Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan
OK.
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...
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.
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.
|
The desire to combine performance driving and fuel economy has NEVER made sense to me. Enjoying the benefits of driving a sporty car costs gas, if I was concerned about milage Id push a prius. If I was concerned about milage and performance I would have two different cars.
Its like this; if I want to cut down a tree, ill use an ax. If I want to peel an apple, ill use a knife. Now a machete will be able to do both, but its cant do them as well as the more specific tools.
Are piston engines more reliable? Unarguably yes.(century of development) But calling rotaries unreliable is a stretch. Once again reving the piss out of rotaries are literally beneficial to the mill, you cant say that about pistons.
What enthusiast would want to see an amazing and unique performance engine go extinct?