i think somebody needs to build a 6 rotar engine and stuff it in something

That'd be cost effective.

6 rotor? That's pretty wild and probably pretty tough to make. We're better off making a 3 or a commemorative 4 rotor (1991 LeMans winner) engine first. There's plenty of 3's out there and that's what they used in Japan's GT series RX-7... 3 rotor n/a. Not the most competitive car, but it had a win last season. They should make use of that compact engine and build some more displacement.... no replacement for...

as if cost effectiveness is really an issue when a butt load of car junkies throw away 80-100k into a car that is 10 years old.

lol, a 6-rotor would be longer than the car... ;)

I would like to see a 3-rotor with larger rotors though. I'd even let them use my car to test it out!

ok so lets see someone scale the motor to a 1.95l motor and bumo the rotor size to match. we have all seen a 3 rotor so maybe a big ass 2 rotor would be cool

why not 8

Think of a fuel economy on that 6 rotor engine... btw if more car manufacturers were experimenting with a rotary engine it might have replaced a regular engine... and would be much more refined

6 rotor? 3 is heavy already and it would make the 50/50 balance go away and I don' think the handling would be that great.

Originally posted by Jhouse
i think somebody needs to build a 6 rotar engine and stuff it in something

Check out:

http://www.hurleyrotary.com/hme13b.aspx

Scroll to the bottom of the page...

:D

As far as I can remember, Mazda originally wanted the 8 to have a 3 rotor NA or a 2 rotor FI power plant.

However, even at the drawing board stage they realised that the fuel economy would be so poor (compared to the performance delivered) that no-one in their right mind would buy it (apart from very rich enthusiasts).

Mazda are owned by Ford, and Ford need money. A few rich enthusiasts were never going to help Ford with their money problems. What Ford needed was for Mazda to sell more volume - that meant a 2 rotor NA at most.

6 rotors? wow.

That (at 650cc each) would be equivelant to an 18 cylinder 8 litre pison engine and give 750bhp + in Renesis tune. Why? And that would be 3 times the Renesis fuel consumption :eeek:

You can add a 2 or 3 rotor with FA and get 800bhp for racing.

not that it matters but I think a 6 rotor would make more than 750bhp, thats about what the 4 rotor 1991 le mans winner was pushing out of there 4 rotor

Originally posted by gr8rx
not that it matters but I think a 6 rotor would make more than 750bhp, thats about what the 4 rotor 1991 le mans winner was pushing out of there 4 rotor

In Renesis tune I said. Each rotor in the Renesis puts out ~125bhp, 6*125 = .....

Of course Forced induction (turbo pr supercharger), porting etc can up that but a 6 rotor engine isnt going to be used in any racing car, to big, heavy and uneconomical.

Much better to use a turbo 2 rotor or 3 rotor.

like i said stick it in Something. It could be a freaking funny car for all i care. if you have the money to dod a motor like this then you obviously dont really give a rats ass about the fuel consumption.

Originally posted by ep3
As far as I can remember, Mazda originally wanted the 8 to have a 3 rotor NA or a 2 rotor FI power plant.

However, even at the drawing board stage they realised that the fuel economy would be so poor (compared to the performance delivered) that no-one in their right mind would buy it (apart from very rich enthusiasts).

Mazda are owned by Ford, and Ford need money. A few rich enthusiasts were never going to help Ford with their money problems. What Ford needed was for Mazda to sell more volume - that meant a 2 rotor NA at most.


What about the new Ford GT......?

how about a 2.6l sinlge rotary ONE BIG ONE and then turbo that.

Originally posted by klegg
What about the new Ford GT......?

The 'new' forg GT is cobbled together from parts found all over the ford group. Very little development time or money was spent, and as they'll be making 4000+ of them it'll make money (but not a lot) , the whole project was only started as a 'halo' project for fords centenary.

mazda have done remarkably well getting out of the hole thew were in, their previous director(CEO) pushed a design lead restructure of the mazda product range and reduced the platform./parts count, so mazda are actualy making money now, even so the RX-8 needs to sell and make money, ford cant bail mazda out atm.

In fact ford were so impressed with mazda's imrovement they 'poached' the head guy, moved him to ford Europe.

My new C&D has a test between ferri, porsche and the GT..

The GT smoked them...

I am not sure how many parts are lifted from the corp bin, but I can not believe it is that many.

By the way, I am not a Ford fanboy, I really dislike the company, based on my SVO ownership...

FORD=Found On Road Dead...

:eek: :eek: 6 rotor engine..900BHp! I wonder how much it cost Hurley engineering to make that.

I would have to imagine a 6 rotor would have concentric shaft problems. That would be a lot of stress. A one off is one thing, any sort of mass production is another. Maybe for an airplane or boat. Weight would be overcome by power. If we are fantasizing about interesting set ups for future cars, why not just have a 20b up front powering the front wheels, and another three rotor in the back to power the rear wheels with a clutch that controls boths transmissions.

Originally posted by RobDickinson
And that would be 3 times the Renesis fuel consumption

I don't think it would be as bad as 3 times the fuel consumption, except at the track or anywhere you spend a lot of time at WOT.

During normal city and highway driving, I would expect that the fuel economy would be worse than a two rotor, but not by a whole lot. At least that is what I would expect.

Originally posted by Senseny
I would have to imagine a 6 rotor would have concentric shaft problems. That would be a lot of stress. A one off is one thing, any sort of mass production is another. Maybe for an airplane or boat. Weight would be overcome by power. If we are fantasizing about interesting set ups for future cars, why not just have a 20b up front powering the front wheels, and another three rotor in the back to power the rear wheels with a clutch that controls boths transmissions.

WOO-HOO! 4WD, 50-50 weight distribution, and twin rotaries! Yeah! Torque this!

As a side bonus if one engine floods, you can "push start" the dud :D

Nubo I'm glad you like my idea. Now if I could just get some mechanical ability I would be fine. My other grand dream is a supercharger and turbo set up on the same engine, super for low end, turbo for the high end. But I have been told (on the 7 forum) compressing compressed air can be dangerous to the engine. But there has to be a way.

Old rally cars use to do both super and turbo back in the day (Peugeot or Citroen or some French co.). Now Turbos with ball bearings spool so quickly it's not effecient to have both.

I'd wait to see what Paul Yaw can do with a Super Charger for the Renesis engine. Hopefully they can hit their target 450 hp for the SpeedGT series. Unfortuanately, it takes a long time to tune everything and a lot of R and D.

I think Mazda can do a lot with the rotary block... sensors ect to be able to run different fuels, different compressions, new technologies, exotic fuels, etc. They have an advantage with the Hydrogen cars... we'll see if Pres. Bush keeps his promise of hydrogen powered cars in the US.

A six rotor would have SERIOUS issues with eccentric shaft rigidity. Like NA-only-drag-car-1-season-then-its-done issues. would still be freakin cool, though.

BTW, I'm gonna build a compound forced induction (SC + turbo) for my project car. Its still in the "restore donor" phase right now, though.


EDIT: WTF!?! I'm not ZoomBlack...... ???

Fixed!! But, what the heck was that.

^
|
|
| Thats me above, weird. Forum screwed up. Never heard of ZoomBlack.

I like the idea of lots of rotors - but with a much smaller capacity...

How smoothe would a six rotor be with 300~350cc per rotor??? It's not going to happen until the design can become more fuel efficient.

Funny when you think about it - there haven't really been that many true inventors over the years. There's a lot of innovation and refinement, integration and optimisation, but not much that's truly new.

i dont think they can use 3 rotors anymore because the overlap allows the unburned hydro carbons to escape

thats why they went to side porting
________
Depakote lawsuit info (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/depakote/)

Why not a 22 rotor motor, it should make a whopping 2600 hp and would be lighter than a 16 cylinder engine. c'mon ya'll know ya want it and ya can shift it mad quick yo! I'll bet 0-60 would be sub 4 second, dallmmmmnnn dog!

Kev, back to a relatively serious note. The internal combustion engine has been around for 100+ years. Most of the performance upgrades (super and turbos, ICs, etc) have been out there for 70+ years. Even our beloved Wankel has been around for quite a while. Truly new technology is very hard to come by. It seems like we just keep getting improved versions of what we already have. Something truly new and innovative would be refreshing.

Originally posted by Senseny
Kev, back to a relatively serious note. The internal combustion engine has been around for 100+ years. Most of the performance upgrades (super and turbos, ICs, etc) have been out there for 70+ years. Even our beloved Wankel has been around for quite a while. Truly new technology is very hard to come by. It seems like we just keep getting improved versions of what we already have. Something truly new and innovative would be refreshing.

