RE: Mazda RX-8 Faces The Chop At End Of 2010
Thursday 15th April 2010
Production of the Mazda RX-8 coupe will end this year, as the rev-tastic Wankel rotary motor will be unable to meet Euro 5 emissions regulations.
Mazda RX-8 Faces The Chop At End Of 2010
Emissions regulations spell the end for rotary coupe
Mazda is working on a new rotary coupe - a two-door spiritual successor to the RX-7, however. But although previous reports have suggested that might be with us by 2011, German magazine Auto Motor und Sport says we'll have to wait until 2013 for te new coupe.
The new RX-7 will be powered by an all-new engine called Renesis 16X, whose 1.6-litre twin-rotor motor should put out somewhere between 200bhp and 250bhp.
Part of the delay for the new car is that the Renesis motor will have to meet the super-strict Euro 6 regs, which come into effect in 2014.
Discussion
brilliantly designed, It's a shame to see it go.
Glad they're keeping the wankle developemnt going.
smaller engine which chan be fitted further back in the chassis leaving less weight in the overhangs, Allowing a lower bonnet and thus a lower profile and less drag. (more of an answer to why go rotary than a proper meaningful sentence.
Glad they're keeping the wankle developemnt going.
smaller engine which chan be fitted further back in the chassis leaving less weight in the overhangs, Allowing a lower bonnet and thus a lower profile and less drag. (more of an answer to why go rotary than a proper meaningful sentence.
Thirsty? My 2.7 twin turbo v6 is pretty thirsty and very comparable to the RX-8 1.3 rotary, in terms of performance and fuel economy (or lack of). The chief advantage of the rotary design is power to weight ratio. Unfortunately, even today the rotary engine is a bit of a stone age beast when compared to modern 4-strokes, but what do you expect with so few engineering design teams working to develop them?
Having worked on the design of rotarys, I'd say that the attraction is that they are a very elegant engineering solution to converting fuel to power, much more so than the 4-stroke.
Having worked on the design of rotarys, I'd say that the attraction is that they are a very elegant engineering solution to converting fuel to power, much more so than the 4-stroke.
Milks said:
I've always liked the rx7/8 but I never really 'got' what the wankel was about. Aside from being happier at higher revs than a conventional engine it seems to have too many down sides: 60k mile rebuilds, lack of torque, poor fuel consumption.
Size and weight, for the power, a rotary is tiny and light with all the associated benefits such as a central and low CoG.
Milks said:
I've always liked the rx7/8 but I never really 'got' what the wankel was about. Aside from being happier at higher revs than a conventional engine it seems to have too many down sides: 60k mile rebuilds, lack of torque, poor fuel consumption.
The rebuilds issue is old news...they solved that with the Renesis lump, and there are after-market parts available for RX7s which greatly increase lifespan.Lack of torque...but then it's geared differently so the torque at the wheels is broadly comparable to the competition, certainly the n/asp competition! People have been levelling the "no torque" argument at hot Hondas for years, then wondering how that Type-R smoked them at the lights...
Fuel consumption - agree on that one, it's the wankel's achilles-heel, and the main cause of the poor emissions.
The benefits though have been mentioned above - very light and compact, with all the benefits to car-design and car-dynamics that provides. Drive an RX8 back-to-back with an E46 330Ci (same-era and same-class, roughly) and you'll notice the difference!
I test-drove an RX8 before getting the S2000, and it was great fun - fantastic, responsive, tail-happy chassis, slick 'box and deceptively quick point-to-point. I didn't need the practicality though and wasn't sold on the engine-note (they aren't particularly tuneful...sort of like a really-big Dyson!
), so it got dismissed for those reasons.the lack of performance myth is not really true..0-60 in under 7secs, 140+ top speed, 9,000rpm rev limit.
what more do u need in a decent priced sporty coupe?
i agree that the wankel is thirsty and can catch u out with a lack of revs but makes up for it in other departments.
i'll be sad to see ours go when the wife trades it later this year.
what more do u need in a decent priced sporty coupe?
i agree that the wankel is thirsty and can catch u out with a lack of revs but makes up for it in other departments.
i'll be sad to see ours go when the wife trades it later this year.
Edited by davidcharles on Thursday 15th April 16:19
UncappedTag said:
Why not just hang up the wankle boots and evolve like every other marque is doing. BMW M to be turboed etc etc
IMO it should not be hung up... it is constantly evolving and being developed and the principles of the whole design is genius. Every engine design as there own TBH... Would you tell Honda to TurboCharge there cars instead of using Vtec engineering because thats whats popular and "modern"? I wouldnt, Vtecs too are a mechanical genius if you ask me... Mazda probably being the only company developing road going cars with rotary engines give them an unique selling point, and as long as they are still making the car there is still going to be a cult following! the nice crisp note of a rotary is irreplaceable and addicts will flaunt to its floor when it comes out! The lightweight and nimbleness of these cars is what makes it so good! In the twisty's they are probably the best a budget can buy!
Jayho said:
Would you tell Honda to TurboCharge there cars instead of using Vtec engineering because thats whats popular and "modern"?
Happily. A mate of mine has recently bought a new Civic Type R to replace his Mk5 GTi and it's the single most underwhelming car I've ever been in. All that noise, all those revs, and so little real world performance. Very disappointing.Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff