What is your say on the Rotary engine of the Mazda RX 8 ???

[he7lius]

you can see the details on this page:
http://www.mazdarx8.co.uk/upclose/specs/specs2.asp

Only 654cc (x 2-rotor) ??????

And you can see how it works on:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

[godspeed06]

sorry man but if it has a 1.3L and more than two wheels it isn't for me. i wouldn't want to drive a car with no torque daily.

[TeflonTron]

I say it's a load of old Wankel.

[Ziploc]

i like the car

its totally different and does its old way and can still match the pace of a M3 and has still been the best bang for your buck TG performer

and if it does so well in europe it will wipe up everything in canada seeing as the coupe class is a bit wanting

[phatlee]

I dunno, seems to me that the RX8 makes its power too high up in the rev range to be of real use.

[snacky]

(RX8) can still match the pace of a M3 and has still been the best bang for your buck TG performer

That is the reason I hate the way TG conducts their tests. How in the world can a 250 hp RX-8 match pace with a 340-hp M3? How? cuz the Stig slide both cars all over the track. Dont get me wrong, it's a TON fun to watch, but I think I would trust Best Motoring more for relative performance testing. :wink:

[BADMIHAI]

hahaha....Stop saying stuff like "it's alot of power for a 1.3 L"!!! It's a rotary engine, so its displacement cannot be compared to a cylinder engine of the same displacement. If you'd compare it to a cylinder engine, it would be somewhere in the 2.5, 3 L class.
I haven't driven a RX8, but I have only heard god things about it. And one more thing: the rev limit at 9000 rpm seems high, but, as Clarkson said, even at 9000 rpm, the engine is SMOOTH! You even get a buzzer to remind you you have to change gear..close to redline, because it's hard to tell the eninge is so high in the revs. Overall, it's a great car, and I hope I can own one one day.

[fedezyl]

I trust Best Motoring much less they are very biased towards japanese cars and you can see how they push some cars to the limit and not others...
Plus they don't drive so well, all they do is drift the shit out of every car....

But it's always fun to watch :wink:

[fedezyl]

you don't really use torque low down on the rev's unless you are drag racing at every traffic light...

Sure it's nice to have torque on the mid range, but I have to say that the Rotary engine has come a long way since it first came out and it will get better and better..

[levensnevel]

I really love Mazda's RX8.
If, heaven forbids all Cheese Wedges would have disappeared from the face of the earth and I had to buy a brand new car she would be the undisputed #01 on my shortlist when it comes to daily runners. The engine will be OK as Mazda did win the LeMans 24hrs a few years back in a car with a rotary engine. Only the fuelconsumption is a bit above average I guess :fadein:

[oldsnail]

i love the RX8, at its price range. not many other manufacturers can touch what it offers..
its curves or the exterior and interior are so crisp and clean.
i havent driven one, but i bet i'll enjoy it when i do drive it.
esp the one with the slick 6 speed gearbox.

[Keessie20]

Sound of the engine isnt specteculair but the revs are !
Nice pice of enginering

[sickx]

Like the S2000, very little torque, and you have to rev it to its life to get any power. Not saying it's bad--depends on your driving style and personal preference. It would be fantastic on a track, but a bit cumbersome in day-to-day driving, where you realistically won't be cruising down the boulevard at 6K rpm, just to be in the sweet spot of the engine.

Regardless, Kudos to Mazda for sticking their necks out and being willing to be different--they have supported the rotary with all-out commitment!

[TeflonTron]

I say it's a load of old Wankel.

I cant agree with you on this one, this engine is named the engine of the year 2003 so a load of old wankel would be the wrong name for it in my opinion.

http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/ieoty.html

check it out its not a bad engine, I think its great with light weight engines-cars.
The engine is smooth as "mihai" wrote and this helps with the tourqe coming abit late in the rpm`s.

I personally think that the engine is very clever, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity for a cheap pun. The designer of the rotary engine was called Wankel, and "a load of old wank" is a saying here is England, so I merely combined the two for a cheap joke. Sorry. :wink:

[DMbaseball1604]

I like the idea of the engine I guess but I think the car itself is as ugly as sin so I would never buy one..but a lot of people like them so I guess thats a good thing.

