A top Mazda engineer has confirmed that the automaker is developing an all-new, rotary-engined RX-7 sports car that will debut by 2017.
MX-5 program manager Nobuhiro Yamamoto revealed to Car News that Mazda is working on a new RX-7 that will be lighter, more powerful and more fuel efficient than the discontinued RX-8.
Yamamoto, who served as the powertrain manager for the previous RX-7 and also designed the Le Mans-winning Mazda 787B?s Wankel motor, said the car will use Mazda's next-generation 16X rotary engine. Whereas the RX-8's 1.3-liter Renesis mill made 232 horsepower, Yamaoto indicated that the 16X will displace 1.6 liters and produce around 300 horsepower in naturally aspirated form (a turbo variant is a possibility down the road).
Thanks to special catalytic converters and combustion principles borrowed from Mazda's SkyActiv technology, the motor should be emissions-compliant around the globe and also boast improved fuel economy compared to the thirsty Renesis. However, Yamaoto said that Mazda would not consider adding a hybrid system as Acura has with the reborn NSX.
?For a pure sportscar, it must be internal combustion,? Yamaoto said.
Aluminum will be used extensively in the RX-7's bodyshell, helping keep weight down to about the same 2800 lbs. as the Scion FR-S/ Subaru BRZ. A stretched version of the next-generation MX-5 Miata's platform will likely underpin the RX-7, and the car will be a two-seater in all markets except for Japan, where it will feature a pair of diminutive rear seats.
While it's still too early in the development process for anything close to exact pricing details, Yamaoto did say that the new RX-7 will fall between Nissan's 370Z and GT-R sports cars in terms of MSRP - indicating that the car will definitely be more expensive than the RX-8.
Great news if it's true. The only thing that's going to be really difficult to do in my books is recapture the beauty of the last RX-7.
I hope they make it happen.
Oh, shit. That is a crazy power/weight ratio.
Yea! Another really expensive rotary!
That's the only thing. One of the reasons the RX-7 suffered poor sales was because of the price tag. The FD RX-7 is one of my all-time favourite cars, but damn was it pricey.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 02, 2012, 03:19:59 PM
That's the only thing. One of the reasons the RX-7 suffered poor sales was because of the price tag. The FD RX-7 is one of my all-time favourite cars, but damn was it pricey.
I'm sure people will be knocking down Mazda dealer doors to spend 50-60K on a Mazda that gets 12mpg and needs a new engine every year.
I'll be one of them :praise: BRZ will need replacing by then.
Quote from: Raza on November 02, 2012, 03:23:16 PM
I'm sure people will be knocking down Mazda dealer doors to spend 50-60K on a Mazda that gets 12mpg and needs a new engine every year.
Yea sadly this will be another internet favorite
Yeah, I saw this http://www.themotorreport.com.au/55336/mazda-rx-7-returning-in-2017-yamamoto the other day but didn't post anything about it seeing that we've been hearing this for years. But seeing that it's Yamamoto talking then perhaps it's not all BS.
I hope they make it but to be honest I don't see myself liking it more the the FD. That's my all time favorite car and I'd probably want it over this one. Now if this 16X would fit in the FD without much work then so much the better.
Oh, it would be idiotic to bring one out that cost that much. Overpriced sports cars are what killed the Japanese cars of the 90's. Sure the 300, Supra and RX-7 of those days kick ass. But they all cost too damn much for the people who buy them.
Returning the RX to it's roots would be a better idea. If you want some high end rotary car then bring the cosmo back.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=28316.msg1802456#msg1802456 date=1351891396
I'm sure people will be knocking down Mazda dealer doors to spend 50-60K on a Mazda that gets 12mpg and needs a new engine every year.
I get about 14-16 mpg when I'm thrashing the shit out of it hitting the red line in the first three gears. And if I drive "normal" then it's in the 20's. I'm not saying that's good but it's sure isn't 12. And I've not needed one part other then the battery replaced yet. Out of the 4 cars I've ever own this one has had the least about stuff done to it. I hope that this last too.
Not saying that others don't have fuck ups. I'm just saying so far I'm in the clear.
It would be sweet if the 16x would drop into the rx8
This is all assuming Mazda can stick around financially until 2017. Right now, I don't see that happening unless someone buys up a big chunk of them, or the next 3 & 6 are both top three sellers in their respective segments.
