Why are Mazda persisting with the Rotary Wankel engine?
Discussion
Can someone tell me why are Mazda persisting with developing the rotary wankel engine?
When I look at the horror stories associated with these engines in the RX8, then poor fuel consumption combined with the high vehicle tax these also attract - can't understand it to be honest.
Please tell me- am genuinely intrigued!
When I look at the horror stories associated with these engines in the RX8, then poor fuel consumption combined with the high vehicle tax these also attract - can't understand it to be honest.
Please tell me- am genuinely intrigued!
I'm not having a go at Mazda for being alternative - just asking the question why persist with something that appears to be useless? Even if the packaging is awesome people are not going to be buying a car that does 20mpg.
Unless, as someone has said it's viable with different fuels. I love the fact that it's lightweight, small and powerful but to the man in the street he's going to see pretty poor fuel economy and high tax?
Unless, as someone has said it's viable with different fuels. I love the fact that it's lightweight, small and powerful but to the man in the street he's going to see pretty poor fuel economy and high tax?
otolith said:
They sold an awful lot of RX-8s - about 26,000 in the UK, I believe. Nissan sold about 7500 350Zs over the same period.
I don't know if they will be able to do that again. The next rotary, the 16X, is claimed to be more economical and to make higher torque; a 20% improvement being bandied about for both. Revised geometry and direct injection. Even so, that's going to be a high CO2 figure for an affordable car. The RX-7 was pitched against what would now be 40-50k cars. The RX-8 was pitched at 20k-30k cars. I think that the market which can afford the next rotary car's running costs without blinking won't overlap much with the market looking for a cheap sports car, and I think the EU's punitive anti-CO2 measures will make it impossible to sell a cheap high CO2 car. So I can only really see it coming here if Mazda go back upmarket with something that uses the packaging advantages to give the Cayman a kicking and price it accordingly.
I genuinely believe that the crap mpg wasn't well known at that point in time and word hadn't spread just how bad a) the mpg was and b) that the engines are actually terrible when it comes to reliability; witness the barrel-bottom prices for RX-8's now on the 2nd hand market and c) that they look a tad effete in my opinion. I don't know if they will be able to do that again. The next rotary, the 16X, is claimed to be more economical and to make higher torque; a 20% improvement being bandied about for both. Revised geometry and direct injection. Even so, that's going to be a high CO2 figure for an affordable car. The RX-7 was pitched against what would now be 40-50k cars. The RX-8 was pitched at 20k-30k cars. I think that the market which can afford the next rotary car's running costs without blinking won't overlap much with the market looking for a cheap sports car, and I think the EU's punitive anti-CO2 measures will make it impossible to sell a cheap high CO2 car. So I can only really see it coming here if Mazda go back upmarket with something that uses the packaging advantages to give the Cayman a kicking and price it accordingly.
I counter that with the fact that I really like the 'Chapman-esque' ethos (build in lightness) that the wankel engine gives and that Mazda have invested in to give a great handling car and the benefits to the interior that the small lightweight engine provides.
I still wouldn't buy one however.
Edited by Oi_Oi_Savaloy on Monday 18th April 16:12
I really didn't set out to be contentious when I posted my question. It really does intrigue me why Mazda continue to pump millions and millions and gazillions into an engine that isn't particularly suited to the main current fuels available (petrol and diesel) today. I applaude them for their idiosyncrasy and desire to be different but it still, well, frankly and I have to be honest here, amazes me that such a large firm would actually back a dog like that.
Maybe they've spotted an opportunity for the future; who knows? It might work on alternative fuels but those aren't widely available right now. Maybe they're playing the long game. Maybe they're not.
I totally get the packaging, the lightness, the whole thing that is the appeal of a Rotary but I still feel that the fuel consumption issues (drinks like my granny used to drink brandy watching the grand national, gawd bless her liver) detract massively from the overall packaging.
Ironically I currently do an intergalactic mileage (work in London during the week, go home to village near Tenby every Friday and do the reverse on Sundays with another 350 miles mid-week for my job) in a 1990 325i touring (averages 29.4mpg overall, 20 in London if I'm lucky - ie. if the engine is turned off) but the irony is that my 228,000 miler is better on fuel than a new rotary w
ker. - I'd seriously consider one if it could do 40mpg on the motorway. But I'm not convinced it can and then I've heard about the need to do hot compression tests before purchasing one just in case. What on earth is a hot compression? something the doctor recommends for piles? (I'm kidding ok? I know what a hot compression test is. It's what you pay a lady boy frive dollar for)
edited for general numpty spelling errors.
Maybe they've spotted an opportunity for the future; who knows? It might work on alternative fuels but those aren't widely available right now. Maybe they're playing the long game. Maybe they're not.
I totally get the packaging, the lightness, the whole thing that is the appeal of a Rotary but I still feel that the fuel consumption issues (drinks like my granny used to drink brandy watching the grand national, gawd bless her liver) detract massively from the overall packaging.
Ironically I currently do an intergalactic mileage (work in London during the week, go home to village near Tenby every Friday and do the reverse on Sundays with another 350 miles mid-week for my job) in a 1990 325i touring (averages 29.4mpg overall, 20 in London if I'm lucky - ie. if the engine is turned off) but the irony is that my 228,000 miler is better on fuel than a new rotary w
ker. - I'd seriously consider one if it could do 40mpg on the motorway. But I'm not convinced it can and then I've heard about the need to do hot compression tests before purchasing one just in case. What on earth is a hot compression? something the doctor recommends for piles? (I'm kidding ok? I know what a hot compression test is. It's what you pay a lady boy frive dollar for) edited for general numpty spelling errors.
Edited by Oi_Oi_Savaloy on Tuesday 19th April 22:14
Then why persist with it if they aren't R&Ding it? Where's the competitive advantage of having an engine that isn't widely used or wanted by other manufacturers and that isn't subjectively competitive on some of the key drivers of the market today? I just don't get it, I really don't.
You don't hear Volkswagen shout to the rooftops about the engine in the Passat that can get 1,000 miles out of a tank in terms of it's packaging or the fact that it makes the car handle better. What you hear them trumpet is that the fact you can get a 1,000 miles out of a tank.....!
I want someone to tell me why Mazda persist with it though. I need someone to tell me - it would actually be nice to hear it from Mazda themselves. I want to know what I've missed - that's all.
You don't hear Volkswagen shout to the rooftops about the engine in the Passat that can get 1,000 miles out of a tank in terms of it's packaging or the fact that it makes the car handle better. What you hear them trumpet is that the fact you can get a 1,000 miles out of a tank.....!
I want someone to tell me why Mazda persist with it though. I need someone to tell me - it would actually be nice to hear it from Mazda themselves. I want to know what I've missed - that's all.
Edited by Oi_Oi_Savaloy on Tuesday 19th April 22:24
wolves_wanderer said:
I dont understand why people buy petrol cars that struggle to get 30mpg on a run when PSA have been making diesels that do double that since at least 1998. Why do people persist with such a dead-end technology?
Fair point well-made. It was a question of timing and money and generally a love for E30's to be honest. the way this job came about happened very quickly. Got the call Thursday, decision made Friday morning (early), resigned when I went into work, left the office at Midday. That basically gave me the weekend and a couple of days into the next week to get myself squared away with accommodation up in London and basically I ran out of time to change the car. Not that I wanted too to be honest. I'm into older cars with large engines and particularly E30 bmw's. Love the noise tbh. I thought I'd simply run the car for a month or two to settle in and then wait for some commission etc to kick in and get myself some sort of tractor engined chuff chuff.
But the commission came and went on other stuff (wife is pregnant with our third, which is in-bound in the next 3 weeks) and the result is that I still have it. I'm about to buy a 7 seater (diesel Galaxy if you're interested) and then I'll use the 530d we've got as my commuter for another 6 months before I try and buy something smaller with a diesel engine in for the commute.
Thank you Daz; in mitigation, I tend to write one sentence to about 6 thoughts so I guess I often come across as a harsh. Can't write quick enough to get it all down!
To another poster; I'm not sure it's change I object to per se but then again you're probably right!
And I'll watch that video too. Thanks for posting it up.
To another poster; I'm not sure it's change I object to per se but then again you're probably right!
And I'll watch that video too. Thanks for posting it up.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff