The Last Mazda Wankel Engine Has Been Built

[mahatmakanejeeves]

I never owned one. It scares me to think that I've lived through the whole lifecycle of this technology. Apparently there will still be some use, but not as engines in automobiles.

The Last Mazda Wankel Engine Has Been Built

Last Friday, June 22, 2012, the Wankel rotary engine's last remaining and steadfast devotee, Mazda, produced their final rotary engine in their Hiroshima plant. The Wankel engine never really fulfilled its promises and hopes, though over its history over 25 major automobile, motorcycle, tractor, and aircraft companies, ranging from Suzuki to Rolls-Royce, were actively researching, developing, and/or building the piston-less engine.

The Wankel motor is one of those things that, for all its issues, was just too pure and beautiful for engineers to ignore. With far fewer parts than a regular reciprocating piston engine and a visually elegant design, it's no wonder Mazda kept with it. For a given displacement, it produces far more power than a given piston engine, at a much smaller size and weight. It can rev faster and is inherently smooth, since the motive force is rotational from start to finish— not the back-and-forth hopping of a piston engine. The down side is that Wankels are always a bit more fuel-gluttonous than a piston engine, and almost always have dirtier exhaust. Poor fuel economy and more polluting are pretty much the only strikes you need against you in our modern age, so the mainstream Wankel is going away.

[EOTE]

1. How sad, it's a really remarkable engine.

I wonder what they intend to do with the RX8 now and if they even intend to bring back the RX7 or anything similar. A Wankel powered Miata has always been a dream project of mine. Hell, even Honda hasn't come close to the 180bhp/liter that the Wankel has, and that's without turbocharging.

[hifiguy]

2. That's a shame.

When I was a teenager I remember reading about the terrifying Mercedes C111 project cars. Mid-engined with 4-rotor Wankel engines in a sleek, LeMans car style body and it was capable of 180+ in 1970. It's such an elegant technology.

[HopeHoops]

3. I thought they killed that piece of shit a long time ago.

[EOTE]

4. Have you ever driven a rotary powered vehicle?

The RX7s were blasts to drive, the 2nd gen is one of my favorite vehicles ever. So incredibly light and tossable, yet powerful unlike similarly fun vehicles like the Miata. And while the RX8 might not be quite as tossable as the RX7, it's still a blast to drive, is far more reliable than previous rotary designs and makes all the power of the RX7's turbocharged rotary without needing a turbo. Yeah, they typically have poor low end torque, but the weight and power of the engine allows a driving experience like no other. I think the Renesis is a masterpiece of engine technology. And you say "that piece of shit" like it was one engine. There were many, many incarnations of the rotary. Plenty of 1, 2, 3, and 4 rotor designs (perhaps more).

[HopeHoops]

6. Yes. I took off in a Mazda RX6 in 3rd gear. Good take off. Still a piece of shit.

They leak every fluid an engine can leak. When they went back to conventional piston-based engines they became useful cars again. The Ford Escort ('91+) was basically a Mazda and I owned one. It was a good car and as far as I can tell the only difference was whether the bolts were metric or US standard. Ford used Mazda as a prototype company and some of them didn't work out. The Wankle pre-dated that arrangement but it was still a failure. You can't keep them lubed without throwing the lube out all sides of it. It was a failure, but a good concept.

[EOTE]

10. Yes, earlier rotaries had a few gasket issues, but that's been resolved with the Renesis.

The Renesis is as reliable an engine as you can expect nowadays. And I'm not sure what you mean by "When they went back to conventional piston-based engines they became useful cars again.", the RX cars have never been powered by piston-based engines and Mazda has pretty much been making conventional and rotary engines side by side for the past 50 years or so. And your 91 Ford Escort didn't have a rotary either, so I'm not sure why you even bring that up. Mazda made good and bad engines in both rotary and piston flavors. The only difference is that you really can't get a car with the characteristics of an RX without the use of a rotary. The high specific output turbo fours today not only suffer from turbo lag (they're working on it, but it's still not gone), but are also heavier and bulkier than any comparable rotary.

[HopeHoops]

12. The Escort was a 323 engine with the same transmission. They don't make rotaries anymore.

It was also a conventional engine. The RX series was the rotary. That Escort has over 300K on it now (different owner, a friend) but it went through two transmissions (Mazda, and the reason for the failure). Ford fucked up by investing in Mazda and the only good thing to come out of it was the Escort. Rotary doesn't have the seals of traditional piston engines. They are designed to fail. I would never knowingly purchase another Mazda product.



On Edit: Okay, the Probe wasn't bad, but it wasn't anything like the 1983 prototype - the Escort was.

[EOTE]

13. Yes, the last rotary was built just last week. The last RX8s will be sold later this year.

So you're saying that Mazda became so much better when they stopped making rotaries last week? I don't quite understand. And yes, I know of Mazda and Ford's relationship, I don't understand what you owning an Escort has to do with Mazda getting rid of the rotary. And once again, the seal issues with the rotary went away with the Renesis. There is currently no engine that can produce the same amount of power and as reliably in as light a package as the Renesis. It's a very reliable engine.

[HopeHoops]

14. Wrong. Electrics can produce WAY more torque. I'll agree that rotaries had torque.

But they still failed more than they functioned. The concept was good. The execution was bad and most likely because they trimmed costs on the implementation. It IS possible to make one that won't self-destruct, but Mazda never did it.

On a similar not, one of my mentors owned a Jaguar some years before he met me. He pulled into a dealership (for a reason I forget) and the mechanic came out and said, "That will be one hundred dollars, now may I help you?"

Some cars are just maintenance nightmares, regardless of their performance. Mazda makes fast engines (and still does), but I'll never buy another no matter what make label is on it.

[EOTE]

15. I'm afraid you're confused. I'm talking about power, not just torque which is a function of power.

Most electric engines make around 30hp or less, the Renesis makes more than 8x that. Electric engines now are pretty much only made to supplement internal combustion engines. And cars that run exclusively on electricity (such as the Nissan Leaf) have very low power to weight ratios. I think you need to read up on this stuff before claiming to be an authority on it.

And you're very wrong about rotaries having torque, they actually lack torque quite a bit. The 250hp Renesis only has a peak of around 150lb/ft of torque. That's less than my Subaru family wagon. That's why I'm incredibly confused about your claim of launching an RX6 in 3rd gear, it would seem to me that's a sure-fire recipe for a burned clutch. What they do have is remarkable top end power (and screamingly high redlines) in an incredibly light package. And once again, your claim about maintenance issues is completely moot with the Renesis. The Renesis has none of the gasket issues of prior rotaries. It's a very reliable engine.

[HopeHoops]

16. I don't know the numbers, but I took an RX6 up an onramp (up) in B'more and hit 85.

I have to admit it screamed in 3rd and nearly snapped my neck shifting into 4th, but the thing died on the owner and the mechanic said it was seal failure, a common problem. My '68 Galaxie 500 fastback's owner's manual says not to go more than 70 in 1st gear (not kidding) and I've shifted into 2nd at 75. I'm yet to find a Chevy that can take her.

Now, as for the electrics, yes, they can produce more power. There's a video (couldn't find it right now) of a couple of guys who modified a Fiat and put a shitload of batteries in the back. Totally electric. It blew off several muscle cars and they HAD to put a kill switch (shutoff handle) in the thing because there was no way in hell that the brakes could slow it down while the drive was engaged. I'll try to find it again, but that was a SCREAMING fast car. My Galaxie wouldn't stand a chance against it.

The "electric" and "hybrid" things on the market now suck moose cock. Why the hell can't they come up with something that will replace gas-based cars? The technology is out there. It's been proven to work. It isn't as expensive as they claim. I'm a bit baffled by this other than the fact that the oil industry is quite proficient at buying patents for competing technologies.

That's also why pot is illegal. "Reefer Madness" was a production of the cotton industry because they knew hemp was a superior fiber and wanted to knock it out of the marketplace. Money and politics are far more powerful than technology and science.

[EOTE]

18. You are confusing the issue here, you need to stick to one metric at a time.

We were discussing the power to weight ratio of the engines. A stock Renesis has a higher power to weight ratio than any electric drivetrain out there, especially when you factor in the weight of batteries. And no shit you can modify an electric drive train to smoke a number of ICEs, especially if you're just talking a quarter mile or so. You say "Now, as for the electrics, yes, they can produce more power." More power than WHAT? It's really silly arguing metrics when you're not discussing production vehicles and you have nothing concrete to compare it against. There's no doubt that you can modify electric engines to become very fast, but you can also modify a 2 rotor Mazda rotary to make over 1400hp. I've also seen Smart cars with modified Hayabusa drivetrains that ran low 10s in the 1280, so what's your point? Sure electric engines can produce a boat load of power when modified extensively, so can ICEs. My point remains that there is no true replacement for the Renesis. Nothing that has as good of a balance of power, weight and reliability.

And I know that rotaries put out tons of high end power, that's why your shift from 3rd to 4th was so overwhelming. That's not torque you're feeling at those high RPMs, it's horsepower. That's what rotaries excel at. But I'd imagine launching from 3rd in a rotary would be a pretty terrible experience.

As for why there aren't replacements for gas based cars, well, there are. As I mentioned before, you can get the Leaf already which can run exclusively on electricity, the Volt can as well. But both of those vehicles have very limited range. It's improving, but it's not there quite yet. Also, a large enough infrastructure doesn't exist for these vehicles yet. Electric isn't the only alternative, hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles have been produced, but once again, infrastructure limits their viability for now.

[HopeHoops]

19. Actually, a lot of the UPS delivery trucks run on natural gas.

Having Tom "Frack-me" Corbett for a governor gives me pause on the issue, but at least it isn't petroleum.

FYI: my 2000 Pontiac Montana can outrun most of the go-carts with loud mufflers. Everything is relative.

[EOTE]

20. I never suggested that there was a lack of alternative fuel vehicles.

You did when you said: "Why the hell can't they come up with something that will replace gas-based cars?". I didn't provide a definitive list, if that's what you were expecting. CNG powered vehicles also suffer from a lack of infrastructure not making them very viable for mass implementation at the moment. But the point is that alternative fuel vehicles exist, they're just not widely adopted for a number of reasons, the primary being the lack of infrastructure, and with CNG, the rather low potential for energy compared to petroleum. When the infrastructure becomes more robust, these types of vehicles will become far more common. People in general don't like to be slaves to petroleum companies.

As for your comment regarding your Montana, I don't see in the slightest what that has to do with this conversation, but congrats on having a peppy minivan.

[HopeHoops]

22. Hey, I NEVER thought I would put the words "power" and "minivan" in the same sentence before.

It also gets 26 mpg on the highway with 8 people in it. That's sort of freaky.

And yes, CNG does suffer from a lack of infrastructure, as does electric and fuel cell technologies. You can find a gas station damn near anywhere (except when the needle is at empty - Murphy's Law), but without the same support for alternatives we're not going anywhere with alternatives. And electric isn't "zero emission". The production of electricity counts as "emission". Hell, a horse and buggy isn't zero emission - I've seen horseshit in the road.

[EOTE]

23. Gasoline has about a century head start in this regard.

We see gas stations everywhere because cars have been powered by gas for pretty much as long as cars have existed (crude electric cars existed around the same time as the first ICEs, but there still wasn't an infrastructure for them). At the time, providing the infrastructure for gas powered cars was a no-brainer. Now, we've got multiple technologies vying to be the replacement for petroleum. It's going to take a while before one of them is declared something approximating a definitive winner. In the meantime, I can imagine we'll see electric charging stations become more plentiful and far quicker to charge, considering that electricity is the one technology that can be used in conjunction with pretty much any other fuel source. I think it's likely that all-electric vehicles will win out in the end because nanotechnology is going to make batteries far more capable and far lighter.

[HopeHoops]

24. It will take time. But it also takes a commitment. The oil industry owns the governments.

[taught_me_patience]

5. It was done in by direct-injection turbocharging

that allowed auto makers to turbocharge small, high compression engines that give the same power but much better fuel economy.

[EOTE]

7. The Renesis still has a weight advantage over those high compression turbo-4s.

The Renesis weighs around 250lbs. I'm pretty sure most normally aspirated 4s weigh quite a bit more than that. Add-in turbo charging and you're talking at least 100lbs heavier, and that's nothing to sneeze at when talking about engine weight. I can't imagine a reasonably priced, tossable 4 seater like the RX8 being made without a rotary.

[Aerows]

8. I had an RX-7

Great vehicle, had a rotary engine. Loved it. It's a great engine, and it is a shame to see a great (and efficient) concept go away. Too many mechanics had no idea how to work on them, though.

[onethatcares]

9. I have never owned one but

one of the residents of the condo complex had a miata motor replaced for the grand sum of

$800.00.

I was amazed at the low cost for the motor, try that with a chevy, ford, chrysler or mercedes.

[Meiko]

11. I owned one

If memory serves it was an RX3. It was a small 2 door car and it was fast. The rotary engine was a screamer. I never had any problems with it leaking oil but the fuel economy was poor for a small car. It was a good car, I had it for quite awhile.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

17. I had a charcoal gray RX-7.

Had two rotors, 70 cubes, 100 horsepower.
Lots of fun to drive, hugged the road, rack n pinion steering.

Unfortunately Mazdas have transmission problems. My tranny died at 75K and I traded it in for a new 626 with a regular engine. The 626 has had 3 trannys in almost 20 years and I stopped driving it.

Houston stop n go traffic will kill clutches and also automatics, just from the heat.

[slackmaster]

21. The Wankel engine was one of those dream things of the 1960s

Like flying cars, the 30-hour work week, the picture phone, abundant clean nuclear power, and robotic servants.

[PoliticAverse]

26. They should have made it out of asbestos... n/t

[PoliticAverse]

25. MSNBC: Mazda's famed rotary engine sputters and dies

The new and improved always prevails over the old and stale, doesn’t it? Surely the ancient contraption called an internal combustion reciprocating piston engine – a design that is approaching its 150th anniversary – must be superseded by something newer and simpler.

Maybe. But that replacement won’t be the rotary engine design invented by Felix Wankel in 1957 and popularized by Mazda since its introduction 10 years later. Mazda has announced that it has ended production of the company’s signature engine in favor of concentrating on its trademarked SkyActiv improvements to the piston engine.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. The 1950s were the future, and when Wankel finally built a running rotary engine after nearly four decades of development, it seemed the engine would doom piston engines the way internal combustion engines killed external combustion steam engines.

Read the rest at: http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/03/12482125-mazdas-famed-rotary-engine-sputters-and-dies?lite