Imagine an alternate future in which Mazda didn't spend so much time and money on meme Doritos™ wanker engines. What would it look like?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Imagine An Alternate Future In Which The Wanker Engine Never Existed
Imagine an alternate future in which Mazda didn't spend so much time and money on meme Doritos™ wanker engines. What would it look like?
|
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
A disgusting inline 4 instead of the rotary God engine.
*God tier inline 6 early on
It would have been a filthy pushrod 4cyl in the Cosmo/R100 and it would make me puke
>inline 6
Completely soullless and worse than both
6 and 7 are really close to each other on the keyboard
>simping for an engine that makes sub-200whp in most forms, shits the bed at 120k mi, and gets v8-like fuel economy
There's a reason they died, anon.
They are competent airplane and boat engines since they don't seize and have fewer moving parts. They've proven themself to be a solid engine in motorsports, and came in multiple configurations offering different performance characteristics and viable power at different price points
>muh torque
>muh mpg
>muh reliability
Literally all of these were massively improved in the 20b which made 300tq at 1800rpm and decreased strain by having another rotor and a linear powerband. If mazda would've been able to have the 20b in more cars, nobody would have this conversation, but since the most common iteration is literally the smallest form of a mass produced rotary, here we are with dudes that have chevy small block tattoos and people who learned abour cars from gran turismo talking shit about them.
>literally all of these were improved in an engine that was an expensive option on an uncommon car
The 20b was a hack job with an E-shaft made of spaghetti and janky mismatched center plates, which are now unobtanium. Let's not kid ourselves.
>if mazda could have put it in more cars
They could. You're acting like there was some mysterious force stopping them from installing a Mazda engine in other Mazda cars. There wasn't, it's just that the 20b was a mediocre engine with pretty bad packaging issues.
>They could. You're acting like there was some mysterious force stopping them from installing a Mazda engine in other Mazda cars.
except there was. its called being under ford and having limited tooling for expensive engines. this isn't a windsor we're talking about. mazda was a minor manufacturer till the late 2000s, and they made a limited amount of rwd vehicles. american manufacturers have the luxury of established models and buyers with no engine restrictions besides emissions. Mazda probably would've had 3 rotor executive cars if it weren't for the japanese economy bubble killing amati
>ford wouldn't let them make the 20b!!!
Easily disproven by the fact that mazda DID make the 20b...
>limited tooling
whar? Do you genuinely think that the limiting factor on 20b production was that they couldn't crank them out fast enough? The limiting factor on 20b production was how many Cosmos were selling.
>they made a limited number of rwd vehicles
Okay? They still could have put them in that limited number of vehicles if they really wanted to.
>american manufacturers have the luxury of established models
The RX-7 has been sold in the US since 1980. In its first 5 years, it sold 450,000 units, while the c3 corvette sold 210,000 in those same 5 years.
Let me repeat that. Over a 5 year period, the RX-7 outsold the *Corvette* by *two hundred fifty thousand cars*.
Mazda wasn't exactly some obscure car company, and neither was the RX-7 which is, get this, a RWD Mazda car that never got a 20b.
Now are you done being moronic or do I need to keep debunking every dumbass thing you say?
>disproven by the fact that mazda DID make the 20b.
and so how many cosmos were sold in the us exactly?
>They still could have put them in that limited number of vehicles if they really wanted to
as if people are going to pay for a 300hp b2200. The only other car mazda had to put the 20b in was the 929 and the rx7, but I doubt they'd be able to sell a 20b rx7 in the us while they were a ford subsidiary, seeing how it'd overshadow the mustang by a fair amount, and the probe was literally on the verge of becoming the next gen mustang chassis at the time.
>Let me repeat that. Over a 5 year period, the RX-7 outsold the *Corvette* by *two hundred fifty thousand cars*
yeah and gm also sold more family sedans of a single model around that time as well. Just cause mazda had the ability to pump out their best selling car that they poured r&d funds, like the miata which followed, doesn't automatically give them the ability to throw a performance engine in everything. Now as we established, the 20b, which only came out in 1990, and was relegated to the cosmo since it would most likely be impossible to put in an american rx7 model and would cannibalize native cosmo sales, was not viable in any other car, and as such couldn't have had the ability to be produced in more vehicles due to those facts surrounding mazda vehicle production. Again, the amati brand offered a lot of promise for mazda and the 20b, along with producing more rwd platforms as a whole, but that all went down the drain from the economic bubble. In the end, the 20b is not a mediocre engine with poor packaging or a spaghetti e shaft. Its literally smaller than a pushrod v8 and makes better power than cathedral port LS's. making 600 to the wheels only warrants fueling and spark upgrades
>how many cosmos were sold
As many as how many people bought them
>it would take away from cosmo sales if they put it in the rx7
Hate to break it to you buddy, but the 20b cosmo sold less than 3,000 units. There weren't any sales TO take away from.
Not to mention, you are extremely moronic if you think that a buyer for a 3600lb, automatic-only luxury touring car, and a 3rd gen RX7 are the same person.
>they couldn't put it in the american rx7 chassis
You know it's the same car, right? The FD33 and FD3S are just LHD and RHD versions of each other.
>if they made a 20b car in the US it would take away from the mustang
You are extremely moronic if you think a $40k+ car would have taken sales away from the $17k mustang.
Even the Cobra was $28k in 95. That's $10,000 less than even a base model 7 ($39k) not to mention how much the 20b would have added on.
>People wouldn't have bought a car with a 20b. It was not a viable engine.
Thank you for admitting I'm right and agreeing with me.
>20b was discontinued in 1996 because of the economy's decline in 1999
Cool, I didn't realize Mazda had time machines.
>established brand name doesn't mean anything!!!one!
You were the one that brought it up in the first place
>makes better power than LSs
cosmo 20b: 276hp
vette LS1: 345hp
>cosmo 20b: 276hp
>vette LS1: 345hp
Kek brochure chuds need not apply
Would rotary powered drones be a good idea?
yes, they exist.
Most forms of the rotary were 1970s/1980s engines, when V8s were making 140hp. Or 1990s engines when Japan had the gentlemens agreement. Only exception is the renesis which was strangled by emissions laws.
So only ONE form of the rotary engine applies to your shitty nonsenical argument here, anon.
*needs a rebuild every 40k miles in your path*
heh, nothing personnel
Sure thing anon
Available in which cars?
Yeah, the euro spec model, for only the series 6. Otherwise they made like 255hp to 280hp depending on model.
If it really was the "gentleman's agreement" limiting the rotary, every single 3rd gen would either make exactly 276hp (japan models) or more (outside of japan).
Seeing as how that's not the case, it becomes very obvious that I'm right. Not that anyone's surprised by that.
Are you trying to make some kind of argument that the REW can't easily make more than 280hp? Don't be idiotic anon.
>the REW can make more power!
>all it requires is a new turbo, new ECU, dowels, a full engine teardown to port it, and rebuilds every 20k after that!
Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, Mazda knew what they were doing when they set it up to make 255hp and no more?
people were pushing 4-500hp out of turbo 2's back in the 90s. The only engines needing rebuilds every other week are peripheral port 2 rotor race engines putting 1100 to the wheels. Modern ceramic seals and upgraded hardware makes it a breeze to have a reliable 500hp 13b.
>500hp from a turbo 2
Yes, with rebuilds every 10k.
If you genuinely think a car that required engine overhauls every 10k would have sold well, you are delusional.
Where are all the reliable 500hp with ease rotary cars at?
I sure havent seen any rx7s on the road in years let alone 500hp ones.
Going to drag nights every weekend.
Don't see many RX7s on the road for same reason you don't see any other classics on the road any more. People don't want to daily something where a simple light rear end tap can end up costing 10k in repairs and insurance companies try to weasel out of coverage.
What makes you think he wasnt talking about at the street races also.
You dont see them anymore because they all blew up, stock and modded, and people are just selling them to the next guy to foot the repair bill.
See them all the time where I'm from.. It's impossible to go the average thursday/friday/saturday night meet and not see a dozen different rotary powered cars. Also impossible not to see them flying down the typical roads doing runs.
Americans are just obsessed with financed hellcats, so why would they drive anything else?
>the only ones needing rebuilds were race engines
>Where are all the reliable 500hp with ease rotary cars at?
>drag nights
Anon, I...
Street drag nights, not competition drag nights.
You don't see them in any sort of competitive setting because they suck.
You don't see them outside of competitive settings because they suck
TLDR: they suck, and are only good as a novelty.
I know this because I got one for $60 and it still wasn't worth the money.
>>all it requires is a new turbo
This is it really, unless you're looking for big numbers. The twin turbo setup from the 280hp models is good for 350hp. ECU who cares, plug and play models exist and old turbo cars should be running modern ECUs now anyway. If dropping the money on an FD if someone can't afford a modern ECU they can't afford an FD in the first place.
Don't need to dowel the engine unless going over 500hp.
Rebuilds every 20k just shut the frick up you clueless dolt.
You do realize that engine life is inverse to boost pressure right? Your engine will inherently wear out sooner the more pressure you give it
Not really. A properly tuned turbo 13b will be more reliable than a heavily ported na 13b while making considerably more power.
Neither of those will be anywhere close to a stock 13b, which isn't really a high bar for longevity either.
seals at 65k as a regular maintenance item is a hell of a lot better than a V6 engine spark plugs and timing components over the 150k+ lifespan of any engine. You can do a rotary seal job in less than three hours.
Build a three rotor, put it in a non-turbo FC chassis, and you've got 300HP in a ~2700lb car that can last for 180k+ miles with nothing but spark and apex seal changes. 1:9 power to weight is by no means a slow car.
180k aint a high bar for longevity today, but that's fricking fantastic for a 1960s concept with 1970s design with 1980s manufacturing.
And I'm sure if someone really fanboys the rotary they can get a machinist to custom make housings and rotors out of modern metal that will last twice that, or handle boosting for 200k+ miles.
As another anon said, modern apex seal/spring materials are far and away better than the original OEM type, import knockoffs, and Jerry's Garage Specials.
>full engine teardown is considered regular maintenance
This already is extremely moronic, but just for fun I'll keep making fun of you for the other moronic things you said.
>you can do a seal job in three hours
A professional with a full shop can, MAYBE. YOU can't.
>build a three rotor
Yeah bro, all you need to do is get the eshaft and fat iron from a Cosmo that they sold less than 3,000 of. Just do that, ez.
>to make 300hp
If you have more money than sense, maybe. There are much much much much better ways to have a 300hp rx7 than to source $10k+ engine parts from a Cosmo.
>put it in an rx7
Now your steering geometry is bungled due to having to relocate the rack to fit the 20b.
>now you have a 2700lb car
If you like driving around with no interior.
>I'm sure someone can make parts out of modern metal
Are you implying that we've somehow advanced past aluminum and steel?
>and it will be a high-power boosted rotary that will last 200k+miles
Anon, if that was possible, Mazda would have done it.
>modern seals are better than the original OEM ones
That doesn't suddenly make the rotary a flawless perfect engine, anon. It means it's a slightly longer lasting, extremely flawed engine.
>1970s/1980s engines, when V8s were making 140hp
Meanwhile at Ford in 1964....
>double-overhead-cam version with four valves per cylinder, running on 103-octane gasoline, the 255 CID V8 easily met its performance targets: 425 hp at 8,000 rpm and 295 lb-ft at 6400 rpm.
>Well what you said is true, but I don't like it, so it doesn't count.
Also,
>gentleman's agreement
You do realize Mazda sells cars outside of Japan, right? Not to mention that the 3rd gen rx7 made 240hp at the flywheel, which is well under the 276hp agreement.
Just a reminder that many armored vehicles make do with less than 200kW. What do you need more for in a civilian light commuter?
I might actually own a Mazda RX of some sort in that case.
>getting 150k+ miles is nearly unheard of from any Mazda wankel
>just premix your fuel like it's a 2 stroke bro
>sounds like a pack of angry bees (subjective, I know)
I've toyed with the idea of getting one for the novelty, but as someone that exclusively drives shitboxes known for going 500k+ miles without a rebuild I don't think I could bring myself to do it.
It's one of those cars that's only bad if you pretend it's something it's not.
Is it a race-winning juggernaut? No.
Is it a long-lasting reliable car? No, especially not now that they're all 30-40 years old.
Is it safe? No, but then neither is any other 30-40 year old car.
It's fun if you accept that it's going to be a slow unreliable money pit. If you prefer driving to wrenching just get a Miata or something. The only reason I ever got an rx7 is because it was perfectly rust-free and I got it for $60. I wouldn't recommend paying more than about $5k for a 1st or 2nd gen, and imo you're never going to get a good enough deal on a 3rd gen to make it worth it.
My friend's been "restoring" an RX6 he bought in the 90s and smoked some jock with a Corvette at a light-to-light race
>not bad for a thousand bucks!
It's been 23 years, Jack, you gonna finish it or what? Be a cool car for your kid's first car, you only have 14 more years to wrap it up
Deadline's 2038 to fix your Mazda, Jack
>rx7 smoked a vette
Explain how
Iunno, probably because they were only going a block at a time
How does that change anything? A vette is still going to be faster 10 times out of 10 unless it's the very worst smog model, and even then I wouldn't count it out.
Anon said the guy bought it in the 90s, in need of a restoration, that means it's going to be an older model. Likely an early 80s, which would be a 95hp 12a. Even with the 1st gen 7 being 2300lbs that's not gonna beat a vette
I wouldn't have wasted so much money on a dumb project rx7 when I was 19 because I was rotarded and it was also my daily driver.
>blocks you are path
>bursts your eardrums
>gets banned
>leaves
/thread
>chassis pulls itself apart
>implying this is a bad thing
if your car doesn't produce so much torque the chassis twists itself, are you really even driving a car
>implying it was because of the torque
Anon, it was because the chassis was so badly built that going over bumps caused it to fall apart after 24h.
kek but not before everyone else's car fell apart apparently
>after 24h
perfect engineering then, if your car doesn't fall apart at the finish line it could have been more lightweight
quit yapping loser
it's 24hr endurance not 25hrs
>RX8
>has a turbocharged VR style alloy V8 mounted FR midship
Verification not required
>Rx8
>Has an x8 engine
imagine seething at having the option to choose something different and interesting. rotards won this one because OP is sperging on an almost CWC level.
You have the option to eat a bucket of sewage for breakfast, that's different and interesting. Why not do it?
If it was a classic design, Henry Ford would have put them in a Model T.
I've been looking into getting a series 2 RX-7, and my main takeaway about rotary engines is that they're too bad at low RPMs to be viable today. But why is that? Did Mazda ever try making the RX-7/8 skip fire? If 2 rotors were good for ~130 HP and 20 MPG in the 80s I imagine they could push both of those numbers higher now.
>why not try skip fire?
Anon, there is literally no way to do that with the technology of the time. That would have required direct injection which really only became feasible in the past 10 years.
>only became feasible in the past 10 years
I see. I didn't realize it was that recent of an innovation. If it's only been around for 10ish years then the RX-8 has been discontinued longer than direct injection has been around.
>Truck & Bus presented the first direct-injected diesel engine for trucks in 1924
Anon, are you trying to claim that diesel truck tech from 1924 would work on a turbocharged rotary in a sports car?
Yes or no, anon?
Explain, in detail, why you think diesel style direct injection won't work on a gasoline engine. I'll be taking notes, because I know the answer, since I've been tinkering with upgrading diesels for almost 20 years now.
First of all, if you genuinely think a a rotary with mechanical injection could pass emissions testing, you are so utterly moronic that you don't even deserve to lick my boots.
Second of all, with mechanical injection, there would be no opportunity to have both skipfire and regular firing- you'd be stuck with either a crippled 70hp engine or you'd eliminate skip fire which would completely negate the entire point of having DI in the first place
Third, being entirely mechanical, you'd have to err on the side of dumping shit tons of fuel in whenever the throttle is pressed, otherwise you'd instantly destroy the engine by running it lean under load.
Fourth, being another hole drilled into the housing, it would cause more loss of compression, which is already bad enough with having 2 spark plug holes the apex seal has to cross.
Finally, it would effectively eliminate any modding potential. I know that you know nothing about engines, so I'll explain like the moron you are: unlike a heavy duty truck diesel engine, gasoline engines and rotary engines in particular require a proper air fuel mixture of ~12:1 by mass. The level of specialization Mazda would have needed to put into their mechanical injection pump to get the proper air fuel mixture for a stock engine would effectively be impossible to match for a modified engine for anyone outside of professional racing teams, if even they could do that. On the off-chance that they could, you'd still be looking at a highly specialized multi-thousand-dollar custom fuel pump that is ONLY good for that EXACT engine configuration.
TLDR: You are moronic. have a nice day immediately.
>First of all, if you genuinely think a a rotary with mechanical injection could pass emissions testing, you are so utterly moronic that you don't even deserve to lick my boots.
Stopped reading here. You have admitted you don't know by sperging out about emissions and immediately losing your temper and starting insults.
The correct answer is that direct injection STRAIGHT OFF A DIESEL would work fine on a gasoline engine so long as you kept the pump adequately lubricated and adjusted the fueling curves to work. As a matter of fact, people have done just that. Enjoy being wrong with your angry tirade that I didn't even read after the word "boots"
>I don't have any argument because I know you're right, so I'll have a temper tantrum!
Thanks for admitting I'm right. You can beg for forgiveness now.
Maybe someday I'll let you have the honor of groveling on the ground I walk on. Until then, keep embarrassing yourself publicly with your utter moronation.
Also,
inb4 "well it would maybe possibly kinda work on a (insert completely unstressed naturally aspirated gas engine) if it didn't have to pass emissions testing!"
Even gayer. Without Wankel motor mazda would be 100%male barber cars like miata.
Let’s say I have a moronic amount of money and want to try something unique and fun. A single rotor of the mx-30 r-ev produces 75hp at 4,500RPM, about 50% more than a typical renesis rotor at the same RPM. It has a high compression ratio of 11.9:1 and a larger displacement, so theoretically a 2-rotor would produce about 300 peak horsepower.
How complicated would it be to stuff this thing into an rx7 or rx8 engine bay and get it running with a custom ECU?
Also, it uses direct injection and apparently has better apex seal materials as well, so potentially durability would be better.
>how hard would it be to create my own custom 2 rotor engine using range extender parts?
If you have to ask, you can't do it.
I’m not going to do it, I’d pay a rotary shop to do it for me. Just curious if there’s any potential there with the larger rotors, direct injection, etc.
That power unit isn't designed for high rev output, so you'd need considerably more work than just slapping multiple rotors together and getting a crank made for it.
From what I know about engine output, tuning, designing an engine for generation, and how hybrid systems are designed and controlled the range extender/generator is going to be a severely compromised, simplified motor.
That 75HP at 4,500RPM is, my guess a very highly tuned application specific power density which goes to total shit outside of the 4000 to 5000RPM range. Think like how a 2 stroke dirtbike can be tuned to peak extremely high, but has a completely shit powerband outside of a 500RPM range.
I'd expect you need to replace basically everything that isn't the rotors and housing themselves, figure out custom porting, custom intake/exhaust, custom ECU/PCU, etc.etc. Basically take just the core housing and rotors, throw out everything else, and design it all from scratch if you want a usable car engine.
I remember reading up on how mazda said running rotaries at a constant RPM removes a lot of the inherent disadvantages of the design, so maybe that’s true. Just not seeing anything with the rotor / housing design that would indicate it can’t run at 9,000 rpm. Maybe it’s mazda’s parting gift to us? They couldn’t produce the 16x so they give it to us chopped in half.
>I'd expect you need to replace basically everything that isn't the rotors and housing themselves
yeah, this is kind of what I was expecting. Not even sure what you’d do about the eccentric shaft except custom fab one. Would you need to redo porting though?
is it worth getting into rotaries in the year 1990+34?
FB or FC?
I'd prefer FC but its hard to find a non raped non convertible one
>I want a 2nd gen
>But I don't want it to be convertible
You might as well say
>I want to drive a slow car
>But I want the one fun thing about it to be taken away
fc3c has worse chassis torsional rigidity than fc3s (shouldn't be surprising on convertibles). from what i've heard it's very noticeable and greatly impairs handling.
also, if power is an issue, intake porting is a thing.
>the fc35 has slightly less torsional rigidity than the fc33
It doesn't matter on the street, and if you're racing competitively, in 2024, in a 2nd gen rx7, with the stock chassis, you did something wrong in the first place.
>if power is an issue
It is. 140hp/2900lb is anemic, don't pretend i
>intake porting is a thing
Sure, if you're down to pull your engine, give it a full teardown, use a dremel to grind down parts of your irons, put it all back together, get a standalone ECU, get a new transmission because the original one is glass, have a new diff on standby because it's not much better, all to have a 180hp/2900lbcar
The power issues aren't as bad in the 181hp Turbo 2, but you could have a pretty nice C5 for that kind of money.
Why would you buy an old, depressingly slow, high maintenance, difficult to modify car, and NOT go for the convertible?
>It doesn't matter on the street
i'm assuming you live in north america where windy roads are straighter than any motorway in the rest of the world and being able to do any steering at speeds faster than 30mph generally isn't an issue, in that case you're right but this was a critique that i heard from a brit who i already mentioned expressed that it was highly noticeable in handling.
>power IS an issue and porting requires you to disassemble the engine and replace ecu, transmission and diff
you're going to have to rebuild the engine regardless if you own an rx7 so many people take that opportunity to port the intakes, it's also lighter and simpler to rebuild than for example an i6 with similar power output so it's not as big of a hassle to deal with in comparison. i can't comment on the transmission lol.
>Why would you buy an old, depressingly slow, high maintenance, difficult to modify car, and NOT go for the convertible?
sounds like a description for what i'd consider to be a fun car, i just don't like convertibles.
>I need to tooge initial tofu street race in my 40 year old car.
If you are ON THE STREET running sticky enough tires and driving hard enough that the slight difference in torsional rigidity matters, please have a nice day immediately.
>you have to rebuild the engine anyway
No, no you don't... the only reason you'd need to is if you bought a pre-blown shitbox or if you're a moron and blow it.
I get that you get all of your information from Tick Tock and Donut Media youtube videos, but you could at least TRY not to be moronic
anon, i'm sorry that you're upset over how you decided to interpret my comment and that you felt the need to throw petty insults at me, maybe if you took a few seconds to reflect on what i actually said and critique that instead of making up your own arguments about me wanting to reenact initial d irl then maybe you wouldn't be as angry.
as i said in my previous comments, handling being noticeably worse is just what i've heard, i never even implied that this was a definitive answer by any means nor do i deny that it's wrong, i simply wanted to inform you that if you're not british it's important to keep in mind that the conditions that this particual car in mind was exposed to are vastly different to where your knowledge might be rooted in. and fyi, this was a low-mile rx7 with standard tyres (if i remember correctly) in mazda's possession and was tested by a journalist who compared it with the sa22c and fd3s, i should've been clearer about how i got this information,
it seemed like we had a good discussion that i could learn some things to keep in mind from, which i did, until just now. it's a shame that my emotionally neutral writing still managed to make you upset, even if i was wrong.
i hope that you too can learn a thing or two from this.
Nice paragraph, too bad I'm not going to read it. Also it's not nice, that was sarcasm, in case you didn't pick up on that.
Sorry you're wrong and I'm right. I know how jealous it makes you that I'm better than you.
>FB
It used to be, when they were $2,000 and reliable. Super old now and getting more expensive. Suspension is also kind of shitty. They look cool though. They're like $20k in Japan now so maybe useful as an investment, but probably too late for that
>FC
Never was a fan. Just get an rx-8 or miata instead.
>FD
Yes. Name me another ~2,800lb production car that uses spherical suspension bushings.
>Imagine An Alternate Future In Which The Wanker Engine Never Existed
NO.