Educate Me - Why have rotary engines never really taken off?

Perhaps I didn't word that quite right. Reliability is subjective with the RX7, it was always going to need a rebuild.

It's not like they break down every 5 minutes. It has been said that some Honda B-Series engines should be rebuilt every 60K as well, but no one calls these unreliable.

RX8s are hit and miss, too - if looked after properly (oil kept up, and coil packs kept an eye on) they will keep going.
 
Mike - So apart from the RX-7 and the early RX-8's (which by your own admission are unreliable) what other rotary cars are there in the last 25 years which could be considered reliable?
 
Try reading my post?

Categorising these issues under reliability is subjective, the RX7 needs rebuilding every ~60K, the RX8 just needs looking after properly!
 
Firestar_3x said:
The swept volume equates to 1.3 liters, I’d say 231bhp out of a 1.3 liter engine puts it in the high power stakes.
Click to expand...

It is low power for the consumption it gives. How an engine technically achives an output is irrelevent, the two factors which matter are fuel (input) and power (output).

The fact that they burn as much fuel as a piston engine producing twice the output makes it a completely pointless proposition.
 
But Motors tells us that fuel consumption isn't really relevant unless you're doing moon mileage?

Like I say, the fuel consumption is a price worth paying for the other characteristics of this engine. If you don't buy into these, then don't own one :)
 
Firestar_3x said:
It is when you look at its displacement.
Click to expand...

no it doesnt though, the engine has two power strokes per cycle, double what a four stroke would, so effectively burning 2.6 "worth" and its still naff.

the only thing i like about them is theyre compact and revvy. the rest sucks
 
Jez said:
It is low power for the consumption it gives. How an engine technically achives an output is irrelevent, the two factors which matter are fuel (input) and power (output).

The fact that they burn as much fuel as a piston engine producing twice the output makes it a completely pointless proposition.
Click to expand...

Never said it was of an efficient design, I’m simply stating that for its displacement area it makes a lot of power, which is true.
 
Peerzy said:
So APART FROM THE RX7 AND EARLY RX8s they are not very unreliable - but just require more maintenance.

What cars are these?
Click to expand...

You should learn to read and digest information you are given before trying to argue against it.

No, not apart from. These are the cars that require more maintenance.

In fact, the RX8 issues being mostly neglect, I'd say the maintenance point applies to all RX8s.
 
Matt82 said:
no it doesnt though, the engine has two power strokes per cycle, double what a four stroke would, so effectively burning 2.6 "worth" and its still naff.

the only thing i like about them is theyre compact and revvy. the rest sucks
Click to expand...

But the same power from an 3 litre E46 330 (400cc more!) isn't terrible?

In fact, list some NA <=2.6 engines that make more than 230bhp, please.

The only thing I can think of is the F20?
 
Firestar_3x said:
Never said it was of an efficient design, I’m simply stating that for its displacement area it makes a lot of power, which is true.
Click to expand...

That wasnt the original point which you addressed, the point was relating the power output to its fuel consumption...
 
Mazda might ditch them soon as well because despite fitting direct injection they're struggling to get the new variant of the rotary, the 16X, to comply with Euro 5 emissions regulations.

They have made it noteably more efficient, however.

Let's be honest - the RX8 would have done superbly if it had a conventional, powerful, 1.8 or 2-litre piston engine, naturally aspirated or not. It might not have had the same cache, if you want to call it that, but it would have been a considerably better car overall and probably appealed to a wider market. Would have gone considerably further per gallon as well and had a much higher performance potential.

Wouldn't have had to kill it off so quickly, either, had it had a cleaner petrol engine.
 
MikeHiow said:
Bar the RX7 and early RX8s, they aren't really that unreliable - they just require a little more maintenance.
Click to expand...

MikeHiow said:
You should learn to read and digest information you are given before trying to argue against it.

No, not apart from. These are the cars that require more maintenance.

In fact, the RX8 issues being mostly neglect, I'd say the maintenance point applies to all RX8s.
Click to expand...

Bar = Apart from, excluding, not including to 'bar' something

Excluding the RX7 and the early RX8s...
Not including the RX7 and early RX8s...
Apart from the RX7 and early RX8s...

...they aren't really that unreliable - they just require a little more maintenance.

You've clearly typed that the RX7 and early RX8s are unreliable, but other rotary cars are fine - just requiring more maintance.

:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom