The RX-7 confirmed to be in the pipeline for 2017---RX-Vision Unveil!!
01-22-14, 05:52 PM
#1226
So, Mazda has a year, maybe two tops, of development time before the big date (2017). That's the 50th Anniversary of their first production rotary car. It's hard for me to believe they'll let that date pass by without "some" kind of rotary offering, whether it be a limited production LAST SAMURAI tribute car, or an announcement of some major technological breakthrough that will extend the life of rotary engine technology. I'm holding out hope for a breakthrough, but my gut tells me we will have one last chance to buy a final offering. In the meantime, save your pennies and hope for the best. We shall see...
01-22-14, 07:18 PM
#1228
fill the castings with aluminum and modify them further, make something new, not a revision of the 13B which was introduced in 1973. most of the issues are with the metals they have and continue to use, aluminum is less forgiving but can be the most rewarding if used properly. sandwich a ceramic coated plate between the rotor housing and the end plates.. lightweight, blah blah, ceramic apex seals in n/a engines, blah blah, bulletproof 10k RPM engine, blah blah.
Last edited by RotaryEvolution; 01-22-14 at 07:24 PM.
01-22-14, 07:31 PM
#1229
^^^
Well, I was talking about the COMPLETELY squandered overall Le Mans 24 win—I don't think I even saw a TV ad touting it until well after these cars were out of production. Come to think of it, I don't think I saw a TV ad with an FD in it until it was out of production. I think it was the same ad.
Used to be, you got in a Lotus, and there was a little gold plackard near the door sill that had little victory wreaths engraved on it for every F1 world championship the team had one. I don't think I've ever seen a really nice commemorative window sticker I could by touting my cars lineage to a 24 hours of Le Mans champion.
Well, I was talking about the COMPLETELY squandered overall Le Mans 24 win—I don't think I even saw a TV ad touting it until well after these cars were out of production. Come to think of it, I don't think I saw a TV ad with an FD in it until it was out of production. I think it was the same ad.
Used to be, you got in a Lotus, and there was a little gold plackard near the door sill that had little victory wreaths engraved on it for every F1 world championship the team had one. I don't think I've ever seen a really nice commemorative window sticker I could by touting my cars lineage to a 24 hours of Le Mans champion.
01-22-14, 07:38 PM
#1230
the 1st gens had the IMSA GTU stickers, i believe some of that transferred into the 2nd gens but then they just lost interest in patting their own backs and chose the humble approach.
a plaque or sticker never really sold someone a car anyways. not like you ran home and did a google of what it meant or anything, in the '80's. i wish i put money into google in late the 90's...
a plaque or sticker never really sold someone a car anyways. not like you ran home and did a google of what it meant or anything, in the '80's. i wish i put money into google in late the 90's...
Last edited by RotaryEvolution; 01-22-14 at 07:45 PM.
01-22-14, 09:30 PM
#1231
Rotary Enthusiast
I've been skimming Howard Coleman's thread... would it be possible to have an OEM water injection system with a turbo 16X? The computer could back off the boost if the water tank ran out.
01-22-14, 09:37 PM
#1232
Sticker don't sell cars, but heritage—namely racing heritage, does. If you want to build it, you've got to get the results, and promote the results, and sell things that people who care about the results want.
Ferrari, Lotus, Porsche, Corvette—not to mention the pony and muscle car brands in the US.
Ferrari, Lotus, Porsche, Corvette—not to mention the pony and muscle car brands in the US.
01-23-14, 12:22 AM
#1233
Mazda had a heritage of a 10 IMSA wins, FB's came with window stickers of. Consecutive championship wins and a bronze key chain with same. After Le Man win I saw lots of print add next to FD but don't recall any RX7 TV commercial.
Now today, Mazda is the leading manufacturer supporting racing from grassroots parts support to ladder program to indy light and 1/2 mill scholarships. Skip Barber is a running add for Mazda with mi at a, formula Mazda and Mazda 3 cars,
Now today, Mazda is the leading manufacturer supporting racing from grassroots parts support to ladder program to indy light and 1/2 mill scholarships. Skip Barber is a running add for Mazda with mi at a, formula Mazda and Mazda 3 cars,
01-23-14, 02:02 AM
#1234
It had a turbocharged V8 with Turbo-Rocket Fluid injection! Basically water/meth with a corrosion inhibitor. There was a gauge to let you know when to refill it, and it had a system that would disable the turbo if you ran out.
Unfortunately, due to the complexities of the protection system, and it's failure to work reliably, some of them died early deaths. Most of them were taken in for "LACK OF POWER" complaints, and it was because they ran out of the Turbo-Rocket Fluid. It was SO BAD that GM actually offered to replace the TURBO setup with a conventional intake/carb and normal exhaust manifolds. The worst part is most of the complaints were due to operator error...
Reminds me of a service bulletin I read once: This issue is a DESIGN FEATURE, customer education is required. Recommend informing customer that vehicle is working as intended. A/C compressor disengages at high throttle angles to increase acceleration, making it easier to merge onto the freeway.
SO, how is all of this relevant? Consumers responsibilty is normally avoided at all costs by most companies, since in most cases where extra care (another thing to check/fill) would be needed usually result in it not being done, and the resulting failure. The FD had many issues due to the design, misinformed/oblivious owners, and the genius techs at dealers.
Has any of those things really changed in 20 years? Electronic control systems have improved quite a bit. The modern diesels with DEF will go into limp/low power mode if you run out. Some will barely due 35MPH until you refill it.
But the consumers seem to have gotten dumber over the last few years (I've worked in retail auto parts for the last 10 years). People come in and complain about an issue with their car, you go outside to check it and the instrument cluster looks like a Christmas tree... Wonder how long all these have been on... Only 11 codes in the computer...
END OF RANT
Vince
01-23-14, 02:05 AM
#1235
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Huntington beach
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look dude. There won't be an rx7 replacement until the company makes some Dickin Money. There cash strappedd. The rotors are most likely dead cuz of emissions . Hopefully the new miata is so dope that they stretch it and make another line, otherwise its all nonsense. I work in the automotive industry, I've got friends at Mazda, it's dollars and cents. As much as I'd love to see a successor there no business case beyond the miata. Mazda has abandoned hybrid. Which is the most solid case for a rotor. The damn CEO has flipp flopped repeatedly. If they ever make another legit contender I will buy it. Until then......
01-23-14, 09:38 AM
#1236
Senior Member
Weight distribution isn't hugely different from stock, 50/50 vs 49/51. Would be very interesting to measure c.g. height, but easier said than done... I kind of doubt that the LS engine's c.g. is much if any higher than the all-in stock 13BTT. I don't think it's enough to cause major changes in handling balance.
OK so it sounds like the actual weight is about 100lbs difference which isn't bad at all considering the overall improvement in power, reliability, gas mileage and trans.
My car weighed in at 2949 lb. with 3/4-tank of fuel in October. Should be ~2855 lb. empty, 2980 lb. full tank.
Correcting for the above changes, including removal of the spare (-40-20-20+25 = -55 lb.), I get 2800 empty, 2926 with a full tank.
Bob H. (he was an instructor of yours years ago at VIR!) weighed the totally stock car at 2780 with 1/8-tank before he started the swap. That should be 2764 lb. empty, 2890 full tank.
Delta, like for like, ~36 lb. Obviously there's some error in there, but I doubt that it's 64 lb. worth!
From the swaps I've followed that were most comparable in equipment before/after, it's ~50 lb. delta vs. stock, not 100. That said, I do fully appreciate that a modded rotary can have big weight reductions from the front of the car, where with the LS you are stuck with it.
01-23-14, 10:19 AM
#1237
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,796
Received 2,574 Likes
on
1,830 Posts
mazda is like porsche in this area, they simply cannot move away from their original concept.
in manufacturing the key is to build what people buy, which is something Mazda struggles with.
01-23-14, 10:42 AM
#1238
This is really true—ESPECIALLY with lower end or utilitarian type vehicles. People who buy Oldsmobile sedans expect it to be like an Oldsmobile sedan. It's hard enough to get people to check/change oil.
