I can totally agree with that. The needen't be compared. It's like comparing a turbine to a piston airplane. Completely different beast.
But I'd like to clarify a few common mis-conceptions:
They're not as un-reliable as many think. I've seen and driven rotaries with 200k+ and they still all post 130+ per face on both rotors. It's treating them like a rotary that makes them live. Treating them like a piston engine and they die fast. People think that it's louzy that a full bore, 13B, PP rotary that sees over 10K (I don't care how you want to compare engine speeds, that's truckin') wont last over 20,000 miles. Find me a comparable 2ish Liter 4 cyl (comparable power from NA and equal combustion events per revolution) that sees speeds over 8k regularly puts out 300hp on pump gas (rotaries either have 8.5 or 9:1 cr) with big ol' cams that does see that kind of engine life and I will be surprised.
Rotary power curves are different too. They're less parabolic, and tend to make all their power at the top end, where they like to sit. Remember, the factory quoted torque curves for the 1991 Prototype cars placed the 787B 4 rotor at the top of the list. It made more torque than all the 3.5L V12 cars and more power to boot. (600+ hp at 7500 with 10.0:1 CR aint bad for a 2.6L NA motor in my book)
The only thing rotaries fall short on is oil consumption. Again, treating this motor like a 4 stroke piston engine kills it. Allowing a bit of 2 stroke oil in the motor to keep the apex seals safe means a little worse emissions but a much longer lived rotary. Beyond that, it's all about preference, and if I had the money, I'd put a 3 or 4 rotor in a Z in a heart beat. The 2 rotor weighs just over 200lbs. That's a power-to-weight ratio I can get behind.