New Bespoke Post subscribers get 20% off their first box of awesome - go to bespokepost.com/driver61 and enter code DRIVER61at checkout. Thanks to Bespoke Post for sponsoring!
I'm surprised you didn't tell the part of the story about Mazdaspeed's race strategy. The team boss felt he could depend on the engine's reliability so much, that he told all the drivers to treat Le Mans like a sprint race; drive at 100% for the entire 24 hours. In my opinion this reliability factor, along with the fuel efficiency factor, is how Mazda won Le Mans.
That and the fact that Mazda/Oreca/Ickx lobbied the organisers and were allowed to run the cars 170kg lighter than the likes of Merc and Jaguar (830kg vs 1000kg). Sort of takes the shine off when you realise they had that advantage, still a cool car tho.
I heard this story slightly differently. Mazda knew that this would be the last year rotary engines would be allowed so they went for a win it or bin it strategy
@@doubled1978well their engine was a lot smaller and lighter so it makes sense that their car should be as well, group b rally cars also followed a similar rule where cars in the same class had different minimum weights according to the engine displacement (Audi’s 2.1l car had to be heavier than Peugeot’s 1.8l)
He knew it was on him and he rose to the task perfectly. He's probably a huge reason the #55 787B is so famous to begin with and why I loved driving the 787B in all the games as a kid which led to me growing up a huge Mazda fan and owning the '16 MX-5 I own today. Had it not been for Johnny Herbert hanging tough and bringing the #55 across the line the 787B and rotary engines as a whole probably wouldn't have near the legacy it does today. So Mazda fans definitely have to take their hats off for Johnny and what he was able to achieve in the closing hours of Lemans 1991. That drive must have been BRUTAL seeing the state he was in when he was helped from the car. What a king to be able push the car like that in such a tired and dehydrated state.
I heard Johnny loved a drink - namely Jack Daniels.. his drink hat was loaded and he was worried he couldn’t be able to get back to the outs as he was that hammered! Watch the video again and tell me I’m wrong
@@martynclinton8092 You know if this is actually true it just makes him even more legendary in my eyes 🤣 The fact someone would be able to gulp down Jack Daniels like that and still win the Lemans 24 is hilarious and epic. Almost like Duncan Hamilton in the Jaguar of 1953 lol
These guys showed the biggest middle finger to automotive titans that day at the le mans. This story deserves a Ford v Ferrari type movie. Edit: contrary to popular belief, rotary engines are much more reliable at high rpms and race applications than being bogged on the road.
They actually run better and are more reliable if you drive them hard. Babying them all the time is when you start to get issues. It's why I laugh whenever people say they need to be rebuilt all the time. Nah your just a pussy and don't drive your car properly. I've had more rotaries than piston engines and only 1 rotary has ever blown up. It was due to an aftermarket part failure causing the engine to detonate. This was after 10+ years of being driven hard at over 20psi of boost.
Biggest middle finger? Lmao they won only 1 race out of 21 in two years of competing ....... Fourth and last in the championship standings in those years........ Absolute failure with a lucky win.......
As Scott said, Mazda like doing things their own way. Even their current engine and hybrid tech breaks the Norm. I imagine they'll only come back if they can do something different.
The new hypercar category in WEC and IMSA could allow Mazda to join endurance racing once again while allowing them to use a rotary. The category allows different types of power trains and aerodynamics. This allows manufacturers to produce race cars that fully represent themselves with styling characteristics shown on their road cars.
It tends to do so, just not in the big race. Something that if you followed LeMans closely, you might have caught something called LeMans Classic... take every single race winning car, and put it on the track again for the day. This year was special because of the Century. Mazda tends to keep the 787B under glass in Japan.... for this year, they broke that glass, they shipped it to France and ran the course for the first time in YEARS along side Ferraris, Porsche's and others. I think that Mazda can be convinced to do it again for the Classic.
I think if Mazda had been allowed to keep using rotaries at Le Mans for at least 5-10 years, the developments that they could’ve made potentially could have led to more reliable and drivable rotaries in road cars
the triple spark plug techknoolgy i think would make its way into the rx8 it they were allowed to contine racing, but due to the that tech being expensive, they couldnt do it, the variable intake did make its way into the RX8
I think that would have taken pressure from the engineers to make this last chance a win and then they would never have won and scrubbed the technology unsuccessfully a few years later.
people that was there at the race say it was a ear piercing sound and that the other engines from other cars were actually much nicer to hear, but hey, i wasn't there¡ The car wasn't really faster than the competition and the sound (at least LIVE) was not as good as people think Still a car i like a lot
Johny Herbert literally nearly killed himself to guarantee the victory. This was one of the most heroic race driver stunts ever and has gone under the radar of majority of the racing fans. He got instantly to my favourite top3 race drivers list.
I always hace a chuckle about how the 787 won at Le Mans due to being fuel efficient and having longevity. The 2 very things it didn't have in road cars.
The reliability thing is interesting, yeah. The fuel efficiency doesn't surprise me after my friend's experience with his RX-8; it used a ton of fuel at idle and low rpm (relative to piston engines). Not a problem at race speeds!
@@RukaGoldheartBulllllllshit. The rule change was definitely aimed at them. Eventually environmentalist pandering fuel flow limits would have removed rotaries from motorsport anyway.
@@Jonathan_Doe_ It all had to do with the FIA wanting to pull the manufacturers away from endurance racing and make them participate in F1. At the the time endurance racing was practically more popular than F1 with both manufacturers and the public. And guess what after the new era of 3.5l sports cars endurance racing nearly completely died and all the big manufacturers who made those F1 style engines in endurance came to F1 as motorists. It had absolutely had nothing to do with a fucking back marker who had a stroke of luck.
@@RukaGoldheartdid we watch the same video? How can you call that thing a back marker that got lucky. I guess we were lucky getting to the moon too then huh? Not trying to say luck doesn’t play a factor, but come on acknowledge innovative and groundbreaking engineering.
@@nathangray99 this is the tail end of group c where the FIA really got nosy and wanted to get rid of the old gen group c cars. Before that single year where Mazda managed to go through a loophole to have a much better performing car they were more of a back marker. So yeah, this year was really lucky for Mazda and despite how beautiful and how amazing it sounded, it was far from the pace of its competitors like the video suggests. What really worked in Mazda's favour was the reliability, which they had a big advantage on since Rotaries love high rpms and they were nearly 200kg lighter than the competition, thanks to the loophole, which put much less stress on the car.
For one thing, the car was supposed to be called 777 according to the numbering system, but it was a bit odd to say it in Japanese (nana=7, nananananana=777). So, they just skipped that to 787 (nanahatchinana) whaich is better for Japanese to pronounce it. Also, after winning and brought back to Japan, one of the egineers revealed that he found a crack in one of the rotor jounals. The car would have had an engine blow if they had continued a few more minutes. He actually hid the fact and later confessed in 2022. Jacky Ickx was hired for Mazda's adviser. When Mazda won, they wanted give him a bonus as he contibuted so much. However, he said "I was hired to make Mazda win. There is no reason to recieve any bonus." and refused the money. There are so many episodes like this. Anyway, one of the best cars. Respect.
@@BrattyBiker it's in the Japanese wiki of the car. I read the articles before and remembered a few. I can translate the wiki a bit more if you like, but maybe better to use google translate.
The 787B had a successor, and it was the faster RX-792P, developed for the 1992 IMSA GTP championship. It used the same engine configuration but updated and with a new chassis and aero. Probably the best looking Group C car. Unfortunately the car was so early in its development, it had so much potential with a massive power to weight ratio advantage but Mazda decided to pull out for 1993 which was the last year of the incredible GTP series. Sad day.
A neat little detail : 1) The R26 was a 4 rotor with stepped variable length intake runners, the R26B had continuous which meant it adjusted for hp and torque depending on rpm very efficiently (think Vtec but for every rpm range). 2) The R26B also used Ceramic seals which showed little to no wear which is impressive considering they'd just run about 3500km in 24 hrs. This proved the rotary's reliability 3) They brought this thing out to commemorate the fuji 12 hours race and the suzuka 6 hours. Other people also sported V12 F1 and early V10 F1 cars. Fans reportedly couldn't hear the others over the rotary scream.
This fit very well with Robdahm the first time he took his +1200 hp 4 rotor to track... There was social media clips of people recording 2 miles away from track and still hearing him throttle clear as day 🤣🤣
@@mathiasmorell5094 yea straight pipe 4 doritos sound insane. Although Rob Dahm's 4 rotor differs significantly. For comparison : The R26B in the 787B put out 930 HP in quality trim at around 10200 rpm. Rob's does 1200 with Garrett's biggest turbo and running substantial boost levels.
@@rudrakshmishra2761 no doubts I mean Rob's built is basically not pushing it and making 1200 AWD hp which would regulate to like 1400 crank hp... But that's the point he is basically building an engine set-up as a drag set-up that can withstand like 2k hp with their billet block and everything. So it's not too comparable that way, so fare it's also only street ported his 4 rotor isn't even race ported which he still unsure if he wants course it of course makes it pretty much undrivable besides track's... Anyway even with the big difference much of the sounds are still present 😂😂
@@mathiasmorell5094 I'm kind of biased in that I like NA motors. (My pfp is the only NA GTR lol) and in that regard the 787B's R26B will always be my favoraite motor. I don't particularly like Dahm's 4 rotor song as well. (It uses a different configuration for the 4 rotor order)
An important note regarding the weight of the car, it wasn't much lighter because of engineering but because of the rules. They were just spared the massive ballasts that the other group c cars had to have in an attempt to prevent them from overshadowing the sport 3.5 cars
Correct. Mazda lobbied FIA to grant exception for the 787B so that it won't need to carry weight ballasts. Usually competitors can disagree to this, but nobody bat an eye as nobody expected a small team like Mazda with that weird engine to be competitive. The 717C and many rotaries have won multiple smaller classes in LeMans that people seem to have forgotten though, but the 787B's win proved them wrong.
@@BrattyBiker Most people ignore or didn't know about Mazdas class wins because most of them occurred when Mazda was the only car in the class, so unimpressive to say the least. This was particularly the case with the GTP class wins at Le Mans. The weight advantage at Le Mans was ridiculous given they had to run to the correct weight in previous 1991 championship races.
Slight error on the engine. Every rotation of the rotor produces 3 combustion events, but they are geared to the crank shaft (or eccentric shaft as they call it) 3:1. So in total each rotor produces 1 combustion event per engine revolution. You also said the piston produces 1 combustion event per revolution when it's actually 1 every 2 revolutions.
@@johnhunter7244 absolutely. The rotary 's displacement is much more than just the combustion chamber size. I could be wrong but I think the rules were corrected to cover the sweep of the "Dorito"s combustion cycle at rated the 13b at 3.0 liter? The Rotary's low fuel economy supports this.
@johnhunter7244 in terms of engine displacement, that is the amount of air that can be consumed by the engine in 1 full cycle. So that would actually make it a 7.8 litre engine as 1 full cycles involves all 3 sides of each rotor firing. However, for practical purposes, it was deemed that as each rotor fires once per engine revolution, as opposed to once per two revolutions as with piston engines, it should be considered a 5.2 litre for the purposes of classifying for spec racing series. However, I would argue it comes under the same category as 2 stroke engines. They fire once per revolution and are still measured by their full cylinder displacement. That would make it a 2.6 litre with just a clever way of utilising that displacement.
No, a single rotor wankel engine would produce 3 combustions per e-shaft revolution, once the engine is running. The e-shaft and the rotor turn together. The rotor works simultanously on different phases. There is one explosion for every 120° of e-shaft rotation.
@bencevarga6304 completely and utterly incorrect I'm afraid. A single rotor engine would fire every 360° of crankshaft / e-shaft rotation. The crank and rotors are geared 3:1. Do a Google image search of a wankel rotary engine and the first thing you will see is a large gear on the rotor meshed to a small gear on the crank.... and yes, the ratio is 3:1.
The issue with ceramic apex seals is that if you come across detonation or pre-ignition, they BREAK and ruin your entire engine, so you gotta be careful there.
@@BrattyBiker So like how it's known that rotaries love to rev at higher rpms ,and that it's needed ,will having a much higher rpm get you better reliability, maybe idle at around 1600 rpms ?
The 787B was in the lower C2 class, that's why it was allowed to be lighter. It won not because of its speed, but because of its reliability and low fuel consumption, 2 things not normally related with rotaries Also, the rotors have 3 power strokes per rotation, but the crank spins at 1/3 the speed, so it's only 1 power stroke per rotor per crankshaft rotation
It's actually pretty confusing, but let me explain: In 1988, they have decided about making a trio of championships with the same engine formula: 3.5 liter NA. The deadline for this in Group C was in 1991, but due to engineering problems, the unreliability of F1 derived engines and the general mayhem going around, 1991 became a transition year, where the previous Group C cars and 3.5 formula Group C cars raced together. To differentiate them, the 3.5s were classified as Group C1, while the cars running the old formula were reclassified to C2, which was banned from the first 10 grid positions. The confusion is coming from the fact that in the original era, the Big league cars were classified as C1, while the more economical class, with a 2.5 litre displacement limit was called Group C Junior or C2.
So were the other cars from Mercedes, Jaguar, et al. Almost every brought their old machinery as the new 3.5 cars weren't seen as ready for Le Mans, and all had to run with 2000kg of ballast, except Mazda.
It would be really cool for a race series to be there that let the engineers be engineers with no restrictions, Just safety. I know people will say Time Attack but it would be nice for wheel to wheel for consistent laps
This was the greatest era of endurance sportscar racing ever, of all time. Nothing has come close since imo. In fact, for motorsports the late 70-80's was amongst the most revolutionary era's ever. The golden era.
Wrong their are many "golden eras".... Group 5 sports prototype with the 917 and the Original Can Am series were also the greatest and most Advan Garde..... The Can Am series is literally the craziest and hardest road circuit series in motorsports next to rally......
Other car manufacturers didn't ignore the Wankel engine, many of them built it under license from NSU the same as Mazda but decided to walk away from it. The Wankel doesn't have a crankshaft, it has an eccentric shaft.
I saw the 1300cc version race at Silverstone in May '91. I can remember sitting in the stand opposite the pits & looking through the entry list in the program. I thought the 1300cc was a misprint. it screamed like nothing else. You could hear it up & down the gears all the way round the track from wherever you were. I actually thought the one they took to Le Mans was also the 1300 but now I know better. Thanks for the video.
The eccentric shaft of a rotary spins once per combustion. It spins 3 times by the time the rotor spins once. It’s only one power stroke per rotation but the rotor is spinning at 1/3 of the engine speed on the tach.
Thank you for the video presentation. A quick clarification is the car on the dyno and several track shots is the older 767B model featuring the earlier 13J 4-Rotor engine, that didn't feature the fully variable telescoping intake slides. . . To add a bit more context and background here. Mazda had other very important LeMans Class wins prior to the overall in 1991, which contributed to the ultimate success. 1983 - 717C 13B / (1st) Group C Junior 1984 - Lola T616 13B / (1st) / Group C2 1985 - 737C 13B / (3rd) Group C2 1987 - 757 13G / (1st) IMSA 1988 - 757 13G / (1st) IMSA 1989 - 767B 13J / (1st) IMSA 1990 - 767B 13J / (1st) IMSA Mazda, as well as the other teams, were well aware of the rules changes (3.5L formula) coming from at least late '88, so they embarked on a full attack to try and win on or before 1991. The challenge was enormous, but Mazda set some very ambitious performance goals for itself with the 787B program (+100 HP with higher efficiency, less weight), they hired the right people (ORECA, Jacky Ickx, 6 time LeMan winner and some very fast F1 drivers), backed up by many years of development from David Kennedy's group, to help set the performance and efficiency goal and worked at it relentlessly. This was a technique learned over the previous decade of competition at the LM24 and Daytona and at least a few 24 hour tests. The team also "politicked" very effectively to gin some concessions, a big part of racing, and it was all hands on deck back home in Hiroshima with all engineering departments contributing to the effort, including their new shiny supercomputer. . What most don't know was the actual amount of preparation, sophistication and technology that was thrown at the 787 "B" effort, especially for 1991. The chassis tub monocoque, full carbon fiber, a rarity then, the brakes, carbon-ceramic, again one of the first at LM, but what really took the team to the top was the amount of telemetry, monitoring and data gathering used for the '90/'91 LM effort, again a rarity in sports car racing then. The driver training on how to run the car most efficiently, and not the absolute fastest, was also a very deliberate plan. Once on-track MazdaSpeed Team Boss, Ohashi-San, released the #55 to rabbit out and run a quicker pace then the other two cars, run or die... The strategy worked and when the other teams started to suffer failures (attrition was more common back then) the #55 Mazda was there to pounce running its own highly prepared strategy. The other two cars were on a more conservative strategy, including different equipment and gearing to try and cover more bases. The 787B was not the absolute fastest, but it was the most prepared and reliable that day. This was an effort that had really taken +10 years to achieve. It was not banned, but the factory itself and other outlets perpetuated the myth, as it made for great marketing and people still believe it today.
My brothers had RX2, RX3 and RX4 - one was totaled on the way to a hill-climb event. All were very quick at the time and they had a lot of fun with them (at the time, I was too young to drive). While I might have had a legal driving license at 15 yo, I didn't get my first car until much later (and a rather boring Datsun at that, but it was cheap.)
I've not seen the Herbert post race footage. Amazing how one can elicit ample reserves and adrenaline to elevate and grind through a challenge, ... yet as soon as the threat is gone, as soon as you cross that line, ... you bottom out. The body's like, "I'm done". However, extremely intense challenges over a short duration of time ... Individuals often share "it was like in slow motion", etc. In that scenario, high Q spike scenario, you're flooded with processing power, ... thus perceptually things slow down. Interesting, two different extremes of human performance. - high Q spike - low Q grind I was so busy back in the 90's its a blindspot for endurance racing, sports car racing. I very much appreciate this vid. Solid work.
IMHO, I still say the best sound in racing was the Alfa Romeo V12 of 79-82?? That thing was a wailing banshee... but this Mazda was easily a close 2nd. It was fun seeing (née, hearing) it back in historic events this year.
Sims have taught me to absolutely ❤ the power band of the rotaries. Torque remains consistent even getting into the pure pony zones where pistons start to bog. Power just keeps coming on, and coming on, and ... I'd better stop before I'm accused of saying something dirty. The cars are usually light and well balanced ensuring maximized min corner speeds while being nimble enough to react to changing track conditions. Just a pure joy to roll. The only time this is a bit of a disadvantage is in rainy conditions. Heavier cars can maintain better mechanical grip just through sheer static downforce via gravity.
I've turbocharged alot RX-7's. They really come alive w/ turbo's. Added nitrous was insane. Installing a 13B when the 12A took a shit. Racing Beat sells 3 rotor High Performance engines. 🏁
As a longtime diehard fan of Gran Turismo and Nijigasaki High School Idol Club, i absolutely love the sound of the 787B! It is also Shioriko Mifune's personal favourite race car! Since its debut appearance in Gran Turismo 3, Shioriko Mifune's Mazda 787B is simply a legendary car!
[History Pedant] It's important to note that the Mazda ran in a *different category* (C2) from the other factory cars (C1) and its lower weight is both because of that differing ruleset and because of some politicking on Mazda/Oreca's part to get permission to run even lighter. So they had a big weight advantage (good for fuel cosumption) at Le Mans for contrived reasons. At least you didn't assert that the engine rules change was targeted at Mazda, which many people say despite it being categorically untrue. It was just Bernie luring manufacturers into F1 and killing Gr.C in the process. But the 787B was not especially "rapid" - Le Mans was Mazdaspeed's only WSC overall win and they came 5th in the 1991 WSC Manufacturer's standings at the end of the season. (also you really overused the word 'iconic' in this one, no matter mow much we love the 787B [and I do, despite the above!])
The common statement that you get "3 powerstrokes each rotation" has always been misleading. A simple way to get the advantage over 4 - stroke piston engines point across and true for the rotor itself, but misleading when comparing the crankshafts that actually deliver the power. Each rotor makes 1 powerstroke for each rotation of the crankshaft - thus a two rotor like the 13B is more like a high-revving, compact 4 cylinder engine. It's magical, not actual magic
Bertrand Gachot once told me that he and Johnny Herbert did almost all of the driving in this race effectively doing it as 2 drivers. A very good friend of his who was there told me he had never seen anyone look as ill as Gachot and Herbert after a long stint when they were swapping drivers.
@@martinuso7446 he wasn't I'll when he started it. Apparently the third driver basically paid to be there and bailed after only a little bit of driving. I'd take that with a dash of salt though. Mr Gachot has been know to add a little colour to his yarns.
Rotaries fire each revolution as they are two strokes. 2.6 liters equals 5.2 liters of a four-stroke engine. That engine type is no longer used in most applications, rotary or piston ports. Pollution, noise, heat, and high fuel consumption
Missing the bit of politicking team consultant Jackie Ickx and team boss Takayoshi Ohashi did which is the reason the car carried less weight. The car was supposed to be classified as a C2 car, which required it to carry the same amount of ballast as the other outgoing non-3.5 liter cars. Ickz and Ohashi, however, found a loophole that they were able to use to get the car to run less ballast than the other C2 cars.
No loophole, they told FISA/FIA that they couldn't build a competitive car with the correct ballast (which their results proved) Sadly when the rules book for 1991arrived it had wrongly omitted the Mazda from the same ballast rules as the cars in C2. The result was the race winning Jaguars from 1990 were 7 seconds a lap slower than they were the year previously due to meeting fuel economy requirements based on the added weight. Saubers surprising lack of reliability aside (they were quickest cars present) the Jags finished 2nd, 3rd and 4th but had one arm tied behind their backs.
9:00 that explains why the 7l (427) Chevy engine in CanAm cars had different length intake trumpets. I had always wondered why I owned an RX3. It burned a lot of gas, but it WAS quick in a straight line, and incredibly smooth. And quiet, a buzzer would sound when you hit redline, because you really couldn't hear how fast it was turning. My biggest gripe was the short rear deck, at any speed over 90 the rear end got really squirrelly
The problem is the "piston" rings, that are flung out by centrifugal force, probably best to add a bit 2 stroke oil to extend the life. Porsche used that intake system on the last air cooled 911. Lol, 600 Nm for a 2.6. Extreme awesome car back in the time and still.
wel yes it's 2.6 litres, but for each rotation it sucks in 7.8 litres of fuel air mix. Since every rotor has 3 seperate you could argue it's compareble to a low compression 7.8 litre v12 engine.
@@Jules-bass You could be right, but the marshals / inspectors at le Mans aren't dump. that would be unfair racing a 7.8 liter vs 5.5 or so. Mercedes and all would have protested.
@AnalogDude_ It is considered equivalent to a 5.2 litre 4-stroke, not a 7.8. For each rotation of each rotor 3 power strokes occur, as in a 6 cylinder 4 stroke. However, the rotor revolves 3 times slower than the crankshaft, so in one rotor revolution there is one power stroke as in a 2 cylinder 4 stroke (or a 1 cylinder 2 stroke). Multiplying by 4 you get the equivalence with an engine with 8 cylinders of 650cc each, so 5200cc
The cars do burn oil because they do exactly this - they inject oil in to the intake stroke so that the seals get lubrication. If you take a 13B beyond what Mazda made them have in terms of power, you'll see a lot of people premixing their fuel because the oil injection system can't supply enough oil to keep mazda's recommended stochiometric mix of oil vs fuel/air up when you force more boost in to the engine.
Dont forget the Fact that the 787 B is Like 830 kg when all the other Cars in the Race were 898 kg or so, That made a HUGE diffence. Less Fuel, and the Tires wear down slower.
I am so glad I recently picked up a very low mileage RX-8! I didn't think it would be much different than say a Z4/E90, but I couldn't have been more wrong!
An almost flawless video once again from Driver61! My only complaint is that at 2:13, you say that the engine has 3 powerstrokes per one rotation of the e-shaft which is incorrect. The rotor orbits at 1/3 the speed of the e-shaft meaning that for every 360° rotation of the eccentric shaft, there is only 1 combustion event, this differs to a piston engine which requires 720° of crankshaft rotation for 1 combustion cycle to occur.
Other manufacturers didn't "Leave it alone" - Mazda owned the patents for the rotary engine and hoarded them. It always needed more development competition and it has qualities that make it superior to other ICE. 3 moving parts, light weight, nearly limitless RPM, less vibration, can be run upside down, etc. These engines are amazing but needed to see the likes of Porsche, Audi, Ford, Honda, Toyota, whoever - developing their own interpretation of the engine.
The Wankel Rotary engine is not patented by Mazda. ( a quick google search will confirm this ) What's the easiest way to know that is the case? There were motorcycles (and a handful of cars) made with rotary engines.
@@swaroopajit Patent transfers aren't shown in documents - originally owned by Audi (developed by Nazis) and bought by Mazda. It can be purchased outright, leased or used without royalties. Planes, sea-doos, ski-doos, boats - all vehicles that use rotary engines. They also expire after a set amount of years which is likely the case with rotary engines. Did you know Edison didn't invent the lightbulb? He purchased the patents from Matthew Evans.
Ford, Chrysler, AMC, and a few others have all attempted to make a rotary work, but they all eventually gave up, especially once the fuel crisis hit and having never solved the fuel eco problem. Even Mazda haven't, really, which is why they mostly ended up in sports cars where power/wt is more important than MPG. Rotary's best hope as a range extender still shows like 30% worse efficiency than contemporaries. The Wankel's eternal problem is that it's geometries just aren't great for efficient fuel burning even if it had no sealing issues.
@@Appletank8 LiquidPiston is making rotary engines with an inside out geometry that is proving the concept still has legs - and military backing. Remember: the cabal of auto manufacturers do not want more efficient cars. They want to sell fuel, parts and more cars. That's why cars are bigger, heavier, less aerodynamic, more complicated, harder to work on, etc. Their job is to make money - period. That ranger extender is a stupid idea.
the 787B is one of those cars that are both a product of their time and of genuis itself, and you NEVER see them again unless you look closely at how their technologies evolved in the future. Amazing video!!
I still don't see why some people complain about the weight difference. The other cars had bigger engines WITH turbos and made close to 1000 HP when turned up, while the 787B made due with just 700 and no turbo. The bigger engines with forced induction would've EASILY made up for the weight difference as Mazda were far from being the fastest on pace as we know. The only place the Mazda was fastest was through the Porsche curves which is one very small section that wouldn't make a ton of difference to overall pace if you were slower everywhere else (which they were) They probably wouldn't have even won if not for luck and very smart engineering that helped the car save fuel. It wasn't the lack of weight that saved them all that fuel it was the efficiency of the engine. It was just luck and brilliant engineering that for whatever reason to this day some people are still salty about 30+ years later. Not saying you are in particular but I've seen many that just can't accept it for whatever reason as they are deluded.
@@2K-Tan the 962 had an engine 300cc bigger than the 787, the jaguar had no turbos, the Mercedes were already 1000kg. And the 787B all tuned up would make 900BHP which is why it qualified next to every Jaguar
@@2K-Tan the Jaguars, after the 1990 race, added .4L of engine capacity because they finished with fuel to spare. But for the 1991 race they had no time to design a new car for C2 starting from January, they already designed the 14 which later won the championship. So they had to put 100kg of ballast in the 12 and hope that it stayed screwed together. However, the drivers had to lift and coast to save fuel, brake with both feet on the pedal to stop in time (TWR was much smaller than Mazda and couldn't afford carbon brakes), every consumable wore faster. So the Mazda won on lower consumption and decent pace, so if the rule didn't exclude naturally aspirated rotary piston engines (very specific) from the weight penalty, the Mazdas would have been much slower than the Jaguars and not as economical as they were allowed to be. Also do the maths, the Jaguar with 100kg more got to 1.36kg/hp from 1.23, while the Mazda with 130kg less got to 1.18kg/hp from 1.42. Race trim, 700hp for the Mazda and 730 for the Jaguar
@@hexgraphica The 962 was introduced at the end of 1984 and dominated for almost the rest of the decade until TWR Jaguar came back in '88. That car had its time in the limelight and that's on Porsche for resting on their laurels and not making a new, better faster car. I understand why but I still don't see how that's not on Porsche. Also, you don't need a turbo when you're packing a 7.0L V12 into the back of that XJR-12 that probably makes the same torque at 3000 RPM that it does at redline. That engine would've had over double the torque output of Mazda's 26B easily. Sauber Mercedes also had the twin turbocharged V8 they had perfected for years and easily made close to 800 HP and DEFINITELY more torque than the 26B. Almost nobody was using the new 1992 rules in 1991 so I still don't see why people whine about Mazda being underweight. It was their last chance, they took it and it paid off. Great story. I understand the 26B was capable of 900 HP but I don't see why that's relevant when they ran it at 700.
@@hexgraphica Just read your 2nd comment and I agree. I also love the underdog story of TWR Jaguar and the '88 story. Even if Mazda had more money they were still an underdog though and I think they truly deserved that victory just like TWR did in '88. TWR always made the most of what they had, loved that. They might've been a works operation but it's not like it's Porsche, Audi or Mercedes that's won a bunch of times and they weren't even close to being the biggest Japanese car company (and still aren't) So at least to me seeing them get that win with their experimental technology was pretty cool. Even if they weren't a complete underdog because of the budget.
While I love the sound of this car, this story has been way overblown. The 787B was as much lucky as it was good. It's not the 956 / 962 winning race after race after race. Look no further than the RX-792P gorgeous, great sounding...horrific record.
I know too much about this car and this race. I worked for Mazda at the time. I’ve sat in that car. I did not fit but if you gat a chance you gotta do it. The variable intake runners used production Mazda window regulators to build them up. On of the coolest points is that they were so far in the lead that the brought the car in and detailed it so it would look it’s best going over the finish line.
Not sure if you've done a video about the Audi's winning the Le Mans year after year with their recent cars, but would love to see how they achieved this.
They won a lot by not having any competition. Audi was basically the only manufacturer at LM between 2000-2006. (6 of their 13 wins). The Bentley was a rebranded Audi btw. Peugeot won in their third year in the LMP1 era, and was on the lead lap their second year. Audi was a 10 year veteran, and likely had a bigger budget.
@@CelciusifyFair. Audi invested a lot in Le Man since its their only top tier motorsport and costs only a fraction compared to F1 and thats coming from a major manufacturer who has serious racing pedigree.
@@patrickr4762 The hybrid LMP1 era was demanding F1 funding, Audi and Porsche spent 250 million/season, and they're both owned by VW. Peugeot pulled out because it got too expensive and Toyota was running a much tighter budget. If Dieselgate didn't happen LMP1 would have been more long lived as VW pulled out both teams to save face and money.
"Why was it so good" short answer. It really wasnt better than everyone else. It was never banned for being too fast. And it won Le Mans by being reliable while everyone around them broke down.
I don't agree with the hype this car/engine had. It was slow and only won Le Mans because of the poor reliability of the competition. The engine sounds bloody awful as well
I have this car on gran turismo 3 4 6 and 7 and I love this car it's one of my favorite race cars ever the power and handling are incredible plus the sound is really great too
That's incredibly and technically information you've shared regarding the engineering of Mazda motor sports.. hoping for you to create more of ingenious motor sports engineering... keep it up 👌👌👌
Ferrari did not have a team in 1990-1991 Le Mans, the red car shown is a Lancia. I think you meant to say the Lancia team ran a Ferrari V8 engine in LC2 race car.
On the track you dont need to meet any restrictive emissions standards, so you can dump the oil metering system and premix your fuel instead . This completely avoids any carbon buildup within the engine as a result of pumping engine oil in to lube the apex seals and thus circumvents apex seal failure. Rotors make fantastic race engines!
I remember hearing some were that well yes the R26B engine could do another 24 hours the actual car itself was about to split in half because the rear tube frame was about to break off the fire wall. But all together this was great video about one of my favourite cars
8:22 The Achilles Heel of rotaries is actually the coolant jacket seals. As long as you're not pushing like 30 PSI or boost or something stupid like that, and you premix, you shouldn't really have apex seal issues. You're far more likely to have coolant seal issues
2:17 Small correction about the rotary having 3 combustion events per crank/eccentric shaft rotation vs the 1 of the 4-stroke. It’s 6 times as many combustion events because a 4-stroke has 0.5 combustions/rotation from it taking 2 crank rotations to complete 4 strokes.
Mad to hear that the rotary was the MOST efficient engine at Le Mans. I remember the days in my RX8, being stuck in traffic and watching the needle fall away.
I'm pretty sure variable length runners are shorter for better lower RPM volumetric efficiency and longer for higher RPM volumetric efficiency. I was under the impression that the longer the runner, the more time the intake air has to accelerate into the engine, increasing total air volume. However at lower revs, the runner needs to be shorter as the vacuum from the rotor (or piston) does not have the power to efficiently pull air through a long pipe which hurts volumetric efficiency. Its why high performance engines that do not have variable anything tend to have long intakes and exhaust manifolds and only perform well at high RPM but low RPM power and torque is terrible. This engine was built to avoid that compromise and undoubtedly needed to be naturally aspirated to improve reliability for the race.
Mazda's 787B at LeMans is one of history's greatest. It was the David Vs Goliath tale. Many people don't realize how small was (and still is) Mazda as a company when sized against the liked of Porsche, Mercedes, etc. Budgets are so much smaller, and backing so much limited. Yet without the fastest car, without the most power, and without leading most of the race, they clinched the absolute win. Not the Mercedes and Jaguar power nor the Porsche proven recipe could best the tiny Hiroshima racer. And best part of all, the car was good to run another 24 hours straight. Many say they banned the 787B because it was so fast, it's a lie. It was banned due to the late Group C class regulations (that ultimately led to the class' demise), that mandated teams were to run F1-born 3.5 liter NA V10 engines. Others say it was an unfair win, or that they cheated because the low weight of the car, that's another big lie. The legendary Jacky Icx convinced the officials of the unfairness of the Mazda team running the same ballast as the other teams, alleging the 787B's small engine size and lower power output in comparison to the other turbo and high-displacement monsters. So Mazda won fair and square, fought its best as everyone else and came out on top. The perfect underdog story.
That was a fantastic video. I have heard of this car, but you captured so much information that I hadn't know, lovely. As an aside, when they were puling that driver out in the end, he looked like a flipping corpse lol geez, what a guy. Keep up the good work on the videos BTW!
New Bespoke Post subscribers get 20% off their first box of awesome - go to bespokepost.com/driver61 and enter code DRIVER61at checkout. Thanks to Bespoke Post for sponsoring!
Yes
Hey Scott! Do all the rotors go at the same exact order? Or is there difference on the timing? Cheers from Finland
Cosworth actually had over 20000 rpm engine. ;-)
Best sound in racing
@@deagt338822345 rpm actually.
I'm surprised you didn't tell the part of the story about Mazdaspeed's race strategy.
The team boss felt he could depend on the engine's reliability so much, that he told all the drivers to treat Le Mans like a sprint race; drive at 100% for the entire 24 hours.
In my opinion this reliability factor, along with the fuel efficiency factor, is how Mazda won Le Mans.
which is crazy to say about a rotary haha
That and the fact that Mazda/Oreca/Ickx lobbied the organisers and were allowed to run the cars 170kg lighter than the likes of Merc and Jaguar (830kg vs 1000kg).
Sort of takes the shine off when you realise they had that advantage, still a cool car tho.
I heard this story slightly differently. Mazda knew that this would be the last year rotary engines would be allowed so they went for a win it or bin it strategy
@@doubled1978well their engine was a lot smaller and lighter so it makes sense that their car should be as well, group b rally cars also followed a similar rule where cars in the same class had different minimum weights according to the engine displacement (Audi’s 2.1l car had to be heavier than Peugeot’s 1.8l)
@doubled1978 all the other manufacturers could have done it as well. But they didn't. Mazda did. Racing is not just the race itself.
Johnny Herbert was such a legend for pulling that double stint!
He knew it was on him and he rose to the task perfectly. He's probably a huge reason the #55 787B is so famous to begin with and why I loved driving the 787B in all the games as a kid which led to me growing up a huge Mazda fan and owning the '16 MX-5 I own today. Had it not been for Johnny Herbert hanging tough and bringing the #55 across the line the 787B and rotary engines as a whole probably wouldn't have near the legacy it does today.
So Mazda fans definitely have to take their hats off for Johnny and what he was able to achieve in the closing hours of Lemans 1991. That drive must have been BRUTAL seeing the state he was in when he was helped from the car. What a king to be able push the car like that in such a tired and dehydrated state.
Fun fact: It was events like this that ultimately led to the invention of the Drink Hat.
@@thomasgoodwin2648Kimi should be thankful? 😜
I heard Johnny loved a drink - namely Jack Daniels.. his drink hat was loaded and he was worried he couldn’t be able to get back to the outs as he was that hammered!
Watch the video again and tell me I’m wrong
@@martynclinton8092 You know if this is actually true it just makes him even more legendary in my eyes 🤣
The fact someone would be able to gulp down Jack Daniels like that and still win the Lemans 24 is hilarious and epic. Almost like Duncan Hamilton in the Jaguar of 1953 lol
These guys showed the biggest middle finger to automotive titans that day at the le mans. This story deserves a Ford v Ferrari type movie.
Edit: contrary to popular belief, rotary engines are much more reliable at high rpms and race applications than being bogged on the road.
I believe it too
They actually run better and are more reliable if you drive them hard. Babying them all the time is when you start to get issues. It's why I laugh whenever people say they need to be rebuilt all the time. Nah your just a pussy and don't drive your car properly. I've had more rotaries than piston engines and only 1 rotary has ever blown up. It was due to an aftermarket part failure causing the engine to detonate. This was after 10+ years of being driven hard at over 20psi of boost.
Biggest middle finger? Lmao they won only 1 race out of 21 in two years of competing ....... Fourth and last in the championship standings in those years........ Absolute failure with a lucky win.......
@@MiguelGarcia-vj7oo you forget how much of an underdog this car is considering the engine tech and the expirence mazda had at le mans
@@MiguelGarcia-vj7ooyeah Miguel Garcia you're definitely the expert on this, I'd trust you with anything.
I would love to see Mazda come back to Le Mans one day.
Especially with rotary engine. Garage 56?
They did with the Mazda rt24p
Go check it out
As Scott said, Mazda like doing things their own way. Even their current engine and hybrid tech breaks the Norm. I imagine they'll only come back if they can do something different.
The new hypercar category in WEC and IMSA could allow Mazda to join endurance racing once again while allowing them to use a rotary. The category allows different types of power trains and aerodynamics. This allows manufacturers to produce race cars that fully represent themselves with styling characteristics shown on their road cars.
It tends to do so, just not in the big race. Something that if you followed LeMans closely, you might have caught something called LeMans Classic... take every single race winning car, and put it on the track again for the day. This year was special because of the Century. Mazda tends to keep the 787B under glass in Japan.... for this year, they broke that glass, they shipped it to France and ran the course for the first time in YEARS along side Ferraris, Porsche's and others.
I think that Mazda can be convinced to do it again for the Classic.
I think if Mazda had been allowed to keep using rotaries at Le Mans for at least 5-10 years, the developments that they could’ve made potentially could have led to more reliable and drivable rotaries in road cars
They were
the triple spark plug techknoolgy i think would make its way into the rx8 it they were allowed to contine racing, but due to the that tech being expensive, they couldnt do it, the variable intake did make its way into the RX8
I think that would have taken pressure from the engineers to make this last chance a win and then they would never have won and scrubbed the technology unsuccessfully a few years later.
doubt it
Easily one of the greatest sounding engines EVER
It’s sounds great, but not as great as the Sauber Mercedes C9/11. Most evil sounding car of all time.
Definitely one of the best. There were some great sounding engines in that era. Toyota TS010 is amazing too.
Hands down, best sounding engine ever is the Honda CX1000 straight 6 motorcycle engine.
By a country mile the best sounding engines
people that was there at the race say it was a ear piercing sound and that the other engines from other cars were actually much nicer to hear, but hey, i wasn't there¡
The car wasn't really faster than the competition and the sound (at least LIVE) was not as good as people think
Still a car i like a lot
I wasn’t expecting to see my video at 0:13 😂
Really good impression tho
Johny Herbert literally nearly killed himself to guarantee the victory. This was one of the most heroic race driver stunts ever and has gone under the radar of majority of the racing fans. He got instantly to my favourite top3 race drivers list.
I always hace a chuckle about how the 787 won at Le Mans due to being fuel efficient and having longevity. The 2 very things it didn't have in road cars.
Agree to disagree. My 500hp rx7 uses less fuel in a 1.03 lap at my local track than my sr20det gtir pulsar does.
Great if driven hard as hell
@@tuckervfx wish I had one of those 🤣
@@johnsutcliffe3209 sell the house make it happen.
The reliability thing is interesting, yeah. The fuel efficiency doesn't surprise me after my friend's experience with his RX-8; it used a ton of fuel at idle and low rpm (relative to piston engines). Not a problem at race speeds!
Like a 2 stroke, the rotary is very efficient at high RPMs.
its criminal how rotary engine manufacturers are treated by all the racing federations. Norton is another example.
Mazda was not directly targeted.
@@RukaGoldheartBulllllllshit. The rule change was definitely aimed at them. Eventually environmentalist pandering fuel flow limits would have removed rotaries from motorsport anyway.
@@Jonathan_Doe_ It all had to do with the FIA wanting to pull the manufacturers away from endurance racing and make them participate in F1. At the the time endurance racing was practically more popular than F1 with both manufacturers and the public.
And guess what after the new era of 3.5l sports cars endurance racing nearly completely died and all the big manufacturers who made those F1 style engines in endurance came to F1 as motorists.
It had absolutely had nothing to do with a fucking back marker who had a stroke of luck.
@@RukaGoldheartdid we watch the same video? How can you call that thing a back marker that got lucky. I guess we were lucky getting to the moon too then huh?
Not trying to say luck doesn’t play a factor, but come on acknowledge innovative and groundbreaking engineering.
@@nathangray99 this is the tail end of group c where the FIA really got nosy and wanted to get rid of the old gen group c cars. Before that single year where Mazda managed to go through a loophole to have a much better performing car they were more of a back marker. So yeah, this year was really lucky for Mazda and despite how beautiful and how amazing it sounded, it was far from the pace of its competitors like the video suggests. What really worked in Mazda's favour was the reliability, which they had a big advantage on since Rotaries love high rpms and they were nearly 200kg lighter than the competition, thanks to the loophole, which put much less stress on the car.
For one thing, the car was supposed to be called 777 according to the numbering system, but it was a bit odd to say it in Japanese (nana=7, nananananana=777). So, they just skipped that to 787 (nanahatchinana) whaich is better for Japanese to pronounce it.
Also, after winning and brought back to Japan, one of the egineers revealed that he found a crack in one of the rotor jounals. The car would have had an engine blow if they had continued a few more minutes. He actually hid the fact and later confessed in 2022.
Jacky Ickx was hired for Mazda's adviser. When Mazda won, they wanted give him a bonus as he contibuted so much. However, he said "I was hired to make Mazda win. There is no reason to recieve any bonus." and refused the money.
There are so many episodes like this.
Anyway, one of the best cars. Respect.
777 - nananananana - BATMAN! A missed opportunity there.
Interesting! Can you please refer to the article that highlights the confession of the presence of this crack in the rotor journal ?
@@BrattyBiker it's in the Japanese wiki of the car. I read the articles before and remembered a few.
I can translate the wiki a bit more if you like, but maybe better to use google translate.
@@zaqro8159 Thank you.
@@zaqro8159 I can't find the page you are talking about.. Was the crack in the engine on the car 55?
The 787B had a successor, and it was the faster RX-792P, developed for the 1992 IMSA GTP championship. It used the same engine configuration but updated and with a new chassis and aero. Probably the best looking Group C car. Unfortunately the car was so early in its development, it had so much potential with a massive power to weight ratio advantage but Mazda decided to pull out for 1993 which was the last year of the incredible GTP series. Sad day.
A neat little detail :
1) The R26 was a 4 rotor with stepped variable length intake runners, the R26B had continuous which meant it adjusted for hp and torque depending on rpm very efficiently (think Vtec but for every rpm range).
2) The R26B also used Ceramic seals which showed little to no wear which is impressive considering they'd just run about 3500km in 24 hrs. This proved the rotary's reliability
3) They brought this thing out to commemorate the fuji 12 hours race and the suzuka 6 hours. Other people also sported V12 F1 and early V10 F1 cars. Fans reportedly couldn't hear the others over the rotary scream.
This fit very well with Robdahm the first time he took his +1200 hp 4 rotor to track... There was social media clips of people recording 2 miles away from track and still hearing him throttle clear as day 🤣🤣
@@mathiasmorell5094 yea straight pipe 4 doritos sound insane. Although Rob Dahm's 4 rotor differs significantly. For comparison : The R26B in the 787B put out 930 HP in quality trim at around 10200 rpm. Rob's does 1200 with Garrett's biggest turbo and running substantial boost levels.
@@rudrakshmishra2761 no doubts I mean Rob's built is basically not pushing it and making 1200 AWD hp which would regulate to like 1400 crank hp... But that's the point he is basically building an engine set-up as a drag set-up that can withstand like 2k hp with their billet block and everything. So it's not too comparable that way, so fare it's also only street ported his 4 rotor isn't even race ported which he still unsure if he wants course it of course makes it pretty much undrivable besides track's... Anyway even with the big difference much of the sounds are still present 😂😂
@@mathiasmorell5094 I'm kind of biased in that I like NA motors. (My pfp is the only NA GTR lol) and in that regard the 787B's R26B will always be my favoraite motor. I don't particularly like Dahm's 4 rotor song as well. (It uses a different configuration for the 4 rotor order)
An important note regarding the weight of the car, it wasn't much lighter because of engineering but because of the rules. They were just spared the massive ballasts that the other group c cars had to have in an attempt to prevent them from overshadowing the sport 3.5 cars
I respect your effort to educate people, but the fanboys won't care
It was spared the ballast because of the lower capacity, wasn't it?
Correct. Mazda lobbied FIA to grant exception for the 787B so that it won't need to carry weight ballasts. Usually competitors can disagree to this, but nobody bat an eye as nobody expected a small team like Mazda with that weird engine to be competitive. The 717C and many rotaries have won multiple smaller classes in LeMans that people seem to have forgotten though, but the 787B's win proved them wrong.
@@BrattyBiker Most people ignore or didn't know about Mazdas class wins because most of them occurred when Mazda was the only car in the class, so unimpressive to say the least. This was particularly the case with the GTP class wins at Le Mans. The weight advantage at Le Mans was ridiculous given they had to run to the correct weight in previous 1991 championship races.
@@iamvezmwithout various coefficients they were only .3L down from Porsche
Slight error on the engine. Every rotation of the rotor produces 3 combustion events, but they are geared to the crank shaft (or eccentric shaft as they call it) 3:1. So in total each rotor produces 1 combustion event per engine revolution. You also said the piston produces 1 combustion event per revolution when it's actually 1 every 2 revolutions.
*4 stroke engines, yes. Also the displacement number is debatable, I would argue it's a 5.2 l engine not 2.6 which nullifies a lot of what Scott said.
@@johnhunter7244 absolutely.
The rotary 's displacement is much more than just the combustion chamber size.
I could be wrong but I think the rules were corrected to cover the sweep of the "Dorito"s combustion cycle at rated the 13b at 3.0 liter?
The Rotary's low fuel economy supports this.
@johnhunter7244 in terms of engine displacement, that is the amount of air that can be consumed by the engine in 1 full cycle. So that would actually make it a 7.8 litre engine as 1 full cycles involves all 3 sides of each rotor firing.
However, for practical purposes, it was deemed that as each rotor fires once per engine revolution, as opposed to once per two revolutions as with piston engines, it should be considered a 5.2 litre for the purposes of classifying for spec racing series.
However, I would argue it comes under the same category as 2 stroke engines. They fire once per revolution and are still measured by their full cylinder displacement. That would make it a 2.6 litre with just a clever way of utilising that displacement.
No, a single rotor wankel engine would produce 3 combustions per e-shaft revolution, once the engine is running. The e-shaft and the rotor turn together. The rotor works simultanously on different phases. There is one explosion for every 120° of e-shaft rotation.
@bencevarga6304 completely and utterly incorrect I'm afraid. A single rotor engine would fire every 360° of crankshaft / e-shaft rotation. The crank and rotors are geared 3:1.
Do a Google image search of a wankel rotary engine and the first thing you will see is a large gear on the rotor meshed to a small gear on the crank.... and yes, the ratio is 3:1.
How do I love content like this! It’s amazing to discover the story behind such a iconic car like this.
Didnt know about the ceramic apex seals, turns out theres a company selling them for 500$ per rotor. Definitely buying a set for my next rebuild
The issue with ceramic apex seals is that if you come across detonation or pre-ignition, they BREAK and ruin your entire engine, so you gotta be careful there.
@@BrattyBiker So like how it's known that rotaries love to rev at higher rpms ,and that it's needed ,will having a much higher rpm get you better reliability, maybe idle at around 1600 rpms ?
The 787B was in the lower C2 class, that's why it was allowed to be lighter. It won not because of its speed, but because of its reliability and low fuel consumption, 2 things not normally related with rotaries
Also, the rotors have 3 power strokes per rotation, but the crank spins at 1/3 the speed, so it's only 1 power stroke per rotor per crankshaft rotation
This is what I came here to say. The 747b was being beaten by 2 Mercedes but they retired and mazda inherited the win
The normal 787 was in group c2 not the 787b
@@xstonecoldkillerxthats racing,
It's actually pretty confusing, but let me explain:
In 1988, they have decided about making a trio of championships with the same engine formula: 3.5 liter NA. The deadline for this in Group C was in 1991, but due to engineering problems, the unreliability of F1 derived engines and the general mayhem going around, 1991 became a transition year, where the previous Group C cars and 3.5 formula Group C cars raced together. To differentiate them, the 3.5s were classified as Group C1, while the cars running the old formula were reclassified to C2, which was banned from the first 10 grid positions.
The confusion is coming from the fact that in the original era, the Big league cars were classified as C1, while the more economical class, with a 2.5 litre displacement limit was called Group C Junior or C2.
So were the other cars from Mercedes, Jaguar, et al. Almost every brought their old machinery as the new 3.5 cars weren't seen as ready for Le Mans, and all had to run with 2000kg of ballast, except Mazda.
It would be really cool for a race series to be there that let the engineers be engineers with no restrictions, Just safety. I know people will say Time Attack but it would be nice for wheel to wheel for consistent laps
Can't have that. That would make F1 less popular as people watch the insane people and machines race instead
Can-Am was that for a little while, absolutely insane cars..
Talk about commitment. Herbert looks half dead getting out of that car!
other advantage that made the 787b winning the lemans 24 hours is that it didn't run with ballast in 1991 and the rest of group c cars yes
This was the greatest era of endurance sportscar racing ever, of all time. Nothing has come close since imo. In fact, for motorsports the late 70-80's was amongst the most revolutionary era's ever. The golden era.
Absolutely! If the new hypercar class is able to even bring back at least 30% of that, I'd be totally mind blown
Wrong their are many "golden eras".... Group 5 sports prototype with the 917 and the Original Can Am series were also the greatest and most Advan Garde..... The Can Am series is literally the craziest and hardest road circuit series in motorsports next to rally......
Other car manufacturers didn't ignore the Wankel engine, many of them built it under license from NSU the same as Mazda but decided to walk away from it. The Wankel doesn't have a crankshaft, it has an eccentric shaft.
787b is a historical piece of motor art. will never be forgotten..
Thank you for a trip down memorylane sir
I saw the 1300cc version race at Silverstone in May '91. I can remember sitting in the stand opposite the pits & looking through the entry list in the program. I thought the 1300cc was a misprint. it screamed like nothing else. You could hear it up & down the gears all the way round the track from wherever you were. I actually thought the one they took to Le Mans was also the 1300 but now I know better. Thanks for the video.
The eccentric shaft of a rotary spins once per combustion. It spins 3 times by the time the rotor spins once. It’s only one power stroke per rotation but the rotor is spinning at 1/3 of the engine speed on the tach.
and a 4 stoke takes 2 rotations per power stoke, not one. 2:20
Massive kudos for Johny Herbert!! Always loved this car in the Gran Turismo games, really smooth and beatiful
Thank you for the video presentation. A quick clarification is the car on the dyno and several track shots is the older 767B model featuring the earlier 13J 4-Rotor engine, that didn't feature the fully variable telescoping intake slides.
.
.
To add a bit more context and background here.
Mazda had other very important LeMans Class wins prior to the overall in 1991, which contributed to the ultimate success.
1983 - 717C 13B / (1st) Group C Junior
1984 - Lola T616 13B / (1st) / Group C2
1985 - 737C 13B / (3rd) Group C2
1987 - 757 13G / (1st) IMSA
1988 - 757 13G / (1st) IMSA
1989 - 767B 13J / (1st) IMSA
1990 - 767B 13J / (1st) IMSA
Mazda, as well as the other teams, were well aware of the rules changes (3.5L formula) coming from at least late '88, so they embarked on a full attack to try and win on or before 1991. The challenge was enormous, but Mazda set some very ambitious performance goals for itself with the 787B program (+100 HP with higher efficiency, less weight), they hired the right people (ORECA, Jacky Ickx, 6 time LeMan winner and some very fast F1 drivers), backed up by many years of development from David Kennedy's group, to help set the performance and efficiency goal and worked at it relentlessly. This was a technique learned over the previous decade of competition at the LM24 and Daytona and at least a few 24 hour tests. The team also "politicked" very effectively to gin some concessions, a big part of racing, and it was all hands on deck back home in Hiroshima with all engineering departments contributing to the effort, including their new shiny supercomputer.
.
What most don't know was the actual amount of preparation, sophistication and technology that was thrown at the 787 "B" effort, especially for 1991. The chassis tub monocoque, full carbon fiber, a rarity then, the brakes, carbon-ceramic, again one of the first at LM, but what really took the team to the top was the amount of telemetry, monitoring and data gathering used for the '90/'91 LM effort, again a rarity in sports car racing then. The driver training on how to run the car most efficiently, and not the absolute fastest, was also a very deliberate plan.
Once on-track MazdaSpeed Team Boss, Ohashi-San, released the #55 to rabbit out and run a quicker pace then the other two cars, run or die... The strategy worked and when the other teams started to suffer failures (attrition was more common back then) the #55 Mazda was there to pounce running its own highly prepared strategy. The other two cars were on a more conservative strategy, including different equipment and gearing to try and cover more bases. The 787B was not the absolute fastest, but it was the most prepared and reliable that day. This was an effort that had really taken +10 years to achieve.
It was not banned, but the factory itself and other outlets perpetuated the myth, as it made for great marketing and people still believe it today.
Love the rotary engine, I had two Mazda RX3s in the late seventies and two restored Suzuki RE5s not too long ago.
My brothers had RX2, RX3 and RX4 - one was totaled on the way to a hill-climb event. All were very quick at the time and they had a lot of fun with them (at the time, I was too young to drive). While I might have had a legal driving license at 15 yo, I didn't get my first car until much later (and a rather boring Datsun at that, but it was cheap.)
I've not seen the Herbert post race footage.
Amazing how one can elicit ample reserves and adrenaline to elevate and grind through a challenge, ... yet as soon as the threat is gone, as soon as you cross that line, ... you bottom out.
The body's like, "I'm done".
However, extremely intense challenges over a short duration of time ...
Individuals often share "it was like in slow motion", etc.
In that scenario, high Q spike scenario, you're flooded with processing power, ... thus perceptually things slow down.
Interesting, two different extremes of human performance.
- high Q spike
- low Q grind
I was so busy back in the 90's its a blindspot for endurance racing, sports car racing.
I very much appreciate this vid.
Solid work.
IMHO, I still say the best sound in racing was the Alfa Romeo V12 of 79-82?? That thing was a wailing banshee... but this Mazda was easily a close 2nd. It was fun seeing (née, hearing) it back in historic events this year.
Sims have taught me to absolutely ❤ the power band of the rotaries. Torque remains consistent even getting into the pure pony zones where pistons start to bog. Power just keeps coming on, and coming on, and ... I'd better stop before I'm accused of saying something dirty.
The cars are usually light and well balanced ensuring maximized min corner speeds while being nimble enough to react to changing track conditions.
Just a pure joy to roll.
The only time this is a bit of a disadvantage is in rainy conditions. Heavier cars can maintain better mechanical grip just through sheer static downforce via gravity.
The Mazda story is one of the all time best racing stories ever. Up there with Zanardi's pass on Herta at the corkscrew and countless others.
I've turbocharged alot RX-7's. They really come alive w/ turbo's. Added nitrous was insane. Installing a 13B when the 12A took a shit. Racing Beat sells 3 rotor High Performance engines. 🏁
Now to be fair introducing regs was to keep F1 popular over Sportscar racing, not to benefit Sportscars at all. They were trying to kill off interest
As a longtime diehard fan of Gran Turismo and Nijigasaki High School Idol Club, i absolutely love the sound of the 787B! It is also Shioriko Mifune's personal favourite race car! Since its debut appearance in Gran Turismo 3, Shioriko Mifune's Mazda 787B is simply a legendary car!
Love that car. The sound and livery. Favorite car in Gran Turismo 3 too.
Had the pleasure of being there for their win )))) And yes, imho the best sounding race engine ever.
[History Pedant] It's important to note that the Mazda ran in a *different category* (C2) from the other factory cars (C1) and its lower weight is both because of that differing ruleset and because of some politicking on Mazda/Oreca's part to get permission to run even lighter. So they had a big weight advantage (good for fuel cosumption) at Le Mans for contrived reasons.
At least you didn't assert that the engine rules change was targeted at Mazda, which many people say despite it being categorically untrue. It was just Bernie luring manufacturers into F1 and killing Gr.C in the process. But the 787B was not especially "rapid" - Le Mans was Mazdaspeed's only WSC overall win and they came 5th in the 1991 WSC Manufacturer's standings at the end of the season.
(also you really overused the word 'iconic' in this one, no matter mow much we love the 787B [and I do, despite the above!])
don't worry there are still people in this comment section who think Mazda were targeted by the engine rule change
The common statement that you get "3 powerstrokes each rotation" has always been misleading. A simple way to get the advantage over 4 - stroke piston engines point across and true for the rotor itself, but misleading when comparing the crankshafts that actually deliver the power. Each rotor makes 1 powerstroke for each rotation of the crankshaft - thus a two rotor like the 13B is more like a high-revving, compact 4 cylinder engine. It's magical, not actual magic
Bertrand Gachot once told me that he and Johnny Herbert did almost all of the driving in this race effectively doing it as 2 drivers. A very good friend of his who was there told me he had never seen anyone look as ill as Gachot and Herbert after a long stint when they were swapping drivers.
You know the reason for that? Not using the third driver and the being ill?
@@martinuso7446 he wasn't I'll when he started it. Apparently the third driver basically paid to be there and bailed after only a little bit of driving. I'd take that with a dash of salt though. Mr Gachot has been know to add a little colour to his yarns.
Yet, it was Weidler who was the quickest of the 3.
The ACO data shows that Herbert drove 8hr 7min, Weidler 8hr 19min and Gachot 6hr 42. The balance of time was the 28 pitstops.
That is real commitment shown by Herbert right there!
My favourite race car ever, without a doubt
Rotaries fire each revolution as they are two strokes. 2.6 liters equals 5.2 liters of a four-stroke engine. That engine type is no longer used in most applications, rotary or piston ports. Pollution, noise, heat, and high fuel consumption
I have a feeling in 30 years nobody will be making videos like this about how cool electric race cars sound
So true... mosfet whine just does nothing for me, viscerally.
Missing the bit of politicking team consultant Jackie Ickx and team boss Takayoshi Ohashi did which is the reason the car carried less weight. The car was supposed to be classified as a C2 car, which required it to carry the same amount of ballast as the other outgoing non-3.5 liter cars. Ickz and Ohashi, however, found a loophole that they were able to use to get the car to run less ballast than the other C2 cars.
No loophole, they told FISA/FIA that they couldn't build a competitive car with the correct ballast (which their results proved) Sadly when the rules book for 1991arrived it had wrongly omitted the Mazda from the same ballast rules as the cars in C2. The result was the race winning Jaguars from 1990 were 7 seconds a lap slower than they were the year previously due to meeting fuel economy requirements based on the added weight. Saubers surprising lack of reliability aside (they were quickest cars present) the Jags finished 2nd, 3rd and 4th but had one arm tied behind their backs.
9:00 that explains why the 7l (427) Chevy engine in CanAm cars had different length intake trumpets. I had always wondered why
I owned an RX3. It burned a lot of gas, but it WAS quick in a straight line, and incredibly smooth. And quiet, a buzzer would sound when you hit redline, because you really couldn't hear how fast it was turning. My biggest gripe was the short rear deck, at any speed over 90 the rear end got really squirrelly
The inner ducts of the head were unequal so they were made equal by compensating with unequal length velocity stacks... Then they made new heads
The problem is the "piston" rings, that are flung out by centrifugal force, probably best to add a bit 2 stroke oil to extend the life.
Porsche used that intake system on the last air cooled 911.
Lol, 600 Nm for a 2.6.
Extreme awesome car back in the time and still.
wel yes it's 2.6 litres, but for each rotation it sucks in 7.8 litres of fuel air mix. Since every rotor has 3 seperate you could argue it's compareble to a low compression 7.8 litre v12 engine.
@@Jules-bass You could be right, but the marshals / inspectors at le Mans aren't dump. that would be unfair racing a 7.8 liter vs 5.5 or so. Mercedes and all would have protested.
@AnalogDude_ It is considered equivalent to a 5.2 litre 4-stroke, not a 7.8.
For each rotation of each rotor 3 power strokes occur, as in a 6 cylinder 4 stroke. However, the rotor revolves 3 times slower than the crankshaft, so in one rotor revolution there is one power stroke as in a 2 cylinder 4 stroke (or a 1 cylinder 2 stroke). Multiplying by 4 you get the equivalence with an engine with 8 cylinders of 650cc each, so 5200cc
The cars do burn oil because they do exactly this - they inject oil in to the intake stroke so that the seals get lubrication. If you take a 13B beyond what Mazda made them have in terms of power, you'll see a lot of people premixing their fuel because the oil injection system can't supply enough oil to keep mazda's recommended stochiometric mix of oil vs fuel/air up when you force more boost in to the engine.
You mean apex seals?
I have a poster from back then on my wall, framed. This Mazda clearing the fog. Named Art of Speed. Just love it!
Dont forget the Fact that the 787 B is Like 830 kg when all the other Cars in the Race were 898 kg or so, That made a HUGE diffence. Less Fuel, and the Tires wear down slower.
I am so glad I recently picked up a very low mileage RX-8! I didn't think it would be much different than say a Z4/E90, but I couldn't have been more wrong!
If you are interested in Rotary engines, Rob Dahm is currently working on putting a 12 rotor engine in something!
That thing is stunning...and completely absurd :) The engineering the original designer put into that engine is crazy.
An almost flawless video once again from Driver61! My only complaint is that at 2:13, you say that the engine has 3 powerstrokes per one rotation of the e-shaft which is incorrect. The rotor orbits at 1/3 the speed of the e-shaft meaning that for every 360° rotation of the eccentric shaft, there is only 1 combustion event, this differs to a piston engine which requires 720° of crankshaft rotation for 1 combustion cycle to occur.
Other manufacturers didn't "Leave it alone" - Mazda owned the patents for the rotary engine and hoarded them. It always needed more development competition and it has qualities that make it superior to other ICE. 3 moving parts, light weight, nearly limitless RPM, less vibration, can be run upside down, etc. These engines are amazing but needed to see the likes of Porsche, Audi, Ford, Honda, Toyota, whoever - developing their own interpretation of the engine.
The Wankel Rotary engine is not patented by Mazda. ( a quick google search will confirm this )
What's the easiest way to know that is the case? There were motorcycles (and a handful of cars) made with rotary engines.
@@swaroopajit Patent transfers aren't shown in documents - originally owned by Audi (developed by Nazis) and bought by Mazda. It can be purchased outright, leased or used without royalties. Planes, sea-doos, ski-doos, boats - all vehicles that use rotary engines. They also expire after a set amount of years which is likely the case with rotary engines.
Did you know Edison didn't invent the lightbulb? He purchased the patents from Matthew Evans.
Ford, Chrysler, AMC, and a few others have all attempted to make a rotary work, but they all eventually gave up, especially once the fuel crisis hit and having never solved the fuel eco problem. Even Mazda haven't, really, which is why they mostly ended up in sports cars where power/wt is more important than MPG.
Rotary's best hope as a range extender still shows like 30% worse efficiency than contemporaries. The Wankel's eternal problem is that it's geometries just aren't great for efficient fuel burning even if it had no sealing issues.
@@Appletank8 LiquidPiston is making rotary engines with an inside out geometry that is proving the concept still has legs - and military backing. Remember: the cabal of auto manufacturers do not want more efficient cars. They want to sell fuel, parts and more cars. That's why cars are bigger, heavier, less aerodynamic, more complicated, harder to work on, etc. Their job is to make money - period. That ranger extender is a stupid idea.
@@declankerin5765 Yeah LiquidPiston is the only one I have some hope on, my comments were specifically on the Wankel geometry.
the 787B is one of those cars that are both a product of their time and of genuis itself, and you NEVER see them again unless you look closely at how their technologies evolved in the future. Amazing video!!
Here to do the killjoy part: it was the 170kg weight discount
I still don't see why some people complain about the weight difference. The other cars had bigger engines WITH turbos and made close to 1000 HP when turned up, while the 787B made due with just 700 and no turbo. The bigger engines with forced induction would've EASILY made up for the weight difference as Mazda were far from being the fastest on pace as we know. The only place the Mazda was fastest was through the Porsche curves which is one very small section that wouldn't make a ton of difference to overall pace if you were slower everywhere else (which they were)
They probably wouldn't have even won if not for luck and very smart engineering that helped the car save fuel. It wasn't the lack of weight that saved them all that fuel it was the efficiency of the engine.
It was just luck and brilliant engineering that for whatever reason to this day some people are still salty about 30+ years later. Not saying you are in particular but I've seen many that just can't accept it for whatever reason as they are deluded.
@@2K-Tan the 962 had an engine 300cc bigger than the 787, the jaguar had no turbos, the Mercedes were already 1000kg. And the 787B all tuned up would make 900BHP which is why it qualified next to every Jaguar
@@2K-Tan the Jaguars, after the 1990 race, added .4L of engine capacity because they finished with fuel to spare. But for the 1991 race they had no time to design a new car for C2 starting from January, they already designed the 14 which later won the championship. So they had to put 100kg of ballast in the 12 and hope that it stayed screwed together.
However, the drivers had to lift and coast to save fuel, brake with both feet on the pedal to stop in time (TWR was much smaller than Mazda and couldn't afford carbon brakes), every consumable wore faster.
So the Mazda won on lower consumption and decent pace, so if the rule didn't exclude naturally aspirated rotary piston engines (very specific) from the weight penalty, the Mazdas would have been much slower than the Jaguars and not as economical as they were allowed to be.
Also do the maths, the Jaguar with 100kg more got to 1.36kg/hp from 1.23, while the Mazda with 130kg less got to 1.18kg/hp from 1.42. Race trim, 700hp for the Mazda and 730 for the Jaguar
@@hexgraphica The 962 was introduced at the end of 1984 and dominated for almost the rest of the decade until TWR Jaguar came back in '88.
That car had its time in the limelight and that's on Porsche for resting on their laurels and not making a new, better faster car. I understand why but I still don't see how that's not on Porsche.
Also, you don't need a turbo when you're packing a 7.0L V12 into the back of that XJR-12 that probably makes the same torque at 3000 RPM that it does at redline. That engine would've had over double the torque output of Mazda's 26B easily.
Sauber Mercedes also had the twin turbocharged V8 they had perfected for years and easily made close to 800 HP and DEFINITELY more torque than the 26B.
Almost nobody was using the new 1992 rules in 1991 so I still don't see why people whine about Mazda being underweight. It was their last chance, they took it and it paid off. Great story.
I understand the 26B was capable of 900 HP but I don't see why that's relevant when they ran it at 700.
@@hexgraphica Just read your 2nd comment and I agree. I also love the underdog story of TWR Jaguar and the '88 story. Even if Mazda had more money they were still an underdog though and I think they truly deserved that victory just like TWR did in '88. TWR always made the most of what they had, loved that.
They might've been a works operation but it's not like it's Porsche, Audi or Mercedes that's won a bunch of times and they weren't even close to being the biggest Japanese car company (and still aren't) So at least to me seeing them get that win with their experimental technology was pretty cool. Even if they weren't a complete underdog because of the budget.
That's some serious motorsport content! Thanks a lot for sharing with us all your knowledge. And very cool fotage of the car as well.
While I love the sound of this car, this story has been way overblown. The 787B was as much lucky as it was good. It's not the 956 / 962 winning race after race after race. Look no further than the RX-792P gorgeous, great sounding...horrific record.
I know too much about this car and this race. I worked for Mazda at the time. I’ve sat in that car. I did not fit but if you gat a chance you gotta do it.
The variable intake runners used production Mazda window regulators to build them up.
On of the coolest points is that they were so far in the lead that the brought the car in and detailed it so it would look it’s best going over the finish line.
In no world was the 787b a fast group C car. It was one of the slowest lol.
Absolutely legendary car from a legendary constructor
What a car! What an engine! But damn we’re they lucky to win
So happy you've done something on the 787b, I love my rotary race car.
Not sure if you've done a video about the Audi's winning the Le Mans year after year with their recent cars, but would love to see how they achieved this.
They won a lot by not having any competition. Audi was basically the only manufacturer at LM between 2000-2006. (6 of their 13 wins). The Bentley was a rebranded Audi btw.
Peugeot won in their third year in the LMP1 era, and was on the lead lap their second year. Audi was a 10 year veteran, and likely had a bigger budget.
@@CelciusifyFair. Audi invested a lot in Le Man since its their only top tier motorsport and costs only a fraction compared to F1 and thats coming from a major manufacturer who has serious racing pedigree.
@@patrickr4762 The hybrid LMP1 era was demanding F1 funding, Audi and Porsche spent 250 million/season, and they're both owned by VW.
Peugeot pulled out because it got too expensive and Toyota was running a much tighter budget.
If Dieselgate didn't happen LMP1 would have been more long lived as VW pulled out both teams to save face and money.
"Why was it so good" short answer. It really wasnt better than everyone else. It was never banned for being too fast. And it won Le Mans by being reliable while everyone around them broke down.
Then why this car makes 900 hp and so much rpm in qualifying? Also, why the weight is so much low?
sir, you are under arrest for spitting straight facts
@@qasimkurashi1599 the highest qualifying mazda in 1989 was 17th, 10 seconds off pole
I am not making fun; I am just asking because I don't understand.
Thank you.
I AGREE 100% Driver61!
Le Mans should be kept open book at _ALL COSTS_ !!!!
This car is the most over rated race car ever made hands down
I don't agree with the hype this car/engine had. It was slow and only won Le Mans because of the poor reliability of the competition. The engine sounds bloody awful as well
I have this car on gran turismo 3 4 6 and 7 and I love this car it's one of my favorite race cars ever the power and handling are incredible plus the sound is really great too
I never liked this overrated slow pos car I always preferred the C9
I race Rotary for 25 years
Is amazing power plant for budget racer
I love your videos, can I get a comment heart?❤
Commenting for the comment section algorithm
Lets get him a heart boys
@@4zkin No.
That's incredibly and technically information you've shared regarding the engineering of Mazda motor sports.. hoping for you to create more of ingenious motor sports engineering... keep it up 👌👌👌
Top 3 engine sounds of all time + top 3 race cars of all time. Awesome video.
What a unique story about engineering and commitment, from the engine to the dehydrated driver. To tag it as legendary is not an exaggeration.
Just wow! This car was a top shelf engineering masterpiece. Wish Mazda could today make a supercar based on the 787. Streets be filled with symphony.
Most complete presentation of Mazda's racing secrets! Kudos!
Ferrari did not have a team in 1990-1991 Le Mans, the red car shown is a Lancia. I think you meant to say the Lancia team ran a Ferrari V8 engine in LC2 race car.
The street renesis in the rx8 is pretty solid, despite reputation. I am proof!
On the track you dont need to meet any restrictive emissions standards, so you can dump the oil metering system and premix your fuel instead . This completely avoids any carbon buildup within the engine as a result of pumping engine oil in to lube the apex seals and thus circumvents apex seal failure. Rotors make fantastic race engines!
13B... FD RX7.... some of the most beautiful things on this earth.
Kiik Rousberg @3:46 What an influencer and the motorsports legend!
The 787B was my favorite race car in Gran Turismo. Super smooth and endless power. Ear candy.
I remember hearing some were that well yes the R26B engine could do another 24 hours the actual car itself was about to split in half because the rear tube frame was about to break off the fire wall. But all together this was great video about one of my favourite cars
8:22 The Achilles Heel of rotaries is actually the coolant jacket seals. As long as you're not pushing like 30 PSI or boost or something stupid like that, and you premix, you shouldn't really have apex seal issues. You're far more likely to have coolant seal issues
I could only like and subscribe, that's how videos about the 787B work. Well done!
Selling my RX7 Turbo II Cabriolet was the worst thing I ever did… so very very smooth and very high revving!! Loved it…
Look. I dont hate modern motorsport but this..this was a golden era of the cars. Everybody just creating something different.
2:17 Small correction about the rotary having 3 combustion events per crank/eccentric shaft rotation vs the 1 of the 4-stroke. It’s 6 times as many combustion events because a 4-stroke has 0.5 combustions/rotation from it taking 2 crank rotations to complete 4 strokes.
One of the most insane race cars ever. Always loved this beast
Mad to hear that the rotary was the MOST efficient engine at Le Mans. I remember the days in my RX8, being stuck in traffic and watching the needle fall away.
Thank you for this video. I love these engineering breakdowns, and this car is fascinating
...where a 4 stroke piston makes only one power stroke every other rotation of the crank**** love it!
I was there at lemans when she won.
Utterly glorious, especially right through the night.....
Fantastic video! Thanks
I'm pretty sure variable length runners are shorter for better lower RPM volumetric efficiency and longer for higher RPM volumetric efficiency. I was under the impression that the longer the runner, the more time the intake air has to accelerate into the engine, increasing total air volume. However at lower revs, the runner needs to be shorter as the vacuum from the rotor (or piston) does not have the power to efficiently pull air through a long pipe which hurts volumetric efficiency. Its why high performance engines that do not have variable anything tend to have long intakes and exhaust manifolds and only perform well at high RPM but low RPM power and torque is terrible. This engine was built to avoid that compromise and undoubtedly needed to be naturally aspirated to improve reliability for the race.
Mazda's 787B at LeMans is one of history's greatest.
It was the David Vs Goliath tale. Many people don't realize how small was (and still is) Mazda as a company when sized against the liked of Porsche, Mercedes, etc. Budgets are so much smaller, and backing so much limited. Yet without the fastest car, without the most power, and without leading most of the race, they clinched the absolute win. Not the Mercedes and Jaguar power nor the Porsche proven recipe could best the tiny Hiroshima racer. And best part of all, the car was good to run another 24 hours straight.
Many say they banned the 787B because it was so fast, it's a lie. It was banned due to the late Group C class regulations (that ultimately led to the class' demise), that mandated teams were to run F1-born 3.5 liter NA V10 engines.
Others say it was an unfair win, or that they cheated because the low weight of the car, that's another big lie. The legendary Jacky Icx convinced the officials of the unfairness of the Mazda team running the same ballast as the other teams, alleging the 787B's small engine size and lower power output in comparison to the other turbo and high-displacement monsters. So Mazda won fair and square, fought its best as everyone else and came out on top.
The perfect underdog story.
I was just on track with one of these and passed it in an LMP3. What a sight to behold.
That was a fantastic video. I have heard of this car, but you captured so much information that I hadn't know, lovely. As an aside, when they were puling that driver out in the end, he looked like a flipping corpse lol geez, what a guy. Keep up the good work on the videos BTW!