Wankel Rotary Engine

[honda_mental]

Originally Posted by WVU97GS-R

yeah if you dont' take care of them properly then yeah you'll be getting a rebuild every 60K miles hehe. but if you change their oil ever 2500 miles and warm them up and cool them down properly then they'll last like any other motor. i just don't like them in n/a because they make honda tq hehe.

hehe well that would be one of the drawbacks for NA rotor engine. But on the same token rather supplemental for turbo setups. what would be the result of a bigger rotor engine?

[honda_mental]

Originally Posted by WVU97GS-R

yeah if you dont' take care of them properly then yeah you'll be getting a rebuild every 60K miles hehe. but if you change their oil ever 2500 miles and warm them up and cool them down properly then they'll last like any other motor. i just don't like them in n/a because they make honda tq hehe.

speaking of oil change i need to do mine on my civic. shit.

[soldiermanny]

damn, where are you guys from that you've never heard of rotary engines? i mean, there every where down here in florida. i guess its the type of people down here, theres lots of old school puerto ricans down here that rep the rotary for life. there are three rx7's in my tech class alone. two 2nd gens and one 1st gen. i respect the rotary for there amazing potential and ridiculous redline. but i still stand with my pistons. but, thats another thing you can make them rev as high as street bikes. my boy has a 1st gen 12a that revs to 10,000 rpm and all hes done to it is a bigger carb, p&p and replaced all the seals. and he's sittin at 175 rwhp!

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by honda_mental

hehe well that would be one of the drawbacks for NA rotor engine. But on the same token rather supplemental for turbo setups. what would be the result of a bigger rotor engine?

alot more hp than a piston motor of the same size. hell the 13b can put out over 300 n/a whp with a port job. do you have any idea what a 6 liter wankel would do hehe.

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by soldiermanny

damn, where are you guys from that you've never heard of rotary engines? i mean, there every where down here in florida. i guess its the type of people down here, theres lots of old school puerto ricans down here that rep the rotary for life. there are three rx7's in my tech class alone. two 2nd gens and one 1st gen. i respect the rotary for there amazing potential and ridiculous redline. but i still stand with my pistons. but, thats another thing you can make them rev as high as street bikes. my boy has a 1st gen 12a that revs to 10,000 rpm and all hes done to it is a bigger carb, p&p and replaced all the seals. and he's sittin at 175 rwhp!

yup. as long as you have supporting mods they'll rev to the friggin sky

[Kabooki]

Originally Posted by 1998typesh

that link has a virus attached to it

Did anyone else have this issue? I have a current antivirus that detected nothing. Anyway, you can just use your favorite video site and search 3 Rotor Hachi.

[1998typesh]

im running avast and as soon as i clicked the link the virus warning gui popped up. i wouldnt trust it. or maybe not, who knows.

[Blue_EP3]

Same here. I too, am running Avast and got the same warnings.

[Kabooki]

im using Grisoft AVG. Anyway, just google 3Rotor Hachi and I'll kill the link.

[Darkness]

fuck 3 rotors. look up quad rotors

[1998typesh]

holy fuk those 4 rotors are 7 second cars. is there a vid like the one here that shows how a 3-4 rotor motor operates? i cant get the concept of "stacking"

[Darkness]

if it's any help chevy was contemplating using a 4 rotor back in the 70's or 80's but pistons were too popular

[raksj04]

the most popular 4 rotor would be the 26B that powered the 787B to Win the 1991 24hr of Le Mas. the 787B is the 1st and (last time i checked ) the only Japanese car to win at le mas. after the race they banned the rotary from competing in that race any more due to a "unfair power to weight ratio". the 26B is a 4 rotor 2.6L engine making 700hp. i own a 87 Rx7 and love it. it has the best throttle response of any car i ever owned.

In the 1970's the wankel engine was the wonder engine, chevy, ford, mopar all had ideas of using them or at least bounced the idea around. however the fuel shortage hit at this time so the big three started thinking and MPGs. so the idea of using the wankel died. it is my believe if a 1/4 of the time effort and money that was put in design the current piston engine the rotary could get 30mpg or so. that are dirty engines, they have oil injectors. the block of my S4 13B N/a is about 15x15x 20ish inches. and weights about 220 lbs. the rotor is three sided and the rotor spins one full rev for every 3 revs of the e-shaft(crank shaft). when one side is at combustion one side is at intake then the other is at exhuast.

[Darkness]

Originally Posted by raksj04

the most popular 4 rotor would be the 26B that powered the 787B to Win the 1991 24hr of Le Mas. the 787B is the 1st and (last time i checked ) the only Japanese car to win at le mas. after the race they banned the rotary from competing in that race any more due to a "unfair power to weight ratio". the 26B is a 4 rotor 2.6L engine making 700hp. i own a 87 Rx7 and love it. it has the best throttle response of any car i ever owned.

In the 1970's the wankel engine was the wonder engine, chevy, ford, mopar all had ideas of using them or at least bounced the idea around. however the fuel shortage hit at this time so the big three started thinking and MPGs. so the idea of using the wankel died. it is my believe if a 1/4 of the time effort and money that was put in design the current piston engine the rotary could get 30mpg or so. that are dirty engines, they have oil injectors. the block of my S4 13B N/a is about 15x15x 20ish inches. and weights about 220 lbs. the rotor is three sided and the rotor spins one full rev for every 3 revs of the e-shaft(crank shaft). when one side is at combustion one side is at intake then the other is at exhuast.

not entirely true. they measure rotary displacment incorrectly in comparison to piston motors. if you measured them the same way that rotor is really a 5.2 piston motor. hence the power to weight ratio. putting the two in the same category is like having to muscle cars (one with a 7.0 twin turbo the other with a 4 liter n/a motor) compete in a drag competition. apples to oranges. don't get me wrong rotaries are bad ass. but no you can't increase the efficiency of the rotary engine. here is 50+years of experimentation with them. the flaw is also it's strong point. they have to burn extra fuel to stay smog legal. they are very thermally inefficient and lose a lot of energy in there exhaust pathways, which is also why they respond so well to turbos

but rotars also have weakness where in order to make power with them you have to port them etc which drastically shortens there life expectancy. they are also very fragile with detonation. the only solution to most of there power issues is to make them bigger which would throw off their whole power/weight ratio argument. they are great race motors but not economically feasible for a daily driver. As far as power,weight and reliability go they are inferior to motors such as chevy's ls-x series of motors. all the r&d in the world will not fix their apex seal issues, air pump issues (fd3s), and porting issues. but we'll see when the new rx-7 comes out. hopefully it'll be a 3 liter twin-turbo

p.s. as far as throttle response goes that's what itb's are for on 4 cyls

[raksj04]

you and the whole usa is waiting for the new RX7 to come out. i have wishfully thinking for mazda to have a striped down verison with power nothing including steering. i hear the statment before that the wankel's displacement is measure incorrectly. how is that, i am curious.