How is this not an RX8?

[koyv90]

Originally Posted by iShaveWithKatana

Spoken like a true ignoramus.

When will you be at the track with your Subyota?

I'll leave my 8 in 3rd the entire time and leave you in my wake.

Really? How is the engine not shit? Lets look at the whp the mpg, the tq, all those factors and tell me the engine is great. It was okay. Not amazing or anything in comparison to other engines.
rx7 now there was a engine.

Lets not even go into the fact that the rx8 had numerous engine rebuilds and swaps due to defects like flooding.

[KeepGuessing]

Originally Posted by koyv90

Really? How is the engine not shit? Lets look at the whp the mpg, the tq, all those factors and tell me the engine is great. It was okay. Not amazing or anything in comparison to other engines.
rx7 now there was a engine.

You're helping his argument..
1: You're comparing a 1.3L Twin turbo engine..to a 1.3L N/a engine...
2: You're badmouthing a 1.3L N/a engine that makes 230~ hp, on a forum that is in support of a 2.0L N/a engine producing 200HP..
3: The advancements made by the renesis engine managed to make the Rotory engine a semi-livable engine to use..It could be driven 100k+ miles without being treated like a glass slipper and didn't need a rebuild every track day.
4: How many engines do you know of that weight 247lbs full assembled?

I personally do not like Rotories, i think it's what's holding mazda back in a big way yet it's keeping them afloat in the same manner..I think the technology will NEVER see proper advancement because the industry won't support it..

HOWEVER it is not a "shit engine" in ANY light....MORE can be said for the 13B-Renesis than can be said for the Toyobaru's FA20 engine as far as "whp" and "tq"...Or do you continue to forget that the CLOSEST sized naturally aspirated engines on the market right now, are the Fiat 500 1.4L i4, and the Honda Insight 1.3L i4...Both of which make under 100HP.

Lets not even go into the fact that the rx8 had numerous engine rebuilds and swaps due to defects like flooding.

Defect like flooding?
Thats a USER error..People need to learn a little more about engines before they bad mouth them, especially throwing around the word "Defect". People who own rotary cars more often than not treat them like they were a mid 90's Honda, which translates to drive it into the ground with minimal care/prep/maintenance and then complain when it breaks..

You don't change a Ferrari's oil late, you don't drive around your air cooled porsche if the oil pressures out of wack, but no one bothers to find out "how to properly maintain their rotary powered car" So it becomes the cars fault when an easily averted problem arises.

Sounds a lot like the people who continuously say "This Dumb Computer"

You might as well tell Glock their pistols are defective because someone shot themselves in the head because Glock had to put that damn "trigger" on the gun.

[chulooz]

RX8 haters always find there way out of the woodwork albeit very misinformed.

I loved seeing Mazda keep the wankle spinning. Any motor that actually benefits from bouncing off its 9k redline cant be that bad.

[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...

[spin9k]

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?

[koyv90]

Originally Posted by KeepGuessing

You're helping his argument..
1: You're comparing a 1.3L Twin turbo engine..to a 1.3L N/a engine...
2: You're badmouthing a 1.3L N/a engine that makes 230~ hp, on a forum that is in support of a 2.0L N/a engine producing 200HP..
3: The advancements made by the renesis engine managed to make the Rotory engine a semi-livable engine to use..It could be driven 100k+ miles without being treated like a glass slipper and didn't need a rebuild every track day.
4: How many engines do you know of that weight 247lbs full assembled?

I personally do not like Rotories, i think it's what's holding mazda back in a big way yet it's keeping them afloat in the same manner..I think the technology will NEVER see proper advancement because the industry won't support it..

HOWEVER it is not a "shit engine" in ANY light....MORE can be said for the 13B-Renesis than can be said for the Toyobaru's FA20 engine as far as "whp" and "tq"...Or do you continue to forget that the CLOSEST sized naturally aspirated engines on the market right now, are the Fiat 500 1.4L i4, and the Honda Insight 1.3L i4...Both of which make under 100HP.

