Think about that for a second.

The FD went into production into 1992, and the JC chassis Cosmo (with a 13B-REW engine variant that is also known as the 13B-RE) went into production in 1990. After the initial REW design (for the Cosmo), probably in like 1987, it sat in an engine dyno lab for easily a year or more.

The REW had never been in any vehicle at this point in its development, so of course fitment, accessibility, and heatsoak were not something that could be easily measured or addressed. The guys in charge of the engine were not the guys in charge of the vehicle.

The REW didn't have a radiator or an oil cooler for literally years. It sat in a test cell, where it was cooled by the lab equipment, and then it went into a mule (probably an FC or older Cosmo). All the production cooling stuff came later, and first it was in a big luxury car before being shoehorned into a slim FD chassis.

So think about that the next time you're banging your hand into something under there, or trying to get that damn turbo oil drain line to fit, or wondering why the cooling system is weird and runs hot. The guys who put that engine together in the early days, the guys making the biggest decisions about the REW's architecture, didn't know jack about the FD and could only guess as to what future issues might arise. Before that engine went into a vehicle, it had to be very close to meeting its design targets on an engine dyno. At the time this necessitated educated guesses, compromises, and complicated systems.

 

i suppose i see it in the reverse, great lengths were taken to fit everything there is into the bay and onto the engine. the rat's nest isn't a pos afterthought, it is virtually a masterpiece that fits with literally no room to spare and works everything as it should.

why would mazda try to make it work for 150k or even 200k miles? it is a sports car, not meant to be a grocery getter with longevity in mind.

the RX8 is even more problematic, lasts less than the average REW lifespan and has LESS power.

 

Can you prove any of this ? I'm really interested.

Not trying to start something here.

 

when u think about it. Mazda likes to squeeze everything into a really tight space, it's all about their "We have good handling cars" philosophy

that's true. I think their original target was around 100K (at least That's RX-8's designed lifespan, 100K miles), but they "Forgot" most end users are simply idiots, they should have left a bit more room for end user's "**** ups", and the result of course, it's always always manufacture's fault, never the owners of the car, even when they just up their boost by 2000% with no upgrades to any other stuff.

that I have to disagreed. engine replacements were actually rare. and most last over 150K miles

early firmware, OMP nozzle direction, and couple other stuff did messed up. but it was "mostly" ok after a few firmware revision. then the S2 made Rx-8 the perfect RX-8

and it's simply not fair to compare MSP to REW, REW was designed with "power" in mind while MSP was designed with "meet emissions target"

 

Concur. The packaging and attention to detail everywhere under the hood is just incredible. SO MANY bespoke parts not shared with any other car. We'll never see anything like it again, unless the Japanese economy goes wild like it did in the 80s/90s.

 

i'm sure plenty of engines were diagnosed as faulty which were simple user error and misdiagnosed, even by factory technicians. a flooded MSP will show failing compression until deflooded, my 8 is proof of that and was sold to me with a 'faulty engine'.

it is true the MSP is at a disadvantage due to stricter emissions requirements which is also why it didn't have a forced induction option with the side port exhaust.

the S2 and beyond were much better engines but i have seen firsthand numerous early engine failures below and just above 100k, i have 3 in the shop getting new engines right now. 1 waith faulty coolant seals, one which ejected every apex seal while on the track and 1 with failing compression on the rear rotor. their failure modes are very erratic.

i just can find irony in the fact that people complain about the best series of rotary engine car to date, which was the FD3S/REW. the engine block is the sturdiest for high horsepower applications with no internal modifications, a perfect compression ratio for that power, compact design which works but was never designed to be easily accessible for the DIY mechanic and the best styling.

i complain more about the tinny chassis and cheap plastic interior pieces than anything else on the car.. and removing a MSP from an 8 actually takes LONGER than it does for the REW from an FD.

 

im not sure how long the fd was on the drawing board, but it japan the car was released in 91 so i would think they had an idea of what they wanted to put in the engine bay in the early stages....

 

16x is going through the same growing pains right now.

 

Sorry your not even close on this. The Rx8's problems were more so in hotter climates (especially the autos). S1 Rx8 was horrible on reliability. They flooded all the time and had numerious engine replacements. I was a parts manager at Mazda and witnessed this 1st hand. Some of our customers where on their 3rd engines. There's a reason Mazda extended the powertrain warranty to 100k. Also the S2 did improve but the R3 versions are starting to loose engines.

 

i was leafing through the FD yamaguchi book and was surprised to see that they had the FD exterior and interior finalized in late 1988. i find this kind of amazing, as the car still looks fresh now.

they aren't as specific with the power train, but it does mention the twin turbo proposal was early 1988, and it sees first use in the 1990 cosmo.

 

You can see they were still developing the FD's REW engine while it was in the MP (Mechanical Prototype) FDs that had FC outer bodies except the hood and front nose.

They were more like the Cosmo RE in that they had a different "Y" pipe without the recirculation valve in it to spike the compressor speed up during turbo transition. They also had a MAF sensor instead of MAP only.

I would say they developed the FD engine in the chassis.

By Sept '90 they had S1 pre-production full on FDs lapping Willow Springs and driving around California's streets.

 

i was actually looking for pics of the FC with FD engines, because i'm building the same car, and i wanted to see how they worked out the cooling system..

there are a few pics, there is one you can see they were using maybe the cosmo ECU/intake elbow, but with tons of sensors on it.

 

I agree...and NOW we know a lot about how we have to treat our RX...but....

We have to say that in 1993 and before , especially in Europe change oil every 3000-5000 KM it's not a common thing, even in sports car.

And Mazda (in Europe) never say a thing or suggest to reduce maintennace interval...

Sports car enthusiast probably, if Mazda say a thing gladly accept to spend more on ordinary maintenance, especially for awensome RX-7...but this silence from Mazda lead to the common misconception of Rotary engince can't work for more then 40000 KM...


Now we can talk about stupid user...here in italy is full of people that wait for oil "led" turning on before refill or change oil....nad this is only misinformation...


But the origin of fear for rotary is way older and partially a fault of Mazda not-Communication (at least here in Europe)

 

If true that's a huge mistake. They should have waited and done more R&D and released it at a later date.

 

then who would the supras and fairlady run against?

 

i kind of agree that the FD would have gone better if we had gotten the 95+ spec to start with. the fuel system recall was really invasive, and caused a lot of problems.

since the JC cosmo has hose clamps on all the little boost hoses on the solenoids, you have to wonder if the accounting department thought they could get away with out the little clamps, and some of those other little things.

 

hopefully mazda is designing the 16X with the FD chassis in mind as I'm sure that is where a good number of them will wind up...haha

 

Ha! The magic of the new RX-7 will be the chassis just like all the rotary vehicles post 1st gen RX-7.

Then again, without Mazda's passion for the rotary they would probably lose their inspiration to design an amazing chassis to put it in and we would end up with another Miata. Great car, but not inspiring.

 

I think we will see more transmissions / diffs in FD's then 16x's for the first few years as the REW will still make more power then the 16x until its turbocharged IF it ever is .

 

my friend picked up a miata earlier this summer, and we had a great time driving it around that afternoon, but i haven't missed it, and i don't think he's driven it since.

another friend just retired his Rx7 race car, and he's going to run a miata next year, he's thinking its going to be simpler and cheaper, and boy is he wrong!