Im with you on 90% of you're post..... but im still NA due to how much I hate the feel of turbos, unless its a mega squirt car with a 0%-100% by 0%-100% TPS/Boost map and a smallish turbo.

 

Another factor is that huge horsepower didn't really become commonplace in sportscars until the last ten years or so. In 1986, people were content with a 230 horsepower Corvette, for example. After all the downsizing of the various fuel crises and emissions controls of the 1970s, a 2700 pound RX-7 with 146 or 182 horsepower seemed quick enough for most people.

 

My sentiments exactly in 84-89 the horse power that the rx-7 came with was on par for the price range <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
However, I do believer that if they do bring back the Rx-7 now and want it to be competitive, Mazda will have to come with significant hp numbers at least 400rwhp out the door 450-500hp would be better but I dont think that would ever happen. (think about it in a "light weight" sports car, no heavier than the FD 3000lbs or less with 400hp would move)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

 

lol....right

The 370Z has what... 320 hp at the crank... and weights 3200+ lbs, and people are on its nuts like squirels before winter.

All Mazda would have to do to be competitive is come out with a more reliable FD (solid chasis, double wish bone suspension , sub 2900lbs etc...) and give it 50 more horsepower. This could easily be done N/A w/ a 3 rotor.

And on that note: +1 to Hypertek, and nillahcaz, if you'd rather drive an n/a (assuming its not a radical port; which has its own drawbacks) than a stock TII, its because you like the "feel" of being slow

 

You're right I think, that never will happen.

Seems to me that Mazda's only logical path to the next halo car is to pull another 2nd >3rd gen, Chapmanesque move and concentrate on the chassis, suspension and weight.
The better they do in those areas, the less important horsepower becomes.
More than anything they need some torque.

The last thing they need is a high-strung, temperamental rotary engine gumming up their part/service supply lines. My understanding is that the RX8 is basically a nightmare for warranty work (as far as Mazda is concerned), and that's a relatively sedate NA twin rotor.

Bear in mind that for a piston engine, America is ripe with repair options.
For every dealer there are probably ten independent shops.

In most cases though, you have an issue with your new rotary and your only option is the dealer.
The dealer- who maybe sells a couple of RX-8's a month- has a hard time justifying a full time "specialist" rotary mechanic...hell, here in Denver it makes more economic sense for the dealers to convince Mazda that an engine has failed and replace the whole enchilada under warranty than to actually diagnose/repair the problem.

I think rotaries have become an albatross around Mazda's neck.
Many of the Wankel's inherent virtues don't resonate with Americans and it's poor fuel economy, problematic emissions and low sales volume make the rotary an expensive bauble to keep on display.

 

Unfortunately, I agree with this statement 100%.

The rotary has no business in an everyday sporty commuter car like an RX-8. In the 21st Century, the average car buyer expects better fuel mileage at a given performance level than the rotary seems able to offer (at least in its current form). Nobody expects to have to check their oil level anymore either. Nobody expects to need to rebuild their engines every so many miles. Nobody expects their car to flood if they need to start it up and move it out of the driveway to let another car pull in, etc.

Many of the Wankel virtues that looked so enticing in the 1970s (high specific output, high RPMs, smoothness) have been duplicated in piston engines in the intervening years, probably because zillions of development dollars have been poured into piston engines in that timeframe while rotary development has not progressed very far.

From a commercial standpoint, the rotary makes little sense. The main value it provides to Mazda is one of demonstrating their commitment to novel technologies and a tie to their history of innovation. At some point though when the product is no longer competitive, it may be time to let it go.

 

[QUOTE=sharingan 19;9746456] This could easily be done N/A w/ a 3 rotor.[QUOTE]

you will NEVER EVER see a 3 rotor again in a street car, its hotter and more thirsty than the two rotor.

where do you get that info? i worked at a mazda dealership (that sold a lot of rx8's) from 04-almost 2008. the rx8 is one of the more reliable cars in the lineup, actually.

and the engine you say? we changed 1 in over 3 years, out of about 200 cars. that's way better than the FD, its WAY better than the 6 v6, we were doing 1 of those a month...

you are correct in a way though, there were a lot of recalls and programmes aimed at making sure the cars were staying reliable.

 

I've gotten that info from several sources but remember, I did qualify my statement by saying "Here in Denver".
In an area where rotaries sell better I'd expect better support and clearly, you're from such a place.
The independent rotary specialist I frequent gets a lot of business from dealerships who simply farm out the rotary work as it comes in because no one there knows anything about them.

A gearhead friend of mine bought an 06 RX-8 on a whim last summer and almost instantly regretted it, complaining of pathetic power and crummy gas mileage.
Then he took it to a local track day and discovered what the car is really good at- high speed handling- and fell in love.

That's the problem with the rotary though...very few owners ever take a decreasing radius turn at 100 MPH, so they never get to experience what the chassis is capable of.
All the goodness lives on a level that most folks don't/can't attain so they judge by the normal day-to-day impression and the rotary doesn't do well there.