theorie

iTrader: (31)

I met Mazda's Director of R&D at Daytona last weekend. He saw my Sevenstock shirt and came up to me to ask if I had an RX-7. I chatted wit him for about 15 minutes. The last thing I asked him was "So tell me about the new RX-7" and he said "Ahhh, no comment." and laughed...

RCCAZ 1

iTrader: (10)

Hey Gordon,

How did you learn this? Any idea what he's asking? The car is incredible!

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

I only mention the carbs because thats what I can afford and thats what I use. I never said mazda should go back to carbs. I'm only against direct injection because its not a standard feature on other mazda cars. I'm pretty sure It works with diesels because the fuel is so much different. Diesel is oily and that helps the pumps last longer and preform better. Start prototyping a system like that on a rotary with the amount of alcohol in are gas and I'm sure there will be problems. The alcohol will be harder on the pumps and fuel pressure on a direct injection system must be very high. Thats why I want mazda to build a simple car using current technologies. If mazda perfects the direct injection and its good enough to be used on all there cars then its good enough for the new rx7. Don't put it on the rx7 and then try to prefect it.

The plus side to direct injection, cleaner emissions not more power. If you inject the fuel into the combustion chamber after the exhaust port is completely closed you will greatly reduce the amount of unburned fuel in the exhaust. The overlap is no longer a emissions problem. As for more power from direct injection maybe a few percent but don't expect much. I have many ideas that may greatly improve the rotary but lack the budget to test them all.


My car was never intended to get good mpg but it did. And going from a 16sec 1/4 mile to a 13 sec1/4 mile is an improvement. My latest build is a fc blow through. This is the first blow through I've done by myself but I do have a lot of experience with it including a 10 sec rx3. I'm running the stock fuel pump, holley 450 carb, 3.9 rear msd fully programmable ignition leading only. Goals are 20+mph and 400+hp pump gas. My carbs are turn key and drive except for the short warm up in the winter. I had to sell my last build a few years ago. This one will be even better. Once it gets warmer I'll start doing more with the car and posting more pics.

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

[QUOTE=t-von;11362190]Now the one thing I'm really curious about is Mazda's new converter that they engineered to make the rotary's return possible. With that said, I wonder if the tech is good enough that it could be used to clean the old PP exhaust? I'm not that big of a fan of the Renesis after seeing it's short comings.

I never knew the new rx8 had these problems but it makes sense. I did believe the side exhaust port was the reason they never made the turbo. I wonder how much cleaner the side port really is?
The six port probably helped clean emissions. I always wondered if a smaller intake port in conjunction with a valved semi peripheral port would yield more hp and cleaner emissions. I'm not sure if just closing the extra port would return a smooth idle.

Also the only reason for omp/premix is the apex seal. Pistons have an oil ring to lubricate the compression ring but rx7 just mixes oil with gas. Oil is already being pumped on the rotor. I'm sure a system could be made to lubricate the apex seal from underneath, this could solve the carbon build up. These are just some random thoughts but I'm sure somewhere out there there's a better way.

madbouncy

A lot of your hydrocarbons and soot come from fuel making it's way to the walls/pistons. Which if a piston engine has a problem with it while having a much nicer combustion chamber shape than you can imagine that for a rotary it'll be that much harder. It also gets complicated in that if you do the normal multiple injection strategy, you'll need multiple injectors since it'll have to fire at different parts of the intake stroke which all occur at different physical locations. That probably won't really add to the difficultly level but very much will add to the cost, direct injection is by no means cheap.

Also, I believe the top companies are all capable of simulating rotary engines, AVL for sure can do it and that's a lot more important than most physical testing nowadays. Especially with OEMs taking the approach of dropping a few dollars for simulation companies to develop the core of the engine and then just building a bunch of coolant and oil passages around it.

Littlelucecoupe

Dear Mr. Yamamoto:
RX-7 = 2 seats not 4

RogueFab

iTrader: (2)

As long as 2 of them are mostly useless I'm still in!

Great news indeed!

Shiryuoss

+1

neit_jnf

iTrader: (17)

just saw a rumor about the new supra with a 400 hp hybrid 4-cyl turbo on a modified GT86 chassis due in 2017 too! that't going to be an exiting year if all these car dreams come true!

adamrs80

iTrader: (7)

A real dream come true would be a car without any sort of hybrid technology. I'm all for efficiency and I'm sure the instant torque and power of electrics is great but I can do without it. For cost and simplicity most cars could do without it as well. It is not necessary as Mazda has shown with the Skyactive 4 cyl. The diesel is going to be very impressive

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

I started reading about mazdas skiactive system. Mazda is producing the new sky active direct injection on the new Mazda 3 so far with great results. If this becomes standerd equipment on all of mazdas cars not just the rx7 then the cost can stay low and ill be happy. I haven't found anything on how high the fuel pressure is but I'm sure its high. In theory if the high pressure pump starts to lose pressure the engine will lose power but not be harmed by the lean condition, it's a characteristic of the direct injection.

