http://www.mazda.com/motorshow/technology/power/renesis/index.html

Tokyo auto show press release: http://www.mazda.com/publicity/release/2007/200710/071002.html

Quote :

"In developing the next-generation RENESIS, Mazda made a thoroughgoing revision of engine dimensions including the trochoid rotor housing, adopting a longer stroke and larger displacement of 1600cc (800cc x 2) aimed to raise thermal efficiency and boost torque at all engine speeds. By employing the Hydrogen RE design policy of a direct injection system and aluminum side housing, as well as various other measures, we are further promoting the rotary engine’s merits of light weight and compact size."

the internet rumor mills say 280 hp at the flywheel, although nobody's sure what kind of car(s) it will end up in

[Edited on October 21, 2007 at 4:32 PM. Reason : 280hp]

10/21/2007 4:27:28 PM

I need an engine swap now.

10/21/2007 4:47:25 PM

280 from 100ci nice
never really checked one out but how long is a mazda rotary new or old, looks short

10/21/2007 7:33:45 PM

one of my neighbors has some kinda formula racing car that runs a rotary motor in it outta the new rx8's says it makes 200hp it's all built up and takes a beating. the car is sweet. like a mini indy car takes it to vir and stuff.

10/21/2007 8:27:19 PM

umm star mazda ?



it just needs to hold boost thats all i care

10/21/2007 8:48:19 PM

Maybe the RX-8 can finally give the same performance the FD could.

It can never beat it in looks though.

10/21/2007 11:52:37 PM

That is seriously quite cool.

They could make a new wave of lighter more efficient cars with that... Maybe?

Or are rotary engines usually pretty inefficient?

10/22/2007 12:24:14 AM

Gas mileage on an rx8 is fucking horrible.

You get people argueing over what its true displacement is all day but it sure as shit burns fuel like a 2.6L.

10/22/2007 12:31:29 AM

you couldnt give me a fucking rx8

however that 3rd gen body style rx7 is gorgeous

get one of these new rotaries and put in that body

10/22/2007 12:49:08 AM

maybe the new ones wont burn up like the 8s

10/22/2007 12:58:39 AM

rotary engines are less fuel efficient and have the whole sealing issue but can make more power and rev higher while being light.
105 at like 9k in an rx8 on some back roads shit outside chester,sc was pretty hairy

10/22/2007 1:56:59 AM

they may be light but why put them in 3000lb four door *wink* *wink* "coupes"

10/22/2007 8:27:57 AM

despite increased displacement this motor should be equal or lighter than the current motor in the Rx-8. Mazda has converted one of the housings from iron to aluminum. On previous rotaries, 3 of the 5 housings were iron, now only two will be iron (the front and rear ones, the middle one is now aluminum).

As far as gas mileage... well I doubt this one will be much better than the older ones. We'll see what direct injection can do. See those blue plugs at the top? Those are the new direct injectors. The secondary injectors have the green plugs. That is where the primary fuel injectors have been located on all previous fuel injected rotaries (secondary injectors are typically in the intake manifold). FYI all fuel injected rotaries (except the 84-85 13B 1st gens) use staged injectors for driveability and gas mileage.

Personally, on the highway I could always get low 20s, like 22-23 on my 88 nonturbo. Even my buddy's FD would get low 20s on the highway. Around town will kill you though. I'd get 17-18 in my nonturbo, mostly because you have to rev to 3-4 grand off a stoplight due to no lowend torque. The turbo cars have more torque but if you get into boost all the time it just kills the mileage. I'd get like 13-14 in my Turbo II around town and 19-20 on the highway.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 10:48:32 AM

What other advantage does it have other then weight?

10/22/2007 6:39:44 PM

NO FUCKING TORQUE.

Sorry, Ray! I just HAD to say it...

10/22/2007 6:47:55 PM

why should you apologize for the truth boost was the only way to force them into artificial torque

10/22/2007 10:16:39 PM

ray what is this i hear about you buying a mkiv

10/22/2007 10:18:29 PM

Quote :

"What other advantage does it have other then weight? "

Decent power
Very smooth running
in theory more reliable since there are a lot less moving parts

10/22/2007 10:27:18 PM

^^It had a few too many cosmetic blemishes for his tastes. And it was an auto. But it drove well. Overall, I wasn't that impressed.

^sealing nightmare. Maybe not anymore. But not perfect by any stretch.

10/22/2007 10:36:35 PM

nonturbo 2 rotor engines are pretty weak at lowend torque (although the rx-8 does have a 4.44 gear), but 3 and 4 rotors are a whole different story...

and i made 250rwhp/250rwhp torque on my stock turbo, with the stock 4.10 gear

10/23/2007 1:28:32 AM

Quote :

"NO FUCKING TORQUE."

Torque, schmorque. Who needs that shit in a sports car?

just breaks stuff and requires heavier parts with greater inertia.


worrying about torque in a sports car is like worrying about 1/4 mile times for a rockcrawler.

10/23/2007 2:30:52 AM

I'm gonna argue with you on this one, Josh.

The absence of loads of torque requires a very different driving technique. Sure, in the end, total horsepower rules the day...but if you spend half the day shifting up and down, where does that leave you?

The only RX7 that I haven't driven is an FC Turbo or Turbo II. ANY of the NA's needs to be revved relatively high and shifted often to maintain real driveability. The FD, however, was a bit different AS LONG AS YOU KEPT THE BOOST COMING...

10/23/2007 9:21:08 AM

what you're hating on is a narrow powerband, which is a different deal.

10/23/2007 10:02:15 AM

Well, if you want to look at it in absolutes, horsepower is the measure of work done as a function of time, whereas torque is the instantaneous twisting force available. You're right about this: you can have all the torque in the world with relatively little horsepower...but it's going to take forever to do the work. Think like clockwork slow.

Now given that an engine usually only has a useable powerband of 2k to 3k RPM, and given that extra gearing will be needed to extract roughly the same instantaneous power at any given time, or even over a period of time...think about this:

1. Obviously, as a function of time, given the same vehicular acceleration rates, the higher-revving engine with a low torque output will be in and out of its sweet spot much more frequently, and the numerically higher gear ratios determine that this sweet spot is correspondingly much narrower as a function of time.

2. An engine producing correspondingly higher torque but lower peak horsepower can be geared, however, to take advantage of its configuration. Effective sweet spot is much longer as a function of time.

3. How about drivetrain parasitic losses? More gearing = more loss.

4. Think about this as well: inertia--would you rather have a rotational mass with inertia or would you rather have inertial losses (remember, exponentially greater inertia as rpm increases) in the reciprocating assembly?

Of course, I realize I just n00bed all over myself with Item 4. We're talking about a Wankel, which has relatively little reciprocating inertia compared to a standard recip engine. One of the reasons for its relatively high output.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 11:26 AM. Reason : yeah baby]

10/23/2007 11:19:16 AM

so you're complaining about a narrow power band at the end of a long first gear?

10/23/2007 12:48:13 PM

F1 guys can afford a short-ratio box with seven speeds and an automatic clutch and sequential shifting.

I can't.

10/23/2007 12:50:31 PM

Here's something in regards to the torque Vs HP argument. I've been spending a lot of time on MBWorld.org and apparently the E55 AMGs with the supercharged V8 are faster than the newer E63s with the NA V8. The 6.2 liter V8 has about a 40hp advantage, but less torque (I think around 50 lb-ft). Perhaps they've changed the gearing significantly, but nothing else about the car has really changed.

thought I'd mention that to keep things interesting.

10/23/2007 1:08:49 PM

meh, powerband on both my (ported I must stress) turbo and nonturbo FC's was 5k to 7500, gearing was such that it never dropped below 4500 at VIR or deal's gap. now my nonturbo was a complete dog under 4 grand i'll admit. it was pretty slow, but that was very much a function of the porting and exhaust which were set up for top end.

and Dan, I've driven a healthy bone stock to the air filter 10th anniversary Turbo II with 70k miles on it. they are rated at 182 hp @ 6500 and 183torque at 3500 (they typically dyno about 170rwhp). torque is really flat on that car, more so than an FD although it's obviously way slower. it just felt like a DOHC v6 honestly.

Oh and Mazda has also been using the rotary equivalent of variable valve timing (6 port induction) since 1983, which I'm pretty sure is before most (if all) piston engines had it. the current rx-8 for example has the rotary equivalent of 3 cams and system akin to variable length intake runners.

but anyway, the whole point of this new engine is to have broader torque without having to rely on boost. Hopefully then they can run a taller 6th gear and less rpms on the highway for gas mileage. currently the Rx-8 runs about 4k at 80mph in 6th

10/23/2007 5:37:56 PM

Quote :

"F1 guys can afford a short-ratio box with seven speeds and an automatic clutch and sequential shifting. I can't. "

Just don't go below 30mph

10/23/2007 6:32:34 PM

Horsepower sells cars. Torque wins races

10/23/2007 6:33:10 PM

thats a dumb fucking statement hp is the speed at which torque can be applied

more horsepower will ALWAYS WIN if the car has a usable powerband and is setup to run in said powerband.

10/23/2007 6:36:53 PM

10/23/2007 6:44:46 PM

^^yes, quite so.

10/23/2007 7:04:33 PM

I know power is derived from torque.

I just felt like quoting Caroll Shelby. I guess he is a dumb fucker isn't he.

10/23/2007 9:30:35 PM

He can't be but so dumb. He has more money and fun that any of us on this goddam site.

10/23/2007 10:01:25 PM

The almighty wankel.

10/23/2007 10:25:27 PM

right. since this thread is about wankels and all.

10/23/2007 10:34:14 PM

wankers

10/23/2007 11:19:23 PM

Thats weird the guy who invented/made/designed the rotary engine, his last name was Wankel and his engines were called the wankel rotary.

What do you think Mr. Mazda came up with the wankel?

10/23/2007 11:23:52 PM

DUMBASS, wrong for the 12,763rd time.

1. wankel did not make or design the rotary, nor was he even close to the first. wankel's engine came 50-60 years after the first rotary.

2. this thread is NOT about wankel engines.

3. GTFO out of our garage, you do nothing but dumb it down.

10/23/2007 11:30:20 PM

he made a 500hp 289.... so maybe he doesn't live by his own rule too much and he was also racing endurance races where a torquey motor runs low rpms and lasts alot better hence the switch to the crossbolted 427 from the 289


i like john hennessey's better

" too much hp is never enough "

10/23/2007 11:39:48 PM

Quote :

"Horsepower sells cars. Torque wins races"

good sound-bite

unfortunately it's wrong

10/24/2007 12:12:43 AM

I got pulled over by an officer on foot going 27 in a 25 because of my "high revving engine" sound. He bitched at me for like 5 minutes and couldnt understand why I thought it was funny. I mean honestly what else can you do but laugh? I probably only had 120hp at 7rpm anyways.

"You would have to be deaf to not hear that thing coming"

Status Killed.

10/28/2007 8:40:00 AM

^ I drive around at 20 mph in first gear all the time just to be loud and piss people off (and waste plenty of money on gas).

10/31/2007 4:08:13 PM

More pics: http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=129821

11/5/2007 12:30:46 AM

11/5/2007 1:17:17 AM

that does look pretty bad ass

11/5/2007 8:32:43 AM

bolt a couple more housings on that thing and then come talk to me about it

11/5/2007 9:11:43 AM

that's an oldschool 20B, only available in Japan, which is pretty much a 13B-REW from an FD with a custom eccentric shaft and some extra housings (and of course accompanying manifolds etc)




[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 10:43 AM. Reason : .]

11/5/2007 10:39:56 AM

Who was that tuner that would put a 3 rotor in an FD for ya? Peter Farrell or someone? I believe you had to push back/modify the firewall, but hot damn it'd move.

11/5/2007 1:10:55 PM