Quote from: MrH on November 02, 2012, 05:58:17 PM
This is all assuming Mazda can stick around financially until 2017. Right now, I don't see that happening unless someone buys up a big chunk of them, or the next 3 & 6 are both top three sellers in their respective segments.
SILENCE!!!!!
I think Mazda will be fine if they act like a smaller company now that Ford's out of the picture.
Quote from: MrH on November 02, 2012, 05:58:17 PM
This is all assuming Mazda can stick around financially until 2017. Right now, I don't see that happening unless someone buys up a big chunk of them, or the next 3 & 6 are both top three sellers in their respective segments.
GM's managed to last for 30 years in the red, I think Mazda can hang on for 5. :lol:
Quote from: Secret Chimp on November 02, 2012, 10:27:02 PM
I think Mazda will be fine if they act like a smaller company now that Ford's out of the picture.
Small companies that don't sell $300K cars dont seem like viable business models. I love Mazda, I'm rooting for Mazda, but its not looking good right now. Mitsubishi has the backing of its other operations. Same with Subaru. All the other Japanese companies have the volume + coverage to keep pushing. I hate to say it but getting away from Ford might not have been in their long term interest. Though on the flip side Saab was killed by its GM ties.
Who knows though. You could have said the same about Hyundai or Kia not even 10 years ago. Look at em now. But they figured out what sells. Mazda is making cars for folks like us, which is not a very loyal or large market.
Hopefully the Mexico plant will help. I think their sales as of late have been ok, for Mazda anyway. But they don't make enough money off them because all their cars are made in Japan. I just hope they can hold on until it's up and running.
I'm not sure what I'd do if Mazda went down the tubes. The Miata would be easy to keep because of all the thousands of them running around. The RX-8 on the other hand wouldn't be so easy in the long term. And then what do I buy?
The only other brands that make cars that I like are BMW and they cost too damn much or perhaps subaru.
I'd be fucked.
Buy + continually restore an FD
Why wait for something new when what you want already exists
Quote from: Onslaught on November 03, 2012, 05:23:11 AM
Hopefully the Mexico plant will help. I think their sales as of late have been ok, for Mazda anyway. But they don't make enough money off them because all their cars are made in Japan. I just hope they can hold on until it's up and running.
I'm not sure what I'd do if Mazda went down the tubes. The Miata would be easy to keep because of all the thousands of them running around. The RX-8 on the other hand wouldn't be so easy in the long term. And then what do I buy?
The only other brands that make cars that I like are BMW and they cost too damn much or perhaps subaru.
I'd be fucked.
The Mexico plant will help. And if worst comes to worst a BMW would be fine as lomg as you look past the usual Spin' hyperbole about them costing an arm and a leg to keep running. Not true.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 03, 2012, 06:48:47 AM
Buy + continually restore an FD
Why wait for something new when what you want already exists
Parts will run out one day if Mazda is gone.
A $60,000 RX-7 is a very bad idea. A much better one is to produce a 200 hp Miata coupe to directly compete with the Subarions.
A 60K RX-7 will bomb. Not even I would buy one for that much. Not even if it had a dick sucker in the seat. A 30-40K RX-7 would be a better idea.
I demand four r0tors, <2000lbs, <$25K.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on November 02, 2012, 10:27:02 PM
I think Mazda will be fine if they act like a smaller company now that Ford's out of the picture.
It's not that. It's not like their spending is out of control. All of their production in Japan makes them very sensitive to currency fluctuations. They're getting killed right now. Also, companies that small simply don't have the purchasing power and part sharing ability to compete in cost.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on November 03, 2012, 11:43:22 AM
I demand four r0tors, <2000lbs, <$25K.
Your demands are unreasonable
By 2017, $60k won't be the same as what $60k is now.
How do they plan on making the rotary engine more fuel efficient? By its very design it's a fuel thirsty engine. Lowering the weight of the car etc. will probably have a very small and hardly noticeable effect on fuel economy.
Quote from: MrH on November 03, 2012, 11:51:30 AM
By 2017, $60k won't be the same as what $60k is now.
I figured $60k, because that's halfway between an RX-8 and Nissan GTR. The GTR (if it still exists) might cost $150,000 in 2017, and the new RX-7, $90,000. Either way, nobody will buy a Mazda at that price point. Volkswagen couldn't do it, and at a few hundred GTR's a year, neither could Nissan.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on November 03, 2012, 12:07:50 PM
How do they plan on making the rotary engine more fuel efficient? By its very design it's a fuel thirsty engine. Lowering the weight of the car etc. will probably have a very small and hardly noticeable effect on fuel economy.
(http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/12753_o.gif)
Quote from: Onslaught on November 03, 2012, 11:48:04 AM
Your demands are unreasonable
I don't think so. Let me build it.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on November 03, 2012, 12:07:50 PM
How do they plan on making the rotary engine more fuel efficient? By its very design it's a fuel thirsty engine. Lowering the weight of the car etc. will probably have a very small and hardly noticeable effect on fuel economy.
Last I heard, it's all about fuel delivery, spark timing, and laser ignition hitting specific spots at various times.
If I'm reading the gauge correctly, the little guy got 'er up to 68 mph before he lost it. :lol:
Quote from: MrH on November 03, 2012, 12:14:56 PM
Last I heard, it's all about fuel delivery, spark timing, and laser ignition hitting specific spots at various times.
Targeted laser ignition!? How futuretastic!
Yeah, it's pretty cool shit. There was an article or two about it a few years back. Basically, Mazda is shooting lasers in the combustion chamber at different locations and times to get the flame front propagation just right. The goofy shape of the combustion chamber makes things a bit different than a conventional piston engine.
Quote from: MrH on November 03, 2012, 11:51:30 AM
By 2017, $60k won't be the same as what $60k is now.
I'm fucked then. I'm making the same now as I did 10 years ago.
Quote from: Onslaught on November 03, 2012, 12:29:15 PM
I'm fucked then. I'm making the same now as I did 10 years ago.
It's only 4 years away. I can't imagine there'll be much difference.
Don't care about the car, just the engine. It would be better than a turbo 13b to put in the FFR hot rod I plan on building.
Quote from: hotrodalex on November 03, 2012, 01:39:38 PM
Don't care about the car, just the engine. It would be better than a turbo 13b to put in the FFR hot rod I plan on building.
13b FFR? Lame-O. 9000b.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on November 03, 2012, 12:07:50 PM
How do they plan on making the rotary engine more fuel efficient? By its very design it's a fuel thirsty engine.
Not exactly true my friend... Fuel economy was a key reason why the 787 won LeMans, why Audi is experimenting with a rotary for a range extending electric powerplant, and why they are semi popular in airplanes.
How about a diesel rotary... oh my, that could be a horrible idea.
Quote from: Laconian on November 02, 2012, 03:07:11 PM
Oh, shit. That is a crazy power/weight ratio.
Fuck that. 200 is enough for any enthusiast.
412 is enough for this car enthusiast...ever since I drove a 412 hp car. :ohyeah:
Quote from: r0tor on November 03, 2012, 02:34:02 PM
Not exactly true my friend... Fuel economy was a key reason why the 787 won LeMans, why Audi is experimenting with a rotary for a range extending electric powerplant, and why they are semi popular in airplanes.
Fuel consumption has never been a rotary strong point. The reason they're popular in small aircraft is because they have low vibration, have a very high power to weight and size ratio (which is probably the #1 reason), and have fewer moving parts than the typical reciprocating engine and so there is less to possibly go wrong. Really, the spark plugs and apex seals are about all you need to worry about with a rotary.
There will never be a rotary with good fuel economy. Not in a car anyway. And I'm ok with that.
Quote from: MX793 on November 04, 2012, 04:39:09 AM
Fuel consumption has never been a rotary strong point. The reason they're popular in small aircraft is because they have low vibration, have a very high power to weight and size ratio (which is probably the #1 reason), and have fewer moving parts than the typical reciprocating engine and so there is less to possibly go wrong. Really, the spark plugs and apex seals are about all you need to worry about with a rotary.
Wrong. At high loads the wankle can produce better mileage then piston engines as they have a better volumetric efficiency and at faster speeds losses from poor sealing over the spark plug gap reduces.
