5 Seats Please Mazda

[Norton]

Im not sure \'RX8 specific\' is the right place to put this but if Mazda Europe really are reading this.... I love the RX8 and the new engine but with a family of five i need a five seater. Please can we have the RX8 engine in a saloon car, its the only thing that will tempt me away from my Alfa Romeo 156! aarrrgghh, he said A!?@ R&%@? on this forum!

[Carl]

Hi Dan,
I think that the centre section that precludes having 5 seats is for strength which compensates for the large door apertures.
I know where you are coming form though.
They are improving in the seating capacity.Maybe in 6 or 7 years they will have people carriers with triple rotor engines and turboed of course,running on hydrogen.
Kind regards
Carl

[Martiny]

Dan, there was one in 1972 - the RX-2! It was a practical 4 door 4/5 seater, it was cheap compared to other cars of less performance.

Sound exactly like the RX-8, eh? Now, the idea didnt take off in the 70\'s, but so far I\'m real excited about the RX-8\'s success. Fantastic!

Yes, Carl - I lool forward to motor Rotary engined variants. How about a Rotary MX-5?

[Norton]

Tee Hee, Snigger. I seem to have caused some confusion, im not Dan Norton, just \'Norton\'. I chose the login because i ride a Norton Rotary Motorcycle, ok.. not very imaginative, i know. I didnt realise that there was somebody called Dan Norton on here.

I guess that, in the past, Mazda have mostly used the rotary engine in sports cars due to the rotary engines highish fuel consumption but i believe that they have made a huge improvment with regard to this now, so no reason why it shouldnt be used in all their models in place of the antiquated piston engine.

[MikeLMR]

The 1st mainstream models to use the rotary engine were all saloon cars with coupe variations and also some estate versions ...   R100, RX2 , RX3 , RX4, RX5 + More

They were basically ... as you said rotary powered versions of the main mazda models

[RobDickinson]

Fuel consumption is definatly no better than 3.0v6\'s

Rotaries main advantages are size and weight for the power.

Putting a small, relativly inefficient engine in a big car (mazda 6 type) is pointless as it makes no real use of the unique properties of the engine. May as well stick in a 4 pot or I6/v6.

[Norton]

Originally posted by RobDickinson
Fuel consumption is definatly no better than 3.0v6\'s
Rotaries main advantages are size and weight for the power.
Putting a small, relativly inefficient engine in a big car (mazda 6 type) is pointless as it makes no real use of the unique properties of the engine. May as well stick in a 4 pot or I6/v6.

No better (and no worse) than a lively 3 litre V6. So the Renesis gives equivelent mpg to a piston engine of equal power output? If so, it seems reasonable to assume that a smaller version of the rotary producing say 130 bhp would produce the same mpg as a 130 bhp 1.8 litre 4 pot?
Relativly inefficient engine? Please explain.
A significant reduction in engine size and weight (and complexity) has to be a benefit in any car especially if the car has been designed around the engine, ok the size benefits would not be as great if you simply put the rotary into an existing car like the Mazda 6 but the handling would improve.

[Carl]

Years ago Norton who made the rotary motor bike put a twin rotor engine into an MG metro.
The result was that the car out performed the original MG turbo in every way including economy,it was shown to MG at the time and subsequent to that I think the demo was over pretty quick!
They did not want to know!
Imagine the fun in a car like that in the 80\'s?
11000 revs,what a lot of fun that would have been,the ultimate hot hatch!It would have been literaly streets ahead of the competition.
This was the same capacity as their bike engine,600 od cc.
So it shows clearly that the right engine in the right car can make a diffrence.BTW it was not turboed either.
The main problem with Mazda\'s rotary is they have pretty well developed the same design for nearly 40 years,if they had the resources that have been thrown at piston engines over that time than things would be much improved.
I still think myself that the RX8 is a really great car,and Mazda have done an excellant job.
Kind regards
Carl

[RobDickinson]

If you havled the HP - by CC or # of rotors you\'ll halve the torque too remember.

That would cause trouble. My 1.8 focus had slightly more torque than the RX-8, which is ok cause the RX-8 is a performance car and I rev the nutz off it for the power.

Halfe the torque (70ish llb/ft) in a focus sized car (5 seater) would be a step back. Add onto that the \'different\' maintanance and other problems (flooding etc) and then you ignore where the rotary eccels (size/weight vs performance) and it\'ll be beat by many other comparative platforms.

And that 115bhp (half a renesis) \'ford focus\' would, becuase of the lack of torque, have to work harder than the 1.8 4 pot, probably giving 25-30mpg, less than the 4 pot, and dont load it up with people or goods.

Jst be thankfull mazda have worked hard enough to make the renesis a viable proposition in the rx-8 /new rx-7 , I cant see it in much else for a while if ever (unless hydrogen takes off).

[Norton]

Interesting point RobD\'.  I find it incredible to think that the downfall of the rotary could be insufficient torque. The talking point of the Norton rotary has always been its exeptionally flat torque curve, but of course however uniform it is throughout the rev range you still need far less of it with a bike than a car. Are you sure its not just the way the RX8 engine is tuned? for high rev bhp over low down torque? you usually have to arrive at a compromise between the two.
Your Focus 1.8 must have been a diesel cos the 1.8 petrol engine makes far less torque than the RX8... its not fair to compare a petrol engines torque against a diesel.
By the way, i thought that Hydrogen always took off hence the Hydrogen Balloon........ sorry, ill get my coat.

[Norton]

Originally posted by Carl
Years ago Norton put a twin rotor engine into an MG metro. The result was that the car out performed the original MG turbo in every way, it was shown to MG at the time and they did not want to know!
The main problem with Mazda\'s rotary is they have pretty well developed the same design for nearly 40 years,if they had the resources that have been thrown at piston engines over that time than things would be much improved.

Yes, the car was all down to Dennis poore, after the Metro he had two Norton engines bolted together and fitted in a Scimitar SS1.. the performance was said, by those brave enough to get in, to be \'Stunning\'.
Im surprised at your comments about the RX8 engine, i thought it was supposed to be a huge improvment over previous engines in terms of emissions & mpg (and power being neither turbo\'d or blown). Continued development of what youve already built upon previously is not neccessarily a bad thing, i would guess that Mazda must know more about rotary engines than anyone else. I agree that the rotary is still in its early development stages compared to the piston engine, its a shame that the big hitters like GM, Ford & Daimler Benz only dabbled in the rotary and wouldnt commit any serious finance. Thankfully Mazda had the foresight to persevere with it.

[Carl]

The example of the Norton  rotary engine in a car was only that it shows how a diffrent rotary engine in a small car was effective.

I am not saying that Mazda needs to put a smaller engine into the RX8,what I am saying is that the fundamental design has not changed for forty years so what do you expect?It can not be perfect can it?
If the engine geometry was altered which would need costly tooling then I think it could not only be quick but more economic too.
The example of the Norton engine in the Metro showed that it was not only a quicker car but it was more economic than the MG turbo engine it replaced.
Halving the capacity of an engine does not automaticaly mean that torque is halved too.
It depends on lots of things.
Kind regards
Carl

[Norton]

If Mazda were to develop a rotary with half the BHP of the RX8 engine they wouldnt neccessarily half the RX\'s cubic capacity. If they used a cubic capacity of around say 70% of the RX i imagine they could \'tune\' the engine to produce 50% of the RX\'s BHP and say 90% of the RX\'s torque.
Its always a compromise with any engine, you can get more high revs BHP by sacrificing low down \'grunt\' and vice versa.
Does this sound feasible/ make sense or am i talking b0!!0ckz?

[Norton]

Since ive started talking \'mazda\' on here ive started noticing mazda 6\'s while out and about, hmm... not a bad looking car really, it even has some styling similaritys to the RX8 at the sharp end. Go on Mazda... stick a 190 RX8 engine in it!!