No more wankel?

Buzz Killington wrote:

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.

see, there's this thing called "gearing," and it's almost magical in how it multiplies torque between the flywheel and the wheels.

The more you take advantage of gearing to accelerate the car, the more RPM you're going to turn at higher speeds, the more gas you're going to burn, and the more you're going to reduce your top speed due to RPM limitations.

And ask yourself what your condescending tone added to the conversation.

Will wrote: And ask yourself what your condescending tone added to the conversation.

Hmm, I think there is this thing called a "transmission", that is full of "gears", that affect how fast an engine is required to spin in order to make a car move at a certain speed.

Now how's THAT for condescending?

RX8 is ridiculously slow. S2000 is wayyyyy faster. SO much better.

The big question is, what's going to happen to Formula Mazda? Will the price of used cars go up or down ?

Will wrote:

Buzz Killington wrote:

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.

see, there's this thing called "gearing," and it's almost magical in how it multiplies torque between the flywheel and the wheels.

The more you take advantage of gearing to accelerate the car, the more RPM you're going to turn at higher speeds, the more gas you're going to burn, and the more you're going to reduce your top speed due to RPM limitations. And ask yourself what your condescending tone added to the conversation.

i wasn't trying to be condescending, but if you took it that way, sorry. i was simply pointing out that flywheel torque numbers aren't really useful information in figuring out how much "twist" the driver feels in the real world. and ask yourself if you might have a thin skin.

In reply to Buzz Killington:

Well, I try not to, but every once in a while, we all take something more personally than we should. At any rate, I did understand your point. So with that said, what kind of torque numbers does a stock-ish FD or RX8 make on a chassis dyno, then? I have no idea.

Mazda isn't the only company doing development work with wankel motors. In the public domain most/all of the more recent SAE papers on wankels are not published by Mazda. The relatively poor combustion characteristics due to geometry can be crutched to some extent by direct injection. The geometry, package, and operation characteristics of a wankel are well suited to hybrid gas/electric applications. With respect to performance, Norton is actively doing development work and a recent technical publication had a photo clearly showing a variety of billet housings and other hardware while interviewing one of their development engineers. The rotary isn't dead, just waiting.

Will wrote: In reply to Buzz Killington: Well, I try not to, but every once in a while, we all take something more personally than we should. At any rate, I did understand your point. So with that said, what kind of torque numbers does a stock-ish FD or RX8 make on a chassis dyno, then? I have no idea.

More than an S2000, and we don't hear people complaining about how gutless they are...

Wow, I get busy and this happens when I'm not looking.

The piston engine is more fuel efficient and less polluting than the rotary engine. Fine. Nobody debates that. Would that always be the case? I don't know.

How much more time and money has been spent on developing the piston engine than the rotary engine? I don't think anybody could say for sure, but I'm guessing the answers are: "A whole heck of a lot more" and "A whole heck of a lot more". Look at the horsepower and efficiency ratings of four stroke piston engines back in the 30s and 40s. They weren't all that great, either.

I'm a fan of the rotary. I admit it. It isn't for everyone. Back in the late 70s, 80s and 90s, Mazda powered vehicles were some of the most exciting things on the road, in my opinion. Things have changed a lot since then, and rotary powered vehicles are overshadowed by piston engined vehicles at the moment.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: More than an S2000, and we don't hear people complaining about how gutless they are...

Ooooooooh! comeback!

Seriously though, the RX8 is a couple of hundred pounds heavier than the S2000. That's why using the Miata chasis makes sense. A RX7 version of the Miata should be 500 lbs. lighter than the current RX8.

kreb wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: More than an S2000, and we don't hear people complaining about how gutless they are...

Ooooooooh! comeback! Seriously though, the RX8 is a couple of hundred pounds heavier than the S2000. That's why using the Miata chasis makes sense. A RX7 version of the Miata should be 500 lbs. lighter than the current RX8.

