2 Handfuls of Awesome

Regular readers are aware that I've been fascinated with rotary engines for a while, and my interest was intensified by my recent test-drives.  You will therefor not be surprised to hear that I read a recent Inside Line article reporting a rumor about Mazda's future rotary-powered cars with unusual excitement in addition to the usual skepticism with which I respond to rumors.  

IL's source starts by saying that Mazda is hard at work on the next-generation RE, the 16X.  That part is well-established fact.  The source also claims that the engine, which I've described before, will put out abut 270 BHP, with atmospheric induction, while reducing emissions.  That claim is in line with Mazda's stated goals for the 16X.

The source also claims that Mazda is working on not one but two new rotary-powered vehicles.  One of these vehicles is a new RX-7 weighing about 2640 lb. The other is a follow-on to the RX-8, called the RX-9.

That two-vehicle part is a stretch.  Mazda hasn't offered more than 1 RX car since the mi 1980s, as far as I can tell.  The company seems to have felt that the RE's particular merits and demerits suite it to a niche applications of light-ish-weight sports cars.  Mazda has stated that they are committed to the Wankel, an they've been working on the new "long-stroke" engine since at least 2007, so I'm sure they are planning a vehicle to put it into.  But 2?  If that's true, they'd have to be very confident in the performance, the reliability, and---most importantly, in light of rising standards---the fuel consumption of this engine.  

For now, let's assume that Mazda is planning a two-RX line-up.  What's the likelihood that it would include and models called RX-7 and RX-9?  

The RX-7 name implies a two-seat sports car of light weight.  Many rotor-heads, myself included believe that, because of the RE's low-torque/high-power output, it works best in a light-weight, narrow-purpose sports car.  Additionally, the RX-7 is Mazda's most iconic car.  Thus, taking the rotary program back to an RX-7 is quite reasonable.  If nothing else, going to a two-seater will save weight and thus reduce fuel consumption, improving the company's CAFE situation.  Mazda has stated the goal of removing 100 kg---220 lbs---from each of their vehicles, on average.*  So, the source's claim makes sense, but I'm a little put off since the number the source offers is exactly the number Mazda has given out for it's fleetwide average.  It makes the source seem less credible, not more.  Another issue is that Mazda already makes a two-seat sports car:  the MX-5 Miata.  Of course the Miata is only available as a convertible, so perhaps the '7 would only be available as a coupe.  With the price and performance differences, that could yield enough product distinction.  Still, a pair of two-seaters seams like a lot for a small automaker,** even though Mazda has offered those same two models before.  One alternative would be to make the RX-7 a two-door 2+2 coupe.  I don't like that option, because the '7 has only ever been a two-seater, and tiny rear seats, without doors to get at them, are not very useful.

What about an RX-8 "sequel" called the RX-9?  The name implies, to me at least, something larger than than the current '8.  If the new car were to be a 4-seater with little suicide doors, like the current model, Mazda would simply call it the RX-8 again.  If they are planning a 2-rotary strategy, and if one of those cars is to be a 2-seater, it might make sense  for the other to be a sports sedan.

Still, I'm skeptical that well be seeing two Wankel-powered cars from Mazda in the near future.  But it would be seriously cool if we did.

* This is one reason that Mazda is probably my favorite mainstream automaker right now.

** If said automaker isn't Lotus, Ferrari, Lamborghini, or the like.

Automobile Reivew: 2009 MazdaRX-8 R3

Here at The Official Blog of Team Grondul, we like to offer a car review approximately annually,* so it's about time for one. For this post, I thought I would expand on my recent, brief comments about my test-drive of a 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3. This review is also based, in part, on my test-drive of an RX-8 Grand Touring toward the end of last year.

Background

The RX-8 is the latest in the long line of Mazda's RX cars, which were all powered by rotary, or Wankel, engines. I recently posted a "rotary primer" to this blog; in that post, I discussed the features and history of the rotary engine and Mazda's RE-powered cars in some detail. If you are interested in that material, you might want to read that post.

