You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
I think Nissan did a pretty good job building the GT-R and actually making it into the production.
If GT-R didn't exist, LFA may not made it into a production and same with the new NSX.
Mazda has seriously failed as a sports car manufacturer.
Sure, they have there Miata, which is a decent little car but as it ages it gets bigger, and heavier.
They have there Mazdaspeed line of cars but they are all adaptations of economy cars with some power added.
There is no more "true" sports car. The RX8 handles like a dream but is hugely underpower compared to its direct competitors. Now they talk about building a new engine.... make it a triple rotor with a turbo. They need torque, boom you have it. They want fuel economy, sure, how about using something that truly does a good job in managing the engine.
If need be, give Haltec a call and have them supply the engine management and they will get the performance and economy out of it.
Excited to see what they do, but I fear that it will fall far short of where it should be.
I can't understand why Mazda has such a recent aversion to turbocharging their rotary engines. It seems that would immediately solve their predicament with regard to performance. Any ideas why they insist on continuing with N/A?
__________________ Some say I never blink, and that I roam around the woods at night foraging for wolves.
The problem is the people who buy these cars are not car people. They buy it for the cool factor but dont expect to need to maintain it any different from a piston powered car.
Oiling system is different and is designed to burn oil, people didn't like this. Fuel economy from a sports car....come on people, you cant have everything. But a Mazda 6 or something if you want the fuel economy.
I can't understand why Mazda has such a recent aversion to turbocharging their rotary engines. It seems that would immediately solve their predicament with regard to performance. Any ideas why they insist on continuing with N/A?
Same thing that affects any and all production related "wtf" questions...reliability and regulation.
They have to work within a system where the average fuel economy across their fleet needs to hit a certain level.
That's like telling the Gap that they can sell as many pants as they want, just as long as they sell this many shirts. And you MUST offer underwear.
So free market my ass.
Where is my s10/Ranger/Dakota sized truck US Government? Where is my station wagon? Where is my small sized diesel engine.
Yes, some of the issues are the preferences of the consumer, but a lot of it is the regulatory world we live in.
I like the RX7. I have one. I also hate the RX7. I have one What were the advantages of the rotary when it was introduced...small size, light weight, high-revving. Excellent power-in relation to size and weight.
But why Mazda would continue to devote R&D to it, I have no idea. Now, each and every manufacturer has a 2.0 turbo engine that cooks the rotary on performance, mileage and reliability.
There needs to be a main advantage to it, in my humble opinion, in order to draw people to it.
They failed on that with the RX8. Great looking car...kind of. Can be dressed up to be sexy as hell, but it still doesn't really fit in either world its designed to...sports car or sedan.
My guess would be that the next rotary would be combined with an electric hybrid motor to bring the best of both world together. High revving performance engine in a small space, with a gas saving motor good for low end torque.
Also if they were to build 3 rotor, they could design an ECU to shut off 1 or 2 rotors during "eco mode".
Shuts off 1-2 rotors during 'eco mode'.
Blows apex seals
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStig
I can't understand why Mazda has such a recent aversion to turbocharging their rotary engines. It seems that would immediately solve their predicament with regard to performance. Any ideas why they insist on continuing with N/A?
Most likely to do with reliability. They even fitted their RX-8 race car with with a 4 cyl + turbocharged skyactiv-D diesel engine.
I can't understand why Mazda has such a recent aversion to turbocharging their rotary engines. It seems that would immediately solve their predicament with regard to performance. Any ideas why they insist on continuing with N/A?
I can't really say anything about Mazda, but Honda engineers have been asked multiple times about this.
Honda tries to avoid using turbos for their sportscars...Integra Type-R, S2000, NSX, none of them have a turbo.
What Honda engineers said was they wanted to show off their technology and skills they have.
It is much more difficult to make power out of NA engine. Honda engineers even said that they have this pride as an F1 engine manufacture, they simply feel that they need to show off their engine building technique and let the world know Honda knows how to build a good engine. They wanted to show off how they can make power without relying on forced induction. eg. S15 Silvia: 2.0L Turbo 250ps, S2000: 2.0L NA, 250ps
Obviously there are some benefits for not having turbo, less heat, less weight, no turbo lag(although well tuned turbo engines nowadays have almost no lag), but the biggest thing for Honda is to show off their skills.
Mazda has seriously failed as a sports car manufacturer.
Sure, they have there Miata, which is a decent little car but as it ages it gets bigger, and heavier.
They have there Mazdaspeed line of cars but they are all adaptations of economy cars with some power added.
There is no more "true" sports car. The RX8 handles like a dream but is hugely underpower compared to its direct competitors. Now they talk about building a new engine.... make it a triple rotor with a turbo. They need torque, boom you have it. They want fuel economy, sure, how about using something that truly does a good job in managing the engine.
Please name another mainstream car company that has a more sporty line up than Mazda. Toyota? Nope, only the FRS. Honda? They've long given up on the enthusiast market. Hyundai? Impressive offerings in the G-coupe and maybe Veloster, but they can't touch the handling finesse of Mazda at all. Subaru comes close. That's about it. With Mazda, the majority of their cars have some sporty intentions / pretensions. The Mazda3, Mazda6, CX-5 are all top handling cars in their respective class. The Miata is a 20+ year automotive icon.
The stated goals of the 16X Renesis is:
1) reduce gas consumption
2) reduce oil consumption
3) deliver performance that is at least on par with the 13B MSP, if not better
and the unofficial goal that every enthusiast knows is to improve engine reliability (no more flooding, pre-mature apex seal wears, etc.)