Depending on options and such.... it's more like 50lbs heavier. I had a hard time believing it when i saw it for the first time, too. S2000s are HEAVY.

But yes.... even the current Renesis in an NC would be pretty awesome win!

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: RX8 is ridiculously slow. S2000 is wayyyyy faster. SO much better.

I guess that depends on how badly you need a (small) rear seat.

Tom Heath wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: RX8 is ridiculously slow. S2000 is wayyyyy faster. SO much better.

I guess that depends on how badly you need a (small) rear seat.

Heh.... i forgot to use my [sarcasm][/sarcasm] commands.

Will wrote: In reply to Buzz Killington: Well, I try not to, but every once in a while, we all take something more personally than we should.

:beer:

Tom Heath wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: RX8 is ridiculously slow. S2000 is wayyyyy faster. SO much better.

I guess that depends on how badly you need a (small) rear seat.

my 13-week old seems to enjoy his morning ride to daycare back there.

My 12a with a few tweaks, got 26mpg and was still running strong when I pulled it and sold it to another RX owner.

Made 150hp and was reliable as a brick.

I have owned 13 rotary powered vehicles and not one ever had a significant engine failure

I couldn't love GRM the magazine or the website more, and believe me, I don't like to be the P.C police or anything or the guy who has a problem with everything thing, but I do have a problem with this...

I find it a bit offensive that you use terms like "Rotary", "Wankel" etc etc... for your little descriptions or whatever in the avatars. I myself do not have Magical spinning triangles, nor am I a fan of the incessant buzzing and other problems, but I feel sensitivity for people who like them

I don't underdtand why thy were still being made though considering we are well into the twenty first century and I read enough old Popular Mechanics while waiting for haircuts to know that this is the future. This debate should have been put to rest long ago when Detroit started churing out our flying cars powered by safe, clean nuclear power. Just the work of afew small atoms were to supplant these dirty internal combustion machines and allow us to take our coffee swilling, texting innattentiveness to new heights, so to speak.

It just dosen't seem right to me, thats all. I know that it's not my message board, and that noone forces me to post here, but all the same, some things are wrong when they really don't need to be.

aussiesmg wrote: My 12a with a few tweaks, got 26mpg and was still running strong when I pulled it and sold it to another RX owner. Made 150hp and was reliable as a brick. I have owned 13 rotary powered vehicles and not one ever had a significant engine failure

I have owned a similar amount and only broken one. In defense of that poor 13B, it had a huge camden supercharger with an out of the box edlebrock carb and a dizzy adjusted by sound. It would shoot shotgun fireballs out of the exhaust when you hit about 7k RPM. Even then it didn't pop until I took it out for repeated hard pulls to the top of third gear

Hate on haters!! Hate on!!!

Say whatever you want about the magical spinning triangles,but you can pry my cold dead fingers from my RX-7,or REPU someday. I understand all of the Wankel's short comings but it doesn't change the fact that I get many smiles per gallon in my rotary vehicle's. Also I wouldn't change a think about them aside from maybe some better paint on the REPU,but then again I may use it less like a truck if it were all shiny.

I hope Mazda can start the development back up someday because some of us really enjoy the sound and feel of the magic spinning triangles.

In reply to Wally:

What are you going on about?

What is offensive about saying Wankel or Rotary? It's what they are.

In reply to SyntheticBlinkerFluid: I think that he was making a funny.

kreb wrote: I think that he was making a funny.

I think that that is one of the few true to GRM internet memes. Brought a smile to my face

while the third gen was the prettiest of the RX7s... am I wrong for wanting the porsche 944esque send gen?

In reply to kreb:

Ahhh, I was wondering.

I wonder if a Wankel diesel is possible. The much lower EGTs and lower RPM range should treat the apex seals right (the Wankel's one weakness)

[Edit] yes there has been Diesel Wankels.

Apex seals have not been an issue since the early '70s. The rotor turns at 1/3 the crankshaft speed and rotor speed has never been an issue.