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.