159 foot/pounds of torque is 50% more than the stock engine in a
Vanagon.
However an RX8 only weighs in at about 3000 pounds (surprisingly
light weight, but it does use of some carbon fiber for hoods and such).

On Oct 5, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Old Volks Home wrote:

> Another achilles heel of the rotary is that it was reported that it
> produces
> a poor amount of torque, so it isn't that adequate for the Type 2 or
> Vanagon.  All the horsepower in the world ain't worth spit if you
> don't have
> the appropriate amount of torque to push our heavier vehicles.
>
> While I am more familiar with the RX7 generation of the wankel,
> perhaps this
> may have changed with the RX8 generation engine.
> --
> Jim Thompson
> 84 GL 1.9 "Gloria"
> 84 Westfalia 2.1 "Ole Putt"
> 73 K Ghia Coupe "Denise"
> 72 411 Station Wagon "Pug"
> oldvolkshome@gmail.com
> http://www.oldvolkshome.com
> ***********************************
> On 10/4/07, Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> The first time *(yes, it's friday now) I saw a rotary engine in
>> person it was on the Mazda RX8 (never saw the engine compartment on
>> the RX7 or other wankel engined vehicles). I was amazed at how small
>> and compact the engine was. Almost seemed like a big generator,
>> rather than the 200 hp engine it is. But yes, the achilles heal of
>> the rotary has always been poor fuel economy.
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2007, at 11:37 PM, Jake de Villiers wrote:
>>
>>> Until Jim explains properly:
>>>
>>> The rotary isn't very efficient Craig.  Smooth, yes, powerful, yes,
>>> good on
>>> gas, no.
>>>
>>> Its also more difficult to keep the lubricating oil out of the
>>> combustion
>>> chamber, so the hydrocarbon emissions are a little high.