What about the Wankel Engine??

[crisis]

Originally posted by megotmea7
only through miss information and the general concensus that rotarys are "unreliable" and put out no torque. the FD put out plenty of torque and with a redline of 8krpm you can gear for more torque and your argument becomes pointless, rotarys are performance engines, they make great power from a small size and small displacement, when you say youd rather have 1.8 liter 4 than a rotary what about a 2 liter 20b 3 rotor? you want torque? lmao and thats closer to the displacement than the 1.3 liter 13b-rew, compare ANY 4 cylinder to the 20b in terms of reliability modability, performance(and keep in mind it came in a luxury car...) and if your worry'd about gas mileage then i wouldnt even be worry'd about a performance car. gas consumtion is the killer of the rotary in the 80's if it wernt for the ga crunch you be seeing rotarys in everything. after the gas crunch GM and mercades droped their projects, mazda was the only one to stick with it and if ppl can get over the misconseptions and see the truth i wouldnt doubt other manufacturers would start toying with it again. on paper the design is almost perfect(more perfect than any piston engine, only thru use of better materials and developent it will come to blossom(the piston engine has been around forever, if the rotary had as much development as piston engines we wouldnt be talking about it in the current context.

PS i read thru this whole thread and theres so much ignorance im not going to bother with responding to, even if i did most these ppl arnt even around anyway...

Having to rev an engine to 8000 rpm to make up for a lack of low down torque really exposes the deficiencies in the design . And no doubt explains the lack of fuel economy. If you can live with poor fuel economy buy a V8 and have torque , power and ordinary fuel economy. Similarly if you have to gear the car to compensate for the lack of torque it is a compromise. Rotaries are a novelty and without the innovative RX8 car itself would probably be listed under historic engines by now.

[megotmea7]

again the FD RX-7 had plenty of "down low" torque its sequential turbo setup made up for any "design flaws" with the rotary, with a downpipe and non sequential conversion it has more downlow torque than befor without the advantages of the sequential setup...

[crisis]

Originally posted by megotmea7
again the FD RX-7 had plenty of "down low" torque its sequential turbo setup made up for any "design flaws" with the rotary, with a downpipe and non sequential conversion it has more downlow torque than befor without the advantages of the sequential setup...

So youre saying to perform it needs two turbo chargers?

[fpv_gtho]

honestly crisis, uve got to admit that for a 1.3L engine its got alot of torque. compared to the power its shit but i havent seen any NA 1.3L engines get 211nm of torque other than the renesis

[megotmea7]

So youre saying to perform it needs two turbo chargers?

im saying after the turbos were made non sequential(they work as one) it still had more down low torque than most give it credit for, the N/A rotarys are peaky admitidly but turbo rotarys are torquey as the next turbo I4 or I6 you can find... with less than half the displacment

[megotmea7]

Having to rev an engine to 8000 rpm to make up for a lack of low down torque really exposes the deficiencies in the design

explain to me the "deficiencies in the design" of a rotary being revv happy? the simple fact is rotarys are more comfortable at higher rpm that piston engines the very few internal components rotate at 1/3rd the the rate of revoulutions per minute compared to piston engines rotating assemblys rotating just as fast as the rpm with the added stress of reciprocating motion(pistons constantly changing directions startng and stoping wasting more energy on inertia than the rotary). if you measered the actual rotor speed at the 8000rpm redline it is only rotating at ~2666rpm with zero reciprocating motion. the only thing in the whole motor that is rotating at 8000rpm is the eccentric shaft, a solid rod of forged steel with 2 offset lobs. no cams nothing... flaw in design?

[crisis]

Originally posted by fpv_gtho
honestly crisis, uve got to admit that for a 1.3L engine its got alot of torque. compared to the power its shit but i havent seen any NA 1.3L engines get 211nm of torque other than the renesis

But it doesnt use the same fuel as a 1.3 litre. Its pointless to compare it that way. You can make a 1.3litre engine produce twice that with a turbo and then we may be talking the same fuel economy. Not to mention the cost of a car with a rotary to start with. Not that I would like a 1.3lt turbo powered car. The case for rotaries has been decided by the fact that only one manufacturer, which is one of Japans least successful, perseveres with it.

[megotmea7]

The case for rotaries has been decided by the fact that only one manufacturer, which is one of Japans least successful, perseveres with it.

i bring it back to the fact that chevy, benz, and others were going to use the rotary but droped it due to a "chance event" like the gas crunch, blaming the design of the rotary for others manufacturer lack of the ability to take a chance isnt a valid point, they dont take a chance because of the reliability aura that surounds the rotary be it true or not, to the average un informed person that even knows what a wankel engine is, it is a unreliable gas hog and for the most part that isnt true and what is true is based on mazdas price cutting at teh factory and the owners lack of knowledge of the engine and its control systems before they blew it up

[crisis]

Originally posted by megotmea7
i bring it back to the fact that chevy, benz, and others were going to use the rotary but droped it due to a "chance event" like the gas crunch, blaming the design of the rotary for others manufacturer lack of the ability to take a chance isnt a valid point, they dont take a chance because of the reliability aura that surounds the rotary be it true or not, to the average un informed person that even knows what a wankel engine is, it is a unreliable gas hog and for the most part that isnt true and what is true is based on mazdas price cutting at teh factory and the owners lack of knowledge of the engine and its control systems before they blew it up

Why take a chance on something that at best performs adequately. It revs hard , which used to be an advantage until Honda and now others have made conventional motors that can rev as well. Other than that Benz and Chev made a decision based on what they percieved to be the benefits of persuing a new type of motor that even if it worked , as we see it has with Mazda, offers no real advantage over a cheaper conventional motor.

[Cappy]

One of the reasons why the rotary has trouble competing with the piston engine is because it has not been improved and optimized by dozens of top-name automotive manufacturers for over 100 years. At this time only 1 manufacturer makes 1 car with the rotary. Think about it...

One of the problems of past rotaries is delicate apex seals which are intolerant of even a single serious detonation. In order to combat this, rich fuel/air ratios are used, but this does not promote fuel efficiency. Modifiers that increased power to the RX-7 without considering fuel flow and ignition timing had problems. I don't know if the Renesis' apex seals are more durable.

The ability of rotaries to rev high (if you call 8-9k rpm high) is not a disadvantage. As long as the engine is able to safely operate at this, there is no reason not to take advantage of it.

[crisis]

Originally posted by Cappy
At this time only 1 manufacturer makes 1 car with the rotary. Think about it...

I think that sums it up.

[Cappy]

That's not fair. So most companies don't think it's worth the financial risk. That doesn't mean it's a bad design. It just means it's not a profitable one...or that most companies don't have the balls or know-how.

[crisis]

Originally posted by Cappy
That's not fair. So most companies don't think it's worth the financial risk. That doesn't mean it's a bad design. It just means it's not a profitable one...or that most companies don't have the balls or know-how.

your point would hold a little if at least one other company was interested. No other company, means a resounding vote of no confidence. And they've all had long enough to guage MAzda's success.

[Falcon500]

well there once was a company called NSU who built a car called the Ro80 this car was only months off mazdas first rotarie engined car and they would of beat them if the suppliers of the engines had of gotten them some earlier. The car was good it had great handeling a semi automatic transmission which worked with an electric switch and then operated a vacume system (this actually worked to mask the twin rotors poor torque) but the engine was what killed the car its rotor tip seals worse out after 15,000 miles and NSU had to replace them under warrenty with some cars going through 9 engines! It killed the company in the long run.
There are other similar storis like that but i find that one the most interesting.

[crisis]

Originally posted by Falcon500
well there once was a company called NSU who built a car called the Ro80 this car was only months off mazdas first rotarie engined car and they would of beat them if the suppliers of the engines had of gotten them some earlier. The car was good it had great handeling a semi automatic transmission which worked with an electric switch and then operated a vacume system (this actually worked to mask the twin rotors poor torque) but the engine was what killed the car its rotor tip seals worse out after 15,000 miles and NSU had to replace them under warrenty with some cars going through 9 engines! It killed the company in the long run.
There are other similar storis like that but i find that one the most interesting.

Well if thats not and indictment what is. I know NSU were around for a while and made motorcycles. Killed by a stinking rotary.