Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan
I'm emphatically NOT an RX-8 (or -7) hater.
But the engine makes too many major sacrifices and give far too little in terms of benefits. Is it small? Yes. Is it lightweight? Not as much as some would like to think. In an era of 3300 lb. Zs, 3000 lb for the RX-8 isn't bad, but then the S2000 is 150-250 lb. lighter. And the FR-S/BRZ is 200-300 lb. lighter. I doubt that their engines are much heavier than the Renesis.
I love high-revving engines. I daily-drive a 9000rpm S2000. But that car gets me 27mpg on average for my commute, where an RX-8 with less power would get me 22 at best.
Not being able to turn the car off immediately without flooding isn't "user error", it's just another drawback to the rotary. As is oil consumption. And shortish expected lifetime.
Rotaries are neat, but the RX-8 would have been better served with an engine like the F20C/F22C in the S2000. IMHO of course...
|
You seem to be willing to let a lot go by the wayside from a purity and worthiness standpoint and say well that's not all that when it comes to the RX-8 and its engine. I'm of course an RX-8 fanbois, but realize its shortcoming too. Still, addressing some of your points, let us see where the chips fall...
engine weight: 'Is it lightweight? Not as much as one would think.." ok, "The unmodified 13B-MSP Renesis Engine has a weight of 122 kg (247 lbs), including all standard attachments (except airbox), but without engine fluids (such as coolant, oil, etc.)." Let's have some comparisons... you start ... s2000? BRZ? anyone?
Car weight: "3000lbs isn't bad ... but the s2000 is 150-250lbs lighter." Hell it should be! It's a 2 seater with a 94.5" wheelbase vs. the RX-8's 106.4". A '07 s2000 weighs ~2850 lbs, so let's say 200 lbs lighter compared to the heaviest GT trim RX-8... but at what cost? No storage room to speak, limited seat adjustment, no track tires in the back seat, no 2+ friends to ride along, pretty poor DD in many respects if you need to do everyday transport things. The RX-8 can swallow an amazing amount, people included, it's really a multi-purpose vehicle, a chameleon of sorts. Not everyone needs that, or wants that, but still, the extra 200lbs adds a lot of usefulness on purpose, not just extra dead weight. The FR-S/BRZ seems to do us both one better - lighter than either and esp. the 2 seater s2000; and storage - it can hold the 4 track wheels/tires (although not 2 backseat adults) like the RX-8. As an aside, mine weighs in at 3147 lbs in street trim with me in it. Track trim, fuel and me is ~3000 lbs.
"I love high-revving engines. I daily-drive a 9000rpm S2000." We're certainly the same in this regard
Motorcycle-like rpms are simply so much fun! But moreover, they add real flexibility to the drive
. Thou I'd dare say that the high-reving experience is a whole lot more tolerable with a RENESIS than a F20C/F22C, and likely the new FR-S/BRZ boxer. 'Buttery smooth', 'double cream smooth', 'delicious' are some of the adjectives used to describe the rotary at 9000 rpm. So quiet Mazda uses a buzzer to remind you to shift at 8500 rpm! 4000 rpm, 7000 rpm, 9500 rpm sound about the same - electric motor like. No impending catastrophic blender noises. s2000? Toybaru? You tell me....
And not only can you hear the buzzer at 8.5K (it's really not very loud), but you can literally drive at or around 7-9000 rpm comfortably. The uninitiated can simply not comprehend how winding out a rotary to 9000 rpm hundereds of times an hour on track is so rewarding
no ear plugs and Excedrin needed and yes (!) solid acceleration/torque on demand at those lofty levels.
"Not being able to turn the car off immediately without flooding isn't "user error", it's just another drawback to the rotary. As is oil consumption. And shortish expected lifetime."
^Rotary flooding - By in large that situation was caused by a weak starter motor, slipstreamed in new and replaced on early vehicles. You can still be really dumb and do it, but it's pretty hard. And once and for all... the rotary does NOT use more oil than most any other car on the road under similar DD conditions... at most a qt ~every few thousands miles. ONLY on track can it consume noticeable oil, as it is designed to do under constant high rev use.
Engine lifetime - yea you're right - some do ok, but many do not. I'm on my 2nd engine. Still, some engines eat timing belts/chains, some valvestrains, some blow themselves up ... the rotary's problem is seals. At least it's not a surprise
BUT!!! Don't feel left out - Just Google "Honda s2000 engine failure" for 99,700 results .... ummmmm
"Rotaries are neat, but the RX-8 would have been better served..." Well, neat yes, but an RX-8 without the rotary, not too sure. With the engine COMPLETELY BEHIND the front axle centerline, and very low to the ground, it would be hard to have another engine do the same. And oh yes, that small engine footprint allows for the holy grail of suspension, the double-A arm, and a near 100% shock/spring leverage ratio. The FR-S/BRZ does well in this regard, don't really know about the s2000 engine placement thou.
This is not to say s2000s are neat too - and fast - and handle very very well from those I've seen on track. :happy0180:. It's all good, and remember, in the case of our cars, we are talking about decade old designs vs the FR-S/BRZ. Ahead of the times...or what?
