This is a question that I have been pondering for quite some time:

Why didn't the Rotary engine become popular?

The only insights that I have to this matter are the following:

1) It was new, bold, and most of all, different
2) Parts were thus rare; somewhat difficult to maintain
3) Not the best mpg (around 20)--but certainly not the worst, especially for sports cars

But I guarantee you that if you ever sit in a well-kept rotary-driven car, from then on any other non-rotary car will seem like you're always driving on a bumpy road.

Any ideas would be very much appreciated

well for one it burned oil
people didnt know a lot about them
and also like you said the waznt a lot of aftermarket parts for it

But now with the new RX-8 engin i am willing to bet that they will be come more widely used.
The new RX-8 engins have a second oil pin to stop it from getting in the chamber and burring off also they uped the MPG and stoped the wineing.

nobody really knew if it was reliable; normally ppl avoid buying new cars, but ppl would REALLY avoid buying cars w/ new engines. i don't know how reliable the RX cars are, but the rotor tips will always wear out, rendering the engine useless until you get the ENTIRE rotor replace which would cost a lot of $$, meaning you'd have a major repair for sure after 50-70k miles. another thing is the fact that they haven't been able to reduce emissions, b/c it's a new engine, and it just seems to let out a lot of smog, so people want something that will most likely pass a smog test (haha, almost forgot the "p" in pass :wink: ) (but today, the RX-8 has less emissions than a honda civic) and if you put twin turbo's on it; it'll really screw up the emissions. plus, not that many mechanics learned how to repair rotary's, and if they do, they'll raise their prices really high. the RX series of cars were always light, so they weren't very safe, but now the new RX-8 is very safe, but that sort of takes it's low weight advantage away. all these new features make the RX-8 a lot more of a practical car

also, didn't a new RX-7 twin turbo cost the same as an m3? i guess the price would drive all but the extreme enthusiasts away, but again, the RX-8 should solve a lot of these problems; now only if they could put a twin turbo in it :shock:

right now, the rotary technology isn't practical for day to day use (though, the RX-8 was a huge step to that) b/c of all it's little problems, but in time, the rotary will improve a great deal.

the rotary isn't practical for day to day use, but racing, that's a whole new story; it's very lightweight, and develops equal amnt of power, and like most engines from ferrari, lamborghini, or honda, it revs really high. another thing, the RX-7 won the le mans race in '93 :twisted:

and welcome to the forum, ausgeflippt13 :D

This is a question that I have been pondering for quite some time:

Why didn't the Rotary engine become popular?

The only insights that I have to this matter are the following:

1) It was new, bold, and most of all, different
2) Parts were thus rare; somewhat difficult to maintain
3) Not the best mpg (around 20)--but certainly not the worst, especially for sports cars

But I guarantee you that if you ever sit in a well-kept rotary-driven car, from then on any other non-rotary car will seem like you're always driving on a bumpy road.

Any ideas would be very much appreciated

Many reasons, besides pistons being better.:-)
NO torque.
Crappy milage.
Harder to work on (even with less parts).
And they are not "new" as you say.

They just have TO MANY shortcommings....

thanks a lot for the insights :P ; as I have said, I've never known the real reasons. I've always been a huge rotary enthusiast, and I can safely say that I'm nowhere close to connoisseur standing yet, but I would soon like to be, and so I'm always looking for more info, ideas, and perspectives on the rotary engine.


Oh, and thanks for the welcome, igaboj :D

thanks a lot for the insights :P ; as I have said, I've never known the real reasons. I've always been a huge rotary enthusiast, and I can safely say that I'm nowhere close to connoisseur standing yet, but I would soon like to be, and so I'm always looking for more info, ideas, and perspectives on the rotary engine.


Oh, and thanks for the welcome, igaboj :D

No problem there damn good engines....they just have many shortcommings....
Plus piston engines have gotten so damn good.

Welcome to the forum ausgeflippt13. :D

Here are some reasons:

1. For the last decades, only Mazda was building rotaries so the engine wasn't quite popular.
2. The RX-7 was quite expensive, so again that didn't help the popularity of the rotary.
3. Not many mechanics and engineers have knowledge on building or repairing rotaries.
4. There were some problems such as low reliability, high fuel consumption etc.
5. Rotary engines are quite expensive to develop, build and maintain in good condition, so that's why all the companies except Mazda prefer pistons.

The latest Renesis in the RX-8 is exceptionally technologically advanced, however. It is a totally modern engine, and should help to familiarise the masses with the advantages of the rotary engine.

like it was said earlyer it is a very good enign and the car is still rilly light the engin is still really light and one of the posts was talking about how the nubs wear down well they now have added one more on each piston side to stop that and yes the engies werent to good with the gas and the smog but the new RX-8 solved all the problems that the RX-7 had. in fact the engin is so good the engin was voted engin of the year and yes the twin turbo did through things out of wack but most of the time a turbo helps with the somg and MPG.

like it was said earlyer it is a very good enign and the car is still rilly light the engin is still really light and one of the posts was talking about how the nubs wear down well they now have added one more on each piston side to stop that and yes the engies werent to good with the gas and the smog but the new RX-8 solved all the problems that the RX-7 had. in fact the engin is so good the engin was voted engin of the year and yes the twin turbo did through things out of wack but most of the time a turbo helps with the somg and MPG.

Turbochargers HURT fuel milage, they don't help it at all.
And who voted that engine of the year???? Ward's Auto World voted
the Enzo Ferrari engine as the best (cost no object) and they picked
the Infiniti/Nissan 3.5 liter V6 as the best "mass produced" one.

Turbochargers HURT fuel milage, they don't help it at all.
And who voted that engine of the year???? Ward's Auto World voted
the Enzo Ferrari engine as the best (cost no object) and they picked
the Infiniti/Nissan 3.5 liter V6 as the best "mass produced" one.[/quote]

Umm ok
if ya you go off and boost it all to hell you are a ****ing dumb ass i read your posts and you say some of the dumbist **** i have ever heard of if you know cars like you think you do then you would know that if you boost a car to like 5 to 8 psi keeping the stock fuel injectors it will help the fuel burn off there for giving you a a better bang then all the fuel is burned off leaving CO2+H20+O the cat then brakes down the CO2 and changes it to C and O and H. all of which are not bad for people or the earth. but knowing you you would ask a bumd ? like well then how come all the air is so bad. Simple not all cars burn good and then you have big rigs, factorys, and all the other little things that happen.

2nd when i fined out who voted it engin of the year i will let you know just because one place says it is the best and a nother dose not change the fact that people still think it good enough to call it that.

so maybe you should think about somethings befor you put them up and stop being a dumb ass.

Umm ok
if ya you go off and boost it all to hell you are a [censored] dumb ass i read your posts and you say some of the dumbist [censored] i have ever heard of if you know cars like you think you do then you would know that if you boost a car to like 5 to 8 psi keeping the stock fuel injectors it will help the fuel burn off there for giving you a a better bang then all the fuel is burned off leaving CO2+H20+O the cat then brakes down the CO2 and changes it to C and O and H. all of which are not bad for people or the earth. but knowing you you would ask a bumd ? like well then how come all the air is so bad. Simple not all cars burn good and then you have big rigs, factorys, and all the other little things that happen.

2nd when i fined out who voted it engin of the year i will let you know just because one place says it is the best and a nother dose not change the fact that people still think it good enough to call it that.

so maybe you should think about somethings befor you put them up and stop being a dumb ass.

Listen kid you better calm down and stop being a AOL tuffguy. Turbochagers do hurt mileage. Think what you want, just look at every car that comes w/ and w/o one....the ones with the tubros have a LOWER fuel economy. Supra, 300ZX, Probe, 911 for staters, and NONE of them have "high" boost rates. Turbochargers SUCK EXHAUST out faster, which SUCKS IN MORE FUEL------->equals WORSE milage. :roll:

I just realized something after reading this topic... and that’s every time BluCamSS puts something stupid in a topic, people make fun of it saying he is a dumbass and stuff. This is the stuff that recks topics :!: Just take this topic for example http://www.sportscarforums.com/showthread.php?t=778 :!:
So everyone, this includes me, stop saying stuff about people because that’s what destroys these topics :!: I hope this statement stopped this topic from going sour.

1. It is true that turbo/superchargers gravely hurt mileage. It is logical.
2. The Renesis was indeed voted engine of the year. Don't you know the famous engine of the year competition? The M3 engine has won sometimes in the past, and for 2003 it is the Renesis.

I don't mean to sound too much like some sort of a moderator or anything, but despite the fact that that little argument had its sour points, I found it quite interesting and informative. :)

Yeah, Realm II and jimkk29 were right about the Renesis engine being voted engine of the year. But, perhaps it was your [Realm II's] wording that kinda threw off BluCamSS and began your dispute. You see, at first, I was under the impression that Realm II was stating that the *original* rotary engine was voted engine of the year, and, to the best of my knowledge, this is not true. Maybe BluCamSS was under the same misconception.

Ah well--peace to all...hehe

Good call on the statement about sour posts, dark_hunter :)

BluCamSS, i hope im not starting an old post up again, because i know you seem to get pissed off everytime i post. :D Im on you side for this one buddy. RealmII, you need to stop posting stupid stuff and leave other people alone. If you disagree then fine, but to curse and swear at others people posts is un called for. Everyone has the right to their opinion. My personal opinion is that the Renesis is one of the best engines out there. Personally I also do like the Nissan/Infiniti V6 which has come a long way too. Both solid engines but can never compare to the I-6 of BMW. :P

Im on you side for this one buddy. RealmII, you need to stop posting stupid stuff and leave other people alone. If you disagree then fine, but to curse and swear at others people posts is un called for.

Thanks, it annoys me when people post total BS like that. And there is no reason to curse.
I am glad people agree with me and see that he was wrong and I was right. Thanks.

I just realized something after reading this topic... and that’s every time BluCamSS puts something stupid in a topic, people make fun of it saying he is a dumbass and stuff. This is the stuff that recks topics :!: Just take this topic for example http://www.sportscarforums.com/showthread.php?t=778 :!:
So everyone, this includes me, stop saying stuff about people because that’s what destroys these topics :!: I hope this statement stopped this topic from going sour.

Are you kidding me with this? First of all BluCamSS was 100% correct. And what are you our mommy posting something like this, we're all adults here (maybe not Rhealm II or whatever his name is) I mean give me a break with this. Lets get this back on topic. Turbochargers DO HURT FUEL MILEAGE.

BLUCAMSS is very knowledgable and doesnt talk out of his ass like some of us. Not sayin he is always correct but most of the times he knows what he is saying. Just so i can say something about this forum and have some input, TURBOS DO DECREASE GAS MILEAGE. My buddy put a turbo on his car and mileage dropped from 24 mpg to 18 mpg. It is a proven fact that they decrease mileage, so let us lay that point to rest.

hey all, just wanted to pop my head in and agree with BluCamSS. he's right (as we've already established), but don't y'all think that we've harped on Realm II enough? just a thought...yeah, I know--I'm not your mother... :wink: :)

oh, and Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanza, Happy Winter Solstice--or whatever it is that you guys are into.

of all the reasons above, I thi nk it really came down to one fact. It was different than the status quo engine. Things that are different don't usually make it if there's already an 'acceptable' alternative. Yeah, there were other contributing factors I suppose, but I really think it boils down to being different. ****, look at how everyone reacted to the 6 wheel car. Oh nooo, its horrible :-p good greif.