No more wankel?

Mazda needs to sell a bunch of cars in order to keep development on the 16A wankel going on.

Luckily, I'm planning on getting a 5 with the sky engine in it.

http://www.rotarynews.com/?q=node%2Fview%2F1158

if I were to buy a new car.. the RX8 would be on the list. It would have to be black so I could tint out that hidious rear window

Doesn't sound like it's going away to me, at least not permanently:

Autoblog Link

Well I could see if they were to temporarily stop production just to work on development. The Rx-8 is on it's way out and there really is no car in development for the new rotary to go in.

I would love to see that concept sedan that had come out with a couple years back.

Why the heck don't they use the Miata platform, dolly it up, and put a hardtop on it with the Renesis? Voila! A new RX7 with minimalized development costs.

kreb wrote: Why the heck don't they use the Miata platform, dolly it up, and put a hardtop on it with the Renesis? Voila! A new RX7 with minimalized development costs.

And put that coupe top on some of them.

No more wankel? We can only hope.

DILYSI Dave wrote: No more wankel? We can only hope.

This.

Put an inline 4 in the RX8 and double the gas mileage. And resale value.

The RX8 would be a very interesting car with the Mazdaspeed 3 engine in it.

When it comes time to replace my Mazdaspeed3 in a few years, I would like to go with a new(er) RWD hardtop and get an old pickup for hauling/winter duty. I hope Mazda announces an RX-whatever soon to replace the RX-8. I'm a rotard/Mazda fanboi, so I'd like a Mazda option to compare to the FT-S, Mustang V-6, and Genesis Coupe. I'm not interested in the NC Miata unless Mazda makes a coupe version. That, and I'd like a 16X to swap into one of my FCs!

DILYSI Dave wrote: The RX8 would be a very interesting car with the Mazdaspeed 3 engine in it.

Agreed. I always made fun of the engineer at work with an RX-8. Joking that mini-station wagon was quicker.

But that engine + a HPFP and slightly larger turbo that doesn't fall on it's face so hard up top, and I think it'd be perfect for the RX-8.

There is nothing wrong with the RX-8 that a more efficient engine and a better looking body couldn't fix.

What's with all the Wankel Hate?

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: What's with all the Wankel Hate?

It being the spawn of Satan certainly hurt it's rep.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: What's with all the Wankel Hate?

Complete lack of torque and lousy mileage.

Wankels are like communism: in theory, they make sense, but in the real world...

Will wrote: Complete lack of torque and lousy mileage. Wankels are like communism: in theory, they make sense, but in the real world...

In theory they are very inefficient engines as well.

In reply to RexSeven:

I have to agree.

I like the Wankel. I never had an issue with mileage or oil consumption issues with mine like I hear about so much. The only issue I had was that mine had't run 15 years before I got it and one of the oil seals dried out and squirted oil all over the place.

I have heard and seen many horror stories, but I know many people that love the Rotary Engine and several who race with them as well.

haters can hate, but i'm sorry who is the only Japanese automaker to win the 24 hours of Le Mans using said engine?. Oh... right.

although they aren't practical for daily use.

also as a side note, if we are talking about torque someone is sniffing glue here since if I look on this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Wankel_engine#13B

the torque numbers are almost level to horsepower

In reply to element6:

Numbers don't tell the whole story. I do use my non-turbo FC as a backup daily and I can attest to it not having a lot of torque low in the rev band, although for the most part it's still plenty to get myself around town. It doesn't like to be lugged, though. Simply put, a rotary is at its best on the race track, where it can run for long periods of time at high revs, where it makes its max. horsepower and torque ratings. Even old beater RX-7s do well at LeMons because the rotary is in it's element.

To everyone else pointing out the lack of torque and fuel economy: Mazda is addressing this with the 16X.

http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/rotary/16x/

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/10/22/report-mazda-rotary-reportedly-at-least-a-year-behind-schedule/

They are using thinner rotors with increased stroke, all-aluminum construction, and direct injection to increase torque, fuel economy, and lower weight and emissions. Mazda reported that the 16X gets better mileage than the current 2.0L found in the base Mazda3, but it did not meet their emissions targets. There's even rumors floating around that they are considering using frikin' laser beams instead of traditional spark plugs.

Tell you what: Mazda can make one more lightweight RWD sports car with the 16X in it. If the 16X does not live up to its promise, then Mazda drops rotary development. If it does, then carry on, Mazda.

Well...um....the Germans couldn't make it work, and the Japanese couldn't make it efficient.....

What else do we need to know...?

Rog

In reply to emodspitfire:

If the Rotary was never efficient, why did the EPA rate the '79/'80 Rx-7 at 29/30 mpg (hwy) with the 5-speed manual?

If there is anything to complain about, it's emissions, but then who on this board really cares about that anyway.

I wouldn't want to have one in a daily driver, but then I wouldn't want a 4 banger in a sports car. There is nothing I hate worse than the sound of a 4 cyl automotive engine at max revs. Especially an old worn out one. I've thrashed a lot of engines in my time and there's something about that rotary scream that just stirs my blood. Keep them alive Mazda. Some of us still appreciate it.

element6 wrote: haters can hate, but i'm sorry who is the only Japanese automaker to win the 24 hours of Le Mans using said engine?. Oh... right. although they aren't practical for daily use. also as a side note, if we are talking about torque someone is sniffing glue here since if I look on this page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Wankel_engine#13B the torque numbers are almost level to horsepower

Let's compare the total number of rotary wins at Le Mans to the total number of 4-stroke wins at Le Mans.

And according to Wiki, the US-spec FD TT only made 217 lb-ft of torque. That's not a lot of twist.

Will wrote: And according to Wiki, the US-spec FD TT only made 217 lb-ft of torque. That's not a lot of twist.

True, but the 3rd Gen also only weighed a little over 2800 lbs.

It also did 0-60 in 5.2 sec with the Quarter in 13.9 sec.