Mazda to recall ALL RX-8s

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 50 comments
  • 4,102 views
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.[...]

Also the plain fact that the vast majority manufacturers are not going to throw all of that away and effectively start from scratch.

But the cold hard fact are that for every hour of development that Mazda puts into its Rotary engine, the world is developing the piston engine probably at least 10 times that rate.

So even if the Rotary engine is more efficiently then a Piston engine, it will be always underdeveloped in comparison to the Piston engine, it's never going to catch up.

Hypothetically, even if it did have the same development opportunities as the piston engines, the rotary engine has the fundamental flaws of having little torque and needing high revs to achieve power, quite the opposite of the piston engine and what is needed by 90% of the people 90% of the time.

The Rotary engine has been around almost 50 years, if the world hasn't embraced it now, it's not going too.
 
The world will have to accept that there are different apporaches to archieve one goal, and that they have different abilities. You may decide for yourself which one you prefer, but I don't see any point in saying that something should be dropped, because it's not as good in certain ways as its combatants.

Regards
the Interceptor
 
But the cold hard fact are that for every hour of development that Mazda puts into its Rotary engine, the world is developing the piston engine probably at least 10 times that rate.

So even if the Rotary engine is more efficiently then a Piston engine, it will be always underdeveloped in comparison to the Piston engine, it's never going to catch up.
Which I quite clearly agreed with in all my posts on the subject.



Hypothetically, even if it did have the same development opportunities as the piston engines, the rotary engine has the fundamental flaws of having little torque and needing high revs to achieve power, quite the opposite of the piston engine and what is needed by 90% of the people 90% of the time.
Yes but the early issues with the conventional piston engine of being unable to generate even a small amount of revs without destroying itself (due to the extreme difficultly of balanceing the moving parts within it) and the lack of power (due to the above and the huge parasitic power losses) were developed out.

To illustrate the point lets take a look at a 1930's Bentley Blower

Bentley Blower

Engine - 4.5 litre Supercharged In-line 4
BHP - 240 bhp @ 4,200rpm (110 bhp for the road car without the supercharger)
Specific output - 53.5 bhp/litre (24.52 bhp/litre w/out supercharger)

and then an Audi RS4

Audi RS4
Engine - 4.2 litre V8
BHP - 420 bhp @ 7,000rpm
Specific output - 100.89 bhp/litre

Simply by using these two example the sheer scale of development between the two cars is obvious to see (and specific output is very useful in this regard). Keep in mind that the Bentley won Le Mans and the latest RS4 would get murdered if it tried.

Very early conventional piston engines lost more of the power they developed to internal losses that they were able to deliver in a useable form.

Your hypothetical scenario suggests that given equal development these inherent flaws with convention engines could be developed out, but those of rotary engines could not. Which is a very biased scenario.


The Rotary engine has been around almost 50 years, if the world hasn't embraced it now, it's not going too.
So what?

If you don't like it don't buy it. As far as I'm concerned I admire Mazda for sticking with it and developing it.

In addition while you may be right for car engines, you may be surprised to learn that Rotary engines are makeing a come-back in the world of aero engines. Particularly in private light aircraft and very heavily in unmanned military and survelance drones, and application to which they are very able suited. A lot of this is now directly credited to the development work done by Mazda, companies even exist to convert Madza car engines to aero use.


This quote sums it up quote well

Sport Aviation
The number of rotary engines being installed in experimental aircraft is accelerating due to several factors.

First is the recognition of the 13B Mazda Rotary engine as a robust design inherently more reliable than a reciprocating engine due to the fewer parts and less stress on those parts. A properly configured 13B is comparable to the 320 and 360 models of the Lycoming in power, weight, and fuel consumption. Reliable power from 150 hp to 180 hp is readily achieved depending primarily on configuration of intake and exhaust systems. Turbochargers increase the power range even higher to the 250-hp range.

Another related factor is the incredible ability of the rotary engine to take damage and continue to run. If fuel and ignition is provided the engine will normally continue to produce adequate power (regardless of damage) to get a pilot and aircraft safely to an airport. For example, the rotary is not inclined to seize even when overheated far beyond its designed red line temperatures due to the design feature of having an iron alloy rotor in aluminum housing. A typical reciprocating engine with an aluminum piston in an iron sleeve will frequently seize if sufficiently overheated, but not the 13B rotary. While the engine will likely require overhaul or replacement, at $3,600-$4,000 for a complete zero-time, aircraft-quality remanufactured 13B engine, it’s an inexpensive price to pay for safety.

Regards

Scaff
 
That's interesting. I'd read before about some guys who tried to kill a dead rotary... ran it long and hard... very long... before they managed to make it blow.
 
