I just saw this quote in the Autoweek article for the Rx-8.

"Unlike Mazda’s previous 13B rotary, the Renesis shines in the real world. The 13B was a thirsty, dirty engine known to fry its rotor apex seals."

It paints a pretty bad picture of the 13B, doesn't it? I didn't think they were that bad of an engine.

Here is the link to the full article.

http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=06121196

 

Sad what some people will put into print. Take an isolated group of engines (it's not like piston engines don't do the samething) and then write an article. It's like those people who say that a rotary will need a rebuild after 90k miles no matter how careful you are...that's weird, maybe mine is different or maybe the odometer is off because it says 125,581 miles...maybe it's one of those rotary bugs again.

 

personally i like the 13b and thats kind of an unfair judgement, but in another two years when ive saved some money im sure im gonna like my renesis even more. but the 13b is incredibly reliable.

 

Thanks for the site. Uhhhhh........I don't like shutter valves. I had a series one with a shutter valve. humor(inside joke for former series one owners).

 

wow, i thought the car would more expensive. it'll get marked up a bit, but under 30k isn't too bad.

 

See below, I sent email to the author he actually replied today:


Thanks for your input on my RX-8 story. Let me point out that any references to the 13B are to the turbocharged version, as referenced by stating "previous" 13B. Actually, that was supposed to be "previous generation", but it was edited out. Sorry for any confusion about the turbocharged vs. normally aspirated 13B. As for my general statements about that motor, I stand by them. I understand that there is a large, sometimes almost fanatical (in a good way) RX-7 following. The last thing I intended to do was irritate or offend RX-7 enthusiasts. I myself love the RX-7. However, the fact remains that relatively speaking, the turbocharged 13B gets poor mileage and produces more pollutants, and is less reliable. But again, this is relatively speaking. I did not intend to portray the RX-7 or its engine as poor; my intention was only to illustrate the gains Mazda made with the new Renesis and to answer some questions people are bound to have, such as "why didn't the rotary last before and what makes it better now?", or "what were the downsides of the old rotary and how have they been addressed?" In retrospect, perhaps I could have found a way of pointing out the_differences that wasn't so harsh, and so likely to annoy RX-7 fans_like you. But_I do stand behind_the general_idea that yes, Renesis is a better engine more suited to today's motoring climate. Nevertheless, your point is well taken and again, I apologize for the irritation. I hope you enjoyed the rest of the story, minus the offending statement.
_
Sincerely,
Mac Morrison
AutoWeek


>>> "Paul Ragone" <pragone@MetLife.com> 02/10/03 03:58PM >>>
I am a member of the NY area Tri-State club, we were discussing above
article._ While we are glad the RX8 is getting press coverage, we believe
the 13B engine references below are inaccurate.

"Unlike Mazda's previous 13B rotary, the Renesis shines in the real world.
The 13B was a thirsty, dirty engine known to fry its rotor apex seals."

The RX7 continues to shine in the real world._ There are clubs worldwide.
While it is not as clean as a RX8 if well maintained it has no problem
passing any state emissions._ The 13B twin turbo of 93-95 models may be
known to fry but that is only because abuse._ The non-turbo 13b of 85-91 is
an extremely reliable engine.

 

Well thought out e-mail to the autoweek.

They gained a little respect for replying I thought also. Thanks for sharing that with us.

 

I must say I am no longer unhappy with autoweek. Appology accepted.

 

yeah but the thing is comparing turbo to N/A is like comparing apples to pineapples. While we are talking about comparisons, what engine are the comparing the 13B to when they say it's a thristy dirty little engine. I can understand the dirty part, we all know about that. What about the thirsty statement tho, are they comparing it to a similar volume honda engine? Or how about a similar performance sports car engine? Hell, lets even compare it to todays SUV engines, there the RX-7 has better gas mileage.

Very subjective statements and that makes it very misleading when not giving proper data to back up the clam.

 

Well I don't know...that's an interesting relationship there. You can't have a pineAPPLE w/out the apple.

Sry couldn't resisit it .

 

yeah i know similar name but completely different animal... er... fruit.

 

everyone seems to be forgetting that it wasn't just the engine itself that pissed people off, but the customer service on mazda's part. from what i've heard, the mechanics more often than not broke something new and charged you for it. their only way of actually "fixing" the engine was to replace it. i think that's what killed the rotary, not the rotary itself.

 

You show me a 1.3 litre turbo piston motor that makes 300 hp, and i'll show you a dirty little gas-thirsty beast that is prone to blowing up.

 

HAHAHA.....LMAO that is a very pertinent statement and I'm glad somebody else was thinkning it

 

your liter comparison is off a touch.

 

give the rx8 5-10 years then you can compare... maybe they will all blow up after 50k miles LOL... nobody will know till it happens...