"Rotary = failure, from both a physics and a marketing standpoint. End of story."

I would love to watch you discuss the physics part with Dave Lemon at Mazdatrix!!!!!!!!!

Marketing I wouldn't call a failure. Handicapped perhaps since Mazda is the only company that has any marketing interest in the Wankle. But then, the primary reason Wankle popularity didn't grow is because of they are comparatively more gas thirsty. So, if you want to call it a marketing failure, you should be be driving or racing a Toyota Prius.

If you want to compare year to year sales figures, you need to recite sales figures only against the higher priced Camero performance models. Further, you're comparing sales performance of a far smaller Mazda company vs GM. Thats like comparing sales of Post breakfast cerials to Trader Joe brand breakfast cerials. Better would be to show year to year percentage sales of Camaro's vs all other GM products to sales of RX7's compared to all other Mazda products. Acknowledged that the 3rd Gen simply priced itself out of the market despite it's NSX type performance numbers.

Very flawed comparison my friend. Do better.

 

Point well taken Hozz.

 

Be completely honest, you're a really white dude who drives a chevy?

 

Physics - The science of matter and energy and their interactions.

A practical Physics question for Jim Lab.

How many moving parts are in a Wankle?

How many moving parts in a typical Piston Engine, much less an LS1?



How many parts need to break to stop an engine from running. Answer = 1

 

Hozzman, you make no sense.

Jaime...how does hozzman's ***** taste? lol

 

Not a problem. I'll start by asking him what the BSFC of the rotary is and why.

Excuse #1. GM is the only company that had any marketing interest in the Camaro.

Excuse #2. So you admit that the rotary design is flawed?

Excuse #3. Do you honestly think that would help, or are you just grasping at anything you can think of?

Excuse #4. If the rotary design were superior, that wouldn't matter, would it? In essence, you just admitted that Mazda is a marketing and production failure.

Excuse #5. No, that's what you'd call irrelevant. Say it with me... ir·rel·e·vant.

I'll worry about it the minute you provide a more effective rebuttal based on fact rather than emotion and subjective opinion.

 

like rotary! hahah JK!!!

ey bris-ho,is your mouth sore yet?? hopefully jimlab didnt filla ya up too much!

 

Worse, he probably doesn't know the answer to his own question.

 

Jim, do you have any education in marketing or statistics? You are seriously showing your ignorance my friend.

I venture to guess the total production of Camaro's is probably comparable to the total production of Mazda cars. They simply have far different market share, so of course model by model numbers or going to be significantly different. The real comparison is how successful the RX7 was to Mazda as the Camaro was to GM.

Let me make it simpler for you as I'm gathering all this is over your head. Please compare sales of Porsche's, Ferrari's or the like to Camaro sales. Then tell me their lower sales figures are because they are engineering and/or marketing failures.

Edit: I just checked. Total car sales last year for Mazda was 281,261 compared to GM's 4,540,409. Total Mazda production is 6% of GM. So, using your figures, if you inflated Mazda unit sales to the same level as GM, comparable RX7 sales for Mazda during the same periods you recited would be 13,535,866 units compared to the 5,143,788 you recited. RX7's were clearly more successful to Mazda than Camaro's were to GM.

Ferrari had record sales last year at 6,400 units. I guess that gives evidence of Ferrari's inferior design and appeal as well. I refer you back to Mr. Fuzzys observation about you. You once again proved the point.


Design failure? Besides my earlier moving parts comparison, how about comparing the power in relation to combustion area. Please do that! If you want to compare gas mileage, I again ask why aren't you racing in a Prius?

 

Yup.... but since youre hooked on production totals well over 20 million VW Bugs
But youre impressed by 5 million in 35 years
And yeah laugh at it if you must be my Bus when finished will be worth more than your car and it will only get more valuable as years go by~!!!!
Can you say that bout your K car?

 

Simple observation:

Each rotor in a rotory engine has a power stroke once for every one rotation of the centric shaft, whereas in a 4-stroke piston engine, each piston has a power stroke ever 2 revolutions of the crankshaft. So a rotory engine is effectively equivalent to a piston engine of twice the size when considering the volume displaced during the power stroke for every rotation of the output shaft. Thus the superior power per combustion area.

 

he doesnt know yet cant stop kissing his ***~~~~~ give him time

 

Considering the RX7 was 2.6 times more successful to Mazda than the Camaro was to GM, answer is pretty obviously the RX7.

Your comparison would only be valid if Mazda had the same production capacity as GM. Mazda apparently only has about 6% of GM's production capacity. That is especially impressive if you consider Mazda's "Z" management for production efficiency is equal to superior to GM's. But then, you consider that "ir·rel·e·vant".

 

Nice try.

No, that's the comparison you're interested in. My comparison was to illustrate how many more Camaros, as a platform, were sold worldwide than RX-7s, which is precisely what I meant to do, and nothing more. Keep your words out of my mouth, thanks.

The purpose was to disprove the theory that the rotary engine is still a gem waiting to be discovered by the masses, and the only thing holding it back is Mazda's small size, lack of R&D budget, marketing incompetence, or any other excuse you can think of. The rotary has been on the market for decades, as someone else pointed out, and relatively speaking, it's a flop. Even Mazda had trouble green-lighting the RX-8, and no one else is interested.

That's your "perfect" engine. Not the engine that people just haven't discovered yet. It's the engine that no one wants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Why bother? It's been done a thousand times already, and people like you are still ignorant about how your engine works or how little power it actually produces for the amount of air and fuel consumed. Now who's showing their ignorance?

 

You don't even know what BSFC is, do you.

 

Um, OK. Whatever makes you feel like you're special, I guess.

 

Brismo...how does JimLabs dick taste?

 

bsfc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption

 

No, I know exactly what BSFC is. Thus my reference of asking why you're not racing a Prius.

If your "purpose was to disprove the theory that the rotary engine is still a gem waiting to be discovered by the masses, and the only thing holding it back is Mazda's small size, lack of R&D budget, marketing incompetence, or any other excuse you can think of."

Then you failed miserably.

Your platform for argument is based on comparing production numbers of a company 17 times larger than Mazda. Amazingly illogical.

Following your logic, Porsche, Maserati, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bentley, etc. are marketing failures as well. The RX7 is a specialty car, just as a Chrysler Prowler was, just as a Honda NSX was. Camaro's outsold those cars as well.

Camaro's were simply designed for the Mass's, not for a market demand subset. Further, the MSRP for a 1993 Camaro was between $14,000 - $16,000. The MSRP of a 1993 RX7 was between $33,000 and $38,000. So the affordability and thus demand of the RX7 fell more to the smaller subset of higher educated/higher wage earners while (to borrow from an earlier poster) any Red Neck could afford to buy a Camaro.

Hell, the champion of your argument Toyota Prius is historically a marketing failure compared to a Ford F10. But which do you think has the better resale value today?

You, sir, have presented yourself as the poster child of Roberts signature:

"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience ..."

Post Script. Don't pick on Brismo7. He may have Oxymornized his 7, but he at least has balance in his perspective.

 

 

awww, your so sweet. Doesnt mean i agree with you(about the ls vs Rotary argument), but i still respect your opinion.

Oh and i consider it a transgendered Rx7

 

What's your fixation with the Prius?

Regardless, you're confusing fuel economy with BSFC. Almost any piston engine has a better BSFC than the rotary, and you can get better gas mileage even with a 505 horsepower LS7.

If you choose to think so, but then again, you've yet to respond to any of my valid points and instead insist on trying to change the comparison, the subject, and even the weather, for all I know.

No, my basis for comparison is the buying public, who chose to purchase Camaros instead of RX-7s in HUGE numbers. It has nothing to do with Mazda's manufacturing capabilities. If the sales were there, Mazda would be a larger company. End of story.

I know you're having difficulty, but let's stick to the topic at hand, shall we? "Redneck" engines vs. rotary engines.

Here's a written English tip for you, free of charge. The plural form of a noun does not include an apostrophe. An apostrophe indicates ownership. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone who has "twisting wrench's" in their profile to be a rocket scientist.

I think you mean masses, if you were referring to the buying public.

Another excuse. Mazda built the RX-7 to sell, period. Not to cater to a small subset of sports car buyers. That's how it ended up, but that was not their intention, I assure you.

As of 1993... how about prior to that? Or was that just the most outrageous comparison you could find to make one last desperate effort to prove something even remotely resembling a valid point?

You're all done. You haven't proven ****, and all you've done is wasted my (and everyone else's) time. It's time to quit while you're behind, and although it's only my advice, consider hanging yourself as well.

 

"my valid points"

I'm still waiting for those.

"topic at hand, shall we? "Redneck" engines vs. rotary engines"

Then why are you comparing sales of a comparative priced economy car to a sports car?

"Camaro's"

So, what you're saying is the Camaro name brand didn't own those sales figures?

"Mazda built the RX-7 to sell, period. Not to cater to a small subset of sports car buyers."

Then you don't undestand Mazda's intentions. I wonder how same year Corvette sales compare to Camaro's?

Look, of course a piston engine will have a higher BFSC simply because 100% of the force of detonation in on the head of the piston while a small portion of the same force actually push's against the rotor. However, that is more than made up by the fact a Wankle has two power strokes to every one of a piston. If you want to stand your argument on BFSC, that is a very narrow minded stand.

 

I am a noob to the triangle "pistins" and i bought this non running 86 gxl and was wondering if there any secrets to reviving a rotary engine that has sat for a while

 

Then you're blind as well as stupid.

"Redneck" sports car vs. rotary sports car. Even you should be able to understand that.

No, what I'm saying is that you repeatedly include an apostrophe in plural nouns, which indicates to me that you're a moron.

So Mazda intended to fail miserably and require Ford to buy a half interest to remain operating?

Actually, it has more to do with the combustion chamber's shape, but thanks for trying.



Number of power strokes doesn't matter. BSFC is the engine's output compared to the amount of fuel ingested. How it produces that output is irrelevant. You fail in every imaginable way.