Thought I might share this. If it's a repost, well, it's a good repost.
http://www.carsinaction.net/ViewArticle.asp?cat=109&sb=1&art=113

Chimney out

I'm not sure, and if someone with the mathematical fortitude can help me out here, but I remember seeing a discussion on the actual volume of the rotary engine and it comes out 2.6 liters (1.3x2) based on the way the engine works? I'm not entirely sure how that argument goes, but using 1.3 liters is considered misleading.

The engine is SMALL, there is no doubt of that. But it breathes differently than a piston engine.

I'm not sure, and if someone with the mathematical fortitude can help me out here, but I remember seeing a discussion on the actual volume of the rotary engine and it comes out 2.6 liters (1.3x2) based on the way the engine works? I'm not entirely sure how that argument goes, but using 1.3 liters is considered misleading.

The engine is SMALL, there is no doubt of that. But it breathes differently than a piston engine.

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=106294

http://ezinearticles.com/?Volumetric-Efficiency-of-a-Rotary-Engine-Explained&id=47639

From that same thread, thanks Pitz. The origin of the thread wasn't a discussion on how the rotary engine's displacement is accurately portrayed, but rather mathematics on power and estimated power in turbos.

But the article listed on page 3 is basically what I was looking for.

Each rotor housing is not 1.3 liters, it's like 654 cc. per housing.

The article never said each housing is 1.3L's.

I'm not sure, and if someone with the mathematical fortitude can help me out here, but I remember seeing a discussion on the actual volume of the rotary engine and it comes out 2.6 liters (1.3x2) based on the way the engine works? I'm not entirely sure how that argument goes, but using 1.3 liters is considered misleading.

The engine is SMALL, there is no doubt of that. But it breathes differently than a piston engine.

I know you said it.

Oh lol, sorry. I'll apologize for the 1.3x2 statement (but it was the easiest way for me to remember it). It should technically be considered .65x4.

No problem just making sure we're all clear.

2003 engine, still produces more power per cc compared to some of the newest supercars like the R8 and GT-R some with two turbo's. Can you imagine the impact of a modest improvement on the current spec rotary? Secretly, I wish another manufacturer makes a rotary to create competition. The we will start to see some real development taking off. Just a wish, maybe Santa's listening.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Volumetric-Efficiency-of-a-Rotary-Engine-Explained&id=47639

From that same thread, thanks Pitz. The origin of the thread wasn't a discussion on how the rotary engine's displacement is accurately portrayed, but rather mathematics on power and estimated power in turbos.

But the article listed on page 3 is basically what I was looking for.

Yeah, I knew there was somewhere in there that had the information I was looking for. I'm at work and couldn't spend too much time looking, so I just threw that whole thread at ya :lol2: