20B - End of the Line?
04-20-11, 11:44 PM
#26
sadly, the peripheral exhaust port engine is dead - 20B included. it's been dead for quite some time. i accept it. i just fear the day when they stop supporting parts (like they did the 12A and older engines).
as for the future, i think i'll be happy with anything they produce - whether it is the 16X or something radically different. as long as there is a rotary, i'll be good with it. i understand we are the beggars, so we can't REALLY be choosy.
as for the future, i think i'll be happy with anything they produce - whether it is the 16X or something radically different. as long as there is a rotary, i'll be good with it. i understand we are the beggars, so we can't REALLY be choosy.
04-21-11, 04:37 PM
#27
However, even piston engines all have some form of accelerated warmup system. It might not be directly related to warming up but that the engines can't hold that sub 1000 RPM idle in cold conditions. Hell, I've seen my moms Accord V6 shoot above 2,000 RPM on a those really freezing nights.
thewird
04-21-11, 05:34 PM
#28
I am willing to bet that the rotary will never be what it once was. The FD will always be the pinnacle of Mazda's creations. The 16x will be amazing and sport a whole slew of innovation, but its power will be greatly hindered by strict emissions and fuel economy.
The only thing I could see Mazda really getting the spotlight and have a powerhouse of a machine again of pure envy with its 16x, is if they do something that is pure sports car or even better, pure super car. I know Mazda has it in them, just look at the Furai. Mazda has such a wealth of knowledge in the racing world, I just hope they adapt it into a road car that is along the lines of the GT-R. Just look at Panspeed's or Revolution's FDs. They do not have a whole lot of power, they are just built right, kick *** and take names. If Mazda does come out with an RX9, it better be something that creams my panties...
The only thing I could see Mazda really getting the spotlight and have a powerhouse of a machine again of pure envy with its 16x, is if they do something that is pure sports car or even better, pure super car. I know Mazda has it in them, just look at the Furai. Mazda has such a wealth of knowledge in the racing world, I just hope they adapt it into a road car that is along the lines of the GT-R. Just look at Panspeed's or Revolution's FDs. They do not have a whole lot of power, they are just built right, kick *** and take names. If Mazda does come out with an RX9, it better be something that creams my panties...
04-21-11, 08:03 PM
#29
The RX-8 does indeed have an AWS system, except now its controlled by the computer and the throttle directly. It also changes based on temperature. On the really cold winter days when I started my RX-8 in the middle of the night, it reved up past 4,000 RPM for a good 10 seconds or so which is much worse then what the 13b-REW ever did with its 3,000 RPM AWS. This was on a completely cold engine in -15 to -20 *C temps. Every time you start a cold RX-8 it will rev up and hold a high idle (1,500-4,000 RPM) and drop as the engine warms up. The colder it is, the higher it will rev up.
However, even piston engines all have some form of accelerated warmup system. It might not be directly related to warming up but that the engines can't hold that sub 1000 RPM idle in cold conditions. Hell, I've seen my moms Accord V6 shoot above 2,000 RPM on a those really freezing nights.
thewird
However, even piston engines all have some form of accelerated warmup system. It might not be directly related to warming up but that the engines can't hold that sub 1000 RPM idle in cold conditions. Hell, I've seen my moms Accord V6 shoot above 2,000 RPM on a those really freezing nights.
thewird
my mistake. It never gets -20C around here. I don't live in the land of pet polar bears
Still, it sounds like it doesn't always revs that high on start up. I know my mom's Corolla has an electronic throttle and will hit 2500rpm on a cold start sometimes.