The decision was made based on the reliability of the cars demonstrated in the Paul Ricard tests, as well as the car's exceptional fuel economy, which meant that the carefully learned driving techniques intended to preserve the fuel allowance were no longer a critical part of the team's strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_787B
Quote from: Onslaught on November 03, 2012, 11:34:36 AM
Parts will run out one day if Mazda is gone.
Saab/Pontiac parts still exist. Plus even with manufacturers around parts disappear.
Quote from: r0tor on November 04, 2012, 08:45:34 AM
Wrong. At high loads the wankle can produce better mileage then piston engines as they have a better volumetric efficiency and at faster speeds losses from poor sealing over the spark plug gap reduces.
The decision was made based on the reliability of the cars demonstrated in the Paul Ricard tests, as well as the car's exceptional fuel economy, which meant that the carefully learned driving techniques intended to preserve the fuel allowance were no longer a critical part of the team's strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_787B
I dont think race fuel economy is comparable to street fuel economy
I still think with the rotary's much higher smoothness the key will be to go modular. Either hook all the rotors up by clutches and ignition/fuel synching to keep everything balanced, and decouple/couple them as necessary... or have like 4 rotors and do DoD. Then they could take advantage of the better full load efficiency.
That kind of green tech could actually make rotaries a viable green tech. And if they "leveraged it across platforms" (i.e. put it in more than a niche sports car) it could actually be affordable. Only thing is it would take a hail mary investment
I'm really excited about even the possibility of this car. I know, it's years off and still uncertain because of mazda's future, but I'm just glad the rotary is still alive. The rotary is the whole reason I got into cars and engineering. I almost bought a leftover 2010 r3 rx8, but just missed it. Kind of regretted I didn't get it, and really wondered if I ever had a chance at getting a new rotary again. Glad to see it's coming back and in a proper two seater.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 04, 2012, 10:01:08 AM
I dont think race fuel economy is comparable to street fuel economy
I still think with the rotary's much higher smoothness the key will be to go modular. Either hook all the rotors up by clutches and ignition/fuel synching to keep everything balanced, and decouple/couple them as necessary... or have like 4 rotors and do DoD. Then they could take advantage of the better full load efficiency.
That kind of green tech could actually make rotaries a viable green tech. And if they "leveraged it across platforms" (i.e. put it in more than a niche sports car) it could actually be affordable. Only thing is it would take a hail mary investment
Clutches to decouple rotors? Yikes. That's like putting clutches in a crankshaft to decouple cylinders in a reciprocating engine.
MX, your thoughts on shutting off ports, similar to what they do with cylinder deactivation now?
I think the real use of rotaries in the future is in a Chevy volt like application as a generator.
Quote from: MX793 on November 04, 2012, 10:24:42 AM
Clutches to decouple rotors? Yikes. That's like putting clutches in a crankshaft to decouple cylinders in a reciprocating engine.
Its been done with piston engines.
http://www.ecomotors.com/ecomotors-internationals-opposed-piston-opposed-cylinder-engine-promises-revolutionize-commercial-ve
Quote from: MX793 on November 04, 2012, 10:24:42 AM
Clutches to decouple rotors? Yikes. That's like putting clutches in a crankshaft to decouple cylinders in a reciprocating engine.
That couldn't possibly result in balance issues or anything.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 04, 2012, 09:55:08 AM
Saab/Pontiac parts still exist. Plus even with manufacturers around parts disappear.
They go away faster without the manufacture there. Who's going to make rotor housings other then Mazda?
And parts for Saab and Pontiac actually aren't east to get now. We had Saturn and Pontiac cars sit on the lot for months because some parts are limited and on backorder.
I'd never buy a car if I can't get the parts for it. Unless it was some kind of toy car.
Saab is especially bad right now. But for the most part, a company will buy the tooling cheap and make replacement parts for awhile after a car is done. For us, we were glad to see Saab go under from a service part perspective. It got us out of making service parts for the next ten years.
You're able to get Pontiac parts still because they shared all their parts with every other GM car that was just a rebadged version of the Pontiac.
Parts availability is the biggest reason I skipped the G8 without even driving it this last time.
Quote from: MrH on November 04, 2012, 10:27:14 AM
MX, your thoughts on shutting off ports, similar to what they do with cylinder deactivation now?
I think the real use of rotaries in the future is in a Chevy volt like application as a generator.
I think that's really the only practical way to implement DoD in a Wankel. Although I'm not sure how well a Wankel would work in "air spring" mode if you closed off the ports. It might be lossier than closing the valves on a piston engine because the air volume would actually be revolving (rolling, really) around the drum with the rotors rather than just being squeezed linearly as in a cylinder. Also, in some (maybe all) applications of DoD, they close the cylinder up after a power stroke, so the gas in the cylinder is exhaust gas that isn't allowed to escape (so positive pressure at BDC). You'd have to be mindful of your port valve timing when reactivating rotors to prevent combusted gasses from backfiring into the intake manifold if you did the same in a rotary. My gut tells me you'd also want some balance of gas on all three sides of the rotor, so you wouldn't want one "chamber" with combusted gasses that weren't allowed to exhaust the other two with just clean ambient air from the intake "stroke". But that may not actually make much difference.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 04, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
Its been done with piston engines.
http://www.ecomotors.com/ecomotors-internationals-opposed-piston-opposed-cylinder-engine-promises-revolutionize-commercial-ve
Opposed piston engines are very, very different from a traditional piston engine like what is in a car. Each cylinder pair is balanced from an NVH point of view. And the setup of those Ecomotors is akin to stringing multiple independent engines together in series with a clutch between them so you could shut them on and off, which you certainly could do with any engine type.
Quote from: MX793 on November 04, 2012, 11:09:28 AM
Opposed piston engines are very, very different from a traditional piston engine like what is in a car. Each cylinder pair is balanced from an NVH point of view. And the setup of those Ecomotors is akin to stringing multiple independent engines together in series with a clutch between them so you could shut them on and off, which you certainly could do with any engine type.
Wouldn't rotaries daisy chained together be the same thing?
Also would it be possible to either let the unused rotors vent to atmosphere (so you are not needlessly pressurizing), or pressurize the intake charge of the existing one (through valving of the exhaust back into the intake)? There are different things they could do.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 04, 2012, 12:41:55 PM
Wouldn't rotaries daisy chained together be the same thing?
Also would it be possible to either let the unused rotors vent to atmosphere (so you are not needlessly pressurizing), or pressurize the intake charge of the existing one (through valving of the exhaust back into the intake)? There are different things they could do.
Stringing multiple independent rotaries together in series is different from putting a clutch between two rotors in a single motor. You'd have to have dedicated ignition systems and likely dedicated exhaust tracts (so that you aren't blowing exhaust from the running rotor into the deactivated one). At which point, you've basically built two independent rotaries.
And the Wankel will still be compressing air even if you vent the exhaust to atmosphere. They are still Otto cycle engines that process air in finite clumps. They aren't continuous flow engines like a Rankine cycle turbine. Venting to atmosphere would be no different than cutting the fuel supply to one piston on a piston engine but letting it continue to pump air.
If you had the appropriate plumbing and valving in place, you might be able to divert exhaust from the "dead" rotor back into the intake and use it as something of a supercharger for the live rotor, but if you do that, will you really be saving any fuel by deactivating it? The dead rotor is now doing work as a compressor (which consumes fuel), and the live rotor is now getting forced induction, which will prompt greater fuel consumption by that rotor to compensate for the increased airflow.
Quote from: MrH on November 04, 2012, 10:27:14 AM
MX, your thoughts on shutting off ports, similar to what they do with cylinder deactivation now?
I think the real use of rotaries in the future is in a Chevy volt like application as a generator.
No joke, I heard a Chinese company (Chery, I think) was experimenting with a Rotary range extender.
Quote from: MX793 on November 04, 2012, 12:56:11 PM
Stringing multiple independent rotaries together in series is different from putting a clutch between two rotors in a single motor. You'd have to have dedicated ignition systems and likely dedicated exhaust tracts (so that you aren't blowing exhaust from the running rotor into the deactivated one). At which point, you've basically built two independent rotaries.
And the Wankel will still be compressing air even if you vent the exhaust to atmosphere. They are still Otto cycle engines that process air in finite clumps. They aren't continuous flow engines like a Rankine cycle turbine. Venting to atmosphere would be no different than cutting the fuel supply to one piston on a piston engine but letting it continue to pump air.
