Some people will give the weirdest things to charity.
The rotary pickup is one of those oddities that can only come along whenever a group of companies are going through their “experimental” phase and trying to figure out what goes best with what else. I like to imagine that the Japanese auto industry in the early ‘70s was like this–just a bunch of companies trying to one-up one another with industry first after industry first that would keep going on producing ever more different and interesting cars until the bottom fell out of the Japanese economy in the early ‘90s.
The Mazda Rotary Pickup symbolizes what I mean perfectly. It was created as the world’s first rotary pickup. This means at one point there was a meeting where somebody proposed this idea, why he thought it was innovative and good, and why should the company produce it, and then everyone embraced the concept with open arms–not thinking for a second that a rotary engine is perhaps the worst possible way to power a pickup truck. A rotary engine is a very cool powerplant provided you know that you can’t treat it like a normal engine (and it’s amazing in a petite sports car meant to driven spiritedly everywhere). But on a car that needs lots of low-end grunt to move things to and from, it’s actually rather hopeless. The only worse place I could imagine a rotary engine is on a bus. Wait a minute…
Our featured pickup is a one-owner early-1974 model that has been classified by the charity auction as a “4-cylinder rotary”, while in reality it has the well-known Mazda 13B in its original iteration. It shows 66,296 miles on the odo, and the body has the expected wear and tear from its age and intended purpose. The interior wiring is a mess but otherwise the cabin is nicely upholstered and seems quite cozy, although taller drivers may find the word “cramped” more appropriate. Well, at least you have some lovely wood trim to keep you company. Less appealing is what’s in the center console position:
An automatic. As if the rotary was not already ill-suited for this application, it has been hooked up to a power-sucking torque converter. I don’t think you can find a worse engine-and-gearbox combo this side of a two-stroke engine that has for some reason has been mated to a Powerglide. Nevertheless, if you just want to enjoy a very interesting piece of history, or if you want to say you’ve owned a vehicle that is unique (and give some money to a worthy cause to boot), the listing is here. Chances are it’ll be great fun and an interesting conversation starter–just pay close attention to the weight of whatever you haul.
Now I wanna find a two-stroke hooked up to a Powerglide.
If it exists, let me know. I doubt I’ll find something more inefficient.
I wonder if Chevy ever built any 4-53 DD engined trucks with the PG? Probably not.
A two stroke would be fine with a PG; they’re not revvy at all, contrary to popular belief. They just sound that way, because they have twice as many exhaust events per given rpm than a four stroke. It’s quite hard to get a two-stroke to rev high; kind of like a diesel. The racing-tune Saab Monte Carlo peaked at about 5,000 rpm; the regular two stroke Saabs at about 4000-4500 rpm.
So true Paul, the trucks with two stroke scavenger Diesels- aka the Rocky Mountain Hummingbirds or Screaming Jimmies sounded like they were revving to the sky, but were only doing about 2500 max.
San Luis Obispo ,CA still has a grandfathered fleet of old school GMC two stroke Detroit Diesel non A/C shorty busses. Worth a ride in, in my opinion more worthy than San Fran’s cable cars- as they will go away soon.
For that matter, all those thousands of DD diesel transit buses had a two-speed Allison automatic transmission, effectively similar to the Powerglide.
You’re right, they scream-clunk, and scream…
Thanks for bring that up, it was going to be my next comment!
Scream-clunk … very well said! That brings back so many memories of childhood hours spent on GM transit busses in the early- and mid-60’s. I remember one exceptionally loud clunk going up a very steep hill, that was followed by a cessation of forward motion and we all had to walk home.
Wonder of the Saab’s where the only two stoke that was used in a car? (other then a Detroit) Don’t know that I’d agree that a two stroke won’t rev, at least the small ones do just fine in that department. You can wing chainsaws and a lot of dirt bikes to over 10k rpm all day long, and they come back for more. They just don’t have any power at low rpm’s.
Two strokes were widely used in small cars in Europe. DKW was the pioneer, and all of its cars, including some upscale ones, were two strokes. Full story here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbside-classic-1958-dkw-sonderklasse-36-f94-the-proto-audi/
Lots of other small cars and micro cars used two strokes also.
Chain saw engines and dirt bike engines are small…hence the higher rpm. Plus the breathing technology of two strokes has improved. They’re designed to run fast, and don’t need low end torque.
Back in the early days, two strokes were widely used in inboard marine engines because there were fewer parts to break. And they ran very slowly. It’s all a matter of their specific design, but generally speaking, they’re not really super revvers except for the small ones. But they sure sound like it!
There’s gotta be a ’50s Chevy with a Trabant engine backed by the original ‘glide somewhere in Cuba.
How very strange. I knew of the existence of these little guys, but hadn’t ever really stopped to ponder how little sense it made–even less with an autobox.
Nonetheless they’re at least cool-looking little trucks, and this one looks to be generally in quite good shape. Pleasant cabin, too.
And yes, it does seem like an odd candidate for a charity donation as a collector vehicle. But I suppose it’s a hassle-free way to get rid of it, and a decent tax write-off depending on what it sells for.
You know converting this thing to the last of the North American Mazda Rotary engines would be awesome. At least it would make some sort of “full circle” on the history of the Mazda rotary in the USA.
I think I know why this thing is in such good shape. A vehicle that is of no use will get no use. I predict this thing has a very very long life ahead of it.
When I was a kid, REPUs were non-existent in my native Virginia. On a trip to the west coast though, I saw them everywhere. They were doing work too, in as much as hauling gardening supplies around parks and such is work. They were easily identified by their exposed battery boxes in the passenger sides of their beds. I think that’s what I noticed about them first as a 9 year old. The styling struck me as pretty nifty too.
Why was the battery stored under the bed? Wasn’t there enough room under the hood with the tiny engine? Was handling a high priority? Why did these get 13Bs but the first RX-7s only 12As? Mazda?
Is that “wood” dash factory or aftermarket?
Factory. Don’t look to closely, though.
Well at least this quirky Mazda is a 1974 so it is scot-free from emissions testing. The grill cover is neat with the protruding center and the fender bulges are endearing. This has to have been repainted at least once in its 41 years of existence.
A rotary engine may not be the best engine for a pickup, but I would love to have that pickup with a standard 4 cylinder and a manual transmission. Aside from the rotary, this is the type of small pickup I have been lamenting the loss of. I can see using a vehicle like this for just about everything. Oh, and it looks really cool.
Saw a bunch of these when I was stationed in Guam. Mazda piston engine like the one in my Ford Courier were a direct bolt in. I found the little slush boxes very useful when coupled with a piston engine like my 81 Datsun. Don’t understand it here.
I drove little trucks like this for years and like you was sorry to see them go.
“But I would love to have that pickup with a standard 4 cylinder and a manual transmission.” That would be a Courier 🙂 .
” That would be a Courier 🙂 .”
Couriers were 1800 C.C’s , the Mazda piston version was 1700 C.C.’s .
When new (? 1971 ?) the Couriers had a nifty decal in the back window reading
” FORD’S NEW 1800 C.C. IMPORT ” .
I actually saw one with this sticker still on it a few years ago in the junkyard .
-Nate
The Mazda and Courier were essentially identical, including the engines. The first Mazda was the B1600 (cc); then B1800 (cc), and later B2000 (cc). There was no 1700cc Mazda engine. The Courier started with the 1800 cc along with the Mazda B1800, then later both went to the 2000 cc.
Thanx Paul ;
I ran that thing pretty hard and wore the engine out , we made two parts request lists and took one to the Ford Dealer . t’other to the Mazda Dealer , then cherry picked the cheaper of the parts (a _LOT_ of parts !) by price .
The Mazda Dealer told me theirs was only 1700 C.C. , a mandate from Ford .
In any case it was a good little trucklet , it had a small hoist in one corner of the bed to help me load up big V-8 engines and so on I’d deliver….
I have fond memories of driving this thing , I was still 6’1″ then and I fit in it O.K. , it was reasonably speedy against the other In Town traffic , I never drove it on the freeway that I can recall .
-Nate
A friends step dad had a early Ford Courier and I well remember that sticker. I also remember the seat belt buckle and the white paper tags on the belts said “Mazda”.
The Couriers were 1800’s; Mazdas of the mid-70’s were 1600s (hence the B1600 badging). My avatar is a ’74 Courier I had in my youth. I liked the looks of the Rotary Mazda pickups; designed to be revvy little cruisers and not serious small work trucks. For that purpose, you’d get the B1600 or Ford Courier . . . . . in the day however, most people got the Datsun.
If it aint useful for its intended purpose….HOT ROD IT. That slushbox has gotta go tho…
I hope they get after the rust on this thing. These are cool trucks and Ive always dug the some would say ‘clunky’ style of these early Japanese rigs, with their bed hooks, tailgate ‘buckles’, and mismatched rocker panels. They just have a pugnacious scrappy look about them.
This is the automotive equivalent of a unicorn
Awesome truck! I would love one of these or a Courier. Preferably with a manual tranny, though. If only I had the time and the money!
Cute little truck ! too bad about the upper cab rust but it’ll make a great frame off restoration .
Hopefully it’ll get saved by an Enthusiast .
-Nate
listing says sold, $4500. Somebody has some love for this truck.
I am remember around 1973-4 spending an afternoon at the local Mazda dealer, who was having a special opening event of some sort. There were a full range of cars, including a rotary version of just about each regular saloon, looking the same except for some badges and the engines.
Great afternoon, interesting engine, crazy pickup.
These little Mazda utes were popular in govt service in NZ every department had a raft of them but all piston engined the rotary never came here in utes it was unpopular enough in car without spreading the brand damage any further.
Mazda did put this engine in a bus a really stupid idea but that and transplanting their rotary engine into Holden Premiers didnt stop them. Fortunately most of those attrocities never escaped the JDM though NZ does have some Roadpacers.
A friend of a roommate had a 74 Rotary pickup, but his had a manual trans. I never knew these were available with an automatic. What a joke putting a 2 speed auto in a truck with a low torque rotary engine. His truck, at least without a payload, was actually pretty quick for the times if the engine was revved up to high rpm’s and would chirp the tires when shifting. If it sold for $4500 some one must really love these trucks. It does appear to be in nice shape for it’s age.
I believe this has a three speed auto, as the ebay ad shows 1,2 and d on the consul shifter.
Yes, it is a three speed; I missed his comment earlier. Mazda sold quite a few rotary sedans with the automatic in the US too. It worked reasonably well enough. When you think about it, an automatic’s torque converter helps make up the deficit from the engine. It’s not as bad as one might think.
Yup an AT is a good pairing with a Rotary. You have a torque converter which multiplies torque, something that would be useful with the low off idle torque of the Rotary. It also allows higher rpm while taking off putting the engine closer to where it starts making power.
Yes, it’s a three-speed JATCO unit also used in automatic RX-2s/Capella RE, RX-3/Savanna RE, et al.
That makes a lot more sense. When I read Paul’s comment about a 2 stroke engine mated to a powerglide, I was thinking it was like a Hondamatic 2 speed design type in this truck. I should have read the ad. A 3 speed wouldn’t be so bad.
JATCO 3-speed automatics. Since these were ‘premium small trucks’ (the Rotary made them pricey for their class), they did come standard with some gingerbread (pseudo-wood grain dash). I remember the stick versions of these were real quick for the day (automatics; not bad). I also remember people who had them complaining about the abysmal fuel economy.
My ’74 Courier had the 1800; four speed and a tree-stump pulling axle. It would howl at 60+ mph . . . . . The five speeders showed up w/the B series restyle in ’77 . . . . that 5th cog was a must . . . .
On the courier, at least, in ’77, a Brazilian built variant of the FoMoCo Lima 2.3 engine was an option. The B-series Mazda eventually moved up to the 2.0 (as was the base engine on the Courier) . . . .
Oh man, not another 1970s rotary Mazda. Sure it’s rare – like a rare disease. This is one of those rare cases where I’d actually approve a small block Chevy transplant into a vintage car.
Just imagine this thing with a late model 3-rotor 20B turbo bridgeport, mated to a 6-speed Tremec and a 4.11 rear end. Can you say “check your shorts” ?
nice truck, I only wish it had the 4 speed manual instead of the anemic automatic, I always thought the Mazda version’s of these trucks looked better than the Ford version, I especially love the way Mazda was spelled on the tailgate, if I were to own this truck I would put in a 5.0 out of a later fox body Mustang and a 5 speed manual.
When I first seen the license plate, I thought it would have a 1976 302 ford in it.
Altho the Mazda rotary’s of this era would rev quite freely, their apex seals were susceptible to failure if over revved, so it having the automatic may be why it’s still running.
Those seals were prone to failure, period. No matter how carefully driven and maintained. I have had intimate relations with those seals 🙂
$4.5k is a cheap price for one in this condition, assuming it still runs ok. There is a small market for these, but rotary lovers love their rotaries. These were US market only, and keep in mind that in the ’70s, these small trucks were often not about hauling cargo, but instead seats for two, and room for some stuff (surfboards, bikes, a keg) once in a while. All of the payload ratings on the ’70s Japanese mini trucks were very low.
Always got a kick out of the full blown side mirrors, a miniature version of what often came on older model Detroit heavy duty trucks, right down to the diagonal reflectors. Many of these came with a miniature diamond plate rear step bumper, too.
Looking at the ad photos, yup, the step bumper. The wiring looks factory to me, except for about 3 heavy gauge wires over the transmission tunnel. Mid ’70s rotaries had an absolute ton of under-dash wiring, going to various control modules and boxes. Usually worked just fine, but fault finding was a chore. The complexity was because the rotary had a different pollution profile from a piston engine (lots of unburned hydrocarbons from the nooks and crannies of a combustion chamber that morphed around in shape as it turned, and the burn actually ran cold from the heat sinking of moving the combustion chamber around in the engine, even as the exhaust ran hot as many, many ignition pulses all ran through only two exhaust ports). Solenoids, air bleeds, circuit boards and wiring to the rescue.
The last paragraph actually speaks directly to why the rotary was (briefly) so desirable in the early ’70s. The low combustion temperatures translated into lower NOx emissions (NOx formation, as I understand it, is proportional to combustion temp). The higher HC emissions were considered easier to manage using thermal reactors or EGR. Unfortunately, the big combustion chamber surface area that created that effect also made for inherently higher fuel consumption.
I remember the funky exhaust pipe(s) of the RX4’s from this period with the little baby tailpipe emanating from the thermal reactor next to the regular exhaust.
The original rationale for this thing was emissions. There was a brief period in the early ’70s, after the Muskie Act was passed, that automakers looked at the proposed mid-decade standards (particularly for NOx) and declared them technically impossible. There was a widespread, if not exactly justified feeling that the reciprocating four-stroke piston engine was about to become obsolete and the rotary briefly seemed like the likely replacement. (The big attraction of the rotary was that its NOx emissions were inherently lower than contemporary reciprocating engines’.)
For a while, Toyo Kogyo decided to put their rotary engines into everything they sold. As with Honda’s CVCC engine a bit later, I think at least part of the rationale was as a riposte to the big automakers (including Toyota, whose president was then the head of the Japanese automakers’ association) claiming that the standards would be impossible to meet. But there was a semi-serious thought that if bigger piston engines were going to have to go away, the rotary might really need to go into all manner of cars and trucks.
I think the REPU, as these are called, was intended purely for North American consumption, but there were also some oddball JDM rotary Mazdas around the same time, including a small bus and the weird Holden-bodied Roadpacer. I believe those were designed to take advantage of contemporary Japanese tax credits for low emissions vehicles.
Obviously, Toyo Kogyo got caught out by the OPEC embargo and the demand for better fuel economy, but that was the original thinking. It wasn’t, “Oh, maybe this would be neat,” but rather, “If we aren’t going to be able to sell reciprocating engines in the U.S. by about 1976, what CAN we use that will meet the emissions standards?”
Poor Mazda… another case of really bad timing. They got their foot in the door at the exact same (brief) moment the Wankel engine seemed poised to take over the world. It’s almost hard to imagine because the two are practically synonymous, but I bet they would probably stick to pistons if they could go back and do it all over again. I love the RXs and Wankels as much as anyone else, and it would be a far drearier world without them, but I think that even now Mazda is still haunted by 40 year old apex seals.
Would they do it again, if they had it to do over again? That is a tricky question. Tsuneji Matsuda, the head of the company in the ’60s and the one who got them into the rotary, might have said yes because it was the rotary that put Mazda on the map at all. Without that, as much of a mixed blessing as it later became, they might have ended up just being like Daihatsu or Hino or some of the other smaller players who tried passenger cars, but never moved beyond the second or third rank.
Also, one of the reasons Matsuda had pushed the rotary was to justify Toyo Kogyo’s continued existence as an independent automaker. MITI was pushing pretty hard for industry consolidation throughout much of the ’60s, figuring that was the only way Japan would be competitive abroad, and there was talk of forced consolidation. Toyo Kogyo was family-owned at that point, so it was Matsuda’s family’s company; he didn’t want to end up disappearing with out a trace. Being able to say, “Look, we’re not nobodies — we have this exciting new technology that’s making even the American big shots sit up and take notice,” was a very valuable thing.
Of course, Tsuneji died in 1970, so he didn’t live to see the OPEC embargo. On the other hand, had Toyo Kogyo responded more quickly, the impact might not have been as crippling as it was. They obviously had four-cylinder piston engines for all of those cars (except of course the much later RX-7), so part of the problem was just that they were trying to push the wrong product at the wrong time. Had Tsuneji lived another five years, the situation might have been a little different.
The only thing missing here is a shot of the wacky “ROTARY POWER” tailgate:
I wouldn’t want the rotary, but I’ll say it one more time. That is one seriously sweet truck. Really, pretty much all the Japanese trucks from the ’70s and most of the ’80s were, and there were millions of them sold from over half a dozen manufacturers. I have to wonder where they all went. I don’t care for Japanese cars in general, but I love the early trucks. Perhaps it’s because they were so much like the early Volkswagens. Basic, rudimentary multipurpose vehicles. Their lack of style actually became their style. Somehow it didn’t work that way with today’s generation of vehicles.
Having owned two Datsun PL620 pickups , I can attest that the ‘ coke bottle ‘ styling was THE SHIZNIT in 1971 and still was in 1978 when the changed it .
My shortbed ’72 had a five speed from I dunno what but my Son was all impressed because the shift pattern on the 5 speed in it was different .
I searched the junkyards until I found a nice vintage aftermarket up grade 2 BBL carby for it, rebuilt that and added slightly bigger main jets , then it flew .
My ’78 long bed was an ex School Dept. truck with the JATCO three speed slush box , it was a slug and I was very sorry I’d been tricked into buying it by my brother as it cost me $850 , nice and clean but I still had to do lots of little fiddly things to it .
Turns out they were _all_ pre wired for the optional tachometer so I hunted the junkyards until I found them and installed in about 30 minutes .
Good little trucklets ! many times I (slowly & CAREFULLY) towed things larger and heavier than the trucks were , they didn’t complain and I didn’t exceed 45 MPH for fear of dying .
-Nate
All you naysayers need to keep in mind that this was, by far, the fastest compact pickup on the road in 1974. 100 hp was by quite a bit the most offered in any of the compact pickups of the time. This was up against vehicles with 1600-1800cc 4-cylinder engines in mid-70s Malaise states of tune, while the rotary, at this stage, met the emissions standards without much help. This truck had a third more horsepower than the competition. The automatic is a big minus, but then a 5-speed from an RX-7 is a fairly easy swap.
The reason it sold poorly was that it landed into the teeth of the gas crisis. Rotary Mazdas didn’t sell on efficiency but on performance at that time. When the gas crisis arrived, Mazda was cut off at the knees.
This truck is only a few miles from me, and if it hadn’t sold before I found it, it would be mine. These are hard to find in any condition, and the price wasn’t bad.
When the REPU was launched, the 13B had 110 net horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 117 lb-ft of torque at 3,500 rpm. (Occasionally you’ll see it quoted as 135 hp, but that was the JDM JIS gross output, which was also PS rather than bhp.) That was pretty comparable to the Datsun 620 truck (which had 108 hp with the 1.8 and 112 hp with the 2-liter). I think the 18R in the contemporary Toyota Hilux was roughly similar.
The REPU was pretty peppy for the time, but it didn’t have a huge edge over other compact trucks.
My ’74 Ford Courier had a whopping 68 net horsepower.
Funny how we did just fine with low horse power vehicles. To this day 0-60 in under 10 seconds seems fast. I thought I was the man when I got my 78 320i- I could get just over 10 out of her if I abused the clutch and speed shifted. She would be outrun by a Prius today.
I don’t think the automatic would be so terrible if it had a 3000 rpm stall converter; however, it would get even worse mpg’s- Escalade territory.
I drove an three speed auto RX-7 of a friend’s, and it wasn’t as terrible as one would think. It was a dog off the line, but got moving one the rpm’s built up. She could pass very well in second gear, then shifted into third around 80 still in the power band.
The author obviously hasn’t a clue what a Rotary engine is or its capabilities. I owned one of these stick trucks and used it to pull at 22 foot cruiser thru the hills of Indiana with no problem. Fuel economy always stayed around 20-22 mpg and it was very well built, as all Mazdas are. From 0 to 100 my buddies Jag XKE 12 cyl manual could not keep up. Of course over 100 the Jag disappeared. I also owned a RX4 Wagon and Rx2 Sedan, 74 Cosmo and a the first RX7 in Indiana. The rotary is a marvelous engine and its fuel economy even today is on par with 350cc-40cc piston engines, with which it compares in performance. I raced a RX2 coupe on the sports car tracks for 6 years with winning results against the Lotuses, Porches, Datsuns, BMWs, etc.