The problem with rotary is a marketing one. Wankle? What's that? Sounds like wanker, that ain't good. hahaha. Actually, I thought the concept was great, but V8's are not to be scoffed at.
A modern corvette does some pretty amazing stuff with a small block V8, both in terms of power and economy it's often the equal or the better of much more exotic DOHC stuff.
It'd be really interesting to see someone take that concept and just build it as light and compact as possible, with the cam down in the Vee, you could probably build a 5ish liter v8 no bigger than a modern V6, perfect for a car about the size of an RX7, something that can slink right under that low hood but that gear head mid life crisis boys with 50 grand (or so) understand and have been craving ever since puberty.
I wonder what would sell better?
I wish chevy would build that SS concept, it'd be the first acceptable muscle car out of Detriot since the early 70's.
A 5ish liter v8? Wouldn't fit. My '85 had a 1.3 liter rotary. That's what made the low profile possible - small displacement that still got amazingly good power. It also helped with weight distribution.
There are some very nice v8s and the Yamaha-built v6 in my SHO is a dream too. Those are good engines for other cars. The rotary is what an RX-7 "wants" and it's just as cool too.
You're probably right. But a pushrod V8 can be very small, look at a Vette again when you get a chance, the hood is quite low, or even the last gen Camaro, which never really looked right, but they managed to squeeze a V8 in there, again into a fairly pointy nose/low hood, I wonder if a DOHC engine would even fit? Of course, you can't get much smaller than a rotary, but you can make a pretty small pushrod engine if you want to. I recall Penske took advantage of some displacement rules to make an all conquering indy-car engine a few years back. Not only did it have more displacement than the DOHC competition, it was smaller and lower, resulting in a more areodynamic car. They quickly changed the rules after that (since they only applied to one race anyway) but push-rod and V8 don't have to mean retro-tech. Sometimes simplicity offers more advantages than at first apparent. A largish displacement V8 with quality ancillaries will run forever for a number of reasons. And with power at low revvs, fuel economy can be surprisingly good, these are popular endurance race engines.
Wow, this just goes to show that we are in for a very drastic change to BMWs line-up. Not just the 7 series as was originally thought. BMW has always been my utmost favorite car company, for as long as I knew what a car was. Even though these new Bimmers will undoubtedly perform just as well, if not better, than their older counterparts; the looks are definitely lacking. I mean, just take a look at the 2002 BMW M5. There is just NO sedan in the world that can measure up in performance, or in my opinion - looks. The redesign of this "new" 5 series, however, looks like a retarded blind kid's rendition of the once almighty mid-sized sedan.
BMW PLEASE!!!! Ditch Bangle. Whether you like it or not most of our population is not knowledgable about cars and thier performance statistics aside from simple 0-60 and quarter mile times. The majority of people judge a car by it's looks. Simply put, this new direction of design just doesn't cut it.
Here to be the rotary guy. . . . And I think Jon is in shock that I wasn't the one who introduced FD talk into this thread. Anyway, here are things that you might like to know about Rx's.
Legend:
FD3S (FD) = 3rd gen Rx-7
FC3S (FC) = 2nd gen Rx-7
SA22C (SA) = 1st gen Rx-7
The FD is unlike the FC and SA in that it is a no compromises sportscar. not unike a slightly detuned race car if you buy the r1/r2/rz/Bathurst model. The SA and the FC saw some success in the racing circuits, but the FD had no trouble beating cars in "faster" classes because it can corner better than basically anything. Personal history in addition to Road&Track test results justify this claim for me.
The interior of the FD is very comfy if you don't buy one of the models listed above (But on the other hand suede seats are just too cool: the car can corner so hard that you'll slide around in leather. . . I can verify this by the several dollars of loose change floating around my FD). However, if you're taller than 6-2 or have a waist bigger than 34", you won't fit in the car. If you're smaller than that, it's comfy. (I'm 6-0 160 and I love the feel of the interior).
I haven't driven the Rx-8 yet, but I don't think it's in the same market as 5series. As far as I can tell it's a great car. The 13B-REW in the FD is a fragile engine, but the 8's 13B-RENESIS is very different mechanically, and I bet it can go longer with fewer problems than anything from Honda. Rotaries are actually extremely reliable since they have very few moving parts and don't produce a lot of vibration. The only problems are the seals, which continue to become less and less of problems with every iteration of the Mazda Rotary. (Materials science develops).
Matsu: The wankel engine is actually a DKM rotary, and all current designs are KKM rotaries. Furthermore, it's not marketed and a wankel engine, and not too many people know what or who a wankel is. And the rotary is the best endurance race engine. In fact the R26B engine(2622cc, 4 rotors, 12 spark plugs, 700hp, 449ftlbs, N.A.) is so good that it was banned after the Mazda 787B obliterated everyone in the 1991 LeMans. Rotaries are lightweight, high power, and are *gasp* more reliable than piston engines in extreme environments especially. The small engine helped the 787B save weight, have better balance, and allow for it to be much smaller, making it more nimble and susceptible to less air-drag. It's so good, in fact, that if it weren't for the energy crisis and the departure of Delorean from GM, the 78 Corvette was supposed to be rotary powered. Instead, it was an 170hp POS. (I think the year is 78, I might be a few years off).
Anyway, the Rx-8 is going to sell fabulously well and servicing won't be problem. And the best part is that it's good sales will prompt the release of something tentatively known as an FE. . . No compromises with the 7.
Not bad. Sounds like something you'll see on the rx7forum.com boards. . . . um, I'm a member there too. You could give me an avatar of a smoking rotor.
that's funny though, i know a guy who loves the rx7 boards. he just picked an rx7 up and goes there for tons of great info on his car and how to fix it. read through 'em a few times and was always impressed. those guys over there actually know what they're talking about.
now i'm learning about rotary engines from first hand experience.
Yep, the rotary has a lot of pluses, though fuel economy isn't exactly one of them. At 1.3L Mazda's rotaries slurp unleaded like a much larger engine, of course they also make power like a much larger engine. Still a modern piston race engine can be made a lot smaller than you're giving credit, even a large displacement unit.
Rotaries could be very interesting if we ever get to the point where we combust hydrogen
Yep, the rotary has a lot of pluses, though fuel economy isn't exactly one of them. At 1.3L Mazda's rotaries slurp unleaded like a much larger engine, of course they also make power like a much larger engine. Still a modern piston race engine can be made a lot smaller than you're giving credit, even a large displacement unit.
Rotaries could be very interesting if we ever get to the point where we combust hydrogen
Turbo Rotary (13B-REW) gets me about 15 city 30 highway. I made 150 miles in 5 gallons today, actually, at 80 mph on I-95. The 13B-RENESIS has side-ports and better technology in general, plus it's not turbo. It has a lean fuel air mixture and it's ULEV. So I bet it gets pretty good mileage.
I wonder what a rotary with more smaller rotors would do. Instead of two largish rotors, have 4 small ones, same 1.3L displacement, but only about 325cc per rotor. Why? Well, piston engines are gonna get a whole lot of fuel saving measures in the next five years, between varying cam profiles, and alternatively shutting off pistons. You can't really vary the cam in a rotary, since there isn't one exactly, but if you could shut off a rotor or two, you could probably get even better fuel economy, since you don't really use most of your power around town or to cruise, just to accelerate. Not mention the thing would rev to 15000+ rpm.
yeah, you guys should start an RX-8 thread....some of us had that on our shopping lists before our friends told us that it'd cost us $45k or more. Now that I think that's cheaper....maybe a proper wankel thread would be nice?
Give these poor suckers their thread back for their wailing and gnashing of teeth for Mr. Bangle.
Oh, the 5? My first thought WAS Honda Accord...yeeps!
Bangle? I like the Z3 Coupe (Had to go look it up to make sure what it was called. It's the one that looks like my Honda Civic hatchback on steroids? That's why I like it of course...wonder what a used one costs...hmmmmmm)
Yeah, sorry, most of Bangle's designs leave me scratching my head. You can see how the whole concave-convex milieu ***might*** work, but it needs more time in the drawing room -- it just isn't ready yet. The worst example being the way a Hyudia Santa Fe always looks dented from the side, even though it isn't, the best example being the side scallops of a '57 Corvette -- in terms of what comes off nicely in a mass produced car.
Mebbe he should just rename himself Bungle for what he's doing to these cars. BMW. Think. This means a reverse-rake nose and a gentlemanly stance. Have BMW's always been pretty? Nope, apart from the 507, most of them have been ugly leading up the late 80's and 90's when they started to get increasingly handsome with each new generation. meh... I guess it's time to make them, ahem, interesting? again? That's what Bungle says anyway.
The criticism of Bangle is more than understandable, however, I think people are quick to forget (or just don?t know) that he has been at BMW since the early 1990s and during this he was designed the current and much loved 5-series, the Z3, the Z8, the 3-series, the 7-series, the Z4 and partly the X5 as well as the future 5-series, 6-series, 3-series and perhaps the 1-series and X3. His later, poorly designed, ridiculous-looking cars were born from a decision at BMW to design more flashy-looking cars with looks to match their performance. They also aimed for the cars to resemble each other as little as possible. It was here that Bangle fumbled.
Here's the rub ... he joined BMW in 1992 after the basic shape and style for the new line of cars had already been decided.
Any design work he was hands-on involved with was not plainly evident until, perhaps, the Z3 roadster was introduced. (I will say however that the M Coupe is my favourite car of the 90's ... reminds me of the Triumph GT6 I used to own)
Look at any of the 2002 5-Series and 3-Series. They look the same as they did in 1992, basically.
Bangle's ridiculous 'flame surfacing' concept seems to me to be his first true attempt to inject his own design ideas fully throughout the lineup, and the outcome is miserable.
At least with all those creases and folds on the new Z4, you won't notice if anyone dents your fender.
Am I crazy or are these nice looking? I like it, enough angles to make it masculine and aggressive, yet soft enough to denote its sophisticated side. Dare I say is better than the last 5 series that i did not care for much until they redid the fron air scoop and side skirts for the M version.
Comments
A modern corvette does some pretty amazing stuff with a small block V8, both in terms of power and economy it's often the equal or the better of much more exotic DOHC stuff.
It'd be really interesting to see someone take that concept and just build it as light and compact as possible, with the cam down in the Vee, you could probably build a 5ish liter v8 no bigger than a modern V6, perfect for a car about the size of an RX7, something that can slink right under that low hood but that gear head mid life crisis boys with 50 grand (or so) understand and have been craving ever since puberty.
I wonder what would sell better?
I wish chevy would build that SS concept, it'd be the first acceptable muscle car out of Detriot since the early 70's.
There are some very nice v8s and the Yamaha-built v6 in my SHO is a dream too. Those are good engines for other cars. The rotary is what an RX-7 "wants" and it's just as cool too.
BMW PLEASE!!!! Ditch Bangle. Whether you like it or not most of our population is not knowledgable about cars and thier performance statistics aside from simple 0-60 and quarter mile times. The majority of people judge a car by it's looks. Simply put, this new direction of design just doesn't cut it.
Legend:
FD3S (FD) = 3rd gen Rx-7
FC3S (FC) = 2nd gen Rx-7
SA22C (SA) = 1st gen Rx-7
The FD is unlike the FC and SA in that it is a no compromises sportscar. not unike a slightly detuned race car if you buy the r1/r2/rz/Bathurst model. The SA and the FC saw some success in the racing circuits, but the FD had no trouble beating cars in "faster" classes because it can corner better than basically anything. Personal history in addition to Road&Track test results justify this claim for me.
The interior of the FD is very comfy if you don't buy one of the models listed above (But on the other hand suede seats are just too cool: the car can corner so hard that you'll slide around in leather. . . I can verify this by the several dollars of loose change floating around my FD). However, if you're taller than 6-2 or have a waist bigger than 34", you won't fit in the car. If you're smaller than that, it's comfy. (I'm 6-0 160 and I love the feel of the interior).
I haven't driven the Rx-8 yet, but I don't think it's in the same market as 5series. As far as I can tell it's a great car. The 13B-REW in the FD is a fragile engine, but the 8's 13B-RENESIS is very different mechanically, and I bet it can go longer with fewer problems than anything from Honda. Rotaries are actually extremely reliable since they have very few moving parts and don't produce a lot of vibration. The only problems are the seals, which continue to become less and less of problems with every iteration of the Mazda Rotary. (Materials science develops).
Matsu: The wankel engine is actually a DKM rotary, and all current designs are KKM rotaries. Furthermore, it's not marketed and a wankel engine, and not too many people know what or who a wankel is. And the rotary is the best endurance race engine. In fact the R26B engine(2622cc, 4 rotors, 12 spark plugs, 700hp, 449ftlbs, N.A.) is so good that it was banned after the Mazda 787B obliterated everyone in the 1991 LeMans. Rotaries are lightweight, high power, and are *gasp* more reliable than piston engines in extreme environments especially. The small engine helped the 787B save weight, have better balance, and allow for it to be much smaller, making it more nimble and susceptible to less air-drag. It's so good, in fact, that if it weren't for the energy crisis and the departure of Delorean from GM, the 78 Corvette was supposed to be rotary powered. Instead, it was an 170hp POS. (I think the year is 78, I might be a few years off).
Anyway, the Rx-8 is going to sell fabulously well and servicing won't be problem. And the best part is that it's good sales will prompt the release of something tentatively known as an FE. . . No compromises with the 7.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Here to be the rotary guy. . . . And I think Jon is in shock that I wasn't the one who introduced FD talk into this thread.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Perhaps your title should be "Wankel Wanker"?
Just a suggestion.
J.
Originally posted by Jonathan
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Perhaps your title should be "Wankel Wanker"?
Just a suggestion.
J.
Not bad. Sounds like something you'll see on the rx7forum.com boards. . . . um, I'm a member there too. You could give me an avatar of a smoking rotor.
:P
that's funny though, i know a guy who loves the rx7 boards. he just picked an rx7 up and goes there for tons of great info on his car and how to fix it. read through 'em a few times and was always impressed. those guys over there actually know what they're talking about.
now i'm learning about rotary engines from first hand experience.
Rotaries could be very interesting if we ever get to the point where we combust hydrogen
Originally posted by Matsu
Yep, the rotary has a lot of pluses, though fuel economy isn't exactly one of them. At 1.3L Mazda's rotaries slurp unleaded like a much larger engine, of course they also make power like a much larger engine. Still a modern piston race engine can be made a lot smaller than you're giving credit, even a large displacement unit.
Rotaries could be very interesting if we ever get to the point where we combust hydrogen
Turbo Rotary (13B-REW) gets me about 15 city 30 highway. I made 150 miles in 5 gallons today, actually, at 80 mph on I-95. The 13B-RENESIS has side-ports and better technology in general, plus it's not turbo. It has a lean fuel air mixture and it's ULEV. So I bet it gets pretty good mileage.
they need a drooling emoticon
Give these poor suckers their thread back for their wailing and gnashing of teeth for Mr. Bangle.
Oh, the 5? My first thought WAS Honda Accord...yeeps!
Bangle? I like the Z3 Coupe (Had to go look it up to make sure what it was called. It's the one that looks like my Honda Civic hatchback on steroids? That's why I like it of course...wonder what a used one costs...hmmmmmm)
Mebbe he should just rename himself Bungle for what he's doing to these cars. BMW. Think. This means a reverse-rake nose and a gentlemanly stance. Have BMW's always been pretty? Nope, apart from the 507, most of them have been ugly leading up the late 80's and 90's when they started to get increasingly handsome with each new generation. meh... I guess it's time to make them, ahem, interesting? again? That's what Bungle says anyway.
Any design work he was hands-on involved with was not plainly evident until, perhaps, the Z3 roadster was introduced. (I will say however that the M Coupe is my favourite car of the 90's ... reminds me of the Triumph GT6 I used to own)
Look at any of the 2002 5-Series and 3-Series. They look the same as they did in 1992, basically.
Bangle's ridiculous 'flame surfacing' concept seems to me to be his first true attempt to inject his own design ideas fully throughout the lineup, and the outcome is miserable.
At least with all those creases and folds on the new Z4, you won't notice if anyone dents your fender.