If you had the appropriate plumbing and valving in place, you might be able to divert exhaust from the "dead" rotor back into the intake and use it as something of a supercharger for the live rotor, but if you do that, will you really be saving any fuel by deactivating it? The dead rotor is now doing work as a compressor (which consumes fuel), and the live rotor is now getting forced induction, which will prompt greater fuel consumption by that rotor to compensate for the increased airflow.
Well my thinking is, a DoD system has waste in it by spinning dead parts and compressing air that won't be used for combustion. The decoupling system would eliminate all those losses at the expense of complexity (back flow problem could be solved with valves). The blow through system would minimize some of the losses by removing what would essentially be an air spring in the dead rotors' combustion chambers. The "supercharging" system makes the most sense. Yes the dead pistons would consume fuel by compressing the air. But thats the case with any DoD system. By pushing that compressed air back into the intake tract you increase efficiency by using waste energy to replace the energy you would have spent to create intake manifold vacuum and pull combustion air through. It wouldn't be 100%, and its possible driving multiple rotors to supercharge 1 or 2 would consume more power than the engine generates. But its still worth looking into. Only impediment is cost
Quote from: sportyaccordy on November 04, 2012, 01:53:17 PM
Well my thinking is, a DoD system has waste in it by spinning dead parts and compressing air that won't be used for combustion. The decoupling system would eliminate all those losses at the expense of complexity (back flow problem could be solved with valves). The blow through system would minimize some of the losses by removing what would essentially be an air spring in the dead rotors' combustion chambers. The "supercharging" system makes the most sense. Yes the dead pistons would consume fuel by compressing the air. But thats the case with any DoD system. By pushing that compressed air back into the intake tract you increase efficiency by using waste energy to replace the energy you would have spent to create intake manifold vacuum and pull combustion air through. It wouldn't be 100%, and its possible driving multiple rotors to supercharge 1 or 2 would consume more power than the engine generates. But its still worth looking into. Only impediment is cost
You're better off with an air spring than compressing and then dumping air. Yes, it takes work to compress the "spring", but that work will get released back into the motor again for a net loss that is near zero (basically, you just have whatever entropy is in the system to contend with as far as losses go). That's how it's done in piston engines. But with the way a Wankel moves, I'm not sure the air spring will be as effective. I do think that, due to port overlap, the only effective way to manage DoD is to use a reed valve in the intake port with some kind of controlled valve (probably a poppet) on the exhaust port. That should prevent, or minimize, any back feed into the intake manifold when you re-enable a dead rotor without needing to juggle valve timing controls on both the intake and exhaust sides to transition between running states.
And the more I think about it, the more I think that shutting down a rotor but trying to pump the air from that rotor into the live one won't work. First, what's to stop pressurized air being dumped into the intake manifold from simply blowing back out of the air filter? Forced induction systems don't have parallel intake tracts (one pressurized, one not). Second, the rotors in a Wankel are identical and run at the same speed. They therefore will have the same volumetric efficiency. What you really need for an effective supercharger is for the compressor rotor to be spinning faster, or otherwise pumping more air, than the combusting rotor. Otherwise you may as well just dump the air right into the exhaust, you're not getting any gain. The compressor rotor won't be compressing a large enough volume of air to pressurize the intake tract for the runner, but you're still performing work of pumping air through the dead rotor. Using 2 rotors to feed a third might get you enough flow volume for effective supercharging, but the plumbing required would be rather complex (both intake and exhaust) and I'm not sure the efficiency gain would be worth the added complexity.
Ah yea I forgot about that glaring leak point in the system haha. Scratch that completely. In any case DoD or decoupling is probably the way to go.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 04, 2012, 10:58:13 AM
You're able to get Pontiac parts still because they shared all their parts with every other GM car that was just a rebadged version of the Pontiac.
Engine parts and stuff like that are easy to get on those cars. But body parts or things made just for that car and no others are another story. And you made a good call for passing on the Pontiac. Not that it's a bad car but it could turn into a pain in the ass down the road.
How cool would it be if rotors could be smooshed together like Lego blocks? Upgrade your Wankels like you would add sticks of RAM to your computer.
Quote from: Laconian on November 04, 2012, 04:05:02 PM
How cool would it be if rotors could be smooshed together like Lego blocks? Upgrade your Wankels like you would add sticks of RAM to your computer.