After doing some research I'm starting to get excited about it. It will take time for tuners to catch up so mazda should really up the power on the rotary to make it more appealing. It would be great if Mazda produced a true giant slayer that was competitive in all aspects of racing.

wstrohm

But the Miata will hold together, will keep you dry in the rain, and will not kill you in a minor accident. Also the NA Miata had (along with the FD) one of the best manual gearboxes ever. "The new gearbox shifts incredibly precisely, with positive, short throws, but no loss of precision." (It did need a turbo, but mine had one.)

Personally, I'd settle for a reboot of the Jaguar XK-120.

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

You know, the Rx8 was such an ill-thought-out repeat of the 1958 Ford Thunderbird.

Gordon[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of what you say but I do think the rx8 is a good car, not perfect but good. I love the way they look and there is a lot of room for such a sporty car. I love the idea of taking the kid to school and then going to a parking lot and slide around until the cops ask me to leave. Mazda made there biggest mistake by not adding a turbo. The car also seems to have gearing for the track killing mpg while at the same time being a four seater which is bigger and weighs slightly more to accommodate family's. Yes the car is unfocused!

There should of been more options. I hope they decide to keep the rx8 and bring back the rx7. The rx8 doesn't have to be rotary powered but the rx7 does. The rx8 should have the rotary optional and be a good track car but the rx7 has to best everything. I love the rx7 because it does not only so many things well but does them better than any other car. I can take my fc out drag racing, road racing, drifting and even grocery shopping. I can build it with a focus on any type of racing and not just be competitive but a winner. I see a lot of potential for the rx7 to be a monster slayer. Its a motor with 3 moving parts, no real points of failure if built properly. It should be the most reliable engine on earth right from mazda. As for the poor mpg, its only poor for a 200hp motor not a 400+hp engine. If they keep the small engine in a small light weight car it could easily dominate all competition and not cost an astronomical amount of money. The beauty of such a small power plant is the low center of gravity and high hp in a small chassis. No rx7 should weigh more than 2700lbs

As for the direct injection. If it becomes a common tech on other cars then the rx7 wont be considered Hi Tech if it has it, and it shouldn't raise the cost to where only the rich can afford it.
After reading about how ridiculously lean it can run I can see its potential. There is potential for high boost and better mpg. Its all going to be up to mazda to build it right. If they loose focus the car could still be crap. I hope they raise the bar for high powered reliable sports cars.

I would still love to talk to mazda engineer and get some info, A dream that will probably never come true. Any mechanical engineers on this site?

RXSpeed16

iTrader: (41)

Up to gmonson's post: ^Lots of good stuff in there and I agree with most points. However, working in the auto manufacturing industry has given me extra insight into how tightly these cars are cost-controlled.
Everything is scrutinized, down to how to save fractions of a penny per vehicle. And that is the end-game for auto makers...making money. Mazda has tried the "we'll focus on making fun cars" strategy and that is why they are in their current financial state. Not enough people give a **** about driving enjoyment any more.

The Elan is a great example of a fun, older car, but there are clearly areas of improvement including electronics, maintenance, crashworthiness. Many things that make the car bloated are required by government regulation. Back in the day, people accepted these drawbacks because they enjoyed those types of cars. Nowadays, people sue the carmaker because it's the manufacturer's fault they don't know the difference between a gas and brake pedal.

Modern cars are stupid fast and capable now, unfortunately most of the population don't realize that and keep demanding more. Not to mention the one-upsmanship going on between models (see Camaro/mustang). You have to be cheaper and faster than the other guy.

The FT-86 is an attempt at what you describe in terms of a "back to basics" approach, but the miata has been doing that for 20+ years. The sad truth of the matter is that these cars just don't appeal to enough people to make a business case for them. They end up being too expensive to sell a few cheap ones, so you have to add features to have enough mainstream appeal (temperature controlled cup holders, etc.). The majority of costs do not come from the materials used in producing a car. They come from the millions of man-hours to design and produce a vehicle according to what customers expect from a modern, new car. And luxury features have way more of a mark-up than .02 more G's of cornering force. So major manufacturers are going to do what makes them money. Maybe the simpler sports car will become more like the kit-car industry of today.

Yes, but I don't work at Mazda's Rotary Engine R&D department. I'm happy to tell you what I think. However, it's like asking your dermatologist about how they would go about brain surgery. Very different specialties.

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

Personally, I'd settle for a reboot of the Jaguar XK-120. [/QUOTE]

They did, its called Morgan Aero I saw this on top gear and really liked it.

ghost1000

iTrader: (1)

The FT-86 is an attempt at what you describe in terms of a "back to basics" approach, but the miata has been doing that for 20+ years. The sad truth of the matter is that these cars just don't appeal to enough people to make a business case for them.