If you up the displacement too much, you are going to kill the fuel economy. Same thing the moment you slap a turbo onto the engine. So neither of your suggestions are going to work.
If anything, I think Mazda is going to tap into some sort of electrical assistance to aid fuel economy. They already have the i-ELOOP super capacitor thing going on the Mazda6, and I would be surprised if that technology doesn't find its way into their next rotary-powered car. Or they might add some other kind of KERS stuff to the car. Remember, rotary engines have poor torque curves, but electric motors have max torque at 0 rpm. The two could combine to complement each other very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStig
I can't understand why Mazda has such a recent aversion to turbocharging their rotary engines. It seems that would immediately solve their predicament with regard to performance. Any ideas why they insist on continuing with N/A?
In addition to what I've said above, reliable turbo-charging is also very expensive. Until recently, Mazda was in a very dire financial situation, so money isn't really something they can afford to throw around. (And in that regard, I totally agree that continual development on the Wankel engine makes little financial sense.) Additionally, NA engines have better throttle response, and a more linear power delivery than FI applications, and Mazda has mentioned that they prefer to chase after a more fulfilling overall driving experience instead of just dumping a huge amount of power into the car. If you look at the MS3, I think this makes a lot of sense. The MZR DISI engine in there is literally making too much power than what the car can handle. You end up fighting torque steer, wheel spin, and engine output needs to be reduced in the lower gears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoostedBB6
The problem is the people who buy these cars are not car people. They buy it for the cool factor but dont expect to need to maintain it any different from a piston powered car.
Oiling system is different and is designed to burn oil, people didn't like this. Fuel economy from a sports car....come on people, you cant have everything. But a Mazda 6 or something if you want the fuel economy.
These 2 points are so very true. Enthusiasts don't mind the quirks and know what they need to do to. But even then, more than a few have accidentally flooded their engines. The majority of consumers have been rightfully spoiled by relative reliability of the piston engine that they pretty much expect the same thing from the Wankel. But guess what? The Wankel is not a piston engine...
Mazda is only doing this as a publicity stunt or for nostalgia sake.
No engineer in their right mind would ever think that a rotary engine is somehow a suitable choice for a modern vehicle. From a thermodynamics POV they are just plain inefficient (which is funny since common sense would suggest a rotary should waste less energy than a piston engine since your main mass responsible for producing power is going in a circle instead of changing direction). They use more fuel to produce a given HP than a piston engine, produce way more emissions and are less reliable.
It doesn't matter what they do to improve it (seals, for example), the basic design of the rotary means it will ALWAYS use too much fuel and pollute like crazy.
But why Mazda would continue to devote R&D to it, I have no idea. Now, each and every manufacturer has a 2.0 turbo engine that cooks the rotary on performance, mileage and reliability.
Half-ironic thing there is Mazda also has their own ~2L turbo motor
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangonay
Mazda is only doing this as a publicity stunt or for nostalgia sake.
No engineer in their right mind would ever think that a rotary engine is somehow a suitable choice for a modern vehicle.
You mean you don't want a car that you have to rev to infinity and still fall short of the torque a Civic Si can put out?
I think they are doing it just to be different, to show everybody else that they can get it to run half decently and that they haven't wasted all their R&D money and time. If they can somehow get it working half decently, they would consider it a win because it is unique to them and they were the only ones who could make it work. It won't be faster, it won't be more powerful, it won't be more efficient, and it won't be cheaper; but it will be different.
Using 2 spark plugs for ignition isn't the reason for bad fuel milegae. The fuel efficiency issue comes from a cylinders' shape being much more efficient at building compression right before ignition and then handling the heat much better afterwards. Also the fact that a rotary engine has open exhaust so unburnt fuel is allowed to escape before it can be burnt off in another round.
__________________
Tumblr
1980 Datsun 280Z: sold 1995 Subaru Justy rip
1990 Civic Si: sold 1991 NA6 Miata rip
1989 240sx coupe: sold 1990 NA8 Miata current
1987 Corolla GTS Hatch: rip
1986 200sx hatch: sold
1989 Rb'd 240sx hatch: sold
piston engine: 1 combustion every 2 rotations
rotary engine: 2 combustions every 1 rotation
so rotaries are combusting 4 times more than piston engine
I said they use more fuel to produce a given HP. How many times it combusts per engine cycle us irrelevant since we are only interested in measuring two things: how much fuel the engine is using (combusting) and how much power it's producing at the output.
A piston engine is more efficient than a rotary. Period. This is basic thermodynamics and you can't get around this fact no matter how much R&D money you throw at trying to improve a rotary.
The ONLY things rotaries have an advantage is they produce more power for a given displacement (irrelevant), they weigh less (also irrelevant since a piston engine, though weighing more, will make up for it with its higher efficiency) and they are smaller (could be an advantage in the design of certain cars). Oh, and they rev higher, for people who think this is actually important.
I think the car will be aimed more towards the next Nissan Z rather than the GT-R.
The RX-8 was a huge fuck-up by Mazda on so many levels..I really hope it isn't a repeat of that.
__________________
2007 Dodge Charger
1981 Pontiac Trans Am
----
1989 BMW 525i
2004 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon
2006 Mazda 3
2008 Jeep Liberty
2003 Infiniti G35
1995 Eagle Talon
1984 Chevrolet Corvette
1981 Pontiac Trans Am
1992 BMW 535i
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
Oh relax, I'm allowed I own one. 
.png "Y U NO...?")
put the Furai into production