(first posted 4/3/2013) Here’s a find that I’ve long hoped to bag myself: a rare Mazda Rotary Pickup. improbocat found this one, and just posted it at the Cohort. It was an audacious vehicle at the time; now it seems almost absurd. But in the early seventies, Mazda was flying high on the strength of their rotary engine, and they were sticking it in anything that they thought those power-loving cheap-gas swilling American would buy: Little econobox RX-2, mini-GTO RX3; Luxo-rotary RX-4, the RX-7, of course. The only thing left in the cupboard was the B1800/2000 pickup. Why not? Ask OPEC.
The Rotary Pickup created a whole new class of sporty-mini-ups. And scoot it did: with the 110 hp 13B twin-rotor in the very light little truck, the MRP was a kick, once the rotors spooled up. Low end torque on these engines was always weak, so this was not designed for truckin’ in the usual sense. For that matter, the Rotary Pickup was strictly a North-America only vehicle. In other parts of the world, these trucks earned their living; without a rotary, thank you.
The RP arrived in 1974, just in time for the big energy crisis. Road and Track ‘s observed fuel economy was 16.5 mpg. Bad timing. That put the kibosh on Mazda’s optimistic production plans, and left-over ’74s were given an additional VIN code to be sold as ’75s. A total of some 15,000 were sold in total over its four years; the lion’s share in 1974.
One only needs to slide into a vintage Japanese mini-truck to realize why the genre ultimately is petering out. The trade-off from their small cabs just ain’t worth it. Even my son’s late-model Ranger felt cramped to me.
This gives you an idea of their size in relation to today’s popular trucks. Now I don’t mean to say they have to be that big either. There’s a happy medium. But there was nothing “medium” about the Rotary Pickup.
A wood steering wheel, wood dash and plenty of chrome. A prototypal Lincoln Blackwood – except for the rotary engine and trash bag shift boot. A terrific curbside classic and great find!
A wood rimmed “banjo” steering wheel … Classic Mazda.
A friend of mine had a REPU back in college it was much faster than my other friends LUV and Couriers.
I never quite understood why they made the unique front fenders and corresponding bed sides with the metal fender flares. I also don’t know why they moved the battery to under the bed they stuck the battery under the hood on the rotary powered cars and there certainly was room for it where it lived in the Courier and B series.
At the time, one of the magazines asked the factory why they moved the battery under the bed. Their reply was, “That’s where the battery is on all heavy duty pickups in Japan.”
Never underestimate the power of Japanese group think….
If that is indeed true, it’s worth noting that heavy-duty trucks (particularly in Japan) are usually bought for commercial use. Fleet buyers tend to be fairly reactionary and it’s not unheard of for sales to end up going elsewhere for really bizarrely trivial reasons, which tends to encourage conformity. The Japanese automakers have no monopoly on that.
The US is fairly unique in that trucks, SUVs, vans and the like have developed into lifestyle vehicles over the last 20 years. That is not particularly common elsewhere where if you owned a vehicle like that, it was used for its intended purpose. Reactionary occurs in the US among commercial and fleet vehicles for the simple reason that, unlike individual owners who control their repair and maintenance decisions, fleet and commercial vehicles are usually overseen as a group by a mechanic or fleet administrator who values standardization of parts and services for cost control and ease of paperwork. It is a great thing when an HVAC company with a fleet of a dozen or so Chevy Express vans only has to stock 1 or 2 oil and air filters.
But then why doesn’t the non-rotary B1800/2000 have the battery there? Especially odd, since the REPU was a NA-only item.
The battery was relocated because that’s where it was located in “heavy duty vehicles” in Japan at that time. It came equipped so it could be fitted with a padlock.
The flared fenders were fitted because of larger sized tires and wheels. The stock B100 was fitted with 13″ rims on a 5 bolt pattern. The rotary pickup was fitted with 14″ rims on a six bolt pattern (“heavy duty” once again). If memory serves (I owned one), the wheels were about 1″ wider than those on the B100, and the larger tires gave it better ground clearance.
The rotary pickup was rated to carry more in the bed than the B100: 1,400 pounds instead of 1,000.
The reason for the flared fenders is that the REPU actually had a different frame than the B-series at the time. The 13B wouldn’t fit between the frame rails of the standard B-series, so they widened the frame to make it fit. This put the front suspension further out, widening the front track. They widened the rear axle to match and hence had to flare the fenders.
Interestingly, the 86-93 B-series had this wider frame despite using piston engines. Supposedly after sales of the RX-7 exploded, Mazda had considered putting the 6-port 13B they developed for the GSL-SE into the trucks to offer a more powerful engine option. It sounds crazy, but then Toyota did a turbo 22R to tide them over until a V6 was ready.
A side effect was that it improved the handling. Mazda sold these as “the pickup with pickup,” and I believe Rod Millen ran one of these in rallying before switching to the RX-7.
Paul, for ’77 they lengthened the cab a bit to help with legroom.
The Rotary PU was much faster than any of the small PU’s of the day. With a set of low profile tires it was able to carve corners nicely. Puts many sports cars to shame. The battery in the back helps to balance things out.
Very dependable motor, though it doesn’t get great fuel mileage. On the other hand it does go fast. Should do 120.
Best mini truck ever produced hands down. I have owned two of these.
I had a ’77 REPU in Arizona in 1977. I used to run it flat out when driving from Sonoita to Tucson every day. The road I took was long straight with no places for police to hide. It’d run a steady 116 – 120 going (long downhill) and 110 coming home. I’d wind it in each gear until the buzzer sounded. There wasn’t really a red line. It defiantly made the trip shorter. I sold it because I was worried what might happen if I wrecked.
the wide fenders were because of the suspension they put under the truck, along with a wider track. GM bought rights to the rotory engine from Mazda and were planing on putting the engine in the Vega, but when Mazda informed GM what they would have to do to the suspension of the Vega for the the rotory engine, they bailed on the idea, GM didn’t want to spend the additional money on up grading the suspension.
A few corrections:
Every source I’ve seen (one of which is The Wankel Rotary Engine: A History, by John B. Hege) states that GM purchased the rights to the Wankel engine from Curtiss-Wright, not Mazda.
The Wankel was primarily intended for the Monza and its stablemates, and as a Vega option.
The Wankel was abandoned by GM not because of Vega suspension issues, but because there were issues with the engine meeting fuel economy and certain emissions targets. After Ed Cole – who championed the Wankel – retired from GM in 1974, the project was canceled shortly thereafter by his successor, Pete Estes.
Curtiss-Wright indeed held the rights to the Wankel rotary in the U.S. Mazda actually had to pay C-W a royalty for each rotary engined vehicle that was sold in the U.S. This also meant that Mazda was not allowed to sell “crate” engines or complete engines of any sort, that were not associated with a car. This led to the “factory rebuild” program. Mazda dealers had to document the VIN of a car when the engine was removed and a factory rebuild was installed, so as to not violate the engine license. Mazda could and did sell individual parts, and an industrious person could (very expensively) build an engine from the part s catalogue. In the real world, pulling intact engines from wrecked cars at the junkyard was the way to go.
Thank you for adding the specifics of the licensing agreement. It’s interesting how replacement engines were handled, and one of those pesky details that makes sense, but no doubt created headaches for dealer and those who serviced Mazdas at the time.
Looking back at my comment, I now wish I’d written the first sentence of the last paragraph as, “The Wankel was abandoned by GM not because of Vega suspension issues, but because it was reported at the time that there were issues with the engine meeting fuel economy and certain emissions targets.”
I’ve seen some present-day writers and commenters challenge the reasons that were widely reported in the ’70s, stating that these were merely excuses for abandoning the Wankel on the basis of cost, internal GM politics or both.
This new article popped in at #4 on the front page rather than the top (for me at least), seems a bit weird?
Highly collectible if nothing else now, but I bet the people who bought them new were cursing when the apex seals went, again.
Of course somebody has to mention the rotary engined bus Mazda did too, to really explore the outer limits of what a rotary might be able to motivate…
These have the 13B engine, which had many updates including greatly improved apex seals. They also went to a single distributor for ’74, which had a separately movable breaker plate for the trailing ignition points. Very durable engines, just not very economical to run. My RX-4 would barely crack 18 MPG on the highway.
Scheduling snafu…
That is in beautiful condition, fantastic colour too – anyone know if it’s a factory colour? I think there are only 3 of these here in NZ, all LHD ex-USA imports. I’ve only seen one of them in the metal, they certainly are dinky little things, but they look very butch in person with those fender flares. Great find!
Ah – one more (impractical) vehicle that intrigues me. I love those little Japanese trucks; and I’ve always been enamored with the simplicity of the rotary engine – to have both in one shot?
It’s impractical, and its poor timing only hastened what would happen anyway…but I feel about the Wankel like some here feel about hybrids. I WANTED it to work, and I harbor an undying belief that it would…with only a little more dedicated R&D.
Please don’t argue. I know of the seals; of the poor thermal efficiency. We’re talking wishful thinking here…
The fact that rotary gets relatively poor gas mileage compared to piston and the lack of low end torque in a compact pickup pretty much negates the benefit of owning a truck. Unless you were a true dedicated Wankel/Mazda fan… It is sort of the antithesis of a V8 which nowadays technology has allowed to be pretty good gas mileage considering. The basic V6 equipped F150s are a pretty good middle ground in the truck world. Hybrids, like the Prius, are not meant to be anything but basic and uninspiring transportation and I suppose they do that well if you like that sort of thing. Sort of goes back to the “What you wouldn’t get caught dead in for a year” thread its all about intentions. The wankel motor worked reasonably well in the RX7 because the benefits of rotary fit that car’s purpose.
I imagine that truck has been redone – the wheels look like off the shelf wagon wheels available at Pep Boys and the orange and white exterior and interior treatment looks almost custom.
Yea seems like this story hit the wires earlier today (including on Facebook) then came back.
The primary reason Toyo Kogyo stuck the rotary engine in everything with wheels was emissions. A few years before the REPU was introduced, the federal NOx standards had the auto industry in a panic; that’s the reason GM spent $50 million on a license to develop the GM-RCE. For various reasons, the rotary engine was thirsty, but had much lower NOx emissions than any reciprocating engine of the pre-computer, pre-catalyst era, so Toyo Kogyo figured that if they had a full line of rotary vehicles for the U.S. market, they’d be in the catbird seat.
The situation in Japan was going the same direction. Japan lagged behind the U.S. in national emissions standards, which got bogged down in politics, but the smog problem in the major cities was severe enough that several cities were threatening to impose their own rules. As a compromise, the government instituted tax credits for buying low emissions vehicles, so Mazda rushed out a number of “AP” (Air Pollution) rotary-powered products, with thermal reactors like U.S. models. That was the origin of the Roadpacer AP, which was a big Holden with a 13B and the JATCO automatic, and of the Roadpacer 26 AP, probably the world’s only rotary-engined bus.
Excuse me, Parkway 26, not Roadpacer 26.
Makes sense, that and the fact that until recently, most of the Japanese automakers exporting cars to the US were offering relatively small vehicles which collectively had an easier time meeting CAFE standards compared to the domestics that had to balance the luxury cars with small cars. The rotary engine was thirsty, but not thirsty in the same sense as a contemporary Lincoln or domestic-make trucks (although they were on a different CAFE schedule).
Ironically, NOx is what caused many problems with the Chrysler Imperial in 1981 and why it had a 318 instead of a 360. The CO and HC count was well within spec but the computer had to be programmed to go so lean during transition times to come under NOx that a problem developed that cars would occasionally go into what is known as “Lean Lock.” Owners with cars that that became a chronic problem could simply unplug the O2 sensor the car would run in open loop and a bit richer but of course that was not an acceptable solution for the gov’t or warranty purposes.
I have very little professional experience with rotary engines, but one area that I have been curious about is the potential power available in these engines. All of these Mazdas, like this truck and even the RX7, are fairly light, small, and light duty vehicles. The question is, what is the potential practical capacity for a rotary application? Could they ever be built to specifications that would match the ability of a high torque V8 in a truck capacity? Etc. etc. I simply do not know how many rotaries you could install in a specific engine without it becoming untenable.
Here is a link to a Rolls Royce R6 diesel wankel that is very interesting. But I have no idea of a suitable application for such a motor that is both cost effective and practical.
http://www.thedieselgarage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95286
The torque curve of a rotary engine depends a lot on its displacement (the width of the rotor is comparable to cylinder bore, the eccentricity is comparable to piston stroke) and porting. The position of the intake and exhaust ports has an effect comparable to the valve timing of a reciprocating engine, while port size is comparable to valve size and lift. So, you can tune an engine for more torque and better idle quality at the expense of peak horsepower or vice versa (and of course there are various tricks and compromises).
The problem is that maximum torque is still to some extent a function of displacement. While you certainly can make a rotary engine with much larger geometric displacement than any of the passenger car iterations, fuel consumption goes up dramatically due to low thermal efficiency. So, you could make a rotary engine with lazy V8 torque, but it would probably be prohibitively thirsty.
Mazda has built four-rotor engines. The R26B is the most famous example, as it was the engine that powered the LeMans-winning 787B. This engine was a 2.6L 4-rotor with the basic dimensions identical to the regular old 13B in the RX-7, but sharing about as much with the 13B as Winston Cup motor does with a street SBC 350. It was naturally aspirated, had continuously variable-length intake runners (they basically worked like slides on a trombone), three spark plugs per rotor (instead of two per rotor like other Mazda rotaries), and estimates of its power output vary between 750 and 900 horsepower.
Still, there have not been too many production-block-based engines that have won LeMans overall in the last 25 years.
Some folks in Australia have built a Mazda-based six rotor engine. Homebrew experiments are, of course, limited by the dimensions of the Mazda rotaries, which are 654cc per rotor. Other manufacturers have built larger displacement-per-rotor engines, most notably Curtiss-Wright, which built a 1,920 cubic inch per rotor engine – for reference, the 13B is 40 cubic inches per rotor
Now, in practical terms, there is the Mazda 20B-REW, which was a three-rotor, twin-turbo engine installed in their Eunos Cosmo luxury coupe (think Mercedes CL coupe, Jaguar XJS, or Lincoln Mark VIII) which was rated at 276 hp and 296 ft-lbs, but which made more like 330 hp. Conservative tuning can push this engine well over 400 hp with the stock turbos.
For a truck installation, I would love a 1986-1993 Mazda B-series with a 20B with the turbos replaced with a Roots/Paxton type supercharger. The 20B isn’t a lover of high revs like the 13B (to get max power from a naturally aspirated Mazda rotary you need to port it, the equivalent of changing cams in a piston engine, and run well over 11,000 RPM) so the RPM limitations of a blower aren’t much of an issue. For a streetable 20B, 8,500 RPM is about the upper limit. I’d do streetporting – a good balance of power and torque – combined with a Paxton blower, 300-350 hp and equal torque with no lag is easily attainable.
Me too JPT, always crazy about the Wankel engine. I barely remember seeing the first big Popular Science cover.
There may be a future for Mazda’s rotary engine as a “range-extender” driving a battery-charging generator in an electric car, like Chevy’s Volt. It’s more efficient at about 2000 rpm, it’s small, it’s smooth, might be just the thing.
Last summer when they announced the end of the RX-8, Mazda’s CEO said they were continuing to work on the rotary and are building a range-extended EV. (Autoblog story)
They were also working on a next-generation RENESIS, called 16X, with a geometric displacement of 1,598 cc. It was to have direct injection and side ports for both intake and exhaust (most previous Mazda rotaries have side intake and peripheral exhaust ports). Mazda had to shelve it, I think because they only had the money to do either that or the SkyActiv but not both, but I imagine they’d like to return to it if funds permit.
They were saying they’d had some good luck with improving fuel economy with the 16X. I would think direct injection would at least partially mitigate one of the culprits of the rotary’s traditionally high fuel consumption: the tendency for fuel to re-condense on cool parts of the chamber wall or the rotor rather than igniting.
Another vehicle that I either forgot about or never paid attention to in the first place. The heavy use of chrome on the front end is fascinating, as is the 62 Dodge Dart treatment on the grille. FWIW, the license plate would seem to ID this as a 75.
Me thinks you have a convincing point there. A ’75 it is.
Next to the F-150, this looks like a Fisher-Price riding toy.
Yes the ford does look a bit large. Cars, motorcycles and scooters were a lot smaller back in the day.
Must have. Must have. Must have. Etc.
Is that steering wheel swapped in from a RX-5 “Cosmo”? Never seen one in a pick-up before.
I think so. Early on these used the four-spoke RX-4 steering wheel. Later models may have switched though.
I don’t trust the memory nearly as far these days but I think there were bunches of these things running around Guam in 78-81 time frame. They looked lower and more narrow to me and I guess you described that. One of these things that happened a lot is they slid a piston engine in to replace the rotary.
I had a Ford Courier of that vintage and l liked it. Bought it from a diver and the bed should have just been discarded due to the salt/rust factor. I went to Nissan in 81 with one of the King Cabs and never really looked back. I’m fairly large and fit into these japanese cabs pretty well. Think we are getting way too big with our trucks but fuel consumption doesn’t compare to what the govt uses. Guess if you can afford to buy it that it that is isn’t anybody elses business.
I was wondering how long it would be between my uploading these pics and them ending up on this site.
My g/f and I were visiting wit ha friend in NH and the three of us were on our way to lunch when I spotted this on the far side of the parking lot. I parked, grabbed my camera, and bolted for it at some speed. This left my girlfriend to explain to our friend that “He does that all the time, he’ll be back once he’s done drooling over the pretty old car.” She is wonderfully supportive of my bizarre obsessions.
It’s fun when your pics end up in a feature, innit? Mine were the pics of the Fiat 850 coupe a few months back…
Then you can google that particular year make and model of car and see your own picture come up. Cool indeed.
Lead pic for this story just turned up in a “http://www.thedrive.com/” story.
Anybody remember what the copyright status of cohort photos is?
Where I live, one of the neighbors have a newer (less old?) version of this. A late 80s
B-series Mazda pick up with a rotary engine swap. It’s also red and looks and sounds great. They also have a hybrid Highlander in that house. For those times they need the fuel economy?
As I mentioned above, Mazda used the wider set frame rails on the 86-93 trucks to allow for the possible production use of the rotary. It makes swaps pretty easy. The entire drivetrain can be reused by swapping the bell housing on the transmission. Mazda only had two RWD transmissions for most of its history – R-type and M-type – and both had both rotary and piston bell housings.
There are many rotary B-Series pick ups (converted) down here in Puerto Rico. I knew that the swap was easy enough but now I know why. Rotaries are really loved here and you see them in almost everything, including a Toyota Tercel I saw once.
My understanding is that with the front cover off an 84-85 RX-7 GSL-SE’s 13B, you don’t even need to change the motor mounts on the 86-93 B-series to mount a 13B. All evidence points to the truck having been designed to take a rotary but for various reasons, it never happened. Mazda went with a Mitsubishi G54 2.6L I4 for their 87-88 4×4 models, then went with the G6 12-valve 2.6L Mazda-designed 4-cylinder that was applied to the 929 and MPV starting in 1989.
FWIW, in Japan, the 929 (Luce) got the 13B Turbo II instead of the V6 used in the US.
I’m a former RX2 owner. Loved that car. Much better overall quality compared with my previous Datsun 510. But 35 years later “the size of a 4, power of a 6, economy on an 8” still rings true to my ears.
I had an RX2 sedan as my daily driver in the early 80s. Damn that thing drank fuel. I worked at a gas station at the time, and we could just sign a tab and have it deducted from our check. On a couple of occasions, I ended up owing THEM money at the end of the week…
I saw a 1st gen Mazda pickup (not Courier) a few days ago, first in a long time, but haven’t seen a Rotary Pickup for a lot longer. Aside from the engine, these now seem ahead of their time, as sporty trim and fender flares became ubiquitous on “compact” trucks (Ranger STX and Edge, TRD Tacoma, etc).
What I find amazing is that this is probably the nicest REPU I’ve ever seen, but it’s in the rust belt. It must have been restored, which is no mean feat as Mazdas of this vintage don’t have much parts support.
Pre-RX-7 rotary Mazda values are skyrocketing. They’ve always been high in Australia and New Zealand, but the Puerto Rican and other Caribbean immigrant community took a shine to these cars early and now have the resources to buy and restore them as well.
This is pretty much the Holy Grail of US market rotaries.
If I had to guess, it was probably a CA car. I seriously doubt many were sold new in NH. They were fairly common in CA.
Probably, but still crazy to see on the east coast. I literally had seen one or two in my life until I started spending time in California… and I’m not THAT young.
The wagon wheels were on almost all these trucks. Maybe to deal with the different offset than the standard B-series? I’ve never seen on without them, except ones with obviously aftermarket wheels.
The poor low-end torque story doesn’t ring true on these. Keep in mind that they were competing with other mini pickups with small 4-cylinder engines with 70-90 hp and no better torque than the 13B. They also had pretty steep gearing which kept them in their power band – at the expense of fuel economy.
I have a 1992 B2600i 4×4 with the Mazda G6 engine. 121 hp and 150 ft-lbs, and the low end torque is still poor. I used to have a 1988 B2200 that made about 85 hp and 120 ft lbs. I’ve driven a B2200 with a 13B 6-port from a 2nd gen RX-7 – about 150 hp and 130 ft-lbs – and it would run circles around either piston truck, and was at least as responsive at 2,000 RPM.
It’s torque to the wheels that matters, and steeper gearing gets you there. The rotary’s advantage was its smoothness higher in the rev range, something sorely lacking when my 2.6L 4-cylinder hooked to a 4.44 rear end is pulling 3,000 rpm at 75 mph in my current truck. It would love a Wankel!
I’m not talking total torque, but where the torque is. My son’s old Mazda RWD 626 had the super-long stroke 2000L SOHC engine, same as used in the older B series trucks. That thing’s torque band started super early, topped out at around 1800-2000 rpm, and didn’t want to rev past 5000. Made for very lazy or early shifting.
That’s just about the opposite of the rotary’s power band. I’m not saying it doesn’t work in the truck, it just requires a different driving style. My experience with an old RX7 was there was little power below 3500-4000 rpm.
Given that these competed with four-cylinder compact trucks, not with six- or eight-cylinder rivals, I tend to agree. I think the big sticking points were (a) fuel economy and (b) price. At launch, the REPU listed for around $500 more than a B1600 or Datsun PL620 and probably a similar amount more than a Toyota truck, a jump of more than 15 percent. In the U.S., anyway, people bought Japanese pickup trucks primarily because they were cheap to buy and cheap to operate, and the REPU didn’t really fit the bill.
The price difference is something forgotten about after the fuel crisis killed demand for the Wankel. But it was real. Rotary Mazdas were more powerful than Toyotas or Datsuns, but tended to be more expensive, as well. This wasn’t a huge issue at the time but had the gas crisis not happened, it would have likely kept Mazda sales somewhat limited until the competition all had to add the cost of catalytic converters, which was quite high at the time. Rotaries met US emissions laws without cats until 1981.
I am surprised that it hasn’t been said but in the 1970s, Mazda bet big on the Wankel installing it on just about everything and when the fuel crisis hit, lost their shirt. To the point that the company had to be bailed out by a bank in order to survive. It wasn’t quite the government intervention as with GM, but pretty darn close. That is the main reason, among others, why the rotary engine was relegated to the RX models.
Same cab as our B1600 I never did fit in those very well one reason the Aussie utes did so well here they had full size sedan seating and 6 or V8 power. All the early Japanese utes suffered from cramped cabs and evil column shifts. yeah no thanks I’ll leave them to the cap on backwards crowd
I was surprised to learn how long Japanese automakers held on to manual column shifts; they were done sending them to the US by 1968 or so. I expect that they learned that since four-on-the-floor was simply the normal expectation in Europe and considered sporty and premium in America, there was no reason to bother engineering an LHD column linkage.
Well, in the end, it’s all just numbers on a tach, isn’t it? I’ve often wondered whether, if Mazda had calibrated their tachometers to read rotor RPM rather than output shaft RPM (the rotors turn at one third the speed of the eccentric shaft) whether we’d hear about rotaries having no low RPM torque. After all, if redline’s at 3,000 rpm instead of 9,000… 🙂
That said, total torque matters in the discussion. Even if the B2000 torque peak was at 2,000 rpm (and based on the B2200 and B2600i I’ve driven, I’m betting it’s closer to 3,000 rpm than 2,000 rpm) but the peak torque isn’t any more than the torque being made by the rotary when it is running at the same rpm, it may seem more torquey more by the absence of power at high rpm, even though at 2,000 rpm they’re both making the same torque.
What a fantastic find! And what a sobering picture that is, with the new F-150 near the Mazda. I’m not sure what kind of progress it is, but a heavy truck like the Ford cannot, cannot be our future, too. We need to somehow get back to smaller footprints. Think lightweight and the fuel efficiency will be there.
I remember what a break through that first Datsun King Cab was here in America. If one were to compare that with the pictured F-150, you wonder what the fuss was all about!
My Dad bought one of these new back in 1975. It was completely optioned out, dark blue with ivory interior. It was fast and got 15 mpg (hwy miles) and lived a very easy very well maintained life. After a year and a half he got the small pickup truck fetish out of his system. I was very young but found it to have a high trim level than the other small trucks on the market at the time. It was just kind of useless as a farm truck because of such a small payload. Again, god it was fast and loved gas for what it was.
Now this brings back memories! My dad had a dark green one. He loved that truck. What I remember is that his workshop was filled with oil Mazda oil filters. I remember it being tiny compared to the ’69 Ford my grandfather had at the time, but wow. that photo with F150 really shows how things have changed. The ’69 Ford would look like a 90’s Ranger next to the new F150.
But does it go “Hummmmmmmm”?
Hi guys, this is my truck.
First off, I apologize for the interior. It looks quite messy in the photos above for one reason…I drive it. When I’m on my way to car shows I install the matching seat back which sucks up much needed leg room (see photo) but around town I throw this one in which is more comfortable. …and its not a trash bag shift boot, its a shopping bag on the floor. 😉
The truck’s history…
It is in fact a California truck with a frame off restoration done by the previous owner about 6 years ago. The truck’s original color was cardinal red. The interior is custom and the steering wheel is of appropriate vintage but not from a REPU. All of the chrome was redone including the center portion of the front grill which would have been painted silver from the factory. The underside is just as clean as the body work. The wagon wheels, as you call them, are generic trailer wheels. They replace the chrome GMC Yukon wheels that the previous owner installed. All the discussion about frame width and fender flares boils down to one problem…finding wheels that will fit inside those fenders. Today you can find plenty of wheels with positive offsets…but you won’t find them with a 6-lug bolt pattern. I figured the white wheels would have been a typical upgrade back in the 70’s and they certainly match the rest of the truck nicely.
What it’s like to drive…
The REPU was the mini-sport-truck of the 70’s and by those standards it is very quick. Cut out all the emissions and add a Racing Beat header and 2.5″ exhaust and it feels quick off the line and on par with today’s 4 cylinder econo-boxes. Power is smooth and consistent from 3,000 RPM all the way to the 7,000 RPM redline. It cruises in 4th at 40 mph about 2,000 RPM and has no problem keeping up on the highway (still in 4th running about 4,000 RPM). The sky is the limit when it comes to performance mods on a rotary…but this one maintains the original porting, carburetor and air filter box and looks pretty much stock under the hood except for the missing thermal reactor and air pump. It corners OK and the refurbished suspension definitely helps…but it’s riding on 195mm tires and has no power steering so I don’t exactly push the limits. There is no A/C either but vents under the dash open up a direct channel to the front grill for plenty of airflow when you’re moving. The biggest issue of course is leg room. It’s cramped, I won’t deny that…but I’m 6’3″ and there’s more room in this cab than in a Mazda Miata.
But what about fuel economy…
Since installing these new wheels and tires I’ve been tracking fuel consumption. With mostly around town spirited driving and very little stop and go traffic I’ve been getting 16.5-17.0 mpg. Not great by any standard. I could probably squeeze 18-19 out of it if I did more short shifting but what’s the fun in that? The 77 model year could reportedly achieve low 20s with its 5 speed transmission and taller final drive.
Nice truck.
I’m not sure why you had a problem finding wheels for it. I just checked Summit and they show 328 different 6 x 5.5″ 0 offset wheels. http://www.summitracing.com/search/part-type/wheels/wheel-bolt-pattern/6-x-5-1-2-in/offset/0-00mm Granted there are only 8 in the factory 14″ size, but there are 62 choices of 15″ and finding appropriate 14″ tires is getting pretty hard and expensive. On my mother in law’s Ranger I put 15″ wheels when I got tires for it last time since I had a set around and made for a larger selection of lower priced tires.
Take that search and click on 6″ wide rim and you’ll see the problem. With the wide frame and disc brakes mounted inside the hubs, a 14×5.5″ +0 rim pretty much fills out the fenders up front. I think the original wheels had some positive offset. The white rims in the photo are 14×6″ +0. Anything wider would require a positive offset to stay inside the front fenders. Of course if you like the skateboard look and don’t mind a little rubbing when you turn there are plenty of 6×5.5-lug options. I just didn’t want the look of this truck below…
Hey sis truck for sale?
I have a 1974 ford ford courier and i want to do a rotary swap on that anyone have any know what my best bet would if the was a easier way to convert it over or what else mazda used that rotary on
not a great idea, plenty of REPUs for sale, keep that Courier stock.
Imagine if someone stuffed a SECOND 13b in there
Somebody imported one of these recently, so a genuine article has shown up over here, there are plenty of rotary converted Mazda utes around though, Late model Aisian utes have improved and the Ranger is a best selling car here, the company I work for recently bought 200 of them and they arent too bad to drive though unusually I prefer the automatic over the 6 speed manual, though its a lottery if you get sent somewhere by ute, it may be new or an older model depends whats available. And Paul, you’d fit ok into the new models
I love the looks of these trucks as well as the early Datsun models. The only rotary powered Mazda truck I’ve ever seen was in 1999 or 2000… in a demo derby!
At the time, I thought these were well styled. As was most of the Mazda Rotary lineup. The wheel arches, lending the appearance of well integrated fender flares, were especially attractive to me then. These pickups looked like a mini Jeep Honcho.
When the Jeep Comanche was introduced in the mid 80s, their appearance reminded me a bit of these Mazda pickups.
Sweet find. I haven’t seen one of these since Y2K.
Rotary’s are great motors! Here’s a vid where a small one spools up to 29,000 rpm. I bookmarked where he get it that high, but you can watch the whole thing and see what he does to get it there.
https://youtu.be/WW7lDm2x9pw?t=384
I know a Mazda B1600 from 1975 for sale with an inline 4 cilinder and round tail lights .
I thought only the rotary where with round tail lights .
Greetings Zjef
Someone snagged your photo and put it on a t-shirt. Not sure if you are entitled to anything as the original photographer.