I think the FT-86 FRS/BRZ will be a success. The potential in that car is amazing. Its good right out of the box and I assume because its a Subaru boxer engine that there were tunning parts for this car before the car was even made. This is really the car I was hoping mazda would build back in 2004. You will see a lot of street legal turbo upgrades on this car and if they ever make it a turbo from the factory its game over. If Mazda builds a new rx7 It needs to be small and fast. The only way they can compete with this is with High hp from the factory and a strong drive train. The FRS can be built up to be as fast as anything on four wheels. Its light weight, lots of tunning parts, affordable. Its a winner. And looking at it reminds me so much of my FC3s. I'll probably buy one some day.

ZDan

??? Better suspension design, torsionally stiffer, and only ~200 lb. heavier despite 2+2 seating and the two additional doors vs. the FD. Not too shabby! I test drove a couple and would have bought one but for the abysmal fuel mileage. Although I really wanted a back seat and fixed roof, I got an S2000
The RX-8 certainly didn't look or feel cheap at all to me, quite the contrary. And the handling is/was stellar.

It was never intended to be "the new RX-7", it is a different car. BUT, in my opinion the interior is nicer than the FD's. IMO, if anything it is the FD that feels "cheaper", despite the RX-8 being at a much lower relative price point.

IMO, the RX-8 failed because 95mph in the 1/4 and 20-22mpg *max* just didn't make a lot of sense for most people. I think it would have been a huge hit with an S2000-like powerplant, or the MS3's turbo 4.

Also, the rear glass styling is a bit questionable...

But anyway, strongly disagree that it was built to a "lower standard", if anything the standard was higher for everything (except power production), despite lower relative price.

DriftDreamzSS

iTrader: (4)

I'm with you here, if they do bring back the rx-7 I really really hope its not some cheap econobox.

ZDan

I was test-driving Boxsters at the same time, and honestly they seemed a bit chintzy to me. I was more impressed with the look and feel of the rx8 interior, and it felt at least as solid and well-built. My impression is that the 8 was built to a higher standard in every department except power. A shorter wheelbase, 2-seat version of the rx8, turbo'd to 300+ hp, no other changes (maybe some less controversial styling...) would have been a more than worthy FD successor, with no other changes.

wstrohm

It is cool, but it is pretty much "unobtanium."

fbse7en

Nothing could be FURTHER from the truth when speaking about the FD. You clearly NEED to read the book about the Rx-7 by Brian Long.

Sounds like you also need to read about the 7's racing successes, and don't forget the Rx-3's that absolutely stopped the "Godzilla" (Nissan Skyline) in its tracks, ending its reign of terror, lol.

dvo

iTrader: (22)

We'll see what happens

ZE Power MX6

iTrader: (157)

Mazdas been playing with DI since 2005, so I don't understand what you mean by new technology, fuel pressure is ~1600psi.

ZDan

Glad to be fascinating!

Context: it was 2005/2006, I was dailying a '95 240SX and looking to replace it with either an RX-8, Boxster, or S2000. The RX-8 was a HUGE step up from the S14 in terms of suspension, chassis rigidity, look/fit/feel of the interior. I freaking LOVED being in and driving that car. The 1st-gen non-S Boxsters I was looking it were definitely a big step up from 240SX, but in all honesty, the design of the interior and the look/fit/feel didn't impress me as much as the RX-8 or the S2000. Handling was great, but even there I wouldn't say *better* than the RX-8 or S2000. And it did not feel like the chassis was as solid as the fixed-roof RX-8 or the also-a-convertible S2000 either.

I was looking at and considering these cars with wide open eyes, and honestly, to me, the Boxster looked and felt lower-rent than the 8 or the S2k, and didn't feel like it offered any better handling and performance. Maybe I was expecting more from it.

I still don't get exactly why you think the RX-8 is built to a "lower standard". Disappointment that there wasn't a new RX-7 part of it? Obviously, it's not as high-performance a car as the superior power/weight FD, that's understood. But other than that, my impression was that it was a very well-put-together car with a great-looking/feeling interior.

For the record, I do have a '94 FD that I LOVE and daily when I'm in Atlanta (spend 1/3 time in New England for workie).

Fritz Flynn

iTrader: (263)

The BRZ will be a moderate success because it's a cool little car but it will never be what I'd consider a fast car even with a turbo and the looks are a little too contemporary; raised fenders, flat edge fenders, sharp lines, high trunk line etc..... That copy cat stuff doesn't stand the test of time so I don't see this car looking interesting in 10 years. In my book a used s2k makes a lot more sense because it's a more economical faster better looking car. If the BRZ had another 100 HP it would be a very popular car and that's what Mazda needs to make. A 300 plus HP 2600 or 2700 pound all motor car otherwise it will be a fail in my book.