PDA

View Full Version : RX-8 has world's best engine



kinan.f
06-04-2003, 08:47 AM
The Renesis rotary engine fitted to Mazda's RX-8 has been voted the world's greatest engine in the prestigious annual International Engine of the Year awards. Not only is the powerplant smooth, compact and powerful, but it's also very clean - it's already able to meet the Euro IV emisisons regulations which come into force in 2005.
http://www.topgear.com/content/news/stories/275/images/img02.gif
The first International Engine of the Year awards were dished out in 1999 and there are now 50 magazines worldwide which cast their votes to award a dozen trophies each year. This year Honda scooped a third of those and BMW another three - and as you'd expect, there are some superb engines in the running. This year's winners were:

*Best new engine of 2003 - Mazda RENESIS Rotary (RX-8)

*Best fuel economy - Honda 1.3-litre IMA (Civic)

*Best performance engine - Mercedes-AMG 55(CL55, E55, S55, SL55)

*Sub-1-litre - Honda 1-litre IMA (Insight)

*1.0 to 1.4-litre - Honda 1.3-litre IMA (Civic)

*1.4 to 1.8-litre - MINI Supercharged 1.6-litre (Cooper S)

*1.8 to 2-litre - Honda 2-litre (S2000)

*2.0 to 2.5-litre - BMW 2.5-litre (325i, 525i, Z4)

*2.5 to 3-litre - Mazda RENESIS Rotary (RX-8)

*3.0 to 4-litre - BMW 3.2-litre (M3)

*Above 4-litre - Volkswagen 5-litre V10TDi (Touareg,Phaeton)

*International engine of the year - Mazda RENESIS Rotary (RX-8)
http://www.topgear.com/content/news/stories/275/images/img01.gif
Originally written by:Richard Dredge
www.topgear.com

Kudosdude
06-05-2003, 02:03 AM
No doubt it's a good engine. But a great one? Only time will tell.:cool:

piledriver
06-05-2003, 04:01 AM
Good choice for the rotary engine...
since I heard about this engine, I say itīs a very good engine in many aspects...

Nash
06-05-2003, 11:34 AM
There are plenty of superior proven engines out there.

davidpnut
02-05-2004, 05:00 PM
*2.5 to 3-litre - Mazda RENESIS Rotary (RX-8)

what? the Renesis is a 1.3 Liter engine, and if you say that each of the three faces is 654 ccs, then its 3.9L, not 2.5L to 3L.

Spastik_Roach
02-11-2004, 12:52 AM
IMHO The M3 3.2 Straight Six should win the best engine thingy prize.

MikeMcLarenF1
03-21-2004, 12:08 AM
what? the Renesis is a 1.3 Liter engine, and if you say that each of the three faces is 654 ccs, then its 3.9L, not 2.5L to 3L.

er.. I dun think u know how to count rotary.... 654cc's is per "ROTOR" otherwise having 3 sides 654cc is 1.9L/ rotor?? holy hell.... and if i remember correctly, each rotor is fired 3 times per engine revolution, and COMPARED to a piston engine that puts it somewhere near the 3L margin. (Although logically it sounds like 3.9L, its physically still really a 1.3L.. So i think they moved it down a class for that.)

bigfatmadmaggy
03-25-2004, 07:22 AM
but like stated earlier you need multiple rotors to put out allot of power but if you go with the old fashion style motor I think FORD DODGE AND VW have it going good like say the W8 Is Awesome Or The HEMI and The SOHC are awesome too so there you go the ROTary(wankel) is cool because it keeps the "three headed cam" canstantly moving but it does not make it faster or produce more power than capable by any regular old engine when we find that (turbine) engine we will be up for a surprise.

Matra et Alpine
03-25-2004, 08:00 AM
but like stated earlier you need multiple rotors to put out allot of power but if you go with the old fashion style motor I think FORD DODGE AND VW have it going good like say the W8 Is Awesome Or The HEMI and The SOHC are awesome too so there you go the ROTary(wankel) is cool because it keeps the "three headed cam" canstantly moving but it does not make it faster or produce more power than capable by any regular old engine when we find that (turbine) engine we will be up for a surprise.
Some punctuation would have helped us understand that.

I think you said ...
Rotaries need multiple rotors to put out as much poiwer as V8 or W12 ?
DUH, the V8 needs twice the number of pistons as an I4, so what WAS the point about rotors ?? ( and the W12 is 3 times :) )

I think you said ...
rotaries have rotating cams.
Nope, that is the equivalent of the pistons not the cams :)

I think you said ...
rotaries aren't faster than regular engines.
Erm, rotaries are able to spin at MUCH higher speeds then ANY reciprocating engine

I think you said ...
a turbine engine will be better
Problem with cars is taking the drive FROM the turbine AND keeping the turbine in it's optimal revs range. Will never happen for a wheel driven vehicle. Electric drive in a hybrid is one option though.

So, can you try better for your next post please.......

Zambia
03-25-2004, 12:12 PM
For all you Irish blokes out there the goverment has deemed this engine to be taxed as a 1.8. even though on paper its a 1.3. Baaaaaaaastards

But i think this car is just a brillant change from the norm in this class of vehicle.

pvon
06-05-2004, 04:26 PM
2.5 to 3-litre - Mazda RENESIS Rotary (RX-8)

actually this is correct. each face of the rotor has 654cc and there are 2 rotors, so thats 1.3liters. every time the rotors go all the way around, the drive shaft goes around 3 times, thus every revolution of the crankshaft has 1.3 liters of displacement fired. However in piston engines, it takes 2 rotations of the crankshaft for all the displacement to fire, thus you take the displacement of two revolutions of the driveshaft in the rotary, which is 2.6liters.
hope this all makes sence

megotmea7
06-05-2004, 07:15 PM
actually this is correct. each face of the rotor has 654cc and there are 2 rotors, so thats 1.3liters. every time the rotors go all the way around, the drive shaft goes around 3 times, thus every revolution of the crankshaft has 1.3 liters of displacement fired. However in piston engines, it takes 2 rotations of the crankshaft for all the displacement to fire, thus you take the displacement of two revolutions of the driveshaft in the rotary, which is 2.6liters.
hope this all makes sence
perfect, finaly someone who kno what their talking about. couldnt have said it better my self :cool:

+1

GT500
06-05-2004, 10:45 PM
oolllldd.....topic......plz dont' bring up odl topics pvon, although I understnad you are new. kthxbye. ;)

mulan
06-08-2004, 06:54 AM
ok the wankel rotary isnt good for emmisions maxda had big BIG problems getting the emmisions down so the wankel engine could produce alot more power the "rx" means rotary experimental just if u didnt know yes the rotary is 1.3L. also the roars arnt cas the still have cams to let in air and get rid of exhaust. this info came from the teachers at my colldge

Falcon500
06-08-2004, 07:00 AM
No doubt it's a good engine. But a great one? Only time will tell.:cool:
Well iw ork behind a mazda dealer and i sit around the back and have a smoke with their mechanics when they are at lunch (my Smokeo) and they have told me that the RX8 is a bloody unreliabvle bit of gear...and for the priceyour paying its no where near worth it...and another quote was at least the the rx7 you at least got a fast car rather then this gutless machine....so it seems the renisis is not with out its fair share of problems....

Coventrysucks
06-08-2004, 07:21 AM
I bet it is having problems because people aren't keeping an eye on the oil levels, or running it in properly.

Falcon500
06-08-2004, 07:34 AM
Possible...but them saying that EVERY RX8 they have sold has come back with problems and sometimes even ona trailer doesnt fill mewith confidence...that said i am currently looking around for a new car and a mazda rx7 (despite what they say) is stillvery high on mylist...im just repeating what i ahve heard from reliable sources:) not knocking just adding a new dimesnion to the conversation...

Renesis
06-16-2004, 03:48 PM
ow falcon thats a little harsh
Yeah it may be a little bit slower than the 7
Yeah it may not be as pretty as the 7
But dont forget the car is naturally aspirated, and for a natural engine to punch out 238 standard isnt bad. The car weighs about 2900 pounds, a lot less (200 pounds about) than the lancer evo and even the wrx sti, both of whom punch out around 300-350 (i dont know exact numbers)
Do the math- turbocharge it, supercharge it, do whatever. That number on your rotors will climb to 300 or more.
As for reliability everyone knows that isnt really true. I've got one and have driven it a lot for about five months.
The thing about rotarys is that they are more reliable than piston driven cars-less moving parts which are well lubricated, but since they're so damn complicated in terms of build and everything, when they break, they break hard.
next time you're critical dont be an ass about it

babel17
06-16-2004, 06:32 PM
The RX8 and the Renesis are both new designs, so there are bound to be problems. I think we won't know how good or bad they are for at least a couple of years. I know that mine has been flawless for it's first 2000 miles (not that that means a whole lot).