This becomes a lot LESS the case with higher end and specialty vehicles. Those buyers are enthusiasts and afficionados, who will learn about their cars, put up with (and in some cases, actually like) their idiosyncracys.
That's why I don't think the "cheap/simple" rotary model is the right way to go. It's practically an oxymoron. To some extent, even the FD suffered this way—it was a big leap from the FC, and this wasn't marketed or sold well, and so a lot of people bought it because it was pretty and expected to treat it like an Eclipse, not an exotic (which it is).
Build a car that, by design, not everyone wants, but some people LOVE, and make sure you market/sell it that way. That's the only way the rotary makes sense, and actually becomes desireable.
This becomes a lot LESS the case with higher end and specialty vehicles. Those buyers are enthusiasts and afficionados, who will learn about their cars, put up with (and in some cases, actually like) their idiosyncracys.
That's why I don't think the "cheap/simple" rotary model is the right way to go. It's practically an oxymoron. To some extent, even the FD suffered this way—it was a big leap from the FC, and this wasn't marketed or sold well, and so a lot of people bought it because it was pretty and expected to treat it like an Eclipse, not an exotic (which it is).
Build a car that, by design, not everyone wants, but some people LOVE, and make sure you market/sell it that way. That's the only way the rotary makes sense, and actually becomes desireable.
This idea was tried WAY BACK in 1962 with the Oldsmobile (remember them? Worlds 4th oldest car company) F-85 Jetfire.
It had a turbocharged V8 with Turbo-Rocket Fluid injection! Basically water/meth with a corrosion inhibitor. There was a gauge to let you know when to refill it, and it had a system that would disable the turbo if you ran out.
Unfortunately, due to the complexities of the protection system, and it's failure to work reliably, some of them died early deaths. Most of them were taken in for "LACK OF POWER" complaints, and it was because they ran out of the Turbo-Rocket Fluid. It was SO BAD that GM actually offered to replace the TURBO setup with a conventional intake/carb and normal exhaust manifolds. The worst part is most of the complaints were due to operator error...
Reminds me of a service bulletin I read once: This issue is a DESIGN FEATURE, customer education is required. Recommend informing customer that vehicle is working as intended. A/C compressor disengages at high throttle angles to increase acceleration, making it easier to merge onto the freeway.
SO, how is all of this relevant? Consumers responsibilty is normally avoided at all costs by most companies, since in most cases where extra care (another thing to check/fill) would be needed usually result in it not being done, and the resulting failure. The FD had many issues due to the design, misinformed/oblivious owners, and the genius techs at dealers.
Has any of those things really changed in 20 years? Electronic control systems have improved quite a bit. The modern diesels with DEF will go into limp/low power mode if you run out. Some will barely due 35MPH until you refill it.
But the consumers seem to have gotten dumber over the last few years (I've worked in retail auto parts for the last 10 years). People come in and complain about an issue with their car, you go outside to check it and the instrument cluster looks like a Christmas tree... Wonder how long all these have been on... Only 11 codes in the computer...
END OF RANT
Vince
It had a turbocharged V8 with Turbo-Rocket Fluid injection! Basically water/meth with a corrosion inhibitor. There was a gauge to let you know when to refill it, and it had a system that would disable the turbo if you ran out.
Unfortunately, due to the complexities of the protection system, and it's failure to work reliably, some of them died early deaths. Most of them were taken in for "LACK OF POWER" complaints, and it was because they ran out of the Turbo-Rocket Fluid. It was SO BAD that GM actually offered to replace the TURBO setup with a conventional intake/carb and normal exhaust manifolds. The worst part is most of the complaints were due to operator error...
Reminds me of a service bulletin I read once: This issue is a DESIGN FEATURE, customer education is required. Recommend informing customer that vehicle is working as intended. A/C compressor disengages at high throttle angles to increase acceleration, making it easier to merge onto the freeway.
SO, how is all of this relevant? Consumers responsibilty is normally avoided at all costs by most companies, since in most cases where extra care (another thing to check/fill) would be needed usually result in it not being done, and the resulting failure. The FD had many issues due to the design, misinformed/oblivious owners, and the genius techs at dealers.
Has any of those things really changed in 20 years? Electronic control systems have improved quite a bit. The modern diesels with DEF will go into limp/low power mode if you run out. Some will barely due 35MPH until you refill it.
But the consumers seem to have gotten dumber over the last few years (I've worked in retail auto parts for the last 10 years). People come in and complain about an issue with their car, you go outside to check it and the instrument cluster looks like a Christmas tree... Wonder how long all these have been on... Only 11 codes in the computer...
END OF RANT
Vince
01-23-14, 10:59 AM
#1239
Drive to Live
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: texas
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mazda RX-7 to return in 2016
saw this the other day. i call absolute bullshit on it. we pretty much already know mazda is done with the platform for the foreseeable future lol
saw this the other day. i call absolute bullshit on it. we pretty much already know mazda is done with the platform for the foreseeable future lol
01-23-14, 11:21 AM
#1240
Senior Member
It could very well be that Honda pulled a Ferrari by fudging weight numbers. When Senna drove a prototype of the car in the late 80s he remarked that the chassis stiffness was lousy; they subsequently beefed it up considerably,probably by significantly thickening the AL everywhere(?). By how much, we'll never know; the same way we won't ever know about your hypothesis of steel-vs-aluminum weight savings, and can only go by their claims.
Honda was very conservative with their frame design, it being a first for a production car, so its doubtful they saved much if any weight at all.
FWIW, I did design/analysis/test work on the forward-swept wing structure to the predecessor to the HondaJet for my masters thesis. This was an all carbon-fiber business jet. The design was so conservative that it weighed as much, maybe a bit *more* than a similar-sized conventional rivited aluminum construction.
01-23-14, 11:30 AM
#1241
the new 7 just needs to drop the rotary altogether. just make a small light agile car with a turbo 4 cyl. make about 300-320ish bhp, sell it for around $40k and be done with it. a turbo 4 will be lighter, simpler, more reliable, more fuel efficient, cheaper, more powerful, and torquier than a rotary. in fact, their skyactiv line of engines is a great platform to build a higher performance engine from. mazda underpowers them in todays cars for the sake of fuel economy, but trade some economy for performance, add forced induction, and the sky's the limit. mazda keeps throwing r&d money to overcome the limitations of the rotary but to what end? they will never sell enough rotaries to recoup the cost.
mazda has to look at the car as basically a front engined cheaper cayman. the target buyer would be the typical buyer of a boxster/cayman or lotus, but who doesn't want to pay the exclusivity premium. moderate power but super light, nimble, tossable, and will outhandle anything on the road. this has to be it's niche; that's the only way it's going to be a viable product. they will literally have no competition, as no one makes a car like this at this price point anymore. mazda doesn't need to worry about the hp wars. the minute they start trying to benchmark aspects of the vette, m3, z, etc, is when they will get lost in the shuffle and die. who cares if those cars overpower the 7, that's not the raison d'être of the 7 anyway.
mazda has to look at the car as basically a front engined cheaper cayman. the target buyer would be the typical buyer of a boxster/cayman or lotus, but who doesn't want to pay the exclusivity premium. moderate power but super light, nimble, tossable, and will outhandle anything on the road. this has to be it's niche; that's the only way it's going to be a viable product. they will literally have no competition, as no one makes a car like this at this price point anymore. mazda doesn't need to worry about the hp wars. the minute they start trying to benchmark aspects of the vette, m3, z, etc, is when they will get lost in the shuffle and die. who cares if those cars overpower the 7, that's not the raison d'être of the 7 anyway.
It sounds more like the only way we will see another car is if it SUBSTANTIALLY shares a platform with the MX-5 (to keep costs down). Not a stretched version but basically the same chassis (albeit with a fixed hard top), with perhaps different bolt on body parts for aesthetic differences. Which in my mind would be a good thing. From what i'm seeing the next MX-5 will have a longer wheel base anyway but be lighter than the current car...
Keep the Miata in it's market niche. The RX-7 sharing a platform but with perhaps a naturally aspirated 1.8L direct injected 3-rotor so it's short enough to fit in the chassis well. Keep it a simple sports car but make it in the mid 30k price range, so it's a serious sports car, yet competes well with the cayman, the nissan Z, out runs the toybaru etc...
This brings the rx-7 back to it's roots but keeps it performance wise where the FD left off (if you think P:W rather than just WHP)...
I think a direct injected 3-rotor could substantially address the torque issue and even with some electronic and tuning trickery actually improve fuel consumption (though a rotary powerd car is never going to be a net plus for mazda in the CARB department)
01-23-14, 11:31 AM
#1242
Senior Member
Very high-strength aluminum alloys like 7075-T6 and 2024-T6 have ultimate stresses in the 75ksi range.
Steel is 2.7x heavier than aluminum, and high-strength steel alloys can have ultimate stresses in the 200ksi range, about 2.7x as strong.
But in automotive design, you're more likely talking about 6061-T6 (extruded and sheet) or A356-T6 (casting) alloys, which are in the 35-40ksi ultimate range.
And for steel you'd be more likely to use HSLC (high strength low carbon) alloys which are in the 85-105ksi range. Again, about 2.7x as strong.
Big difference is that you can weld the HSLC steel without losing strength properties. For the aluminum, you will lose some strength in the heat-affected zones near welds, unless you heat-treat again after welding, which adds cost and can result in warping.
Also, with aluminum you have high-cycle fatigue issues. Even at low stress levels, if you load/unload it enough, cracks will develop. With steel, there is a "fatigue limit" stress, below which you can cycle stress indefinitely with no damage.
You *can* realize weight-savings with aluminum in automotive structures, but it's not nearly as much as most think, due to the above considerations.
Last edited by ZDan; 01-23-14 at 11:43 AM.
01-23-14, 11:39 AM
#1243
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
My car doesn't push. After installing 11kg/11kg Ohlins DFV, I wound up disconnecting the rear bar for balance after a few sessions, I didn't do that because of "push"!
Weight distribution isn't hugely different from stock, 50/50 vs 49/51. Would be very interesting to measure c.g. height, but easier said than done... I kind of doubt that the LS engine's c.g. is much if any higher than the all-in stock 13BTT. I don't think it's enough to cause major changes in handling balance.
More like 50 lb. My swap is a heavier one, in addition to power steering and functioning AC, it has ~40 lb. of raceshop roll bar, ~20 lb. heavier-than-stock brakes/wheels/tires, ~20 lb. accusump installation (being very conservative here). This is offset somewhat by removal of the spare tire, figure that weighs ~25 lb.?
My car weighed in at 2949 lb. with 3/4-tank of fuel in October. Should be ~2855 lb. empty, 2980 lb. full tank.
Correcting for the above changes, including removal of the spare (-40-20-20+25 = -55 lb.), I get 2800 empty, 2926 with a full tank.
Bob H. (he was an instructor of yours years ago at VIR!) weighed the totally stock car at 2780 with 1/8-tank before he started the swap. That should be 2764 lb. empty, 2890 full tank.
Delta, like for like, ~36 lb. Obviously there's some error in there, but I doubt that it's 64 lb. worth!
From the swaps I've followed that were most comparable in equipment before/after, it's ~50 lb. delta vs. stock, not 100. That said, I do fully appreciate that a modded rotary can have big weight reductions from the front of the car, where with the LS you are stuck with it.
Weight distribution isn't hugely different from stock, 50/50 vs 49/51. Would be very interesting to measure c.g. height, but easier said than done... I kind of doubt that the LS engine's c.g. is much if any higher than the all-in stock 13BTT. I don't think it's enough to cause major changes in handling balance.
More like 50 lb. My swap is a heavier one, in addition to power steering and functioning AC, it has ~40 lb. of raceshop roll bar, ~20 lb. heavier-than-stock brakes/wheels/tires, ~20 lb. accusump installation (being very conservative here). This is offset somewhat by removal of the spare tire, figure that weighs ~25 lb.?
My car weighed in at 2949 lb. with 3/4-tank of fuel in October. Should be ~2855 lb. empty, 2980 lb. full tank.
Correcting for the above changes, including removal of the spare (-40-20-20+25 = -55 lb.), I get 2800 empty, 2926 with a full tank.
Bob H. (he was an instructor of yours years ago at VIR!) weighed the totally stock car at 2780 with 1/8-tank before he started the swap. That should be 2764 lb. empty, 2890 full tank.
Delta, like for like, ~36 lb. Obviously there's some error in there, but I doubt that it's 64 lb. worth!
From the swaps I've followed that were most comparable in equipment before/after, it's ~50 lb. delta vs. stock, not 100. That said, I do fully appreciate that a modded rotary can have big weight reductions from the front of the car, where with the LS you are stuck with it.
I thought the LS block with trans was like 575 and I don't think the 13b is over 400 so I find it hard to believe the smic and pipes are so heavy but maybe I'm forgetting some stuff but it's splitting hairs anyway, LSX FTW it's truly a great engine and us rotary guys are just jealous
PS understood your car doesn't push but turn in is compromised or it would have better turn in with a rotary engine in it. You know it's not when you hit the brake but when you release it thing and the FD is simply brilliant at turn in
This is really true—ESPECIALLY with lower end or utilitarian type vehicles. People who buy Oldsmobile sedans expect it to be like an Oldsmobile sedan. It's hard enough to get people to check/change oil.
This becomes a lot LESS the case with higher end and specialty vehicles. Those buyers are enthusiasts and afficionados, who will learn about their cars, put up with (and in some cases, actually like) their idiosyncracys.
That's why I don't think the "cheap/simple" rotary model is the right way to go. It's practically an oxymoron. To some extent, even the FD suffered this way—it was a big leap from the FC, and this wasn't marketed or sold well, and so a lot of people bought it because it was pretty and expected to treat it like an Eclipse, not an exotic (which it is).
Build a car that, by design, not everyone wants, but some people LOVE, and make sure you market/sell it that way. That's the only way the rotary makes sense, and actually becomes desireable.
This becomes a lot LESS the case with higher end and specialty vehicles. Those buyers are enthusiasts and afficionados, who will learn about their cars, put up with (and in some cases, actually like) their idiosyncracys.
That's why I don't think the "cheap/simple" rotary model is the right way to go. It's practically an oxymoron. To some extent, even the FD suffered this way—it was a big leap from the FC, and this wasn't marketed or sold well, and so a lot of people bought it because it was pretty and expected to treat it like an Eclipse, not an exotic (which it is).
Build a car that, by design, not everyone wants, but some people LOVE, and make sure you market/sell it that way. That's the only way the rotary makes sense, and actually becomes desireable.
We all know Mazda is hanging on by a thin thread and risk is not something they can afford but IMO it's something they can't afford not to do because without competing you are already defeated.
Can't make the mx5 light enough, can't this and can't that................CAN'T STAY IN BUSINESS if they keep up this defeatist BS.
01-23-14, 02:12 PM
#1244
Full Member
mainly because they have used the same castings and dies for nearly half a century.
fill the castings with aluminum and modify them further, make something new, not a revision of the 13B which was introduced in 1973. most of the issues are with the metals they have and continue to use, aluminum is less forgiving but can be the most rewarding if used properly. sandwich a ceramic coated plate between the rotor housing and the end plates.. lightweight, blah blah, ceramic apex seals in n/a engines, blah blah, bulletproof 10k RPM engine, blah blah.
fill the castings with aluminum and modify them further, make something new, not a revision of the 13B which was introduced in 1973. most of the issues are with the metals they have and continue to use, aluminum is less forgiving but can be the most rewarding if used properly. sandwich a ceramic coated plate between the rotor housing and the end plates.. lightweight, blah blah, ceramic apex seals in n/a engines, blah blah, bulletproof 10k RPM engine, blah blah.
