The RX-7 confirmed to be in the pipeline for 2017---RX-Vision Unveil!!
05-02-13, 01:35 PM
#451
Just a couple thoughts:
1. This is a thread about what Mazda could/should do. Not what it is likely to do. It's LIKELY to suck. Let's be honest.
2. The FD was forced induction, which was all the rage in 1992. It also worked to make a small displacement, boosted car, because at idle and low load, it's basically just a small motor. No boost to start making power, suck gas, and create emissions. A lot of things have happened since then in terms of porting, direct injection, selective cylinder firing, and cat technology that allows LS1 V8's (that people predicted would die YEARS ago), still relevant. Mazda needs some/all of the same to make the rotary work.
3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of rotors per se doesn't create emissions. It's displacement, right? So a 12a based 3-rotor isn't a 50% increase (everything else being equal) over a 16x 2-rotor, right?
I don't particularly care whether it's 2 or three rotors, turbo or not. I just think it has a power target that needs to be reached either with DISPLACEMENT, or forced induction, or a little of both. But, the sound of a three rotor would have that intangible quality.
1. This is a thread about what Mazda could/should do. Not what it is likely to do. It's LIKELY to suck. Let's be honest.
2. The FD was forced induction, which was all the rage in 1992. It also worked to make a small displacement, boosted car, because at idle and low load, it's basically just a small motor. No boost to start making power, suck gas, and create emissions. A lot of things have happened since then in terms of porting, direct injection, selective cylinder firing, and cat technology that allows LS1 V8's (that people predicted would die YEARS ago), still relevant. Mazda needs some/all of the same to make the rotary work.
3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of rotors per se doesn't create emissions. It's displacement, right? So a 12a based 3-rotor isn't a 50% increase (everything else being equal) over a 16x 2-rotor, right?
I don't particularly care whether it's 2 or three rotors, turbo or not. I just think it has a power target that needs to be reached either with DISPLACEMENT, or forced induction, or a little of both. But, the sound of a three rotor would have that intangible quality.
05-02-13, 02:17 PM
#452
2600lbs, wide tires, 350HP(Turbo 2 rotor with PP exhaust) that got 22-24mpg interstate, ran low 12s from the factory, exceptional handling and even better looks. Who are we kidding, out of all the generations of the Rotary cars Mazda only got it right once. No knock to the other generations and the 8 but it is fact. 20 years later the FD is the only relevant rotary vehicle in AUTOX, Time Attack and weekend road racing and though she is aging her looks are still admired by most.
05-02-13, 05:23 PM
#453
Recovering Miataholic
but the reason the ports were moved on the Renesis is because the NOx emissions were (supposedly) getting too high on the 13B.
05-02-13, 06:14 PM
#454
NOx is not a problem on a (stock) 13B engine. Our '94 with 106K miles and disconnected EGR returned these CA emissions test results last year.
05-02-13, 06:51 PM
#455
I guess the point I'm making is, if Mazda wants to build a BRZ competitor, to me that's a hardtop Miata with a higher-string piston inline 4, maybe with a supercharger, maybe some more aggressive styling. Mazda could build that car NOW, and it would actually pretty cool, and the handling would kick the **** out of the BRZ, and the inline 4 wouldn't scare anyone or drive development costs up.
If Mazda wanted to compete with the BRZ, they would just make a Miata coupe with a MS3 engine in it
The development is already done and it could've been on the market yesterday
They wouldn't stall until 2017 just to do that
05-02-13, 08:05 PM
#456
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem for the rotary, before NOx, is HC count. The wankel just burns so badly. I simply don't see the rotary making a return on regular fuel as a possibility.
BMW are the manufacturer currently experimenting with wankels. They are testing with pure hydrogen.
05-02-13, 09:00 PM
#457
Any testing regime should be based on standards at time of manufacture. So if you are trying to pass a 90's car you should only have to meet 90's emission targets. These days emissions is typically tested in g/km pr g/mi, not volumetric ratio.
The biggest problem for the rotary, before NOx, is HC count. The wankel just burns so badly. I simply don't see the rotary making a return on regular fuel as a possibility.
BMW are the manufacturer currently experimenting with wankels. They are testing with pure hydrogen.
The biggest problem for the rotary, before NOx, is HC count. The wankel just burns so badly. I simply don't see the rotary making a return on regular fuel as a possibility.
BMW are the manufacturer currently experimenting with wankels. They are testing with pure hydrogen.
05-02-13, 09:08 PM
#458
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't know why they haven't yet. With the toyota selling like hotcakes, it seems ridiculous that neither mazda nor nissan have moved to release another small light FR. Imagine another 180sx hitting the roads.
05-02-13, 09:27 PM
#459
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that's notwithstanding the fact that if mazda were to indeed aim to have a productino ready motor by 2017, it would have to be meeting 2024-25 targets. That said, they could probably do it with LPG. It would make more power too.
Last edited by Bwarrrrrp; 05-02-13 at 09:45 PM.
05-02-13, 10:29 PM
#460
Any testing regime should be based on standards at time of manufacture. So if you are trying to pass a 90's car you should only have to meet 90's emission targets. These days emissions is typically tested in g/km pr g/mi, not volumetric ratio.
The biggest problem for the rotary, before NOx, is HC count. The wankel just burns so badly. I simply don't see the rotary making a return on regular fuel as a possibility.
BMW are the manufacturer currently experimenting with wankels. They are testing with pure hydrogen.
The biggest problem for the rotary, before NOx, is HC count. The wankel just burns so badly. I simply don't see the rotary making a return on regular fuel as a possibility.
BMW are the manufacturer currently experimenting with wankels. They are testing with pure hydrogen.
That's exactly what I'm trying to do is match or come very close to the stock cars numbers with the old PP exhaust design.
05-02-13, 10:42 PM
#461
Don't you think your jumping a little to far ahead here? The Rx7 only has to meet whatever standards at the time of release. Here's a quote directly from the man himself... "Yamamoto added that, with the use of a special catalyst, the engine will have no problem meeting the ultra-restrictive Euro VI emissions legislation that will be in place by 2017." Mazda can worry about the 2025 targets when they start thinking about building the 5th gen.
Lets not forget guys, this "special catalyst" is why our beloved 7 is making a come back. 2017 the return of an icon. Mazda RX7 | Rotary Power Crew
05-02-13, 11:17 PM
#462
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you think your jumping a little to far ahead here? The Rx7 only has to meet whatever standards at the time of release. Here's a quote directly from the man himself... "Yamamoto added that, with the use of a special catalyst, the engine will have no problem meeting the ultra-restrictive Euro VI emissions legislation that will be in place by 2017." Mazda can worry about the 2025 targets when they start thinking about building the 5th gen. Lets not forget guys, this "special catalyst" is why our beloved 7 is making a come back.
Lets not forget guys, this "special catalyst" is why our beloved 7 is making a come back.
05-03-13, 07:15 AM
#463
05-03-13, 09:50 AM
#464
I love thread like this..
Lets look at rx8.
Made 2004 and pulled 2010 in Europe due to euro 5.
Also go do some research and see what the difference between euro 4 and euro 5.
I don't want Mazda to just make a rotary vehicle but one that would compete with modern Japanese cars such as GTR, LFA, and what if NSX. Otherwise, a rotary that's just another mid level sports car that competes with FR-S and have gazillion emission crap and 2 rotor making maybe 300 hp, I'll say no thank you.
I just don't see Mazda making something that would come close to GTR. And of course I've heard rumor that they would since announcement of GTR with no hard proof. Wet dream guys.
Lets look at rx8.
Made 2004 and pulled 2010 in Europe due to euro 5.
Also go do some research and see what the difference between euro 4 and euro 5.
I don't want Mazda to just make a rotary vehicle but one that would compete with modern Japanese cars such as GTR, LFA, and what if NSX. Otherwise, a rotary that's just another mid level sports car that competes with FR-S and have gazillion emission crap and 2 rotor making maybe 300 hp, I'll say no thank you.
I just don't see Mazda making something that would come close to GTR. And of course I've heard rumor that they would since announcement of GTR with no hard proof. Wet dream guys.
05-03-13, 10:07 AM
#465
I'm sorry, did I miss Yamamoto saying, "hey, we will bring out a car with a motor that can meet 2017 standards, but we're so stupid that we'd do that even though we know it won't meet 2021 standards"? What in God's name suggests any company would bring out a motor only to have to pull it and lose the massive investment?
G
G
Gordon he does have a point though. Lets not forget that Mazda did in fact only import the fd to our shores for only 3 yrs because it wouldn't meet obd2 standards. Now I do think Mazda has learned their lesson and wont make the same mistake twice. The Rx8 had a nice long production life.
05-03-13, 10:10 AM
#466
I agree, I don't think it will or could come close to a GTR in terms of brute force. That was actually the case with FD as well. GTR is the new Supra MK1V.
Supra MKIV, as awesome as it is/was, is no FD on several levels. But an FD wasn't an Eclipse or 300Z either. Those are the same levels that a new RX7 would need to occupy relative to the GTR or a Z06, or 370Z or BRZ.
Supra MKIV, as awesome as it is/was, is no FD on several levels. But an FD wasn't an Eclipse or 300Z either. Those are the same levels that a new RX7 would need to occupy relative to the GTR or a Z06, or 370Z or BRZ.
05-03-13, 10:31 AM
#468
I think more accurately, they didn't want to undertake the cost of retrofitting/engineering the car in OBDII, not that it wouldn't work necessarily. Remember, they sold 500 cars in the U.S. in 1995.
Gordon he does have a point though. Lets not forget that Mazda did in fact only import the fd to our shores for only 3 yrs because it wouldn't meet obd2 standards. Now I do think Mazda has learned their lesson and wont make the same mistake twice. The Rx8 had a nice long production life.
05-03-13, 10:49 AM
#469
Also those of you who tried to pass emission without an airpump should know cat can only do so much. Again, do some searching on euro 4 vs euro 5. I read scientific papers regarding new standards they introduced.
05-03-13, 11:18 AM
#470
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bwaarrrrp... What's "ludicrous" are closed minds to solving problems. My 3 plug motor is not just for emissions. Perhaps you remember that the 787's used 3 plugs and probably not for emissions, eh? Also, as t-von points out, Yamamoto says using "special catalysts" they can meet the Euro IV standards. That, as I said somewhere else, is exactly what I am doing... adding high precious metal content catalysts on top of the 3 plugs to meet standards. Its a Mark Twain thing... Rumors of the rotary's demise are exaggerated. The reason we have science is to solve problems.
I narrowed the gap because you isolated 2017 as their only concern. If a manufacturer approached concept designs with no heed to the future they would deservedly go bankrupt very quickly. Gen V for 2025? 2028 is more realistic, though just as improbable. 2020 is a good ballpark as that's a decent guesstimate for when euro VII will be introduced.
05-03-13, 11:20 AM
#471
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-03-13, 04:26 PM
#474
I narrowed the gap because you isolated 2017 as their only concern. If a manufacturer approached concept designs with no heed to the future they would deservedly go bankrupt very quickly. Gen V for 2025? 2028 is more realistic, though just as improbable. 2020 is a good ballpark as that's a decent guesstimate for when euro VII will be introduced.
Well I guess myself and Yamamoto are quilty of isolating that year. Anyways I'm pretty confident that Mazda will provide an emissions capable rotary powered vehicle for the duration of the 4th gens life cycle. By the way 1st gen went from 78-85 (8yrs). 2nd gen went from 86-91 (6yrs) 3rd gen went from 93-02 (9yrs). Rx8 04-12 (9yrs) If the 4th gen goes from 2017-2025 thats also 9 years. So why would you think 2028???
05-03-13, 04:55 PM
#475
Exactly! Yamamoto wants to go upscale. You can't go upscale and only have a 300 hp option. That's not gonna cut in that future market. If Yamamoto plans on staying Na, he's gonna have to consiser a 3 rotor as an option. 16x Rx7 starting at 35,000 is easily done considering that a base Na Rx8 started at 26,000 (considering that it was bigger and more difficult to manufacture). Mazdaspeed 24x starting at 45,000 would be the sweet spot.