If reliability were a requirement, Ducati wouldn't sell a single bike. :)

badboyzbadboyz
06-18-2004, 10:45 AM
Personally I think the RX-8 is a great car but the engine is its weakest link. I have test driven the 230bhp version and as much as I liked the styling the low down torque honestly reminded me of my previous Citroen Saxo 1.1 :eek: This lack of low down performance ruined my experience of the car. If you keep the revs high, very high, then it is fast but on a day to day basis I would soon find that tiresome having to work the gearbox and engine so hard.

Kitdy
05-03-2007, 06:22 PM
Sorry to revive this long dead thread but I was wondernig where I could find some information about this engine. I know the hp/L is amazing, but I am trying to find the mass of the engine to determine the power to weight ratio of the engine Anyone either know the mass of the RENESIS rotary engine or where I could find it?

Matra et Alpine
05-04-2007, 05:24 AM
from rx8club.com Renesis rotar vs. F20c (s2000)


Renesis Specs F20C Specs
Dressed Weight (lbs) 273 326
Max Power (hp) 260 @ 8,500 rpm 250 @ 8,300 rpm
Power/Weight (hp/lbs) 0.95 0.77
Specific Power (hp/lbs/1000rpm) 0.112 0.092
Max Torque 159 @ 5,500 153 @ 7,500
Torque/Weight (ft-lbs/lbs) 0.58 0.47

Best I coudl find for you.
Watch out for the power and torque though as their are variations on market and measurement methodf :(

roosterjuicer
05-04-2007, 06:21 AM
i dont think the renisis is a very good motor. it doesn't make a whole lot of power (only 230) and it has very little torque. also it gets horrible gas mileage when you take into account how little power it has. and ive heard about it burning oil.

i have driven an rx-8 and while they are neat cars i would say they are about 100hp shy of being a great car.

here are some motors i think are better than it and should have won that contest:
1)bmw motor out of the 335i
2)ecotec 2.0 turbo out of the solstice gxp, saturn sky redline, and the opel version
3)the 427 small block out of the z06

i think these motors are all much better than the renisis because they all have lots of power that is usuable throughout the powerband not just at high rpm's like the renisis and they all over respectable gas mileage to horsepower ratio's.

jediali
05-04-2007, 06:30 AM
well wasnt this survey back in 03?

IBrake4Rainbows
05-04-2007, 06:33 AM
The Ecotec is considered a harsh engine by most observers and those in the know - highly adaptable and tunable, yes, but still not very good.

the 427 isn't too much of a technical marvel. it's good at what it does, however.

And the motor out of the 335i wasn't available when the original post was made ;) However i'm in agreeance with you - it's a fine motor.

jediali
05-04-2007, 06:42 AM
by todays standards, the RS4, 2.0TFSI, or TDV8 would get my vote

Kitdy
05-04-2007, 06:57 AM
from rx8club.com Renesis rotar vs. F20c (s2000)


Renesis Specs F20C Specs
Dressed Weight (lbs) 273 326
Max Power (hp) 260 @ 8,500 rpm 250 @ 8,300 rpm
Power/Weight (hp/lbs) 0.95 0.77
Specific Power (hp/lbs/1000rpm) 0.112 0.092
Max Torque 159 @ 5,500 153 @ 7,500
Torque/Weight (ft-lbs/lbs) 0.58 0.47

Best I coudl find for you.
Watch out for the power and torque though as their are variations on market and measurement methodf :(

Thanks Matra, that's a pretty good power to weight ratio there too.

roosterjuicer
05-04-2007, 06:59 AM
Thanks Matra, that's a pretty good power to weight ratio there too.

problem is the renisis is only 230 hp. they originally rated it at 250 but after people who bought it did dyno tests and the car came up way short they lowered it to 230

Matra et Alpine
05-04-2007, 08:01 AM
problem is the renisis is only 230 hp. they originally rated it at 250 but after people who bought it did dyno tests and the car came up way short they lowered it to 230
no. They published Japanese power figures widely which weren't to teh US SAE standard so were "wrong" :)
Nothing to do with "dynos".
More Mazda myths ... just like the Renesis burns lots of oil, or doesn't have enough torque or doesnt' have enough power !
( Torque is a minor issue granted unless you're used to riding motorbikes... use the revs :) )
HOWEVER< power consumption is still an issue. But nobody buys an RX-8 to not thrash it and enjoy the grin, so fuel costs are secondary if considered at all !!!!

Matra et Alpine
05-04-2007, 08:08 AM
ii think these motors are all much better than the renisis because they all have lots of power that is usuable throughout the powerband not just at high rpm's like the renisis and they all over respectable gas mileage to horsepower ratio's.
The RX8 has to be driven like a motorbike :)
Many owners take a while to convert, but Mazda helped with a beeper that goes off at 9500 revs to remind you to plan a gear change before the rev limit circa 10k :)
So drive it from 6000 to 10000 rpm give a totally usable 4000 revs of powerband.
True, it's not a lazy persons car and needs the driver to plan and anticipate and often drop a couple of gears and floor it. But it is so involving in the experience every RX8 owner talks about the "grin" :D

Ferrer
05-04-2007, 10:11 AM
by todays standards, the RS4, 2.0TFSI, or TDV8 would get my vote
I like the 1.4-litre TSI, but apparently it hasn't been very reliable and will be gradually replaced by the new 1.8-litre turbo engine.

roosterjuicer
05-05-2007, 07:04 AM
They published Japanese power figures widely which weren't to teh US SAE standard so were "wrong" :)
Nothing to do with "dynos".
More Mazda myths ... just like the Renesis burns lots of oil, or doesn't have enough torque or doesnt' have enough power !
( Torque is a minor issue granted unless you're used to riding motorbikes... use the revs :) )
HOWEVER< power consumption is still an issue. But nobody buys an RX-8 to not thrash it and enjoy the grin, so fuel costs are secondary if considered at all !!!!

well im talking about stuff that happened in america, so yeah they were wrong considering the car was being sold in America.

the burning oil could be a myth, ive never owned one ive just heard they burn a lot of oil.

but the not having enough power or torque isn't a myth, its a fact. just look at the numbers, when you compare it to cars in its class or its competition it gets smoked because it doesn't have enough horsepower or torque. no myth about it.

Coventrysucks
05-05-2007, 07:49 AM
but the not having enough power or torque isn't a myth, its a fact.

That's fairly contemptible.

How much is "enough"?

A good car is not necessarily the fastest, and unless you are actually intending to become a race driver, whether it is faster than anything else or not is utterly irrelevant.

The fun of owning a car does not come from bragging about how, theoretically, you could lap the Nordschleife 4 seconds faster than another car (if you were Walter Rohl), but from the experience you have driving the car.

If someone who owns a car enjoys it, and is happy with the performance, how is that, then, not "enough"?

Mr.Tiv
05-05-2007, 07:55 AM
That's fairly contemptible.

How much is "enough"?

A good car is not necessarily the fastest, and unless you are actually intending to become a race driver, whether it is faster than anything else or not is utterly irrelevant.

The fun of owning a car does not come from bragging about how, theoretically, you could lap the Nordschleife 4 seconds faster than another car (if you were Walter Rohl), but from the experience you have driving the car.

If someone who owns a car enjoys it, and is happy with the performance, how is that, then, not "enough"?

I agree with that, but, perhaps, he was saying that it's not enough for him.