[Fleischmann]

Well, 9000 revs and 238 bhp from a 1.3 liter engine can't be bad, eh ??

[godspeed06]

the car has no low end torque which is what i think makes a car the most fun for daily use.

off topic, but could you put a rotary engine in a motorcycle? or is the 1.3 L basically a completely useless fact considering its a rotary engine?

[antonioledesma]

the things I'd like of the wankel engine (if I had one, of course :wink: ), even when it doesn't have the efficiency of a normal engine (sorry, but I don't remember the cycle), it's reliability, don't make a lot of noise, is a smooth engine, and remember that engine once won Le Mans.

[godspeed06]

what i was asking was if the hayabusa has a 1.3L and makes like 140 or 150 hp, if they could put the rotary 1.3 L (because of same liter size) and have the bike make way more power. i don't think the revs would be that far off either. and it would be one damn fast bike.

[sickx]

Keep in mind that the 1.3L on the rotary is misleading...you can NOT directly compare displacement between piston and rotary engines! The combustion chambers are very different-- as mentioned before, the 1.3L Rotary is more in the class of a 2.5 - 3.0L V-6.

For bikes, the inline 4s are the way to go--nice packaging, serious power potential. You'll see bikes with close to 200hp soon from the factory. :lol:

[godspeed06]

thanks... that was pretty much what i figured, but you never know.

[kiato4]

The rotary is cool, but I just wish they had spent more money on development to get the twin turbo version to work with the better emissions.

[sickx]

The rotary is cool, but I just wish they had spent more money on development to get the twin turbo version to work with the better emissions.

THey did--it's called flush ports instead of end ports. It's they only way they could control flame propogation/exhaust scavaging sufficiently to work around the emissions problem that plagued the old 13B.

Doesn't mean you won't see turbos on the new rotary in the future!
:lol:

[astonmartinandy]

I think as far as engine designs and ideas go, it is pretty amazing, but then you do have to consider the short-falls as well; low torque, power very high up in the rev range and high emissions. Then again having a car that revs that freely all the way to 9000rpm has to be worth a drive and the rest of the car is supposed to be pretty damn good- apart from in the wet!! What do you think to that or the 350Z? (The obvious competitor)

[gottacatchup]

its a great engine
small compact light and produces respectable power although at normaly unusable rpm's when you want to it will go

[zevolv]

The Renisis is an amazing engine it even won engine of the year last year so that says it right there. the car is amazing and very nibble and I'm 6 feet tall and have no problem in the back seat of the RX-8. the engine only has one set back and that is the fuel consumption.

[Schwalbe]

The rotary engine of the Mazda RX8 is original, but where are the turbos ?

[zevolv]

The turbos on the old engine were putting too much boos tin the engine for the low amount of fuel in the engine when pushed to the extremes (especially in the corners) and that's what caused so many of the RX-7s to blow their engine.

[SFDMALEX]

I dont like rotaries, the make me sick. PERIOD.

[NYCHonda]

The concept of a rotary engine is great. They're compact but can be able to produce decent amount of horsepower. It is a great concept but reliability issue is what turn me off about the engine. Mazda claim that the new Renesis rotary engine which is in the RX-8 now doesn't have all that reliability problems like the old rotary engine. I don't believe them yet until I've seen one myself. The RX-8 is still a new car. It's hard to tell but everytime Mazda producing the new RX, they always said stuff like that about their rotary engine.

[COFair]

Felix Wankel was an UFO? How could he made an engine like this?

[gottacatchup]

The rotary engine of the Mazda RX8 is original, but where are the turbos ?

it doesnt need the turbos to make the power so they left them off although i'm sure they're coming soon, probably in the mazdaspeed version

[findleybeast]

I think the renesis is an engineering masterpiece. Wankels do have their obvious drawbacks, mainly being lack of torque and fuel consumption, but I think they are relatively minimal all things considered.