Mazda has been using basically the same dimensions for the main engine parts since the 10A engine (with the exception of the rotor width and the actual rotor shape). They only worked on the intake/exhaust flows and added new tech AROUND the engine core as it became available.
How many piston engines of the late 60s would be competitive today (in power AND fuel economy AND emissions AND reliability) if all you could do to the block was change the pistons (just the pistons, nothing else) and then you could only add stuff around the core?
I expect any new rotary to make major improvements in all areas precisely for the fact that it would be the first new rotary design since 1967, the first to truly benefit from modern combustion chamber simulation softwares and the first to use direct injection.
Andrea.
01-23-14, 02:14 PM
#1245
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: l.a.
Posts: 1,640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a 3 rotor is the absolute worst engine mazda can put in the new rx7. a 3rotor is longer than an i-4 or v8. mazda's not going to say oh let's just add extra weight over the nose of the car to upset the balance and dynamics that we've spent decades refining over generations of rx7s. fuel efficiency isn't bad enough with the rotary, let's add another rotor to eat 50% more fuel. underhood temps not hot enough, let's add another rotor's worth of exhaust gases to really roast things under here. adding another rotor does not address the inherent deficiencies in the wankel, it's just a band-aid. adding 50% more displacement to get the power we need is the exact antithesis of the rotary's essence.
if the rotary had distinct advantages over piston engines, then i'd be all for it, but in this day and age it doesn't. why introduce all the deficiencies of the rotary just for the sake of having a rotary in the new 7? at the end of the day customers aren't going to care if it's a rotary, piston, or gerbils under the hood. all they care about are that it has decent power, good low/mid range torque, and good fuel economy.
if the rotary had distinct advantages over piston engines, then i'd be all for it, but in this day and age it doesn't. why introduce all the deficiencies of the rotary just for the sake of having a rotary in the new 7? at the end of the day customers aren't going to care if it's a rotary, piston, or gerbils under the hood. all they care about are that it has decent power, good low/mid range torque, and good fuel economy.
01-23-14, 02:21 PM
#1246
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: l.a.
Posts: 1,640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is really true—ESPECIALLY with lower end or utilitarian type vehicles. People who buy Oldsmobile sedans expect it to be like an Oldsmobile sedan. It's hard enough to get people to check/change oil.
This becomes a lot LESS the case with higher end and specialty vehicles. Those buyers are enthusiasts and afficionados, who will learn about their cars, put up with (and in some cases, actually like) their idiosyncracys.
That's why I don't think the "cheap/simple" rotary model is the right way to go. It's practically an oxymoron. To some extent, even the FD suffered this way—it was a big leap from the FC, and this wasn't marketed or sold well, and so a lot of people bought it because it was pretty and expected to treat it like an Eclipse, not an exotic (which it is).
Build a car that, by design, not everyone wants, but some people LOVE, and make sure you market/sell it that way. That's the only way the rotary makes sense, and actually becomes desireable.
This becomes a lot LESS the case with higher end and specialty vehicles. Those buyers are enthusiasts and afficionados, who will learn about their cars, put up with (and in some cases, actually like) their idiosyncracys.
That's why I don't think the "cheap/simple" rotary model is the right way to go. It's practically an oxymoron. To some extent, even the FD suffered this way—it was a big leap from the FC, and this wasn't marketed or sold well, and so a lot of people bought it because it was pretty and expected to treat it like an Eclipse, not an exotic (which it is).
Build a car that, by design, not everyone wants, but some people LOVE, and make sure you market/sell it that way. That's the only way the rotary makes sense, and actually becomes desireable.
01-23-14, 02:48 PM
#1247
By going back to a 12a displacement employing their long stroke ideas, and refining the center plates and gears (which has been done by aftermarket companies with 12a parts), you end up with a 3-rotor that is i think not even 2" longer than the 13B? But with a better torque curve than any non-turbo 2-rotor.
Plus all aluminum construction and you actually end up lighter than a traditional 13B.
Rotaries have distinct advantages over piston engines. Unfortunately all of them are only really evident on the track...making it and keeping it a niche engine...it's when they have tried to mainstream it that they run into trouble.
