Woops. Guess there isn't one.
lol...
When the "Low Coolant" light is dubbed by owners as the "Replace Engine" light, there's a problem.
It's a decent technology, but it's not long-term reliable. It's probably why every other company that wanted to implement the technology passed on it except Mazda. Even GM took a by on it.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Mazda's Rotary is a lot like the old 426 Hemi. It's a dedicated race engine that's been barely tamed for the street. The advantages of a Rotary is that it makes a lot of power in a tiny package. Other than that, it's just a gimmick. A fun one to drive, but still a gimmick.
One engine I'd love to see made is a 2 stroke car engine. With modern technology those would kick ass. You'd have a 2 liter turbo engine making 450hp easy. They were banned from racing because they were so powerful.
They also would make that smog problem OH SO much better
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I just borrowed my girls RX-8 for the weekend. It's fun to highway drive and on the twisties but it's torqueless. I keep telling her to swap in an LS-x but she refuses.
Thats a GF you don't want to keep then.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
She keeps mumbling something about how it's not an RX with a rotary, I keep telling her I'll buy her a badge that says LSx-8.
Just wait I'll talk her into it one day. That thing needs some small block lovin.
Make sure to tell her ahead of time... LSx torque is like surprise anal for RX-8 chicks.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Hmmm...
GAM likes going for the Shock and Awe in the sheets I guess.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:They also would make that smog problem OH SO much better
Make it a 2-stroke diesel that's been minaturized and it would work pretty well, actually.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Best rotary engine? theres more than one?
My car may run 18s, but I can do your taxes in 10 seconds flat.
JBO lube - they would never have enough in stock and we'd never see RodimusPrime again
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:They also would make that smog problem OH SO much better
Make it a 2-stroke diesel that's been minaturized and it would work pretty well, actually.Soot?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
13B people, hands down since im the only one actually going to answer the question. And since the Renesis is just an offbranch of the 13B, yes thats included as the best as well. If you know what your doing with a rotary you can have 0 problems, much like if you kno what your doing with a 4 banger you can have 0 problems or a crap load of them. I wouldnt knock it till you've sat in an RX-7 that shoots 6 foot flames, does the quarter mile in under 11 seconds and STILL gets 30 mpg. Thats an Emm Effin Engine!
That's an engine that Mazda didn't build either.
When they basically have to recall all Renesis engine equipped vehicles for whatever reason, and are REPLACING ENGINES under warranty or as part of a recall campaign, there's a bigger problem. The other thing: Every major manufacturer has looked at the Wankel Eccentric Rotary engine and passed (with the exception of Mazda) because when something goes wrong with it, it goes colossally wrong.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
the germans invented the rotary but could not get it to work so they sold it too the japs! Thats the word on the street.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine
My sisters godfather has a fully built 13b with turbo and nos. He says there so easy to rebuild if you know what your doing. He says it takes like 30 mins. lol. Mabey he was sarcastic but you get the deal.
Again, that's not Mazda rebuilt engine.
Wankel used the original motor on his bicycle originally.. it worked fine other than the fact that it was an oil pig. It wasn't the "Germans," Wankel kept the patent to the Eccentric Rotary internal combustion engine, and licensed it to Mazda... and GM (it was going to be the powerplant for the next generation Corvair), Ford (a small Merkur-type civic competitor), Toyota (Celica), Mercedes-Benz and BMW.
Lots of companies have license to use and develop the technology, but only one chose to put it into production, and it's showing how finnikey it is in the field.
And I'd think your sister's Godfather is either embellishing or pulling your leg. There's a Mazda rotary specialist in town, and their turn-around for a rebuild on a 13B is 3 days using factory parts if they have them on hand. I was thinking of getting an RX-7 a few years ago, but after I saw all the problems that were inheirent to the design, I decided against it.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
You guys don't snowmobile I take it. Your talking about 2 stroke motors not being emission capable. It almost already done. The ski-doo SDI (semi direct injection) motor does about 17-20 MPG and is nearly automotive emissions capable and makes about 120 HP.
I ride a 2007 Polaris 600 HO CFI (cleanfire injection) which isnt as clean or as gas efficient but makes dyno tested 128 HP. It doesnt quite meet automotive emissions but with a car manufactures money vs. a snowmobile manufactures money, there is no doubt they could make a 2 stroke emissions compliant and have loads more power than and equivalent 4 stroke. Not to mention several hundred pounds lighter.
Not that this is offending anyone on here but snowmobile manufacturers are FAR FAR FAR ahead in engine technology compared to to automotive manu's. Of course because they are on such strict emissions guidlines because retarded tree huggers actually thing that the very few sledders will actually hurt the enviroment. So what you get is a couple of sled companies (Polaris and ski-doo) who make 2-stroke motors that rival the power output of similar 4 stoke motors. Unfortunatly there is a few loose ends. You have a 600 cc motor that makes 128 HP (Polaris 600 CFI) vs. a cavalier that is 1334 cc? I dont know if my figures are exact. But you look at it, if you have a 1334cc snowmobile and you have pretty much an insanly fast car. But the other problem is your gas mileage goes down to super low levels. But it would come somewhere near 250-300 HP with about 8 MPG. If you look at Yamaha's 4 stroke sleds, you can find near 1000 cc motors making about 150 HP at around 15 MPG, or the Polaris FST turbo that makes about 140 for 750cc at about 20 MPG. And that is with a horribly undersized turbo. BTW, I believe it nearly meats automotive emissions.
If car manufacturers would just take the time to manufacture a good motor, or hire a snowmobile company to do it for them, you would have a much more powerful, fuel efficient, and lighter car to drive.
The topic was about Rotary engines... I don't see what you're saying.
Bare in mind: 2 stroke engines are not going to be as efficient or as clean as a 4 stroke. They're only now hitting emissions targets that the automotive industry was getting at in 1972, the other problem is that the average 2 stroker is not going to power a car. They're not meant for mass-consumption.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:The topic was about Rotary engines... I don't see what you're saying.
Bare in mind: 2 stroke engines are not going to be as efficient or as clean as a 4 stroke. They're only now hitting emissions targets that the automotive industry was getting at in 1972, the other problem is that the average 2 stroker is not going to power a car. They're not meant for mass-consumption.
Never said they were going to be in cars. Just saying that power and weight wise, two strokes really are better. I was just making the point that if money was spent by big dollar car companies I bet they would figure out a way to make a two stroke meet emissions if they spent the money. I just know they wouldnt spend the money on somthing that they cant be sure will be worth it. Not to mention the fact that you have to burn oil. Which will get pretty expensive, and two strokes dont last very long. I doubt there is a solution to either of those problems.
But yes the topic was about rotary engines, but someone mentioned two stroke motors, and I added my 2 cents about two strokes in a car.
Back to the topic.