Remember that the wankel is being engineered and used by only one company - Mazda - and it hasn't been in use for all that long. If it had been around for as long as reciprocating engines, I'm sure many of the issues would have been resolved by now. Plus, Mazda doesn't really have to compete against anyone when it comes to engineering a new engine, and there aren't any other companies coming up with original and unique ideas to further the technology.

What I'm really hoping for in the future is for Mazda to release a 3 or 4-rotor engine in an upscale sportscar or the like. It would essentially overcome the torque problems (it is like doubling the number of cylinders in a piston engine) and a 4 rotor would be even more stable and smoother than the 2 rotor renesis. The only major roadblock is engineering a proper eccentric shaft that won't wobble and can handle the power. Remember, the Mazda 787B that won Le Mans had a 4-Rotor, and 700 hp and 620 lb-ft of torque... hardly anemic in terms of torque or power.

I would kill to see a rotary applied to a streetbike. A lot of people don't realize quite HOW small the renesis is, and if an engine was developed specifically for a bike it would be very easy to fit one in a bike, and could develop even more revs. I think it would be a huge success.

BTW, even though the Renesis is classified as a 1.3 Litre, it does fire once every rotation, effectively doubling the displacement.

[Akmon]

I sure like this car.The most of it for it's engine,which I think it's so cool,because it's small,it has lots of rpm's

[graywolf624]

Another negative for the renesis.. it burns oil like no tomorrow..
so lets see.. only 228 hp.. drinks gas like something with twice that...
burns oil....
is ugly
does handle well though... the benefit of the wankel mainly being low engine center of gravity
honestly, there are better cars and engines for your money, but its good to be quirky I guess..

I own a mazda.. and I still wouldnt buy a rx8.

[SafirXP]

didn't Audi and other German car makers use rotary engines? they did stop making it... obviously they didn't think rotary engines were feasible! but you've to admit that Mazda's done a great job though...

another thing, i read somewhere that using more than two rotors make the engine very complicated, thus expensive to make! so don't think we'll see any 500bhp+ rotary engines in production.

[malte]

I belive mazda suggests checking the oil for every SECOND tank of gas... but still the price difference between rx8 and the 350z in my country is like 15.000 £. wich makes it a bargain! Imagine fitting 15 grand worth of enginge mods to the rx8, something none of the 350 owners here have thougth of obviously... ignorant bastards

[Sir_GT]

I couldn't be bothered to read the rest of it, but I was in the market for the RX8, and not only is the torque very poor, but you have high OIL consumption and gas consumption to go with it. I've heard stories of owners having to check the oil at every fill up. Why would you subject yourself to that? Not only is the MPG poor, which meant that you would have to visit the petrol stations very often, but when you do, you have to pop the hood and check the oil.

Which, I might add, has to be topped-up every 2 fill ups. Imagine the cost of going through a litre of oil every two stops? So aside from the price of petrol, you have to pay for oit too. Bang for the buck? Sod it. It's extremely expensive to run and maintain. The initial "price buster" feeling you get when you buy it is shot out the window after a few weeks.

If you want a sporty 4 seater, go buy an E90. A fully specced RX8 will cost you in the region of £26,000, while a fully specced 325i will cost you £28,000. Best to cough up the extra £2000 and live nice and easy. If you want a brilliant sports car at £24k, go out and buy the 350Z. Far superior car in every respect except for rear seats and boot space.

[SafirXP]

iMO the 350Z is one butt ugly car, like the TT! not that the RX8 is a great looking car....

[Sir_GT]

iMO the 350Z is one butt ugly car, like the TT! not that the RX8 is a great looking car....

You're probably the only person I've ever heard say that. The first 250 units of the 350Z sold out in the UK in an hour upon announcement. That was around May-June 2003 I think. You had to wait until March 2004 to get a hold of one again.

The TT was also the best selling coupe/roadster in the UK for 3 straight years. It also holds one of the highest resale values this side of a Porsce Boxster. In fact, there are probably more TT's on the road than any other 2 seater at any given time.

