Why are Mazda persisting with the Rotary Wankel engine?
Discussion
J4CKO said:
Can only really compare it with cars that will seat four people, the TT will but they have to be small, uncomfortable or devoid of legs, the RX8 always looks quite comfy in the back.
So for me, the real comparisons would be midrange/quicker variations of quality saloons/Coupes like the 3 series, A4, CLK etc.
Duly noted. I was comparing it to the likes of the 350Z and the Z4 as it was in the same price bracket and power range (roughly!) whilst being in roughly the same market. I can see what you say about 4 seats (I have been in one and it's quite spacious in the back) but thought it was a different animal to say the 330. I guess in a roundabout way I'm saying it's not a car that can be pigeonholed.So for me, the real comparisons would be midrange/quicker variations of quality saloons/Coupes like the 3 series, A4, CLK etc.
superman84 said:
J4CKO said:
1300 odd kilos is quite light !
Eqiuvalent Audi or whatever would be 300 kilos more
I think the R3 is close to 1400kg. It's not what I would call a lightweight sports car.Eqiuvalent Audi or whatever would be 300 kilos more
If you are saying it can only be compared to a rwd car then the 5 seater bmw 130i with seating for 5 and a 3.0 6 cylinder engine and a much bulkier body with lots of other heavy features only weighs 50kg more.
And 50/50 weight distribution has been achieved by many cars without requiring a wankel.
It seems hard to defend the wankel when the figures read like these, and personally i much prefer a torquey turbocharged engine.
Crow555 said:
I guess in a roundabout way I'm saying it's not a car that can be pigeonholed.
That was pretty much the point of the thing - it has that niche pretty much to itself. When we got one to replace a Civic Type-R, we only had two parking spaces and the other parking space contained an MX-5. We couldn't get by with two cars with two seats and a little boot, so all the other options I considered were out of the running and the RX-8 was the ideal compromise. By the time I traded it in for an Elise, we'd moved house to somewhere with more parking and added an old Subaru Impreza estate car to the driveway, so I no longer needed the practicality. The 350Z actually replaced the MX-5, not the RX-8.
rb5230 said:
Pretty much the same weight as a focus st with a 5cylinder turbocharged engine and seating for 5 then.
If you are saying it can only be compared to a rwd car then the 5 seater bmw 130i with seating for 5 and a 3.0 6 cylinder engine and a much bulkier body with lots of other heavy features only weighs 50kg more.
And 50/50 weight distribution has been achieved by many cars without requiring a wankel.
It seems hard to defend the wankel when the figures read like these, and personally i much prefer a torquey turbocharged engine.
If you want a 5 seater hatchback then the BMW 130i is your car, however ugly it is, but if you want a Sports car then the RX-8 is your choice. You're trying to blur the Mazda in to too many catogries. It's a sports car, the BMW 130i is not by definition a sports car. A fast car yes, but spors car, no.If you are saying it can only be compared to a rwd car then the 5 seater bmw 130i with seating for 5 and a 3.0 6 cylinder engine and a much bulkier body with lots of other heavy features only weighs 50kg more.
And 50/50 weight distribution has been achieved by many cars without requiring a wankel.
It seems hard to defend the wankel when the figures read like these, and personally i much prefer a torquey turbocharged engine.
saaby93 said:
300bhp/ton said:
hat would you call a lightweight 4 seater sports car then?
Stag? Excel? Does the Evora fit? 
The Stag was a 70's car, the RX-8 is a 2000's car some 40 years later, so has to meet far different safety and construction regs.Excel = all of the above for the Stag bar the sports car bit.
Evora - Yes it counts. But go off and look at 4 key areas:
1. It's weight (it might surprise you)
2. It's rear seating room
3. It's boot space
4. It's price
Harji said:
If you want a 5 seater hatchback then the BMW 130i is your car, however ugly it is, but if you want a Sports car then the RX-8 is your choice. You're trying to blur the Mazda in to too many catogries. It's a sports car, the BMW 130i is not by definition a sports car. A fast car yes, but spors car, no.
But what makes the rx8 any more of a "sports car" than the 130i? its slower and less powerful for a start. I thought sports cars were all meant to be 2 seaters?But I suppose its just profile and shape that make a sports car, personally i would rather whichever was more capable rather than which was labled "sports car".
otolith said:
rb5230 said:
And 50/50 weight distribution has been achieved by many cars without requiring a wankel.
Not all 50:50 weight distributions are equal.
rb5230 said:
Harji said:
If you want a 5 seater hatchback then the BMW 130i is your car, however ugly it is, but if you want a Sports car then the RX-8 is your choice. You're trying to blur the Mazda in to too many catogries. It's a sports car, the BMW 130i is not by definition a sports car. A fast car yes, but spors car, no.
But what makes the rx8 any more of a "sports car" than the 130i? its slower and less powerful for a start. I thought sports cars were all meant to be 2 seaters?But I suppose its just profile and shape that make a sports car, personally i would rather whichever was more capable rather than which was labled "sports car".
Edit: forgot the obvious - awful mpg.
Edited by superman84 on Monday 18th April 19:34
Having owned one for the last year, I'd say that 9 times out of 10 a regular piston engine is the better option. The rotary lacks the research and development of normal engines and is way behind in terms of emissions and efficiency. I had great fun driving my RX-8 but it's not a car that can be driven like a Fiesta, which is one of the reasons why I can't shift mine for love nor money at the moment.
300bhp/ton said:
hat would you call a lightweight 4 seater sports car then?
I was responding to the comment that the "Mazda RX-8 is about power and light weight" when in reality it is not particularly lightweight or powerful. There are plenty of bigger more powerful cars which don't weigh a great deal more. The older Imprezas for instance weigh less than an RX8 and have more power and an AWD system. That's not to take away from the handling abilities of the RX8 or its fun factor though, just saying its hard to see the benefits of the wankel.Several times you have mentioned "unreliability" but have failed to elaborate. Reliability issues, is only down to poorly maintained examples. Like any other car, if its been poorly maintained, I'm sure its reliability would be affected.
If people find it hard to characterize the RX-8, then maybe you should use the RX7 for comparison as a out and out sports car.
But then you've got to remember that they're wankle + Turbo producing close to 300bhp? Maybe for all you power fanatics here, that seems like plenty power for me, and probably makes a better comparison for your piston + turbo?
It seems a bit silly comparing a 1.3NA engine to a 2l Turbo no?
If people find it hard to characterize the RX-8, then maybe you should use the RX7 for comparison as a out and out sports car.
But then you've got to remember that they're wankle + Turbo producing close to 300bhp? Maybe for all you power fanatics here, that seems like plenty power for me, and probably makes a better comparison for your piston + turbo?
It seems a bit silly comparing a 1.3NA engine to a 2l Turbo no?
Edited by Jayho on Monday 18th April 19:50
rb5230 said:
But what makes the rx8 any more of a "sports car" than the 130i? its slower and less powerful for a start. I thought sports cars were all meant to be 2 seaters?
But I suppose its just profile and shape that make a sports car, personally i would rather whichever was more capable rather than which was labled "sports car".
the 130i is part of the 1 series model range which includes the diesels, the RX-8 was designed specifically as a sports car, like the MX-5, lotus (name your model), Porsche Boxster.But I suppose its just profile and shape that make a sports car, personally i would rather whichever was more capable rather than which was labled "sports car".
There are definitions on the web, but the 130i is just a big lump in the car with a few tweaks.
k - give me a dirty low output V8 anyday 
!superman84 said:
Yep. The point is the wankel really doesn't bring anything special to the party. Its supposedly lightweight but the 'sports car' it ends up in is almost as lardy is much more practical cars, its not particularly powerful, its high revving but compromised by low torque and there are well known reliability issues with the rotary. It probably does benefit 50:50 weight distribution but there are other cars which have this and others which handle just as well, if not better, without being rotary.
Edit: forgot the obvious - awful mpg.
It rev's easily to 9000! It has far less moving parts than a piston engine and is more efficient in it's conversion to power (no four strokes). Worth developing? Yes I think so.Edit: forgot the obvious - awful mpg.
Edited by superman84 on Monday 18th April 19:34
You need to drive one and point into a bend, then you'll realise how responsive the car is and how the distribution of weight and the size of the engine will take it round bends that lots of cars will find the ditch with instead.
Don't rely on figures on paper, drive it to see the theory come alive.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff