It seems that TRIANGLE POWER has failed Mazda!

[bone]

Yeah, I read about that. Quite a few people will be getting some bad news.

bad news?


a brand new engine for free? i'd say that's great news

and now i'm out, making sure my RX-8 needs a new engine
(like i have one )

 

[Clown]

^ I though the same thing.
Trash the hell out of it, then drop it off at the dealer.

 

[BlaRo]

Maybe you can ask Mazda to take the old engine and disassemble it to make some novelty fish tanks.

 

[zenkidori]

I still say if Honda made rotaries they'd probably be a lot better.

 

[thedguy]

I still say if Honda made rotaries they'd probably be a lot better.

If more companies in general worked on the rotary they'd be better.

I could only Imagine how bullet proof of an engine Toyota would make...

 

[Jay]

Oh, this is a shame. The RENESIS is a wonderful engine, much more refined than the rotaries of yesteryear. I doubt that this will have a negative long term affect, because knowing Mazda, they will bend over backwards to remedy the problem.

 

[Jay]

I find it funny how people defend the rotary engine on the fact that it is 1.3 liter displacement.

*coughcough2.6literscoughcough*

 

[Alok]

Hell I have been in an RX8 on the left lane of the autobahn before a few times as a passenger and nothing can match the exhilaration of revving that rotary wankel all the way upto 9000rpm.

 

[Kebab gud]

I still say if Honda made rotaries they'd probably be a lot better.

If more companies in general worked on the rotary they'd be better.

I could only Imagine how bullet proof of an engine Toyota would make...

the funny thing is that toyota has the license to make rotary engines
(think honda does too)

 

[No Boss]

Hell I have been in an RX8 on the left lane of the autobahn before a few times as a passenger and nothing can match the exhilaration of revving that rotary wankel all the way upto 9000rpm.

Nothing??....

 

[zenkidori]

I find it funny how people defend the rotary engine on the fact that it is 1.3 liter displacement.

*coughcough2.6literscoughcough*

you're an idiot.

I will post a picture of a cookie if you can even tell me why people even try to argue that .

 

[bone]

I find it funny how people defend the rotary engine on the fact that it is 1.3 liter displacement.

*coughcough2.6literscoughcough*

you're an idiot.

I will post a picture of a cookie if you can even tell me why people even try to argue that .

you know what? it's a 3.9 liters

read here

If we look at how a piston engines volume is calculated we arrive at a displacement based on total swept volume of every piston added together. It is not based on rpm. On a rotary, displacement is figured using one rotor face in one complete revolution then multiplied by 2. This only leaves the total for 2 combustion chambers though and the rotary has 6! Since the volume of a 13b rotary is rated at 1.3 liters (only 2 combustion chambers) it really adds up to 3.9 liters!!! I can hear it now, "...but we only have 2 rotors!" So what! Like I said it makes no difference if there are 2 rotors with 6 faces or 6 rotors with one face each. the total is always 6 and the base numbers are only based on 2 chambers. The rotary merely does 3 times the work in a package 1/3 the size. It's just a 3.9 liter engine crammed into a 1.3 liter body.
We should not expect to develop the torque numbers of a 1.3 liter engine. It should settle in somewhere around 50% less than a 3.9 liter engine which would put it around equal to a 2.6 liter engine in power.

 

[MXM]

Why not take the volume of whole chambers and subtract the volume taken by rotors. That would be the closest analogy to a piston engine I think. Well, actually, I don't even care about comparing those 2 complitely different designs, because you just can't! And shouldn't. Compare weight, fuel economy, power curves, but how does displacement matter at all??
Mazda tells us it's 1.3 for marketing purposes. It's not the rotary analog of 1.3 piston engine, not even remotely.

 

[Redliner]

I find it funny how people defend the rotary engine on the fact that it is 1.3 liter displacement. Even though it goes through fuel like a v8, but without the average horsepower of one. Plus they are heavy like a v8. That is why you read about people putting chevy LS engines in the rx8 and end up with only a few pounds heavier, but still balanced front to rear weight.

^ I just can?t believe an engine so small can be as heavy as a V8.
Oh wait, I forgot: american V8?s are the best at everything Oh my, I wish I had one...

 

[zenkidori]

It's not. A 13B shortblock weighs around 250lbs. I have picked one up by myself.

The converse is true, the V8s people swap are actually quite light. Even lighter than some popular 4 cylinder engines, hence the reason people swap them into japanese cars.

If the displacement is measure properly, like any other car, it's 1.3l. The way people arrive at 2.6 is because a normal 4 stroke reciprocating piston engine completes a full cycle once every 720 degrees, whereas a wankel does it in 360. You can come up with all manner of different ways to measure and get all kinds of different numbers, but the fact remains that the 13B and renesis(not "the rotary engine") physically displace 1.3l, just twice as fast as a similar size 4 stroke reciprocating piston engine.

 

[Clown]

I find it funny how people defend the rotary engine on the fact that it is 1.3 liter displacement.

*coughcough2.6literscoughcough*

you're an idiot.

I will post a picture of a cookie if you can even tell me why people even try to argue that .

you know what? it's a 3.9 liters

read here

If we look at how a piston engines volume is calculated we arrive at a displacement based on total swept volume of every piston added together. It is not based on rpm. On a rotary, displacement is figured using one rotor face in one complete revolution then multiplied by 2. This only leaves the total for 2 combustion chambers though and the rotary has 6! Since the volume of a 13b rotary is rated at 1.3 liters (only 2 combustion chambers) it really adds up to 3.9 liters!!! I can hear it now, "...but we only have 2 rotors!" So what! Like I said it makes no difference if there are 2 rotors with 6 faces or 6 rotors with one face each. the total is always 6 and the base numbers are only based on 2 chambers. The rotary merely does 3 times the work in a package 1/3 the size. It's just a 3.9 liter engine crammed into a 1.3 liter body.
We should not expect to develop the torque numbers of a 1.3 liter engine. It should settle in somewhere around 50% less than a 3.9 liter engine which would put it around equal to a 2.6 liter engine in power.

Um..... wrong.
It only fires one chamber per rotor pre rotation. 654x2 =1308

The other side of the arguement is, that a rotary fires every revolution, where is a piston motor fires every second revolution.
And to all the piston boys that what to bitch about that I say: It not our fault your engine design is inferior

 

[Blind_Io]

Everyone please go read this: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

And this: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine.htm

Then realize that for rotary engines the traditional measurement of displacement is meaningless.

From Wikipedia:

The RX-8 is powered by a 1.3 L naturally-aspirated RENESIS rotary engine, which features newly designed side intake and exhaust ports. The engine is smaller and lighter than previous rotaries, primarily due to the lack of a turbocharger and associated parts.

The engine is designed in various configurations for different models, but in its most powerful setup develops 250 PS (246.58 hp, 184 kW) at 8,500 rpm with a redline at 9,000 rpm and fuel cut-off at 9,500 rpm. It won the International Engine of the Year and Best New Engine awards in 2003 and holds the "2.5 to 3 liter" size award for 2003 and 2004.

 

[Redliner]

Do all of this really matter?

 

[bone]

I find it funny how people defend the rotary engine on the fact that it is 1.3 liter displacement.

*coughcough2.6literscoughcough*

you're an idiot.

I will post a picture of a cookie if you can even tell me why people even try to argue that .

you know what? it's a 3.9 liters

read here

If we look at how a piston engines volume is calculated we arrive at a displacement based on total swept volume of every piston added together. It is not based on rpm. On a rotary, displacement is figured using one rotor face in one complete revolution then multiplied by 2. This only leaves the total for 2 combustion chambers though and the rotary has 6! Since the volume of a 13b rotary is rated at 1.3 liters (only 2 combustion chambers) it really adds up to 3.9 liters!!! I can hear it now, "...but we only have 2 rotors!" So what! Like I said it makes no difference if there are 2 rotors with 6 faces or 6 rotors with one face each. the total is always 6 and the base numbers are only based on 2 chambers. The rotary merely does 3 times the work in a package 1/3 the size. It's just a 3.9 liter engine crammed into a 1.3 liter body.
We should not expect to develop the torque numbers of a 1.3 liter engine. It should settle in somewhere around 50% less than a 3.9 liter engine which would put it around equal to a 2.6 liter engine in power.

Um..... wrong.
It only fires one chamber per rotor pre rotation. 654x2 =1308

yeah right

http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html

 

[Clown]

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine2.htm

The power delivery in a rotary engine is also smoother. Because each combustion event lasts through 90 degrees of the rotor's rotation, and the output shaft spins three revolutions for each revolution of the rotor, each combustion event lasts through 270 degrees of the output shaft's rotation. This means that a single-rotor engine delivers power for three-quarters of each revolution of the output shaft. Compare this to a single-cylinder piston engine, in which combustion occurs during 180 degrees out of every two revolutions, or only a quarter of each revolution of the crankshaft (the output shaft of a piston engine).