Mazda RX8

[Argo]

When is this baby hitting the showrooms? Also, what are your thoughts on rotary engine? Haven't heard anything about them, yet it's hard to argue with the results (250 hp).

 

[ElFenix]

they're essentially two-cycle motors which helps the power a bit but hurts emissions, which is why they've been very limited in application

 

[StageLeft]

Interesting car but their torque sucks.

 

[Argo]

Well, it's priced nicely for around $27k.... And it looks nice.

 

[BigSmooth]

I like it, but it's not really a true successor to the RX-7.

It's definitely an interesting idea to do a 4-door sports "coupe", but we'll see how they sell.

 

[Bignate603]

They need something to overcome the lack of low end torque. That's the most fun part of a fast car. You hit the gas and it GOES.

 

[profet]

i have driven in some older mazda rx7's

one was an 83 non turbo, 5 speed. 101 hp, but that thing would get up and go, damn was fun.
then an 88 turbo, 5 speed. wow, if someone worked on these in my area, i would get one

oh, and they are rwd, and they have plenty of torque to me, that thing would peel into 2nd just about everytime without trying

 

[PricklyPete]

Sweet engineering. Got to love mazda.

 

they're essentially two-cycle motors which helps the power a bit but hurts emissions, which is why they've been very limited in application

Far from it, two cylces implies that there are reciprocating parts which the Rotary engine does not contain.
Yes they do not contain valves as in in a conventional four stroke engine, but they do not contain pistons either.

Here is a simplified flash animation

Rotary engines tend to have large horsepower/displacement ratios and low torque/displacement ratios because of the reduced leverage of the main offset output shaft.
Earlier Rotary's had a problem with increased exhaust emissions and slow catalyst lightoff, the newer designs (RX8) have drastically redesigned intake and exhaust ports which allow higher power outputs while emitting lower emissions and having higher exhaust temperatures which warm up the catalyst much quicker.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Roger

they're essentially two-cycle motors which helps the power a bit but hurts emissions, which is why they've been very limited in application

Far from it, two cylces implies that there are reciprocating parts which the Rotary engine does not contain.
Yes they do not contain valves as in in a conventional four stroke engine, but they do not contain pistons either.

Here is a simplified flash animation

Rotary engines tend to have large horsepower/displacement ratios and low torque/displacement ratios because of the reduced leverage of the main offset output shaft.
Earlier Rotary's had a problem with increased exhaust emissions and slow catalyst lightoff, the newer designs (RX8) have drastically redesigned intake and exhaust ports which allow higher power outputs while emitting lower emissions and having higher exhaust temperatures which warm up the catalyst much quicker.

Once Again, Roger cleans up a thread.

Damn, beat me to it though. But yeah, they drastically redesigned the intake and exhaust ports.. which ended up cleaning them up a lot, as far as emissions go.


Rotary engines are very cool. I wouldn't mind one bit if they became a little more "mainstream".

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Bignate603
They need something to overcome the lack of low end torque. That's the most fun part of a fast car. You hit the gas and it GOES.

I agree. Like Honda's HP engines, rotary engines lack torque, which means to get good performance you have to wind these things up like humming birds and stay in that ridiculously high RPM zone, or it bogs like tiny 4 banger.

 

[Bignate603]

from what i understand they hum and don't quite have the same feel of a normal engine as far as we expect vibrationwise. Basically they are smoother.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Bignate603
from what i understand they hum and don't quite have the same feel of a normal engine as far as we expect vibrationwise. Basically they are smoother.

Yeah I need to test drive one badly

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Bignate603
They need something to overcome the lack of low end torque. That's the most fun part of a fast car. You hit the gas and it GOES.

I agree. Like Honda's HP engines, rotary engines lack torque, which means to get good performance you have to wind these things up like humming birds and stay in that ridiculously high RPM zone, or it bogs like tiny 4 banger.

You do realize that they're getting 250HP and 152.7ftlbs of torque from a 1.3L engine?

Anyway, it's all in the design. As with everything, its a trade off. They could design it to give more torque, but it would sacrifice RPMs.

I don't mind high-revving engines one bit. IMO, they're more fun.. especially coupled with a 6 speed.

What isn't to like about a 8500RPM redline?

 

61.5 CI per liter

1.3 times 61.5 = 79.95 CI.

 

[StageLeft]

How is this thing on fuel economy?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Bignate603
They need something to overcome the lack of low end torque. That's the most fun part of a fast car. You hit the gas and it GOES.

I agree. Like Honda's HP engines, rotary engines lack torque, which means to get good performance you have to wind these things up like humming birds and stay in that ridiculously high RPM zone, or it bogs like tiny 4 banger.

You do realize that they're getting 250HP and 152.7ftlbs of torque from a 1.3L engine?

Anyway, it's all in the design. As with everything, its a trade off. They could give it more torque, but it would sacrifice RPMs.

I don't mind high-revving engines one bit. IMO, they're more fun.. especially coupled with a 6 speed.

What isn't to like about a 8500RPM redline?

9000.

Hey, engines with high revving powerbands are nice on the track where you have the ability to keep the revs up. But in city driving? Come on.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
How is this thing on fuel economy?

Pretty good.. Could be better, for a 1.3L

Zero to 60 mph 6.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph 16.5 sec
Standing 1/4-mile 14.9 sec @ 95 mph
Top speed (drag limited) 150 mph
Estimated fuel economy:
EPA city driving 19-20 mpg
EPA highway driving 28-30 mpg

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Bignate603
They need something to overcome the lack of low end torque. That's the most fun part of a fast car. You hit the gas and it GOES.

I agree. Like Honda's HP engines, rotary engines lack torque, which means to get good performance you have to wind these things up like humming birds and stay in that ridiculously high RPM zone, or it bogs like tiny 4 banger.

You do realize that they're getting 250HP and 152.7ftlbs of torque from a 1.3L engine?

Anyway, it's all in the design. As with everything, its a trade off. They could give it more torque, but it would sacrifice RPMs.

I don't mind high-revving engines one bit. IMO, they're more fun.. especially coupled with a 6 speed.

What isn't to like about a 8500RPM redline?

9000.

Hey, engines with high revving powerbands are nice on the track where you have the ability to keep the revs up. But in city driving? Come on.

Does the RX8 engine redline at 9000? I was just quoting the 250HP @ 8500RPM spec, figured that would be the redline.

Roger: It's actually 1.308L, which happens to be exactly 80CI.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Bignate603
They need something to overcome the lack of low end torque. That's the most fun part of a fast car. You hit the gas and it GOES.

I agree. Like Honda's HP engines, rotary engines lack torque, which means to get good performance you have to wind these things up like humming birds and stay in that ridiculously high RPM zone, or it bogs like tiny 4 banger.

You do realize that they're getting 250HP and 152.7ftlbs of torque from a 1.3L engine?

Anyway, it's all in the design. As with everything, its a trade off. They could give it more torque, but it would sacrifice RPMs.

I don't mind high-revving engines one bit. IMO, they're more fun.. especially coupled with a 6 speed.

What isn't to like about a 8500RPM redline?

9000.

Hey, engines with high revving powerbands are nice on the track where you have the ability to keep the revs up. But in city driving? Come on.

Do you floor it and shift at 3000 rpm in the city???

 

[Shaftatplanetquake]

Yeah, redlines @ 9k.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Bignate603
They need something to overcome the lack of low end torque. That's the most fun part of a fast car. You hit the gas and it GOES.

I agree. Like Honda's HP engines, rotary engines lack torque, which means to get good performance you have to wind these things up like humming birds and stay in that ridiculously high RPM zone, or it bogs like tiny 4 banger.

You do realize that they're getting 250HP and 152.7ftlbs of torque from a 1.3L engine?

Anyway, it's all in the design. As with everything, its a trade off. They could give it more torque, but it would sacrifice RPMs.

I don't mind high-revving engines one bit. IMO, they're more fun.. especially coupled with a 6 speed.

What isn't to like about a 8500RPM redline?

9000.

Hey, engines with high revving powerbands are nice on the track where you have the ability to keep the revs up. But in city driving? Come on.

Do you floor it and shift at 3000 rpm in the city???

No, more like 4000.

 

Hey Eli

You do realize that they're getting 250HP and 152.7ftlbs of torque from a 1.3L engine?

 

[specktre]

everyone I talk to that claims to be into japanese sports cars don't like the 1.3L rotarty engine. they say that those motors aren't built for over 30,000 miles, they aren't durable.

I say they are morons. The rotary engine has less moving mass and less moving parts than a "normal" "rice rocket" motor.

I like rx-7's and I think the rx-8 is gonna be sweet.

my dream car (vin deasel's rx-7 in the fast and the furious)

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: specktre
everyone I talk to that claims to be into japanese sports cars don't like the 1.3L rotarty engine. they say that those motors aren't built for over 30,000 miles, they aren't durable.

I say they are morons. The rotary engine has less moving mass and less moving parts than a "normal" "rice rocket" motor.

I like rx-7's and I think the rx-8 is gonna be sweet.

my dream car (vin deasel's rx-7 in the fast and the furious)

well..... that's another area of concern. I have never heard of a rotary with 250,000 miles on it. The apex seals tend to wear out...

That said, it should last considerably longer than 30,000.