Would you like an...
R12 http://rotarynews.com/node/view/1150
Or
Inline 6 http://www.7tune.com/tag/6-rotor-engine/
Are Mazda trying to go bust intentionally? This is possibly the worst use of resources and development budget for them, in my opinion. Good for the enthusiast but bad for the health of the company.
Again, it's only a handful of engineers...that's not going to make or break them by any means.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on November 06, 2012, 02:48:29 PM
Are Mazda trying to go bust intentionally? This is possibly the worst use of resources and development budget for them, in my opinion. Good for the enthusiast but bad for the health of the company.
I doubt they have everyone working on this. It's probably not even close to a priority right now. I'd think the new Miata is probably the car that has a good amout of their work going into. They have a new CX-5 and 6 out or coming out. So that's just leaves them with the 3 and MX-5.
And if the RX-7 is based off the new MX-5 then it wouldn't cost them all that much anyway. Hell, perhaps Alpha will want one of these new RX cars just like the MX-5 they will make a version off.
On a side note, can either of you Wankel guys point me to some good info on tuning up an FC RX7? I don't think it's turbo'd.
When you say "tuning" up are you talking about an actual tune up or making it go Zoom Zoom more?
Quote from: Onslaught on November 08, 2012, 02:49:35 PM
When you say "tuning" up are you talking about an actual tune up or making it go Zoom Zoom more?
Sorry, tune up.
Looks like plugs, possibly wires, possibly that pulse dampener thingy. Anything else I should be looking at?
Italian tune up afterwards. Get everything nice and fresh, let it warm up for awhile, and let er rip to burn out any carbon deposits.
Quote from: MrH on November 13, 2012, 01:21:58 PM
Italian tune up afterwards. Get everything nice and fresh, let it warm up for awhile, and let er rip to burn out any carbon deposits.
:rockon:
Heh... I imagine I will, but other than that... lol
http://www.autonews.com/article/20131118/OEM06/311189930/new-mazda-boss:-rotary-is-a-no-go#axzz2l2NMTq1Z (http://www.autonews.com/article/20131118/OEM06/311189930/new-mazda-boss:-rotary-is-a-no-go#axzz2l2NMTq1Z)
I figured this would happen. Looks like I'll have to just keep the one I've got and build a few more.
Within 3 years with that loser at the helm, Mazda will be transformed from a passionate and fun car producer - to trying to out bore Toyota.
Just because of emissions I'm not shocked if we never see one again. With that said, I'll never buy a 4 banger sports car again and if that's all Mazda makes then I'll never buy another new Mazda again.
You hate 4 cylinders more than you like Mazda? I'm legitimately shocked...
Quote from: MrH on November 18, 2013, 04:41:59 PM
You hate 4 cylinders more than you like Mazda? I'm legitimately shocked...
Hate is a strong word. I like your car just fine. But I'm old, and I like motors that are quiet when I'm just tooling around and then sound like the devil's having his nuts twisted off when you get on them. I like for them to be smooth as silk too. And most 4 bangers just don't have that.
And let's be honest, Mazda isn't known for making world class piston engines. They don't suck ass or anything but when you make a list of some of the greatest piston engines of all time Mazda isn't on that list.
If it turns out that the rotary is dead and gone then any new sports car I buy will have to be from a more expensive brand now. Something like a Cayman S or something.
Thats just exhaust tuning. Slap a Helmholtz 1/4 wave resonator in the exhaust tract tuned to drone and you can have a quiet straight pipe system if you want. 4 bangers sound boring though.
Quote from: Onslaught on November 18, 2013, 04:48:38 PM
Hate is a strong word. I like your car just fine. But I'm old, and I like motors that are quiet when I'm just tooling around and then sound like the devil's having his nuts twisted off when you get on them. I like for them to be smooth as silk too. And most 4 bangers just don't have that.
And let's be honest, Mazda isn't known for making world class piston engines. They don't suck ass or anything but when you make a list of some of the greatest piston engines of all time Mazda isn't on that list.
If it turns out that the rotary is dead and gone then any new sports car I buy will have to be from a more expensive brand now. Something like a Cayman S or something.
You don't hear much about Mazda engines, but they've quietly been the most reliable engines out there.
