Scoob99

iTrader: (1)

Can't beleive the new Mazda has only got a 1.3. litre engine but pushes out 220bhp..........wow.

scoob_babe

and if like predecessor, susceptible to heavy engine wear

brickboy

The "1.3 litre" is a bit misleading, because there are different ways of measuring Wankel capacity due to its different way of working.

For competition purposes a normally-aspirated Wankel is assumed to have double the specified capacity ... in the RX8's case, it's really equivalent to a 2.6 litre motor. Not knocking it, nice car

Webdunk

IIRC the RX7 engine needed rebuilt at a certain mileage. 60k miles?

What's the story on the new RX8 engine? Does your purchase cost include a free rebuild? Or has the technology improved since the RX7's day?

dnb

Technology is supposed to have improved a bit since the RX7.

The rebuild job isn't quite as bad as it sounds either, since there are 3 moving parts in a rotary engine - rather than approx 50 in a 4 stroke piston engine... The real problem is that there aren't many garages that undertake such work.

CrisPDuk

brickboy, the 1.3 capacity is only misleading to those who don't understand the concept.
The actual swept volume of the two rotors is 1300cc, but because each rotor has a plug firing once per revolution (as opposed to once every 2 revolutions in a traditional 4 stroke), you get twice the number of 'power strokes' per revolution. Very loosely it is like having a spark plug at either end of your piston stroke, Or like a 2-stroke with no oscillating parts
Competition equivalency calculations have always existed, Look at motoGP, you can run a 1000cc 4-stroke or a 500cc 2-stroke, yes I know it is also determined by how many cylinders you are running. In motorsport a turbocharged car is determined to have a 70% larger capacity than an equivalent N/A car, that doesn't mean you are driving a 3.4L scoob.

Webdunk, I believe that they have moved the exhaust ports from the circumference of the housing, thus removing the primary cause of the premature rotor tip wear.

brickboy

CrisP -- don't you get 3 bangs per revolution of a rotor?

I know the volume of the individual chambers in each rotor is 650cc, times two rotors = 1300cc, but I always thought the argument over a rotary's actual capacity was because it separates the induction phase, compression & ignition phase and exhaust phase across the three faces of the rotor, and gets three bangs per revolution, so cannot be directly compared with a reciprocating piston engine ....?

Jye

[Edited by Jye - 11/24/2003 11:36:21 AM]

scooby_si

i always thought it was so the tax man could take a bigger chunk of yer ****! [sceptic mode off] i thought it was agreed to treat them as 2.6 even thou technically they aint, although that may not be true for ireland
Si

ScoobyJawa

RX8 while oil thirsty is supposed to not need a rebuild and should go on well after 100k miles - as quite a few RX7 engines also have with no rebuild!

The rotar tips used to wear as the ports were on the edge the tips moved against. The inlet and exhaust ports are now on the side, eliminating that wear.

BT52b

Test drove one yesterday.
Lovely lovely car, feels really special, great steering, throttle response a Scoob driver could only dream of, brilliant gearchange, less body roll than a WRX yet with better ride quality and more stability over bumps.
Great interior, really feels special.

The only things I didn't like are the lack of practicality (boot tiny, rear a bit cramped considering the length of the car) and the stupidly close-ratio gearbox (230ps version 6th = 4000rpm at 80mph which is lower than the 192ps version's 5th!).
Even our Smart can manage 80mph at under 3500rpm!
That makes it a bit too noisy for my liking on the motorway. A deliberately noisy exhaust doesn't help.

Not as quick as a Scoob, but quite deceptive as the delivery is SO smooth and linear.
Scoob feels a bit brutal and crude in comparison.

Loved it. No way we'll be getting one though, not since I told my wife a WRX-PPP is cheaper. She wants a big rear wing and rumbling Subaru noise....

Mark

dnb

I drove one last month. I agree with most of what you say, however, on a slightly rough road the RX8 is hard work as it's quite skittish. My Scoob isn't.

On the smooth though, the RX8 has just everything you could want from a car.

I dare say that the skittishness could be fixed to some extent by a slightly different suspension geometry.

scooby_si

or more likely as Clarkson hinted at get some decent tyres on there
Si

BT52b

I've heard that mentioned a few times and can't really understand it as it sounds completely opposite to my experience.

Maybe it's quite sensitive to tyre pressures because I've never experienced such an opposite reaction to everything I've heard and read about a car before. It's stability is what I noticed the most.

On the other hand, I had been driving an Exige through 50 miles of standing water on slick tyres the day before, so a Reliant Robin would have felt stable after that!

Mark

[Edited by BT52b - 11/24/2003 5:47:53 PM]

R1916v

The whole rebuild thing is kind of a scare story.

Yes they shoudl be rebuilt abotu 80k (RX7 that is) Ive known ones that have goen to well over 100k on original build.

The RX8 uses titaniam tips plus a few other bits that negate teh need for rebuilds as wear is reduced.

I think you can get an RX7 rebuilt with RX8 tips and that makes em last then.

bazil2582

I have a RX7 if anyone is interested?

mynickers

"Loved it. No way we'll be getting one though, not since I told my wife a WRX-PPP is cheaper. She wants a big rear wing and rumbling Subaru noise...."

LOL, not very often you hear of a lady requesting those attributes in a car - we'll teach them slowly! he he..

I love the Rx-8, was looking on some sites today in fact, which had some nice body kits, I normally hate body kits, but it looked much meaner on these ones.. Not that I would put one on, but they look quite good.. Such a cheap motor too..

http://www.linney.org/RX8-2003SE3P.htm

Nickers