And mess up the handling with the heavy motor?

↓↑report

Go away, troll.

↓↑report

Troll? I'm an avid import enthusiast, I own a mazda protege and a honda civic, was going to buy an RX8 until I browsed the owner forums and saw owner after owner after owner with engines dying between 30K and 45K miles. most of these owners were doing oil changes every 1500 miles as well, babying their cars.

it's a simple design flaw in the rotary engine. when you have to depend on tiny little apex seals that are BOUND to go out, it's only a matter of time before the engine needs a rebuild. sure, i will acknowledge that there are rotary owners out there that get a lot of trouble free mileage out of their car, but you are basically looking at a complete rebuild ever 100K, and constant topping off of oil, with oil changes every 1500 miles. if you're lucky.

the small engine size, slightly lower center of gravity and slightly reduced weight don't offset the picky maintenance and basic design flaw of having to rely on the apex seals. have you looked into trying to make power with a renesis? the aftermarket is virtually nonexistent.

and to stefan, try actually getting your hands on a skyline gtr motor or a supra TT motor. LS1/2s are WAY easier to come across, easier to maintain, easier to tune, and easier to extract power. this is coming from an import enthusiast. don't get me wrong, i can appreciate the technical achievements of the RB26DETT and the 2JZ-GTE, but as far as ease of engine swap, hands down it's the LS series small blocks. think of all of the extra plumbing and tuning and fabrication required to get both of those twin turbo motors to even fire up after a swap.

↓↑report

@Cameron: That's a typical response from a person who never owned a rotary. Instead of becoming informed from forum members, you're passing judgment based on the complainers who toot the loudest horn. From my understanding the Wankel was banned since 1991 from 24 Heures du Mans because many of the pansy constructors complained of the unfair advantage. Very happy you're not a rotorhead.

↓↑report

Right, because any all-aluminum engine that makes more power than any engine even close to it in physical size and weight (let alone gas mileage) must surely be antiquated because of its valve-actuation design.

↓↑report

People who don't fully understand engine technology dismiss pushrod designs. The GM small block is a versatile workhorse. Please don't be so narrow-minded.

↓↑report

I live with rotaries every day. :-)

The NA rotaries are as- or more-durable than 4-bangers, and certainly more durable than a turbo-4. The Mazda turbo-4 is a very, very good engine and has it's place, but I'd like to see a lightweight true coupe with a Wankel. With more displacement, a "RENESIS2" will easily hit 300 HP and last 200,000 miles.

Economy will still suck, but I don't buy a sports car for economy. And it will still be better than my truck.

↓↑report

You are essentially just pulling numbers out of your rear. In theory cool. In practice, less torque, poor fuel economy, oil burning, higher emissions and questionable durability.

I don't see how you figure they are more durable than standard 4cyl from Mazda. A search on "RX8 Engine failure" would suggest otherwise.

I used to own a 91 SE Miata. You can have a small light sports car that gets great fuel economy. These days economy is important even to drivers who enjoy sports cars.

↓↑report

Agree totally, the turbocharged MZR 2.3 in the RWD 8 platform would rock.

↓↑report

It is the first time a TWO rotor engine has changed displacement since the intro of the 13b. The entire eccentricity of the rotor chamber is changed, not just the width of the rotors (difference between the 12a and 13b) The only other Mazda car to have a different shape was the FWD Luce with the 13a.

↓↑report