I also saw a vid on the good old internet where somebody tried to kill a FC rx7, they redlined the poor thing for about 5 to 10 mins and it still kept going, it suffered from the odd misfire now and then but the only reason they stopped trying to kill the engine is because they exhaust got so hot it set fire to the rear bumper and would have no doubt set fire to other parts of the car had they continued. I bet they engine would have started up again if they had tried! Also for those people to be doing this i would assume the car was going to be junked anyway due to some engine faults or somehting.

LINK TO VIDEO OF ABOVE - http://videos.streetfire.net/search/rx7/16/656d6e66-8317-4775-bdcf-14ef855ba56e.htm

Ive always admired Mazda for sticking with the rotary engine and id have an RX7 or RX8 tomorrow if i had that kind of money laying around. Its just a shame that other car manufactuers are afraid they might loose money (understandably) if they tried to help develop and iron out all the small problems with what could be a better engine than the conventional piston engine although mazda themselves might have put a stop to that.

Spec....
 
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.
I thought the IMSA isn't under the governance of the FIA which caused the rotary-engine to be used in that series whereas the FIA initially banned the rotary-engine ...

There seems to be a bit of a inconsistency across the interweb regarding the banning of rotarys in Le Mans, but it seems like no rotary-engine-powered cars made a Le Mans-start from 92 to 96 ... to be seen here.
In 1990, FISA decided that starting in 1992 no RCE engines would be allowed, though this has been relaxed since then.


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.
Well, regarding that, I'm not too sure about the rotary-engine being allowed to participate at all, even the official website states that rotarys were banned
Following the 1991 Le Mans, the FIA outlawed rotary engines, and Mazda entered its first piston engine for 1992. Even with alternate technology, Mazda scored an impressive fourth place finish, despite the team's developing the sports racer against incredibly tight deadlines.
to be found here.
As I said, there's a bit of an inconsistency across the web which should be resolved soon. Isn't there a copy or scans of the ruleset 1992 available?
 
I also saw a vid on the good old internet where somebody tried to kill a FC rx7, they redlined the poor thing for about 5 to 10 mins and it still kept going, it suffered from the odd misfire now and then but the only reason they stopped trying to kill the engine is because they exhaust got so hot it set fire to the rear bumper and would have no doubt set fire to other parts of the car had they continued. I bet they engine would have started up again if they had tried! Also for those people to be doing this i would assume the car was going to be junked anyway due to some engine faults or somehting.

LINK TO VIDEO OF ABOVE - http://videos.streetfire.net/search/rx7/16/656d6e66-8317-4775-bdcf-14ef855ba56e.htm

Ive always admired Mazda for sticking with the rotary engine and id have an RX7 or RX8 tomorrow if i had that kind of money laying around. Its just a shame that other car manufactuers are afraid they might loose money (understandably) if they tried to help develop and iron out all the small problems with what could be a better engine than the conventional piston engine although mazda themselves might have put a stop to that.

Spec....

If you are refering to patent issues from Mazda in regard to rotary engines it would apear to be less of an issue that I had previously thought, as detailed in the following post I found on rotarynews.com's forums.

RotaryNews
P3Driver, I have researched and copied roughly 1,300 patents pertinent to the Wankel and closely related engine designs. These involved extensive searches over several months.

Broadly speaking, US utility patents are valid for 20 years. These are the regular numeric series with no letters before the numeric part and which include Wankel engines and components: for example, patent 6,543,210. This term was extended from 17 years some years back, in case you have heard about the 17-year figure. Other types of US patents use a letter in front of the serial number, such as design patent D123,456, but these generally would not apply here.

The few patents that are still good date from 1985 and newer and are relatively few in number. Generally they cover such things as stratified charge and other refinements to the basic rotary design through computer simulation and research. Most aspects of the basic Wankel design were patented in the late 1950s-early 1970s, and those patents have long expired.

Wankel patents appeared in three waves: (1) one cresting in the mid-1960s, covering the basic engine design and concepts; (2) one cresting in the mid-1970s, even larger than the first, covering refinements and new configurations (e.g., apex seal configurations and materials). During this heyday, well over 100 US patents appeared annually. These patents, too, have expired. A distinct trough followed this second wave in the late 1970s-mid-1980s. Finally, (3) a third, much smaller wave based on the computer research mentioned peaked in the late 1980s-early 1990s. These patents are generally still valid because of the 20-year rule.

Mazda's oldest designs are no longer covered. The expiration of the basic patents led to the abandonment of the Wankel licensing scheme in the early 1980s; NSU's ceasing to exist as a manufacturer, the wholesale desertion by most licensees of Wankel development in the 1970s, and Audi's abandonment of Wankel development by the mid-1980s didn't help. Consequently, as far as I know, you can knock yourself out producing and selling a variation of one of the older rotary designs without worrying about patent infringement or NSU-Wankel licensing hassles. (Note: I'm not engaged in giving legal advice; talk to a lawyer just to be sure, if you're serious.)

Mazda has so far applied for no distinct US patents for the internals of the RENESIS design. (By contrast, it has applied for numerous patents on the novel RX-8 body structure and styling.) That is because the basic side-port design was patented back in the early 1960s and its use as the exhaust port would be considered obvious by the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Some of Mazda's 1980s patents for the 13B that are still in effect would still cover other features of the RENESIS design. The only patent pending on anything to do with the RENESIS in the US is one for the engine positioning/mounting system, if I recall correctly.

I hope this helps. You can do basic patent searches on the USPTO website or on gb.espacenet.com. Take some time and explore the latter, as you can bring up US and European patents back to 1920 once you learn how to search and then narrow your searches. Good luck.

Regards

Scaff
 
If you are refering to patent issues from Mazda in regard to rotary engines

.........SNIP............

Regards

Scaff

Thanks Scaff, Yes i was refering to patenting issues so it would seem it is about other manufactuers doing things the cheaper and less financially risky way(less R&D etc), with so many manufactuers facing seemingly endless financial problems lately im not surprised either. It would be nice to see a few companys maybe take up a joint venture with mazda to up-scale and speed up development, thereby spreading the costs and everybody reaping the rewards but i cant see that happening. If they did that they might even have the new equivilent to the old massively successful Buick/Rover V8 on their hands...........ok maybe not but its a nice thought.

Spec....
 
Well I absolutly love the sound of a tuned RX7. Simply awesome. So as a 2nd or 3rd car it is great, maybe not as daily driver...
 
I have very little to say. This was a car which won the World's Best Engine award (read more here: http://www.mazda.com/mnl/200306/renesis.html ) back in 2003. Three years later, this happens to one of the finest recent Japanese sports cars. I do not consider myself a professional on how engines work. So I do not want to share too much discussion on the specifics of the Renesis engine. The general logic would be that sports cars need power and torque. The 246hp engine of the RX-8 Type-S has good power (even if not the 276hp of its RX-7 brotheren), it's still a fairly nimble car. The primary criticism of this car is the lack of torque or not enough of it. I always joke that one should get a Viper if he/she wants torque. The usage of rotary power is what has made Mazda unique from other companies for as long as they made rotary power shine. My best idea is that Mazda probably could have better engineered the engine (no pun intended). Either that, or get out of Ford part-ownership. ^_^

Anyhow, this is actually quite sad. My brother wanted an RX-8 a few years back. Don't think he knows about this yet. I'm sorry. I just don't want to say, "Mazda should have known this was coming." Well guess what. It came.
 
Rotaries/Wankels have a few other benefits, as it's been explained to me by a buddy doing some work in R&D of microjets (so-called "nanojets"). YMMV as always.

First, they scale with size, down. The smaller you get, the more efficient they become.

Second, the simplicity allows the size to be scaled much lower.

Third, compared to the standard piston engine, they burn alcohol-based fuels (methane, ethane, etc) more efficiently. When turbo/kompressor/super-charged (or what-have-you), they either a.) increase in efficiency, or b.) are more efficient than piston engines with the same turbocharge mechanism. Under normal aspiration, I believe the efficiency referred to was fuel economy. Under turbocharging, I don't know what was being efficient--power to fuel, torque to fuel, etc. Beats me. This was upwards of a year ago.

In any case, the standard principles of economies of scale in production apply--production and development is done on a relatively small scale. Apparently, however, compared to what else Mazda could be doing with those resources, it is the best option. Perhaps the extra whatever-million dollars wouldn't produce as effective (business-wise) results if piled on top of the standard engine development. Makes sense, the more resources (including time) you spend, at some point the less marginal benefit you'll get from it.
 
Anyhow, this is actually quite sad. My brother wanted an RX-8 a few years back. Don't think he knows about this yet. I'm sorry. I just don't want to say, "Mazda should have known this was coming." Well guess what. It came.

I would not feel too bad about it, product recalls are very common in the motor industry and have very little relationship to overall product reliability.

Combine that with the fact that this is a factory recall, not one mandated by any goverment and what you actually have is arguably Mazda looking after its customers and protecting the long term image of the rotary engine.

Its quite likely that very few actual units will require the work, but is easier to look at all of them to be on the safe side, My own Celica has been in for three recalls in the time I have had it (little over three and a half years), two required no work, one required a new fuel tank to be fitted.

If I was in a position to be looking at an RX-8 this would not put me off at all, just about every model of car on the road has been subject to at least one recall, many far more serious than this.

Regards

Scaff
 
Since Mazda built the 654ccm-housings from the seventies onwards, they should have saved a bit when it comes to expensive tools you'll need to make the housings, at least they didn't alter the dimensions ... what would have led to a huge increase in costs.

Would be interesting to know all the reasons why they kept the same size since then ...
 
Shoudn't this have been a glaring possibility in the developement of the RX-8?
 
Shoudn't this have been a glaring possibility in the developement of the RX-8?

Would that be in the same way that almost all automotive product recalls should have been spotted during development?

Scaff
 
Would that be in the same way that almost all automotive product recalls should have been spotted during development?

Scaff

Yes, atleast the major ones which result from stupid mistakes from not double checking i.e. the finalization of the pontiac aztek project.:dunce:
 
...the rotary engine has the fundamental flaws of having little torque and needing high revs to achieve power, quite the opposite of the piston engine and what is needed by 90% of the people 90% of the time...

2005 Dodge Viper SRT-10
8.3L displacement
500bhp@5600rpm
525lb.ft@4200rpm

1986 Mazda RX-7 (naturally-aspirated)
1.3L displacement
148bhp@6500rpm
135lb.ft@3000rpm

As you can see, not only does the naturally-aspirated, 20-year old RX-7 produce its peak torque at a lower rpm than the brand-new Viper, it also produces over 100lb.ft per liter, compared to the Viper's 63lb.ft per liter. Not bad for a "gutless" little 1.3L, eh?

I can tell you from experience that my friend's 1985 SA22C RX-7 has an easier time making it up small hills in 5th gear than my car does, and it only produces a few more lb.ft. I can't find the torque peak rpm for his car, but I know that my car's torque peak is at a somewhat-lofty 4500rpm.

The RX-8's RENESIS is the only rotary that is truly gutless, but when you consider the fact that it's making the same kind of power that turbocharged 13B's made -- in other words, more than 150 naturally-aspirated horses per liter -- having to deal with little torque at lower rpm's is a somewhat worthy sacrifice, one that isn't to be completely unexpected from a sportscar.
 
There isn't anything wrong with a healthy ammount of torque in a sportscar, but a high-rev engine isn't a bad choise either. Of course, it always comes down to the track and driver in use, etc.
 
2005 Dodge Viper SRT-10
8.3L displacement
500bhp@5600rpm
525lb.ft@4200rpm

1986 Mazda RX-7 (naturally-aspirated)
1.3L displacement
148bhp@6500rpm
135lb.ft@3000rpm

As you can see, not only does the naturally-aspirated, 20-year old RX-7 produce its peak torque at a lower rpm than the brand-new Viper, it also produces over 100lb.ft per liter, compared to the Viper's 63lb.ft per liter. Not bad for a "gutless" little 1.3L, eh?

So. I couldn't find the numbers, but for all you know the Viper could be producing 500+lb.ft from 2000-6000rpm. While we just pick random engines out of thin air, the SL65 AMG produces 738 lbs. of torque at just 2000 rpm, regardless of the fact that it's turbo charged because the debate is rotary vs piston.

Why does everyone keep saying that it's only a 1.3 litre? Is that supposed to mean anything? It's a completely different system to a piston engine and it can't be compared directly.

Anyway. The BRM V16 had a 1.5 litre engine with 500hp. So there.
 
So. I couldn't find the numbers, but for all you know the Viper could be producing 500+lb.ft from 2000-6000rpm. While we just pick random engines out of thin air, the SL65 AMG produces 738 lbs. of torque at just 2000 rpm, regardless of the fact that it's turbo charged because the debate is rotary vs piston.

I looked, and the Viper does indeed have a fairly flat torque curve, but the RX-7's curve ain't too shabby for a car that couldn't produce a lb.ft to save its life. :rolleyes: Doing a quick estimate, the RX-7 is producing about 80% of its peak torque at 2000rpm with the 6-port forced closed.

Viper


RX-7


Why does everyone keep saying that it's only a 1.3 litre? Is that supposed to mean anything? It's a completely different system to a piston engine and it can't be compared directly.

If we were comparing the RX-7 to the Viper as the cars themselves, then you would be correct. However, since we are discussing the concept of the rotary engine itself, I believe it is appropriate to point out the fact that it is much smaller and lighter than equally-powerful piston engines.

Anyway. The BRM V16 had a 1.5 litre engine with 500hp. So there.

It was also supercharged, with a maximum boost of 5.7 bar. :lol:
 
Back