Theres plenty of improvements though, new stuff.

VTeck, variable capacity, electrostatic(camles)valves, common rail,multi valve ,new materials (alloys,ceramics) etc.

The piston engine has had an lot more man hours of development time than rotaries.

Absolutely the improvements are phenomenal. I am just saying the original technology is over 100 years old. Its lasted becuase it works and much of our economy is based on it.

It would be nice to have a 6 rotor in the back of a Lambo Replica. Would smoke all original Lambo's :D

...Just dreaming... :cool:

I'll settle for a 2 rotor with 1.6 displacement, and lower compression rotors for FI.

http://members.westnet.com.au/ahriman/6-rotor.jpg

They tried to build an 8 rotor motor, but it kept twisting eccentric shafts. I think they even tried to build one out of titanium and it died too.

Let's just make the rotors stackable so we can add as many as we can fit :)

They are stackable...

A six rotor would have SERIOUS issues with eccentric shaft rigidity.


Not if they engineer the 6 lobe e-shaft to have support bearings in the side housings to cut down on flexing. It would be no different than any in-line 6 cylinder engine with 7 main bearings. I don't see the 2Jz Supra engine having crank shaft problems. It's all in how you engineer it.

http://members.westnet.com.au/ahriman/6-rotor.jpg

They tried to build an 8 rotor motor, but it kept twisting eccentric shafts. I think they even tried to build one out of titanium and it died too.





Stacking a rotary isn't the hard part. Knowing how to properly engineer the e-shaft is something obviously out of Hurley Engineering's capability. That's why it failed.

why not 8

How about two 3-rotors, side by side. Or even two 4-rotors. What a plumbing nightmare that would be! LOL!


1.3L

Are we really doing this ?

Are we really doing this ?

Haha, I wish!

I'd settle with just being able to sit in a 3 rotor car. I've seen enough videos to know I want to own one some day...

5 year old thread

i loled at the post date..........

5 year old thread

At least he searched :lol2:

How about two 3-rotors, side by side. Or even two 4-rotors. What a plumbing nightmare that would be! LOL!


1.3L

Would that be a V 6 rotor?... Damn I have no idea...

Would that be a V 6 rotor?... Damn I have no idea...

*Universe implodes*

how would that make a V? it'd me more like... oo..... the infinity engine... someone make that. now.

No, it'll become a supercharger!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rotary_piston_pump.svg

It's still a rotary except it's not a triangle type rotary! :lol2:

No, it'll become a supercharger!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rotary_piston_pump.svg

It's still a rotary except it's not a triangle type rotary! :lol2:

I just sat here for a minute or two, u sing my hands as the rotor piston things, and I just, for the life of me, can't figure out how that would work, lol. Every time I'd try to get from B -> C, I'd end up back in A! AHH!

No, it'll become a supercharger!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rotary_piston_pump.svg

It's still a rotary except it's not a triangle type rotary! :lol2:

That's a roots supercharger.

I just sat here for a minute or two, u sing my hands as the rotor piston things, and I just, for the life of me, can't figure out how that would work, lol. Every time I'd try to get from B -> C, I'd end up back in A! AHH!
If you can't figure out how it would work, you've got it right! Roots superchargers don't compress anything. They are just air pumps.

No, it'll become a supercharger!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rotary_piston_pump.svg

It's still a rotary except it's not a triangle type rotary! :lol2:

That's a roots supercharger, not very similar to a rotary at all. But you're on the right track, because the Wankel design was originally conceived as a supercharger. It looked a lot like a single rotor, with the pulley on what is now the E-shaft and the output to the motor is now the exhaust.

If you can't figure out how it would work, you've got it right! Roots superchargers don't compress anything. They are just air pumps.

Oh, good. OK, that makes all the sense now!

better yet, the quasiturbine motor....

It uses photo-detonation as its combustion method.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/quasiturbine-6.gif

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine.htm

^Here we go again

..........wtf

better yet, the quasiturbine motor....

It uses photo-detonation as its combustion method.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/quasiturbine-6.gif

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine.htm

ummm no it doesn't... they tried making it work for like 5 hours and nothing happened. The quasiturbine is a pipe dream, nothing but a bunch of fancy claims. It's all farts and no crap.

simplicity is key......about the 6 rotor, just mount a whole bunch of renny's all over your car like they do with those huge tractors for pulling with like 6 v8s