Quote:
Originally Posted by chulooz
1) The motor has a total of three (3) moving parts,
|
OK.
Quote:
|
there are not lots of problems.
|
Wrong.
See this argument time and again and it's simply not true. Rotaries generally have more problems than equivalent piston engines. Fewer parts does NOT directly translate to greater reliability/longevity. The design is simply more prone to having problems.
Particularly with...
Quote:
|
Its pretty much just the apex seals,
|
Yup. Saying "it's just the apex seals" doesn't mean the problems aren't far more frequent and more often engine-life-ending vs. typical problems with piston engines.
Quote:
|
yet plenty of people are happily over 150k miles.
|
Whatever percentage of rotary owners are happily over 150k miles, I would gladly bet that same percentage of piston-engine owners are happily over 250k miles.
But of course the MAIN reason that rotaries don't make sense for most of us is fuel economy. I just couldn't buy a car with only ~220hp, only good for 95mph in the quarter (not that I drag race, but I am interested in accelerating when I put the hammer down), but can only manage ~22mpg.
Rotaries are cool as hell, but just don't make a ton of sense for a real-world daily-driven car.
I sincerely hope that Mazda does another RX-like car (small, lightweight, rwd/irs coupe or hatch) but with a piston engine.