This is not a drill. The Wankel rotary engine is back. After many rumors and patents, we can officially say that the Mazda MX-30 R-EV is real, and upon first glance, it looks amazing. We don’t have many photos of the R-EV model at the moment so we’ve subbed in some photos of the regular EV model, but we’re adding pics as quickly as we can, so hold tight and read on for more details.
Why is it that the stubborn nonconformists of the car industry are often the ones we as enthusiasts want to root for? From Saab’s pathological obsession with safety to TVR’s devil-may-care attitude towards driver aids, marques that do things differently often burn their candles twice as bright for half as long, attracting legions of fans long after corporate doors are shut. Mind you, there’s an exception to every rule. Mazda has been around for 102 years, is still fiercely independent, and is willing to stick with and develop crazy ideas everyone else gives up on until they actually work.
Not only did this small Japanese company single-handedly revive the open-topped sports car, it made the first Miller cycle engine in a production car, figured out homogeneous charge compression ignition in a gasoline engine [Ed Note: Though we have yet to see that in the U.S. -DT], and kept a small team of engineers working on the Wankel rotary engine long after emissions regulations forced the rotary-powered RX-8 coupe off sale in 2012. Eleven years after being told we might never see a new rotary-powered car again, Mazda has pulled off the improbable and stuffed a brand new rotary into the MX-30 R-EV.
Mazda isn’t pitching the MX-30 R-EV as an EV with a gasoline range extender, but instead as a series plug-in hybrid. Why the distinction? Well, this isn’t like a BMW i3 with its two-cylinder scooter motor range-extender. Let me explain.
While the standard MX-30 EV is often criticized for its small 35.5 kWh battery pack, the MX-30 R-EV goes even smaller with a 17.8 kWh battery pack offering just 53 miles (85 km) of electric range on the WLTP cycle. While this seems extremely strange, things are about to get stranger. While BMW gave the i3 a tiny 2.4-gallon fuel tank, Mazda’s giving the MX-30 EV a full 13.2 gallons (50 liters) of fuel to play with.
Although that may read like a bad joke about rotary engine fuel consumption, bear with me here. While most enthusiasts are familiar with the RX-7’s two-rotor Wankel design, the MX-30 should be the first production car sold to consumers with a single-rotor engine since the NSU Spider. Mind you, the 8C rotary generator in the MX-30 is a little bit different than the rotary engines we’re used to.
For starters, the engine doesn’t drive the wheels. It only serves as a generator connected to a motor/generator unit to send power to the battery pack. The battery pack then provides juice to an electric motor which powers the wheels. This means that despite burning gasoline, the MX-30 R-EV should theoretically have the seamless power delivery of an EV, and it should be able to keep the Wankel engine at its “sweet spot” for efficiency for a significant portion of its on-time.
As for deeper details on that rotary engine, there’s the presence of direct injection, something never attempted before on a production rotary engine. The side housings are aluminum and coated with plasma for low weight and friction management respectively, all while being just 80 mm wide. For the sake of longevity, the apex seals are 25 percent wider than the ones on an RX-8’s RENESIS engine, clocking in at 2.5 mm. The result is 73.7 horsepower from just 830 cc of displacement. Curiously, although rotary engines love to rev, Mazda claims that peak power hits at just 4,700 RPM. That might sound weird for a high-revving Wankel, but it should translate to very low noise. Mazda’s doing so much crazy stuff with rotary engines right now, I urge you to check out Patrick George’s article on Mazda’s contraptions.
Perhaps the most impressive statistic is that the 8C single-rotor engine weighs just 214 pounds (97 kg). Combine that with the substantially smaller battery pack compared to the EV model, and the MX-30 R-EV could end up being a surprisingly light plug-in hybrid.
So what might all of this mean in the real world? Well, suddenly, the MX-30 R-EV makes sense. Not only should it offer a ton of urban range compared to most plug-in hybrid cars, it has the fuel capacity to really hit the open road. Speaking of being out on the open road, the MX-30 R-EV has several neat powertrain functions. It can run on battery power alone, use the rotary engine to charge the battery in a dedicated Charge drive mode, or blend battery power and motor use depending on throttle position. Think of that last one as the kickdown on an automatic car, just re-imagined. The car looks at the power you desire, then figures out how much gasoline assistance is needed to deliver it.
As for the rest of the MX-30, it’s Mazda flexing what it can do. From the sleek lighting to the unique freestyle doors, the MX-30 is hard to categorize yet still pleasant to look at. Speaking of exterior treatments, Europeans will get a sweet Edition R model in black with a Maroon Rouge Metallic roof as a throwback to the Mazda R360 Coupe.
Interior materials on the MX-30 are brilliant, with cork, metals, and leather coming together for a warm ambiance. Rear seat space is a little tight, but the MX-30’s fairly small footprint means it probably isn’t a family vehicle anyway.
Think of the MX-30 R-EV as where the old Mazda and new Mazda meet. High-style combining with highly unique engineering to create something totally different. While the MX-30 REV will first go on sale in Europe, don’t be surprised to see it in North America at some point. Pricing hasn’t been revealed yet, but don’t expect it to be super cheap. For context, the standard MX-30 EV gets a little bit of a price hike for 2023 to $35,385 in America and $44,645 in Canada, but Canadians get the benefit of nationwide availability. It’s amazing that the Mazda MX-30 R-EV exists at all, and for American sales to be planned has us feeling oh so lucky.
(Photo credits: Mazda)
The Rotary Range-Extender Mazda MX-30 Could Be The Weirdest New Car On The Road
The Mazda MX-30 Plug-In Rotary Hybrid Is Coming And The Logo Is Amazing
Here’s How Mazda Packed An Entire Car, Turn Signals And All, Into A Suitcase
The 2022 Mazda 3 Turbo Is An Anti-Hot Hatch In The Best Way Imaginable
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
I know this is not going to be a popular take, but imagine how much tiny Mazda could have achieved if they weren’t spending their limited resources on the Wankel.
I hope this is a good vehicle. But, I’m likely buying a Prius Prime when they become available. This is a daily commuter car, not an enthusiast weekend ride. I can’t really consider Mazda’s first hybrid with their first shot at a version of the engine they have never reliably deployed as reliable daily transportation.
Fully agree. The CX-30 will beat the Prius in every category EXCEPT performance, practicality, roominess, build quality, reliability, cost of running, resale, range, pricing, value, and did I mention reliability?
Range extenders are neat and all, but give me the fucking RX Vision.
That’s all I want. Just an RX-9.
Please…
please…?
As someone who firmly believes the Volt was the Goldilocks of the current ICE to EV transition process and a fan of quirky cars, I am rooting hard for this thing to be successful.
(400 – 53) miles / 13.2 gallons = uhhh
26 Miles per gallon
seems…not ideal?
Where does 400 come from?
Apologies, valid question! The Jalopnik coverage says
> But with the range-extending rotary engine, Mazda says owners can expect to go 400 miles on a tank of gas.
400/13.2 = 30.3 miles per gallon
YMMV in terms of the 400 regarding the stated 13.2-gallon tank, as at least a gallon of that is for reserve.
It’s unclear if that’s including the 53 miles provided by the battery (and when in doubt, I assume manufacturers are trying to gussy up the worse number)
If it’s 30, this rules
I’m not really sold on the packaging of this car. The back seat looks useless. believe it or not, I would probably prefer something smaller and not even pretend there is a back seat. Just a good sized hatch that can swallow a couple sets of golf clubs. I would be driving this car around with the backseats down all the time, so why even drag the extra weight around?
I do however hope this is a massive success, both is sales and long term reliability so that the technology gets applied to a wider selection of models.
If they keep it close to the price of the EV, I might replace my Niro. More electric range is great. Always electric performance will eliminate the slight stutter I sometimes get on the handoff. And the overall range means it will be great for visiting my parents and my sister.
But pricing is always a determining factor. So we will see.
Mazda should use more cork.
They started as the Toyo Cork Kogyo Company, a cork “maker” in 1920.
This is the first modern crossover I actually want. Which, naturally, means Mazda will sell approximately 4 of them, ever.
Love this. But, I own two Mazdas now and have owned two others in the past. I’m a Mazda fanboy. However, even I couldn’t excuse the regular MX-30’s shortcomings. This seems to have addressed those.
Direct injection on a production rotary engine. I thought I’d never see the day. I wonder how much the direct injection helps with flame propagation since that was one of the larger issues with previous rotary engines.
It looks like they stuck with two sparkplugs and sideport exhaust.
My only (crackpot) hope is that the direct injection tech makes a rotary viable enough for one last actually rotary powered car.
I figured that the battery pack would be nearly the same size as the EV with a fuel tank of similar size to the BMW i3, and I’m happy to see that this is spec’d like a plug-in hybrid.
Mrs. Square and I were just discussing what our next vehicle should be. As work-from-homers, an EV is not really helpful since most of our annual miles are long trips. A PHEV is perfect since it would be EV around town and long range when we hit the open road. This one hits all the right buttons. It is attractive, reasonable size, premium-ish, and somewhat unique. I think Mazda may have something here.
And I’m not a work from homer, but almost all of my driving is long trips (38,250 miles, 1,071 hours in the car last year), and I can’t cancel an afternoon appointment because I used up too much electricity getting to my morning meeting and there’s no time or place to stop and charge between the two, so I’m going to be a hybrid customer for as long as they’re still being made.
This is highly compelling. I’m not sold on it being a crossover, but it seems on the more car-like end of the crossover spectrum so I could maybe warm up to that. Also, it meets my employer’s requirements for door count and minimum MSRP. If it comes to the US, it may have just trumped the new Prius at the time of the list for my next purchase.
Unless Dodge does a 4-door version of the new Charger concept with a PHEV Hurricane drivetrain, because, then, obviously, I’d have to buy that.
This is also exactly what I’ve been wanting for years. It makes so much sense.
However, I am the problem.
I am an enthusiast; I think this would be a very nice sensible vehicle. But I just can’t justify spending $40k on a new small commuter car, so I’ll wait and maybe look for one used.
I’ve gotten away with buying very nice used cars for less than $15k (pre-pandemic). I looked for a Volt for my last purchase too, but even pre-pandemic, used, they were $40k (ended up with a 2 year old Mazda 3 for $15k, that I love and drive every day!). No idea what Volts run now, even with aging battery packs.
Maybe I’ll look for a MX-30 R-EV, used, in a few years and when the market settles down. Of course I’ll never see $15k again, but I just can’t justify $40k+.
So, I’m an enthusiast, but I’m also a cheap bastard. (I prefer “efficient bastard”). Sorry Mazda.
As a long time rotary fan, I find this intriguing.
My main takeaways on this are:
1) the displacement of 830 cc matches well with all the rumors the past decade of Mazda attempting to develop a 1.6 L two rotor engine. They likely have kept the same dimensions.
2) aluminum side housings! This is a first for a Mazda production rotary engine. They have always been iron while the rotor housings have been aluminum.
3) apex seals being slightly wider is interesting. One point everyone hated about the RENESIS was actually how SHORT the apex seals were when compared to apex seals on previous 13Bs. I wonder if they have kept the shortness of the 13B-MSP seals but simply widened them.
4) diagrams look like they have kept the side exhaust ports of the 13B-MSP as well.
I would love to put this engine in something. It could be fun.
Not going to be in the market for a small crossover anytime soon but this is EXACTLY what I was hoping it would be. Small battery big gas tank PHEVs are perfect for America.
Now to provide unrealistic desires:
Make it a manual wagon (AWD too please) that can be run in ev mode as a single speed series hybrid/EV or manual mode as a parallel hybrid and you’ve created my ideal modern car.
This NHK link also tells from Japan’s perspective how the US’s Inflation Reduction Act (I guess for us it is the EV portion that is pertinent) is messing with their manufacturers https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/videos/20230110153554569/ apparenly only Nissan makes a EV in the US.
I guess we will wait to see how it performs in real life. I still remember Infiniti’s variable compression engine that they heaped with superlatives yet it seemed to have fallen flat in real life use. Where are our HCCI engines?
From a few articles I remember, DARPA has been playing with tiny one-rotor Wankel engines as generators for at least a decade (for reference, this motor is HUGE in comparison to the DARPA ones, I’m talking palm sized rotors.) I am not at all surprised that Mazda is going to as well. If anyone can get them to work and work right, its Mazda
Liquid Piston is that project, I think.
My problem is that the range specs are pretty much identical to the second gen Chevy Volt.
Yeah, but I doubt this will catch on fire quite as much.
Volts do not have fire problems, you are thinking of the Bolt.
Yeah. The Volt did not have the battery recall issues. The Bolt is what you are thinking of. A common thing because Chevy decided to name them pretty much the same thing.
EV range yes, but hopefully the MPG once the engine kicks on is better. But I am constantly amazed at how much better a second gen volt is than most of the PHEVs on sale now. Not a fan of the company in most aspects, but GM knows how to do EVs well. The Bolt (when not on fire) is so much better than anything else in that price, the Volt is still ahead of the game, years after it was discontinued, I am impressed with them.
I see no problem with that. Volt is a fantastic car.
the problem here is that no one has put out a car that’s comparable to the Volt yet. I’d love to get a Volt but second-hand prices got insane over the past two years.
I owned nothing but Mazdas until I bought a 2017 Chevy Volt. The Volt is some fantastic engineering that GM had to go and GM. I’ve had more issues with the Volt in 40k miles, one of which left me stranded, than every Mazda I owned combined. And the interior is incredibly cheap considering the price of the car. But it has just about the perfect amount of EV range and its ability to produce the same power in EV mode or in range extended mode has yet to be matched by any other PHEV as far as I’m aware. Virtually anything I might replace it with is a downgrade in some way. This and the 2023 Prius Prime are the first vehicles that look like they might not be.
I’m very interested in this. Smaller battery pack to me says that it doesn’t necessarily need to be much more expensive than the standard MX-30, but now with range it could actually work for me. For anyone who has seen one in person, is this more of a hatch or crossover? Like how does it compare to a 3 hatch? If it is more car than crossover, I am very interested for sure!
I’d call it a tall hatchback about the size of a Toyota C-HR. Not as tall as something like a Toyota Corolla Cross or the old Honda HR-V, but not quite as low as a CX-30 and definitely not as low as a 3 hatch.
That’s kinda what I figured. Interesting. Kinda a weird market to go in, loses the practicality of the crossover with the suicide doors and the small backseat, so it’s like a tall coupe which is weird. Yet I still want it haha.
curious how this is different from say a 2018 Volt….except the physical size of the gas motor I suppose?
It’s comparable to the CX-30 overall.
Model: MX-30/CX-30
Length (in): 173/173
Width: 72.8/70.7
Width w/ mirrors: 80.1/80.3
Height: 61.2/60.6
Ground clearance: 5.4/6.9
Cargo (ft^3): 20.1/20.2
OK, I get it now. It does make sense, and it’s exactly the kind of car I’ve been saying automakers should be pushing in America for years now: a series-hybrid PHEV with about 50 miles of electric range and a small, smooth, quiet motor that functions solely as a generator but can keep the battery pack charged more or less indefinitely. Right on, Mazda. I’m still not 100% sold that a rotary is the best way to achieve that, but I do love me a Wankel so I’ll just hope that it succeeds tremendously.
I have one minor quibble with the article though, and one question.
Quibble: plasma coating is a process, not a material. Mazda has used plasma coating to spray molten-hot something onto the interior of their new motor, but that something, once the process is complete, is not plasma. That’s a good thing because plasmas are generally over 10,000°F, but the article doesn’t say what material is actually being used.
Question: the article says that this is a series hybrid, meaning that the gas engine is not connected to the drivetrain, but instead acts solely as an onboard generator to provide power for the electric motor. Later on though, you mention the car can “blend battery power and motor use depending on throttle position,” implying that in some driving modes, the power at the wheels is partially dependent on the gas motor’s output.
That doesn’t seem right—the defining feature of a series PHEV is that the gas motor never drives the wheels, and the advantage of that setup is that the motor can just sit at one RPM where it is most efficient. The amount of power it delivers doesn’t really vary, and it’s not connected to the drivetrain in any case. So, what’s up with that? How does the motor influence the amount of power at the wheels, when it’s basically just a better-integrated version of what you’d get if you plopped a portable generator in the bed of an F-150 Lightning and plugged it into the charge port?
To your quibble, they may not be referring to “plasma” in a physics sense but rather an anatomical one. Thereby saving a step for someone who claims to pour their “blood, sweat, and tears” into their car. Now all they have to do is get sweaty and cry. And no, “Get Sweaty and Cry” is NOT the title of my sex tape.
[Editor’s note: I will be shocked if this comment doesn’t get stuck in moderation. –DoK]
I’m assuming the “blend battery power and motor use” means they’ll vary engine speed to account for a high power draw when needed. The advantage of the series setup is the engine “can” sit at one RPM based on efficiency, but does not necessarily provide sufficient power output. Without knowing their control strategy for maintaining State of Charge (SoC) it’s a guess, but they could normally cycle the engine on/off to that peak efficiency point when it’s sufficient to maintain SoC. Once someone hammers the throttle down for an extended period, the engine cycling stops and it speeds to maintain the SoC.
I went back and read Patrick George’s article that that was linked (https://www.theautopian.com/the-rotary-range-extender-mazda-mx-30-could-be-the-weirdest-new-car-on-the-road/). It has the patent and control logic. They have a speed control band. See Figure 7B in the patent application
See blip downshifts comment with a more-plain-English-than-a-patent description:
“Ok, I’m pretty sure I get the swing of what Mazda is up to here. They are using an electric motor to act as a cam phasor so they can either slow down the rotor in times when more air/fuel is needed such as producing higher torque (which the rotary is bad at unless under forced induction) or speed it up when they need higher speed and want to reduce fuel/air usage (like when they want to run the generator flat out at top production). This would be helpful when the generator is under heavy load, like when it’s trying to recharge the battery system. This would also help the generator under starting conditions when the rotor (of the generator) has the highest current draw under a locked rotor condition (LRA). Basically, they are advancing and retarding the fuel/air ratios using rotor rpm to try to keep they rotary engine as close to the electric generator as possible to produce the most efficient power conversion possible.”
For the Series Hybrid question: It’s likely a poorly worded explanation of how the power is supplied – rather than having all energy from the wankel –> generator –> power controller –> battery –> power controller –> propulsion motor, they can directly do wankel –> generator –> power controller –> propulsion motor. That saves on battery degredation and efficiency losses.
You are correct, since you can’t charge and discharge a battery at the same time. So the only way it can work is as you describe. If the traction motor requires say 50a and the starter generator is producing 75a the controller will direct 50a to the traction motor and the excess current, 25a in this case will be used to charge the battery. Now when the traction motor requires 100a the controller will send all of the starter/generator’s 75a output to the traction motor and supply 25a from the battery.
Wait, who says you can’t charge and discharge a battery at the same time? Right now I’m using my iPhone to type this comment, which takes charge from the battery. It’s also plugged in, and the overall state-of-charge is increasing. I am both discharging and charging my phone’s battery, Q.E.D.
I mean, if you meant that you can’t net charge and discharge at the same time, well, that’s true I guess. It’s also a tautology, though.
Pure speculation, but it could be that the rotary engine can supply current directly to the electric motors, (instead of charging the battery) in parallel with the batteries powering the electric motors, to give extra acceleration when needed. This configuration would keep the rotary engine separate from the drive train motors, and yet also blend power as described.
Again, I’m just speculating on one possible explanation.
It works in that the engine/generator kicks in to provide more electricity than the battery can provide. The battery can put out X, the motors can take Y, the rotary generator puts out Y-X for a little extra kick. If it’s tuned properly, that could be a fun little dynamic feature.
I agree entirely. And I will buy one as a daily as soon as they release it in the US.
Regarding the quibble, this patent description may help:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3833321A/en
I drove a Volt for 5 years and I wish there were more options like the MX-30. They make so much sense in practice. Over my 5 years of the Volt, I drove about 90% of my miles on electric. The engine was there for the really cold days to provide heat, or when I would take the car on a 600 mile road trip, I just used gas but still got great fuel economy. The engine system and tank in the MX-30 probably take up similar weight to the increased battery capacity. You aren’t carrying around a huge battery (and those resources) that you hardly ever use, and you are still having a 70-90% reduction in fuel use. The battery replacement cost should also be much more reasonable when it needs it in the future. This battery replacement cost needs to be a real consideration. At 8-10 years old, these cars have plenty of life left in them, but a smart owner doesn’t want to keep them because of the battery replacement costs (I sold my Volt just before the 8 year battery warranty was up). But I had no maintenance costs on my Volt in 5 years of ownership outside of a window regulator, oil and coolant changes, and tires.
love the fact that it’s a series parallel hybrid, I was expecting series only. this means that if you need power at highway speeds the power of the two electric motors and the rotary engine will be able to add up. the motor/generator had to be as powerful as the rotary or at least close to it so you re looking at possibly a 150hp boost when the wankel is running close to its peak power rpm, to the 140hp of the main electric motor. seems almost too good to be true and of course the peak power outputs will happen at different
rpm and won’t simply add up, but it could be similar in power to the 2.5 sky active-G with the advantages of (mostly) electric power trains. and still around 200hp of elwctric power which sounds plenty enough for your commute. if you have a long commute and electric range drops too loo in the winter, you can easily let the wankel provide the missing energy and provide cabin heating “for free” hope they won’t cut corner there and at least keep the adequate electric power of the EV version.
there are two annoying things with the mx 30 ev
first the weight at 3600lbs which is higher than the slightly bigger CX 30 and similar to a 60kWh Tesla model 3 despite the tiny battery but if themx 30 has similar weight fully gases, it’s not a deal breaker and you can still daily drive on electric with a quarter tank of fuel or even empty if you feel adventurous but it’s never going to be as lightweight as it could have been.
second is the electric efficiency of the MX 30 ev at 85mpge highway it is very low for it’s class and doesn’t suggest a great mpg when running on gas. Mazda is not toyota and considering a Chevy volt does about 40mpg I don’t think the hybrid efficiency will be state of the art considering the height/drag coefficient and wankel engine, but that’s acceptable in a phev with 50miles of electric range. just don’t make the mistake to think that’s an hybrid you could own without home charging and run on gas.
ultimately it’s just another series/parallel plugin hybrid with a good electric range like volt or bmw i3 rex with a decent range in a subcompact crossover body (which is a good thing since the choice is pretty narrow and it could fit many people requirements), so it will all come down to the advantages of the wankel, noise/vibrations and size, and preserving the fun factor of driving a Mazda. having a engine droning like in a volt is not great for the driving experience so the wankel could make a difference
Is it really a series – parallel configuration? Between the photos of the rotary engine it says . . .
“For starters, the engine doesn’t drive the wheels. It only serves as a generator connected to a motor/generator unit to send power to the battery pack.”
The Prius is series – parallel is it not?
I had a very similar experience with the Volt – for a while I had a pretty long commute and could only charge at home, and it was OK. However, once my commute decreased & I had better charging options, it was really a perfect vehicle.
Love that you really don’t even need a level 2 charger to make good use of the electric miles, and never had to worry about charging infrastructure.
Very intrigued with this Mazda…it’ll be interesting if this approach is better than other PHEVs. Was hoping to see the electric range be in the 60 mile range, but really anything 30+ is probably fine (your use case may vary).
it’s disappointing that there still really isn’t a solid Volt competitor available. used ones shot up in price so much that it’s hard to justify.
Still driving my Volt, and I love it still. This really does pique my interest. I think this is the best version of long distance EV optioned driving.
On paper, I love everything about the MX-30 REV. The engineering, the styling, the hatchback, the suicide doors and the overall lack of conventionality. Hoping this goes on sale in the US and is a hit for Mazda.
Agreed. I was looking very seriously at the new Prius prime, but now this will likely jump to the top of the list if it’s affordable.
73hp is impressive from a small single-rotor!
The system could make for an ideal retro swap into some classics. Keep the existing fuel system for the rotary, package some batteries in the engine bay with the rotary if possible and keep it all clean and stock-appearing from the outside with potentially no real weight gain over the factory drivetrain!
My 1986 RX7 made 160bhp from two rotors. So half that from one 654cc rotor seems about right.
This new single rotor is 830cc, but only makes 73bhp. The impressive bit is doing that at 4700rpm.
Literally Mazda’s Version of Nissan’s E Power, where the ICE charges the small battery and quickens its charge rate on heavy accel