i-VTEC compared to Mazda rotary

[snubnose]

I don't know how much the new Mazda RX8 has been mentioned so far on this forum, but Mazda is touting it as a surgically precise, handling marvel. It has 250 hp but only 159 pounds of torque.

What do you think of the RX 8? Will it be an agile fast car?

Can you do better for $27,000?

[Si4U2NV]

http://www.supercars.net/PicFetch?pic=2002_mazda_rx7_spirit_r-1.jpg

...need i say more?

hehe...seriously tho...idunnoz...carz are never what they SAY there gonna be...i hope it will be the best car out there to rep rotariez but if it IS released wit 250HP and 159lb/ft tourqe then thatz just ....blah... i hope they keep tuning it and bring back the MEAN NASTY MAZDA ROTARY ;)

-Mike:D

[DjMacAtack]

heres what i learned about the rotary engine... http://travel.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

basically since there's less moving parts in a rotary engine, its less likely to break down and it naturally las a low compression ratio making it good for turbo.

[CaptainMurphy]

The RX-8 was never meant to be the pure driving car that the RX-7 was. RX-8 has four doors and seats four, with enough luxuries to make it worth the cost, unlike the RX-7...

No turbo on the 8 though...but almost as much power, and more reliable than the FD rotary, supposedly.

That's just from what little I've read of it, and what my extremely RX-8 biased friend has told me...

IMHO, nothing will ever match the FD as far as performance and looks go.

EDIT: As far as comparing i-VTEC to the rotary, it's apples and oranges IMO. I'm not sure if I like i-VTEC or not, but we'll all see how good it really is once people start tuning it and boosting... Personally, I had my doubts with it at first, but I like the low end torque, even if I've never driven a B series engine.

I guess I'm rambling...

[ADAMnQuickCIVIC]

Originally posted by DjMacAtack
heres what i learned about the rotary engine... http://travel.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

basically since there's less moving parts in a rotary engine, its less likely to break down and it naturally las a low compression ratio making it good for turbo.

how wrong you are...
rotary's are the worst...
you gotta rebuild them like every 50-60k mi, IF YOU'RE LUCKY.
apex seals go bad very often...
i would never drive a rotary daily...trailer queen, maybe.

[CSMsi311]

rotary's are more prone to problems, but from what i've read the new RENENSIS (sp?) engine is leaps and bounds ahead of the old engine in the rx7. As far as i know there are less moving parts (purely rotational motion, no valves opening and closing) compared to a normal ICE (pistons translate, crank rotates, complicated valvetrain)

Car and Driver compared the RX8, G35 coupe, and Cobra. And they ranked the RX8 #1 overall, even though it was the "slowest".

[CaptainMurphy]

Originally posted by ADAMnQuickCIVIC


how wrong you are...
rotary's are the worst...
you gotta rebuild them like every 50-60k mi, IF YOU'RE LUCKY.
apex seals go bad very often...
i would never drive a rotary daily...trailer queen, maybe.

Actually, my friend owns a second gen RX-7, FC, not sure what year, but he knows other RX-7s with 120k miles plus w/o rebuilding. The key is in the break-in. You treat it nicely, it won't give you problems. And rotary engines burn a lot of oil compared to piston engines, if I remember correctly. Not to mention that they're the smoothest engines as far as vibrations go.

Well, I'll agree with you that I'd never daily drive a rotary, unless I had something as a back up.

[ADAMnQuickCIVIC]

Originally posted by CaptainMurphy


Actually, my friend owns a second gen RX-7, FC, not sure what year, but he knows other RX-7s with 120k miles plus w/o rebuilding. The key is in the break-in. You treat it nicely, it won't give you problems. And rotary engines burn a lot of oil compared to piston engines, if I remember correctly. Not to mention that they're the smoothest engines as far as vibrations go.

Well, I'll agree with you that I'd never daily drive a rotary, unless I had something as a back up.

Then his car is a freak or he drives like a grandma...
I've actually seen people blow up a rotary with 20k miles with no mods except intake/exhaust...
They're very tempermental...even a drop in backpressure can cause them to blow (installing exhaust)...

[Elmie]

Originally posted by ADAMnQuickCIVIC


how wrong you are...
rotary's are the worst...
you gotta rebuild them like every 50-60k mi, IF YOU'RE LUCKY.
apex seals go bad very often...
i would never drive a rotary daily...trailer queen, maybe.

And how wrong you are as well....see its people like you that make a bad name for the rotary. Being a former FD3S owner those engines are petty solid. Why did they break down? Well thats cause idiots beat the shit out of their cars from a cold start. Gee....lets see
cold start+turbo=FUCKED
not to mention people would just shut down their car without even letting it cool down.

So I guess all these "other" RX-7's drivers that you have seen are smart drivers!

Go do some background research.

I'm sick of all these stupid comments from people who never had one to begin with.

[snubnose]

It seems like the Rx-7 is supposedly one of the greatest sports cars of all time.

The Rx-8 is being advertised as a great handling car with 4 doors, excellent balance, and smooth power. The Mazda RX-8 website is very detailed.

One review said it had one of the best sounding stock stereos the writer had ever heard.

One magazine said the RX-8 beat the 350Z and the Mustang Cobra in overall rating.

What does everyone think?

[Elmie]

well the rx-8 is the lightest out of the bunch, so I'm sure it handles really well.

[ADAMnQuickCIVIC]

Originally posted by Elmie


And how wrong you are as well....see its people like you that make a bad name for the rotary. Being a former FD3S owner those engines are petty solid. Why did they break down? Well thats cause idiots beat the shit out of their cars from a cold start. Gee....lets see
cold start+turbo=FUCKED
not to mention people would just shut down their car without even letting it cool down.

So I guess all these "other" RX-7's drivers that you have seen are smart drivers!

Go do some background research.

I'm sick of all these stupid comments from people who never had one to begin with.

I don't need to do "research", I know from experience that my friend's 93 RX7 blew w/ 20k mi on the clock...and all he had done performance wise was intake/exhaust mods...You can give your experience/opinion and so can I...that's why they call this a forum...no need to turn this into a flame war, genius.

[CaptainMurphy]

Originally posted by snubnose
It seems like the Rx-7 is supposedly one of the greatest sports cars of all time.

The Rx-8 is being advertised as a great handling car with 4 doors, excellent balance, and smooth power. The Mazda RX-8 website is very detailed.

One review said it had one of the best sounding stock stereos the writer had ever heard.

One magazine said the RX-8 beat the 350Z and the Mustang Cobra in overall rating.

What does everyone think?

Well, I think the RX-8 would be the best all around for that group of cars. Good handling, 4 doors, seats four. But a lack of low end torque.

The 350Z is more of the weekend car, in the fact that it's not very "practical", seeing as it seats two, and is "more" of a sports car at heart than the RX-8 is IMO.

The Mustang, heck if you like straight lines I'm sure the mustang is your bag. Hell if I just wanted a drag car I would have gotten some american muscle.

For the price, I think it'll definately sell a lot better than the FD.

PS. about the Rotary's blowing up at 20k, was it the radiator? Granted I've never owned and FD, god willing one day I will, but I remember hearing that if you overheat the rotary engine at all then you're screwed. And I think the more current JDM models of the FD have better cooling systems which helps them a lot.

[Elmie]

Bingo!!! Cooling was one of the biggest issues.

Flame war...nah not worth my time. Just can't stand ignorance.

[kpxplaya415]

The only reason the RX-7 produced 217lb/ft of torque was because of the twin turbo setup. Rotaries are like every other engine, treat it nicely and it'll last. The only problem was the TT on the RX-7 and thats what caused the problems along with old school ricers who bought the car and didn't take care of it, not the Rotary engine itself.

[02SiHB]

I agree with Adam. I've known people with RX-7s that are babied them that hit 30k and the apex seals went... Not to mention the peole on their 3rd motor that rag the hell out of them...

I LOVE ROTARY.. aside from the M3 I think they are one of the best cars of all time....

But I'd never have one for a daily driver... Trailor queen, yes... Sunday driver, yes... To work back and forth everyday? Def. not?

I expect good things from the RX-8

[SiR Medic]

Originally posted by Elmie


And how wrong you are as well....see its people like you that make a bad name for the rotary. Being a former FD3S owner those engines are petty solid. Why did they break down? Well thats cause idiots beat the shit out of their cars from a cold start. Gee....lets see
cold start+turbo=FUCKED
not to mention people would just shut down their car without even letting it cool down.

So I guess all these "other" RX-7's drivers that you have seen are smart drivers!

Go do some background research.

I'm sick of all these stupid comments from people who never had one to begin with.


:mad:

FIRST OF ALL... I AM a former RX-7 owner. An '87 base model, N/A. I had VERY modest mods. An aftermarket exhause(because the stock one rusted out), racing clutch(factory unit was fried), and a drop in K&N filter.

The car was a hoot to drive, lots of power (142hp), light weight(2600lbs) and RWD. And to this day I think the 2nd gen RX-7 is one of the prettiest cars ever.

