Obviously for someone who claims to run a 13.2 with a 2.6 60ft doesn't know much about why the 1.3L Turbo in the FD has such bad fuel economy. It has nothing to do with being an economy 4 banger or otherwise. It's not even a piston driven engine. The idea/goal of the rotary was to make a highly efficient small displacement motor that provides a lot of power per liter while maintaining good fuel mileage.

The reason behind the bad fuel economy is due to the overlap of the intake and exhaust ports. The intake port is a side intake port which means the rotor is what opens and closes it and the exhaust is a peripheral one which means it's on the outside of the chamber to intersect with the Apex seals. The problem is when the intake and exhaust ports are open at the same time.

Because there is a time where the intake and the exhaust ports are both open in the combustion chamber at the same time (which cannot be solved without redesigning the entire engine), some of the spent exhaust gases are sucked back in and makes the air/fuel mixture harder to ignite. Mazda engineers compensated with adding more fuel to make it easier to ignite which contributes to the diminishing fuel economy. They realized that the only way to solve this problem was to have both side intake and exhaust ports. Only then can they eliminate this overlap, run a much leaner mixture, gain even more power and increase fuel mileage. Enter the Renesis engine via the RX-8.

The RX-8 boasts low to mid 20's fuel mileage which is significantly higher than the previous FC and FD, packs 250 of N/A power from the same 1.3L displacement and revs nicely to a near 9000rpms, not new to rotary engines of course. The only problem that I can see with this current design is that the new setup has very little room for adding in a turbo (which is a waste since I'd imagine it'll work even better with this new design).

I wonder what else Mazda has in store for the future of the RX8.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hyper-X
[B]
Obviously for someone who claims to run a 13.2 with a 2.6 60ft doesn't know much about why the 1.3L Turbo in the FD has such bad fuel economy.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 94rexsf
[B]
hey ass whipe, first off I said MY FRIEND ran 13.5 bone stock.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hyper-X
[B]
Like I said, magazine racing is ghey.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 94rexsf
[B]

I dont need a lecture to you about the fuel economy.

 

Hmmm,You guys do realize if you wanna compare cars we can go get some muscle boys with 600-700hp motors to come shoot shit and post wicked times.But that wouldnt be a fun comparison.Can't we just get along and stop making me look mature i want to be the youngest on this board im 15 some of you might be 10 or maybe 7 im not sure which but its one of them.

-Billy

A dealer compared a 20psi boosted lancer to a S2000 bragging about how it makes 276 or whatever horse power..Now i could say Is that a bragging right or proving your motor is shite?

 

 

gawd this is gettin stupid.... we can all say that we have fast cars and that my friend can beat ur friend blah blah blah.. fact is we are prob not gonna race eachother and im prob the fastest one here lol j/p .... sorta... lol

newayz we all know stock the fd will win... its proven... look at motortrend... dont believe their numbers... then u prob also think the world is flat and its also the center of the universe

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SHIRI
[B]

If you think Honda was innovative, they copied practically everything from Toyota/Suzuki, in particular the Toyota Trueno Sprinter (from dashboard to high revs)...

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hyper-X
[B]
Obviously for someone who claims to run a 13.2 with a 2.6 60ft doesn't know much about why the 1.3L Turbo in the FD has such bad fuel economy.