looking for advice on which Mazda to purchase ??
 

Well to share with you a littlel about my self I live in Seattle and have 3 kids that live in B.C. Canada. I'm intrested in learning about the rotary engine, and would like to consider purchasing a older model Mazda which I could learn about this cars and the diffrent types of technology. This is kind of what I would like.


a car that has the rotary engine,

must have AWD as I need to drive it in the snow.

fuel economy is a major factor so a two seater like the miata would work.

I need to spend 2 to 3 k for the car I'm looking for more of a daily driver/project to learn the rotary engine.

preferable a 5 or t6 speed standar, auto would work too.

Could I get you folks to give me and idea of which car would fit this critiria, or what are the years models to consider, and avoid, which rotary engines are the best... which models have the AWD capacity...

any input would be apriciated.

thanks a bunch

Andy

A few points:

• Mazda hasn't ever built a car with AWD and a rotary engine
• The only model that has been sold here in the States with a rotary engine for the last three or more decades is the RX series of sporty cars (with either two seats or with a rather unusable rear seat), and they are all Rear Wheel Drive
• You aren't going to be able to buy much with only two to three grand, regardless of engine and drive train
• As far as I know, Mazda has never built a convertible like the Miata with a rotary engine
• As far as I know, Mazda has never sold a car with AWD that was actually built by Mazda, that said, the do rebadge a few Ford SUVs with 4WD
• Why do you need AWD do drive in the snow? Many of us, me included, have been driving in snow with 2WD cars (both FWD and RWD) for decades and actually prefer them to heavier AWD vehicles for winter driving.

mazda isn't the best to consider for awd. as shipo said, the rotary has never been and probably never will be produced in awd. furthermore, the rotary engine is reserved for the mazdas that have the "rx" prefix (rotary experiment) in the united states. the mx-5 miata has never had a rotary from the factory, though a few have done swaps.

for 2-3k, you could get a second gen rx7, but you don't really want to drive that in the snow. i can personally vouch for how bad the handling can get in wet conditions. so bad that i refuse to drive it when it rains.

awd in that price range comes out to something like a mitsubishi eclipse gsx. not the best quality, but plenty of features for that price tag.

Thanks to both you folks for the info, I would really like to learn more about the rotary engine as I feel this engine is going to become something of the future, and is something that I can afford to buy and work on, I live in Seattle but my kids are deep inside of B.C. Canada and so I have to drive in snow to access them, and the AWD or 4 x4 has worked well for me, I had a Chevy LUV with a 2.2 diesel and a 4X4 attached to a 4 speed and it was just great on the snow, specially in hills, nothinng stoped it, so I like it, I feel safe in it, however both to the replys seem to dissagree on handling on the snow and ice,
could I ask what is the trick to driving a rx experiment on the snow and ice and doing it safely and succsesfully ???

Shipo willl you expand on the paragraph bellow.

Why do you need AWD do drive in the snow? Many of us, me included, have been driving in snow with 2WD cars (both FWD and RWD) for decades and actually prefer them to heavier AWD vehicles for winter driving.

Thanks for the good info.

my rx7 (second gen turbo) has a weight distribution of 51% front and 49% rear. people say that is ideal, but ideal is more like 60% front and 40% rear. the idea is that the bulk of the weight in front will keep the rear tires behind the front. the more weight that you put in the rear, the more weight that you have trying to come around and spin you. i'm sure that we've all gotten sideways by accident at one time or another and it is a terrible feeling. with FWD or AWD, you have the front wheels moving to keep the back wheels in line so it's not that bad. with RWD and a perfect weight distribution, you don't have the front wheels moving. they are just there to steer the car and don't have a way to snap the rear back in line.

if AWD is a must and you are on a budget, go with an eclipse GSX. if you can get away with only driving the car when the weather is good, go with a project car like a second gen rx7. the rotary engine doesn't get that great of gas mileage either. when mine was a daily, i was filling it up 2-3 times a week.

I think one of the things that wsoape281 and I have been hinting at is that no company has ever built a vehicle with a rotary engine that meets all of your needs. As for the rotary engine being an engine of the future, while I like the concept that Mr. Wankle came up with so many decades ago, I seriously doubt the rotary engine will ever succeed beyond the extremely limited scope of the Mazda RX lineup of cars. Why? Well, if for no other reason, fuel economy, they really are pretty lousy in that department.

I live in a snowy and semi-mountainous area of New Hampshire, and since I've lived up here I've driven two RWD cars (BMWs), three FWD minivans (all Chrysler products), and one FWD Mazda3. While one can "get by" with good quality all-season tires on FWD vehicles, using such tires on a RWD platform is pretty much a non-starter if you need to deal with a snowy/hilly environment; that said, mounting a set of winter tires on a RWD vehicle makes all of the difference in the world.

When we first moved up here I was driving a 530i, a car that couldn't even make it up my driveway (which has a 9% grade) when there was so much as a dusting of snow on the ground, however, after I bought a winter wheel/tire set for the car, it was pretty much unstoppable in up to about 8" of rutted snow, so much so that I could easily reel in the 4WD SUVs that are so common around here. The one significant drawback to driving something like a BMW or an RX-7 (even if they're shod with winter tires) in deep snow is ground clearance; it is a fact of life that these cars sit pretty low to the ground and that in turn means that six to eight inches of snow (depending upon weight and rutting) is the upper limit for driving. SUVs and other 4WD truck based vehicles have a much higher ground clearance which allows them to trudge through some pretty deep stuff.

thanks for all the good imput, I guess the hope of having and all purpose vehicle with my needs is out the door, however I'm still very much intrested on the rotary engine, to go a bit deeper on this, I have a dream to build and fly a small aircraft in order to get access to my children in Canada, under the a new program by the FAA they have open a new category called sport pilot, and sport aircraft, it basically cut the cost of learning to fly and operating a small plane severly, and I'm looking to find ways to fund this venture, however, the gurus of this new program are recomending the Wankel engine for this experimental planes, initially I was not sure as to why but affter doing some research, this engine seems to make perfect sence for a small plane, is light and can out performe it's competitors, the lack of pushrods, and cams, valvels seems to be a huge advantage, none of the fatalities that have happen in small aircraft with these engines can be traced to mechanical faillure, unlike piston engines which offten are the cause of fatalities, the wankel engine works more like a turbine, and can gain higher rpm's this is a benifit for an aircraft, as mazda continues with the experiment I think you are going to see them take over the aviation industry, specially if they can make this engine run on diesel, so I think there is deffinatly a future here. last two questions.

#1 does the Wankel engine have forced oil lubrication ? this is a key component for aviation use. I know that some have an oil injector that lubricates the rotors, but is there a traditional oil pan, or is it more force in that if the engine is operating at a 45 degree angle on a climb or a drop oil lubrication would be a problem ?

#2 has anyone seen a wankel engine running on propane, if so which models and who is putting them together.

As always thanks for the info.

I am a pilot, and I am very familiar with the designes of traditional GA engines, newer aviation certified designs as well as converted automobile engines. A few points:

• While Mazda rotary engines may be lighter per rated horsepower than other converted automobile engines, there really isn't any advantage difference between its weight and the weight of purpose built aviation designs.
• Comparing a Wankle engine to a turbine is kind of like comparing a sewer rat to a mink, they operate on a completely different set of principles. Long story short, the Wankle is far closer (in both design and operation) to a conventional piston engine than it is to a turbine.
• Pistons, rods, cams and other components of reciprocating engines have a very long and proven track record of reliability, much-MUCH more so than Wankle engines converted for aviation use. Said another way, I would never opt for a rotary engine over a piston engine for any plane that I fly.
• If I am not mistaken, the Wankle engine in an experimental plane would be far too powerful to qualify said plane in the Sport category, and as such, you'd need a regular GA license.
• Bang for the buck from both a reliability and utility perspective, you can do no better than to buy a mid 1960s vintage Cessna 172, get a regular GA license, and fly that way. If you look at the NTSB records, the 172 is safer per any given unit of hours than virtually every other light aircraft in the world, meanwhile, experimental planes as a whole, and rotary engined experimental planes in particular are some of the worst.

i think that the turbine point he was trying to make is the fact that the motor is linear.

rotary engines have been used in aviation, but i have only seen wankels in model planes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnChdIe6T_I
i think that the best engine to experiment with would be this http://www.atkinsrotary.com/index.php?pag=14
brand new, turn-key, and only 220 pounds. the draw of the wankel into aviation is the fact that it can run at high rpm's for long periods of time and the power to weight rating is high. that one is fuel injected, so there is a chance to add more power.

with the oiling thing, there is an oil pan on all rotary engines, but it also injects oil into each combustion. i would just put a deep-sump oil pan on it and move the pick-up for the pump down a little.

Linear? Linear compared to what?

Relative to the power it puts out, that Atkins engine is significantly heavier than purpose built General Aviation (GA) and Light-Sport Aviation (LSA) engines, especially so given that (unless I'm missing something), the 220 pounds is dry. By the time one adds a radiator, necessary plumbing, oil, coolant, a gear-reduction mechanism and propellor mount hardware, the weight will be nearly 300 pounds.

Contrast the Atkins engine with the two most popular LSA engines:

• The conventional Continental O-200, an engine with a redundant ignition system, an engine with a higher power rating (both peak and continous), and an engine that, even when "wet" will only weigh in at less than 210 pounds. One of the nice things about this engine is that it puts its power out in the 2,300 to 2,700 rpm range, eliminating the need for a reduction system.
• The Rotax 912, a purpose built LSA engine that goes about its work in a more "modern" way (compared to the Continental). This engine carries a peak power of 100 HP, runs on auto gas, and like a Wankle, requires a radiator, coolant and a gear-reduction system. Dry this engine weighs in at 125 pounds with the gear-reduction box in place, and installed and wet it tips the scales at a bit over 170 pounds.

Considering that the whole motor turns the same direction, rather than having an upper rotating assembly that moves in one direction in order to turn the bottom end another direction; the motor is linear. The only rotational differences of a turbine and rotary is that the rotor wobbles while spinning, but a turbine only spins from a fixed location.

Linear isn't the most perfect way to describe it, but it definitely shouldn't be classified the same as piston engines

I would like to get one of the motors to see what kind of power I could make for a little kart. I would bridgeport the motor, build a sheet metal intake, turbo it, and program a custom ecu. Then I would have a belt drive built to adapt up to a motorcycle trans and run a solid rear axle like my shifter kart has.

Probably won't ever get around to it, but it's a fun idea. It may be heavy for an aviation motor, but it is light for a full scale kart.

Within the aviation community there are two classes of engines, IC and CC, the former stands for Intermittent Combustion and Continuous Combustion. Needless to say, Piston and Wankle engines are in the IC class, and turbines are in the CC class. Long story short, the Wankle still adheres to the old "Suck-Squeeze-Bang-Blow" and is still very much akin to a piston engine.

Fellows thank you all so very much for your input, since I’m in Seattle I will have to make some time to run down to Atkins rotary and see what they have.

Now got tell you I’m not engineer or a pilot, I’m a lay man, but I have had some good ideas, and my dream of flying is just a dream but you never know I might just get it off the ground.

Without getting real deep in to the workings of a vertical engine, (pistons going up and down ) to the workings of a circular engine, (Wankel as the rotors spin in a semi circular manner) if you have ever worked on a vertical engine you know that lots of things need to happen in harmony for the engine to work, I have a 5.9L diesel, I just adjusted the valves and could not hope to notice how many things can go wrong, I can suck a valve down and jam the engine, a push rod can work its way lose come through the block, Crank can break, cam can wear, piston can come loose, piston engines have the potential for lost of problems .
Now before I say this be forewarned that I have no real benefit on one engine over the other , my life won’t be on the balance if I was going to fly tomm, I won’t make a dime working on this engines (Wankel) . the circular engine came to my attention as I have been cruising the internet, looking at LSA kits, and low and behold people are recommending the wankel engine, people who fly, they are saying that no accident has been found associated with mechanical failure of the rotary, where as lots of accidents have been attributed not to pilot error but to broken push rods, pistons, etc.. this is what I’m reading, so I did some research and looked at the rotary and I was just amazed at the capacity of this engine, ok so Is not real fuel efficient, but what really caught my eye was the capacity of the engine to wind up, it reminds me of a tornado, naturally it just winds so delightfully, and with no valves, no pushrods, no bolt pistons, the possibility of this engine to fail is far lesser then the geriatric vertical engines, I never want be too close to a vertical engine when high rpm's are turning as I’m nervous it could blow up,.
I know the Cessna is a good plane but I really don’t feel that safe in them, they are so slow to respond, heavy, good track record but that plane is almost 50 years old, some tricks that old dog won’t do.
With things like composites, newer metals, newer lighter more power full engines, we can really built a far superior craft then the recreational planes that are still flying, soon they will be really cars in the sky, like our domestic car companies, if you don’t make a better vehicle for less money someone will, do you own a Honda ? If we don’t get a new superior recreational aircraft built soon, foreign competion will, and most likely will have the Wankel engine in it.
The ideas are different, maybe I’m crazy, but I like to encourage you to think on this things as I think we are going to see the investment the Asians have made on the Rotary experiment pay off for them, no Is not a turbine, but is most likely going to be in the middle from vertical to turbine, but if you really think about it, does a turbine not suck compress re compress ignite and then exhaust, uses the same fuel dead dinosaurs, and yes they too have a form of spark plug, kind of a cousin of the vertical engine, till we have hydrogen engines and True hybrids, we won’t see any real change, and did not someone say that Wankel’s can run on Hydrogen ?? We can only speculate… time will tell, but I think people on the other side of the globe might be thinking along a different route…

Properly maintained, none of the above worst case scenarios will happen to a piston engine, the flip side of course is that if you don't properly maintain a rotary engine then it too will fail.

Bear in mind that less than 1% (probably way less) of the engines flying these days are of the rotary design, and on a weighted scale, I believe that you'll find that they have no better safety statistics than piston engines.


Here again, you need to keep things in perspective; the crusing RPM range for a typical air cooled piston engine is somewhere between 2,000 and 2,300, meanwhile a rotary engine will be operating at two to three times that.

The Cessna 172 and the Cessna 170 before it were designed by WWII aircraft designers who knew a thing or three about aircraft design. So, what tricks are you needing that these planes won't do?

As I wrote before, the rotary engine, regardless of which version, will be significantly heavier than a piston engine of similary output, that and it will most likely require twice as many rebuilds for any given number of hours. Given the above combined with the lousy fuel consumption rates, rotary engines are NOT a good alternative to piston engines from an economic perspective.

As for composite aircraft, believe it or not they are typically heavier for any given capacity or size. Take the Cessna 172 (aluminum) compared to the Cirrus Design SR-20 (composite) as an example. Both planes are of a similar size and yet when both planes are empty, the Cirrus weighs nearly 400 pounds more than the 172.

I have no idea what you just wrote vis-a-vis comparing the two engines, however, I will lay odds and cash money that Wankle derived engines will never become widely accepted engines in the General Aviation community. So, what do I believe will replace the tried and true air cooled boxer engine found in most GA aircraft these days? Diesels (with good old fashioned pistons).

http://www.centurion-engines.com/
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/