"jjhats" (ssaxman)
06/12/2015 at 18:43 • Filed to: None
6
9|
"jjhats" (ssaxman)
06/12/2015 at 18:43 • Filed to: None | 6
| 9 |
scoob
> jjhats
06/12/2015 at 18:49 |
|
whoarder is tellurium
> jjhats
06/12/2015 at 19:00 |
|
ly2v8-Brian
> jjhats
06/12/2015 at 19:10 |
|
Whoa
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> jjhats
06/12/2015 at 20:14 |
|
Ummm
NO.
If RX8 had actually been as versatile as a lift-back Jensen Interceptor, it might have actually been a better road car, in terms of being able to handle cargo and a spare tire.
RX8 was not a bad idea, it was just an odd execution that hit the dead space between two other targets.
Not as sexy or as light weight as a 2-seat sports car, which RX7 was.
Not as practical or versatile as a 3-door lift back GT (or pseudo-5-door if it had the rear hatch and the rear half doors) for cargo versatility and usefulness.
Arguably for a GT it would have been better with a V6 piston engine with torque and no down-side to slogging around in traffic at low RPMs.
The rotary is a great engine, especially for all-out screaming racing, high-RPM, lightning-quick response, low weight, and not caring about fuel economy or ingesting oil like a two-stroke for rotor lubrication.
But a rotary doesn’t suit low-RPM low-gear high torque demand use, with low oil pressure, with minimal attention or maintenance and a 100,000+ mile life-span expectation.
Customers didn’t know not to drive a rotary engine like other cars, and few mechanics seemed to be well versed in how to maintain or repair them, and engines failed for being UNDER-utilized at low RPMs with low oil pressure. Driving an RX-car like you stole it is actually BETTER for the engine than slogging it in crawling traffic.
RX8 handled well, but didn’t look or feel the part of a sports car near the edge of being a race car, but it also didn’t handle daily slogging all that well, or practically, even compared to other coupes. If only it had been more like Jensen Interceptor...
LongbowMkII
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
06/12/2015 at 20:17 |
|
It would have somehow been less reliable?
Frank Grimes
> jjhats
06/12/2015 at 20:21 |
|
nope ugly.
|
jjhats
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
06/12/2015 at 20:31 |
|
dude chill out......all i said was they look the same. beyond the eery similarities in design and a great 2+2 design with a proper FR layout they are completely different cars with different purposes. i hate the rx-8 and would never buy one all im saying is if jensen did a modern retro car the rx-8 looks closer to it than a lot of other modern retro cars designs
|
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> LongbowMkII
06/12/2015 at 20:32 |
|
A high-RPM driven rotary has more consistent oil pressure, and thus better lubrication of the seals and moving parts. Low RPM slogging with high torque demands in low gears puts a lot of stress on rotary engines at low RPMs where the oil pump can’t provide enough consistent oil pressure and volume, either through the lubrication galleries in the block, nor through the intake oil injection system for the rotor’s seals.
A rotary kept more often at high speeds with plenty of oil supply lives longer and more reliably.
For low-RPM slogging, a piston engine has more low-end torque, and an oiling system that doesn’t have to support 8-10,000 RPMs at the high end, so it it can maintain pressure and volume at idle and low RPMs. A piston engine is more suited to slogging in traffic without lack of lubrication, and with more responsive torque, which is more desirable in traffic.
A rotary makes an awesome racing engine, though. Oil consumption, fuel consumption, and ultimate warrantee-covered longevity are non-issues, but light-weight, compact size, very few moving parts, affinity for turbocharging, flexible fuel acceptance, no reciprocating inertia changes, lightning-quick engine response, and high specific power output all make a well-tuned wankel rotary engine a great racing engine, especially when the government doesn’t try to federalize a wankel rotary to meet piston engine oriented rules, because they are very distinctly different machines.
|
LongbowMkII
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
06/12/2015 at 20:38 |
|
I was making a joke at the Interceptor’s expense.