The Car

In an effort to expand the RX-8's sales over those of its predecessor, the RX-7, the '8 was designed with 4 seats, rather than 2, and unusual suicide doors** through which to access the rear seats. The extra seats and doors make the RX-8 into a unique---to my knowledge--4-door "coupe." It was the coupe-like shape, size, weight, and wheelbase, combined with the extra doors---and, of course, the rotary engine---that attracted my attention to this car. Eventually, I plan to need a car with rear seats, so that I can haul Grondulspawn about, but I'd like that car to have rear- or all-wheel-rive and to be as fun-to-drive as possible.

The R3 trim line is priced almost a thousand bucks above the Grand Touring trim with manual-transmission, but it ditches some of the luxury features in favor of numerous performance-enhancing and appearance-"enhancing" changes. These difference include but are not limited to Bilstien dampers, a foam-injected shock-tower brace, a shorter final-drive ratio, reclining Recaro seats, larger, allegedly lighter 19-inch wheels with rotor-shaped spokes, 225/40R19 tires, a small rear wing (instead of a lip spoiler), restyled front bumper cover, side skirts, red stitching and gray mesh on the interior, and some "exclusive" paint colors.

The pricing? The MSRP for the cheapest RX-8, the Sport trim level with manual transmission, is $27,105, while the Grand Touring trim with with manual is $31,670. The Touring trim will be somewhere in between. You can add an automatic transmission to any of those trim levels for about 800 bucks, but, as I will explain below, I strongly recommend against the slushbox. The R3 is only available with a stick, and its MSRP is $32,600.

What I Liked

• Layout. I really like the 4-door-coupe layout of the '8, as I mentioned before. That layout is very well executed. In particular, the car lacks fixed B-pillars; the front edges of the suicide doors latch into the unibody, forming movable B-pillars into which the front doors latch. The absence of B-pillars makes rear-seat ingress and egress very easy, even with smallish rear doors. Thankfully, because the front door latches to the rear door and not to the unibody, you cannot inadvertently close the front door before the rear, which could result in expensive damage to the front door.
• Engine. The 1.3-liter, 2-rotor 13B-MSP Renesis rotary engine powering the car has all the advantages I discussed in my rotary primer: High specific power and torque output, smooth running, very high engine speeds, small size, and light weight. The Renesis puts out 232 BHP and 159 lb-ft, and it redlines at 9000 RPM. The 232 horsepower is plenty to push this car around, but that power comes on only at high engine speeds, and the 159 lb-ft of torque means that powerplant seems anemic at lower revs. Because of the low-torque, high-redline nature of the rotary, the RX-8 can't be driven the way you might drive a piston-powered car. You can't just push your right foot to the floor and expect the car to shoot off. You must keep the engine "on the boil," somewhere past about 5000 RPM. There's no being lazy with the shifting; your left leg and right arm will get a workout when you drive this car correctly. This description may sound like a criticism, but it's not, at least not entirely. A car with this engine is very engaging and rewarding to drive. You know when you are driving it well. The small size of the engine allows the powerplant to be located entirely aft of the front axle, making the RX-8 a (front) mid-engined car. The front mid-engine, rear-wheel drive layout gives the car a balanced weight distribution and a small yaw moment of inertia. The light weight of the mill also contributes to the light overall weight of the vehicle.
• Transmission. Given how much you have to use the shift lever and clutch pedal in this car, the tranny had better be a good one. And it is. The throws are short and precise. Reverse is positioned out of the way, to the left of first gear, and it requires the knob be pushed down, toward the ground, before being engaged. I humbly suggest that under no circumstances should you buy an RX-8 with a slushbox; if you like automatics, this is not the car for you. Besides, the automatic RX-8 has a lower, 7500-RPM redline and thus reduced power (but the same torque).
• Size. I like the overall size of the car. The RX-8's tidy dimensions---4470 x 1770 x 1340 mm, with a 2700-mm wheelbase---contribute to its feeling of agility. In particular, the low height gives the vehicle a low center of mass and makes me feel very comfortable and planted. By contrast, the 2009 Subaru Imprezza WRX STI that I drove immediately afterward felt tall and "tippy," like an SUV. Yes, the STI is far from an SUV---but if feels a bit like one by comparison.
• Weight. I also appreciated the weight of the '8. Manual '8s are specced at 3064 pounds. That's about 200 pounds more than the heaviest car I've ever owned, but that heaviest car, a 1977 280Z was a 2-door 2-seater, and it lacked modern safety equipment. The RX-8 is quite light compare to modern 4-seat coupes, and I can't think of another RWD, 4-door sporty car that is anywhere near as light.
• Weight distribution. The weight distribution of the vehicle---52% front, 48% rear---is near ideal.
• Chassis stiffness. The car certainly felt much stiffer and more solid than my Miata. Most of that stiffness surely is due to the presence of a roof on the car, but still, that solidity is appreciated.
• Handling. The low weight, low yaw moment of inertia, stiff chassis, and Bilstien shocks yield excellent handling characteristics. I didn't push the car too hard, being on public roads with the saleschick in the passenger seat, and especially since it wasn't my car, but the vehicle felt very agile. The '8 seems ready to go wherever you point it. OK, so it isn't as tossible as my little Miata, but that car is the lightest sports car you can buy, short of a Lotus. You can't really expect the same go-kart feel from a 4-door car.
• Styling. Although the basic design of the car is now 5 years old, the styling still looks contemporary, even futuristic. The '8 received a facelift for the 2009 model year. The changes are confined, I believe, to front and rear bumper covers and the front fenders which now have awkward-looking triangular vents with inset triangular turn signals. The vents on the 2004-2008 models were larger, vertical, rectangular shapes located just behind the wheel wells, and they were much better looking, in my opinion. One plus to the facelift is that the gratuitous rotor-shaped styling element at the bottom center of both the front and rear bumper covers is now absent. Overall, the RX-8's appearance, before or after the facelift, is more cutting-edge and more attractive than that of most cars on the road.
• Seating. The RX-8's front Recaros are far from full-bucket race seats, but they do provide better support than the base seats, which, in my experience, where pretty decent. They might be somewhat narrow for larger-waisted drivers---they were for the saleswoman---but they felt fine for my 29-inch middle. The rear seats offer adequate room for someone of my 65-inch height, as long as the driver is under around 6 feet tall. With the driver's seat set for me, legroom in the back is more than sufficient for someone up to, say 68 inches tall, at which point, the roof imposes a hard limit. Since I'm planning to put smaller humans in the back, there's more than enough space for my application. One downside to the seating results, perhaps surprisingly, from the emissions issues of the engine. You see, the catalytic converter is positioned to the passenger side of the transmission and forms a lump in the passenger footwell that could be annoying. I read somewhere that the cat must be positioned close to engine to be warm enough to do it's job, so it can't be moved aft to a more convenient spot. I believe that it can't practicaly be moved forward without impinging on the passenger compartment even more, because the transmission flares toward the front of the car.
• Instrumentation. The gauges in the '8 are arranged in 3 separate little binnacles behind the wheel. They are easy-to-read and attractive. I especially like the center hood, which contains an analog tachometer with an inset digital speedometer. That arrangement may sound like a gimmick, but I find that it makes it easy to read out the engine speed and ground speed quickly. The tach has one feature that I'd like to see in every car. The redline is not permanently painted on the gauge but is formed by an arc of LEDs shining through it. When the car is started, the redline is low, perhaps 6000 or 7000 RPM. As the engine warms up, the redline advances, stepwise, until it reaches 9000 RPM. I can only assume the rev limiter, which cuts fuel to avoid over-reving, tracks the redline.
• Trunk. OK the trunk isn't huge, but it's decent-sized for a sports car.

What I Disliked

• Fuel efficiency. Fuel consumption is the Achilles heal of the Rx-8. The manual '8 is rated by the EPA at 16/22 miles per gallon city/highway, and I'm sure that, if I drove it for a full tank the way I did during my test-drive, I'd come in below that rating. This fuel efficiency is in supercar territory, without supercar power or torque, and that's inexcusable.
• Engine. Yes, the engine is both an asset and a detriment. The RX-8's mill sadly suffers from most of the shortcomings I mentioned in my rotary primer, most obviously comparatively low torque. 159 ft-lbs is a lot of torque for a naturally aspirated 1.3-l engine, but it's not much for a 3000-lb car. As I mentioned, the weak torque output can be worked around; it can even be fun to work around the issue. However, that lack of torque could become wearisome in stop-and-go traffic, or if you just don't feel like working so hard to get everything out of the motor.
• All the Wankelry. The exterior and interior is decorated with what one automotive review called "Wankelry:" gratuitously rotor-shaped design elements. I'm a believer in form following function. Wankel rotors are shape the way they are because they need to be. That doesn't mean the wheel spokes, shift knob, seat-recline knob, and other elements of the car need to be shaped that way, too. The knob is the worst offender; it's downright uncomfortable. Fortunately, you can easily and cheaply install an aftermarket knob in whatever shape you find most comfortable. To be honest, I actually found the rotor-shaped seat-recliner to give better leverage than a round one would, but 3 or 4 large splines would accomplish that end without being so silly.
  

The Bottom Line

The RX-8 is great fun to drive. It's a true driver's car that rewards attention to engine speed, awareness of weight transfer, and husbanding of momentum. The '8 is light and sure-footed, and it begs to be wound to its 9000-RPM redline and tossed down a canyon road or a hustled around a race track. And the R3 is clearly the trim to have.*** Plus, it offers 4 seats, 4 doors, and decent-sized trunk. All that for an MSRP of 27 to 32 grand. The car's torque production isn't great, but the only real drawback to the RX-8, in my opinion, is the terrible fuel consumption.

Hope exists, however, for increased torque and reduced fuel thirst, as well as improved power and lower emissions. That hope's name is 16X. The 16X engine is currently being prototyped by Mazda, and, as I detailed in the primer, it features several improvements designed to addressed the usual shortcomings of REs:

• The new engine has increased displacement---1.6 l---and reworked geometry to produce more torque and higher thermal---and thus fuel---efficiency.
  
• The 16X also features direct injection, which should improve power, torque, efficiency and emissions.
  
• New aluminum housings are used to reduce engine weight, which is always good.
  

Conveniently, the 16X is sized to be dropped into the current RX-8 with few changes. Many "rotar heads" hoped that this next-gen RE would have reached dealers in the engine bay of the 2009 '8, but they were disappointed. Perhaps it will appear in 2010, or perhaps it won't show its face until the next RX car is released, whenever that turns out to be.

But none of that 16X stuff applies to the car as it exists now. How do I rate it? Overall, including cost, driving experience, practicality, and fuel efficiency, I give the 2009 Mazda RX-9 R3 7.5 out 10. If it had a somewhat more modest thirst for fuel, I'd have given it at least 8.5. I've put this vehicle at the top of my family-car shopping list, and I'm hopping that the next-gen RX features the same 4-door-coupe layout and a 16X engine. And 200 pounds less weight would be nice, too.

* See my review of the 2009 Ford Mustang V6 here and my review of the 2004 Mazdaspeed Miata here.

** Mazda calls these doors "freestyle" doors.

*** Unless you like modifying your car. In that case, you might want to buy an RX-8 Sport, put on an adjustable aftermarket suspension, some chassis bracing, and perhaps some heavily bolstered seats. You could probably do that for less than the cost of the R3, and you'd have a lighter car with a stiffer chassis and tunable handling.

Primer: The Wankel or Rotary Engine, with Emphasis on Mazda's Contribution

No one asked for this post, but I wanted to assemble a short introduction to the rotary or Wankel engine. It will be useful to me for a later post.

Description

Rotary engines (REs) are internal-combustion engines that don't have reciprocating pistons; instead, they have "fat triangles," or rotors, which spin inside peanut-shaped epitrochoidal housings. Numerous fascinating animations of the rotary combustion process are available online. Here's one, for example; here's another.  To understand the process, don't watch the rotor; watch one of the chambers---called working chambers---created by the gap between the rotor and the housing.  The rotor is mounted on an eccentric shaft, and it both revolves around its center and orbits the shaft's center.  As the rotor spins, the working chamber expands and contracts, mimiking the traditional strokes of a 2-stroke piston engine:  intake, compressesion, combustion, and exhaust.

A rotary has several advantages over reciprocating engines:

• Most importantly, well-designed REs put out more torque and much more power than similarly size 4-stroke piston engines with similar induction.* For example, the above-mentioned RX-8's powerplant, which is naturally aspirated, produces 159 lb-ft of torque and 232 BHP of power, all from 1.3 liters of displacement. That's 178 BHP/l. By comparison, 100 BHP/l is considered very high specific power output for naturally aspirated reciprocating engines. The reason for this superior output becomes obvious when you count the number of combustion cycles per crank-shaft (or eccentric shaft) revolution per cylinder (or rotor). In a 4-stroke piston engine, for each piston, there is a single combustion cycle for every 2 revolutions of the crank shaft. In a Wankel, each of the 3 faces of the rotor see 1 combustion for each revolution of the rotor. However, the eccentric shaft rotates at 1/3 the rate of the rotor, so there is 1 combustion for each rotation of the eccentric shaft, for each rotor. Thus, an N-rotor RE fires twice as often as an N-piston reciprocating engine, for a given engine speed.
  
• Rotaries have very few moving parts, making them small, light, and durable. There are no valves or connecting rods; each engine is comprised of just an eccentric shaft---analogous to the crankshaft in a piston engine---some number of rotors---usually 2, but sometimes 3 or 4---and 3 apex seals per rotor.
• Rotary engines run extremely smoothly. The main cause of this smoothness is the rotary, rather than reciprocating movemen of the engine. Additionally, the overlap of the combustion cycles on adjacent faces of the rotor smooths power delivery, when comparing an N-rotor Wankel to an N-piston reciprocating engine. Lastly, the twice-as-high rate of combustion cycles, as mentioned above, smooths power delivery, comparing and N-rotor to an N-piston. These last two advantages are mitigated when comparing the common 2-rotor Wankels to multi-piston reciprocating engines.
• Also, since the rotary motion doesn't stress the parts the way reciprocation does, rotaries can reach very high engine speeds. For example, the Renesis engine in the RX-8 redlines at 9000 RPM.

Like everything else in engineering, the rotary engine also has disadvantages. I'm sure you guessed that based on the fact that the vast majority of vehicles on the road are piston-powered.

• Rotaries tend consume fuel at a rate disproportionate to the amount of power they put out. This problem has several causes. First, the long, thin working chamber---analogous to the combustion chamber of a piston engine---has a hig ratio of surface area to volumn, yielding poor thermal efficiency; energy released during combution escapes the working chamber as heat, rather than being used to push the rotor through its orbiting and revolvling path. Secondly, REs designed to date have low compression ratios, and some hydrocarbons escape the combustion cycle unburned. Lastly, sealing the working chamber at its sides and its apex is more difficult than sealing a reciprocating engine with piston rings, so some fuel escapes unburned
• Rotaries have tended historically to emit pollutants at a rate disproportionate to their power output. This problem stems from the the low compressin ratios and poor sealing, both of which result in the release of unburned hydrocarbons. Modern rotary REs, by which I mean the Renesis, engine have managed to meet contemporary emissions standards, however; THe RX-8 is classed as a Low-Emissions Vehicle (LEV) by California.
• Although rotaries have high specific torque outputs, the peak torque is typically fairly small compared to the peak power. This phenomenon is related to the fact that power is given by torque times engine speed (RPM) ---with an appropriate multiplier to give you the units you want. Most drivers "buy power but drive torque": they compare cars based on the peek power (a scalar) but experience a vehicle's performance based mostly on the torque curve (a vector), especially at low engine speeds. As a result, a rotary with a "reasonable" peak-power number will feel "weak" to many drivers. This particular shortcoming can be partially overcome by keeping the engine at higher revs, in the "meaty" part of the power band.
• Since rotaries burn some oil; indeed, a small amount of oil is injected into the working chamber. Thus, the owner must check and fill the oil regularly. The RE in the RX-8 reportedly burns much less than a quart in the 3000 miles between oil changes, so the refilling burden isn't onerous. However, this oil burning also means that REs must be lubricated with conventional oil; synthetic oils have flash points that are too high; they do not burn and instead leave behind residue. Thus, rotaries cannot take advantage of the beneficial properties of synthetic oil. I'm not sure if it's possible, but I'd like to see a design that uses synthetic oil to lubricate the engine but also has a small reservoir of conventional oil that feeds the oil-metering pump. Perhaps some lubricating oil reaches the working chamber by a route other than the OMP, making my solution impossible to implement.
  

History

The rotary engine was invented by Felix Wankel, a German,** in 1957, and it is often called the Wankel engine. I prefer to call this engine design a rotary, not out of disrespect for its inventor, but because I feel that "rotary" is more descriptive. Numerous manufacturers, including Mercedes-Benz and General Motors, experimented with rotaries in the 1950s and 1960s, but few rotary-engined automobiles reached the market until Mazda embraced the rotary.

Mazda launched the Cosmo in 1967 and has been the leading proponent of the rotary ever since. When the oil crises hit in the 1970s, they had nearly eliminated piston-powered vehicles from their model line-up. They even offered a rotary-powered pickup. Because of the poor fuel consumption of the rotaries, Mazda suffered rather badly during the that time. But, thanks in part to investment by Ford, Mazda survived.***

Mazda remained committed to developing the rotary, but they recognized that the engine's particular advantages and disadvantages were best suited to use in a lightweight sports car, a small niche in the automotive industry. So, for about 30 years, at least in the US, there has only been 1 internal-combustion-powered automobile that you could buy that didn't have pistons. For many years, that car was the RX-7; 3 generations of the '7 were produced. Currently, the lone rotary-powered car available is the RX-8.

The rotary engine has also made significant contributions in motorsports, as you might suspect given the high specific power produced by this engine type. In competition, rotary-engined cars are typically classed based on an effective displacement given by the true displacement multiplied by a factor between 1.5 and 2. Perhaps the most famous rotary-engined race car was the Mazda 787B, which, propelled by a naturally aspirated 4-rotor Wankel, scored the overall win at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. The following year, the governing body outlawed Wankel engines. To this day, this victory represents the only overall win at Le Mans by a Japanese manufacturer, or indeed any manufacturer outside of Western Europe or the United States.

The Present

The current single production rotary-powered vehicle Mazda's RX-8 With the '8, Mazda attempted to broaden the appeal of the car by adding 2 rear seats and unusual suicide doors by which to access them. The '8 is powered by the 13B-MSP Renesis engine. The Renesis---a portmanteau of "RE" and "genesis" displaces 1.3 l, hence the "13" in the name. The Renesis differs from the 13B that powered the RX-7 for many years partly by its slightly tweaked geometry but more significantly by the port location. The exhaust ports are no longer located peripherally; instead they are positioned on the sides of the rotor housings. ("MSP" stands for "Multi Side Port.") These changes yield improved emissions and fuel economy over the 13B. Unfortunately, I don't see how you can make a 3- or 4-rotor RE with side ports unless you leave space between the rotors.

The Future

The next production rotary engine from Mazda, the 16X, is currently being developed, and it powers Mazda's exotic Taiki concept car. The 16X offers several improvements designed to addressed the usual shortcomings of REs: low torque, poor fuel economy, and potentially poor emissions.

• The displacement of the engine is 1.6, as the name indicates. The rotors have increased diameter with decreased width. The increased stroke analogous to increasing the stroke of a reciprocating engine---Mazda calls the 16X a long-stroke RE---and it increases the torque at all engine speeds. The new aspect ratio improves the thermal efficiency of the engine, keeping the energy produced by combustion inside the working chamber and not letting it leak out as heating of the rotor housing. This change should improve the fuel efficiency of the engine.
• The 16X has direct injection. DI has been common in Diesel engines for year, and it is now becoming popular in petrol engines. In DI, the fuel in injected directly into the cylinder or working chamber rather than upstream, in the intake path. This injection method, when used with appropriately sophisticated injectors and engine-management systems yields very pieces control of the fuel delivery. The result is improved power and torque, efficiency, and emissions. The downside to DI is extra cost and complexity.
• The 16X also uses aluminum side housings to reduce weight. That change should slightly improve the performance, efficiency, and even emissions any vehicle carrying this engine.
  

Conveniently, despite the increased displacement, the 16X is the same size, externally, as the Renesis. This, it can be dropped into the current RX-8 with few changes. Many "rotar heads" expected or hoped that the 16X would have reached dealers in the engine bay of the 2009 RX-8, but they were disappointed. Perhaps it will appear in 2010, or perhaps it won't show its face until the next RX car is released, whenever that turns out to be.

What about further in future? Mazda's rotaries have shown the ability to run on several different fuels, and Mazda is using this ability to experiment with cleaner, greener rotary engines:

• A DI version of the Renesis called the Hydrogen-RE can run on hydrogen or normal gasoline with the flick of a switch. Mazda leases Mazda5s and RX-8s powered by this engine to commercial customers in Japan and Norway.
• The dead-sexy and amazing-sounding Furai concept, is powered by a version of the 3-rotor 20B**** engine that can be tuned to run on 100% ethanol or ethanol-gasoline blends.
  

Further Reading

You can learn more about rotary engines and rotary-powered cars form Rotary Speed Magazine (formerly Mazdasport Magazine), Rotary News, and No Pistons forum.

* By similar induction, I mean that both engines are naturally aspirated or both engines are super- or turbocharged to the same level of boost.

** It may seem as if most engine designs were invented by Germans; Certainly Otto, Diesel, and Wankel get most of the press. However, the Stirling and Miller engines were invented by Anglophones.

*** (Later, by the way, the huge financial and critical success of the first-generation, or NA, Miata---known as the MX-5 Miata in North America, the MX-5 in Europe, and the Roadster in Japan---revitalized the carmaker and is significantly responsible for the company's strong financial position and sporty image today.)

**** The 20B is essentially 3/2 of the 13B, and it thus has peripheral ports.

Nihon No Karuma Ga Suki Desu

Auto-folks in the audience may have noticed that a crop of Japanese supercars, designed to compete with those from the US and, especially, Europe has sprung up recently.

Nissan GT-R

The car getting most of the press at the moment is the Nissan GT-R, the latest evolution of the long-running Skyline GT-R model. The GT-R was designed to out-perform the Porsche 911 Turbo, but is sticker-priced about 65,000 dollars less. The super-Nissan is stuffed to the gills with all manner of advanced automotive technology: twin turbochargers, computer-controlled all-wheel drive, launch control, and more. Jalopnik has taken to calling this car Godzilla, because of its world-conquering performance and immense dimensions. And its Japanese origins, of course.

Interestingly, a bit of a sparing match has sprung up between Nissan and GM over the times Gojira and Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 can post around the famed Nürburgring Nordschleife. This is the kind of automotive oneupmanship I can get behind, since a car's time around the 'Ring tells you a lot more about its performance than its 0-to-60 time, quarter-mile time, or power output would. The Japanese car seems to have the lead at the moment, but the posted times are far from final, since the ZR1 put up its time on wet pavement.

I hasten to point out that the Nissan is about 30 grand cheaper than the uber-Vette, so it would be more fair to compare the normal to the Corvette Z06 and to pit the the Zr1 against the upcoming GT-R V-Spec.

At this point I'd like to comment on the contentious and polarizing styling of the GT-R. Nissan has stated that they styled this car to differentiate it as much as possible from supercars from elsewhere in the world. They wanted a distinctly Japanese aesthetic and thus took as inspiration the artwork found in manga and anime. I think they've clearly achieved a very distinctive and not unattractive style. Thus, although I don't think this vehicle is as beautiful as a Corvette ZR1 or a Ferrari F430, I endorse its appearance.

Lexus LF-A

Toyota has been working on its own halo car, the Lexas LF-A for several years, but the production version of the car still hasn't hit the dealerships. Much less is known about this vehicle than about the GT-R, but it is expected to be available in V10 or hybrid-V8 configurations. Oh, and it, too, has been spotted lapping the 'Ring.

Mazda Furai Derivative?

To my knowledge, there are no official plans to produce a production vehicle based on Mazda's Furai concept/testbed. However, as a newborn fan of Mazda and an engineer fascinated by the Wankel rotary engine, I think Mazda should build its own supercar to cast a halo over the rest of the model line. Plus, this car, clothed in the latest evolution of Mazda's Nagare (Flow) design language and built on a couple-year-old racing chassis, is gorgeous, with the possible exception of the tendrils on the front. I mean look at it. Seriously. Note how air can flow between the body of the car and the rear wheels. I even dig the flat gray paint job.