It's still more power per total engine block volume and weight and lower CoG than any inline 4 or V8 (assuming the same materials of construction). The only car/engine that competes in that department is the toybaru...but the boxer is so wide it limited them to mac struts in the front.
The rotary needs to be a rare option for enthusiasts in a car that already is a proven excellent track car (again to reduce costs). The mazda miata. This is the only way in modern car markets to make it viable..
It needs to be a clean sheet design. The cosmo20b was based off the 13b which is why it got so heavy and long, even though it's still plenty small for the power it can make...
Plus all aluminum construction and you actually end up lighter than a traditional 13B.
Rotaries have distinct advantages over piston engines. Unfortunately all of them are only really evident on the track...making it and keeping it a niche engine...it's when they have tried to mainstream it that they run into trouble.
It's still more power per total engine block volume and weight and lower CoG than any inline 4 or V8 (assuming the same materials of construction). The only car/engine that competes in that department is the toybaru...but the boxer is so wide it limited them to mac struts in the front.
The rotary needs to be a rare option for enthusiasts in a car that already is a proven excellent track car (again to reduce costs). The mazda miata. This is the only way in modern car markets to make it viable..
It needs to be a clean sheet design. The cosmo20b was based off the 13b which is why it got so heavy and long, even though it's still plenty small for the power it can make...
01-23-14, 04:32 PM
#1248
Who said anything about marketing the deficiencies?
You market what it is, and thus indirectly what it isn't. When you buy a nice suit, you're not upset because you read the label and find out you can't throw it in the washer/dryer before you head out to a tailgate party.
People buy high performance, high end, and exotic cars because they do or offer SOMETHING SPECIAL.That's why I doubt anyone on the GTR forum is bitching about the gas mileage or how small the back seat is. That's why Lotus buyers aren't upset that they can't take haul their son's **** back to college for him in it, or the fact that there's probably a half-inch gap between the side window and weather seal. It's actually pretty astounding how **** retentive, pampering, free-spending, and ridiculous owners of those types of cars are. People understand and accept what they are buying.
So if you're going to make a rotary car, make it something special that makes someone want it badly enough to love and put up with it. That doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be $100k. But it has to be SPECIAL for the money, and expensive enough to weed out the people who value practicality too much.
Last edited by ptrhahn; 01-23-14 at 04:35 PM.
01-23-14, 04:36 PM
#1249
This is really true—ESPECIALLY with lower end or utilitarian type vehicles. People who buy Oldsmobile sedans expect it to be like an Oldsmobile sedan. It's hard enough to get people to check/change oil.
This becomes a lot LESS the case with higher end and specialty vehicles. Those buyers are enthusiasts and afficionados, who will learn about their cars, put up with (and in some cases, actually like) their idiosyncracys.
That's why I don't think the "cheap/simple" rotary model is the right way to go. It's practically an oxymoron. To some extent, even the FD suffered this way—it was a big leap from the FC, and this wasn't marketed or sold well, and so a lot of people bought it because it was pretty and expected to treat it like an Eclipse, not an exotic (which it is).
Build a car that, by design, not everyone wants, but some people LOVE, and make sure you market/sell it that way. That's the only way the rotary makes sense, and actually becomes desireable.
This becomes a lot LESS the case with higher end and specialty vehicles. Those buyers are enthusiasts and afficionados, who will learn about their cars, put up with (and in some cases, actually like) their idiosyncracys.
That's why I don't think the "cheap/simple" rotary model is the right way to go. It's practically an oxymoron. To some extent, even the FD suffered this way—it was a big leap from the FC, and this wasn't marketed or sold well, and so a lot of people bought it because it was pretty and expected to treat it like an Eclipse, not an exotic (which it is).
Build a car that, by design, not everyone wants, but some people LOVE, and make sure you market/sell it that way. That's the only way the rotary makes sense, and actually becomes desireable.
I feel the same way however, to build such a low volume (little to no profit type vehicle) Mazda will need to make a ton of money on its other products. So far so good.