04-22-11, 11:20 AM
#30
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,835
Received 2,604 Likes
on
1,847 Posts
i built a 20B FC many years ago (it ran for the first time in 2001), and its pretty obvious why america will NEVER see a 3 rotor engine.
we complain about mileage already with the 2 rotor, how about when its 50% worse with the 3 rotor?
we complain about the HEAT of a 2 rotor, and again the 3 rotor is worse. although i did drop in a cosmo engine, twin turbo's and everything. if i had to do it again, i'd skip the turbos, and a lot of the heat.
you also need more radiator, and oil cooler, and by then its heavy.
there are upsides, but then the economy tanked in 1992, so it was done then
we complain about mileage already with the 2 rotor, how about when its 50% worse with the 3 rotor?
we complain about the HEAT of a 2 rotor, and again the 3 rotor is worse. although i did drop in a cosmo engine, twin turbo's and everything. if i had to do it again, i'd skip the turbos, and a lot of the heat.
you also need more radiator, and oil cooler, and by then its heavy.
there are upsides, but then the economy tanked in 1992, so it was done then
04-22-11, 11:29 AM
#31
so i was thinking, the side exhaust ports advanced NA power and exhaust emissions due to the port timing, internal egr, zero overlap, etc.
so what what about adding small peripheral intake ports (semi-p)? I saw a renesis dyno with peri intake with side exhaust ports that significantly increased tq/power above 5500rpms. The right size peri intake ports will keep overlap to a minimum, no? They could be kept closed with itb until a set load or rpm to maintain the low-end.
so what what about adding small peripheral intake ports (semi-p)? I saw a renesis dyno with peri intake with side exhaust ports that significantly increased tq/power above 5500rpms. The right size peri intake ports will keep overlap to a minimum, no? They could be kept closed with itb until a set load or rpm to maintain the low-end.
04-22-11, 05:46 PM
#32
so what what about adding small peripheral intake ports (semi-p)? I saw a renesis dyno with peri intake with side exhaust ports that significantly increased tq/power above 5500rpms. The right size peri intake ports will keep overlap to a minimum, no? They could be kept closed with itb until a set load or rpm to maintain the low-end.
05-02-11, 05:16 PM
#33
Gmonsen, that's what the GTUS was supposed to be. There's pics of a silver S4 GTUS prototype floating around the net with a NA 3-rotor under the hood. No one knows if it was a 13G or 20B variant, and Mazda won't say a word about it either (I emailed them about it). Depending on how they did it, it was estimated to put out 220hp (if using S4 parts) to 240hp (with S5 parts), and this was in 1988!
As for passing emissions, if one member can get a 20B to pass PA's emissions (and have it tuned to be stable), it stands to reason that all hope is not lost for peripheral exhaust designs. They're certainly superior when things go wrong too, compared to the Renesis's arrangement of trashing the rotor, housing and both irons when an apex seal gives out.
As for passing emissions, if one member can get a 20B to pass PA's emissions (and have it tuned to be stable), it stands to reason that all hope is not lost for peripheral exhaust designs. They're certainly superior when things go wrong too, compared to the Renesis's arrangement of trashing the rotor, housing and both irons when an apex seal gives out.
05-02-11, 07:08 PM
#34
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,835
Received 2,604 Likes
on
1,847 Posts
Gmonsen, that's what the GTUS was supposed to be. There's pics of a silver S4 GTUS prototype floating around the net with a NA 3-rotor under the hood. No one knows if it was a 13G or 20B variant, and Mazda won't say a word about it either (I emailed them about it). Depending on how they did it, it was estimated to put out 220hp (if using S4 parts) to 240hp (with S5 parts), and this was in 1988!
As for passing emissions, if one member can get a 20B to pass PA's emissions (and have it tuned to be stable), it stands to reason that all hope is not lost for peripheral exhaust designs. They're certainly superior when things go wrong too, compared to the Renesis's arrangement of trashing the rotor, housing and both irons when an apex seal gives out.
As for passing emissions, if one member can get a 20B to pass PA's emissions (and have it tuned to be stable), it stands to reason that all hope is not lost for peripheral exhaust designs. They're certainly superior when things go wrong too, compared to the Renesis's arrangement of trashing the rotor, housing and both irons when an apex seal gives out.
of all things in the Rx8 has a paragraph about it. they have a pic of an engine, but it varies from what's in the car, sooOOoo...
the Mx-03 concept car was the cool 3 rotor, dry sump, turbo, ceramic coated everything, ceramic seals, aluminum rotors, 4wd...
05-02-11, 07:31 PM
#35
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,835
Received 2,604 Likes
on
1,847 Posts
06-01-11, 12:27 PM
#36
I think you guys are off base. IMO, the reason we will not see another 3-rotor has nothing to do with performance. Additional rotors are good for both low end performance and consequently fuel economy. Emissions is an unrelated issue, as rotary emission problems are due to flow dynamics and the shape of the combustion chamber, which do not change with number of rotors, although the lower ended powerband could contribute to emissions to some extent.
The issue that I see is packaging. The 2 rotor is exceedingly easy to fit into the chassis. It takes up very little room and can be placed far back in the car compared to most engines hence the whole front-mid engine idea behind the rx7. Adding another rotor pretty much removes the advantage. CG is still lower than a piston engine, but the form factor isn't a clear advantage anymore. I imagine people would be surprised the development money spent and engineering compromises that get made in the name of packaging.
I also think that with the right rotor face shape and direct injection strategy most of the emissions issues could be solved, just as they have been with diesels (except NOx).
As for some of the other ideas, hydrogen is a joke as it takes twice as much energy to produce as you store in it, and HCCI only works well in a series hybrid mode where it can run in relatively static condition. The HCCI transition issue is possibly soluble with better control technologies, whereas hydrogen is akin to cold fusion in that without a major physics altering breakthrough it will never work.
3 rotor dreams aside, I'd like to see the 16x end up in a sporty enough platform where it could shine, we will see what mazda does...
Actually, I'd like to help; if any of you Mazda connected guys wouldn't mind putting me in contact with someone, I have a pretty good resume....
The issue that I see is packaging. The 2 rotor is exceedingly easy to fit into the chassis. It takes up very little room and can be placed far back in the car compared to most engines hence the whole front-mid engine idea behind the rx7. Adding another rotor pretty much removes the advantage. CG is still lower than a piston engine, but the form factor isn't a clear advantage anymore. I imagine people would be surprised the development money spent and engineering compromises that get made in the name of packaging.
I also think that with the right rotor face shape and direct injection strategy most of the emissions issues could be solved, just as they have been with diesels (except NOx).
As for some of the other ideas, hydrogen is a joke as it takes twice as much energy to produce as you store in it, and HCCI only works well in a series hybrid mode where it can run in relatively static condition. The HCCI transition issue is possibly soluble with better control technologies, whereas hydrogen is akin to cold fusion in that without a major physics altering breakthrough it will never work.
3 rotor dreams aside, I'd like to see the 16x end up in a sporty enough platform where it could shine, we will see what mazda does...
Actually, I'd like to help; if any of you Mazda connected guys wouldn't mind putting me in contact with someone, I have a pretty good resume....
06-01-11, 04:30 PM
#37
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Apex, NC, USA
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20B replacement parts have already been discontinued for years. As far as Mazda is concerned the 20B is dead and buried. As arghx has mentioned the peripheral exhaust rotary engine that we know and love is also dead.
I don't think the Renesis will ever have the same power potential as the old engines. As much as I hate to say it, unless Mazda wows us in the next couple of years we could very well see the end of rotary engine production.
I don't think the Renesis will ever have the same power potential as the old engines. As much as I hate to say it, unless Mazda wows us in the next couple of years we could very well see the end of rotary engine production.
Going back to the original post, I don't think there is a future for the 20B in a production car for all the reasons already posted in this thread. However, based on what the factory rep said, I think that the 20B and factory support for it will be around for a few more years.
06-01-11, 10:04 PM
#38
Ok, since we're talking on a solely 20B ENGINE basis again...holy-too-much- talk-about-things-we-can't-control Batman!!....
Gordon, I think that is a great idea. And in theory, should be acceptable, the muscle car guys use DART blocks or the Subbie guys use a 2 piece, yes, SOMEWHAT modular blocks, from Cosworth. Why the hell can't we have a DART or a Cosworth.
Let me offer a possible relief to many an issue with Rotary folk.
I have a connection that has told me that the reproduction of the 20B Thick Plate would be a possibility. He does casting of engine parts for lots of drag racers in Indianapolis. Considering that the biggest issue is that the thick plate is no longer in production. For those of us wanting to build 3 rotors, the smaller main parts are available, including E-shafts, like the center stat-gear, and tension bolts/studs, but the thick plate is a much more expensive endeavor.
As Gordon, Logan, and many others who built NA 3 rotors have shown us, NA is the way to making a motor that will work in our world right now. On the same hand, even the RX8 has given us some good things, 10 to 1 compression, and half pound lighter rotors, and zero port overlap.
So, with the aforementioned benefits, why not produce a combination of the zero-overlap, 3 rotor goodness?
If anyone were interested, we might be able to make a "like OE" thick plate AND/OR have the option for an aluminum thick plate, it would have the same oil passages and coolant passages, but renesis exhaust ports. OR just a simple OE replica. I can help facilitate the production into motion.
The issue is that not enough companies produce the main engine parts, and those that do are priced to the holy-**** price range. A brand new OE iron is in the $600 range, and a rotor is in the $700 range. Take a look at the piston engine, soooooooooooo many companies make aftermarket blocks and heads, and all of the associated parts.
We have between 10 and 20 companies making the seals we need, and less than 7 making the major parts. There has only within the last 4 years been a completely custom rotor made. We've used stock parts for years, though good, imagine if we had more creating the major parts? Rotor housings, Irons, Rotors. We have aftermarket eccentric shafts, and look at what it did for that area of performance. So, why not have more companies making OE like engine parts....
Imagine the day that the 13B is no longer supported, but you can still get rotor housings for even less than what they go for today, or a brand new "Dart" Iron.
The piston guys are making good power with good MPG because someone made an OE style part so that they could build something crazy stupid, blew it up, figured out what they did wrong AND RIGHT, and rebuilt it again, discovered some crazy-perfect technology and passed it on to the rest of the automotive world.
We all know that the rotary has the potential to be the absolutely most efficient engine...so lets built some stupid and crazy **** and develop our own crazy-perfect technology for these.
-Tim
Gordon, I think that is a great idea. And in theory, should be acceptable, the muscle car guys use DART blocks or the Subbie guys use a 2 piece, yes, SOMEWHAT modular blocks, from Cosworth. Why the hell can't we have a DART or a Cosworth.
Let me offer a possible relief to many an issue with Rotary folk.
I have a connection that has told me that the reproduction of the 20B Thick Plate would be a possibility. He does casting of engine parts for lots of drag racers in Indianapolis. Considering that the biggest issue is that the thick plate is no longer in production. For those of us wanting to build 3 rotors, the smaller main parts are available, including E-shafts, like the center stat-gear, and tension bolts/studs, but the thick plate is a much more expensive endeavor.
As Gordon, Logan, and many others who built NA 3 rotors have shown us, NA is the way to making a motor that will work in our world right now. On the same hand, even the RX8 has given us some good things, 10 to 1 compression, and half pound lighter rotors, and zero port overlap.
So, with the aforementioned benefits, why not produce a combination of the zero-overlap, 3 rotor goodness?
If anyone were interested, we might be able to make a "like OE" thick plate AND/OR have the option for an aluminum thick plate, it would have the same oil passages and coolant passages, but renesis exhaust ports. OR just a simple OE replica. I can help facilitate the production into motion.
The issue is that not enough companies produce the main engine parts, and those that do are priced to the holy-**** price range. A brand new OE iron is in the $600 range, and a rotor is in the $700 range. Take a look at the piston engine, soooooooooooo many companies make aftermarket blocks and heads, and all of the associated parts.
We have between 10 and 20 companies making the seals we need, and less than 7 making the major parts. There has only within the last 4 years been a completely custom rotor made. We've used stock parts for years, though good, imagine if we had more creating the major parts? Rotor housings, Irons, Rotors. We have aftermarket eccentric shafts, and look at what it did for that area of performance. So, why not have more companies making OE like engine parts....
Imagine the day that the 13B is no longer supported, but you can still get rotor housings for even less than what they go for today, or a brand new "Dart" Iron.
The piston guys are making good power with good MPG because someone made an OE style part so that they could build something crazy stupid, blew it up, figured out what they did wrong AND RIGHT, and rebuilt it again, discovered some crazy-perfect technology and passed it on to the rest of the automotive world.
We all know that the rotary has the potential to be the absolutely most efficient engine...so lets built some stupid and crazy **** and develop our own crazy-perfect technology for these.
-Tim
06-01-11, 10:56 PM
#39
The issue that I see is packaging. The 2 rotor is exceedingly easy to fit into the chassis. It takes up very little room and can be placed far back in the car compared to most engines hence the whole front-mid engine idea behind the rx7. Adding another rotor pretty much removes the advantage. CG is still lower than a piston engine, but the form factor isn't a clear advantage anymore. I imagine people would be surprised the development money spent and engineering compromises that get made in the name of packaging.
....
....
Take a look at my "20b moved back thread". My engine sits 2" lower than the stock 13b and the front is in the same position as stock. That means I have more weight towards the center with the longer engine and tranny closer to the center of the vehicle. With my engines positioning, I have better center of gravity than stock. If Mazda designs the chassis to accommodate the 20b from the start, fitment wouldn't be an issue.
My entire 20b project is just a tool for me to show Mazda that this engine still does have a viable future.
06-01-11, 11:43 PM
#40
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,835
Received 2,604 Likes
on
1,847 Posts
Guys... What are the issues with a company making a motor and selling it from a legal or regulatory perspective? For instance, Hurley makes or has made a 4 rotor motor and sold it to people. Mazda may not make it, because it would have trouble passing emissions or whatever. But, if an independent company made it, would they have issues selling them?
Gordon
Gordon
06-01-11, 11:53 PM
#41
Ok, since we're talking on a solely 20B ENGINE basis again...holy-too-much- talk-about-things-we-can't-control Batman!!....
Gordon, I think that is a great idea. And in theory, should be acceptable, the muscle car guys use DART blocks or the Subbie guys use a 2 piece, yes, SOMEWHAT modular blocks, from Cosworth. Why the hell can't we have a DART or a Cosworth.
Let me offer a possible relief to many an issue with Rotary folk.
I have a connection that has told me that the reproduction of the 20B Thick Plate would be a possibility. He does casting of engine parts for lots of drag racers in Indianapolis. Considering that the biggest issue is that the thick plate is no longer in production. For those of us wanting to build 3 rotors, the smaller main parts are available, including E-shafts, like the center stat-gear, and tension bolts/studs, but the thick plate is a much more expensive endeavor.
As Gordon, Logan, and many others who built NA 3 rotors have shown us, NA is the way to making a motor that will work in our world right now. On the same hand, even the RX8 has given us some good things, 10 to 1 compression, and half pound lighter rotors, and zero port overlap.
So, with the aforementioned benefits, why not produce a combination of the zero-overlap, 3 rotor goodness?
If anyone were interested, we might be able to make a "like OE" thick plate AND/OR have the option for an aluminum thick plate, it would have the same oil passages and coolant passages, but renesis exhaust ports. OR just a simple OE replica. I can help facilitate the production into motion.
The issue is that not enough companies produce the main engine parts, and those that do are priced to the holy-**** price range. A brand new OE iron is in the $600 range, and a rotor is in the $700 range. Take a look at the piston engine, soooooooooooo many companies make aftermarket blocks and heads, and all of the associated parts.
We have between 10 and 20 companies making the seals we need, and less than 7 making the major parts. There has only within the last 4 years been a completely custom rotor made. We've used stock parts for years, though good, imagine if we had more creating the major parts? Rotor housings, Irons, Rotors. We have aftermarket eccentric shafts, and look at what it did for that area of performance. So, why not have more companies making OE like engine parts....
Imagine the day that the 13B is no longer supported, but you can still get rotor housings for even less than what they go for today, or a brand new "Dart" Iron.
The piston guys are making good power with good MPG because someone made an OE style part so that they could build something crazy stupid, blew it up, figured out what they did wrong AND RIGHT, and rebuilt it again, discovered some crazy-perfect technology and passed it on to the rest of the automotive world.
We all know that the rotary has the potential to be the absolutely most efficient engine...so lets built some stupid and crazy **** and develop our own crazy-perfect technology for these.
-Tim
Gordon, I think that is a great idea. And in theory, should be acceptable, the muscle car guys use DART blocks or the Subbie guys use a 2 piece, yes, SOMEWHAT modular blocks, from Cosworth. Why the hell can't we have a DART or a Cosworth.
Let me offer a possible relief to many an issue with Rotary folk.
I have a connection that has told me that the reproduction of the 20B Thick Plate would be a possibility. He does casting of engine parts for lots of drag racers in Indianapolis. Considering that the biggest issue is that the thick plate is no longer in production. For those of us wanting to build 3 rotors, the smaller main parts are available, including E-shafts, like the center stat-gear, and tension bolts/studs, but the thick plate is a much more expensive endeavor.
As Gordon, Logan, and many others who built NA 3 rotors have shown us, NA is the way to making a motor that will work in our world right now. On the same hand, even the RX8 has given us some good things, 10 to 1 compression, and half pound lighter rotors, and zero port overlap.
So, with the aforementioned benefits, why not produce a combination of the zero-overlap, 3 rotor goodness?
If anyone were interested, we might be able to make a "like OE" thick plate AND/OR have the option for an aluminum thick plate, it would have the same oil passages and coolant passages, but renesis exhaust ports. OR just a simple OE replica. I can help facilitate the production into motion.
The issue is that not enough companies produce the main engine parts, and those that do are priced to the holy-**** price range. A brand new OE iron is in the $600 range, and a rotor is in the $700 range. Take a look at the piston engine, soooooooooooo many companies make aftermarket blocks and heads, and all of the associated parts.
We have between 10 and 20 companies making the seals we need, and less than 7 making the major parts. There has only within the last 4 years been a completely custom rotor made. We've used stock parts for years, though good, imagine if we had more creating the major parts? Rotor housings, Irons, Rotors. We have aftermarket eccentric shafts, and look at what it did for that area of performance. So, why not have more companies making OE like engine parts....
Imagine the day that the 13B is no longer supported, but you can still get rotor housings for even less than what they go for today, or a brand new "Dart" Iron.
The piston guys are making good power with good MPG because someone made an OE style part so that they could build something crazy stupid, blew it up, figured out what they did wrong AND RIGHT, and rebuilt it again, discovered some crazy-perfect technology and passed it on to the rest of the automotive world.
We all know that the rotary has the potential to be the absolutely most efficient engine...so lets built some stupid and crazy **** and develop our own crazy-perfect technology for these.
-Tim
http://www.rotaryengine.com/
thewird
06-02-11, 08:21 AM
#43
Take a look at my "20b moved back thread". My engine sits 2" lower than the stock 13b and the front is in the same position as stock. That means I have more weight towards the center with the longer engine and tranny closer to the center of the vehicle. With my engines positioning, I have better center of gravity than stock. If Mazda designs the chassis to accommodate the 20b from the start, fitment wouldn't be an issue.