So... it begs the question: what exactly is a good looking car to you mate? :)

[SafirXP]

dont like fat round ones like the 350Z or the TT... guess its just me! just don't like that design. i'd be more than happy with a BMW 3 series coupe... love that design!

[sergei_dekker85]

sorry man but if it has a 1.3L and more than two wheels it isn't for me. i wouldn't want to drive a car with no torque daily.

Agreed.....and i wouldn't want an engine which lasts me only 6000KM(according to my friend who owned and FC3s his wankel threw in the towel after 6000KM even with good maintainence)well its alot more reliable than the past but still i doubt its reliablity and it can't really compare to a piston engine....A wankel VS a RB26DETT? no way oh and did i mention that it had really appalling fuel consumption???

[sergei_dekker85]

iMO the 350Z is one butt ugly car, like the TT! not that the RX8 is a great looking car....
No offense to RX8 owners but i find the car Neither here nor there.....its trying to be a sedan and at the same time a coupe

[pagani]

I think it's good car+ good engine it needs more topend power and torque.
Blitz have now a supercharger for more torque and a bit more top end power.
Mazda needs to make turbo version of the rotary engine maby a coupe.
I love the old fc3 rx7 twin turbo maby a new rx7 type car is a good idea.
:D :shock:

[abbor]

Have anyone seen how long it is since this topic was last written in? A year and a month.. :lol:

[speedracer911]

Pros- Revs quickly so its a good engine to use in Mazda's F2000 race cars, fuel economy because of the small displacement, smaller engine=lighter weight i guess

Cons- Not enough so you have to rev it high to get some power

[findleybeast]

oh yea abbor, I guess I did resurrect an old thread. I didn't notice the year, so I thought it was only a month old :?

[sergei_dekker85]

Pros- Revs quickly so its a good engine to use in Mazda's F2000 race cars, fuel economy because of the small displacement, smaller engine=lighter weight i guess

Cons- Not enough so you have to rev it high to get some power

Fuel economy? U kidding me?? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[caneswell]

Its cool technology. But im not really sure its great in the RX8. They have low torque, high revs and low weight, would be ideal in a motorbike. Cars tend to need more torque to get them moving. Also they sound pretty nasty.

The main problem is that piston engines have had sooo much development compared to the wankel, its pretty much only been Mazda putting any work into the concept for years.

[komotar]

I drove the car. It handles great, looks unique and leaves and impression.

The price is phenomenal for the amount of car you are getting. There is nothing like it on the market right now. The suicide dors are funny and there is plenty of space in the back.

I can imagine owning a ca like this. I don't mind the lack of torque. I like reving the engine, and besides, it doesn't pull all that bad from low range. You're still faster than 90 % of the cars on the street. And the gear stick is a pleasure to work woth. The shifts are short and fast and the sound is not half bad also.

The only big minus with this car is the consumption. Oil and fuel. But the car more than makes up for it with it's tendency to please the driver during fast cornering.

The suspension and the schasis enable you to make wonderfull drifts and it is a real delight to throw the rx8's but around.

It's a car well worth considering if one is in the market for a car in that class.

[findleybeast]

Its cool technology. But im not really sure its great in the RX8. They have low torque, high revs and low weight, would be ideal in a motorbike. Cars tend to need more torque to get them moving. Also they sound pretty nasty.

The main problem is that piston engines have had sooo much development compared to the wankel, its pretty much only been Mazda putting any work into the concept for years.

I agree with prettymuch everything you said right there. It really does need to be applied to motorbikes, I think it would rock.

And I don't think people really give Mazda enough credit. They're taking what is essentially still a fledgling technology and running with it. They were the only company that stuck with it after the oil crisis and through the new emissions standards.

