Procharged Ls Swapped Mazda Rx7 Racecar on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mazda engineer wants new rotary to be turbocharged

Hope springs eternal for Mazda to revive the high-revving Wankel engine for a new sports car, and the company keeps feeding that thirst with hints that it could happen. To make the possibility even more tantalizing, Mazda drivetrain and powertrain assistant manager Tetsushi Marutani tells Motoring that he wants the updated mill to pack a turbocharger. "Personally, I think that a rotary with some turbo or compressor would be good," Marutani said to Motoring. "Because a rotary, in my opinion, they require more [torque at] low speed, low down torque. So if we have some small compressor or turbo it would help." Mazda hasn't sold a rotary-powered model since the RX-8 and hasn't had a turbocharged one since the third-generation RX-7. However, the recent RX-Vision concept (above) at least hinted at a possible Wankel revival, and Mazda officials confirmed that its engineers continued to develop the engine since the RX-8's demise. The RX-Vision used a next-gen rotary called the Skyactiv-R, but Mazda didn't officially confirm any details about it. Rumors suggested the engine had a two-rotor layout with a total displacement of 1.6 liters. A two-stage electric turbo and hybrid powertrain would allegedly boost the total output of around 450 horsepower. The electric assistance could also counter the Wankel's lack of torque at low revs and poor fuel economy. Those rumored specs sound fantastic, but we still take the rotary's return with a grain of salt. Mazda CEO Masamichi Kogai is adamant that it's not worth the company's limited resources to develop a niche sports coupe instead of better selling vehicles. Related Video:

Mazda's product roadmap after Skyactiv-X: diesel, rotary, hybrids, even EVs

When we first heard that Mazda had cleared the major hurdles on gasoline compression ignition, and were just tidying up the details with clear production intent, the first kneejerk thought was: That's it for Mazda's consumer diesel. In particular, the Skyactiv-D that was intended for sale in the U.S., only to be delayed for years by various regulatory roadblocks and other issues that Mazda is frustratingly (but understandably) vague on. At least, it'd die out at some point down the road once Skyactiv-X was widely available. It turns out that's not the case at all. Mazda will adopt an approach that becomes more and more electrified and diverse the closer you get to 2035. But internal combustion will play a deep and central role up to that point, and probably beyond. Before we get to what those different powertrains, diesel and electrified, will look like down the road, let's stop and think about Mazda's philosophy. It couldn't be more different from the approach of most manufacturers that are currently producing BEVs and hybrids, which are heavily incentivized by both the automakers and the government, both state and local, depending on the locality. Even with all that cash on top of the hood, the market penetration of electrified vehicles is low. Mazda's too small to lose money paying people to drive EVs and hybrids. Its risky solution (which is plucky, but has had mixed results) is to simply improve the internal combustion engine. It's achieved the best fleet average fuel economy in the U.S. already, using a range of direct-injection gas engines that are mostly naturally aspirated. A few tiny nods to electrification have been introduced, like i-eLoop regenerative braking and the Demio EV (a Japanese-market, last-generation Mazda2 with a 20kWh battery that was tested with a tiny rotary engine range extender). But the focus is on combustion, not electricity. And that focus isn't going away anytime soon. Mazda believes that pure gasoline, gasoline hybrid, and gasoline PHEV vehicles will remain the vast majority of vehicle sold through 2035. At that point, Mazda forecasts, BEV and fuel cell vehicles should make up about 15 percent of the total of Mazda's lineup. The remaining 85 percent will utilize some form of internal combustion engine. Now, that includes hybrids and even a small number of CNG/LPG cars. And these are global numbers, as well. There may be even fewer fuel cell and CNG/LPG vehicles sold here than abroad.

Mazda 3 Sedan and Hatchback Luggage Test | Trunk comparison

A major reason for buying a hatchback is for added cargo space and versatility, right? Seems logical enough. It's certainly a reason I've been fond of them over the years. And since so many SUVs these days are just glorified hatchbacks, it certainly stands to reason the buying public has reached this conclusion as well. To test this hypothesis and potentially bust this myth, Mazda kindly provided three vehicles that are virtually identical apart from their body style: the Mazda 3 sedan and hatchback, as well as the Mazda CX-30 crossover that's really just a raised and rebodied 3.  On paper, in descending order, the CX-30 is tops at 20.2 cubic feet of space behind the back seat, the Hatchback has 20.1 cubic feet and the sedan has 13.2. OK, let's see how the order turns out once luggage is used. Here is the 3 Hatchback on the left and 3 Sedan on the right. Immediately, the sedan doesn't look that much smaller than the Hatchback. Actually, doesn't it look bigger? Below is the CX-30.  Note that this CX-30 did not include its rigid cargo cover, but already, you can start to see the difference between 3 Hatch and CX-30. The crossover has more space above the back seat line than the Hatchback. So, even if the 3 Hatch has more cargo area length, the CX-30 has more height. That's why you have virtually equal cargo capacity numbers despite having different spaces.  To that point, let's bring in the bags. As in every luggage test I do, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D). CX-30 for the win (above right) as all the bags fit. The fancy bag and smaller roller are slightly blocking the rearward view, but you can still see out and the bags won't fly forward. Importantly, they also fit when closing the CX-30's hatch. They won't if you attempted the same formation in the 3 Hatchback, which can't fit the fancy bag or one of the midsize rollers. And no, you can't fit the fancy bag in the middle there — the hatch wouldn't close on top of it. A smaller duffel will, however.  So, although the 3 Hatch has a slightly longer space, the difference doesn't matter as much as the CX-30's extra height in this usage case.