Earlier, Bellsouth News Server wrote:

How can you say that Mazda hasn't made
this successful? Sure, the initial
introduction had it's share of problems,
but since the RX-7 made the re-
introduction of the rotary here in the
US, the engine has been as troublefree
as any engine produced.

Well, Corky didn't say that Mazda hasn't made the Wankel rotary a
success. He only said that it's hard to argue it:

Earlier, Corky Scott wrote:

: Wankel itself was unable to make it a
: success and it's hard to argue that
: Mazda has either.

That the vast majority of Mazda cars are powered by conventional piston
engines supports Corky, at least when you consider the aspect of
commercial success. And it is undeniably commercial success by which
car manufacturers measure themselves and each other. Sure, the RX-7 and
RX-8 motors seem to be trouble-free, but at what cost?

And further, since most of the patents that cover the Wankel
innovations are now expired or are about to expire, you'd expect to see
other manufacturers adopting the Wankel. That you don't see this tends
to support Corky's argument that for the vast majority of engine
applications the Wankel's disadvantages outweigh its advantages.

Personally, I think that Wankel rotaries continue to be part of Mazda's
automobile offerings only because it would be harder sell an RX-series
car without them. I believe that Mazda decided to continue the Wankel
heritage of the RX only after carefully balancing the greater cost per
unit horsepower of their rotary against the whizz-bang (Okay,
whizz-hummm in this case) technical appeal in the RX package. An RX
without a rotary would be like a Mustang without three-element
taillights or a Buick without fake exhaust portholes.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24