Reliability wise... The car was SHIT! I had a pantsload of electrical problems, mostly with the starter and the HVAC system, but also power antenna (which I ended up tossing).

The brakes were okay, but when the rotors needed replacing, I needed to by new wheel hubs too! Why? Steel brake rotors + aluminum hubs = metal fusing! These were very expensive.

Then... One day... At 135,000kms (about 80,000 miles) the engine seized. After spending $500 for the dealer to look at it, I was told that the apex seals were blown and that rebuilding the engine requires a clean room and a rebuilt engine would cost me about $6000 w/ labour!:eek: (About what I paid for the car in the first place!)

I did not abuse the RX-7, but I did not baby it either... The thing is a sports car... It was (supposedly) made to be driven hard. I would only rev the car past 4k after it had warmed up. This "cooling down" thing is rediculous... what are we supposed to do, let the car idle for a few minutes before shutting it off everytime?

At the same time I had the RX-7, my sister-in-law had a MX-6. That car had plenty of problems too, mostly electrical.

To this day I will never own another Mazda product. I discourage others to buy Mazda. Do you think they have gotten any better since that bastion of quality, Ford, took control?:rolleyes:

[EP33]

(Not that I am Enzo Ferrari) I am impressed with this thread.

I have been waiting to see if ANYONE has seen a factory offered sporty version of the RX8, with something along the lines of a turbocharger???

Mazda/Ford is turbocharging alot of sheet (again MX6/626 GT/GTX/MX6/PROBE) these days.

A turbo RX8 with a 150,000 mile warranty, documentation on frequently worn out parts being in stock for many many cars, and lawyer representation for me included would be a fast light cool car. Even as others have stated a good 2nd, car. This would make insurance less too.

I believe the RX8 handling question will prove spot on. They (RX7s) do handle well, but there aren't alot around these days.

The engines are as smooth as a V-12.

[Elmie]

Originally posted by SiR Medic



:mad:

FIRST OF ALL... I AM a former RX-7 owner. An '87 base model, N/A. I had VERY modest mods. An aftermarket exhause(because the stock one rusted out), racing clutch(factory unit was fried), and a drop in K&N filter.

The car was a hoot to drive, lots of power (142hp), light weight(2600lbs) and RWD. And to this day I think the 2nd gen RX-7 is one of the prettiest cars ever.

Reliability wise... The car was SHIT! I had a pantsload of electrical problems, mostly with the starter and the HVAC system, but also power antenna (which I ended up tossing).

The brakes were okay, but when the rotors needed replacing, I needed to by new wheel hubs too! Why? Steel brake rotors + aluminum hubs = metal fusing! These were very expensive.

Then... One day... At 135,000kms (about 80,000 miles) the engine seized. After spending $500 for the dealer to look at it, I was told that the apex seals were blown and that rebuilding the engine requires a clean room and a rebuilt engine would cost me about $6000 w/ labour!:eek: (About what I paid for the car in the first place!)

I did not abuse the RX-7, but I did not baby it either... The thing is a sports car... It was (supposedly) made to be driven hard. I would only rev the car past 4k after it had warmed up. This "cooling down" thing is rediculous... what are we supposed to do, let the car idle for a few minutes before shutting it off everytime?

At the same time I had the RX-7, my sister-in-law had a MX-6. That car had plenty of problems too, mostly electrical.

To this day I will never own another Mazda product. I discourage others to buy Mazda. Do you think they have gotten any better since that bastion of quality, Ford, took control?:rolleyes:

$6000...the dealer was trying to milk you hard man. A brand new 13B can be had for $3000cdn. As far as electrical gremlins, can't say I ever had any. Cooling was the biggest issue and second was the sequential turbos. So to make it simple, I tossed the twins in favor of a single T04E and got a larger rad. And FYI, my '93 had over 140,000kms (87,500miles). Still on the original engine. And I drove it HARD. My car was good for low 13's, high 12's. And it was a daily driver.

[chunky]

1) rotary motors DO have fewer moving parts than regular engines that rely on reciprocating motion in order to create torque. in theory this makes them more reliable, however, due to some of the inherent design features of the wankel rotary, the apex seals wore extremely quickly and the engines tended to burn a lot of oil. These design flaws have been taken care of on the rx-8's motor. It was as simple as moving the intake/exhaust ports from the circumference of the combustion chamber to the sides of the combustion chambers. this literally cuts cuts back apex seal wear so much that rebuilds should not be needed until after 100,000 miles.

2) rotary motors don't require a clean room for a rebuild. that is a total load of shit. you can rebuild one in your living room they're just that simple.

3) power/weight has always been the main benefit of the rotary motors. they rev really high with no issues, and thus they can make a lot of power with not a lot of torque.


rotary for lyfe yo!

[SiR Medic]

Originally posted by Elmie


$6000...the dealer was trying to milk you hard man. A brand new 13B can be had for $3000cdn. As far as electrical gremlins, can't say I ever had any. Cooling was the biggest issue and second was the sequential turbos. So to make it simple, I tossed the twins in favor of a single T04E and got a larger rad. And FYI, my '93 had over 140,000kms (87,500miles). Still on the original engine. And I drove it HARD. My car was good for low 13's, high 12's. And it was a daily driver.


The $6000 was for the engine + installation + tax!

But yeah, the dealer was probably tryin' to milk me...

Which only goes to bring on ANOTHER REASON WHY I HATE MAZDA...

MAZDA DEALERS SUCK!


BTW, the 2nd gen RX-7 had well documented problems with the climate control unit.





i]Originally posted by chunky [/i]

These design flaws have been taken care of on the rx-8's motor. It was as simple as moving the intake/exhaust ports from the circumference of the combustion chamber to the sides of the combustion chambers. this literally cuts cuts back apex seal wear so much that rebuilds should not be needed until after 100,000 miles.

So instead of having to rebuild the engine after 85,000 miles I would only have to worry about rebuilding after 100K?:confused: It doesn't matter WHERE they put the ports, the apex seals will still go through an awful lot of stress, resulting in a disposable motor.



Also... The RX-8 is UGLY! Especially when you consider how simple and pretty all three versions of the RX-7 were. That C-pillar treatment is just plain nasty. Also, those stock altezzas are a classic case of "jumping on the bandwagon"

For the money, I'd much rather get the gorgeous G35 coupe if I needed the 4 seats, otherwise I'd get the S2000!:D

[chunky]

Originally posted by SiR Medic

. . .

So instead of having to rebuild the engine after 85,000 miles I would only have to worry about rebuilding after 100K?:confused: It doesn't matter WHERE they put the ports, the apex seals will still go through an awful lot of stress, resulting in a disposable motor.



Also... The RX-8 is UGLY! Especially when you consider how simple and pretty all three versions of the RX-7 were. That C-pillar treatment is just plain nasty. Also, those stock altezzas are a classic case of "jumping on the bandwagon"

For the money, I'd much rather get the gorgeous G35 coupe if I needed the 4 seats, otherwise I'd get the S2000!:D

actually, with the new design, the apex seals won't go through much more stress than your average set of piston rings. 85,000 miles on any of the wankel rotaries was if you were lucky and if you didn't drive hard. and i said after 100,000 miles, not at 100,000 miles.

I personally like the look of the rx-8. but i'm not gonna argue subjective points.

[SiR Medic]

I'm sorry, but if Mazda is bragging that the Renesis can go longer than 100,000 miles between rebuilds in an age when most cars can go 100,000 miles between tune-ups they MUST be nutz!

I expect my Honda to last at least 300,000kms. I see so many Hondas running fine after 400,000kms that I do not think I am expecting too much.

The rotary is a rather ingenious engine in its simplicity... However, it lacks the 100 years and countless refinements of the Otto-cycle recipricating piston engine.

I stand by the fact that I will never buy another Mazda... And I certainly will never own another car with a rotory engine!

Once bitten...

[chunky]

Originally posted by SiR Medic
I'm sorry, but if Mazda is bragging that the Renesis can go longer than 100,000 miles between rebuilds in an age when most cars can go 100,000 miles between tune-ups they MUST be nutz!

I expect my Honda to last at least 300,000kms. I see so many Hondas running fine after 400,000kms that I do not think I am expecting too much.

The rotary is a rather ingenious engine in its simplicity... However, it lacks the 100 years and countless refinements of the Otto-cycle recipricating piston engine.

I stand by the fact that I will never buy another Mazda... And I certainly will never own another car with a rotory engine!

Once bitten...

i understand your points, but on otto cycle cars, there are lots of maintenance issues that have to be covered by 100,000 miles

sometimes it's a timing belt/chain. other times it's a head gasket.

the rotary doesn't have those parts, all it's got are the apex seals. The main holdback is labor, since not everyone and their mother can service a rotary.

I'm not trying to compare a rotary's reliability to an otto cycle. We both know which is superior in that respect - but compared to previous rotaries, the new one will be quite low maintenance.