BTW Komotar, nice review. I guess that's the car magazine journalist in you coming out :D

[komotar]

BTW Komotar, nice review. I guess that's the car magazine journalist in you coming out :D

8) I guess, thx :wink:

[Vansquish]

I test drove an RX8 in preparation for when we receive ours (I'll give a more detailed report then), and was surprised by a number of things. First and foremost the so-called "lack of torque" was not nearly as apparent as I was expecting. Keeping in mind that I drive a 220bhp, 220lb-ft Mazda 6S at the moment, and the fact that a substantial portion of the 220lb-ft it has is delivered in a reasonably nice fat band at the bottom of the range all the way up to the redline, I was expecting that the RX8 would feel anemic and wheezy. Quite the opposite actually. It doesn't have the torque of a big V6/V8, but it is reasonably strong all the way through the rev range. I attribute this primarily to the car's light weight, but even so, it had a nice linear torque curve, building through the range almost all the way to the redline where the engine was still pulling strongly. I was able to get rubber in second gear on a dry street (a fact which also surprised me) and was impressed not only by the engine's tractability but smoothness as well. Secondly, the sound was incredible, paranormal even hehe. I've driven I-4, I-5, V6, V8 and V10-engined vehicles over the years and I've never heard anything even remotely like the Renesis unit. Incredible noise, and a surprisingly large amount of it too considering the fact that I was expecting it to be hushed and luxuriously smooth.

All-in-all the powerplant is quite a marvel, despite the fact that it eats oil and gas at an alarming rate. The only thing it really needs is more power to keep up with the 350Z...if only Mazda would put out a 280-300bhp version...

[Sir_GT]

Bah. I take care of my cars, but I'm not in the market to practically babysit them.

Who the hell wants to check the oil at every fuel stop and top it up at every other stop? With oil going for about £40-45 per bottle on average ($80-90), the RX-8's "affordability" is shot straight into hell.

If you guys want to spend about a few hundred quid a week (regardless of currency), then the RX8 is definitely YOUR car. IMO, stick with an E90 or a 350Z. Cheaper in the long run. Plus you get good money back when the time calls.

[graywolf624]

nd the fact that a substantial portion of the 220lb-ft it has is delivered in a reasonably nice fat band at the bottom of the range all the way up to the redline

What the hell else have you been driving? My 6S' power seems very dependent on rpm... It takes off over 4000 rpm and seems about average below that. I hardly would consider it a torquey engine. Maybe its because Ive driven a torque monster of a grand prix for years.. but to me the mazda 6 is not torquey at all.. Hell, my dad actually thought it had a turbo under the hood the first time I drove him around due to the power band. Thats before I opened the hood for him and after about 3 months of me driving it and learning to play with the manumatic.. Yeah I know I drive an automatic. I also lived in the middle of down town atlanta when I bought the car, so sue me..

[Vansquish]

nd the fact that a substantial portion of the 220lb-ft it has is delivered in a reasonably nice fat band at the bottom of the range all the way up to the redline

What the hell else have you been driving? My 6S' power seems very dependent on rpm... It takes off over 4000 rpm and seems about average below that. I hardly would consider it a torquey engine. Maybe its because Ive driven a torque monster of a grand prix for years.. but to me the mazda 6 is not torquey at all.. Hell, my dad actually thought it had a turbo under the hood the first time I drove him around due to the power band. Thats before I opened the hood for him and after about 3 months of me driving it and learning to play with the manumatic.. Yeah I know I drive an automatic. I also lived in the middle of down town atlanta when I bought the car, so sue me..

The cars I had prior to the 6S were a Taurus with the 24V engine...oh man did that thing ever go like stink ;-) j/k, my mom drives a Ford Contour SE V6 with a 5-speed, and the previous two cars in my/my dad's garage were a Ford Focus 2.0 Zetec with a 5-speed, and a Mazda 626 ESV6 with a 5-speed. That car had the "turbo" effect you're talking about, and it had it in spades. Once you hit about 4 grand it changed cam profiles or something and off it went. The 6 has similar characteristics and you really can feel the Variable Valve timing kick in at the upper end of the rev range, but it's not bad low down either, granted it's nowhere near as chunky as the 3800 or even 3100 Series GM V6's but compared to the other cars I've had to drive it's a substantial difference. I was expecting no grunt from the Renesis unit at all, but it turned out to be alright in the end.