The rotaries leaked oil and got terrible mileage, and good luck finding someone to work on them. Other than that, they were zippy. "Usable" they might have been if you keep a low bar, but "practical" they were not.
I've had Mazda's last model of rotary-engined car, the RX-8, as a daily driver for the past five years (sixty thousand miles). It has served me well and my local garage have performed regular servicing and mechanical repairs with no problems.
So I think your opinions are a little bit overcooked.
But I don't want to overdo mine in turn. The fuel consumption is excessive by modern standards (but comparable to other vehicles of similar performance). The engine consumes oil by design and needs to be topped up every few weeks. The whole car is in a high state of tuning, and has given me a few large service/repair bills - but never stranded me at the roadside. My garage once admitted incomprehension and sent me to the main dealer for diagnostics before they could begin repairs.
All in all I think Mazda pitched the RX-8 well as a sporty car for enthusiasts, whose reliability might have come in under par in the market for, say, small family cars. I just want to fight the impression that having a rotary-engined car is a drastically different, worse, experience than one with a piston engine. Generally you just get in and drive.
Wankel engines are just one of (surprisingly many) technologies that were more-or-less viable but just not able to become dominant. Like, we would all still manage to drive around if the only technologies developed happened to be opposed-piston engines, or two-stroke diesels, or axial-cylinder engines with a swashplate. We might even see a few of them come back if the market moves towards series-hybrid vehicle setups. A light little rotary always running at its peak-efficiency speed might be a reasonable choice for a range-extender/series hybrid.
Rotary engines do not "leak oil", they burn oil a modest amount of oil by design. If you think about it, there really wasn't another way to lubricate them.
Practicality was pretty low, though, as you rightly point out.
Rotary engines do not "leak oil", they burn oil a modest amount of oil by design.
I was thinking of the seals, which by about 50K seemed to be a common failure point. But, yes, they did burn a bit by design; no argument there. OTOH, a lot of Wankel defenders in this thread mention RX-8s. I'm remembering RX-7s, and the economy cars that used the Wankels. Those economy cars of the 70s are where the Wankel reputation for poor fuel mileage comes from. Cute TV commercials ("piston engine goes 'boing, boing, boing', Mazda engine goes 'hmmmmm'"), not really the best engine choice to go up against Honda and Toyota at the time.
Little known fact is also that conventional piston gasoline engines are also expected to burn an amount of oil by design, particularly if given a hard usage.
It's always nice to be home in Prague from Munich in 2.5 instead of 4.5 hours in exchange for just 1.5l/100km more consumption (and going 250 (155 miles per hour) instead of 130 km/h).
Isn't there an 130 kmh speed limit on Czech highways? I wouldn't trade two hours of my life for being killed and potentially killing others in a car accident. I also quite understand that Germany has highways without a speed limit, considering that 40% of their GDP comes out of the automotive sector.
We have the big and beautiful 280 between Mountain View and San Francisco, and I thank goodness every time I make my way to the city for it. I'd never go the speeds on my bike I do on 280 anywhere else, but it's just such a gosh darn huge road I get to make a 45-60 minute trip in like 30 minutes.
Huh? My rotary doesn't leak oil. Mileage is an issue but not significantly worse than other sports cars of that era or even today.
I also could probably connect you with a good rotary mechanic (or several) in all 50 states plus Puerto Rico (hell, especially Puerto Rico)
The biggest issue with the FCs isn't the engine, it's the reliability of the electric systems and heat (as a distant second). With the FDs it pretty much the twin turbos. And with early RX-8s (04-early09) it's a lack of proper engine lubrication due to a design flaw.
So I think your opinions are a little bit overcooked.
But I don't want to overdo mine in turn. The fuel consumption is excessive by modern standards (but comparable to other vehicles of similar performance). The engine consumes oil by design and needs to be topped up every few weeks. The whole car is in a high state of tuning, and has given me a few large service/repair bills - but never stranded me at the roadside. My garage once admitted incomprehension and sent me to the main dealer for diagnostics before they could begin repairs.
All in all I think Mazda pitched the RX-8 well as a sporty car for enthusiasts, whose reliability might have come in under par in the market for, say, small family cars. I just want to fight the impression that having a rotary-engined car is a drastically different, worse, experience than one with a piston engine. Generally you just get in and drive.
Wankel engines are just one of (surprisingly many) technologies that were more-or-less viable but just not able to become dominant. Like, we would all still manage to drive around if the only technologies developed happened to be opposed-piston engines, or two-stroke diesels, or axial-cylinder engines with a swashplate. We might even see a few of them come back if the market moves towards series-hybrid vehicle setups. A light little rotary always running at its peak-efficiency speed might be a reasonable choice for a range-extender/series hybrid.