NewCelica.org Forum banner

21 - 40 of 191 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
yeah, it all sounds great... but i doubt they will kill of the RX-8 this early. I think they will just make a second gen with completely redesigned body contours, and give it the new Wankel engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
I never liked that rotary thingy very bad spec's.
I can no longer hold this back any longer, nor can I try to explain it away in my head any more, so here goes:

I am fully convinced you are mentally retarded.
 

·
NO ONE SLEEP IN TOKYO!!!!
Joined
·
15,579 Posts
If they can manage at least 25 mpg with tighter control of the ECU and direct injection, it will be viable.

I still can't believe after adding direct injection, variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust, and turbocharging...the new Cobalt SS still gets 30 mpg with 260 hp and 260 ft*lb torque...let us not regret going with the rotary Mazda...or else this fcuking thing will beat you off the line:

Guhhhhh...
A) Direct injection gives better fuel economy AND more horsepower. Its the best of both worlds. Most German car companies are using it now because the EU is mandating better CO2 emissions and its an effective method of reducing them. The extra power is just a side benefit of being able to run higher compression.

B) Chevrolet is very smart with their gearing. Most of their road cars actually get decent fuel economy - the trucks are what gives them the bad reputation for gas guzzling - and the **** build quality is why most people with 2 brain cells avoid their cars like the plague.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,312 Posts
I feel that the rendering is missing something, can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe a huge aluminum wing?

The RX-8 is a great car, but for them to sell this thing come 2010, economy will need to be improved greatly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
yup a 1.3L engine making more horsepower than a typical 3.0L V6 while weighing 90 lbs less with a lower center of gravity and mounted further back is just horrible.

Lets see what Toyota can do with 1.3L . . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_NZ_engine . . . . oh . . 85 hp. Sweet.
That's rotary though.

Doesn't 1.3L Rotary Engine = 2.6L Piston Engine (or something in that range)?
Not sure about this, but I read something like this on an RX-8 forum before..

I think that's the reason why kids w/o knowledge buy their RX-8s thinking it's so cheap on gas cause it's 1.3L.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
AFAIK, though the 13B engine has a small displacement, it's how the rotary engine works that makes the difference.

It BURNS gas like no tomorrow, because it's a 2-stroke in that all 4 cycles that happen on 1 revolution of the combustion chamber, meaning it has 1 power stroke for every revolution of the crank.

Piston engines on the other hand, has 1 power stroke every other revolution of the crank.

I forgot the site I read it from, but a 1.3L rotary was getting the same MPG as a 2.6L V6 piston with the same power output.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
Piston engines on the other hand, has 1 power stroke every other revolution of the crank.
They DO make 2-stroke piston engines, granted you won't find them under the hood of any car.

Not to hijack the thread, but maybe somebody can answer this for me. Why don't certain vehicles use a 2-stroke engine since theoretically, you could get twice the power for the same size? I understand for the every day car it's not a good solution (bad gas mileage, heat issues, emissions), but for something like say...a Moto GP bike that's used exclusively on the track, a 2-stroke seems like it'd be a better alternative.

Or is that all completely wrong?
 

·
NO ONE SLEEP IN TOKYO!!!!
Joined
·
15,579 Posts
AFAIK, though the 13B engine has a small displacement, it's how the rotary engine works that makes the difference.

It BURNS gas like no tomorrow, because it's a 2-stroke in that all 4 cycles that happen on 1 revolution of the combustion chamber, meaning it has 1 power stroke for every revolution of the crank.

Piston engines on the other hand, has 1 power stroke every other revolution of the crank.

I forgot the site I read it from, but a 1.3L rotary was getting the same MPG as a 2.6L V6 piston with the same power output.
they burn gas and oil, which is a small price to pay for a motor that is so physically small and light (allowing it to be mounted lower and further back for better weight distribution and rotation characteristics).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,365 Posts
I can no longer hold this back any longer, nor can I try to explain it away in my head any more, so here goes:

I am fully convinced you are mentally retarded.
:laugh:

I see Mazda's rotary the following way:

1 full rotation in the rotary = 3 explosions per rotation x 2 rotors x .66L/chamber = around 3.9L, Correct me if I'm wrong.

And no, it's not a 2 stroke design.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
43,598 Posts
Discussion Starter #36 (Edited)
Mazda RX-7 Still in Pipeline, Despite Global Economic Woes
Sources close to Mazda told Inside Line today that the next Mazda RX-7 is still in the works. Inside Line has also learned that a new Mazda RX-8 is also in the works and is expected to be called the Mazda RX-9.

Mazda will not let the rotary engine die with the current RX-8, sources tell IL. The company is well along in development of its next-generation RX-7, fitted with a front midship-mounted 16X rotary engine. The engine will generate upward of 270 horsepower from a normally aspirated power unit, they say.

Engineers are also reportedly working on weight issues. By developing a new chassis, they have been able to shed some 220 pounds, reducing the RX-7's curb weight to the 2,640-pound range, according to one source.
 

·
Daddy Daycare
Joined
·
20,264 Posts
They had been developping a Hydrogen rotary so it's a good idea to keep the engine alive. That 2700 lbs does sound quite good indeed.
 
21 - 40 of 191 Posts
Top