Quote from: Rockraven on November 23, 2013, 09:24:48 AM
You don't hear much about Mazda engines, but they've quietly been the most reliable engines out there.
Yes but if they came out with a sports car it's have some turbo 4 in it. And my understanding is the ones in the MS6, MS3 and CX-7 had some problems with them. I'd much rather have a V6.
Quote from: Onslaught on November 18, 2013, 04:48:38 PM
Hate is a strong word. I like your car just fine. But I'm old, and I like motors that are quiet when I'm just tooling around and then sound like the devil's having his nuts twisted off when you get on them. I like for them to be smooth as silk too. And most 4 bangers just don't have that.
And let's be honest, Mazda isn't known for making world class piston engines. They don't suck ass or anything but when you make a list of some of the greatest piston engines of all time Mazda isn't on that list.
If it turns out that the rotary is dead and gone then any new sports car I buy will have to be from a more expensive brand now. Something like a Cayman S or something.
Completely agree
I'm not sure what I think about this new Mazda boss. I understand they they must make money and last year was the first year they actually turned a profit in a a long time. So I get wanting to make cars like the 3, 6 and CX-7 and selling the shit out of them. But he basically said that a new RX car would need to sell 100K cars a year. No RX-7 at anytime has ever sold that many cars! Hell, if this is his thinking then the Miata could be on the chopping block too one day!!!
The MX-5, which would be at a substantially lower price point, struggles to hit 25K units per year globally. Even at it's prime in the early 90s it never even hit 75K units annually. I don't think the Mustang even sells 100K units a year anymore.
The expectation that any niche vehicle is going to consistently have a take rate of 6 figures per year is nuts.
Quote from: MX793 on November 23, 2013, 09:56:24 AM
The MX-5, which would be at a substantially lower price point, struggles to hit 25K units per year globally. Even at it's prime in the early 90s it never even hit 75K units annually. I don't think the Mustang even sells 100K units a year anymore.
The expectation that any niche vehicle is going to consistently have a take rate of 6 figures per year is nuts.
Agree. The only future these cars have is through sharing development/manufacturing costs, like the BRZ-FRS and the new Miata-Alfa Spider.
Oh man, imagine if Mazda built a mid-engine rotary version of the Alfa 4C. With a manual though. :wub:
I'm not sure you'd have to have a rotary that's mid-engined in the same way you think of most cars. If you get an RX-8 up on the lift and see just how far back it is in the front that thing is almost in the middle of the car as it is now. Mazda calls it a front-mid-engine design and they're not bull shitting us when they say that. That motor is way back in the car and really fucking low to the ground. And the little bastard is so fucking small too.
There is a new article in autoweek this week.
Cliff noyes are the business case doesn't make sense. If it did, the RX7 would be a coupe version of the miata and would weigh about 2800 lbs and have the same amount of NA hp as the RX8 with a decrease in rotary engine displacement to 1.2L.
My cliff notes...
- This car will never happen. The company head is now a beancounter and a halo car will never make a business case by numbers alone.
- They have apparently trashed the 16x engine.
- The RX8 has 2 more seats, is 10 years older... and will have the same power and only be 100-200lbs heavier? Umm, I am not seeing a reason to "upgrade"
-sigh-
Like others have said, it will come down to the value equation that this car presents to the consumer.
With that kind of HP coming out of such small displacement, and with no FI, I would imagine this car is probably seriously lacking in torque. Which is OK in my book, as this car isn't meant to be a monster in a straightline, but I struggle to see how they will achieve fast enough acceleration times to satisfy the public.
Anyways, hopefully they turn out something special. I have heard the new Miata in development is pretty neat, from someone who works with the program.
Yup, DOA. The Miata had to partner up to justify the development costs, just as Subaru and Toyota had to do to justify the FRS/BRZ.
Interesting discussion here about "diesel rotaries". Hard to believe which of these guys is correct though, since everyone is correcting each other!
http://www.rx7club.com/rotary-car-performance-77/rotary-diesel-538892/ (http://www.rx7club.com/rotary-car-performance-77/rotary-diesel-538892/)
I cant imagine rotary seals being able to hold enough compression for diesel... especially at low rpms trying to start where the seals suck since they rely on centrifugal force to seal better
Wow, the only way you could make me not want an RX car is by making it diesel.