My entire 20b project is just a tool for me to show Mazda that this engine still does have a viable future.
My entire 20b project is just a tool for me to show Mazda that this engine still does have a viable future.
One other issue I think we are all overlooking is cost. The 20B is much more complex to produce and assemble than a 13b, and requires a more complex engine management system, plus a heavier duty drivetrain. While you or I may think that a couple of thousand extra dollars on the price of the vehicle would be totally worth it, the bean counters at Mazda likely wouldn't agree, and considering the ratio of true enthusiasts to boneheads that just buy cars because the TV tells them its cool, they would probably be right.
06-02-11, 02:53 PM
#44
One other issue I think we are all overlooking is cost. The 20B is much more complex to produce and assemble than a 13b, and requires a more complex engine management system, plus a heavier duty drivetrain. While you or I may think that a couple of thousand extra dollars on the price of the vehicle would be totally worth it, the bean counters at Mazda likely wouldn't agree, and considering the ratio of true enthusiasts to boneheads that just buy cars because the TV tells them its cool, they would probably be right.
20b really isn't that much more expensive when you really think about it. It has a longer e-shaft and thick center plate. Those are the two main engineering differences between the 13b and 20b. Upgrading the drivetrain will only be necessary if your building a turbo version (which isn't necessary if the vehicle is already making 300+hp). NA wouldn't need any of those upgrades so that keeps cost down. NA 20b max out at around 290lbs torque. 24X version I'm sure you would have even more torque. Also the torque delivery of NA rotary's is very linear. This makes it less stressful on the drivtrain. You also save money on eliminating the turbo system. Engine management all depends on the complexity of the set-up. I'm running a Haltech e11 and I'm using every single aux output for my intake set-up. Funny thing is the stock Rx8 ecu is far more sophisticated than my Haltech.
Too me this is just like Mazda building a 4 cyl & 6 cyl Mazda 6. Because they designed the chassis to accept both engine configurations, the differences in cost between the two aren't that much. It's when you've done conversions for an engine that WASN'T originally designed for a chassis that drives the cost up so much. Mazda can do this especially now that Ford no longer has any major control. They did it with the Cosmo. They can do it again with the next Rx vehicle.
06-02-11, 03:51 PM
#45
If you think Mazda will introduce a 3 rotor when BMW is killing their V10 and Ford is now introducing 3 cylinder turbo engines, you are engaging in wishful thinking. The fuel economy and emissions aren't there, not unless they introduce a variable displacement system that will add more expense. The Cosmo was a very very expensive halo type of car, and most of them had 2 rotor engines anyway.
06-02-11, 10:21 PM
#46
I think not on the wishful thinking. There is MORE than enough room for MORE than a single displacement rotary. I will always stand by that.
True BMW is killing the V10 but that has nothing to do with that engine not being green. It's much cheaper for BMW to manufacture and turbo the V8 and not the V10. That's why it's going away. Speaking of V8, what about the twin turbo V8 that's coming in the new M5? You think there's anything green about that engine? I think not. You think BMW will kill that engine and install a turbo 4 cyl in a 5 series? Now that my friend is wishful thinking and will never happen. That turbo V8 engine exist because BMW has to keep excelling with the M brand regardless if it makes economic sense. Hell the supercharged CTS-V has been whooping the M5's *** the past 3 years. You think BMW is gonna sit back and let an American car company steal the glory of it's most prestigious performance brand? THAT my friend is wishful thinking. They have there other vehicles to set the GREEN image for the corporation. The M brands, SRT brands, V brands, AMG brands ect are all about performance and nothing else. There is absolutely nothing that says Mazda can't do the same with Mazdaspeed. They already are coming out with the green Sky engines to set that green image. If the 16X can show similar characteristics, then I see no reason why Mazda couldn't later come out with an exclusive Mazdaspeed 3 rotor. They would be doing exactly what all the other manufactures are doing by upholding an image.
True BMW is killing the V10 but that has nothing to do with that engine not being green. It's much cheaper for BMW to manufacture and turbo the V8 and not the V10. That's why it's going away. Speaking of V8, what about the twin turbo V8 that's coming in the new M5? You think there's anything green about that engine? I think not. You think BMW will kill that engine and install a turbo 4 cyl in a 5 series? Now that my friend is wishful thinking and will never happen. That turbo V8 engine exist because BMW has to keep excelling with the M brand regardless if it makes economic sense. Hell the supercharged CTS-V has been whooping the M5's *** the past 3 years. You think BMW is gonna sit back and let an American car company steal the glory of it's most prestigious performance brand? THAT my friend is wishful thinking. They have there other vehicles to set the GREEN image for the corporation. The M brands, SRT brands, V brands, AMG brands ect are all about performance and nothing else. There is absolutely nothing that says Mazda can't do the same with Mazdaspeed. They already are coming out with the green Sky engines to set that green image. If the 16X can show similar characteristics, then I see no reason why Mazda couldn't later come out with an exclusive Mazdaspeed 3 rotor. They would be doing exactly what all the other manufactures are doing by upholding an image.
06-03-11, 12:08 AM
#47
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,835
Received 2,604 Likes
on
1,847 Posts
True BMW is killing the V10 but that has nothing to do with that engine not being green. It's much cheaper for BMW to manufacture and turbo the V8 and not the V10. That's why it's going away. Speaking of V8, what about the twin turbo V8 that's coming in the new M5? You think there's anything green about that engine? I think not. You think BMW will kill that engine and install a turbo 4 cyl in a 5 series? Now that my friend is wishful thinking and will never happen. That turbo V8 engine exist because BMW has to keep excelling with the M brand regardless if it makes economic sense. Hell the supercharged CTS-V has been whooping the M5's *** the past 3 years. You think BMW is gonna sit back and let an American car company steal the glory of it's most prestigious performance brand? THAT my friend is wishful thinking. They have there other vehicles to set the GREEN image for the corporation. The M brands, SRT brands, V brands, AMG brands ect are all about performance and nothing else. There is absolutely nothing that says Mazda can't do the same with Mazdaspeed. They already are coming out with the green Sky engines to set that green image. If the 16X can show similar characteristics, then I see no reason why Mazda couldn't later come out with an exclusive Mazdaspeed 3 rotor. They would be doing exactly what all the other manufactures are doing by upholding an image.
or actually more on point, the mazda 6 in europe is a 2.0 gas or 2.2 diesel. no v6.
the miata comes with a 1.8
oddly though when we were in ireland, there were a TON of Rx8's around, and the NICEST AE86 ive ever seen was in ireland too.
06-03-11, 03:38 PM
#48
Thx! Hmm didn't know that about the 4 banger. But still the 5 series does have more than 4 different engine configurations for the 5 series. 4 cyl, I6 cyl, v8, and diesel. This is a very diverse selection of engines you have for the customer to choose from. USA rotary enthusiast have only gotten 13b based displacement versions for the past 27 yrs. When I see other manufactures building there vehicles like this, it really pisses me off that all we get is a single displacement rotary. I mean the little 13b has to complete with everything in the performance market. Yet when it breaks it labels the rotary as unreliable. That would not be the case if we had 3 and 4 rotors to compete with it's equal displacement competition.
06-03-11, 05:46 PM
#50
i would have to assume there is other underling reasons as to why the USDM never saw the 3 rotor, we have plenty of V12's, 10's and 8's that get **** poor fuel mileage for me to believe that that was the reason that mazda never imported it.
but i think that it will never materialize from here out anyways, with all the car companies focusing even more on green cars and fuel mileage being major selling points. why would mazda try to go against the grain when they already are walking a very fine line.
but i think that it will never materialize from here out anyways, with all the car companies focusing even more on green cars and fuel mileage being major selling points. why would mazda try to go against the grain when they already are walking a very fine line.