotary powered APU to replace several hundred pounds of old lead-acid batteries. Anyway I hope there remains a future for such a quirky and unique engine. Everything having regular piston engines gets sorta dull you know?

 

[Omnis]

The Abrams already uses a turbine engine (rotary... sort of) which is far superior, especially when you factor in electric hybrid systems.

Turbines would be sweet for cars but they have two big problems. 1: Big as hell. 2: Hot as hell.