Defect like flooding?
Thats a USER error..People need to learn a little more about engines before they bad mouth them, especially throwing around the word "Defect". People who own rotary cars more often than not treat them like they were a mid 90's Honda, which translates to drive it into the ground with minimal care/prep/maintenance and then complain when it breaks..

You don't change a Ferrari's oil late, you don't drive around your air cooled porsche if the oil pressures out of wack, but no one bothers to find out "how to properly maintain their rotary powered car" So it becomes the cars fault when an easily averted problem arises.

Sounds a lot like the people who continuously say "This Dumb Computer"

You might as well tell Glock their pistols are defective because someone shot themselves in the head because Glock had to put that damn "trigger" on the gun.

Its a person error when they ruin a engine by beating on it or don't replace fluids. When there is a 100k warranty and your replacing 4 engines with no mods and average use it begins to sound like there is something wrong with the motor. Again I just don't think the engine is worth it .

I think you need to do some browsing on clubrx8 they talk in lengths on why the mazda rx8 motor is good but is a huge huge hassle and has lots of problems. There is also tons of posts on why not to get an older model because the engine was prone to flooding.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by koyv90

Its a person error when they ruin a engine by beating on it or don't replace fluids. When there is a 100k warranty and your replacing 4 engines with no mods and average use it begins to sound like there is something wrong with the motor. Again I just don't think the engine is worth it .

I think you need to do some browsing on clubrx8 they talk in lengths on why the mazda rx8 motor is good but is a huge huge hassle and has lots of problems. There is also tons of posts on why not to get an older model because the engine was prone to flooding.

forums arent really representative though. not saying it doesnt happen but if you think about how most people on forums arent just casual drivers, and how nobody ever makes a post just to say how the car just worked as expected today then you can see how skewed the information is

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by koyv90

I think you need to do some browsing on clubrx8 they talk in lengths on why the mazda rx8 motor is good but is a huge huge hassle and has lots of problems. There is also tons of posts on why not to get an older model because the engine was prone to flooding.

1) The motor has a total of three (3) moving parts, there are not lots of problems. Its pretty much just the apex seals, yet plenty of people are happily over 150k miles.

2) You wont find any new posts about flooding, the issue was more or less cured. 'prone to flooding'* *When you do something explicitly and directly related to the problem. (Afraid of it flooding anyway? Well you will love the solution. Just rev the pants off it right before you shut it down and the problem will never arise in the first place)

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by spin9k

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?

Unless I've had them on my scales myself, I'm suspicious of reported engine weights. Especially for rotaries! My FD was weighed before the engine swap at 2780 lb. After the 6.0 LS2 V8 installation, 2800 lb. I know that the turbo FD engine has a lot more weight associated with it, but still...

Suffice to say, the 2+2 FRS/BRZ weighs ~300 lb. less, I don't think its 2-liter boxer 4 is much heavier than the Renesis.

Thou I'd dare say that the high-reving experience is a whole lot more tolerable with a RENESIS than a F20C/F22C,

??? Totally tolerable, enjoyable even with the F20C.

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....

I'm telling you, an F20C screaming up to 9000 rpm is a delight! I also have enjoyed driving the RX-8 up to 9k. Fun! I love both. I bought the S2000 primarily for the 25-30% better fuel economy (also because the S2000 is simply lighter-weight and faster).

BUT!!! Don't feel left out - Just Google "Honda s2000 engine failure" for 99,700 results .... ummmmm

I don't have the statistics, but I would gladly bet money on the RX-8 having more engine failures per vehicle-miles travelled vs. the F20C/F22C.

"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.

That's one advantage of the flat-4 that Toyobaru didn't take full advantage of: it's quite short lengthwise. Not that I'd swap that into an RX-8. Honestly that's probably part of the FR-S/BRZ weight advantage. Instead of having a longer wheelbase like the RX-8, they concentrated more on keeping the car as small as possible. That's great for weight, but not so much for distribution.
The RX-8 has a MUCH longer wheelbase (106" vs. 101" for the FR-S). That's a large part of how they were able to fit the engine fully behind the front wheels. Great weight distribution, but heavier.

The S2000, however, has a MUCH shorter wheelbase at 94.5", still fits its inline-4 entirely behind front wheel centerline, weighs ~2750-2800 lb., has 49/51 weight distribution (*better* than 50/50). Benefit of a 2-seat configuration.

And oh yes, that small engine footprint allows for the holy grail of suspension, the double-A arm,

You should inform the designers of the MANY MANY non-rotary cars that use double wishbones front and rear (including the S2000) that they can't do that as they're non-rotary engines don't allow it!
Or are you commenting on the FR-S/BRZ flat-4 configuration? I can see how its width down low might make double-wishbones a little more difficult, but surely not impossible. IMO the strut solution was more for keeping cost and weight down.

and a near 100% shock/spring leverage ratio.

??? Does the RX-8 really have 1:1 wheel rate:spring rate? Don't really see that as either a major real benefit or unique to a rotary engine configuration.

The FR-S/BRZ does well in this regard, don't really know about the s2000 engine placement thou.

Actually, FR-S/BRZ aren't anything special in terms of engine setback. It is set much further aft vs. the Impreza/WRX, but those cars have most of the engine forward of the front wheels. See above regarding wheelbase, size/weight, f/r balance tradeoffs. S2000 has the engine set WAY back. 49/51 f/r distribution.

his 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?

There is nothing new under the sun. None of the basics have changed over decades. Every once in a rare while a manufacturer decides to actually build a car thats:
1. rwd/irs
2. relatively lightweight
3. relatively inexpensive

Glad to see the formula being applied again!

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by chulooz

1) The motor has a total of three (3) moving parts,

OK.

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...

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.

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.

[chulooz]

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?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by chulooz

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?

if something doesnt make sense to you, it might not be the concept that is stupid. all else equal, the sports car that gets better gas mileage is going to have more money to put into parts or track days. i find it ironic that you use that example of tool and its purpose but then you drive an impreza.

[ZDan]

^^^

Originally Posted by chulooz

The desire to combine performance driving and fuel economy has NEVER made sense to me.

And the idea that gas mileage should mean NOTHING in a STREET car has never made sense to me. I commute 100 miles a day, but even if I didn't, BETTER performance in a car that gets MUCH better fuel economy is a no-brainer.

Enjoying the benefits of driving a sporty car costs gas, if I was concerned about milage Id push a prius.

See that argument all the time. Makes zero sense to me. Sports/sporty cars don't *have* to get poor gas mileage. In fact, the single most important aspect (to me) of a sports car is also good for fuel mileage. Both sports cars and economy cars benefit from being lighter-weight.

If I was concerned about milage and performance I would have two different cars.

I'd much rather drive my sports car every day. It's fun even at 1 to 3/10ths

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.

Cars are expensive to buy/maintain/insure/store. And anyway, even if I have multiple cars (I do), they both have to be track-worthy and fun/engaging to drive.

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.

F20C doesn't mind hanging out at 9000rpm all day at the track

What enthusiast would want to see an amazing and unique performance engine go extinct?

I don't want to see it go extinct, but I *do* want Mazda to build another RX-like car (decent power/weight FR coupe) that doesn't suffer from rataryitis (abysmal mpg for the performance).

FWIW, I got 29mpg on one tankful (462 miles on 15.9 gallons) driving my 500+hp LS2 RX-7 up from Texas. Has a stock FD *ever* gotten that many mpg? And the car weighed only 20 lb. more after the swap (2800 lb. vs. 2780 lb.). Since then I've added an AC compressor (another 5 or so lb) and p/s pump (also 5 or so lb.). Probably ~2825 lb. now, only 45 lb. heavier.

Rotary is neat, rotary is cool, definitely like the idea of someone continuing with developing it. But for me, the drawbacks are far too great and the benefits far to limited.

If the RX-8 had come with an engine more similar to the s2000's (or MS3's), I'd have bought one.

Here's hoping Mazda re-enters the fray with an engine that offers much better performance *and* mpg.

[blu_]

Originally Posted by spin9k

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?

Subarus EJ25 weighs basically the same (within a few pounds either way) fully assembled with no fluids. I assume the FA20 will be lighter.