One of the most attractive coupes ever made, the Mazda RX-7
was powered by a Wankel rotary engine. The rotary engine is
radically different from conventional piston powered internal
combustion engines. In a rotary engine a triangular 'rotor'
spins inside a cylinder
performing the intake, compression, combustion and exhaust duties
all by itself. The RX-7 had two such rotors.
Because of the nature of this rotation, some earlier generation
RX-7's with high miles suffered from premature internal engine
wear. However by the time the 1992 - 1996 RX-7 came into being
this problem had been rectified, and the car is a firm favorite
among enthusiasts and racers due to its natural good looks and
impeccable handling characteristics.
Review by: J
This is completely inaccurate. 0-60 in 4.7 in 93 rx7 R1, 4.9
in Touring. It has 255 Hp not 237, 265 in later r2 versions.
[Diseno-art EDIT - Early European spec RX7's had 237 hp, later
Japanese and Imported European RZ spec cars had 276 hp].
It does not have a top speed of 156 as long as there's no limiter
of fuel cut off to the rear rotor upon high rpms. I have personally
had mine up to 147 with over 3000 rpms left, 2000 before redline.
As far as the rotation of the engine "producing wear" because
of the way it works... Who ever wrote this is a complete toolbox.
The rotary engine is actually the complete opposite of what
short-bus claimed. There's 3 moving parts in a rotary engine,
over 90 percent efficient because it spins in a oval.
Piston engines are 50 percent at best, the down stroke of the
piston, not the up stroke. The rotary also has anywhere from
3000-5000 higher rpm range. The reason rotaries not more common
are because of several major things; Lack of torque (unfortunately
the spinning nature inherently doesnt produce the torque or
the piston down stroke), poorer gas mileage, Higher parts cost,
specially trained mech for rotary eng, etc. Hands down, for
anything that involves performance without towing, rotaries
ARE BETTER. Still dont think so? Why would the light aircraft
industry be the main employer of rotary engine. Pretty unreliable
with all those ppl crashing everyday do to eng failure. One
last thing, a typical v8 330 hp perf eng weighs about 835lbs,
that gives it a power to weight ratio of 0.395 hp/lb. A typical
255 hp rotary twin turbo eng weighs 247 lbs, that gives the
rotary eng a power to weight ratio of 1.033 hp/lb. Thats over
2.5 times the amount of power to eng weight. This is why Racing
Beat RX7s have OWNED the land speed record in their class at
the bonneville salt flats. Still dont have a rotor boner yet?
The engine that was originally supposed to go into the 3rd gen
RX (20b) Is a 3 rotor twin turbo engine weighing about 375 lbs
& producing over 1000 rwhp if unrestricted by California emission
laws. Thats 2.7 hp/lb. Need I say more. www.racingbeat.com/RX7-1986-1992/Complete-Race-Engines/Engine.html
Small size, high power, low center of gravity. Mazda RX7's weigh
about 2700 lbs as well (very light) & can be reduced several
hundred more very easily by removing things like carpet insulation
and other things around the car that arent needed. This eng
should also last 2-3 times longer than a piston eng cause of
the lack of moving parts & reduced friction motion, assuming
proper maintenance is done at required intervals. Its a shame
this site was looking promising with all the vehicles in 1 place,
useless if its complete bs & speculation just to get people
here to sell ad space.
2 things I forgot. The above figures are not only from Motor
Trend, but also Car & Driver. 2nd, & fyi, chevy tried
to adapt the rotary eng to the corvette in several concept cars
but failed. Whats that say that in the 80s & early 90s,
arguably the most iconic American car was looking at the rotary
being the future of the old push-rod beast but chose to keep
the pushrod out of nostalgia instead of newer, much better eng
tech available (both better piston & rotary eng). There
are also numerous other well known names & manufacturers
that have tried to apply the rotary concept because of the upsides.
Similar and related vehicles: