REPORT: Mazda's next-generation rotary needs more work
2009 Mazda RX-8 - Click above for high-res image gallery
Though the rotary engine certainly has its fair share of detractors, many who find themselves behind the wheel of a Wankel-powered machine from Mazda fall in love with the engine's zippy and rev-happy characteristics... including this particular blogger, who purchased a new RX-8 back in 2004. Regardless, nobody can deny that the rotary has always been a thirsty little bugger, especially when compared to powerplants with similarly rated displacements.
We've been hearing for the last few years – and seemingly every other time a new rendition of the Wankel engine came to market – that the next version of Mazda's rotary would address complaints about its high fuel consumption and emissions. Perhaps the early projections about the so-called 16X engine were a wee bit premature. According to Seita Kanai, head of R&D at Mazda:
That really doesn't sound all that confidence inspiring to us. At this point, only time will tell if the 16X will actually be ready for prime time when the long-rumored next-gen rotary-powered car from Mazda hits the scene in 2012 or so.The 16X demonstrated the possibility, but that performance is not good enough. We are doing R&D which will incorporate more new technology... The 16X is more a profile of a rotary still in our concept stage. It needs more evolution.
Gallery: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. Req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
gstylezprodigy 10:24AM (10/23/2009)
I've seen one of these driving around already and I thought it was just an older model with aftermarket LED Taillights and Grille.
Mazda had these amazing concept cars, yet played it safe.
Reply
lester 9:31AM (10/23/2009)
As long as it can run Crysis, I'm A-OK with it being a gas guzzler.
Reply
Mike7 9:19AM (10/23/2009)
"On the other hand, why not just put a turbo'd 4 (or small displacement 6) in there?"
You don't belong here.
Reply
mk15 9:24AM (10/23/2009)
that's like saying Subaru should ditch the boxster engine for a regular inline-4 for their WRX or STI.
Reply
michael pettibone 9:25AM (10/23/2009)
Exactly! Why waste resources on this dirty gas and oil hog? How abouy a hotter Miata and a hot 2 instead?
Reply
Mike7 9:32AM (10/23/2009)
@michael pettibone
The rotary engine is part of Mazda's heritage. Should Porsche stop making the 911 because it is flawed? No. Remember, Mazda was the first Japanese manufacturer to win at LeMans in 1991, and they were using a rotary engine.
Reply
HotRodzNKustoms 9:39AM (10/23/2009)
@ Citezen Chin @michael pettibone: Go back to Al Qaeda
Reply
HotRodzNKustoms 9:49AM (10/23/2009)
Anybody very familiar with rotaries can tell you that every major new design has an extremely hard birthing, a major contributing factor to why Mercedes and GM gave up on the engine. And despite what Mazda wants you to think, the Renesis is actually just another variation of the 13B which has been in production since 1972.
Reply
Robert 10:34AM (10/23/2009)
I think that's largely due to the lack of production. Despite being more complicated (and growing in complexity every year), piston engines are easy because there is a great body of knowledge about them and lots of other people designing and engineering them.
Mazda has been essentially the only producer of rotary engines that power cars that are sold to the public. So, they are essentially the only people doing R&D in this area (rotaries for cars). They don't have the same body of knowledge (thought they are very knowledgeable) or other designs to compare against. There's no competition in the space. They are taking on ALL the work, which, to me, justifies the slow progression of the rotary and Mazda's difficulties in iterating the designs.
From what I've heard, Mazda still hand-assembles the engines, too. That has to be expensive versus having unpaid robots, and figuring out a good compromise between easy to assemble and advanced enough to address some of the fuel consumption and emission concerns.
And, even though the Renesis 13B-MSP is based on the 30 year old 13B designs, it is really a significant evolution. Yes, it's a 13B, but I wouldn't call it the *same* 13B they designed 30 years ago.
Jim 10:49AM (10/23/2009)
"I think that's largely due to the lack of production. "
perhaps, but the Wankel has some inherent disadvantages compared to piston engines just by nature of the design. poor efficiency is the hardest to overcome, due to the relatively large surface area of the combustion chamber(s), which mean energy is much more rapidly lost to the cooling system. Sealing is still an issue, especially apex seals and their interface to the rotor side seals, coupled with the necessity of at least some oil consumption.
Robert 11:30AM (10/23/2009)
From what I hear, they are working to address the large combustion area by changing the characteristics of the surface of the rotor (something about making a trap for the fuel+air that is smaller and better positioned relative to the spark plugs). I think I heard something about DI, too, but I doubt that would make up for much if other areas aren't addressed.
The oil consumption is fairly light on my RX-8 (~1 quart every 3000 miles, the suggest oil change interval). That's a problem if you don't change your oil regularly, but not very noticeable if you keep up with your maintenance.
As far as the durability of the side and apex seals, I still attribute deficiencies to the state of the art. Not that I've heard anything particularly negative about this in the Renesis, but I can only see things improving as technology and Mazda's R&D improve. I'm not an engineer, though.
So, hopefully the 16X will improve things a bit.
Kip 9:58AM (10/23/2009)
"On the other hand, why not just put a turbo'd 4 (or small displacement 6) in there?"
It's a dealership issue. The parts shops at Mazda dealerships aren't big enough to hold all of the extra parts a piston engine requires. The engine stands at the Mazda dealerships aren't strong enough to hold all of the extra weight a piston engine carries. The mechanics at the Mazda dealerships aren't smart enough to work with the considerably more than three moving parts that a piston engine uses. ;-)
Reply
Robert 10:06AM (10/23/2009)
Does that mean the new RX-7 won't get the 16X? If they use the same 13B-MSP that is in the RX-8, the MUST supercharge it or make it much, much lighter to keep the performance high enough that it doesn't upset RX-7 fans. The RX-8 is already pretty light (including aluminum parts, and a carbon fiber drive shaft, ignoring that the engine itself is lighter than equivalent piston engines). So, I'm not sure how much lighter they can make the RX-7 without more exotic materials, which will push the price way up.
Reply
Rob 11:10AM (10/23/2009)
I took it to mean that they'll put out the next RX-7, with the new engine, whenever it's ready. Assuming they're doing all the engine work even as we speak, a concept car could be at next years Tokyo show, and a complete production prototype the year after, with full volume production ready for mid 2012. It seems like a pretty reasonable timeline to me.
Nateb123 3:47PM (10/23/2009)
Rotaries are meant to be turbocharged, not supercharged. Too much goes out the tailpipe not to use it.
Jeff Madson 10:20AM (10/23/2009)
"On the other hand, why not just put a turbo'd 4 (or small displacement 6) in there?"
I agree losing the history of the rotary would suck, but I think they would sell a lot more of that body style if they had the 2.3 L DI turbo mill from the MS3 as an option. (Including one to me.)
Reply
katshot 10:41AM (10/23/2009)
The RX-7 is simply a terrible car IMO. Don't like the looks. Don't like the way it drives. The only thing it has going for it is that it's quirky. If that's important to you, go for it. If you want a nice car, Mazda has you covered with their other products.
Reply
katshot 10:54AM (10/23/2009)
Sorry, meant to say the RX-8 was a crappy car.
NA2R 10:50AM (10/23/2009)
The Martians called; they want you back.
sk7m 10:54AM (10/23/2009)
You , Sir, are retarded