This is completely inaccurate. 0-60 in 4.7 in 93 rx7 R1, 4.9 in Touring. It has 255 Hp not 237, 265 in later r2 versions.
[Diseno-art EDIT - Early European spec RX7's had 237 hp, later Japanese and Imported European RZ spec cars had 276 hp].
It does not have a top speed of 156 as long as there's no limiter of fuel cut off to the rear rotor upon high rpms. I have personally had mine up to 147 with over 3000 rpms left, 2000 before redline. As far as the rotation of the engine "producing wear" because of the way it works... Who ever wrote this is a complete toolbox. The rotary engine is actually the complete opposite of what short-bus claimed. There's 3 moving parts in a rotary engine, over 90 percent efficient because it spins in a oval.
Piston engines are 50 percent at best, the down stroke of the piston, not the up stroke. The rotary also has anywhere from 3000-5000 higher rpm range. The reason rotaries not more common are because of several major things; Lack of torque (unfortunately the spinning nature inherently doesnt produce the torque or the piston down stroke), poorer gas mileage, Higher parts cost, specially trained mech for rotary eng, etc. Hands down, for anything that involves performance without towing, rotaries ARE BETTER. Still dont think so? Why would the light aircraft industry be the main employer of rotary engine. Pretty unreliable with all those ppl crashing everyday do to eng failure. One last thing, a typical v8 330 hp perf eng weighs about 835lbs, that gives it a power to weight ratio of 0.395 hp/lb. A typical 255 hp rotary twin turbo eng weighs 247 lbs, that gives the rotary eng a power to weight ratio of 1.033 hp/lb. Thats over 2.5 times the amount of power to eng weight. This is why Racing Beat RX7s have OWNED the land speed record in their class at the bonneville salt flats. Still dont have a rotor boner yet? The engine that was originally supposed to go into the 3rd gen RX (20b) Is a 3 rotor twin turbo engine weighing about 375 lbs & producing over 1000 rwhp if unrestricted by California emission laws. Thats 2.7 hp/lb. Need I say more.
Small size, high power, low center of gravity. Mazda RX7's weigh about 2700 lbs as well (very light) & can be reduced several hundred more very easily by removing things like carpet insulation and other things around the car that arent needed. This eng should also last 2-3 times longer than a piston eng cause of the lack of moving parts & reduced friction motion, assuming proper maintenance is done at required intervals. Its a shame this site was looking promising with all the vehicles in 1 place, useless if its complete bs & speculation just to get people here to sell ad space.
2 things I forgot. The above figures are not only from Motor Trend, but also Car & Driver. 2nd, & fyi, chevy tried to adapt the rotary eng to the corvette in several concept cars but failed. Whats that say that in the 80s & early 90s, arguably the most iconic American car was looking at the rotary being the future of the old push-rod beast but chose to keep the pushrod out of nostalgia instead of newer, much better eng tech available (both better piston & rotary eng). There are also numerous other well known names & manufacturers that have tried to apply the rotary concept because of the upsides.
