i was reading the new issue of automobile mag and they where talking about planed cars form all the different car company's.



they were saying that the next generation rotary powered vechicle will have a N/A 1.6 litter motor puting out 300hp.



i don't see it happening personally, why would mazda speed that much time and money totally redesigning the motor, if they wanted more horse it seems like the easyist way would be a N/A 20B renesis.

Its not re-designed, it just has wider housings & rotors, just like 12a --> 13b. I'm guessing Mazda's goal is torque at lower rpms, even though the engine still has the same redline as the current renesis. A 2 rotor engine is cheaper to manufacture than a 3 rotor and ofcourse weighs less, even with wider housings and rotors. Bring it on I say.

A 2 rotor is also much more efficient than a 3 rotor.



I want to know why it's called 16C. There was never a 16A or a 16B.



The order will be marketing *first*, then the lawyers, when the revolution comes.

Why not just reintroduce the 15A? Or would it be a 15B by now?

Was there ever a 13A?

yea, there was a 13A, but its pretty rare. I dont get the "C" designation either... id think either A since its the first 1.6L engine, or "B" since it would be based off of the 13B renesis. At this point though, it needs to be significantly lighter and more compact as a whole package than a similar-power piston engine, be it an I4, V6 or V8, because beating those in fuel economy isnt going to happen. The rest of the car will need to be pretty lean to keep the weight down, and direct injection is a must, not only for power but emissions now too. Also, with sufficient reinforcement around the dowels, I dont see why the plates couldnt be aluminum as well as the housings.



Although the 2.3 liter turbo I4 that mazda now makes is a great engine, its ultimately one more reason not to continue their rotary program, as much as everyone here would like otherwise.

I was under the impression that the letter designates rotor width.

The number is the rated displacement in deciliters. 12=1.2L 13=1.3L 16=1.6L. The letter is the rotor width. I don't know of the specific numbers but A is narrower than B, and B will be narrower than C. I don't know how they would have a 13A or a 15A, unless they changed the eccentricity geometry and used the 'A' rotor width.

Originally, the number was displacement, and the letter is the engine sequence. Rotor width had nothing at all to do with it.



The 10A is the first 1.0l, the 12A is the first 1.2l, the 13A was the first 1.3l. Rotor widths were 60, 70, and 70mm.



The 10A and 12A coincidentally were of the same engine "family", the 13A was not.



The 13B was the second 1.3l engine. Just to confuse you, it was a lengthened 12A. (80mm, but you knew that)



Just to confuse you further, when the 13B was introduced, a number of improvements were made to it and the 12A. Mazda was going to call the new 1.2l (1.15l) engine the 12B... but didn't.



The 20B was not the first 2.0l rotary, so its name even fits. Sort of. One 2.0l was a 4 rotor experimental engine from the 60's, the other was the racing 3 rotor based off of 13B geometry, which was called 13G. (Of course!)



There was never a 16A or a 16B, though, which raises the question: Why 16C?



And the answer: Marketing people are dumbasses.

Something happened during the edit.



The 15A engine was a 90mm continuation of the 10A/12A/13B engine family. It never saw production, but a couple engineering evaluation samples were made. It had all of the updates that the 13B and the "12B" single-distributor 12A had.



A 100mm rotor width engine would be 1635cc. It would be fair to assume that this 16C will be a yet another 10mm addition to this engine family dating back to the mid-late 1960's. It's only reasonable to assume this, as new tooling is expensive, and everything Wankel-related is going to be custom stuff, even as far as dedicated machinery is concerned. I noted with a smile that the Renesis engine had vestigial peripheral exhaust ports, indicating that Mazda is simply reusing most of the old tooling for the RX-8.



But it has to be a C because it's new and improved and different so it has to be one letter higher than the 13B, even though the 13B itself has had two major redesigns and several minor ones.