RX-8 Hydrogen RE a Dual Fuel Car

greekgod8591 writes "Japan's Mazda Motor Corp. said on Wednesday it will begin leasing a dual-fuel car that can run on both hydrogen and gasoline in the auto industry's latest effort to reduce oil consumption in vehicles. Mazda said the RX-8 Hydrogen RE, based on its popular RX-8 sports car, gets around these problems by running on gasoline in the absence of a hydrogen fuelling station, and using existing engine parts and production facilities to lower costs."

Comments

CHENEY'S GOT A GUN!!!

[GET THE FACTS!]

FP?

Rotary

[saskboy]

"Mazda, the world's only maker of rotary engines, said it would lease the model to Japanese oil refiner Idemitsu Kosan Co. and gas trading company Iwatani International Corp. starting in March for 420,000 yen ($3,577) a month."

It's a rotary engine. Interesting. The only rotary engines I knew about were ones in planes beginning many decades ago. I think the Sopwith Camel used one, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

I know nothing of planes, but Mazda has used the rotary before, most notably for the RX-7, the predecessor to the aforementioned RX-8.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong.

Re:Rotary

[mashade]

All of the RX- line are rotaries, IIRC.
The RX-7 was very popular for a time, competing with Nissan's Z series.
The two cars were styled similarly.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

You are thinking of radial engine not rotary, the rotary is properly known as a Wankel engine.

Rotaries (Wankels) get really poor fuel economy btw.

Re:Rotary

[berboot]

Mazda has been the main user of the rotary engine for the past decade or so. Both their RX-7 (which ended it's lifespan in 1995, IIRC) and the current RX-8 are rotary engine designs.

From the reading car enthusiast forums that I frequent, both are seen as great cars, but have their share of oil leaks. Additionally, it's rather difficult to find a mechanic that is willing to work on rotary engines, so most cars are maintained by shade-tree mechanics.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifically, it's a Wankel Rotary. Mazda has been using them since 1972 or 1973. They are completely different from the old rotary aircraft engines of World War I, where the crankshaft was bolted to the firewall and the rest of the engine spun around it.

Re:Rotary

[Bullfish]

You may be thinking of a radial engine which was (and still is) used to many power prop driven aircraft. Mazda used to use rotary engines in the 70's, stopped for a while and re-introduced them in the RX-8. Mercedes tried them out too.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

Mazda rotary car engines are different from Sopwith Camel rotary engines. The WWI rotaries were radial engines where the pistons rotated with the propellor instead of being fixed to the fuselage. A modern rotary (aka Wankel) engine uses a triangular thing spinning inside a roughly circular hole, with the exploding fuel/air mixture in the gaps. It shouldn't be too hard to find an animation of it.

Some aircraft do use Wankel engines. I believe most of these are modified Mazda RX-7 ones.

Re:Rotary

[LardBrattish]

Mazda are the only company still making Rotory engine also called the Wankel engine after it's designer by some people who don't know what "Wank" means in British (and derivitives) English

In short any Mazda with R in the designation has a rotory engine - for the last 20+ years this has been the RXn series of sports cars although there have been saloons in the 1970s IIRC.

One line description: smooth, quiet, one moving part but thirsty...

Re:Rotary

[MBCook]

I personally doubt the Camel idea, but I'll also confess I know next to nothing about those (or most) planes. I would expect they would use a normal engine with the pistons spaced around the crank shaft, instead of in a V or I shape.

Mazda has been using rotary engines for years, but only in the RX-8 (isn't that what it stands for? Rotary eXpirament 8?). They are a very interesting idea, and it's too bad we don't see more of them.

I have to wonder if the car has any other interesting features, like a Continuously Variable Transmission. It is probably just a stock RX-8 modified to use the Hydrogen, so it probably has the same kind of transmission.

If you read the article, it says that it can travel only about 60 miles on Hydrogen, but something much bigger (240?) on Gasoline. I guess the storage tank is either small, or not under huge pressure. What ever happened to those "hydrogen pellets" that were announced last year?

Still, this is how we will have to go over to Hydrogen cars. Just like this is how we will have to move to electric cars. You'll have to give them the ability to run on both Gas and Fuel-X until the stations are prevalent enough. The article says there are only 12 government owned Hydrogen stations in Japan (it doesn't mention how many private stations, but it gives the implication that there aren't any).

I wonder if they plan to move into production of these if they don't find any problems (this is a test car, that they are leasing out to a fuel company for $3500 a month). I'd love to know more about it, like how the hydrogen part works. It looks like they burn it (because of a comparison to fuel cells) but I'm not sure.

Quick question too. I mentioned that I think these dual fuel cars are the way to transition to the future. I'm not old enough to remember the switch to unleaded gas here in the US. I know that was federally mandated (which does tend to speed things along), but were any cars ever mass produced that would run on either leaded or unleaded fuel?

Re:Rotary

[TubeSteak]

Mazda is most definitely not the "world's only maker of rotary engines."

Maybe the only rotary engines for mass produced cars, but definitely not the only mfg.

Off the top of my head, Rotax is a really big name in rotary engines today. They are used in everything from snowmobiles to ultra-light planes. People use Rotax engines on dune buggies, go-karts, & other light vehicles. Aprila (high end motorcycle mfg) also uses Rotax engines.

Rotary power is still alive and well in the world, even if Mazda dissappears.

Re:Rotary

[scotch]

Fortunately, not much goes wrong with wankel engines. Very few moving parts. Biggest problem is the seals wearing out, iirc, but the rx-7 i had in the 80s ran over 100k miles without any engine work, and didn't leak oil noticibly between oil changes, either.

Re:Rotary

[Belseth]

I owned an RX-7 which was rotary. There are some advantages, they red-lined at a very high RPM. They didn't live up to the mileage predictions but they are fairly low maintainence. The engine seal was the one issue and I did have that go out. Very smooth running. I was sad to hear they droped them and glad to hear the RX-8 brought them back.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled radial

Re:Rotary

[sjwaste]

Lead additives were used to boost the octane rating of the gasoline. Unleaded gas had to find other means. Your engine today would have no problem running leaded gas, its the catalytic converter that clogs up and causes problems. That's downstream on the exhaust, though, not on the engine itself. So yes, even now, any engine could run on leaded gasoline. You'd just have to replace the cat frequently or not use one at all. On many modern engine designs, they run clean enough to pass emissions w/o a cat. It's as they start aging that you need one for emissions, but im off on a tangent now. In fact, off-road use leaded gas is still sold at racetracks/dragstrips.

Re:Rotary

[jsight]

Rotax does not make rotary engines.

Re:Rotary

[Duhavid]

No, the sopwith camel, and many other airplanes of the
WWI era used an engine called a rotary engine. It is
not the same as the rotary used in this car, nor is it
quite the same as a radial aircraft engine, although
the differences where not all that large. The aircraft
rotary fastened the crankshaft to the aircraft, and the
propeller directly to the engine ( the propeller spun
with the engine ). In the radial, the cylinders stayed
still and the crankshaft rotated within, with the propeller
attached to it.

Why, you ask? With the engine in constant motion, cooling
was not as large a problem. Might have been some manufacturing
issues as well.

Re:Rotary

[Duhavid]

Aircraft rotary != aircraft radial != Wankel rotary.

See other posts ( one by me, in fact ) explaining.

Re:Rotary

[RyMon]

That's one of the huge cases for them; no valves, valve springs, cam shafts, pistons or rods to deal with. They are commonly used in planes due to their small size and light weight per horsepower they can produce. Specifically, my RX-7 runs 400 horsepower out of a 2 rotor 1.1 liter 350lb engine... Granted it's race only, because the intake ports are huge; it doesn't start making power until around 9000 RPM, but maintains it until around 14,000 RPM. (That's the other thing; since the rotors themselves are only spinning at 1/3 rotation per crank rotation, you can get them to rev all to high hell.) Their negatives are that they tend towards low gas milage, because of the long narrow combustion chamber (hence why then generally run with two spark plugs per rotor).

Re:Rotary

[Uncle Rummy]

They don't leak oil, as such, they consume it. The design of the engine requires that oil be injected into the combustion chamber to lubricate the apex seals. Of course, the net effect to the owner is the same - you have to keep an eye on your oil level, but the consumption is really pretty slight in the RX-8 engine - I check my oil every 1,000-1,500 miles and need to top off about half of those times. After 26,000 miles, I've added a total of less than 2 quarts between scheduled oil changes.

Re:Rotary

[TubeSteak]

http://www.rotamax.net/

Maybe that's the people I was thinking of.

or the RotaPower engine.

I coulda sworn Rotax made rotary engines though. I pulled all that stuff from Wikipedia :o\

Re:Rotary

[Rdickinson]

If by 'Stopped for a while' You mean paused for a few months (whist refitting the factory) between the end of the RX7 (August 2002) and start of the RX8 production(1st on street March 2003) I think you'd be right...

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

Biggest problem is the seals wearing out, iirc, but the rx-7 i had in the 80s ran over 100k miles without any engine work, and didn't leak oil noticibly between oil changes, either.

Indeed... in my experience the biggest problems with rotary engines were as follows:

1. Cooling - Cheap radiators with leaks, and hoses breaking... these cars are very vulnerable to even mild abuse. Many a vehicle lost an engine because of an owner overlooking an overheat light
2. Oil - The engine was designed to burn oil, and had a fairly large reservoir. Combine a lousy quick-lube shop underfilling the tank a little with an owner going for 6,000 miles+ and you have a recipe for disaster
3. Vapor Lock/Carbon Lock - Let the car cool down... drive it across the parking lot... park... car won't start. Common problem with easy solutions, but there've been a few thrown out over it (with perfectly good motors)

Re:Rotary

[Jozer99]

Mazada used a couple of rotary engines in the 1980's and 1990's in cars. Despite the more efficient design, the rotary engine just didn't have the engineering history behind it that the gas engine had, so it tended to be somewhat weak, loud, and sluggish. Mazada has in the past few years started working on the engine again, and it is currently in a couple of sports cars that Mazada sells.

Re:Rotary

[Rdickinson]

The RX7 was produced and sold up until late 2002 in Japan, they withdrew it from sale inthe US and Europe in the mid 90's.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

Rotary Engines are also commonly used in Ski-Do Snowmobliles. they auctually deliver performance on par with engines of similar displacements.

Re:Rotary

[robbak]

I'd call that leet, if that isn't anacronistic for WWII technology.

A second advantage is that it saves the weight of a seperate flywheel (or a unnecesarily heavy prop), because an entier engine should be heavy enough for anyone!

Re:Rotary

[Steven Reddie]

I thought all of the RX-7's produced throughout the 80's and 90's were rotary.

Re:Rotary

[GrpA]

Yes, but it had it's drawbacks. Aside from the obvious technical issues with the entire engine spinning, there were practical issues also.

Just imagine the torque roll problem. Throttle response issues. Gyroscopic effect. Bearing loads.

The radial was a much better design. The two stroke radials (even number of cylinders) seem even better still...

GrpA

Re:Rotary

[homer_ca]

"Stopped for a while" means they stopped selling it in the U.S. although the RX7 was sold in Japan until 2002.

Re:Rotary

[Bullfish]

I know this, I said he (the parent) may be thinking of a radial engine. I do know the difference between a pratt and whitney wasp and a rotary engine.

Re:Rotary

[berboot]

Makes perfect sense. I was basing my response off of the owner's manual stating that every time you fill the gas tank, you should check the oil. Your explanation makes perfect sense, as the rotary design would be more prone to consuming the oil in the combustion process.

Re:Rotary

[Bullfish]

I can't speak about production for the rest of the world, but in north america, there was a big gap between the RX-4 (which went like stink) and the RX-7, and then a long gap (mid-ninties to a couple of years ago) between the RX-7 and RX-8.

Re:Rotary

[modecx]

The Sopwith's engine wasn't a rotary engine like a wankel (which uses a rotor, not pistons), but it was called a radial rotary engine because the crankshaft was in fact fixed, and the cylinders, pistons, heads, manifolds, propeller--everything rotated around the crankshaft. As a matter of fact, the propeller was mounted to the engine itself!

In effect, the rest of the engine became the flywheel. Because it didn't need an external flywheel, these engines had better power to weight ratios, which is obviously very important in WWI biplanes. There was also a French airplane, which, IIRC made dual use of the crankshaft as a gun barrel... So bullets fired straight through the center of the engine, and the barrel was very effectively oil cooled if you can imagine!

They're wrong, however, saying that Mazda makes the only Wankel engine, because of course, Moller international also makes them, and they're going to be used in their much anticipated VTOL Skycar.

Re:Rotary

[Greyfox]

Did you have to install a choke to get it started, or have to pull the fuel injection relay? I got real good at pulling the relay, starting the car and getting the relay plugged back in before the engine cut out. Good times!

Apart from that and the one time the throttle got stuck wide open on a downhill, I really did like that car though. Had a nice amount of pickup and was a lot of fun to drive.

Re:Rotary

[Duhavid]

The radial had many many advantages, and that is why it "won".
But it was a harder technical problem to solve.

And what throttle? IIRC, those engines where "on" with a "cut"
switch. Hence the characteristic noise they made.

Wasnt arguing any superiourity for the design,
just that is what they were using in those days. And yes, the
torque was a big issue. IIRC turns to the right were easy
and quick. Left was a bit more work. Tactically, that meant
that you could predict which direction an enemy plane would
"break" to.

But why would a two stroke radial have to have an even number
of cylinders?

Re:Rotary

[Duhavid]

The sopwith camel used an engine that was roughly similar to a
radial engine, the differences being that the whole engine turned,
and the crankshaft was held fixed. That engine being called a
rotary. Different from the Wankel rotary engine.

A link
is worth a thousand words.

Apologies if you already knew this, but I cant
infer this from your post.

Re:Rotary

[drooling-dog]

Despite the more efficient design, the rotary engine just didn't have the engineering history behind it that the gas engine had, so it tended to be somewhat weak, loud, and sluggish.

Weak, loud, and sluggish? I had an RX-7 Turbo in the early 90s, and I can assure you it was the opposite of all of those things.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

The "rotary" you are thinking about in regards to Rotax is the rotary valve 2 stroke. They are common in aircraft and nowadays in snowmobiles. They were also used in bombardier dirtbikes during the 70s and 80s.

Re:Rotary

[temojen]

The rotax engines (914, for example) are closer in design to the old VW bug engines. 1.2L 4Cyl opposed-piston, single centre camshaft, 4 stroke, but water-cooled, fuel injected, electronic ignition, and turbocharged.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd contest the few moving parts bit, but are the oil leaks a result of the engine design (ie: a problem with rotary engines) or a problem with Mazda's implementation?

Re:Rotary

[RedWizzard]

That's one of the huge cases for them; no valves, valve springs, cam shafts, pistons or rods to deal with.

How often are those things a problem in a modern car engine though? You certainly wouldn't expect any problems up to 100k miles.

Re:Rotary

[Enigma Deadsouls]

Rotax may have at some point or another in their 80+ year history built a rotary engine (none come to mind, but I could be wrong), they however do not build any currently.

As an owner of two Aprilia (a 2001 RSV Mille and a 1999 RS250), I can tell you the Rotax built V990 (998cc 60deg V-Twin) in my RSV is not a Rotary engine. RS250 doesn't matter as it uses a Suzuki VJ22 (250cc 90deg two-stroke V-Twin) engine.

That said there are motorcycle that were built using rotary engines.

Re:Rotary

[wolrahnaes]

Weak and sluggish could be applied to the NA versions, if you're used to the torque curve of a larger engine. The wankels need some revving to get in to the power, so until one gets used to that it could feel slow compared to a traditional V8 sports car.

As for loud, well that varies based on your exhaust and again if there's a turbo. Personally I love the sound of a wankel, so I wouldn't complain about them being loud, but I'm sure some would find them annoying.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

they were as well as the R100 RX-2 RX-3... REPU, COSMO so on and so forth.

Re:Rotary

[Spazntwich]

Three moving parts (in a 2 rotor, the "standard" number for a rotary), 2 in a 1 rotor, 4 in a 3 rotor. You get the idea.

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine9.htm

Re:Rotary

[Bullfish]

No worries. I had actually forgot about that type of engine. I think Nieuport used them too. Funny to think that was almost 100 years ago. Actually I used to work with a Brit who had a Sopwith Camel back in Jolly Old.

Re:Rotary

[utexaspunk]

It wasn't just Mazda and Mercedes. Everyone was looking into Wankels in the early 70's- in 1973 GM even had a concept that looked like a 4-rotor Corvette. Then the oil crisis hit, and the Wankel's lower than average mileage pretty much ended all experimentation with the design. Their emissions at the time were less than stellar as well. Mazda has continued development since, and they've made great strides in improving the mileage and emissions, but those problems are still associated with the design in the average Joe's mind (if they even know about it). It's a shame, because there are a lot of advantages to the design- less moving parts, less vibration and higher RPMs due to the lack of reciprocation. My dad tells me that when he was looking at RX-7's back in 79 when they first came out, the salesman made a demonstration of putting the car in neutral and flooring the engine for a couple minutes. Not something most people care to do with their piston engines...

Re:Rotary

[scotch]

Mine (1983 GSL) had a choke - I don't remember if I used it much. None of that other stuff, too. I had a problem with the radiator and some cosmetic stuff, but the engine was solid. Loved that car, maybe because it was my first. Sold it to a "friend" who never finished paying me. Bitch.

Re:Rotary

[scotch]

Why do you want to contest the "fewer" moving parts bit? It's true. The oil leaks aren't bad, Mazda has had the problem solved for many years.

Re:Rotary

[TheNetAvenger]

Mazda has been the main user of the rotary engine for the past decade or so. Both their RX-7 (which ended it's lifespan in 1995, IIRC) and the current RX-8 are rotary engine designs.

From the reading car enthusiast forums that I frequent, both are seen as great cars, but have their share of oil leaks. Additionally, it's rather difficult to find a mechanic that is willing to work on rotary engines, so most cars are maintained by shade-tree mechanics.

The Oil leaks are not leaks, the nature of the lubrication system of the rotary design intentionally burns a small amount of oil during operation as a part of the lubrication process. However it is only like a 1/2qt every 3000-4000 miles.

The older RX3 and RX5 vehicles made by Mazda in the 70s DID have oil leaks, but this was due to a faulty seal design that was overcome with the 12A Rotory engine introduced in the new 1979 RX7. The engine's size was increased and refined again in 1985 with the GXL-SE RX7, and this engine, the 13B, then became the standard engine of the new body style that ran from 1986.

Mazada redesigned the RX7 again in 1992, and it still holds as one of the top sports cars ever produced, with under 5sec 0-60sec times, over 1g skipad, etc. However the engine in the 1992 RX7 Was the same basic 13B engine introduced in 1985, but with an improved twin turbo system, giving this simple engine amazing horsepower and the lower end torque to move.

The RX8 is a new revision to the Rotary engine, giving it more horsepower without the need for turbo. (However if the earlier Twin-Turbo was added to this engine, it would be in the ranks of the fastest cars ever made, a decision I think Mazda skipped on due to the market of the RX8(too much power for the average buyer); however, rumors of it or a new RX7 with twin-turbo are going around.

As for working on the rotary engine, it is out of ingornance if mechanics won't work on them, they are a very simple design, much simplier than the more complex piston based combustion engine.

The biggest failure in RX7s were the transmissions, as the rotary engine normally runs at a higher RPM than other engines, as it just keeps spinning and doesn't have to reverse direction. So a 9K redline is nothing, in fact many street racers and modders in the late 80s early 90s used RX7s in racing because the standard engine could still perform reasonably well in the 15,000-18,000 rpm range, it was the transmission to hold up to this amount of speed and power that was the trick.

Rotary engines are quite interesting and surprising that they have not caught on more in the market. They can be more fuel efficient, and emmissions are often better as the engine does a more complete burn process of the fuel. They are also surpsingly small, and lightweight. An average person can lift the engine. Which is kind of cool seeing a tiny engine that back in 1992 and 1993 was basically a 2 cylinder engine and could out perform even the Corvette ZR1 at the time.

The light weight nature of the engine and lack of vibration were also benefits to the performance of the car, as the engine could be mounted futher back in the car giving the car a 50/50 weight distribution for great cornering, and unlike other cars in its class, no vibration problems that other companies like Nissan were plaqued with when they tried to compete with their 6cylinder engines of the time.

Another footnote on the Mazda/Rotary engine is that in the racing circuit, Mazda for years has used a 3cylinder version of the rotary engine in its racing cars, and unline competitors like GM/Corvette, Porche, Ferrari, etc - the Mazda team uses the SAME engine throughout the racing season because of its high durability, where the other competitors usually replace engines between each race.

I am somewhat of a car enthusiast, and have owned all 3 variations of the RX7. I actually miss them, they were fast, nimble cars that were easy to do things well in them.

In contrast to the Corvettes and other performance cars I ha

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

Your thinign of radial engines.
Radial engliens are very much like a normal inline engine or a V engine execpt the pistions are aranged in a circle insted of a line or a v.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

RX-7 owner here. No, you're thinking of a radial engine. Those have pistons radiating from the crankshaft. Very common in aircraft designs. Mazda licensed and refined Dr. Wankel's design, which uses two sorta triangular-shaped rotors that both orbit and revolve inside an oval chamber that's a little pinched at the sides. Those turn the eccentric shaft, which then turns the transmission. There are no pistons, camshafts, valves, or anything else you're used to hearing about. Really only three moving parts, and because it doesn't reciprocate (think of the piston going back and forth, stopping at each end then going the other way) it'll turn a whole mess of revolutions and develops more and more power as it spins faster. Whoever said they were noisy and sluggish is dead wrong. Even at 120+ MPH (and believe me, I've run mine at 100+ for hours out on lonely desert roads) they're vibration-free and eerily quiet. A little slow off the line, but comes alive around 3000RPM. At freeway speeds, I regularly smoke Corvettes and Porsches. The other benefit is that they develop a lot of power in a small package. Because of this, Mazda put the rotary behind the front axle on the RX-7, making it a true mid-engine car with 50:50 weight distribution. Totally neutral handling and fantastic speed. If you ever want to know what a supercar is like on the cheap, buy one. Mine's been bulletproof, too. Just regular maintenance.

Re:Rotary

[kd5ujz]

Another drawback to this design was no throttle. The engine was toggled on and off by a switch that grounded out the magneto. This is why you hear the off and on sounds in older movies when the planes are landing. the rotating engine did not provide for a mechanical linkage to the carberator, so the carb was set, and an electrical linkage would cut the ignition.

Re:Rotary

[cplusplus]

Your car should have used oil. It should have used between one and two quarts every 3000 miles. Mazda's RX (rotary experiment) cars use oil by design to keep the apex seals lubricated. The RX8 has oil injectors that squirt very small amounts of oil on the intake side (I think it's near the intake side). The older RX7s had them as well.

Re:Rotary

[tylernt]

They can be more fuel efficient, and emmissions are often better as the engine does a more complete burn process of the fuel.

Nope, sorry. "Wankel engines are criticized for poor fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions."

"Just as the shape of the Wankel combustion chamber prevents preignition, it also leads to incomplete combustion of the air-fuel charge, with the remaining unburned hydrocarbons released into the exhaust."

"A related cause for unexpectedly poor fuel economy involves an inherent weakness of the Wankel rotor design when used with conventional fuels. Some studies have indicated that at high speeds, the rate at which the volume of the combustion chamber increases in the moments after ignition actually outpaces the expansion of the burning fuel. The result is that, at high speeds, less useful energy is extracted from the same volume of fuel"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_rotary

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

"The engine's size was increased and refined again in 1985 with the GXL-SE RX7, and this engine, the 13B, then became the standard engine of the new body style that ran from 1986."

Minor correction - the 13B engine was reintroduced on the 1984 model GSL-SE RX7. Mine is still running (original engine), with over 250,000km on the odometer.

Re:Rotary

[dthree]

You're thinking of a radial engine. It has air-cooled pistsons arranged in a circle around a crankshaft. Mazda's rotary engines are completely different.

Re:Rotary

[dthree]

I should know to scroll down and see if 10 other people have already made the same reply before I post.

Re:Rotary

[Hymer]

You probably know but it seems that other may need a clarification... Rotary engine is a very bad (imho) name for a Wankel engine.
A 2000 ccm 3 chamber (with 3 rotating "pistons") Wankel engine (like the one in Mazda RX-7) is physically smaller and lighter than a 1000 ccm, 4 cylinder engine.

Re:Rotary

[scotch]

You're right, it did use about 1 quart every 3000 miles. Due to the dipstick marks or my bad eye sight and my regular changing of the oil every 3k miles, I didn't really have to add oil to it between oil changes. Consider this a retraction: the rx-7 didn't leak oil, but it did consume a noticible amount of oil, but not enough to where it mattered.

Re:Rotary

[JakartaDean]

The only rotary engines I knew about were ones in planes beginning many decades ago.

They may use, or have used, rotary (Wankel) engines in planes, but I think you are talking about a radial engine, which is a very different beast. Radial engines have the cylinders and pistons radiating around the crankshaft, not in one or two rows. Wankel engines have no cylinders or pistons.

Re:Rotary

[hyc]

Not all rotary engines suffer from these problems.

http://www.freedom-motors.com/techno.html

Mazda's Renesis engine in the RX-8 is a decent improvement over the previous versions. I must say they've got the coolest designs around (in the "affordable" range; a Ford GT would be pretty cool too) and I'd be all over a new RX-7 if they bring it back.

Re:Rotary

[Zog The Undeniable]

The aeroplanes you're thinking of had RADIAL engines. They were still "boingers", it's just that the pistons were arranged in a ring around the crankshaft. The propeller was attached to the pistons and the cranshaft was stationary, so the whole lot whirled round together, giving betetr cooling (and presumably horrendous torque reaction when the pilot opened the throttle).

A couple of Camel trivia: because of the difficulty feeding fuel to a spinning engine, it had no throttle. You had to blip the engine on and off to slow down. Also, they used a total-loss lubrication system based on castor oil, which inevitably got breathed in by the pilot. As well as having a life expectancy of a few hours, most Camel pilots had the galloping trots.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, Freedom Motors is the company contracted to make the engines for the Moller International skycar.

Re:Rotary

[BlueAdept]

It's a Rotary (Wankel) engine... not a Radial (Piston) engine as used in early aircraft... Sorry, bit confusing I know.

Re:Rotary

[marafa]

i remember the rx3 from the seventies.
i also remember reading an article about how the rotary engine was more efficient thant the piston driven engine, used less parts and less maintenance, however, there were few mechanics that understood them

Re:Rotary

[Jaruzel]

I miss it. The RX-8 is nowhere near as nice as the RX-7 RS :(

I nearly bought an RX-7 but then Mazda withdrew it, and with the previous experience of the depreciation of my MX-6 once it became an 'old model' (it lost over 80% of it's value in 4 years) there was no way I was going to buy a second user RX-7 now that they'd also become superceded.

-Jar.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually...

Mazda Rotarys from the 80's lost their seals at around 60k. They still worked, but had bad seals after that.

The seals that went wrong were not the ones that keep the oil in the engine -- those are different seals. The seals that went bad were the ones in the combustion chamber.

Re:Rotary

[Whiteox]

"The only rotary engines I knew about were ones in planes beginning many decades ago. I think the Sopwith Camel used one, but correct me if I'm wrong."

They were (and still in production) PISTON rotary engines as opposed to Wankel Rotary engines (no pistons).

Yes I too had a Mazda RX2 which was a rocket and blew flames out the exhaust at around 120 mph. Great night show!

Re:Rotary

[TheNetAvenger]

Nope, sorry. "Wankel engines are criticized for poor fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions."

"Just as the shape of the Wankel combustion chamber prevents preignition, it also leads to incomplete combustion of the air-fuel charge, with the remaining unburned hydrocarbons released into the exhaust."

"A related cause for unexpectedly poor fuel economy involves an inherent weakness of the Wankel rotor design when used with conventional fuels. Some studies have indicated that at high speeds, the rate at which the volume of the combustion chamber increases in the moments after ignition actually outpaces the expansion of the burning fuel. The result is that, at high speeds, less useful energy is extracted from the same volume of fuel"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_rotary

Nope sorry...

You need to rely on more than wikipedia my friend. Originally the Wankel design was less efficient at both the full usage of the fuel, resulting in lower fuel efficiency and extra pollution.

However if you would have looked up some of the Work Mazda specifically did with the design, these concerns were virtually gone at the 12A engine, and with the 13B engine were better than a comperable performing regular cylinder engine.

Remember you have to contrast the performance of the Engine. A 1987 (13B) Mazda RX7's fuel efficiency was better than a 6 Cylinder Nissan, yet the Mazda produced more horsepower.

Additionally, with the Mazda designs, the combustion chamber DOES Burn the fuel more completely, and there are considerable less emmissions when comparing the engine to the same performing engine.

Here is where people get confused. The Mazda Rotary engines were 'classified as 4cylinder engines because they had 4 spark plugs - lead and trail on each of the two chambers'. However the engine is in the performance class of V6 and V8 engines.

So yes, if you were to compare a 2 chamber Rotary engine with an average 4 cylinder engine, the fuel economy looked bad. However, when compared to the same performance level 6 cylinder engine, the rotary was far ahead of it.

So these are false stats, as you can't truly call the Mazda Rotary a 4 cylinder engine, when it outperforms 6 cylinder engines. (And technically it is a two chamber engine.)

Even look at the new rotary in the RX8, it is technically classified as a 4 cylinder engine for insurance purposes or in common car classifications; however, it outperforms the Mitsubishi Eclipse 6 cylinder engine, and gets the same or better fuel efficiency. So in terms of power, it is a 6 or 8 cylinder engine.

Here think about it like this, a 1985 Corvette had 230hp, with the new tuned port V8, and yet the new Mazda RX8 has better horsepower and better fuel efficiency.

If you want to call the 2 chamber rotary a 4 cylinder engine, and try to compare it to an engine that produces about 1/2 the HP, then sure, the fuel efficiency doesn't look so great.

But doing so would be a bit 'insane'...

PS WikiPedia is only as good as the person that felt like an expert the day before you looked up the article, do some real research next time.

I may not do cars for a living, but I know my way around them, owned every type of RX7 and many other sports cars, outside of computers, it is my passion. I also did an engineering paper on the Wankel when I was in University, so I have did a bit more than just drive and work on them.

Re:Rotary

[TheNetAvenger]

Minor correction - the 13B engine was reintroduced on the 1984 model GSL-SE RX7. Mine is still running (original engine), with over 250,000km on the odometer.

You are right, it was 84 and GSL-SE, not GXL-SE. The 84s were very rare though, even the 85s were rare.

I almost bought a used 85 GSL-SE, but instead waited and got a new 87 GXL.

I already had an 81 GS, and after driving a friends 86, I actually liked the feel of the new body, and wanted something different from my 81. Also the lure of the active suspension system and passive rear steering int he 86-91 models was actually quite impressive, especially for the time. And even being a bit 'bigger' it still felt so nimble and was very much still an RX7. :)

PS Enjoy your RX7, it should also be worth a penny or two someday being the SE. I moved from my 87 RX7 to a new Corvette convertable in 1991, and even though the Vette had muscle, looks, I missed the way my RX7 drove.

The Corvette was great, but it drove more like a race car than a sports car. It had speed, muscle and great cornering, but you had to know how to drive to get everything out of it. The RX7 was more about doing the same things, but with a bit of ease, letting the car do a lot of the work for you, especialy in agility and cornering.

I then moved to a 1993 RX7 and it again had that distinct feel my older RX7s had. I kept it and had a couple of Vettes at the time. I enjoyed driving the RX7 more, but the Vettes always got more attention.

I have been tempted to pick up an RX8, I tested one for a day, and it had that Mazda/RX7 feel, although not quite as tight as the RX7. If they do a Turbo/Performance version of the RX8, I will be one of the first people in line. I would like to see a new RX7 as well.

Sorry for the long post, just reminding me of my RX7s and days of youth. :)

Re:Rotary

[ponchoboy]

Yes you are right, Mazda's rotary (and maybe other rotaries?) consume oil to keep things lubricated. From what I've heard, if you want to put oil in the RX-8, which you have to do on a regular basis, you have to remove the plastic engine cover. Brilliant...

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

One other thing to be aware of regarding the oil injection on the RX-8 is that it occurs every time the key is turned. So, if you stall the car and turn the key all the way back & restart, you'll inject another dose of oil that the engine does not need... Do it a few times and you start thinking you've "flooded" the engine. You have, but not with fuel.

There's a relative paucity of RX-8 owners posting I notice. I get through about 1l of oil every 2-2.5k miles; mpg could be better, but I didn't buy it for the fuel economy. Service costs aren't bad either - the expensive service is at 3 years, where they replace the platinum (tipped) spark plugs...

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

The pre RX8 rotary ran combustion temperatures 600 degress hotter than a piston engine. The new ones have moved the valves resulting in a cooler than piston combustion temperatures. This apparently makes them a poor candidate for turbocharging. My 1985 GSL-SE has over 200,000 miles on it and is still pretty strong. It doesn't smoke and doesn't seem to be using any more oil than it used to. I don't know about the later models, but the stock transmission was overdesigned quite a bit and were alleged to be able to withstand somewhere in the 500 hp range. Funny, considering the stock '85 GSL-SE was rated at 135 hp.

Re:Rotary

[Whiteox]

I used to put a pint of oil in very tank in my RX2.
After a while, the plugs would foul, so one tank dry would clean it.
Brilliant car. Would still have it if my girlfriend didn't drive it sideways up a kerb.
Bitch.

Re:Rotary

[dapprman]

Couple of points.

In Japan the FD3 (3rd generation RX-7) was made up to 2002.
Also the engine was a redesign, though only partial, hence being the 13B-REW as opposed to the 13B (13 stood for 1.3 litres). The 20B in the Cosmos was also effectively a REW engine.
Of note - the Renasis engine in the RX-8 is still only an advancement on the 13B-REW.

The reason turbos were not added to the RX-8 were two fold. 1 heat, 2 a lack of engine space, which is why FD3 owners such as myself are still hoping for a FE3 being launched in 2007/8.

On the mechanic side of things - I agree with the lack of understanding, especially on the tuning side. Rotary engines have to be more finely tuned as they are moer delicate. Knock can cause a tip to go, which will result in an engine build.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

Brillant!

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

The aircraft engines you're thinking of are radial engines, not Wankel rotary engines. Though there has been limited use of rotary motors in aircraft, the rotary engine wasnt even invented until 1924, far too late to be used in the Sopwith Camel. Radial engines are simply a different configuration of a typical reciprocating piston engine (Like "V" engines, or inline or boxer engines). The wankel rotary engine is a different type of engine entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine

Re:Rotary

[chihowa]

minor correction: ports, not valves. If you ran 600 deg hotter than a piston, you would turn your valves to ports anyway!

Re:Rotary

[Smidge204]

I don't think it's fair to call it a 2 cylinder engine, either.

I mean, technically it has no "cylinders" at all :P

Each of two chambers is divided into 3 working volumes by a single rotor, for a total of 6 independent working volumes at any given time. Wouldn't this be more analogous to a 6-cyl engine?
=Smidge=

Re:Rotary

[dapprman]

You contest the fewer moving parts ?

A Mazda Rotary engine in a RX-7 or RX-8 has 3 moving parts - the crank and two rotors. In the 20B engine from the Cosmos it had 4 moving parts as there was a third rotor.

So just how many parts does a boinger (piston) engine have ?

Re:Rotary

[jocknerd]

I owned an 81 and an 85. Liked the 81 much more. It was silver with black interior. No A/C. Hot as hell in the summer. The 85 was a GS cream with brown interior. Nicer car but just didn't seem as fun. Kept that one from 86 through 94 when I bought a piece of sh!t Ford Escort GT. The biggest problem I had on the RX-7 was the carburator went bad on me. I lusted after a 93-95 RX-7 but never got one. I still look at them in the used car ads and I'm amazed at how much they have held their value. If Mazda ever comes out with another RX-7, I'll be the first in line. I personally don't care for the RX-8. I like the back of the car but I don't care for the flared fenders or the nose of it.

The only complaint I have about rotary engines is their awful gas mileage.

Re:Rotary

[Uncle Rummy]

True, but it's not like you have to get out the torque wrench or anything. Here's a pic of the engine cover. It's the square-ish piece at top center with "Renesis" and the Mazda logo on it. To remove it, you just lift up the front and pull it towards you. Takes all of 2 seconds, and another 5 to put it back. It serves no real purpose AFAIK, so you can always leave it in the garage if it bothers you.

Re:Rotary

[VAXcat]

Rotary engines also powerd the Megola motorcycle. Made in Germany in the 1920s, the Megola's crankshaft was fixed to the front axle, and the cylinders spun around it inside the front wheel to propel it. Crazy bike...

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

"Granted it's race only, because the intake ports are huge; it doesn't start making power until around 9000 RPM, but maintains it until around 14,000 RPM."

14,000 RPM out of a 12A? I'd like to see some charts on that. Heavily modified 13B and 20B engines (including the Mazda 787B that won Le Mans) don't spin to 14K.

Re:Rotary

[FellowConspirator]

Incorrect. The Mazda RENESIS rotary engine is an improved Wankel rotary engine, a form of pistonless engine without a crankshaft.

You're thinking of an entirely different kind of rotary engine that uses pistons and spins the engine block around a stationary shaft. That type of engine is pretty rare these days (I actually don't know of any modern use), but, as you say it was common on various types of planes in the 1910's and 1920's because it had a better power-to-mass compared to other engines available at the time.

This is actually funny because I had mentioned some time back, on Slashdot, I think, that I'd really like to see a RENESIS-based hybrid engine developed. Now, here we go.

Re:Rotary

[drooling-dog]

For what it's worth... My old 1987 Turbo RX7 - which I still miss dearly - averaged around 23 mpg on the highway, a little better than the 4-cylinder compact pickup truck I'm driving around now. It was retired at about 110K miles after the apex seals blew, and in fact still sits in my garage today, waiting to rise from the ashes...

Re:Rotary

[bdclary]

Remember you have to contrast the performance of the Engine. A 1987 (13B) Mazda RX7's fuel efficiency was better than a 6 Cylinder Nissan, yet the Mazda produced more horsepower.

I think you're wrong about the horsepower. A quick google search doesn't turn up the specs, but I remember that the rotary in a 1987 RX-7 produced 146hp, and the engine in a same year Nissan 300Z produced 160hp. From the manual for my old '86 RX-7 (RIP 198,722 miles), the EPA esimated mileage was 17/24mpg (city/highway), and I routinely got 17mpg city. Don't know the mileage for the Nissan.

Here think about it like this, a 1985 Corvette had 230hp, with the new tuned port V8, and yet the new Mazda RX8 has better horsepower and better fuel efficiency.

Isn't a bit unfair to compare an engine that's 20 years older? Why don't you compare the rotary in the 2006 RX-8, which produces 238 hp (according to Edmunds) to the 2006 base Corvette, which (according to Edmunds) produces 400hp. The RX-8 weighs 3029lbs and returns 18/24 mpg while the Corvette weighs 3179 lbs and returns 18/26 mpg. Don't get me wrong; I miss my RX-7 and love the rotary, but it is not more fuel efficient (in terms of hp produced) than a piston engine, probably due to the inefficient shape of the combustion chamber. Also, if you spend any amount of time on an RX-7 group, you'll realize that passing smog tests is a major concern. In fact, according to early threads on RX-8 Club.com, the claimed hp of the RENESIS was reduced to 238 from 250 due to changes in the exhaust to make emissions meet US standards.

Re:Rotary

[Anonymous Coward]

"The RX8 is a new revision to the Rotary engine, giving it more horsepower without the need for turbo. (However if the earlier Twin-Turbo was added to this engine, it would be in the ranks of the fastest cars ever made, a decision I think Mazda skipped on due to the market of the RX8(too much power for the average buyer); however, rumors of it or a new RX7 with twin-turbo are going around."

The reason a turbo was not added to the RX-8 was due to the design on the Renesis engine with higher-compression rotors. Turbos combined with the Renesis aren't efficient at this point.

The 13B engine in the "older" RX-7 is more powerful than it's cousin the Renesis. Plenty of charts to back that up.

Re:Rotary

[stanmann]

Burning or "using" oil is different than leaking. One of them leaves a poodle under your car.

Re:Rotary

[modecx]

Freedom Motors is part of Moller International. Moller got his start with the famous Supertrapp engine muffler system, and he started Freedom Motors as an R&D firm for Wankel engines, mostly for his Skycar project. They also build engines for watercraft and military applications.
'

Re:Rotary

[AK Marc]

The 13B engine in the "older" RX-7 is more powerful than it's cousin the Renesis. Plenty of charts to back that up.

If that is the case, can you post links to some of those charts so that I can see?

Re:Rotary

[smellsofbikes]

If you had any details about that French airplane I'd really like to hear about it. Most of the time crankshafts (except for rotaries like the RX7) are nothing near straight, by their very function. Airplanes with prop speed reduction, like the WWII Airacobra, had cannons firing down the prop driveshaft, but it was neither a crank nor colinear with it. But they did all sorts of weird stuff during WWI so I wouldn't be surprised to find out someone had figured out something I've never heard of.

There are a bunch of companies making Wankel rotary engines. Mazda is just the only one doing it for cars.

Re:Rotary

[Thundersnatch]

I'd call that leet, if that isn't anacronistic for WWII technology.

Check your watch... you're off by 20 years. The Sopwith Camel was a World War One aircraft, it entered British service in 1917 and was obsolete by 1918.

Re:Rotary

[TheNetAvenger]

Each of two chambers is divided into 3 working volumes by a single rotor, for a total of 6 independent working volumes at any given time. Wouldn't this be more analogous to a 6-cyl engine?

Possibly, and that is my point, yet the auto industry and insurance companies classify it as a 4 cylinder engine (not having a 2 chamber engine checkbox when they are filling out forms for it.)

It also had 4 spark plugs, so people assumed one plug per cylinder, etc etc... But that was misleading as two plugs worked with each chamber - trailing and leading.

In operation it is somewheber between a 4 cyclinder and 6 cylinder in terms of the ecentric chambers, but when modeled on performance alone it is a high end V6/V8 range depending othe V6 or V8 being compared to.

So to state that its fuel efficiency is bad, becuase people think of it in the 4cylinder class really don't get it. Put it in the V6 class at least, and then compare emissions and fuel efficiency.

Re:Rotary

[RyMon]

The reason is that the 12A is a somewhat smaller engine. Of course, being basically race only, it's looking at a 5000 mile life span, at most, before all the seals and bearings need to be replaced.

They're just asking for ridicule

[Anonymous Coward]

First Mazda starts using Wankel engines in their cars...

Now they're making a partially hydrogenated engine

Trans-fast?

Re:They're just asking for ridicule

[mauthbaux]

Trans-fast?

I believe they refer to it as "zoom-zoom."

Fuel me once...

[dotslashdot]

Fuel me once, shame on me. Fuel me duel, won't get fueled again. Cool! I've always wanted to see two fuels duel!

Re:Fuel me once...

[bmgoau]

What the hell are you on about. It appears you entangled two seperate cliches, in anttempt to create something funny and new, while forgeting the basis of the english language.

Re:Fuel me once...

[Anonymous Coward]

This was a reference to a Bush quote where he mangled up the cliche.

Re:Fuel me once...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh yes, yes he is.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bu shfoolme.htm

Currently worthless in North America

[postbigbang]

Even if someone wanted to pay the $3400+ lease (not including local taxes, licenses, delivery, etc.) there are but a handful of places in North America where you could find a fill. Not that there's even a standard fueling nozzle, nor one proposed to ANSI at this point. You could buy land in Illinois, grow corn, distill your own alchohol and at least have a few places to not only fuel up but some cars that can actually use the fuel for that kind of money.

And so, this is Mazda's PR machine cooking up hope where it'll be a decade or more before consumers will see something tangible on this side of the Pacific. Must be a dull news day.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[EvilCabbage]

So is that Mazdas fault, or North Americas?

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[MBCook]

Really. Was that comment worth posting.

"Oh, it costs $3400 a month. And there are no stations."

The article says there are only 12 stations in all of Japan. And they are leasing it to a fuel producing company. This is NOT for normal people yet. The end of the article says that they are making plans to lease them to consumers, but that almost certainly means really rich consumers who want a fun little interesting car that is a toy/curiousity to them. They aren't aiming this at Joe Consumer yet. They aren't aiming it at Joe Consumer's Boss, or even his Boss, or his Boss. They are aiming it at anyone super-wealthy who wants to try it.

I agree it is good PR and will take years to get to consumers (unless some country gets around to mandating Hydrogen soon, like Iceland has been talking about). Let's just hope it's not 10 years.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[rolfwind]

Um, that's kindof the point of dual-fuel. It's a chicken and the egg problem - would you rather have them wait for the infrastructure? Which will never come because there are no cars on the road that take hydrogen. Because there is no infrastructure?

Also, corn would not be the only way to get hydrogen. Try electrolysis. Put a few solar panels on the roof, let that electricity seperate water into oxygen and hydrogen and collect in a tank. Inefficient - yes. But feasible. Want something more efficient? Use steam electrolysis (which is more efficient) by putting up a parabolic mirror and heating a core of water to the required temperature (2500 C) and splitting the molecules that way. Some obstacles to overcome - but no reason it needing acres of land when the acreage of a roof should suffice.

Sometimes the only way forward with this technology is to take a few steps back because it's more realistic to accept it won't be as good (convenient) as gas overnight. Gasoline had years of market acceptance to develop these advantages.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[chris_eineke]

Well, you know what they say:

Blame Canada*.

*I am Canadian. Don't implode. ;-)

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[jonwil]

Whats the deal with this whole "lease" thing anyway?
Here in australia, I only know of people that buy a car outright or people who hire one one from somewhere like Hertz or Avis, not people getting cars on a "lease" basis (ditto with those GM electric cars from a while back)

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[daeviltwin]

No NonONO NOn NOno!!!! it is the al-queida!!1 its the terrorist. They hate our freedmom and hate our japanese hydrogen cars!!!!! The terrrists, it is the terror. Terror is everywhere. No hydrogen, Know peace!!!!! If we don't have hydrogen cars then the terrroists have won!!!!!!

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Skip the hydrogen and the combustion. Use your solar powered sterling engine or your solar cells to drive a small air compressor which keeps a larger tank topped off in your garage. Your car will run on compressed air.

http://www.theaircar.com/

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[clowds]

Leasing happens in Australia as well. I've only seen small businesses doing it so far but it happens. The company I was working at leased 5 new Toyota Prado's for driving out in central Australia. Cheaper than buying them outright and lots more tax benefits I was told. Cheaper to upgrade to the next model as well since you just stopped paying the lease on that car and started it on a new model. No selling, no buying, very simple and cheap transition. Look for some local leasing companies on google if you want to see more, but it does exist.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[EvilCabbage]

"Blame Canada*.
*I am Canadian."

Damn self hating Canuckistani people.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Baddas]

Compressed air has such low energy density per volume that it makes hydrogen look positively stellar by comparison.

Compressed air: 17 watt/hours per liter
Liquid Hydrogen: 2600 watt/hours per liter

For a 50l fuel tank (standard on my car), you get the equivalent of 12 liters of gasoline (in energy equivalent) from LH2, and the equivalent of a tenth of a liter from compressed air.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Where did you get your numbers, and how is it that the pressure of the compressed air is ignored here? Even supposing that your numbers are right, and they may very well be, the air car that I linked to has a range of 124 miles on the tanks they had fitted to the car. They're pressurizing them to 300 bar if I remember correctly, in carbon fiber tanks.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Eccles]

A far, far better way to do this in most of the U.S.:

Put the solar cells on the roof, and feed the power back into the grid, lowering your electric bills and your grid power consumption. Then buy a normal car. The grid will burn less coal, balancing out your auto emissions.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[chris_eineke]

Actually, rightfully I am only considered a landed immigrant. So, not yet fully Canadian but on the best way to! \o/

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[amliebsch]

300 bar? Well, give me a call when you can find a solar-powered small air compressor that goes up to 4300 PSI.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[rolfwind]

A far, far better way to do this in most of the U.S.:

Put the solar cells on the roof, and feed the power back into the grid, lowering your electric bills and your grid power consumption. Then buy a normal car. The grid will burn less coal, balancing out your auto emissions.

Again, this is how you look at it. If you want to wean the country from oil - the car solution is a better step in that direction. Afterall, that electricity could also be from a Nuclear Power Plant, which is relatively clean. Especially if you consider the number of years it takes to recoup costs from a photovoltaic unit and consider how dirty it is to manufacture.

If you want absolute efficiency, a PV unit isn't the way to go. Efficiency ranges from 15-30%. You can have near %75-85 or more efficiency if you use solar heat collectors of various sort (rooftop) and use that to heat your water/house. They are also much cleaner to manufacture for the environment.

If you really wanted electricity, perhaps a better solution would be a parabolic dish with a special heat resistant PV unit near the center or a stirling engine at the focus. Here the PV unit will be much smaller (cheaper? but cleaner for the environment in any case, this specific technique has been used in Australia btw), and the parabolic dish would track the sun - which would provide more energy in the end.

There are various ways to do this without necessitating the need for a large PV unit that will be more expensive and dirtier in manufacture for the environment (harsh chemicals).

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Moofie]

How can either Mazda or North America have a fault, in this sense?

I'd say if you buy a car you can't refuel it's your own damn fault.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[svallarian]

The grid would use less coal if the US would just get off our collective NIMBY asses and start building nuclear pebble reactors like mad.

Our great electricity masters in the east (Tennessee Valley Authority) have hiked rates again, for a whopping 15% in the past six-months. Their reasons? Gasoline costs and increased coal costs from their massive coal burning plants.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Hadlock]

I'll probably get modded down for this, but leasing was invented to help car dealerships extract more money from idiot car buyer's wallets. Oh, sure, the salesman will try and tell you you're actually saving money by leasing, but in reality you get hit with return fees, over-allocated mileage fees, depreciation adjustment fees, etc etc ad nauseum.
 
Obviously you should keep a car as long as it's in good shape and/or is less than 150,000 miles and/or less than 10 years old. Due to American tastes to own a "new car", the lease becomes an attractive option (note I didn't use the term "smart") for those who don't want to be burdened with an "old" car after three years, and can continiously drive a new car.
 
Conclusion: It's dumb, but a lot of people still do it either because a) They don't fully understand what they're doing or b) They're greedy. There is an excessively small proportion of people who do c) which is save money somehow. Somebody always pipes up that they somehow saved money, somehow convincing everybody else that the 200 horror stories about leasing a car is the worst idea ever and they'll only buy from here on out.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Balthisar]

>>Conclusion: It's dumb, but a lot of people still do it either because a) They don't fully understand what they're doing or b) They're greedy. There is an excessively small proportion of people who do c) which is save money somehow. Somebody always pipes up that they somehow saved money, somehow convincing everybody else that the 200 horror stories about leasing a car is the worst idea ever and they'll only buy from here on out.

Okay, I'll pipe up :)
Basically you're right for a high number of people that don't think beyond their monthly payments. But time is money, too, and although I don't lease now, I'd do it again in the future. Why? After two years, I turn in the keys. That's only five minutes of my time if the dealer is on the way home from work. Why would I want to have a car that's only two to five years old? Again, it's time, and remember time is money. I can change the oil every 15000 miles because I don't care about the long term. Ditto that for all the other uneccessary maintenance. I don't have to spend time at the shop because it's new and less likely to need service.

The alternative, of course, is changing the oil every g.d. 5 kilomiles, doing the recommend maintenenace every 5 kilomiles, replace the ball joints one month, replace the tie rods another month, and when I'm finally done with the thing spend additional time, money and effort either trying to sell it to a private party, or take a reduced amount on a trade-in for another vehicle.

If you're (not you-you, but the general you) someone that must clip coupons or drive to three different stores to save a buck (and waste two bucks on the gas to do it!), or only buys ribeyes when they're $1.00 off, then the problem isn't that you *may* spend $500 more on leasing versus buying, the problem is that you shouldn't be eyeing new cars in the first place. Once you can afford a new car without struggling for it, who cares about such a tiny theoretical cost difference?

So, that's not greed; that's convenience. That's why you have a P4 instead of a 486. That's why you pay $1.25 for coffee at 7-Eleven instead of brewing it yourself.

I propose that your A-B-C is okay, but only if you add a D: some people just appreciate the care-free convenience of leasing.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Zach978]

You're right...lets give up.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[whoop]

Yeah, but nucular plants are too scarey! Everyone around them will be born with three boobs and stuff!!

Hmm, maybe not so bad...

Sure it might help electrical output and such, but there is more money to be made in complaining about the problem than there would be if these problems got solved.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Eccles]

If you want to wean the country from oil - the car solution is a better step in that direction.

How about a CNG Civic then?

* This offer valid only in California.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[lowrydr310]

Honda offered some special lease of a hydrogen powered vehicle to a lucky family in Southern California.http://world.honda.com/news/2005/405062 9.html. It still appears that it's going to really rich consumers who want a fun little interesting car.

If rich families really want to make an impact on the environment and show everyone they care, a better solution would be to trade in their mammoth SUVs and drive a compact car. There's no need for the fancy hybrid or hydrogen vehicle. Current cars using common technology (NOT hybrids but just regular gasoline engines) already get around 40MPG.

I guess the auto companies are smart how they market their vehicles. The only way to get flashy rich people back into normally sized cars is to offer some hot technology that they can show off.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[seraphiem]

Replacing ball joints and tie rods? How many miles were you putting on a car that you need to change these items? Usually they are easily 100k service intervals. Most people never change them.

Unless your driving an SUV which punishes suspension components.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[lowrydr310]

I would mod you up for this! You got a nice response pointing out the benefits of a lease, but all those points are only good assuming you have a lot of money. I like convenience for most things and I'll gladly pay for it, but when you add up the math of a lease it simply isn't worth it.

Sure there's minor maintenance, but if you get a good enough car then there's really nothing aside from oil changes. I had a 1989 Honda Civic with almost 250,000 miles on it and the only thing I ever had to do besides changing the oil were relatively minor things like replacing the axles and boots, replacing the alternator, and replacing the HVAC fan.

Leases are good if you have a lot of money to throw around and you want a new car every few years, but even in that case I still think you're better off buying. The only 'convenience' comes on that day when your lease is up and you just hand in the keys, however selling a car to a private party isn't all that difficult.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I'll grant you that finding that compressor is a difficulty... :-)

But, I'm still interested in the answers to my other questions. I'm not being an asshole here, just asking questions. I assume you're right, but I want to read more about it.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Anonymous Coward]

I got the figures cited from:
http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm

You'd have to write him to find out what assumptions he's making about the pressure. From what I gather from back-of-the-envelope calculations, that's about 10bar pressure air, at which point you'd be up to 510 watt/hours per liter for 300bar, but still far from competitive.

On a side note, that also demonstrates why gasoline and diesel are so widely used as fuels.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Check my numbers: gasoline's got about 19 times as much energy as 300 bar compressed air, per liter. Let's say there's a car with a 40 liter gas tank (a little more than 10 gallons) which can go 300 miles. To store the equivalent power in compressed air, you'd need 19 times as much volume.

40 * 19 = 760 liters of compressed air. That's not an outrageous volume. I wonder what the efficiency of compressing gas is compared to the efficiency of making hydrogen. That could make quite a big difference in judgements about how competitive compressed air is with hydrogen technologies.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[drinkypoo]

300 bar? Well, give me a call when you can find a solar-powered small air compressor that goes up to 4300 PSI.

MDI proposes to provide such an appliance. It won't be solar-powered as it ships, but it will be if you plug it into a solar power system.

Getting high pressures is relatively easy with a multi-stage compressor. On occasion people have modified ordinary internal combustion engines for this purpose, with any given cylinder feeding into at least one other. You have to make (at minimum) new cams to accomplish this.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[benjamindees]

How about a CNG Civic [honda.com] then?

How about then you're driving a coal-powered car in 20 years instead of ten?

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Baddas]

a 200 gallon gas tank isn't outrageous?!? Not to mention one that has to hold 300 bar...

Your average side-mounted diesel truck tank only hold 50 gallons. Picture four of those, reinforced to withstand 300 bar. That's a lot.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Profane MuthaFucka]

It's about the size of a fridge in volume, which is what I meant. That means you can do it, and your vehicle would not be bigger than an olympic swimming pool. That would be an outrageous size.

A pickup truck holding only 50 gallons would be tiny. I'd expect a pickup sized vehicle to hold a couple thousand gallons, at least. I am just considering the available volume in the vehicle. Most of the time, even our largest SUV trucks are holding just a single person and no cargo. If someone really wants to drive around a pickup truck sized vehicle, they could have some pretty decent range.

Last, you don't need to make a single tank of 200 gallons, if that's hard to construct.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Canadian

You just made it worse for yourself. I recommend keeping this embarrassing piece of information private.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Anonymous Coward]

I gather it's easier to construct a single large 'pill' shaped tank than several smaller ones, at least, in conventional tank construction methods (eg not storing it in a matrix of graphite or some other exoticism)

However, in terms of practicality, fuel cannot occupy a significant portion of the vehicle's weight and volume, or it simply becomes the old 'carrying water in the desert' problem (eg, you carry water into the desert, but carrying water makes you sweat more, so you need more water, so... eventually you die either way)

Here, too, liquid hydrogen wins the battle, in terms of weight. It's the most gravimetrically dense (chemical) fuel we can come up with. Your 200 gallon tank of compressed air would weigh 300 kg whereas the same volume of liquid hydrogen would weigh 53kg, and again, contain approximately four to five times the energy.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Well, I've run out of speculative justifications for compressed air, and I have to admit now that your justifications aren't looking any weaker. I really like the idea of a compressed air car which would be economical, practical, and powered by domestically generated renewable energy, but compressed air is not looking good compared to hydrogen as an energy storage medium.

Re:Currently worthless in North America

[JeremyALogan]

I'm trying to figure out what making alcohol has to do with making hydrogen. I think you're mistaking this for another (E85) technology.

62 miles?

[jj00]

"It can cruise for a maximum 62 miles on hydrogen and 549 km (341 miles) on gasoline..."

62 miles on hydrogen? I guess there isn't much room in an RX8 for hydrogen with a full tank of gas.

Re:62 miles?

[Rdickinson]

Theres not a lot of room in the RX8 for a spaer tank, its a small coupe, and the gas tank size is already too small for its thirst..

But this isnt about practicality, its about tialing in the real work.

Re:62 miles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you understand that I, like many people, live 6 miles from work. If I could drive back and forth every work day on H, and only had to use gasoline to get to my parents house 60 miles away every few months would mean that I burn a lot less gasoline, even if I had to maintain my own tank.

-Chris

Re:62 miles?

[Anonymous Coward]

6 miles from work = use the bus, carpool, bike to work, etc.

Re:62 miles?

[NuShrike]

Well, the H2 Prius can get projected 100 miles (Hydrogen ICE vehicle) & reality ~80 miles to a two-H2-canister tank!

Re:62 miles?

[feijai]

Theres not a lot of room in the RX8 for a spaer tank, its a small coupe, and the gas tank size is already too small for its thirst.

Er...

1. The RX-8 has four doors and (unlike other sports cars) real back seats. This isn't exactly the definition of a coupe.
2. The RX-8 is hardly small. Have you actually been in one? Are you possibly mistaking it for the MX-8 Miata?
3. The RX-8 has a 16 gallon tank. That's bigger than my Protege sedan and my Accord.
4. The RX-8 uses a rotary engine. In other words, a tiny engine. There's actually a fair amount of room for additional tank space.

So, to sum up: not small, not actually a coupe, not a small gas tank, and not crowded tank-wise. Not quite, but very close to the 100% Incorrect on Slashdot ideal. Plus crappy spelling and grammar to boot! Good job!

I'm so glad that I'm skinny

[master_meio]

When you're skinny, women want to have sex with you. You don't have to wait until your 26 to feel a breast.

When you're skinny, you don't have to socialize with "computer people."

That's right. Who did you think you were fooling? Those nerds that make up you're little 'circle' of friends- they're only hanging out with you because no one else will talk to them. They'd sell you out just to have an attractive girl brush against them- and you'd do the same to them. You're certainly no more 'moral' than the rest of- its just that you have no choice but to follow the rules and defer to your social betters.

Some internet weenie that gets quoted alot here once wrote that nerds lived their sad, isolated lives in high school, "because they had better things to do?" Want to know what the nerds in my high school were doing? Collecting dolls. Watching cartoons. Playing stupid card games. Sitting in front of a screen for every moment of their free time.

"better things to do, indeed."

What are they doing now? Working at best-buy, in-and-out of junior college. Yeah, assholes- you're really going to get cancer cured by drinking mountain dew and playing warcraft and watching 'space trek.' LOL

Re:I'm so glad that I'm skinny

[W33B]

Missed yesterdays session with the shrink again did we?

RX7?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Slightly off-topic...but still Mazda related.....has anybody heard anything about a new RX7 being developed? Are there any spy pictures out? The RX8 is nice and all....but compared to the original RX7 its a friggin economy car.

Re:RX7?

[Anonymous Coward]

I much prefer the RX-7 to the RX-8 :P

Re:RX7?

[Laconian]

The Kubara concept seems to signal that Mazda is preparing to make a compact RWD sportscar.

Re:RX7?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might try rx8club.com

Re:RX7?

[hyc]

One can only hope. The entire auto market got really boring when compact sports cars succumbed to the SUV craze. I think I'd get in line for a Kabura.

Ok

[mnemonic_]

Rotary piston engines were standard on WW2 and WW1 era aircraft, among many others. They were not the least bit unique at the time. The vast majority of piston aircraft today use inline designs though.

Only $3577 per month

[RoboSpork]

You can really save money driving this thing. With it's 62 mile hydrogen range and its lease price of $3577 per month I figure I could hire a chauffeur with the money I save. Sign me up.

Re:Only $3577 per month

[Belseth]

The point isn't to save money but a proof of concept. Mazda may be in a unique position to exploit rotary engines that can burn both gas and hydrogen. With Bush pushing Hydrogen over other systems Mazda can clean up licensing the technology to other companies. Being able to burn both gas and hydrogen gives them a commanding lead out of the gate in the hydrogen wars.

Re:Only $3577 per month

[mrbill666]

And Hydrogen is around 7.00 per gal. equivalent. Plus the RX is only running around 107 hp with hydrogen.

Re:Only $3577 per month

[Anonymous Coward]

Way Too Damn Expensive for the general public does not constitute a "commanding lead". Nobody will license technology that increases the cost of a car by 1000%.

The first company to make this AFFORDABLE will be the one with the commanding lead. Until then it's nice that it works, but so what?

Re:Only $3577 per month

[thedletterman]

The idea isn't to lease it to super-rich drivers with no means to fuel it, but to lease it to companies like Exxon for testing and development.

RX-8?

[guardiangod]

99% of people who buy a RX-8 buy the car for its speed (and look), not gas consumption rates.
 
A weird choice to become dual fuel car.

Re:RX-8?

[TooMuchToDo]

Not really. A rotary engine isolates the combustion process better then a standard ICE, which enables it to be Gas/Hydrogen FlexFuel stock. A standard ICE can't do this (currently).

Re:RX-8?

[EvilCabbage]

Where's that "missed the point" moderation option?

Re:RX-8?

[StikyPad]

It's about alternative energy, not fuel conservation. The RX-8 actually gets pretty crappy mileage, especially if you drive it like a sports car. Also, the RX-8 is the only vehicle Mazda sells (in the US?) with a rotary engine, and the rotary engine is what makes it easier to swap fuels. The biggest advantage is that the rotary engine can't backfire. Backfiring is caused by undetonated fuel being expelled to the exhaust pipe, then ignited on the subsequent cylinder firing. Since the rotary engine intakes at, say 0 degrees, then rotates to 120 degrees to fire, then rotates to 240 degrees and expels the exhaust, backfire conditions are never met. (I just made up those numbers; I don't know what the actual angles are). It's a bad thing in a reciprocating engine because the piston is trying to move up to expel the exhaust, and the detonation from the exhaust pipes pushes it down.

So basically, it makes perfect sense to use the RX-8.

BMW has had one for a few years

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was 600K though. Got half the gas milage and half the power, but when you start out with 400+ horsepower in the BMW, half seems good to me.

Re:BMW has had one for a few years

[zakkie]

Not offered for sale to the general public I believe. A few were made for testing/development purposes. I've cartainly not seen their specs listed with the rest of the Seven range...

Ciao

Zak

Thirsty Wankels...

[Rdickinson]

I ran an RX8 (hi-powered, UK) for two years, 30,000 miles. It drinks like a fish.

Hydrogen , whilst its a nice step forward isnt going to help much overall, and 62miles is ok if you live very close to where you fill up. As for 340miles out of the gas tank, forget it, most mine did was 275, typicaly 200-220.

Stunning cars though, balance, power and practicality, tho the Hydrogen cycle runs at 50% power and thats with a turbo.

mazda have had a demo/development duel fuel RX8 for a number of years.

Re:Thirsty Wankels...

[roesti]

As for 340miles out of the gas tank, forget it, most mine did was 275, typicaly 200-220.

That figures. On Mazda's Australian web site, it says that an RX-8 gets 12.2L/100km and has a 61-litre fuel tank. By those numbers, the furthest it could go would be 500km (310 miles), and you'd have to drive conservatively or spend a lot of your time on the highway to get that. Even then, that's working on the assumption that they didn't have to shrink the petrol tank to add the hydrogen system.

Re:Thirsty Wankels...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember, our fuel is different, in japan they have fuel 104ron - highest we have is 98ron - the higher then fuel ron the more milage you get out of your car, in australia our fuel is 91ron (unleaded) - i get 380km out of my tank, running on 95ron fuel i get about 410 - 440 depending on the way i drive

Re:Thirsty Wankels...

[MrFebtober]

mazda have had a demo/development duel fuel RX8 for a number of years.

Cool! It would rule to have a go at that Duel Fuel Mule!
[ducks]

Re:Thirsty Wankels...

[DeadChobi]

Actually, with the way fuel economy calculations are currently performed in the US, you will never get the listed economy from your car, period. Is it calculated differently in the UK?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy

What about the sealing problems?

[Bullfish]

I imagine to use hydrogen, that Mazda must have solved the sealing problems in the engine. They first dropped the rotary because of it's poor mileage and leaky rotor seals. I know a number of RX-3s and 4s had horrible problems with their rotor seals. It looks like they corrected that enough for the RX-8 (the 7 had problems too) to be an efficient gasoline engine. Hydrogen seems dicier to me in the regard of sealing. If they haven't corrected the problem enough to do hydrogen over the long term, this will be a flop.

Re:What about the sealing problems?

[Number_1_Bigg$]

They're not putting hydrogen in the rotory engine, they're using a fuel cell like any other hydrogen powered car.

Re:What about the sealing problems?

[Rdickinson]

No there using it as fuel in the wankel, no fuel cell here.

The wankel rotary is pretty good at using hydrogen, far better than a piston engine.

Oh and the seal problem was solved a long time ago, RX7's had an overheating problem on part of the apex seals made out of a rubber, that part is cast iron on the renesis in the RX8.

Re:What about the sealing problems?

[RyMon]

The RX-8 isn't any more efficient than the rotary used in later generation RX-7's... it's a non-turbo powered 13B rotary engine. The 92 to 95 RX-7's featured a twin turbo 13B, and the 86 to 91 RX's had either non-turbo 13Bs or single turbo 13Bs. The engine itself hasn't really changed since 1985 when they stopped using the 12A. Actually Mazda has been using the Rotary, with minor gaps between models, non-stop for a long time. The RX-3 was the first car they released here with it, in the 70's, I believe? They had a rotary engine car available until 1995 in the US, when they stopped exporting the third generation RX-7. In Japan, I believe they kept making it until 1999 or 2000. Then they went back to the drawing board for a new car; not atypical for any car manufacturer. It has nothing to do with the design or faults of the engine.

Also, there really isn't a sealing problem persay, any more than you would say that a piston engine has a sealing problem. Once mazda developed their current seal technology (first put in the 12A, I believe, which was use din the RX-3 and later cars), they've had no real trouble. An unmaintained rotary is a little more vulnerable than a piston engine, but they share similar parts in concept; the seals on a rotary seal the rotor against the side housings, much the way piston rings seal the piston against the cylinder bore. Both are parts that will wear out if the car isn't maintained.

Besides, hydrogen isn't going to be any different than gasoline as far as the seals are concerned.. the the seals leaked, the engine would be unable to compress the air/fuel mix, and therefore wouldn't gain any usable power from it's detonation.

Re:What about the sealing problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

232HP in the Renesis (RX-8 engine) is no more efficient than the 13B's found in later model RX-7's? Considering it took a twin turbo to hit the 255HP stock in the 7? The engine itself is incredible and has a 9500RPM redline that's mostly in place to keep from destroying the transmission. Seems like a technology / efficiency improvement to me...

Now if you were talking about torque... well...

Re:What about the sealing problems?

[TheNetAvenger]

232HP in the Renesis (RX-8 engine) is no more efficient than the 13B's found in later model RX-7's? Considering it took a twin turbo to hit the 255HP stock in the 7? The engine itself is incredible and has a 9500RPM redline that's mostly in place to keep from destroying the transmission. Seems like a technology / efficiency improvement to me...


Agree, however the 9500RPM isn't much different than the 9000RPM redline in many of the 13B RX7s.

But the new version of the Rotary is quite a bit more advanced than the 13B, considering like you said it nearly has the same performance without any turbo assistance.

Now just imagine a twin-turbo version of the new Renesis engine in the RX8 or even a RX7.... It would be in the performance class of the low 3sec 0-60 performance cars of today like the Z06 Vette.

Re:What about the sealing problems?

[Mr. Flibble]

I imagine to use hydrogen, that Mazda must have solved the sealing problems in the engine. They first dropped the rotary because of it's poor mileage and leaky rotor seals.

From Wikipedia on Wankel Engines:

As another advantage, the shape of the Wankel combustion chamber and the turbulence induced by the moving rotor prevent localized hot spots from forming, thereby allowing the use of fuel of very low octane number without preignition or detonation, a particular advantage for Hydrogen cars. This feature also led to a great deal of interest in the Soviet Union, where high octane gasoline was rare.

So, the engine, while improved, does not require better sealing, a Wankel engine runs well with a lower octane fuel, and it runs well on hydrogen too.

Re:What about the sealing problems?

[RyMon]

Actually, the twin turbo 13b easily hit 280hp with power to spare. The renesis's modifications are all external to the engine; a new intake manifold design, new port injection design, etc. The only change to the engine itself really is the enlargement of the intake ports (something tuners have been doing with stock rx7s since they came out). The tradeoff is the bigger the ports, the better high end performance you have, the worse low-end.

The engine is exactly the same as it was, otherwise. It is even classified as a 13B rotary in the shop manuals, so it's not the engine, it's the supporting hardware that makes the difference. As I said earlier in another post, I have a non-turbo 1.1 liter 12A rotary (the 13B is 1.3 liters) that makes 400 hp with no change to the engine design itself. It has extreme port work done and a free-flowing intake/exhaust setup. The larger 13b could easily make 500hp in this setup. Let me reitterate; this is a non-turbo setup.

Also, as far as the twin-turbo setup on the later model RX-7s, they pushed 270hp to the ground, and were boost controlled to stay there so as not to violate japanese law. 's

Re:What about the sealing problems?

[TigerPlish]

How'd this get modded to +4?!

Baka... the rotary engine's problems were licked in the 1979 Rx-7. That includes apex seals, and side seals / scrapers.

Mazda NEVER dropped the rotary. They started selling the Cosmo 110 in 1967, and continously offered a rotary can in the US from 1970 until 1995, at which time the FD Rx-7 was pulled out of the US market -- but they still sold in Europe and Japan and Australia until 2002, when the production line stopped making Rx-7 to gear up for the upcoming Rx-8. So mazda never DROPPED the rotary engine.

The turbo cars had issues, mainly because of the sheer volumes of heat the rotary puts out. The last-generation Rx-7 (the FD) damn near killed mazda because of warranty claims.

HOWEVER... the atmospheric 12A and 13B, since 1979, have been extremely reliable engines. Just don't let them overheat.

The only 'problem' left to conquer is the pathetic mileage. This is mainly due to thermal efficiency (or rather, lack thereof.) In time, I'm sure mazda will lick that one as well.

Re:What about the sealing problems?

[feijai]

The RX-8 isn't any more efficient than the rotary used in later generation RX-7's... it's a non-turbo powered 13B rotary engine.

Come again? The RX-8 uses the RENESIS engine. The whole point of the RENESIS project was to make a rotary engine that was rather more fuel-efficient and cleaner than the RX-7's. And they were successful. Or were you using "efficient" in some non-engineer car-enthusiast way?

Re:What about the sealing problems?

[theLOUDroom]

It looks like they corrected that enough for the RX-8 (the 7 had problems too)

The second generation (86-92) RX-7's are great cars and were very successful.

The problem came in 93 with the twin-turbo only, rats-nest of vacuum hoses model. It is an AWESOME car, but you better know how to work on it or have a lot of money. They had tons of issues.
Get the kinks worked out, and you'll be kickin some major ass though. My favorite RX-7 "kill" story is a guy who dusted an NSX in his virtually stock 3rd gen RX-7, while pulling a trailer :)

Re:What about the sealing problems?

[TheNetAvenger]

The renesis's modifications are all external to the engine; a new intake manifold design, new port injection design, etc. The only change to the engine itself really is the enlargement of the intake ports (something tuners have been doing with stock rx7s since they came out). The tradeoff is the bigger the ports, the better high end performance you have, the worse low-end.

The engine is exactly the same as it was, otherwise. It is even classified as a 13B rotary in the shop manuals, so it's not the engine, it's the supporting hardware that makes the difference.

Interesting, this is something I didn't realize. I assumed the new engine had more design changes than the ports and was no longer a 13B.

Amazing the 13B technology from the mid 80s is still a viable design, although considering the simplicity of the Rotary design, I guess it shouldn't be so surprising.

Thanks for the info, I am off to read up more on the RX8...

For more info from the experts....

[NevarMore]

...on the RX-series as well as the wankel-style rotary engine check out the following:

http://rx7club.com/
http://fc3s.org/
http://www.mazdatrix.com/
http://rx7.org/

and if you live in or near Ohio:

http://www.ohiorotaries.com/

These are some of the better sites/forums maintained and populated with rotorheads.

Its a two way exchange too, if you know anything about multi-fuel or new fuel vehicles we would like to hear from you as well.

Re:For more info from the experts....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why thank you Mr. Karma whore.

Re:For more info from the experts....

[ShadowFlyP]

Or http://rx8club.com/ for anyone with a newer car. :)

Re:For more info from the experts....

[Thing 1]

Reading your comment I was reminded that, ever since I saw that damned skit, I can't get the slow pronunciation of "wank-el ro-ta-ry en-gine" out of my head. (Thanks, Monty Python, for being there in my childhood.)

Re:For more info from the experts....

[NevarMore]

What skit is that??

By god if there is a rotary gimmick my people need to know about it!!

Re:For more info from the experts....

[Thing 1]

I don't recall. It wasn't about the engine; it was just a random line from a skit that was about something else. It might even have been a "cut scene," like the "and now for something completely different..."

Hydrogen is so lame

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially when bio-diesel is the one true alternative for internal combustion.

Re:Rotary != Radial Sopwith engine apparently

[saskboy]

"Quick question too. I mentioned that I think these dual fuel cars are the way to transition to the future. I'm not old enough to remember the switch to unleaded gas here in the US. I know that was federally mandated (which does tend to speed things along), but were any cars ever mass produced that would run on either leaded or unleaded fuel?"

That's a good question, and a good point as well. I think people like Cheney would rather people forget that a fuel switch was undertaken in the past, and can be again with something as simple as a new law for incentive.

I barely remember leaded gasoline being sold, but I think unleaded engines couldn't use the leaded gas, but old engines could run on unleaded. Again, correct me if I've remembered incorrectly.

Radial != rotary

[AJWM]

Some posters seem to be confusing radial piston engines with rotary engines. While radial engines were common on many piston aircraft (some of which are still around), the pistons themselves still moved in a back and forth motion within the cylinders. In a rotary engine, specifically the Wankel used in the Mazda, the "pistons" are roughly triangular in shape and rotate (not oscillate) within an oval housing (the "cylinder" equivalent). The varying shape and volume of the space between the triangular center piece and the oval housing provides the compression and expansion provided by the oscillation of the piston in the cylinder of a more conventional engine.

Radial engines were so designed to provide adequate cooling airflow to all the cylinders, since all cylinders were at the front of the engine (or for some engines, in the space between two cylinders in front). Aircraft engines are usually air-cooled, for a variety of reasons (weight, reliability, etc).

As far as WW1 or WW2 engines, the required machining precision and seals technology to make something like a Wankel rotary was just not available. Cylindrical pistons and bores with circular seals are much simpler.

Re:Radial != rotary

[Enigma Deadsouls]

Expanding further on the parents post, here are some animated examples to help his description.

Radial
stationary cylinders, rotating crank
stationary crank, rotating cylinders

Wankel
Wankel
Wankel

Re:Radial != rotary

[hcdejong]

Some posters seem to be confusing radial piston engines with rotary engines.

Actually, there's a third type of engine in play here:
1. Wankel engine (as used in the RX-8), with triangular pistons that rotate around an oval chamber). Also called 'rotary engine'.
2. Radial engine (regular piston engine, with the cylinders arranged in a circle around the crankshaft)
3. Rotary radial (a radial engine, with one difference: the crankshaft is stationary but the entire block rotates).

#3 was used in some WW1 aircraft (the Gnome engine is an example). It was a PITA (huge rotating mass, complex construction), so never very popular.

Re:Radial != rotary

[Spliffster]

> As far as WW1 or WW2 engines, the required machining precision and
> seals technology to make something like a Wankel rotary was just
> not available. Cylindrical pistons and bores with circular seals are
> much simpler.

Wankel built his first "Drehkolbenmotor" (en: "Rotating piston engine") driven boat during WWII, however it was a prototype.

62 miles on hydrogen?!

[thule]

... and 341 miles on gasoline. Wow! I can see why everyone is on the edge of their seats waiting for hydrogen cars!

Can anyone give me a link to some technology on the horizon that shows that hydrogen is really an alternative to gasoline? How is the energy density problem going to be solved for hydrogen?

In the mean time, hydrocarbons are going to be the primary solution to propelling cars.

Re:Rotary != Radial Sopwith engine apparently

[Furmy]

I think unleaded engines couldn't use the leaded gas, but old engines could run on unleaded.

If my motorcycle didn't have a catalytic converter on it, it could run on leaded fuel alright. Apparently the lead can mess up the cat, causing it to overheat/melt/block the flow of exhaust gases (and, presumably, melt other things).

I'm pretty sure that older cars, designed to burn "leaded fuel" would just ADD lead afterwards, if needed. I've seen 'lead additive' used quite a bit in big, old boats. Leaded gas "paved the way for the development of the high-power, high-compression internal combustion engines that were to win World War II and dominate the U.S. automotive industry until the early 1970s."link

Re:Rotary != Radial Sopwith engine apparently

[Anonymous Coward]

...I think unleaded engines couldn't use the leaded gas, but old engines could run on unleaded.

You have it reversed. Older engines needed the lead to lubricate the intake and exhaust valves. Running unleaded would cause the valves to erode much more quickly. Running leaded gas in the new engines would (in addition to fouling up the catalytic converter) normally just clog the spark plugs with globs of lead. I personally think hydrogen is dumb when bio-diesel is much easier to produce, store, distribute, and it ddoesn't take too much re-tooling to manufacture the powerplants.

That's a tankage issue

[Animats]

Since they'll need separate tanks and fill ports for hydrogen and gasoline, the range reflects the size of the two tanks. It sounds like they kept the standard gasoline tank and added a hydrogen tank in some available space.

This is similar to a propane, natural gas, or butane conversion, all of which have been available for years.

Re:That's a tankage issue

[thule]

It's not only that, hydrogen simply does not have the energy density of gasoline. Barring some miracle breakthrough, gasoline will have the best combination of easy transportation, energy density and price for some time to come. Why waste our time on hydrogen when we know how to deal with methonal or ethonal?

Re:That's a tankage issue

[Isotopian]

Because if we phase in future technology gradually, we won't all suddenly be stuck with obsolete vehicles when gas shortage hits the crisis point.

Re:That's a tankage issue

[Randle_Revar]

Barring some miracle breakthrough

No, we don't need a miracle. An aerodynamic, low-rolling resistance, ultralight (composite) mid-sized SUV could be energy efficent enough to go ~330 mile on 3.4kg (138 L) of hydrogen. At 5,000 psi (easily doable today) the tank(s) would be a very managable size.

Look up the hypercar and check out pages 233-235 (257-259 in pdf) of Winning the Oil Endgame [warning: ~2 meg PDF]

Re:That's a tankage issue

[AK Marc]

It's not only that, hydrogen simply does not have the energy density of gasoline.

Um, so what? Have you ever taken a car apart? There are massive amounts of unused space. The energy per unit weight is higher in H2. So, that means that, aside from tank weight, you can use the empty space in the frame of the car to store the extra volume, and when you are done you will have something that burns more efficiently (no catalyst or other restrictions necessary, improving efficiency) same total energy capacity, and greater range from it. The fuel will weigh less (but the storage tanks probably weigh more) and the total volume will be higher, but storing a gas is more flexible than storing a liquid.

Just because you can't think of a way to do it better than the current method doesn't mean it is impossible. It only means that you can't imagine.

Re:That's a tankage issue

[Anonymous Coward]

"you can use the empty space in the frame of the car to store the extra volume, "

Lovely, so now the car can explode no matter what angle it is hit from.

Naysayers

[Frogbert]

Whenever there is an artical posted about any type of alternative energy there are about 400 trolls complaining that X energy isn't a good enough and that it is a complete waste of time and money to even try.

Here's the thing, if someone doesn't start the ball rolling it never will start, so its great that Mazda has done this, perhaps it will be a failure, perhaps it will do better then they expected but mainly this is planting seeds.

The first company to bring out competitive alternative energy cars is going to be in an excellent market position, the only way to do this is to actually start bringing out the cars once they see what works and what doesn't they will be miles ahead of the competition.

Re:Naysayers

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe some are just waiting for the others to spend the money on mistakes...

Re:Naysayers

[thule]

You can bring out the cars, but until there are compelling reasons for a consumer to shell out their hard earned cash on them, they will not sell. Hydrogen is a great idea, but it's just an idea. Why not take baby steps and use methanol and ethanol? Organisms that produce hydrocarbons sound like a promising idea.

I suppose it is all about how a person looks at things. If their primary goal it to make a zero emission car, they are totally focused on hydrogen. If the goal is to stop pumping money to unstable parts of the world or to simply improve energy independence, then methanol and ethanol is an obvious option.

Re:Naysayers

[hot soldering iron]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm afraid that when it comes to Hydrogen technology, you should listen to the people that really know how it works, i.e. physics grads, fuel cell developers, et al. Not marketing droids playing up the "clean energy" angle, when current industrial Hydrogen production is MORE polluting than regular gasoline.

As for "Planting Seeds", if the tree hasn't started to grow by now, it's dead. This technology is older than I am (40 yrs), and they STILL don't have the bugs worked out to make it efficient? There are several very real technical problems that MIGHT be solved, but only at great expense. Efficiencies need to increase, not a few percent, but by orders of magnitude, if it is to be an economically competitive option. Safety issues are also a hairy proposition in these litigous times.

Please don't think I'm against alternative energy! I've studied and worked toward a Zero Energy Home for years. But I've also learned several things along the way. ALL the supporting infrastructure needs to be in place before any new major technology can come onto the scene. If it works in the lab, great! But quite often practical considerations will keep it there. Is it cheaper/easier/better than a known and proven technology? Who do you call for parts and service? Conservation and efficient use of existing resources is usually easier and cheaper than developing new resources for quite some time. Powered transportation requires portable and high-density power storage. Hydrogen is very low density, and is portable only with difficulty: it might work for a fixed installation, but is inherently unsuited for the transportation industry.

There are lots more arguments, but I think you get the picture.

Re:Naysayers

[serial frame]

Despite the Renesis' inherent ability to burn many fuels (the lack of exhaust->intake overlap is key here, unlike previous 13Bs), it still cannot produce zero emissions, as the engine burns its lubricant by design. Though, the natural progression of logic here may lead to a more important advancement in the automotive industry than hydrogen alone. Think corn oil with more viscosity, suitable for living for thousands of miles in an engine.

Re:Naysayers

[FireFury03]

the engine burns its lubricant by design.

Does this mean you have to top up the oil at the same time as the fuel (or indeed, mix oil in with the fuel) as with a 2-stroke?

ISTR the EU has mandated a ban on 2-stroke engines (I think this is partly due to the environmental impact of burning 2-stroke oil and partly to do with the inefficiency of a 2-stroke engine leading to a quantity of unburnt fuel making it into the exhaust on each cycle). Would the rotary engine be affected by this kind of ban?

Re:Naysayers

[red_dragon]

Does this mean you have to top up the oil at the same time as the fuel (or indeed, mix oil in with the fuel) as with a 2-stroke?

No, the rotary engine is planted firmly in four-stroke land. What the Mazda 13B does is inject a small amount of oil onto the apex seals of the rotors via a port on the inside of the rotor housing. It's really sort of a controlled drip instead of a squirt, so that when the seals go over the oil port, they literally "squeegee" the oil around the interior surfaces of the engine. The oil is sourced from the regular supply of oil used to lubricate the rest of the engine. Yes, it needs to be topped off regularly, but it's on the order of 1L/2000km for an engine in good condition, which is not much different from many reciprocating engines. Take a look at this page for an illustration.

What about electrolysis?

[LeonGeeste]

That's a good point. What I want to know is, why can't they embed some kind of water electrolysis system in the car. That way, if you need to refill on hyodrogen, just pour some water into a compartment, plug the car in, buy electricity, and the the car would collect the hydrogen for use as fuel. Since it draws its power ultimately from electricity, anything that can make electricity can fuel it.

What's wrong with this idea, and why aren't they doing it now?

Re:What about electrolysis?

[zippthorne]

30kw consumption rate. For every hour on the road, you'll need to charge like 30 hours. Or plug into a couple of outlets and charge a bit faster. Somehow I doubt that hotels will let you run heavy duty cable to 15 different rooms to charge your car over the next 16 hours...

Re:What about electrolysis?

[amliebsch]

The problem is that hydrogen isn't all that great as an energy storage device. To get any kind of range, you need large quantities at really high pressures, especially if your burning it instead of using it in a fuel cell. If you're going to plug in your car and charge it up, you might as well use sealed batteries; they'll cost less and hold more energy.

Re:What about electrolysis?

[LeonGeeste]

Why can't you liquify it and store it like gasoline then?

Re:What about electrolysis?

[amliebsch]

Probably because it's no trivial matter to cool and maintain something at 20 degrees Kelvin, plus it takes almost a third of the energy stored just to cool it.

Re:What about electrolysis?

[GoatMonkey2112]

You would probably be getting the electricity to power the electrolysis from a power station that gets power from fossil fuels. And you would probably be using more power to create the hydrogen than it's worth. It would be cool to do, just to do it though.

Re:What about electrolysis?

[LeonGeeste]

Yes, dumbass, I know that the energy still ultimately (could) come from fossil fuels. That's why I specifically said, anything that can generate electricity can power your car. And yes, there will be an energy loss due to the transfer, like there is, you know, with every energy source. The difference is that you're buying the cheapest source of energy at any given time; you're not limited to oil.

Re:What about electrolysis?

[GoatMonkey2112]

Alright, dumbass, anytime you convert one form of energy into another there is some energy loss. You are using electricity anyway, why not just store the electricity?

Re:What about electrolysis?

[LeonGeeste]

You can't store electricity, dumbass. The purpose of my proposal was to consider another way to store energy.

Re:What about electrolysis?

[GoatMonkey2112]

WTF is up with all these crazy people using batteries? Why should anyone be required to have electricity and water to convert it into hydrogen when they can just use batteries if they are plugging in the car anyway?
You don't have to pressurize batteries.
You can get batteries pretty much anywhere.
All these crazy fuckers converting their Prius to have additional batteries must be *NUTS*. Hydrogen power from electrolysis is clearly better!

I'm sorry, but hydrogen power just sucks and it is not going to catch on. What we need at the moment is 85 percent ethanol 15 gas combined with hybrid technology. Easy conversion for the cars we already have, can be delivered through a regular gas pump, reduces our dependency on middle east oil.

Re:What about electrolysis?

[RockModeNick]

They have those, do a search - it's a device that uses excess current from the alternator when the car is running at higher RPM, and mixes the hydrogen produced with the gasoline to make it burn cleaner.

Re:What about electrolysis?

[LeonGeeste]

Batteries aren't very energy dense -- not with current technology anyway. Hybrids only use them to supplement the gas tank. Hydrogen and gasoline are very, very energy dense.

Re:What about electrolysis?

[Kadin2048]

The equipment to liquefy hydrogen is not really something that you'd want to have banging around in the back of your car. At the very least it would add a lot of unnecessary weight to the vehicle, which would impact its efficiency. It requires at least a three-stage compressor, and produces an awful lot of heat. And it's probably intensive to maintain -- high-pressure cryogenic turbomachinery is no joke. And as people have even admitted elsewhere in this thread that they think getting their car's oil changed every 3000 miles is too much work, I'm not sure I want everybody to have one of those.

You would also be giving up an economy of scale by going for the 'self electrolysis' route: I have a feeling that they can probably do a lot more energy-efficient H20->H2+O conversion and liquefaction in a big facility than in a portable unit in your car.

That's not to say that at some point in the future, portable electrolysis and liquefaction units might not be available and have certain applications (places where it's not economically feasible to transport liquid H), but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to put them in every vehicle.

Essential

[MasaMuneCyrus]

I think that cars like these will be essential in the gas-to-hydrogen transition. I don't think people will buy hydrogen cars if they can't fill up anywhere, and no gas station will offer hydrogen if no one will buy it.

A hydrogen/gas hybrid will definitely help that transition.

Re:Essential

[bmgoau]

All we need now is a clean method such as fusion, fission or renewables to produce the hydrogen.

There may be some problems, such as fuel efficency and power in early designs, but transition machines are essential to enableing the clean hydrogen economy.

As gas price rises, investment in alternatives increases as consumer interest increases. It's early days, but we'll get there.

Lots of walking

[EmbeddedJanitor]

IIRC,range is approx 60 miles on hydrogen. What next? Rubber band engines?

not much logic there

[daybot]

http://www.parkers.co.uk/choosing/carreviews/revie w.aspx?model_id=452&page=8

Hmm 24/26mpg combined for the normal car. Nice. In fact, I drove an RX8 with a friend at a dealer and we decided he shouldn't buy one because the comparitively mediocre performance wasn't worth the fuel bills!

Yep, excellent proof of concept, but they'd do _so_ much better for the environment by improving the economy of the normal car :)

Having said that, hydrogen RX8 would be pretty cool for town cruising...

Re:not much logic there

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that nice when you consider the fact that most petrol cars built today can hit about 40mpg and newer diesels 60mpg.

already dual fuel vehicles

[Doppler00]

There are already a lot of duel fuel propane/LNG/gasoline trucks out there. Most of the places I've seen them though only fill them up with gasoline. Also, the tank for the LNG fills up about a quarter of the truck bed in the back. Same problem, although worse with hydrogen. Since hydrogen naturally doesn't have as much energy densities at similar pressure you have two choices: Make the tank even bigger, or compress the gas to a ridiculusly high pressure. Both choices have their own associated problems.

Leasing happens all the time.

[EvilCabbage]

Thousands of companies do it, and thousand of larger companies will lease thousands of cars (I'd hate to think how many my employer has in the fleet). There are tax incentives for doing so.

With specialty items like this leasing is a great way to get real world testing done and give people a taste of the vehicle, leasing also guarentees they get their shit back.

If GM's Australian arm (Holden) or the local Ford mob could put together a similar vehicle and release it in small numbers, leased to the public I'd love to put my hand up for one.

Re:Leasing happens all the time.

[Metaphorically]

Fwiw, Ford owns Mazda. So they'd just have to ship it to the appropriate mob.

Hydogen car? Already got one ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've already had a RX-7 powered by hydrogen. The hydrogen was conveniently stored in "gasoline" molecules that I readily purchased at a "gas station".

Questions

[neochubbz]

I wonder when people will realize that hydrogen is merely an energy currency?
Do they realize that electricity (a.k.a. Fossil Fuels) must still be used to break apart the water?
Do they further realize that any compressed gas is a pain to transfer anywhere?
When will people realize that ethanol, until it can be produced in extremely massive quantities (30 gallons per vehicle per week, minimum ), is merely a short-term solution to a long-term problem?
Why are people nowdays programmed to think just like the media wants them to think?

-Chubbz

Re:Questions

[PornMaster]

The solution, of course, is to use nuclear power to generate more portable fuels. When people realize the inherent relative safety of pebble bed reactors, and the way that fuels such as hydrogen are a storage facility and not an energy source, we'll be far better off.

Re:Questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people hope... and are therefore gullible when their hopes are played on. Same touchy feely nonsense liberals get elected on.

Re:Questions

[NivenHuH]

The idea is that coal/nuclear/etc.. power plans are more effecient at producing energy than a small motor in a car. I'd be interested in knowing what the delta is between energy production at the power plant versus in the motor.

Re:Questions

[LoRdTAW]

Most mass produced hydrogen comes from steam reforming of natural gas (methane) giving you hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Nuclear plants could help make hydrogen with super heated steam. Thing is we still need the methane and end up with allot of CO. Hydrogen is a pain in the ass. Propane isnt that bad. Unfortuantly it is not produced from any natural process that I am aware of. The best fuels are liquid at room temprature. So our best bet is mentanol/ethanol and/or bio diesel. Electric would be my firt pick for favorite because parking my car in the sun charges it up with solar panels for free. And that is something the oil companies fear.

Re:Questions

[HappyEngineer]

The idea is also that even if it were less efficient, it'd still be better to use fuel cells just so long as the energy doesn't come from oil. With fuel cells you can pick and choose the ultimate energy source.

Green people should really start pushing that angle. There are lots of people who don't care about the environment who do care about saving money (by choosing the cheapest energy source) and about not funding terrorists.

Re:Questions

[CyDharttha]

Apparently Honda's fuelling stations located in California are completely independent of fossil fuels, relying instead on solar energy to provide the electricity to extract hydrogen from water. The cars are going for a million dollars right now, but Honda is offering year long test drives to select owners. http://world.honda.com/news/2001/c010710.html

Re:Questions

[TheNetAvenger]

wonder when people will realize that hydrogen is merely an energy currency?
Do they realize that electricity (a.k.a. Fossil Fuels) must still be used to break apart the water?
Do they further realize that any compressed gas is a pain to transfer anywhere?
When will people realize that ethanol, until it can be produced in extremely massive quantities (30 gallons per vehicle per week, minimum ), is merely a short-term solution to a long-term problem?
Why are people nowdays programmed to think just like the media wants them to think?

Energy Currency? Wow, I wonder when people will actually do a bit of research instead of reciting the oil industry taglines...

Ya in your senerio alternative energies don't look so great, as the coal plant producing the electricity, etc etc...

However, go lookup Humboldt State University, there are also several other programs that are in testing production processes that PRODUCE hydrogen from either Solar/water processes or simplistic chemcial reactions. Go do a search on this, the information is out there and is feasible.

And that is the key and ticket out of the cycle of the energy currency that goes back to fossil fuels.

Also hydrogen is a great starting point, in production of hydrogen the pollution you get is Oxygen and resulting pollution from consumption is water. Also Elec-hydro based vehicles would not only be fossil fuel independant, but imagine a car with 4 independant motor assemblies at each wheel. It would have the control, stability and performance that exceeds a race car, and be pollution free, quiet, and even safer.

Also we don't have the density to energy concerns of the previous generation of cars. A car that needs to be refueled every 200-300 miles is not a problem, even driving across Utah and Nevada if the alternative fuel as available as Gas is now. We don't need the extended range we did even 30 years ago.

Now consider, a small US based public works project to decide on a fuel, subsidize it, and create a new market would cost maybe what, 8 or 10 billion dollars to change the face of both the Fueling stations and auto industry to produce and convert vehicles in the US. Do you realize how tiny of an amount of money that is for the US? Heck even say 50 billion to start this new industry and move vehicles alone to non-fossil fuels. Is that really so much? We spend that kind of money on crap and lies....

By the way, what is probably the most advanced vehicle ever made? Space Shuttle by chance? Past the solid fuel boosters, what is the fuel of the Space Shuttle? So why if fossil is the end game of all energy currency do you think NASA would be so stupid to use hydrogen?

Or maybe they aren't buying the oil company tag lines and are using what is best for the job.

Re:Questions

[localman]

RIght on -- the energy storage vs. energy source thing is something many people haven't grasped yet. I think the move to hydrogen (or alcohol or whatever) is sort of analogous to moving from a barter system to a currency system. There is benefit in decoupling the source of value from the transport mechanism.

Cheers.

Re:Questions

[Anonymous Coward]

When people realize the inherent relative safety of pebble bed reactors

Hah! I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Re:Questions

[RexRhino]

Electricity is cheap and plentiful if we used nuclear power. Unfortunatly, the "Enviornmentalists" are the "Useful Idiots" (as Lennin would call them) for the big oil companies, by trying to sabatoge nuclear power.

The real programing by the media is the idea that nuclear power is somehow more dangerous than fossil fuels.

Re:Questions

[ccp]

Do they realize that electricity (a.k.a. Fossil Fuels) must still be used to break apart the water?

Please, elaborate.
I happen to live very near a nuclear power station and two hydroelectric dams that will be very interested in your insight.

Cheers,

Carlos Cesar

Mazda is Ford

[minus_273]

For those who aren't in the know, Mazda is a division of Ford. Many of the cars use the same components and sometimes they are the same cars with different model names. People looking for a "japanese" car often buy Mazda not knowing they are buying a Ford. Go to the mazda site and compare some of the models to the ford site, the resemblance is uncanny ;)

Re:Mazda is Ford

[drhamad]

Someone should have modded that comment up. I would if I had points at the moment.

Anyway, you're right, Mazda is Ford. To be specific, Ford owns a controlling interest in them of approx 1/3. They use the same engines (Duratec/MZR 23 (I4), Duratec/MZR 30 (V6), though sometimes tuned differently),
same platforms: (CD3/etc (they use different names) is the Mazda6, Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr)
the Euro Focus (not yet the American), Volvo S40, and Mazda3

That being said, the RX-8 does not share its platform with anything else, though I'm sure many of the components inside are the same.

The Mazda6 is even made in Flat Rock, MI alongside, if I remember correctly, the Mustang (and in the factory that previously made the Mazda MX-6 and Ford Probe).

Mazda is definitely Ford, and it has never been doing better.

Re:Mazda is Ford

[Anonymous Coward]

lies! new mx-5 is same wheelbase as rx8. ;)

Re:Mazda is Ford

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm pretty sure the MX-5 and RX-8 have nothing in common, even if they did I'll also mention that the RX-8 has a wheelbase of 106.4 while the MX-5's is 108.3.

Re:Mazda is Ford

[calculadoru]

Not to sound like a spoilsport, but you are not entirely right. I work for the main supplier of Mazda chassy parts, and I can see their main Hiroshima plant out the window as I type this. You are right about Mazda using the same platform as Ford and Volvo for the Mazda 3 and the Mazda 6 - it is the very reason the whole concept of a common platform was pushed by Ford. As a matter of fact, the C1 platform (Mazda 3/ Ford Focus/ Volvo S40) has been performing extremely well, and is also selling very, very well.
The RX-8 (which, incidentally, just got a facelift as RX-8 Sport Prestige Limited II) shares no parts with any other model, and we went through a lot of trouble designing the chassy parts because the Mazda engineers kept coming up with more insane requirements (which, needless to see, we fulfilled rather nicely, thank you very much).
Now, on to the Ford thing. You would be surprised at the amount of a. respect and b. power Mazda people have inside the Ford group at the moment. Consider for a second that, while Ford is firing 30,000 people and losing money by the truckload (400 USD per car? google it up), Mazda have just posted their biggest profit EVER. And this has not happened because they are part of the Ford group, but in spite of it. Ford is now seriously looking to emulate Mazda's methods before they go down for good (they could start by designing better-looking cars, I think), and the joke around the Mazda headquarters these days is 'hey, maybe we should use some of that cash to buy out Ford!'
Mazda is definitely Mazda, and just happens to have Ford as a shareholder. Once you understand this distinction you will understand why they are doing so well. /fanboi rant

Re:Mazda is Ford

[minus_273]

this is slashdot. Of course my comment will be labeled a troll. I wonder how many of the mods clicked onthe link to ford'd site and saw the mazda logo.

Re:Mazda is Ford

[bi_boy]

Thank you. You perfectly but down what I was thinking, aside from the whole actually working for Mazda bit. =P

Say I own an FC33, can you hook me up with parts? lol jk

Re:Mazda is Ford

[calculadoru]

Say I own an FC33, can you hook me up with parts? lol jk

FC33, whoah. More than ten years old, we'd have to pull out the old drawings and make new dies.
How rich are you? :)

Re:Mazda is Ford

[hyc]

Kind of echoing bi_boy. Great post. I drive a Probe GTS, the last of that model line. I wish Ford had not killed it off, but clearly the only reason it's such a fun car is due to the Mazda chassis and powertrain. Mazda's "Zoom Zoom" ad campaign sounds kinda hokey, but the reality is that they really understand what it takes to design a car that is satisfying to drive, in ways Ford has never understood.

Re:Mazda is Ford

[bi_boy]

Heh not very, its in real good shape actually and theres a good aftermarket prescence as well as lots of places still to get oem parts when needed. I'm still hoping to find the magical glass-sunroof panel in an OEM box. There are rumours to their existence but so far the only person who said they got some was a guy who got some from his friend who worked at a dealership that closed down. Chances are they were just 10th AE panels, I think those were bronze-tinted glass. Oh have you seen the infamous '88 10th AE FC3S' with the 20B engines? I've heard there's 3 of them that Mazda made but now they're just chilling in a warehouse in Hiroshima.

Re:Mazda is Ford

[TigerPlish]

You mean Ford is Mazda.

Yeah, Ford bought 33% of Mazda in 1994, when Mazda was about to die a horrid death. Us mazda aficionados were scared that Ford was going to dumb-down Mazda... then something happened.

Mazda turned around. For the first time in its history, it's not teetering at the edge. Ford, on the other hand, is in very dire straits... and is looking at MAZDA to fix 'em! The guy who turned Mazda around is now in Ford, and poised to do the same to Ford.

What's more, the newer Ford / Mercury / Lincolns are...mazda. Ford has conceded they can't make a small car to save their lives, and will instead rely on mazda to engineer their small cars.. including the focus. (the new Focus, which we don't get, is allready a Mazda 3 / Volvo 40 derivative.)

Lincoln Zephyr -- Mazda 6

Ford Fusion -- Mazda 6

Mercury will have a 6 of their own as well.

For the record:

Mazda 3: Made in Hiroshima (and other plants). No US ford counterpart

Rx-8: Made only in Hiroshima. No ford counterpart.

Miata / MX5: Made only in Hiroshima. No ford counterpart.

Mazda 6: MAde in Flat Rock, MI, for US consumption. Made in other plants. Since ours are made in Flat Rock, I do not consider them to be a real Mazda... and the flat rock plant's product quality is very suspect in my view.

Mazda 5: MAde in Hiroshima. No ford counterpart

So ford != mazda. If anything Mazda is going to help save Ford's bacon.

Real mazdas are born in hiroshima. And I hope this always is. I refuse to buy a flat-rock, MI mazda. I refuse to buy a Japanese car built on US shores. I refuse to buy a japanese car built anywhere but Japan.

Re:Mazda is Ford

[88fc3s]

You have it backwards. A lot of Fords (their smaller cars that is)are using Mazda components, so when you are buying a Ford you are buying a Mazda. Similar case with Volvo (the s40 is a mazda chasis with a Volvo engine).

I think you misunderstand

[Henk Postma]

I think you misunderstand: it is a big deal to have an environmentally friendly car that is also fun and fast, as opposed to the kind of sluggish hybrid vehicles we have now.

It seems that to the average consumer, driving an environmentally friendly car means you have to compromise on size and/or speed and/or fun. This shows the opposite.

Now if we can only get better battery technology, because tricked out electric vehicles can kick ricers asses all day. You just have much more torque with an electric motor than with an ICU.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[wolrahnaes]

IIRC, the Civic hybrid is faster than a regular Civic (not that it was a challenge) because of the off the line torque of the electric complementing the higher-revving nature of the gas motor.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[Laconian]

The Accord Hybrid is faster AND more fuel efficient than its non-hybrid ****V6**** counterpart. That's huge.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[Dare nMc]

> The Accord Hybrid is faster AND more fuel efficient than its non-hybrid ****V6**** counterpart. That's huge.

The hybrid is running the same V6, and adds a overall 15 HP, and 15 pound-feet of torque, also adds 285 pounds of weight.

http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4040917.html
Acceleration performance from 0-60 miles per hour and from 50-70mph is reduced by one half second compared with the already powerful and sporty Accord V-6 Sedan.

Re:I think you misunderstand

[Dare nMc]

> 15 HP, and 15 pound-feet of torque
should be 20 pound-feet, according to my calcs, thats 6% increase in power 9% increase in toruqe, 9% increase in weight.

says they then decreased the weight "lightweight aluminum hood and bumper beams (front and rear), along with a magnesium engine head cover and dual-stage intake manifold."

so basically the hybrid part was a net loss in acceleration performance (fuel economy performace plus though) that they made up for with other more pricey weight saving parts.

Rotaries have been used in more than the RX-8

[Anonymous Coward]

Those stating that the RX-8 is the first car in several decades to use the rotary engine need to get their facts checked.
All of the RX-n series have used Rotary/Wankel engines, as did the Mazda Cosmos, which used a 2 Litre 3-rotor 20B engine.

And the RX in RX-8 does not stand for "Rotary eXpirament"

a response from a naysayer

[roesti]

Whenever there is an artical posted about any type of alternative energy there are about 400 trolls complaining that X energy isn't a good enough and that it is a complete waste of time and money to even try.

That's because people keep getting their hopes up about hydrogen power, and they shouldn't.

Hydrogen power pretty much is a waste of time and money because you lose net energy making it - that is, it costs more energy to make than you get from burning it. This is always going to be the case, whether the technology improves or not, and whether the infrastructure and the vehicles are there or not. If you were getting your energy from oil, and it you had to expend two barrels of oil for each barrel you extracted, you wouldn't bother, regardless of the market price of oil. (This will happen one day.) Hydrogen is good at carrying energy, but this energy is provided by existing fuel sources, mainly by electricity or biomass.

The "400 trolls" that complain about it because the general public thinks that advances in alternative energy sources are going to solve everyone's problems. Alternative energy is absolutely going to replace fossil fuel - it has to, because fossil fuel sources are, practically, going to run out one day - but the energy simply is not going to be there in the quantities we have now. The lifestyle we have in the western world, in everything from our homes to our workplaces to our neighbourhoods to our recreation, is very energy-intensive, and without the abundance of energy that we've had since the Industrial Revolution, that lifestyle cannot be sustained. Hydrogen doesn't solve this and it never will.

Alternative energy isn't inherently stupid. Solar power isn't stupid. Growing crops for alcohol fuel or biodiesel isn't stupid. Even hydrogen might not be entirely stupid: we may be able to furnish some transport with electric motors or fuel cells charged by solar power. The problem is that people take their lifestyles for granted - as if because, notwithstanding some superficial changes, the technology has always been there, and always will be there, making their lives better. Eventually, these people are going to find out how delusional this really is.

Re:a response from a naysayer

[potat0man]

Hydrogen power pretty much is a waste of time and money because you lose net energy making it...

**yawn**

idiots

Re:a response from a naysayer

[FireFury03]

Hydrogen power pretty much is a waste of time and money because you lose net energy making it

But the same applies for any energy storage system - i.e. it takes more energy to charge your batteries than you get out of them, etc. The question that needs to be asked is is it beneficial despite the lost energy. For example:
  - It's more efficient to have 1 massive generator than lots of little engines, are the losses involved in energy storage outweighed by the gain in efficiency of generating the energy originally?
  - Do we want to power the cars by nuclear power? If so, hydrogen energy storage gives us a way to do that which doesn't involve putting dangerous fissile material in millions of cars travelling at high speed.

These are just examples of the questions we need to ask - I'm not saying the answers are "yes" to all (or any) of them, but just saying "it loses us net energy so is useless" is over simplifying the problem.

If you were getting your energy from oil, and it you had to expend two barrels of oil for each barrel you extracted, you wouldn't bother, regardless of the market price of oil.

We already have to use oil in order to extract (and distribute) oil. If the market price is high enough then sure, it's worthwhile only having a production efficiency of 50%.

But remember, hydrogen shouldn't be treated as an energy _source_ - it's simply another method of storing energy we already have, just like batteries.

Redline @ 9500 rpm???

[brachiator]

I'm surprised that the Renesis redlines at 9500. I had an RX-3 ('74, I think) fitted out with a 13B engine, and the redline was 11K. I can't imagine that transmission was sturdier than the new RX-8 tranny (I think my RX-3's was stock)...

How seriously has the torque been bolloxed up in the RX-8? My RX-3 felt like a motorcycle at times, and that with stock porting!

The real issue with hydrogen

[Belseth]

Alcohol engines are a better solution in the short term. Everyone assumes that the hydrogen is going to be produced by electricity but that simply isn't true. Most hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels, I believe primarily natural gas at the moment. The reason for the big push on hydrogen is Bush is trying to lock us into a oil based hydrogen economy. Most of the investment is in a petroleum/hydrogen based infastructure to make sure we are still oil dependent. Alcohol can run existing cars with minor modifications. It doesn't require the storage systems or distribution systems hydrogen does and can get similar mileage to gasoline, not as much but far better than hydrogen. As for the extra carbon it's carbon active within the environment so it's a wash and doesn't add to the overall carbon. All petroleum products add carbon that has been stored. Alcohol can potentially be extracted from farm waste, plant stalks and such. At worst it comes from corn and the like, even plants like Agave. It'll probably never be a 100% solution but can help as a transitional fuel. An ideal combination would but alcohol hybrides that can be wall recharged and have limited solar cells for helping to top the car when sitting in an outdoor parking space. Given the fact if you were primarily commuting you'd only have to fill it a few times a year the savings would be huge even if alcohol ran 2X what current gas prices are. That's based on the results an engineer got when he simply added more batteries to his hybrid and charged it from the wall at night. The recharging was cheap and he was getting over 200 miles on a tank since he rarely went off batteries. Adding minimal solar cells would drastically reduce gas useage even if it just added 10% to the range. The extra batteries only added a few grand to the cost which would be quickly paid back in savings. Solar cells would add a few grand more but would reduce the alcohol engine to an emergency back. It would only be needed on long hauls and during bad weather.

Re:The real issue with hydrogen

[Eightyford]

Yeah, I'm sure Bush really gives a shit what you put in your gas tank.

Re:The real issue with hydrogen

[hyc]

I'm following you OK on using alcohol, but solar panels on a mainstream automobile are pretty futile. A decent amorphous silicon cell can generate about 4 watts per square foot in full sunlight. Just as a reminder, there's 760 watts in 1 horsepower. Even with the car completely covered in panels there's not enough surface area to generate a meaningful amount of electricity for propulsion (and of course, with the car completely covered, on average 2/3 to 3/4 of the panels will be in shadow at any given time). At best it will let you run your electric accessories for free but even a lot of car stereos will draw more than the panels can produce.

Re:The real issue with hydrogen

[deadweight]

No way is alcohol going to get the same MPG. Gasoline burns at 14.7:1 and alcohol burns at 7:1 or so. For a given power output you need TWICE the alcohol. Other than that it is a good fuel. It's octane rating is quite high at 106. This is why the fastest drag racers use alcohol instead of gasoline.

Re:The real issue with hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you tell me how you are producing this clean Alcohol? I sure hope that the proccess does not include petroleum products.

Re:Hydogen car? Already got one ...

[drooling-dog]

But could you hold the carbon on that?

what's a real "cost"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ethanol is cheaper on price if you make it yourself or in very close by regional co-ops.. Indisputable. It becomes more expensive than gasoline once you have to start subsidising another huge flock of managers, sales people, secretaries,lobbyists, accountants, maintenance workers, CEOs, VPs, new shiny buildings, "stockholders" and their skimming proxies, transportation workers, "gas stations",etc in some "industry" where they can keep the profits and control centralized. Made at home hooch is just *not* that hard or expensive, it's been done all over the planet for centuries at any level of mass quantities required using a pretty wide and varied "raw stock" input..The basic technique is just drop down simple, what you can make it out of is incredible. The mammoth centralized power industry doesn't want it to happen PRECISELY because it is so easy and cheap. Your other two points are valid, but pricing nowadays is POLITICAL because the entrenched energy industries control the political process. They've been fighting ethanol since day one, same as the centralized electric grid monopolists have been fighting solar PV. They never want "consumers" to be able to control their own means of production of anything, they STOP being consumers then,ergo, no profits for the established rich guys. This is why they are pushing hydrogen so hard, they can maintain control over the serfs and their wallets much easier.. The fatcats want to keep it that way, too. Ethanol is happening despite that, because it's becoming harder for them to maintain the FUD, and the political realities of relying on a petroleum based economy are really sinking in when you got big ole huge wars over it. No one is going to go to war over a dirt farm that can grow some crops, but LOOK, plenty of wars and conflicts over oil from the ground. What's the REAL cost of gasoline and crude oil again? hint: not all at the pump price.

Missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

People leasing this car, does it because of the bragging right.

Why is the fuel consumption this high?

[lotus_out_law]

Hi all,
      I am not a mechanical engineer, so pardon my ignorance.
      My question is as follows -
          Why do we have fuel consumption this high in vehicles?
          That too when the vehicles are benchmarked on level roads.
          I was thinking that only energy that is needed to keep the vehicle in motion is the energy to overcome rolling friction + drag.
          (+ all the losses inside the moving parts of the vehicle, which I think can be minimised)

          In this case why is the fuel consumption this high in vehicles?
          Any further energy needed (to go up a slope for ex), can be reused from earlier (before that it could have gone down a slope, so that energy stored is used) energies (since on an average all + and - tends to cancel out).

          I know that this would have been thought out much much earlier by engineers, but I just wanted to know.

Regards
lol

Re:Why is the fuel consumption this high?

[lotus_out_law]

This was intended in the earlier posting, but not explicitly mentioned -
Anyways I think it is better to explicitly mention -
Also any acceleration can be offset by the deceleration of the same vehicle -
provided the brakes are designed to push in the energy back to the vehicle (through some engergy storing mechanism [spring??] on crankshaft maybe ??).

Please let me know.

Regards,
lol

Re:Why is the fuel consumption this high?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately a mechanical engineer cannot alter the laws of physics. As you mention, a car loses energy to:

1. friction
   • between the tires and road
   • between the the car and the air it is driving through
   • between the moving parts in the vehicle
2. heat !! [1]
   • in the combustion of the fuel, to exhaust, and out through your radiator
   • to your break pads (convert motion to heat)
3. noise

Which is not to say that improvements can't be made in efficency, for example with low resistance tires. You can improve aerodynamics. Hybrid cars recapture some energy braking by converting back into electricity with the motor, this approach does not work when you get your energy from fossil fuels! You might optimize a car for fuel efficiency by trading off other concerns: making the car smaller, lighter, with skinny (aerodynamic) low resistance (less grip) tires, etc. Whatever you do, as long as you keep using combustion to power your car, you are going to lose your energy to heat. Google says current combustion engines are only ~20-30% efficient, most of the energy going to heat. It is fair to say that our cars are optimized for cost, performance, safety, and efficiency, mostly in that order. :-)

[1] google combustion engine efficiency

Re:Why is the fuel consumption this high?

[Zog The Undeniable]

Here's a quick internal combustion engine 101, then:

In a really good engine, about a third of the fuel energy goes to move the pistons (there are subsequent losses from drivetrain and tyres), a third goes to the radiator via the cylinder walls, and a third goes out of the exhaust as hot, fast-moving gas.

You can recover a little of the exhaust losses with a well-matched turbocharger, but it doesn't help much in a spark-ignition engine because you have to drop the compression ratio to avoid detonation, which itself worsens efficiency. Turbodiesels, with no compression limit, are noticeably more economical than non-turbocharged diesels (VW do both types in the range - try comparing mpg between "SDI" and "TDI" models).

The Wankel engine is never going to be as efficient as a "boinger" because the combustion chamber is a non-ideal shape for efficient burning. I'm not sure about the RX-8, but some rotary engines needed a separate combustion chamber afetr the engine, which produced no useful power but just ensured the rest of the fuel got burned before it went out of the exhaust.

Going into dreamland for a moment, to make a massively efficient engine you'd want it to be adiabatic (no heat losses to the cylinder walls) which would mean pretty funky ceramic materials to resist the heat build-up without expanding. Diesel engine, of course, since you want a high compression ratio to reduce the energy lost to exhaust and your red-hot adiabatic cylinder would ignite any petrol mixture well before the spark.

Let's get it into perspective though: a good turbodiesel is about 33% efficient, which is better than an electric car running on juice from a coal-fired plant hundreds of miles away.

Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[ikekrull]

Rotary engines were not used on WW1 era aircraft. These were *radial* engines, with a set of cylinders in a circular arrangement.

The rotary has some big benefits and some notable acheivements:

Power-to-weight ratio is excellent. Minimal moving parts, no valve train and short eccentric shafts mean that vibration is very low, and this enables rotaries to rev very smoothly and at relatively high RPM (10,000+ RPM on a normally aspirated rotary in street trim is not difficult). Hot, high velocity exhausts make turbocharged rotaries capable of very high power levels.

The Mazda rotary has seen enormous success on the racetrack - Mazda is the only japanese manufacturer to win Le Mans, and the RX-7 has been extremely successful - winning more races outright than any other model in major US racing classes.

A 1.3L rotary engine is easily capable of producing 500bhp with a good turbocharger and fuelling setup, and the most powerful 13Bs used in drag racers produce up to 1000bhp in the extreme (it is true that a 1000bhp 13B will not last long).

the 2 litre (20B) engine was the torquiest production engine in a japanese car while the JC Cosmo was being made, and the boosted 20B in the worlds fastest rotary does the quarter mile in 6.9 seconds/202 mph with something approaching 1000 bhp.

The engine that powered the Le-Mans winning 787B in 1991 used a 2.6l 4-rotor normally aspirated engine with ceramic coatings, which produced about 700bhp, exhibited an almost perfectly flat power delivery curve over the entire race, and when disassembled at the end of the 24 hour race, showed practically no wear whatsoever.

Not only does the rotary produce excellent power for it's weight and displacement, it is also very reliable on a racetrack, or as an airplane engine.

On the downside:

Unfortunately heat/cooling cycles are the rotary's worst enemy, as the engine is constructed of a 'sandwich' of different metals, which tend to expand and contract at different rates. This leads to failure of coolant seals (letting water leak into the engine) - analogous to head gasket failure.

Apex seal breakage is the other major failure mode of the rotary, often due to detonation, or oil starvation.

Both of the major failure modes necessitate removal and rebuild of the engine block, which is labour-intensive and expensive.

Fuel efficiency is very difficult to maintain over a wide rev-range because of the shape of the rotary's combustion chamber, which is long and narrow, meaning it is difficult to get a smooth flame front and complete combustion, something piston engines (due to their 'closer to spherical' combustion chambers) have a natural advantage in.

Ceramic coatings and side-port designs such as used in the Renesis keep heat in the charge and insulate engine parts better, which provides cleaner burns and smoother combustion.

The Renesis (1.3l 2-rotor RX-8 engine) can burn hydrogen because it's side-ported intakes and exhausts (as opposed to the peripheral exhaust ports in production cars and the peripheral intake + exhaust in race engines) enable a complete separation between the intake, combustion and exhaust chambers, equivalent to zero valve overlap in a piston engine, while retaining the ability to rev high and without majorly impacting on flow.

This is more or less impossible with a conventional 2 or 4-stroke piston engine - any piston engine running hydrogen either needs a totally different and switchable cam profile which produces anemic performance, or is built to run on dedicated hydrogen fuel and is still a pretty poor performer.

The Renesis is an outright better hydrogen hybrid engine than anything anybody at any other car manufacturer can come up with, despite their much longer histories and enormous research budgets.

You can only go 62 miles on a tank of hydrogen in an RX-8, but how far can you go running hydrogen in any other vehicle? Not very.

Many people trash the rotary out of ignorance, but the truth is that it is the

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's clear up the 1.3L misnomer right now. The 1.3L is the smallest combustion size, NOT the effective size. The engines are equivalent to a 2.8-3.2L engine, and displace a similar volume when measured similarly.

This whole 1.3L thing is Mazda spin-doctoring and is only partially correct.

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[bmajik]

I only read a tiny bit of your post, but your claim that the Renesis can do HCE and piston engines cant or do so badly is totally cracked.

BMW has been building dual-fuel hydrogen cars for over 20 years. The early ones didn't have variable valve timing, although the new ones do,just like the rest of BMWs engines.

BMW has been leading the way for decades on HCE research.. the whole picture.. HCE deployment, fueling stations, nozzle/tank technology, etc etc.

I love the Rotary engine, but don't discount the other excellent acheivements in the HCE field.

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[MWales]

I'm not a big rotary fan, I think it's an over-rated engine. I much prefer the sound and power of a GM V8.

Check out the hinson supercar's FAQ where they talk about the benefits of swapping out the rotary for LS1 V8. It greatly improves all performance characteristics, and it's actually lighter than the rotary it replaces.

GMs new LS7 V8 (in the 06 Z06) has 7.0L of displacement (as opposed to the mear 5.7L of the LS1) for an extra 150HP all in the same small block chevy package.

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[MichaelSmith]

Power-to-weight ratio is excellent. Minimal moving parts, no valve train and short eccentric shafts mean that vibration is very low, and this enables rotaries to rev very smoothly and at relatively high RPM (10,000+ RPM on a normally aspirated rotary in street trim is not difficult). Hot, high velocity exhausts make turbocharged rotaries capable of very high power levels.

A relative of mine flies glider tug aircraft in his spare time. The club which operates the aircraft spend a huge amount of money on engines and engine parts. The problem is thermal cycling. The tug goes flat out to the release altitude (in cold air) then virtually shuts the engine down and it cools too fast. Based on other parts of your post I imagine this would be worse for the rotary, but I wonder how an air cooled version would go.

Many people trash the rotary out of ignorance, but the truth is that it is the one and only fundamental change in production engine design we have seen in the last 100 years.

If you can find it you might want to check out The Striker Portfolio. Its a spy novel set and written in the 1960's. The hero rents an NSU, mainly because he has the budget for it and has never driven a rotary. He gets into a a comparison of the relative merits of rotary and piston engines as they relate to flat out car chases on german autobahns.

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[ikekrull]

So how many litres is a 1.3 litre 2-stroke 'really'? Do you call a 1.3 litre 2-stroke a 2.6 litre engine because it pumps twice as much air as a 4-stroke?

It's 1.3 litres displacement- thats the *largest* capacity of the combustion chamber.

You can talk about swept volume, and in this respect, just like the 2-stroke, the rotary is equivalent in terms of the volume of air it can exchange in a single crankshaft revolution to a larger 4-stroke engine, and i certainly wouldn't argue that a 1.3 litre rotary should be compared directly to a 1.3 litre 4-stroke. Because of course the rotary would stomp all over it.

But you trying to turn the fact that the rotary has a better power to weight ratio than the 4-stroke piston engine into some kind of slight against Mazda - well, nope thats just crap.

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[ikekrull]

Just becaouse you could, doent mean you should.

There is room in the world for more than one type of engine, and rotary-powered cars have been pitched against all comers including V8s on the racetrack, dragstip and the street for a long time now. and at least where I am (New Zealand) theres a big rotary following.

Take a look at http://www.kiwi-re.com/ - you can keep your V8s.

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[ikekrull]

Well, aircooled rotaries are available brand new from http://rotamax.net/ - in 650cc and 1300cc varieties, I believe these were designed by the same people responsible for the rotary engines in the Moller skycar.

http://www.atkinsrotary.com/ specialises in aircraft applications for the rotary, based on Mazda 13Bs.

Both of these companies could probably advise you much better on aircraft-oriented stuff than I could.

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[dan the person]

Good thing they banned Rotaries from Le-Mans to prevent a repeat of that outrageous result; some young upstart japanese company beating 100s of years of european automotive development, can you believe it, Mazda cheating like that and they got away with it.

What a great move by the Le-Mans organisers, such foresight, and it's really helped push the automotive industry forward.

(They irony of course being Mazda bought the wankel designs from the bankrupt european car maker NSU)

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[Deslock]

Check out the hinson supercar's FAQ where they talk about the benefits of swapping out the rotary for LS1 V8. It greatly improves all performance characteristics, and it's actually lighter than the rotary it replaces.

GMs new LS7 V8 (in the 06 Z06) has 7.0L of displacement (as opposed to the mear 5.7L of the LS1) for an extra 150HP all in the same small block chevy package.

Some rotary fans consider it blasphemy to swap a piston engine into the RX7; I disagree with them. If you get more power (and better fuel economy) without adding weight and for a reasonable cost, then there are few (if any) objective reasons not to do it.

However, it's worth noting that the reasons there is no weight gain are that (1) the t56 transmission that gets swapped in along with the LS1 is significantly lighter than the RX7 transmission and (2) with these conversions, often other parts are also swapped out to keep weight down. If you compare engine weights, they are:

- 13B rotary block: 180 pounds
- 13B rotary fully dressed: 260 pounds
- 13B-REW (twin turbo) rotary fully dressed: 327 pounds
- LS1 fully dressed: 460 pounds

The rotary engine is also compact, allowing it to be crammed into tiny, lightweight cars. And it's easy to work on because of its simple design.

As far as the parent's parent's post, it's accurate. However, the seal/appex problems he mentioned are not common with the RX8's 13B-MSP, which has four primary assembly bolts (or whatever they're called) instead of two (reducing how much it flexes). There is really no reason to expect that engine to develop seal issues common to older rotaries. It also helps that it's much simpler than the previous twin-turbo setup.

Then again it's a relatively new engine... we'll know for certain in a few years as the 100,000+ RX8s on the road start hitting higher miles.

However, there are a few rotary disadvantages the parent's parent didn't mention:

1) It consumes oil (by design). You need to add a quart every 2000 miles.

2) It's more difficult to reduce a rotary's emissions. The reason the 13B-MSP is a Multi Side Port engine is that the previous engines (with peripheral exhaust ports) would not pass current emissions regulations (and the MSP setup improves fuel economy a bit). A downside to the MSP setup is that you can't make a 3 rotary version of it (or at the very least it's cost prohibitive for Mazda to do it because of how much they'd have to change the engine).

3) It is more prone to flooding than piston engines when shutdown without being warmed up first. There is a simple workaround (rev the engine for 10 seconds before shutoff if the engine is still cold... if it's warmed up, it can be shutdown normally). But this disadvantage alone prevents the rotary from being suitable as a mainstream engine.

And unless its fuel economy is improved, the rotary will never be used in anything but sports and race cars.

BTW, this article does a nice job explaining how the rotary works:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[deadweight]

FYI, A WW I airplane "rotary" engine was a radial engine with the crank fixed to the airplane and the whole fsking engine rotated! The gyroscopic effects made for "interesting" flying at best. This concept died a deserved death quickly. Mazda rotary engines are in some modern aircraft, but cooling issues make them a little tough to adapt.

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[clarkc3]

Mazda is the only japanese manufacturer to win Le Mans

thats odd, looking throught the class winners history I see Mazda the most out of the Japanese manufacturers, but I also see Nissan twice (1994 GTS, 2000 LMP 675) and Toyota three times (1992/1993 LM Class 2, 1994 LMP C/90)

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

GMs new LS7 V8 (in the 06 Z06) has 7.0L of displacement (as opposed to the mear 5.7L of the LS1) for an extra 150HP all in the same small block chevy package.

Speaking of lots of misinformation, GM calls the new LS7 "small block", but it's an entirely new casting; it's certainly not the "same small block chevy package". Most who know them wouldn't call them small block, either, regardless of what GM wants to call them.

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[TigerPlish]

None of the wins you mention are outright.

The Mazda 1991 Le Mans victory was an outright win, over all classes.

The ones you mentioned are merely class wins.

Want a spectacular outright win? 1947, Ferrari, with a very tiny 1.8 liter v-12... that little barchetta trumped all the bigger cars in higher classes to win the race outright.

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

You make some interesting points and I share your wankel (/Mazda) enthusiasm. However, this "new development" is about as useless as can be. Who's going to use this dual-fuel capability as the determining factor for their *sports car* purchase? I can get less power and range if I use hydrogen....way kickass, I gotta have this car! What's the point? So they can appear enviro-friendly or something?

They should be working on a Renesis, dual-fuel (gas/e85) electric hybrid...and then stick it in a Protege or Mazda3. A "consumer" vehicle..not a freakin' sports car.

I want 50 miles to the gallon or better. Someone buying a sports car wants "fast".

I'm currently driving a manual '92 Mazda Protege, getting about 34mpg...for the curious.

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[AK Marc]

The 1.3L is the smallest combustion size, NOT the effective size. The engines are equivalent to a 2.8-3.2L engine, and displace a similar volume when measured similarly.

They are 1.3 at the same way piston engines are measured. The problem is that they have 3 combustion faces on a rotor, compared to one combustion face on a piston. That makes direct comparisons useless. "Effective size" is an attempt to translate the 1.3 to a number that makes sense to people that only think in 4-stroke sizes. What do you do with 2-stroke? Miller cycle? They have strict sizes as well, but don't compare directly to 4-stroke.

When measured similarly, rotary, Miller cycle, 4-stroke, and 2-stroke will not come up with matching power output for matching displacement numbers. The problem isn't in how someone measures the volume.

Re:Lots of Misinformation here on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

you made a typo - there was no official race in 47 (none between 1940-1948 thanks to ww2) - the Ferrari you are refering to won did win in 1949 though :)

check the specs

[Tumbleweed]

Half the power with 18% of the range of the gas version. No thanks.

Re:check the specs

[Bazzalisk]

Oh yes, because you absolutely need all that power ;)

Better solution: improved current engines.

[MtViewGuy]

The big problem with hydrogen-fuelled vehicles is that 1) you need an all-new fuelling infrastructure and 2) the range of hydrogen-fuelled vehicles is still a bit on the short side. Fortunately, today's gasoline (petrol) and diesel engines can get improvements that could tremendously extend the usefulness well into the 21st Century.

Take for example the diesel engine. We all remember them as loudly clattering, smoky, smelly engines lacking in high-end power. However, thanks to the development of computer-controlled common-rail pressurized direct fuel injection and better exhaust emission controls, today's diesel engines have pretty much left their old reputations behind. If you've driven a Mercedes-Benz E320CDI you'll notice the surprising amount of acceleration power, just about no engine clattering, and the infamous diesel smoke is very rarely seen. With the arrival of low-sulfur diesel fuel in Summer 2006, the use of urea injection into the exhaust gas stream, and a new generation of diesel catalytic converters that double as diesel particulate traps, diesel engines in the near future can meet even the tough EPA/CARB regulations for such engines coming in the next few years. The best thing about diesel engines is that they offer 30-40% better fuel economy compared to equivalent gasoline engines, and because of their low torque peaks are well-suited for vehicles such as minivans, SUV's and pickup trucks. Also, modern diesel engines won't need much modification to run biodiesel fuel (and in fact the engine will actually run cleaner with biodiesel fuel since this fuel usually doesn't generate harmful diesel particulates).

As for gasoline engines, a promising new technology called homogeneous charge compression ignition promises 30-35% better fuel economy compared to today's engines, but without having to deal with the issues of diesel exhuast. Honda recently said they're almost ready to demonstrate an actual automobile engine with this new technology, and we might see Honda demonstrate such an engine within the next few months.

Mazda isn't ford

[jasonhamilton]

They may own ~30% of their stock, but the RX-8 parts list shows it's 99% parts made in Japan.

Geet Engine

[Eric Dryden]

Though it may be flawd, it may just also not be flawd.

Arbritary online sources do a better job of explaining than I do.

Google Search: Geet Engine

"Geet.Geet."

-I sincearly hope this post does not read as some form of online spam or an advertisement of some sort, because I assure you that is not my intent.

RX-8? Meh.

[Have Blue]

Wake me up when I can lease an RX-78.

Hydrogen Embrittlement?

[DigiShaman]

So has anyone managed to solve this problem? Until it has been, I wont be driving any modified car to run it.

Hydrogen embrittlement is the process by which various metals, most importantly steel, become brittle and crack following exposure to hydrogen. It is not completely understood. Detection of hydrogen embrittlement in welds and fabricated parts is more difficult than detection of oxidative corrosion (rust).

The basic corrosion mechanism begins with hydrogen atoms diffusing through the metal as an interstitial. In steel (an alloy of iron and carbon)exposed to hydrogen at high temperatures, hydrogen will diffuse and combine with carbon to form tiny pockets of methane at internal surfaces like grain boudaries, voids etc.. This methane does not diffuse out of the metal, and collects in small voids on the grain boundaries at high pressure. These pockets then initiate cracks in the bulk material. This process is known as hydrogen attack and leads to decarburization of the steel and general loss in strength. Hydrogen embrittlement, on the other hand, is a room temperature phenomenon where hydrogen present inside the material makes it brittle. High-strength steels, aluminum and titanium alloys are most susceptible.

Hydrogen embrittlement can be facilitated during various manufacturing operations or operational use, anywhere where the material comes in contact with atomic or molecular hydrogen. Processes leading to this include cathodic protection (especially when not properly controlled), phosphating, pickling, and electroplating. A special case is arc welding, in which the hydrogen is released from moisture in the coating of the welding electrodes; to minimize this, special low-hydrogen electrodes must be used for welding high-strength steels. Another mechanism of introduction of hydrogen into metal is galvanic corrosion, chemical reactions of metal with acids, or with other chemicals (notably hydrogen sulfide in sulphide stress cracking, or SCC, a process of importance for the oil and gas industries).

If the metal has not yet started to crack, the condition can be reversed by removing the ambient hydrogen source to cause the hydrogen within the metal to diffuse out and restore ductility to the metal. Susceptible alloys after chemical or electrochemical treatments, where hydrogen is produced, are often subjected to baking heat treatment, in order to remove absorbed hydrogen.

Hydrogen cracking poses a difficult engineering problem especially in context of hydrogen economy.
Wikipedia.com

for some definitions of "better"...

[benjamindees]

Then buy a normal car.

You forgot "sign up for the Army Reserves" and/or "watch as 10% of your income is taken by the government and used to keep oil flowing from the middle east."

And, then, what do I do in 10 years? Buy a car that runs on coal?

Re:Rotary != Radial Sopwith engine apparently

[Anonymous Coward]

Being from the midwest, I haven't seen leaded gas in ages. I was quite surprised in Seattle 1995 to attempt to fill up my rental car, only to find that the nozzle didn't fit. It turns out that they made nozzles for unleaded gas smaller so that you couldn't put the wrong stuff in.

Apparently old cars were still common enough on the West coast that they actually sold enough leaded gas to be profitable. Nowadays it's probably all gone, though.

dom

Re:Rotary Sopwith

[saskboy]

http://sopwith3.sourceforge.net/ a little offtopic, but this is the only Sopwith I've ever flown. It works on an 8086 too, the kind without a rotary engine, but you need a CGA card.

Same Parts?

[benbranch]

I wasn't aware that it was possible to use a gasoline engine to burn hydrogen. In fact I am quite sure it isn't, still the RX8 is a brilliant piece of kit and I am glad to hear that Mazda aren't going down the Prius path like Toyota. The best way to see implementation of non-fossil fuel cars is to make them go reallyu fast and look damn sexy :) Ben.

Rotary engine is an excellent hydrogen engine

[Brett Johnson]

Because a Wankel Rotary Engine has no valves it makes an excellent hydrogen combustion engine. [The high temperature of hydrogen combustion tends to burn valves in piston engines.] The effect is improved by burning a mixture of hydrogen, air (oxygen), and aerosolized water. The high combustion temps vaporize the water, increasing the expansion pressure. [Note that a hydrogen combustion engine is different than a hydrogen fuel cell engine].

Wankel rotary engines are underutilized today because of the bad rep they got in the 70's. Their horsepower-to-weight ratio makes them an excellent performance engine for light vehicles (like the Rx7, portable generators, and airplanes). They tend to be weak on the torque side, however. [Performance piston engines often can built with 1-1 horsepower to torque ratios.]

The lightweight, simple, valve-less structure of rotary engines make them good candidates for alternative fuels. However, current rotary engine designs require injections of small amounts of oil to lubricate the apex seals. This oil is combusted with the fuel and expelled. [Typical oil consumption on a 13B engine is about 1/2 quart per 1500 miles.] Unfortunately, even when burning hydrogen, this tiny amount of burned hydrocarbons disqualifies the engine as a "zero emissions" vehicle - no research grants - no subsidies - no ZEV tax credits.

http://www.millville.org/Workshops_f/kess_mech/too ls/1tools/hydrogen.html

Re:Rotary engine is an excellent hydrogen engine

[GigsVT]

What about embrittlement though?

I don't know if you've kept up with Bob Lazar's hydrogen efforts, but that was a major problem he ran into, the engines started to self-destruct around 60,000 miles due to embrittlement.

Why rotary is better

[razal]

Multi-tasking! The popular engines out there gracing our civics and accords have 4 distinct and separate phases:

• fuel intake
• compression of fuel and air
• igniting the mixture (via spark plugs) to create power and motion
• pushing out the exhaust gases from the engine

The rotary engine follows the exact same steps above. The difference? It carries out three of the above steps at the same time which results in much smoother delivery. The delivery and reliability for the engine is much much smoother than that of a conventional car engine. Yes conventional car engines suck. The drawback of the rotary engine is that they have high emissions and its hard to get them by the EPA. But then thats what this story is about... using hydrogen as a fuel! So yes this is quite something to be excited about. Not an ordinary slow news day folks!

Another reason to do this

[Zog The Undeniable]

Rotary engines have an Achilles heel, apart from prodigious fuel and oil consumption. If you start one up (e.g. to move the car out of the garage) and then shut it down without FULLY warming it up - which could take 5 miles or more - carbon from inside the combustion chamber can get lodged between the wall and the tip seal, causing a seized engine. There's no way to avoid this by design, because the tip seals have to be a certain shape to work and this happens to be an ideal shape to trap solids.

Running on gas, far less carbon is produced and therefore the risk is reduced accordingly.

Re:Another reason to do this

[ratedSAR]

Actually, no, starting a rotary up for a few seconds won't cause the Gasoline and Oil you just injected to solidify and become carbon to be spit out the exhaust tearing up apex seals and a turbocharger.

What you're referring to is the typical flooding issues that many Rx-7s suffered do to some bad ecu Code written by Mazda. Essentially if you don't let the 2nd gen RX-7s warm up to where the ecu sees it as warm the ECU will stick in a rich mode even into the next start. This situation causes a flood (often fixed by a fuel cut either at the pump or as mazda did in the s5 RX-7, when you floor it when starting).

Re:Another reason to do this

[TigerPlish]

Bullshit.

The problem with a cold-shutdown is fouling the plugs, preventing them from firing the next time. And this is not a widespread problem -- mainly those in northen climes. As of build dates of early 04 new ECU software runs less fuel at startup to minimize this risk.

This is colloquially called 'flooding' in rotary circles.

What you're yapping about is 'carbon-lock' and comes from driving like a pussy. Rotaries are meant to be driven hard, not babied like Gramma Jones in her Grand Marquis.

News: You can potentially do this to any car.

[Invidious]

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/

United Nuclear's been working on a dual-fuel hydrogen/gas conversion kit for a while, now, and they've got it running, though it's not quite ready for the public yet. The actual work needed to convert is minimal, and the thing comes with its own generator station -- either plug-in or solar. Of course, it's pricey, but...*shrugs*

Now Americans can be correct!

[supachupa]

Now when Americans say their car runs on 'gas', they'll actually be correct! :)

Re:Now Americans can be correct!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're completely right because gasoline burns as a liquid and all *sarcasm.

The vapors from gasoline are what actually burn - not the the liquid.

And before that...

[Gordonjcp]

NSU used rotaries in the Ro80. The same engine was squeezed under the bonnet of the Citroën GZ Birotor, before being replaced by a Comotor design, giving the already fairly nippy GS over 100bhp instead of the 60bhp or so from the original flat-four.

Norton had Wankel-engined bikes, and I believe some of the design expertise found its way into the Mid-West Rotary aero engines. There have been quite a few Wankel aero engines, with varying degrees of success.

I think John Deere produced an industrial Wankel engine that could run on pretty much anything that would ignite with a spark.

Who generates the Hydrogen?

[stunt_penguin]

The important thing to remember here is that Hydrogen isn't a clean fuel unless it is produced by a renewable energy source- if the H2 is being produced using electricity from a coal-burning power plant, then there is basically no benefit to atmospheric CO2 levels, although air pollution in traffic will be reduced- good news for cyclists.

What if you to produce your own Hydrogen at home- say with a small turbine or a set of Solar Panels that run all day & fill up a tank, ready to fuel your morning commute. For a large initial investment it would produce free fuel and mean you have a fuel source in your own home. You wouldn't pay tax on your fuel either, unless the govornment wants to charge you more money for water you convert into pollution-free fuel (unless you count water vapour as a pollutant). It'd get a lot of people to work and back, and if there's a shortfall, then you can use a fuel station or switch to Petrol.

You could use the O2 for a free oxygen bar in your home too! Mmmmmm, atmospherrric!

Re:Rotary - Mazda Engine is not a Wankel

[dapprman]

First, Wankel engines were notoriously unreliable due to bearing and tip wear issues.

Secondly, the Mazda eninge is not a Wankel design, but rather there own development. The Wankel engine is a circular unit that rotates around a simple shaft. The Mazda rotary engine, the intenal part is actually triangular in shape and rotates around a concetric shaft, resulting in a figure of 8 motion.

The latter was supposedly developed independently of the Wankel unit, both getting thereinspiration from WW2 fighter engines.

Wankel, rotary, and radial engines

[johnny cashed]

You should differentiate between a rotary engine and a Wankel. WWI aircraft did use rotary radial arranged engines, in which the entire engine rotated about a stationary crankshaft. This helped to cool the engine. The engine rotated along with the prop. They did have conventional pistons and cylinders and were by no means a Wankel. The term radial engine is typically used to describe and engine that the crankshaft is rotating with the engine being held stationary. Here is a reference to WWI aircraft engines: http://www.wwiaviation.com/engines/Engines.shtml The term rotary engine was in use before the Wankel was invented. Therefore it is proper terminology, if confusing.

Chu-Chu you pesky termites

[ScrewTivo]

and I can keep my dirty cars, gas stations and everything else. Chu Chu is not a train sound, nor anybody eating something. It's this crazy physics Nobel prize winning PHD's idea of the ONLY carbon neutral fuel source for Mother Earth. Why don't I read more of people getting an board (ha ha) with him?

High temperature Diesels

[Flying pig]

As a matter of fact a lot of research has been done into high temperature Diesel engines. My one time boss at AE, Bob Munro, was the guy who proposed replacing aluminium pistons with suitable steels, and a lot of work was done on high temp piston crowns (it's the piston crowns melt first in Diesels) Interesting fact: he came from the nuclear industry, a rare example of technology transfer. Modern Diesels are made of iron, partly because of superior sound abosrbtion and partly because you can get better thermal stability of castings than you can with reasonably priced light alloy.

Unfortunately lubrication is necessary and there are just no suitable really high temperature lubricants. You also have to get the fuel in without its vaporising. Even so, large Diesels do indeed do a lot better than electric motors given generation and transmission losses. And even in cars, many Diesels need oil fueled winter heaters because the engine does not waste enough heat at moderate speeds in traffic to warm the compartment sufficiently. This leads to the strange paradox that my car heats up faster when it is very cold (and the oil fueled heater comes on) than it does in weather which is just above the critical temperature.

RX-8

[LostAngel]

I have personally had great luck with my 2005 RX-8. I bought it in september, and it's been great to me. I agree, that fuel consumption is a bit...much...but I can live with that. Also, it only needs a LITTLE oil added after every 4-5 fillups with gas. This is only because the engine consumes oil. The only other thing I do is let the car warm up before shutting it off. Early RX-8's would flood if you shut the car off while cold (i.e. turning the car on, moving it 20 feet, and shutting it off). This was caused by fuel still in the engine having nowhere to go...and would foul up spark plugs and your catilytic converter. After ECU upgrades, this problem isn't really that bad...as you only really have to rev it over 3.5krpms for about 10 seconds...and shut the car off while the rpms are still high. I have to say, for the 'quirks' that a wankel has, I must say...it's a great handling car...and though not the torquiest car out there...does what I need it to. Plus it's pretty nice that the redline is at 9krpms.

Nopistons.com

[Dysfnctnl85]

http://www.nopistons.com/ This is the only site you need for rotary specific information.

And FWIW, Mazda uses a 3 or 4 ROTOR engine in their endurance cars.

The RX-8 is the PERFECT segway into the performance hybrid market, and in my opinion, it is the only market that matters to me. I don't want something that looks like it came out of Futurama. The RX-8 is a sexy sports sedan.

Re:Nopistons.com

[Anonymous Coward]

that site looks kinda lame, actually

Right idea, wrong example

[stomv]

Your point about weaning tUSA off of oil is a good one, since very little electricity in tUSA is generated with oil.

But, replacing nuclear isn't possible. Nuclear energy provides the baseline for power generation, and the amount generated per unit time is almost never altered. So, you might reduce the consumption of coal, natural gas, or fuel oil, but not nuclear.

Re:Right idea, wrong example

[rolfwind]

But, replacing nuclear isn't possible. Nuclear energy provides the baseline for power generation, and the amount generated per unit time is almost never altered. So, you might reduce the consumption of coal, natural gas, or fuel oil, but not nuclear.

Nor would I want that replaced - it's cleaner than coal. Though Fusion would be an ideal solution for all parties concerned.....

Re:Mazda is Ford -WRONG WRONG WROGN WRONG WRONG

[dapprman]

Ford own only 30% of Mazda Motors, Mazda Corporation are still the majority stock holders.

The deal was done as a joint technology swap, with Ford investing money in Mazda rather than buying the technology. Mazda get chassis, Ford get engine technology.

Whenever you hear "hydrogen"...

[The Fun Guy]

... you should think "nuclear".

Fact: the US gets transportation primarily from oil, and power primarily from coal.
Fact: the oil will run out before the coal does.
Fact: nuclear power is more expensive than coal power
Fact: hydrogen can be used directly for transportation, but coal can't
Fact: shifting the transportation energy requirement onto coal-fired plants (coal -> power -> hydrogen) will mean the consumption of A LOT MORE coal

Conclusion: when oil hits $60/barrel and stays there, people will start wanting to build nuclear plants to allow the shift of some portion of the power and transportation sectors to hydrogen.

Oh, wait, that's already happened.

Wish I could say the same...

[zubinjdalal]

...about the Renesis engine in the RX-8. The car engine has a history of flooding. I bought one first hand and had it for more than a year. The car locked up on me thrice in the first couple of months and had to be towed to a dealership each time. It was so unreliable that I had to get rid of it.

It is an entirely unique feeling to watch a two week old car die and be sitting on the back of a flat-bed tow truck.

Re:Wish I could say the same...

[nschubach]

I've had my RX8 for over 2 years. I had it flood one time when I pushed the gas starting it. Since then I leave my foot off the petal and have had no trouble since. To get it started after a flood is cake. You put the gas petal to the floor (this actually cuts off the supply when the engine isn't running), turn the key until it turns over. It will stall, pull your foot off the gas and start the car.

Re:Wish I could say the same...

[zubinjdalal]

This works only if the engine isn't badly flooded. It also depends on the temperature outside. I live in upstate NY and I've tried the same procedure multiple times in the middle of winter (read -5F). Apparently (to quote the dealer) "these car engines are temperamental in cold weather". Also the dealers recommend that you try it the procedure to un-flood it three or four times however the OEM battery doesn't hold up to that kind of "abuse". Finally they recommend that you change the spark plugs once you've had the engine flooded bad but none of the dealers will entertain that idea.

Zubin

Also a fine aircraft engine

[gr8_phk]

There is a growing crowd of people putting rotary engines on experimental aircraft. Not much real data available now, but the Renesis is viewed quite favorably over at Canard Zone. Older RX7 engines have been used, but the new ones don't need a turbo to reach 200hp. The pure rotary motion (ok, it's like a planet orbiting and rotating on axis at the same time) makes for smooth and quiet operation. One guy had to remove one side of his headset during flight testing just so he could tell if the engine was runnning - it's that quiet and smooth.

Smooth, quiet, and costs under $6000 (far less than certified aircraft engines). Hopefully they will prove themselves reliable over the next few years. Don't start flaming - there isn't much data yet on real aircraft.

Makes me want to buy a set of Cozy IV plans...

Re:Rotary 1984 GSL-SE for sale

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the pictures. Great car in great shape. Currently in winter storage.

http://www.storm.ca/~cfielding/rx7/

Bio Diesel?

[katorga]

Umm, why hydrogen? Biodeisel is cheap, easy to make and uses common, inexpensive deisel engines that are used throughout the developing world and Europe. Only the US would face any difficulties transitioning to from petrol engines to diesel. In the interrum, they could use E85 ethanol.

Both technologies result in clean burning fuel, over 85% reduction of fossil fuel needs, and provide new markets for the world's farmers (who really need the help!).

Hydrogen and Electric by comparison, are expensive, hard to maintain, not suited for rough developing world conditions, and do not have the long lifespan of deisel technology. A electric hybrid needs its electric motors replaced every 4-6 years which is horrendously expensive. A biodeisel, otoh, can run 20 years or more with decent maintenance.

At the end of the day, rising oil costs will, through the invisible hand of the market, drive users to convert voluntarily to new solutions.

Re:Bio Diesel?

[scottyokim]

Hmm ... "drive users to convert voluntarily" ...

Nothing comes for free

[cunamara]

While the notion of hydrogen power with only water vapor for exhaust sounds nice and clean, it doesn't help with the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Imagine millions of tones of water vapor released into the air every year by a worldwide fleet of hydrogen burning cars. Ambient humidity especially in cities would skyrocket with local and global climate effects. Additionally, the production of hydrogen takes a lot of energy, which is likely produced through means that produce greenhouse gases.

IMHO the solution is to change towards human-scale pedestrian-centered cities with effective mass transit options and pro-bicycle urban design. The model of individual motorized vehicles for everyone is just unsustainable, no matter what the power source for those motors is. When we're talking about a couple billion vehicles or more operating every day, any emissions cumulatively are too many emissions. There is no way to have zero emissions without bending or breaking the laws of physics.

MOD Parent

[Anonymous Coward]

Please consider MODding the parent up. Thanks.

NOT a fuel cell or electric vehicle

[peter303]

This car directly burns hydrogen for its explosive mechanical force. It doesnt oxidize hysdrogen in a fuel cell to gnerate electricity for an electric motor. This way it can leverage a 130 years of experience with very robust internal combustion engines, instead of waiting for fuel cells and electric engine developments. To confess, I dont know how far the later is economically behind. It may not be that much with all the current R&D.

Finally!

[Dr. Cody]

...an RX model with an unwieldly expensive to maintain engine and astronomical fuel costs.

I think you are joining in...

[YesIAmAScript]

I've love to see you back up your comment about the RX-7 being the winningest model in major US racing. I watch a LOT of racing. I watch Grand Am, Grand Am Grand Sport/Sport Touring, Trans Am, ALMS, SCCA/Speed World Challenge. Many years I even watch the runoffs. And I've done this for years.

And not only haven't I seen the RX-7 win a lot of races, I'm not sure I've seen a Gen III win any.

I know the older rotaries (RX-3?) were very successful before the classifications were changed to take advantage of the fact that a rotary fires so often and thus produce more power per unit displacement. But I don't recall the Gen III's doing all that well in major racing.

Re:I think you are joining in...

[ikekrull]

I refer to the IMSA GTU class, where the RX-7 has won more races than any other model. In the GTO class, RX-7s won 7 years in a row, and 10 years in a row in the GTU class.

Other notable successes include racing against porsches and others around Bathurst in Australia (obviously this isnt directly relevant to claims of US racing success) - winning their classes in 92,93,94 and 95 before getting banned (They also banned Nissan skylines for making the aussie V8s look bad).

http://media.ford.com/mazda/article_display.cfm?ar ticle_id=19303

Take a look down towards the bottom of this page and you will see that in the 80s and 90s Mazda RX-7s and others were very competitive on the racetracks of the US.

Le Mans doesn't ban rotaries...

[YesIAmAScript]

Your young upstart comments are ridiculous, by the way. In the 80s and part of the 90s, the Japanese were pouring a lot of money into Le Mans. If Mazda had not won Le Mans with the 787B, Toyota would have with the GT-One, or Nissan with the 300ZX/R390. These companies did excellent jobs campaigning cars, but none did it just offhand and thus embarassed the Europeans with how they could do it so easily.

Additionally, only FIA banned rotaries. Le Mans is not under the governance of FIA, it is governed by the ACO. As such, rotaries were never banned at Le Mans. Additionally, Mazda campaigned a (Renesis) rotary-powered LMP2 prototype as a fully-qualified car in the ACO-governed American Le Mans Series last year and will likely do so this year too.

So I think the major irony here is how you speak out about international auto racing and yet seem to know very little about it.

Re:Le Mans doesn't ban rotaries...

[ikekrull]

Check your facts. Le Mans banned rotaries outright in 1992 after Mazda won.

The ban was later lifted, which is why the Courage C2 is now racing in the 2005 American Le Mans series. (rotarynews.com has good coverage of this).

Re:Rotary - Mazda Engine is not a Wankel

[TigerPlish]

WRong and wrong! Jesus fucking christ, are people ignorant about the rotary!

Mazda licked ALL THE SEAL ISSUES by 1979.

Wankel produced TWO versions of his engine... DKM and KKM. DKM (the one you mentioned) was impractical. KKM is what we use today.

Wankel *ASSISTED* Mazda. He went to Hiroshima and helped them. Mazda developed the first twinrotor rotary. All of wankel's originals were single-rotor side-ports. Mazda came up with the twinrotor peripheral-port, and now has come full circle going back to side-ports.

FWIW, NO WWII aircraft used rotaries. Radials, yes. But not rotaries.

Existing E85 flex fuel capability is useless!

[egriebel]

A bunch of Ford models have engines that come in a Flex-fuel version. My '03 Taurus will run on "E85", which is 85% ethanol 15% gasoline. But it doesn't help me much, have you ever seen a gas station advertising E85?? No states in Northeastern US have one (DE, NJ and NY and up), nor Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, or Hawaii. And for instance, in Florida, there is one at Kennedy Space Center, but security probably won't look too kindly at driving up in your Crown Vic to fill up!

ObLinks: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/flextech.shtml/ and http://www.e85fuel.com/

Re:Rotary, err radial I guess

[saskboy]

I guess my -1 troll designation on the grandparent post is justified then even though I was +1 interesting with a -1 Wrong. I'm glad to learn about engine technology, I don't think we teach children enough about combustion engines, or locomotion theory in general. I didn't see a diagram for a combustion engine in school until Grade 10, and that was only because I had taken an Industrial Arts class with an engine's component in the course. Going through the steps of a four stroke engine isn't complicated, and could be in any grade 5 class.

If only I could make my fuel at home...

[maillemaker]

If only there was an easy way to make hydrogen or ethanol at home!

Steve

MOD PARENT UP

[TheStonepedo]

People need to get the silly notion out of their heads that hydrogen is always made by splitting water. The parent poster is informative.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[l33t gambler]

(and mod me up I want karma)

Is it me or is this is the kind of argument you will be considered a "troll" for on forums about 3d graphics.

Of course theres no standard fueling nozzle.
Of course it's going to be expensive.
Of course theres no where to fuel up.

We haven't even begun! If it's to become a reality we have to start somewhere! This may fail, but it's not a failure, it's one way that doesn't work.

At least the Japanese are trying! First the Toyota Prius, now dual-fuel cars, idealistic innovation?

1. technology
2. hardware (rotary "wankel" motor)
3. consumer awareness "oil is running out, hydrogen is clean and quiet"
4. early products (dual fuel cars)
5. maturation

Do I make myself clear!? lol

Mod dork down

[postbigbang]

Currently, there are 204 hydrogen purveyors in the US (source: US Dept of Agriculture).

There are seven different fueling nozzles, for the under 450+ TOTAL hydrogen vehicles in North America (includes Canada).

We (as in US and Canada) have more hydrogen-powered vehicles than in all of the ASEAN countries combines, times 5.

Don't be a twit and twiddle your fingers on the keyboard until you get the facts.

Then you can see the Mazda PR prattle for what it is.... unwittingly picked up and placed on /. for dissecting.

Combustion in a Wankel engine

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, is the disadvantage of Wankel engines buring conventional fuels - the combuston chamber is long and narrow, so combustion takes a long time, and can be quite inefficient. Often, two or more spark plugs are used to speed things up.

With hydrogen, combustion is very rapid. So much so, that the Wankel engine's combustion chamber is now an advantage - the combustion can be controlled to some degree. The major problem is pre-ignition. Hydrogen burns with a lot of energy (per unit mass), but is very touchy - the equivalent to having a low octane rating.

They are dual fuel already.

[Aliencow]

Like, 75% gas 25% oil like any good rotary !

whatever, just keep saying it...

[YesIAmAScript]

Maybe some day it'll become true.

But it isn't today. ACO never banned rotaries.

http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?s=07219 6403660b668a6b83961231a0cc8&p=1850591&postcount=69

(Note I do not support the idea that the 787B won on a freak, it ran a very respectable distance. It was not however leagues beyond any of its competitors as those "ban" conspiracy theorists might make it out to have been.)

Re:whatever, just keep saying it...

[ikekrull]

FIA rule changes banned the 787B or any other car with a rotary engine displacing over 2L from competing in Le Mans from 1992. The ACO, at least back then, was very responsive to FIA requests and rules.

I guess you could say there was no 'outright ban' on rotaries, but it was certainly an effective ban, rendering the engines used in the ~10-year long Mazda Le Mans programme unable to compete in Le Mans any more.

Re:whatever, just keep saying it...

[dan the person]

Sounds similar to how they reacted in australia after the nissan team kept winning bathurst and the touring car series. Sure they didn't ban the skyline, they just happened to make rule changes that meant the skyline, and not other cars, had to suddenly start racing with the boot full of lead blocks.

AMC Pacer

[PagosaSam]

Back in the '70 AMC designed a car for the GM Wankel engine that they never produced. GM ran into so many problems they abandoned the design. Without the wankel AMC shoehorned a straight 6 into a space never designed to hold it. You could not see the last 2 spark plugs because they were buried in the firewall!

http://www.american-motors.de/en/pacer/history/

Re:Whenever you hear "hydrogen"...

[benjamindees]

Yeah, I like how the conspiracy nuts think Hydrogen is meant to keep us dependent on the oil companies. Hydrogen benefits the nuclear industry, because they can create it most efficiently at ridiculously high temperatures. Add in the carbon == bad crowd and what you get is a push by nuclear to beat out coal in replacing oil for transportation. The oil companies would love to see alcohol fuels, because they're basically just distribution channels nowadays anyways. "Big coal" would be happiest if everyone drove electric cars.

Re:Rotary Sopwith

[modecx]

Damn, that brings back memories... What an awesome game. I wonder if they've fixed how the game was timed on the CPU's frequency. I remember when I sopwith on a 386, it suddenly became very challenging, and then I upgraded to a 486 33 machine... It was quite impossible!

Ahh, good times.

Spitfire Engine Utah Salt Flats Bound

[RabidTrucker]

The Public is very confused. Most of these hybrid cars are just that > hybrid cars having 2 engines. They weigh more, around double the weight of a 1968 VW bug. Some weigh much more, @3,000 lbs. . The tire sizes are real small which means the heavy weight is on a small tire area. This then means they will chew up the highway road surfaces. This will increase the road maintenance & re-surfacing costs to perhaps double what it is in 2006. Plus some really Killer asphalt dust in the air & groundwater ecosystems.

All these hybrid cars have 2 engines. Repair costs after an accident {cars WILL still be involved in accidents} where TWO ENGINE SYSTEMS HAVE TO BE REPAIRED, RETOOLED, REALIGNED. Well, you may as well send it down the road to the car chopper recycler.

President Bush wants us to have "affordable energy". Translated what his doublespeak says is he doesn't EVER want us to have a cheap car like Henry Ford first gave us. He wants more & more expensive cars & trucks for America. Personally I suspect he has money invested {or monies promised to him later under the table}.

I've had a design for a "true" hybrid engine that combines 2 fluids into an engine cylinder, where they combine. Due to their vastly different temperatures they explode. The engine would roughly be 1/3 the weight of current vehicle engines. Emissions? There are none. It runs a 100% closed system. No exhaust by-products because there isn't any exhaust. Due to the reduced weight of the vehicle, it needs less horsepower to carry people down the road. My information is all explained on this page >
http://www.newpath4.com/enginewow.htm .

One prototype of the engine was built and ran in 1997 but the professor who created it made a few mistakes that severely lowered the Power Output. I found it in 2003 & changed it. Every stroke is a power stroke, which is a 400% increase over combustion engines. Every 4th stroke in a combustion engine has to recompress the cylinder contents so a combustion banger has to actually OVERPRODUCE power so there's enough left over for the compression stroke.

Mine doesn't have to do all that. Many schools & universities are looking over the engine now, especially the University of Washington because that's where the prototype was built. With all the improvements plus so many of the power robbers gone plus a weight reduction {no cooling system, no exhaust system, smaller size}, they know the "effective" horsepower of an engine like mine is awesome. Which is GREAT... but the reduced cost to consumers {accident repairs & reduced roadway surface repairs} could really do a lot to reverse our tremendous National Debts.

http://free.seekon.com/NonNuclearFusionEngines/ has more links & explanations.

Not quite correct

[Anonymous Coward]

if the H2 is being produced using electricity from a coal-burning power plant, then there is basically no benefit to atmospheric CO2 levels, although air pollution in traffic will be reduced- good news for cyclists.

The science is (mostly) correct, but not the economics. Centralizing carbon dioxide production means that mitigation strategies become possible that aren't otherwise. Think "economy of scale".

For example, I've heard that it might be possible to sequester carbon dioxide in the oceans in frozen form. Suppose that turns out to be possible. Now, is it easier to sequester 1000 tons of carbon dioxide from one stationary source along the coast in this way, or 1 ton each from 1000 geographically dispersed, mobile sources?

Re:Spitfire Engine Utah Salt Flats Bound

[DeadChobi]

Wait a second, can you explain, using Thermodynamics, what this engine does and how a completely closed system can possibly contribute power to something? I dont think I understand what you mean. I'd like to hear it rephrased for a technical audience. Could I score some thermodynamic specs to back up your claim?

I read the two links you attached, but none of them had any real information. They were just hype-pamphlets. If you want to attract a technical audience for your claims, providing no real information is a real turn-off for us. One of the pages even claimed a 200% success rate, implying that there were twice as many successes as trials.

Re:Spitfire Engine Utah Salt Flats Bound

[RabidTrucker]

Oh, so you're an "audience" hahaha You're more bipolar than I am. I still consider myself to be just one. Personally I believe my engines will do in the range of 2,000% but whether 2000% or .02%, success is still success. Professor Hertzberg's prototype engine achieved 30 miles per hour. How much of a success do my engines need to be to get us off fossil fuels?

You don't want my help. You're an audience, remember? hahahahaha Go beat up your little brother.

No, there is no mistake.

[postbigbang]

Check the facts at the USDA, or other places. Hydrogen adoption rates in NA are very small. It's a shame, but nonetheless, you can't get much done with hydrogen-powered vehicles here. There are lots of reasons why, but the Mazda piece was a PR move that got picked up by /. and moved around like it was a big deal. Instead, they were suckered. That's my whole point.

Move over to alcohol, and things are much different, as are the engine dynamics. Oxygen sensor technology, coupled with over-large fuel injectors that can handle alcohol, are here and working. But not hydrogen. It's a different techology that requires a different engine design and fuel system delivery methodology. And it's not only not standardized, but it's unfortuantely a joke in NA. It'll change, but $3.5K/month for a hydrogen vehicle is rubbish.

Re:No, there is no mistake.

[JeremyALogan]

Oh ok... I misread your post thought you were advocating making your own hydrogen that way. My mistake. Having now read it again it's clear I misspoke.

D'oh.

What?? More HYDROGEN shit???

[aqk]

I thought this hydrogen crap had finally run its course.
I'm still waiting for them to drill a Hydrogen well...
Mazda's a bit late at this hype. I suspect most other car companies (GM included- the "There's a sucker born every minute" company) are discreetly trying to bail out of the Hydrogen boondoggle.
A simple point: there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than in a gallon of hydrogen, at STP.
I could go on,but...
This is one of those pet rock things.. I am surprised this silly hydrogen fad is still going around.
Notable e-mail blurb that I got this week: David Suzuki (www.davidsuzuki.org) in their childlike newsletter, this month talked about energy conservation/efficiency with respect to automobiles. Lots of Ethanol, french fry grease and "bio"-diesel stuff (the usual crap), but thank god! NOT ONE WORD about Hydrogen!
Finally! Someone is starting to wise up!
I could go on but...

Sorry for the late reply to this topic. Remind me to buy a Hyundai, instead of a Ford, heh-heh "Mazda", as my next small car...
Ha!.. GM will soon die, and now you too, Ford! Good riddance, you shucksters!

The ACO is not subservient to the FIA...

[YesIAmAScript]

Not now, not then. And as to your ideas of ACO "going along" with FIA, I just don't see it. FIA bans pretty much all "weird motors", including gas turbines and such.

ACO on the other hand encourages weird entries, they use a theory of "technical merit" or something like that. They have had Diesels and veggie Diesels running over the last 5 years and have even entertained electric entries (although I don't think any has shown up).

The 787B, like many other successful cars at Le Mans fell prey to the ACO's tendency to "mix things up", to change the rules seemingly just because everyone has optimized for them. Stretch that a bit and you can say the ACO banned the 787B (as much as you can say they banned the R8). But it's untruthful to say the ACO banned rotaries.

Fuel Cells - Run Ethanol NOW!

[queenb**ch]

Fuel cells...bleh! Every car on the road right now is perfectly capable of running ethanol. Pretty much anything since the Model T has been. The only reason that people use gasoline is because it makes it easier to start on cold mornings (below freezing). For those occasions, a small amount of gas to get the enginge started (a few tablespoons) is all that's required. The rest of the time, it just runs on ethanol.

The even better news, ethanol is cheap to produce. It can be made from grass clippings, leaves, corn stalks, corn cobs, pretty much all of the left overs from food production. It's easy to distill once the fermentation is complete. The waste from the fermentation can be returned to the fields as fertilizer where the crops were grown.

Brazil has already done it and their ethanol fuel is less than 1/2 the cost of gasoline AT THE PUMP. You can I can do it now, if gas stations were just required to offer up ethanol as a product. Require that the factories be here so that there's no foreign dependence and we're good to go here in the South. You Yankees :) might have to work a bit harder at it since you have more below freezing days than we do, but I'd bet you could retro-fit your car for no more than $200.

2 cents,

Queen B