1992 Mazda RX7 Efini MkIII RS from UK and Ireland - Comments

Intercooler input high pressure duct was split when I bought it - RGS motorsport in Wellingborough built me a custom alloy pipe.

Car also had missing inner arch, and split cooling tower header - both replaced.

All lights failed in first week - due to dry joints in the fuse box.

I got this imported vehicle from specialised dealer and paid 7,500 UK for it. The only thing I had to have done to make it legal in the UK was to convert one of the reversing lights into a rear fog. It is exempt from UK emissions tests.

OK, so it only does 16mpg, and this Efini version will shake your teeth out, but who cares when you can outrun everything bar serious supercars! (and leave puzzled looks in your wake as people you pass try to work out what the devil it is!). These cars are gorgeous :)

Only a handful of dealers are qualified to look at it and most of those won't touch imports, but find yourself a friendly tuning outfit not scared of exotic metal (aluminium in this case) and you'll be OK.

There is no 92 model. Which model is yours? FD or FC?

2.6 litre?!? I believe you mean 1.3L Wankel Rotary.

Why are you people being so difficult it's a 2.6 for crying out loud, 2 x 1.3L = 2.6L, stop being picky.

It's just easier to say.

Top car by the way mate.

The 13B consists of two rotors: 654CC each rotor: that's 1.3 litres.

The only 2.6 liter engine is the 26b quad rotor, And I don't know if it is a factory engine, but there Is a few custom cars around sporting them, check 3rotor.com, but I seriously doubt whether Mazda would make a 26b rx7, without first making a 22b triple rotor rx7.

I don't know if i would like to see Mazda make either a 20B or 26B quad-rotor. For the pure fact that factory stock cars are made for daily driving. these motors should be kept strictly for performance racing for the sole reason that 95% of the population can't drive and hearing of these beasts being produced would result in 1) a lot more crashes. and 2) people harming these wonderful machines.

By 2.6 litre he probably was thinking about the modified displacement they use in most racing organizations. rotaries are considered to be somewhat like 2-stroke engines in that they fire twice as often as a 4stroke piston engine, so the 2x modifier is logical.

Mazda has made a 3rotor 20b in a factory car... the cosmo.

The r26 came in mazda's le mans-winning 787b in the years it ran.

Lets end this capacity thing!

All UK cars count as 2600cc which is what the engine equates to as a 4 cyclinder engine. The actual measurement is 1300cc, but to compare this with a piston engine is unrealisitic.

Uk cars have 2600cc on the reg docs, some Jap imports, like mine are down as 1300cc and get cheap tax also...

Lets get a few things right... everyone is being just so silly.

1. A wankel is 654cc X2. That equals 1.3 liters, not 2.9,3.4 or any other displacement.

2. A wankel is a FOUR STROKE design.

3. Wankels are less efficient than 'normal' engines, typicaly 10-17%

4. Wankels have roughly 3 times the power output of a 'normal' engine of the same displacement.

5. Wankels are very expensive to maintain, and they do not last as long as a 4-cyl engine.

6. Wankels are more have more tourque than 4-cyl engines due to the design in the rotorary action.

You are that close to get everything right about Wankel engines but as it is take time I willing to help.

I will just add some comments to what was already said:

1. A Wankel is 654cc X2. That equals 1.3 liters

2. A Wankel is a FOUR STROKE design.

These are correct statements but if we want to compare a Wankel to a normal 4 stroke piston engine, then the Wankel's displacement should be multiplied by 2.

Why? Because the wankel is firing at every crankshaft rotation (360 degrees) when the 4 stroke piston engine needs 2 crankshaft rotations (720 degrees).

3. Wankels are less efficient than 'normal' engines, typicaly 10-17%

Correct (a "normal" engine is between 25-30% overall efficiency)

4. Wankels have roughly 3 times the power output of a 'normal' engine of the same displacement.

Not really if you consider comments to points 1 and 2.

For good comparison we need to look at natural aspirated engines, thus if you consider the RX8 high power renesis (2.6L -231 ps) , it compares well to the best in class 3.0L BMW (231 ps). So yes, the wankel has a slight power/displacement ratio (not 3 times!) but most important is its power/package ratio. Actually in automotive application it is the most compact package for the power delivered (especially in non-turbo version). That is one of its great advantages.

5. Wankels are very expensive to maintain, and they do not last as long as a 4-cyl engine.

Well, they need more fuel, more oil to run and they are more sensitive to the owners driving. To sump up, yes.

6. Wankels have more torque than 4-cyl engines due to the design in the rotary action.

Wrong, a normal aspirated Wankel has less specific torque than a normal 4 stroke piston engine of same displacement ("RX8 high power" torque is at 211 Nm when the 3.0 BMW is above 300 Nm).

Actually the torque delivery (torque diagram over the firing cycle) the of a 2 rotor Wankel is closer to a normal 6 cylinder 4 stroke (that is also why I picked the BMW 3.0L for comparison).

Nevertheless Wankel's are great smooth, powerful engines with a so special sound!

The engine is in fact both a 1.3 litre AND a 2.6 litre. The engine is made up from two rotors, each having a physical displacement of 650cc, making a total physical displacement of 1.3 litres. However, a rotary engine produces more power per litre than a piston engine because in a piston engine, intake, compression, ignition and exhaust strokes all occur in the same chamber. In the rotary engine, the chamber is moving, effectively creating separate chambers for 1) Intake 2) Compression and ignition and 3) exhaust. This gives the engine an EFFECTIVE or EQUIVALENT displacement of 2.6 litres, although the actual displacement is just 1.3 litres.

Refering to the first coment mazda started producing the FD in 1991, in Japan.