However, the coolest aspect of the car isn't the styling; it's the 3-rotor Wankel engine, known internally as the 20B. That mill puts out 450 horsepower from just under 2 liters of displacement. The sound this car makes is amazing, and it seems to move along pretty well, too. I'd love to see Mazda market a car based on this concept, using 3 rotors from---and thus 3/2 of---the new 1.6-liter 16X engine, which would give a displacement of 2.4 liters. The resulting vehicle would certainly have a strong point of distinction from all those reciprocating-engined supercars.

2 + 2 = How Many?

I'm hoping to be in the market for a 4-seat car in 2012 or 2013. I'd be interested in a 2-door, rear-wheel-drive coupe, and preferably a lightweight 2+2. If I were shopping for that kind of car now, I'd mostly be limited to something like the BMW 1-Series, which is heavier, more expensive, and more German than I'd prefer, or the Mazda RX-8, which is considerably more quirky,* interesting,* and Japanese. I'm most certainly not interested in the Mustang, since I prefer my automobiles to have independent suspension.

Fortunately, it looks like there will be a few new models on the market by the time I start seriously looking. Here, listed from most likely to least likely, are 5 (or 6) of them:

• Hyundai has already unveiled the production version of the Genesis coupe, a surprisingly attractive 2+2 with up to 312 bhp. Unfortunately, the car is burdened with a Mustang-like weight of 3500 pounds. The Genesis coupe should be in dealerships shortly.
  
• Toyota and Subaru have announced that they will each offer a version of a compact, RWD, 4-place coupe that rides on a shared chassis and is driven by a Subaru boxer engine. That's right, a Subie with only 2 driven wheels. I suspect the Subaru variant's styling won't be my cup of tea; perhaps I'll enjoy the Toyota's better. I'll be able to say more about that when production begins in 2010.
• According to "company insiders," Nissan is planning to release it's own lightweight, RWD coupe based on a shortened version of the latest Z-car's chassis. It's not clear if this vehicle would be a 2+2 or a 2-seater, but earlier reports have suggested the 2+2 is more likely. I'm skeptical that anything based on the portly 350Z could truly be light, but I'm still curious to see how this car turns out when it hits the showrooms in late 2010.
• Mazda is rumored to offer a production version of its Kabura concept car in 2009 or so. The car will be built on a modified MX-5 chassis---itself is a modified RX-8 chassis---be powered by a reciprocating engine, and offer 2+2 seating. The vehicle should be priced much lower than the RX-8 (or presumably the RX-whatever described below).
  
• Rumors are afoot that Mazda will be producing a new RX-7 in 2011 or so. The 7 was a 2-seater in all 3 of its incarnations, but said rumors are suggesting the car will be a 2+2. I'm skeptical of that; I'd wager that, if the car is labeled an RX-7, it will have 2 seats; if it has 4, it will be called an RX-8 or RX-9. These reports of a 4-place RX-7 may be the result of confusion between the aforementioned Kabura and the next-generation rotary-powered car.** In any event, the vehicle will be propelled by Mazda's latest evolution of the rotary, the 16X. The 16X not only bumps up the displacement to 1.6 liters from the 13B's 1.3 liters, but it also increases the rotors' diameter while decreasing their width. These changes are similar to increasing the stroke while decreasing the bore of a piston engine; they will increase low-end torque. The 16X is also said to offer improved fuel efficiency. Since low torque and low fuel economy are the main shortcomings of rotaries, these changes have piqued my interest.
  

So, check back in 3 or 4 years for the latest addition to our stable.***

* I find rotary (or Wankel) engines fascinating, and I think they have considerable potential. Thus, I'm glad that Mazda continues to work on developing them. However, the rotary does have substantial drawbacks, and I'm not sure it's the right engine for the kind of driving I do, especially when laden with the 2900-pound weight of the RX-8. The new 16X engine may ameliorate the situation. Time will tell.

** I'm also skeptical that a company as small as Mazda could support the MX-whatever Kabura, the MX-5 Miata, and the RX-whatever. 3 sporty 2-seaters or 2+2s seems like a lot for such a little manufacturer. The Miata has been a solid sales performer for 18 years, and Mazda seems dedicated to the rotary, so I don't know If the Kabura will happen. Perhaps we'll see a small rotary-powered 2+2 sold as an RX-9 Kabura.

*** Alison will likely need a car before then. Don't worry; I'll cover that purchase in excessive detail, too.