Matra et Alpine
05-05-2007, 08:09 AM
well im talking about stuff that happened in america, so yeah they were wrong considering the car was being sold in America.
Well given that the US SAE only agreed the "certified horsepower" measurment methodology in 2005 not really Mazda's fault is it :)

the burning oil could be a myth, ive never owned one ive just heard they burn a lot of oil.
No more than most performance cars.
The RX-8 is designed to burn oil supplied via a special injection in high-stress driving. Treat it like a pussycast and it uses no more oil than any other family car. Push it and it does no more than any performance car with no/limited oil scraper rings. But, you do have to be aware of it and top it up as necessary. I've been using about 1litre of oil for 2500 miles and almost all of that is high stress and includes track and competition. Did less than half of that with the rally Escort !!!!

but the not having enough power or torque isn't a myth, its a fact. just look at the numbers, when you compare it to cars in its class or its competition it gets smoked because it doesn't have enough horsepower or torque. no myth about it.
Use the gears and the revs and it does not get "smoked" :)
It's not the fastest acclerating, cos with 4 doors and all the luxuries it's not the lightest. Hadling though is excellent and predictable.
It has PLENTY of torque at the wheels, witness the need to run the traction control !
Biggest number of incidents in UK owners has been the RX-8 stepping out on exitign junctions on full throttle !!
However, I would concur that if driven to expect to pull from 2000 revs it's like an oil tanker :D Not the car then ... the driver.
Handling on the RX-8 version I have - PZ Prodrive - is fantastic, perfectly balanced REAL easy to keep corner speed and have high exit speed. IS hard work on track as it takes lots of gear changes to manage that though. Said it often, you drive a rotary the way you ride a race bike !

So not a 911 or a Corvette but not their price either and able to carry 4 adults in comfort :D

However, we were just discussing the engine ..... yes, it woudl be silly to put a rotary engine into a 4 gear auto 2 ton vehicle. Not what it is designed for. However will be intersting to see where Mazda take teh Hydrogen powered engine ( uniquely switchable back to petrol !!! ) or thier integrated electric hybrid. At the time it woon the award I believe it was rightfully applauded for improving on the previosu gen rotary, meeting emissions regulations and offering VERY compact space enabling designers to optimise position. ( Again, applause to Mazda for making a 4 seater with a boot that has perfect 50:50 weight in a road car -- not with 2 adults in the back tho' :) )

It's the fuel economy that really sucks on it for it's engine size and performance. We're used to much better, though not that far different from US averages.

I agree with that, but, perhaps, he was saying that it's not enough for him.
Never having tried it how can someone know ? 230hp in a 7 delivers different performance than in a Bentley :D
Suspect, give the other "facts" thast it's magazine articles and on-line forums :)

Mr.Tiv
05-05-2007, 08:26 AM
Never having tried it how can someone know ? 230hp in a 7 delivers different performance than in a Bentley :D
Suspect, give the other "facts" thast it's magazine articles and on-line forums :)
I'm not defending his stance. Just pointing out the possibility that he meant it's not enough for him as opposed to just not being enough. I suspect that I'd find it quite enjoyable.

People don't always word things well. I've noticed that not many people, and I'm guilty of this myself, actually want to find out what someone else is trying to convey; they prefer to jump to a conclusion and tell the other that they're wrong.

Matra et Alpine
05-05-2007, 09:14 AM
very laudable.



But re-read post 23 an 28 :)

Mr.Tiv
05-05-2007, 09:24 AM
But re-read post 23 an 28 :)
Sorry, I had only skimmed through. After re-readding 23, I see the issue.

Coventrysucks
05-05-2007, 09:27 AM
I agree with that, but, perhaps, he was saying that it's not enough for him.


If he has not driven the car, how is he in a position to comment as to whether it has "enough" power for him or not?

Mr.Tiv
05-05-2007, 09:30 AM
i have driven an rx-8 and while they are neat cars i would say they are about 100hp shy of being a great car.
Well, he claims he has, and I'm just not cynical enough to doubt him for no reason.

Like I said, Coventry, I had only skimmed the thread(obviously not that well), so just ignore my comments.

Coventrysucks
05-05-2007, 10:12 AM
i have driven an rx-8

Yeah, I suppose that does spoil my argument a little.

Still; "enough for what purpose?"

Ferrer
05-05-2007, 10:25 AM
That's fairly contemptible.

How much is "enough"?

A good car is not necessarily the fastest, and unless you are actually intending to become a race driver, whether it is faster than anything else or not is utterly irrelevant.

The fun of owning a car does not come from bragging about how, theoretically, you could lap the Nordschleife 4 seconds faster than another car (if you were Walter Rohl), but from the experience you have driving the car.

If someone who owns a car enjoys it, and is happy with the performance, how is that, then, not "enough"?
I can only agree completely with this post.

Mr.Tiv
05-05-2007, 10:46 AM
"enough for what purpose?"
I don't know. It's more than enough to get arrested.

Matra et Alpine
05-05-2007, 11:00 AM
I don't know. It's more than enough to get arrested.
and some :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haIKkcNaQOs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QDox4aMGC4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErcuNWgmR8o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-6siPj_uBA
and that's just us crazy Scots playing :D

jcp123
05-05-2007, 11:08 AM
RX8 engine? Bah.

Anything carbureted FTMFW!!!

Mr.Tiv
05-05-2007, 11:10 AM
Anything carbureted FTMFW!!!
Especially if it has 3 or more Webers, but that opinion arises from my heavy bias toward slightly modified examples of a certain English sports car from the 1970s.

jcp123
05-05-2007, 11:13 AM
Especially if it has 3 or more Webers.

Mmmm Webers...I wish they weren't so expensive. I saw a 4-Weber setup for a Ford 302 that I very badly wanted to put on my '68 Mustang had it not been for the price tag. Lets just say that I could have supercharged it for that kind of money. And I'd love to toss Webers on just about anything else I'd drive too!

Mr.Tiv
05-05-2007, 11:17 AM
Mmmm Webers...I wish they weren't so expensive. I saw a 4-Weber setup for a Ford 302 that I very badly wanted to put on my '68 Mustang had it not been for the price tag. Lets just say that I could have supercharged it for that kind of money. And I'd love to toss Webers on just about anything else I'd drive too!
Where do I find this setup? I'm curious. I've been looking at Mustangs, I have some money to burn(not enough for what I'd do with an M series TVR, though), and with a quad Weber setup, I think I'd be happy until I find the right TVR.

One of these, perhaps? - http://www.racetep.com/weber/v8webnew.htm

Ferrer
05-05-2007, 11:50 AM
Especially if it has 3 or more Webers, but that opinion arises from my heavy bias toward slightly modified examples of a certain English sports car from the 1970s.
I agree completely with the first bit. Especially in conjunction with a quad-cam V8 from a 50's sportscar.

Mr.Tiv
05-05-2007, 05:04 PM
I agree completely with the first bit. Especially in conjunction with a quad-cam V8 from a 50's sportscar.
Would have been cool on the Montreal, but those are cool enough as it is.

2ndclasscitizen
05-05-2007, 07:52 PM
when you compare it to cars in its class or its competition it gets smoked because it doesn't have enough horsepower or torque. no myth about it.



Still; "enough for what purpose?"

I'm gonna say the purpose is the traffic light penis length measuring.


Especially if it has 3 or more Webers,

To bad if you've only got a 4cyl car.

Bob
05-05-2007, 08:16 PM
I'm gonna say the purpose is the traffic light penis length measuring.Give the guy a break. He made no comment against you, or anyone else on this forum, simply said the car didn't have "enough" power for him to consider it a great car.

Don't be so rude.

Ferrer
05-06-2007, 04:35 AM
Would have been cool on the Montreal, but those are cool enough as it is.
The Spica fuel injection system is said to be notoriously unreliable. I was thinking of the Pegaso Z-102, though. The Montreal is from 1971 if I'm not mistaken.

Mr.Tiv
05-06-2007, 08:12 AM
The Spica fuel injection system is said to be notoriously unreliable. The Montreal is from 1971 if I'm not mistaken.
Meh, when I think quad cam V8 I think Montreal, and, yeah, I do believe it's from '71. I just think it would have been even cooler with webers, and, quite possibly, more reliable.

clutch-monkey
05-06-2007, 03:50 PM
RX8 engine? Bah.

Anything carbureted FTMFW!!!

there were carburetted rotaries you know :p

charged
05-06-2007, 06:42 PM
Pfft carbies, quad throttle bodies FTW:p


http://www.techmasters.com.au/forum/files/uploads/rx7_1dsc_0220_103.jpg

Falcon500
05-07-2007, 12:36 AM
[QUOTE=charged;703464]Pfft carbies, quad throttle bodies FTW:p [QUOTE]

Cant tell where the throttle body stops and the engine starts lol :eek: