Mazda to recall ALL RX-8s

[YSSMAN]

Mazda will recall all 2004, 2005, and many 2006 model year RX-8 sports cars to address an issue with the vehicle's unique rotary engine, according to trade publication Automotive News. The automaker is expected to officially announced the voluntary recall some time this week. Many engines will need to be replaced, according to the report. The move comes after the Japanese automaker came under fire from consumers over a number of serious problems with the engine. The issue involves damage to the catalyst resulting from oil leaks. Any engine that does not pass a vacuum test must be replaced.

Uh-Oh... Looks like many of us were right when it came to the problems with the Renesis. Granted I think many of us had expected some problems to occour (given the track record of the RX-7s of the past), but not on this scale. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out, as there are quite a few RX-8s on the road today. I can't imagine how much money this is going to cost Mazda and how painfully difficult this may be for some owners.

 

[red70mach1]

Sounds like a seal failure in the rotors making the oil leak into the combustion chambers resulting in a rich exhaust. I find it odd because with engines as evolved as this those end seals should last.

 

[niky]

Sounds a lot like Nissan's QR problems. Stupid cats. Like you said, though, many of us expected something like this.

The Kabura makes all the more sense as a four cylinder now, doesn't it?

I've finally read a road test, and the concept, being based on the MX-5, runs the same 2.0 I-4 engine. And in today's fuel conscious market, putting the Renesis in there might be suicide.

 

[Casio]

When will Mazda wake up and scrap this stupid engine. It just doesn't make sense, it has next to no torque (211nm) and ridiculous power peaks (177kw @ 8200RPM, oh that's only with the Manual too, if you want an Auto, That'll be 40kw please) and poor fuel economy because you have no torque for a sports car, and for power you need to rev to 8200rpm.

It's great and all they're doing something different. But bloody hell, what's the point. Just put the engine from the Mazda6 MPS (Mazdaspeed6 in other countries I think) in it, boost it a bit. There. More Power (Hell it's got more power anyway, hell, it's cheaper too, and doesn't have stupid doors). More Torque. Better Fuel Economy and you don't need to rev it through the roof to move.

Also. Just a standard 2.3 Mazda 3, has only 8nm less torque then an RX8....

I had a Mazda. Was Crap.

 

[a6m5]

consumeraffairs.com[/URL]]
The engine recall is the latest in a series of problems for the RX-8. Mazda will also check each RX-8's battery and starter, which tend to fail in cold climates.

Mazda has already issued service bulletins on such trouble spots as squeaky brakes and engine flooding. Squeaky brakes on the RX-8 are the subject of three Technical Service Bulletins, according to owners. RX-8 owners have also repeatedly complained of engine flooding to failure.

Mazda executives promise to give the RX-8 "white glove treatment" to finally deal with the problems associated with the sports car.

The automaker has a remanufacturing plant in North Carolina that will rebuild faulty rotary engines and return them to service.

This is pretty bad. Looks like engines are remanned, but labor should be really hefty for Mazda. Good for the dealers, I suppose. $$$

When will Mazda wake up and scrap this stupid engine. It just doesn't make sense, it has next to no torque (211nm) and ridiculous power peaks (177kw @ 8200RPM, oh that's only with the Manual too, if you want an Auto, That'll be 40kw please) and poor fuel economy because you have no torque for a sports car, and for power you need to rev to 8200rpm.

I agree that RX-8 engine doesn't make any sense, and that awful fuel economy! But when I drove my brothers', almost non-existant torque didn't bother me at all. It just "zoomed", even with two other people in the car. It was a very strange feel.

 

[Wolfe]

The rotary's benefits are too great for the idea to be abandoned. Like any technology, it needs to be honed and refined until its drawbacks are reduced, but unfortunately, Mazda is trying to do that all by itself. This is in stark contrast to the piston engine, which has enjoyed over 100 years of constant development by countless engineers and companies.

Besides, the RENESIS is the only positively gutless rotary. A naturally-aspirated 13B is a great, relatively-reliable little engine, although it is rather thirsty. In fact, the NA 13B in the FC3S RX-7 makes its peak torque at a lower RPM than a brand-new Mustang GT or Corvette Z06. ...and that 135 lb.ft ain't half-bad for a 1.3L.

Am I saying that the rotary is a flawless engine, or an engineering masterpiece? No, not at all. However, with more development time, maybe someday it could be. That's pretty much what Mazda's thinking, too.

 

[a6m5]

Am I saying that the rotary is a flawless engine, or an engineering masterpiece? No, not at all. However, with more development time, maybe someday it could be. That's pretty much what Mazda's thinking, too.

I used to think that way. But with my older age, I think, I think too strongly in the practical sense these days(no wonder I've been backing Toyota so much lately). Good post, Wolfe. 👍

 

[Casio]

Am I saying that the rotary is a flawless engine, or an engineering masterpiece? No, not at all. However, with more development time, maybe someday it could be. That's pretty much what Mazda's thinking, too.

I understand. But if the rest of the world is doing piston engines. Surely Mazda would think 'Hmm must be a reason for that'. Regardless, the next 20/30 years might see the end of the internal combustion engine anyway. Mazda have already been working on this thing for 25 years, sure in another 25 it might be great, but who knows that transport will have arived then.

Lets look at the Advantages listed on Wikipedia:

Wankel engines have several major advantages over reciprocating piston designs, in addition to having higher output for similar displacement and physical size. Wankel engines are considerably simpler and contain far fewer moving parts. For instance, because valving is accomplished by simple ports cut into the walls of the rotor housing, they have no valves or complex valve trains; in addition, since the rotor is geared directly to the output shaft, there is no need for connecting rods, a conventional crankshaft, crankshaft balance weights, etc. The elimination of these parts not only makes a Wankel engine much lighter (typically half that of a conventional engine with equivalent power), but it also completely eliminates the reciprocating mass of a piston engine with its internal strain and inherent vibration due to repetitious acceleration and deceleration, producing not only a smoother flow of power but also the ability to produce more power by running at higher rpm.

Higher RPM = More Fuel use. The advantage of running at 'higher RPM' is negated because you A) Use a ton of fuel and B) When you don't want to drive at 'higher RPM', like say, anytime you're not on a race track. You've got no power.

In addition to the enhanced reliability due to the elimination of this reciprocating strain on internal parts, the construction of the engine, with an iron rotor within a housing made of aluminum which has greater thermal expansion, ensures that even if severely overheated the Wankel engine can not seize, as an overheated piston engine is likely to do; this is a substantial safety benefit in aircraft use.

Oh that reliability! Is that the same reliability that has caused Mazda to recall all RX8s? For the second time?

The simplicity of design and smaller size of the Wankel engine also allow for a savings in construction costs, compared to piston engines of comparable power output.

Great. But as I quoted before. You can get a more powerful, almost double the torques, Mazda 6 MPS, for cheaper....

As another advantage, the shape of the Wankel combustion chamber and the turbulence induced by the moving rotor prevent localized hot spots from forming, thereby allowing the use of fuel of very low octane number without preignition or detonation, a particular advantage for Hydrogen cars. Mazda has recently placed a hydrogen-burning rotary engine in one version of its RX-8 sports car. This feature also led to a great deal of interest in the Soviet Union, where high octane gasoline was rare.

I'll admit this is an advantage. Hydroge could be a fuel of the future, however it's not like piston engines can't do it either.

 

[niky]

It's sad to think that people have been working on a zillion different variations of the internal combustion engine for years, and we're still stuck with the same old pistons, valves and cams.

The rotary is one I like, for its inherent simplicity. The sad thing is, how complicated the design and reliability issues become once you move from the drawing board to the workshop.

But this recall, however, is not an inherent flaw in the Renesis. Merely a side affect of emissions and catalytic converter use. And that first TSB was also for exhaust problems.

Due to the packaging constraints and strict emissions regulations facing modern cars, you have a lot of stuff packed a little too closely to the engine. It's fun watching all that plastic and wiring melt when a car overheats... makes you wonder what good it's for.

I'm particularly wary of primary cats stuck right up against the exhaust manifold, as when the cats go bad (as they inevitably will, down the years), they most possibly will get sucked into the engine and destroy it. Which looks like what is happening with Mazda... as has happened with Nissan's QR... but due more to a faulty cat than the nature of the engine... which in this case is a "duh"... the Rotary spits oil?... duh. The oil hurts the cats?... double duh. I'm surprised it took this long to come out.

Me? The first mod I did to my car was to replace the exhaust manifold and primary cat with headers. Left the secondary cat, though... I'm not totally irresponsible...

 

[Scaff]

The rotary's benefits are too great for the idea to be abandoned. Like any technology, it needs to be honed and refined until its drawbacks are reduced, but unfortunately, Mazda is trying to do that all by itself. This is in stark contrast to the piston engine, which has enjoyed over 100 years of constant development by countless engineers and companies.

Besides, the RENESIS is the only positively gutless rotary. A naturally-aspirated 13B is a great, relatively-reliable little engine, although it is rather thirsty. In fact, the NA 13B in the FC3S RX-7 makes its peak torque at a lower RPM than a brand-new Mustang GT or Corvette Z06. ...and that 135 lb.ft ain't half-bad for a 1.3L.

Am I saying that the rotary is a flawless engine, or an engineering masterpiece? No, not at all. However, with more development time, maybe someday it could be. That's pretty much what Mazda's thinking, too.

I have to say that I do mainly agree with that, and it reminded me of comments made by Steve Matchett* in his book 'The Chariot Makers', in which he express' his belief that had the rotary engine been given the same development as the conventional piston engine it would be a far more effective tool.

The conventional piston engine is a fantastically in-efficent device (as any engineer will be quite happy to admit), the amount of energy lost to internal friction alone is daft. Rotary does a lot to address this.

Consider how fuel in-efficent, dirty and unreliable conventional engines were, even a few decades ago, the point in regard to the amount of money and effort that have been expended is totaly valid.

Rotary engine technology has proven it can be reliable (you don't win Le Mans without proving that to a degree), but its still a long way behind the conventional engine and very unlikely to ever match it in terms of development and refinement.

I do however admire Mazda for sticking with it and continuing to develop it.

As far as an RX model with a conventional engine, well for me that would lose some of the qualities that make an RX model what it is. The car plays on the light weight and low COG that come from using a rotary unit, replace it with a conventional unit and you will lose so of what makes the car so special to so many.

Regards

Scaff

* Those in the US may recognise the name Steve Matchett, he was F1 technical commentator for SpeedVision and before that technician for a number of F1 teams.

 

[Famine]

I understand. But if the rest of the world is doing piston engines. Surely Mazda would think 'Hmm must be a reason for that'.

Just like the rest of the world isn't putting their engines waaaay out back. Works for Porsche though.

 

[Poverty]

I think we need VAG to commision bugatti to make a veyron MK2 with a wankel engine. I didnt know much about the wankel but it sounds really cool, and hopefully some more manufacturers will develop it.

 

[Scaff]

I didnt know much about the wankel

Wiki is you're friend here

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

Regards

Scaff

 

[Dave A]

I think we need VAG to commision bugatti to make a veyron MK2 with a wankel engine. I didnt know much about the wankel but it sounds really cool, and hopefully some more manufacturers will develop it.

It wouldn't be reliable enough and you could be looking at a fuel economy of gallons to the mile rather than miles to the gallon in a car of that nature.

 

[Tornado]

Of course, in cars of that nature the people who own them can just stroll out to an oil field and fill it up with stuff straight from the ground.

 

[YSSMAN]

It is all very unfortunate as it is indeed a very "cool" car for the most part... But I wouldn't ever buy one. Why? Poor build quality, boy-racer looks, etc. Thanks Mazda, but I'd rather spend my $30K on the Ford Shelby GT (Mustang) next door.

 

[Tornado]

It is all very unfortunate as it is indeed a very "cool" car for the most part... But I wouldn't ever buy one. Why? Poor build quality, boy-racer looks, etc. Thanks Mazda, but I'd rather spend my $30K on the Ford Shelby GT (Mustang) next door.

You know, the Shelby GT in particular suffers from both of those things.

 

[YSSMAN]

I suppose it does to some extent, but it would be greatly dependant on what you classify as "boy racer" looks. For me that is overaly agressive spoilers and fenders, somethe the RX8 has too much of with some option boxes checked, while the Mustang altogether looks much more tasteful by days end... Especially when they are ordered without the stripes.

Given that my engine won't implode and form a small black hole with the Ford, I'd call that a better choise...

 

[Pink_the_Floyd]

Bla Bla Blah.


We all know more will follow, next...Audi !

 

[Vio]

Given that my engine won't implode and form a small black hole with the Ford, I'd call that a better choise...

I wonder if Clarksons GT has actually managed to do a trip without breaking down and when the Mazda 6/Focus is going to be a car which doesn't oxidize after 2 years. So ... count me in for an RX-8 rather than a Ford.



Heh, I'm still wondering why nobody has mentioned that Mazda is doing that recall without the government stepping in.

Like someone said

Now, Mazda is stepping up and replacing engines…without the gov't twisting their arm. It won't be cheap, nor is it good PR…but they are doing it, so it seems. Can you imagine Mercedes, Chrysler, BMW, Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc doing the same thing? Guess again.

Now, if NSU would have had a bit more patience, maybe we would have Drehkolbenmotoren today rather than the rotary-engine we know... anyway, NSU had to close down because they had to replace lots of engines (ironically thanks to Mazda being faster with the twin-rotary-engine and NSU rushing their "me-too"-effort with their twin-rotary and screwing up with the seals), but Mazda should be better off now. Will be interesting to see how much trouble that will cause ...


And for every "(V8) POWER is all you need"-guy, keep in mind that a tiny 2.6 Liter-engine managed to beat those mighty V12 and the likes of them in Le Mans before the FIA deemed them to have "unfair advantages" and banned them..... yeah, piston-engines being the overlords and stuff? Not really ...

 

[STLbarcelona5]

Just like the rest of the world isn't putting their engines waaaay out back. Works for Porsche though.

Worked for the 21 million people who bought VW Beetles...

 

[Layla's Keeper]

Vio, the rotary was never banned at Le Mans, and in fact continues to this day to power Le Mans competitors.

What did happen was a rules revision for Group C that put the racing rotary of the 787B (and its successors) at a disadvantage, leading Mazda to forego the rotary in favor of a Judd V10.

Later on, when IMSA's World Sports Car (WSC) regs gained popularity because of their production engine focus, the Mazda 13B and 20B rotary engines gained popularity (particularly in Kudzu chassis) because of its proven track record in IMSA GTU and GTO competition, its power and, and its light weight.

In fact, in 1996, a Mazda/Kudzu powered by the 20B took the LMP2 class win, and finished 25th overall in amongst the horde of WSC Ferrari 333SP's and Riley&Scott MkIII's, LMP1 Courages, Kremers, and TWR Porsches, and GT1 McLaren F1's, Porsche 911GT1's, and Ferrari F40LM's.

To this day, Mazda rotaries have remained in competition, usually as LMP2 powerplants. The Le Mans winning 4 row race engine even made a gallant attempt at a LMP1 effort in 1997, powering (again) a Kudzu chassis.

To say the rotary was "banned because it was better" is a misguided, and inherently incorrect, statement. A new ruleset was introduced in 1991, Cat. 1 Group C, and the Mazda 787B was the last Cat. 2 Group C car (the previous ruleset) to take a win. The next year, Cat. 1 Group C was favored heavily by the rules, and the win was only going to cars playing by Cat. 1 rules, regardless of turbo V8, NA V8, V12, flat-six, or four-row rotary engine type.

 

[Famine]

Worked for the 21 million people who bought VW Beetles...

They generally weren't going fast enough to get snap oversteer.

Ass-out engines are fundamentally wrong for sportscars. You shouldn't be able to go fast - and not die - like that. But Porsche have, like Mazda, stuck with it for eleventy years. And, guess what? You can. REALLY fast.

 

[Wolfe]

Ass-out engines are great for two things -- acceleration and braking.

 

[Race Idiot]

This post was crosposted on another forum I visit from someone who claims to be a mazda tech.

Let me clarify a few things. YES there is a new recall coming out. #4206F we do not have any paper info on it yet. YES there was a webinar (like a seminar but online) that every Mazda tech, service manager and service advisor was supposed to listen in on, it was an hour long webinar last Thursday/Friday. No not every car is going to get a new engine. mazda predicts less then 1% of vehicle will need a new engine. less then 5% will need a new catalytic converter but 100% will need a new flash, even if you had a flash 1-2 weeks ago, you will need another new flash. The test takes about on hour or so to do for each vehicle, expect your car to be down 2-3 hours though depending on how busy the dealer is that day. The cars are being tested for lack of power. the cars will be tested at high RPM to see if the RPMs drop rapidly, yes high RPM but they will be driven safely (lets not start speculating on the certified technicians damaging your engine because of high RPMs either)if the RPMs drops rapidly for no reason, ie your foot is still on the pedal, then you will get a new engine, if it does not drop you will not. If you have had experience in the past where your car has lost power then perhaps you are the 1% that will need an engine if you have never had a loss of power then you will just get a new flash. All Rx8 owners will get a letter in the mail next week (Aug 28th they get mailed to customers) DO NOT KAMIKAZE YOUR ENGINE!! DO NOT SABOTAGE YOUR ENGINE!! DO NOT PUT SYNTHITIC OIL IN YOUR ENGINE AND JUST EXPECT TO GET A NEW ONE BECUASE IF YOUR CAR DOES NOT HAVE ANY OF THE PROBLEMS MENTIONED ON THE RECALL YOU WILL NOT GET A NEW ENGINE AND YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR A NEW ONE YOURSELF.
Yes it is a recall and EVERY car will be covered under warranty FOR THE RECALL.
I would really like to just say relax right now and just wait until next week when the recall actually comes out and PLEASE PLEASE STOP SPECULATING AND/OR TELLING PEOPLE THAT EVERY ENGINE WILL BE REPLACED BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE CASE! Just relax and enjoy driving your RX8 like you always have.

Actually it was crosposted from RX8 Club

Yah after wading through that thread on the RX8 club they were saying that the new flash increases the the oil metering especially in low / mid RPM cruising. The posters said it was to help reduce carbon buildup. I'd bet a good portion of the people that have this problem baby their cars and don't rev the **** outta them like you should with a rotary (burn carbon off).

 

[Casio]

Just like the rest of the world isn't putting their engines waaaay out back. Works for Porsche though.

And when the build a proper sportscar with the engine in the more logical spot (Cayman S). It out performs it.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=10938

The Cayman S scored 492 out of a possible 650 points in a range of eight different disciplines to the 911's score of 477 points, causing Porsche to argue that the Cayman S was not representative of the standard model due to a long list of optional features (it had optional ceramic brakes but the total price still makes the Cayman S significantly cheaper than a 911). Furthermore, the Cayman S didn't just beat the Porsche in one area - it beat the 911 in five out of the eight criteria.

Auto Motor und Sport deemed the Cayman S had superior handling, braking, ride comfort, was kinder to the environment and had lower running costs. In terms of outright performance, the 911 was quicker in a zero to 100kmh sprint (the 911 recorded a time of 4.9 seconds to the Cayman's 5.4 seconds) but the Cayman still impressed the testers, with superior in-gear acceleration which, it could be argued, is more important than the boy-racer stuff.
In the real world, the Cayman has more pull. For example, its 60kmh to 120kmh sixth gear acceleration time was 0.9 seconds quicker than the 911 Carrera.

The Cayman has a distinct advantage over the 911: its weight. At 1340kg, it is 45kg lighter than the 911 Carrera in base trim, although the Cayman's weight-to-power ratio of 6.2kg/kW doesn't quite match it's big brother's 5.8kg/kW figure.

It's where the weight is distributed that appears to be the Cayman's biggest advantage. Porsche hasn't released weight distribution figures but there is no doubt that the Cayman's mid-engined layout (opposed to the 911's engine which hangs behind the rear wheels, creating a pendulum effect in tight turns) creates a better balanced package.

In his understated German way, one of Auto Motor und Sport's senior road testers, Joern Thomas, said: "In terms of handling and agility, the 911 Carrera is shown up by the Cayman S.

Just because you can make it 'work' doesn't mean it's the best thing to do.

 

[the Interceptor]

Does that mean that the 911 is a bad invention, and that production should be stopped? The world could also be entirely blue, cause it's the favourite colour of most people. We'd all drive the same, best blue car (with a piston engine), wear the same best blue clothes and do the same, best work. Would you like to live in such a world?
I don't, so I'm grateful that people still do things they know it's not the best out there, but it is different than the others. I'm grateful that Mazda made the Renesis engine, and that Porsche still puts theirs in the back of the 911, just because it's different than what the others do.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[the Interceptor]

EDIT: sorry, system failure!

 

[Casio]

Does that mean that the 911 is a bad invention, and that production should be stopped? The world could also be entirely blue, cause it's the favourite colour of most people. We'd all drive the same, best blue car (with a piston engine), wear the same best blue clothes and do the same, best work. Would you like to live in such a world?
I don't, so I'm grateful that people still do things they know it's not the best out there, but it is different than the others. I'm grateful that Mazda made the Renesis engine, and that Porsche still puts theirs in the back of the 911, just because it's different than what the others do.

Regards
the Interceptor

I said it was good that Mazda was doing something different. But it doesn't make sense if the thing they are doing different, doesn't offer anything positively better, such as more fuel economy, more performance, Or something, sure it has the ability to rev high, but so do piston engines. And it actually has adverse effects on fuel economy, low revs driving ability, and reliability. It's not saving cost either. Because I've said numerous times you can get a more powerful, Mazda 6 for cheaper.

Also. Porsche puts engines in the back of it for two reasons A) Tradition, and B) People like yourself would blow your top if the 911 had a mid-engine. It's been said by every motoring publication I've read that the Cayman has not been able to forfill its potential because it would better then 911 is every way.

I'm all for things being different, Citroen does a fine job of it, Mazda is just ignorant.

 

[Scaff]

I said it was good that Mazda was doing something different. But it doesn't make sense if the thing they are doing different, doesn't offer anything positively better, such as more fuel economy, more performance, Or something, sure it has the ability to rev high, but so do piston engines. And it actually has adverse effects on fuel economy, low revs driving ability, and reliability. It's not saving cost either. Because I've said numerous times you can get a more powerful, Mazda 6 for cheaper.

Also. Porsche puts engines in the back of it for two reasons A) Tradition, and B) People like yourself would blow your top if the 911 had a mid-engine. It's been said by every motoring publication I've read that the Cayman has not been able to forfill its potential because it would better then 911 is every way.

I'm all for things being different, Citroen does a fine job of it, Mazda is just ignorant.

Sorry but I can't agree with that at all.

The rotary engine is outperformed by the conventional piston engine simply because of the decades of development time (not to mention money) expended on it. Conventional piston engines are incredibly inefficent, with huge parasitic power losses through friction, not to mention to plain daft (again from an engineering standpoint) loss of power from having to change the direction of the pistons movement thousands of times per minute.

The rotary engine is not as flawed a concept as the conventional piston engine, it simply has not equal development opportunities. Had it done so the end results may well have been very different.

It must always been remembered that the 'best' technical choice for a job is not alway the one that is adopted. Anyone old enough to remember the VHS vs Betamax tape wars will know that.

From an engineering standpoint the conventional piston engine is the '911' and the rotary engine is a mid-engined layout.

What seems to be being forgotten here is how inefficent, unreliable and crude early conventional piston engines were (they were however comparitively simple to make), and the billions of dollars and hundereds of thousands of hours that has gone into developing them over the decades. Also the plain fact that the vast majority manufacturers are not going to throw all of that away and effectively start from scratch.

I would also not disagree that it is unlikely that rotary engines will be ever get close to the development level of the conventional piston engine, that does not however automatically make the rotary engine a mechanically inferiour device (it makes it an underdeveloped one), nor does it make Mazda ignorant at all.

Regards

Scaff