hey guys check out what this guy says about our rotary, and looks like he knows his stuff, what do you guys think?

comment ...fire at will.

This was taken from the G20.net site. quoted

Xard Writes:

"I'll take the bait, fine.


While a lot of what FF Drifter says is true (it takes a lot of revs, maintenance can be an issue) the line about it being "less efficient" in terms of air/fuel -> power is just wrong. Yes, the car revs high.

Does it rev to 9000 rpms? No. Peak power for the RX-8 is at 8500 RPM. 238@ 8500. Torque peak is 159 @ 5500.

Now, let's take another car that FF Drifter mentioned, the Honda S2000. A "marvel" of modern variably valve train engineering, the Honda S2000 does make 120hp/L, though of course it has to rev high to make that much power (as do all engines with small displacement high power output) The Honda S2000 makes 240 @ 8300 RPM. Hmmm... ~ same horse power, ~ same RPM, but wait, NOT THE SAME DISPLACEMENT?! wtf???

Oh wait, that's because the rotary engine NATURALLY makes more power because of the simple physics involved. Like everyone said, the rotor never has to completely change direction. It just spins around an axis. Meanwhile, a modern gasoline engine has to change the pistons direction FOUR times over the course of ONE combustion cycle. Once when the piston goes up and hits the spark, starting combustion. A second time, when the piston reaches the bottom of the cylinder. A third, when the piston crowns the exhaust stroke, and a final time as the piston comes down again and is accepting intake gasses. Imagine, trying to make a small weight go up and down THOUSANDS of times per minute. Not very easy at all. Also half the time in a four cylinder engine two cylinders are just dead weight because they are on the exhaust strokes. At that time the cylinder goes up and down the displacement of the engine without doing ANYTHING. Meanwhile, the rotary just keeps on combusting. There's never a time when one is spinning and nothing is accomplished

Lets see, anything else? oh yes, torque.

Here, the rotary. As I mentioned, 159 @ 5500 RPM. Not bad, nothing amazing, but pretty good for a 1.3L engine.

The S2000, our current example for pistons? 153 @ 7500 RPM. Am I seeing things, because it looks like the S2000 is the one revving super high for torque, not the rotary.

In fact, lets even throw in a non-variably valve timed engine, to get a better feeling for the standard DOHC engine. Hey wait, better yet, let's use the SR20DE! I know I love it, and I know it loves boost. How much torque does the G20 make, stock? 133 @ 4800 RPM. Oh yes, a whole bunch less than the RX-8 does. If someone wants to bust out a stock dyno chart for the two, we can make comparisons at more RPMs, but it sure seems like the efficiency on the RX-8 beats us out too.

Any other cars you want to compare it to? Honda's beloved VTEC: defeated. S2000 just can't compare in terms of efficiency. iVTEC? Ok, Acura RSX Type-S. 200hp @ 7400 RPM. Not bad, add another 1000 rpms and thats about the same as the RX-8, but still lacking in hp/L. Maybe torque will show us. 142Lb/ft @ 6000 RPM. Whats this? higher RPM and LESS torque than the rotary? Even with a full two litres of displacement and a super advanced valve train, pistons fail. Let's try against the noble VQ series engine. A personal favorite of just about every Nissan enthusiast (at least, it should be) 287hp @ 6200 RPM in the 350Z. Very nice, a lot of kick and a strong amount of hp/L especially for a V6. We'll add another 20% to account for the extra 2000 RPMs in the rotary red line, and we get ~ 350hp. so, that's about 100hp/L, compared to the rotary's 183. Beaten for efficiency? Yes. I've read of four-rotor 3L rotaries making ~ 500hp. on Torque, the results are very similar. 274Lb/ft @ 4800 RPM for the VQ. Of course, it isn't nearly as easy to extrapolate the torque in an engine as it can be in the hp (remember FF Drifter's equation!) However if we add 10% or even 20%, the rotary is still more efficient. 153Lb/ft/1.3L compared to (at 20% increase) ~330 Lb/ft / 3.5L in the VQ series.

Finally, lets throw in a motorcycle engine, and see how they compare. The Ducati 999R. A 1L motorcycle engine, it makes 139 HP @ 9750 rpm. Revs higher than the RX-8, yet it still can't make as much hp/L. If the RX-8 could hit 10000rpms, it might make easily 300hp out of only 1.3L. If you need to know the torque for the motorcycle, it's only 80Lb/ft, at 8000 RPM.

Honestly, if anyone can argue against the efficiency of the rotary engine after all these figures, good luck."

nice nice, im feelen good about the rotary..ahhh YES boys and girls...bring it on lol

oh yeah, and thanks to outlaw extreme for posting the original thread to the g20.net site.

You're welcome... I thought he explained it very adequately myself. I was going to rip that person a new butthole for trashing on a 1.3 liter Rotary. Not only is it smaller, lighter, more EFFICIENT, but also that is part of the reason we are allowed to have the leg room for the 4 seater in the 8. If it was a 4 banger, there is no way we'd have that much space and keep the shape of the 8 as it is.

Exactly, very good point. Most of the people on THAT forum (thread) like it, it seems.

A few are non-believers..only cuz they havent wet their pants driving it yet..like my women LOL haha

He seems to know his stuff. The rotary DOES kick a$$!

CM

Not only is it smaller, lighter, more EFFICIENT, but also that is part of the reason we are allowed to have the leg room for the 4 seater in the 8. If it was a 4 banger, there is no way we'd have that much space and keep the shape of the 8 as it is.

I may be wrong, but I thought rotaries were about the same size as four cylinder engines. If they are in fact smaller, how much smaller are they?

Getting back to the G20 post, while the Renesis is only a "1.3L" it acts more like a 2.6L like the International Engine of the Year commitee categorized it. I don't think using the displacement of rotary engines for proving efficiency is as fair as using plain raw size of the engine because measuring displacement is controversial. The rotary naturally makes the most power thoughout the rev range out of any engine of its size, period. All hail Rotary power!!! :D

It's a nice engine but...

It's not a true 1.3 liter, you can't really compare the displacement on a rotary to a piston engine, if you want to compare double the displacement. You can brag all you like about the 1.3 liters of displacement and how much power it puts out but it's categorized as a 2.6 liter by just about every governing body, insurance agency, and award there is, and there's a good reason for it.

The Honda engine makes more HP, with LESS displacement, and gets far far better gas mileage. Seems more efficient to me, as do many many turbo charged engines... It's one of the nicer NA engines around, but it's NOT very efficient (especially considering it's not making 238hp) and hardly the most efficient. The whole argument this guy makes seems good until you realize when comparing it to piston engines you need to double the displacement, and then it's not so impressive.

Originally posted by 4thGen
I may be wrong, but I thought rotaries were about the same size as four cylinder engines. If they are in fact smaller, how much smaller are they?

As far as I can tell they aren't much smaller nor lighter than a 4 cylinder piston engine. In fact some of the numbers we came up with a while back seemed to point to the 13b/Renesis weighing more than some 4 cylinder engines out there.

I would make a few changes.

First, a modern gasoline engine has to change the pistons direction

I think the renesis is a very modern gasoline engine. I think it should be classified as a "recipricating engine".

Next, Does it rev to 9000 rpms? No. Peak power for the RX-8 is at 8500 RPM. That confuses me. My Rx-8 revs till about 9500. maybe he should say that power drops off after 8500.

other than that its pretty cool

Originally posted by MikeM
A few are non-believers..only cuz they havent wet their pants driving it yet..like my women LOL haha


Can you elaborate please :p

Originally posted by IkeWRX
It's a nice engine but...


The Honda engine makes more HP, with LESS displacement, and gets far far better gas mileage.

but not if you use the JDM spec numbers. except for the gas mileage i mean.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
As far as I can tell they aren't much smaller nor lighter than a 4 cylinder piston engine. In fact some of the numbers we came up with a while back seemed to point to the 13b/Renesis weighing more than some 4 cylinder engines out there.

the engine weights 210 lbs. That is without any of the accessories (alternator, etc).

Also, they are about 1/3 smaller than than a 4 banger (12 inches high).

Originally posted by IkeWRX
It's a nice engine but...

It's not a true 1.3 liter, you can't really compare the displacement on a rotary to a piston engine, if you want to compare double the displacement. You can brag all you like about the 1.3 liters of displacement and how much power it puts out but it's categorized as a 2.6 liter by just about every governing body, insurance agency, and award there is, and there's a good reason for it.

The Honda engine makes more HP, with LESS displacement, and gets far far better gas mileage. Seems more efficient to me, as do many many turbo charged engines... It's one of the nicer NA engines around, but it's NOT very efficient (especially considering it's not making 238hp) and hardly the most efficient. The whole argument this guy makes seems good until you realize when comparing it to piston engines you need to double the displacement, and then it's not so impressive.

Um, the engine is 1.3 liters. If you dont want to compare that way, the volumetric displacement of the engine is 2 rotors X .654 CC each for 1308CC. Anyway you slice the cake, the engine is smaller than the s2000 engine.

Also, to say the s2000 engine makes more HP is not exactly right. The us spec engines for the rx8 make less HP due to the last minute tuning. the jap spec cars have 247 HP. And while the HP is comparable, the torque curve is superior in the rotary.

And lastly, Do you ever have anything nice to say about Rx-7's/Rx-8's? I have yet to see anything positive.

Hows that transmission of yours, btw?

Damn... his good... Also everything he said wasn't just opinions... most of it was facts... also if the RX-8 can revv to 10,000 it will make 280 HP... the RX-EVolve redline was at 10,000 ROM and it made 280 HP...

If you want a rotary... it requires a little more maintenance... is that too hard to accept...

Ike has not much to say that is positive, but thinks he is an expert on the whole "car" subject?
Some good posts from him sometimes, but I still don't understand why he spends so much time here?
And oh yes, the whole not making 238hp thing again??.......man give it up. :o

From the international engine of the year award...


"Traditional swept volume measurements are confused when tackling rotary engines. A rotary engine has three chambers created by the gap between the rotor itself and the rotor housing, as opposed to a the chamber between the head and piston in a reciprocating engine. The motion of the rotor moves the chamber itself (with the mixture contained in the chamber) from the inlet port, compresses the mixture, moves the chamber in line with the spark plugs to ignite the mixture, then moves the mix to an exhaust port... there are three chambers doing this constantly. So it's a very different process to a traditional reciprocating engine. That said, in motorsport and as far as many government bodies are concerned, a rotary engine in displacement is consider to be the equivalent of a reciprocating engine of double the capacity. In this case, RX7s are generally consider to be the equivalent of a 2.6 litre piston motor. On a four stroke there's only one intake stroke for every two revolutions, so from a breathing standpoint, displacement is how much combustion chamber volume gets sucked in over two revolutions. for a rotary, with one intake stroke per revolution, that means measuring two combustion chambers per rotor, not one, like mazda says. each chamber in a 13b displaces 654cc, so by mazda's two-stroke method, a 13b is 1308cc."

Just pray that rotary god doesn't come in an explain how it's a 1.3 2.6 and 3.9 liter engine, my head still hurts from that one...
Show me where I say anything bad about the RX-8 in this thread. I'm just reality based whereas some of you seem to want to live in your dreamworld where the car actually makes the advertised HP and it's a 1.3L when compared to a piston engine.

Zerobanger, my tranny is just fine, and so is my light, compact, short, boxer engine that makes far more HP and gets better gas mileage than your guys Renesissys. :p

Originally posted by IkeWRX
From the international engine of the year award...


"Traditional swept volume measurements are confused when tackling rotary engines. A rotary engine has three chambers created by the gap between the rotor itself and the rotor housing, as opposed to a the chamber between the head and piston in a reciprocating engine. The motion of the rotor moves the chamber itself (with the mixture contained in the chamber) from the inlet port, compresses the mixture, moves the chamber in line with the spark plugs to ignite the mixture, then moves the mix to an exhaust port... there are three chambers doing this constantly. So it's a very different process to a traditional reciprocating engine. That said, in motorsport and as far as many government bodies are concerned, a rotary engine in displacement is consider to be the equivalent of a reciprocating engine of double the capacity. In this case, RX7s are generally consider to be the equivalent of a 2.6 litre piston motor. On a four stroke there's only one intake stroke for every two revolutions, so from a breathing standpoint, displacement is how much combustion chamber volume gets sucked in over two revolutions. for a rotary, with one intake stroke per revolution, that means measuring two combustion chambers per rotor, not one, like mazda says. each chamber in a 13b displaces 654cc, so by mazda's two-stroke method, a 13b is 1308cc."

Just pray that rotary god doesn't come in an explain how it's a 1.3 2.6 and 3.9 liter engine, my head still hurts from that one...
Show me where I say anything bad about the RX-8 in this thread. I'm just reality based whereas some of you seem to want to live in your dreamworld where the car actually makes the advertised HP and it's a 1.3L when compared to a piston engine.

Zerobanger, my tranny is just fine, and so is my light, compact, short, boxer engine that makes far more HP and gets better gas mileage than your guys Renesissys. :p

all of that babble means nothing to me. The rx7 and rx8 is a 1.3 liter.

Next, Im sure your boxer engine is n/a. BTW, do you want to compare your turbo boxer engine to my turbo rx-7 engine? We can gladly compare torque, hp and gas mileage.

Originally posted by zerobanger
all of that babble means nothing to me. The rx7 and rx8 is a 1.3 liter.

Next, Im sure your boxer engine is n/a. BTW, do you want to compare your turbo boxer engine to my turbo rx-7 engine? We can gladly compare torque, hp and gas mileage.

Sure, will we be using the one you blew or the new one?

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Sure, will we be using the one you blew or the new one?

either. They are both faster than yours.

Lets put it this way, take the turbos off the WRX and the Rx-8 eats the WRX for lunch. Put the turbos on and my 94 RX-7 eats your WRX for lunch and doesn't bother to spit out the pistons.

Either way, YOU LOSE.

Originally posted by IkeWRX


Just pray that rotary god doesn't come in an explain how it's a 1.3 2.6 and 3.9 liter engine, my head still hurts from that one...


LOL!!! I'll send you some aspirin sometime. Hard to debate though wasn't it since it effectively explained every aspect of the argument. Just depends on how you look at it but all of you are correct! Good thing you mentioned that IKE. I almost cut and paste it over here too.

Man people, get off of the whole "if my car had this..." crap. I can't go up to John Force and argue with him that my 1st gen would beat his funny car if I strapped a Saturn V engine to it. If the car doesn't have it, then I can't use it in an argument. The "if" scenario does not apply. BTW: Many ricers who lose use that same statement.

Originally posted by rotarygod
LOL!!! I'll send you some aspirin sometime. Hard to debate though wasn't it since it effectively explained every aspect of the argument. Just depends on how you look at it but all of you are correct! Good thing you mentioned that IKE. I almost cut and paste it over here too.

Man people, get off of the whole "if my car had this..." crap. I can't go up to John Force and argue with him that my 1st gen would beat his funny car if I strapped a Saturn V engine to it. If the car doesn't have it, then I can't use it in an argument. The "if" scenario does not apply. BTW: Many ricers who lose use that same statement.

You did a great job explaining it, but don't you think when you're directly comparing piston engines to rotaries that the displacement on the rotary should be doubled in order to make a fair comparison?

Originally posted by zerobanger
Lets put it this way, take the turbos off the WRX and the Rx-8 eats the WRX for lunch. Put the turbos on and my 94 RX-7 eats your WRX for lunch and doesn't bother to spit out the pistons.

Either way, YOU LOSE.


Look, I love RX-7s and would own one if they were more reliable. But this thread has NOTHING to do with your RX-7 and My WRX, so lets get back on topic. And yes, you sound like a ricer that just lost a race. Rather than arguing with me maybe you should call every insurance company, every member of the commitee for the Int. engine of the year award, and all the other governing bodies that consider it to be a 2.6L engine in comparision to piston engines.

Originally posted by zoom44
but not if you use the JDM spec numbers. except for the gas mileage i mean.

Prove this... it sure didn't look like the RX-8 was making more HP in the best motoring video. I'm sure there are some japanese dynos floating around, and I bet they don't get 205hp+ on dynos.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
You did a great job explaining it, but don't you think when you're directly comparing piston engines to rotaries that the displacement on the rotary should be doubled in order to make a fair comparison?

Well, in my long ramblings of the displacement, I basically do say that the rotary engine does the equivalent work of a 2.6 liter piston engine. When you compare it to many 2.6 l (or similarly sized) piston engines being used in cars today, the numbers are actually quite comparable. But the engine flows the air of a 3.9 liter engine which doesn't make it sound efficient anymore and fits in a 1.3 liter body which does make it sound efficient. I just had to get that in there!

Honda is actually against the norm in that they do design their engines to do their jobs very well. Many people may be upset to hear this truth but I don't see Ford or Chevy building 1.6 liter engines that get 30+ miles per gallon and still have the power to actually move the car. Many of the other manufacturers engines are larger than 1.6 liters, get worse gas mileage and make about the same power. Go look at a 2K style Civic sometime. Sure it isn't a powerful or fast car. It wasn't designed to be but Honda did design it to do it's job well for it's size. It is an economy car. The engine comes stock with tri-Y headers. The intake manifold is simple and to the point and definitely designed around the timing setup in the engine. Honda did everything right at getting most of the potential out of these engines without forced induction. This fact just makes it all the funnier that the ricers think a bolt on header will work better. It already has one! I know. I own one. The S2000 does make more power per liter than any other naturally aspirated auto engine out there and it still gets decent gas mileage. This doesn't mean that it is a better vehicle than an RX-7 or worse. Different cars have different styles and manufacturers build them to meet their design goals and no one elses. This is reassured by the fact that people have the freedom to choose which car they drive instead of driving only one. The WRX is a better vehicle for Ike. The RX-7 is a better car for me as a fun car but my Civic is the best car for me in the gas mileage department. I test drove the WRX, IS300, Mercedes C320, BMW 330, and several others and liked them all but I need gas mileage since I drive alot. So my daily driver is a slow Civic. Hard to fathom against those other cars isn't it? I don't care. It does what I need it to better than any other car for the price. It is really quite simple and arguing about it only makes people look shallow and immature. If you go up to a Ferrari owner and tell him that he wasted his money because he could have built a faster car for cheaper (this is a common attitude on the LS1 forum). He'll just look at you and laugh because it doesn't matter and he doesn't care. He has the best car for him. Stop comparing your fantasy cars to others. That is what Gran Tourismo is for. Build them and race them there. There is no point in arguing over something that you can't change anyways. The next time anyone feels that their car is better or faster than anyone else's, go race a shifter kart and come up with a really good excuse as to how a go cart beat you to 150 mph. But then again, it doesn't matter and no one really cares.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Look, I love RX-7s and would own one if they were more reliable. But this thread has NOTHING to do with your RX-7 and My WRX, so lets get back on topic. And yes, you sound like a ricer that just lost a race. Rather than arguing with me maybe you should call every insurance company, every member of the commitee for the Int. engine of the year award, and all the other governing bodies that consider it to be a 2.6L engine in comparision to piston engines.

Do you REALLY think that if I call my insurance company they are going to tell me its 2.6 liters? do you want me to call them and ask? My bet is that they will have NO opinion.

I dont care about governing bodies, Mazda designed the engine, mazda owns the rights to ther rotary. I'm satisifed that in terms of a rotary its 1.3 liters. I dont care if it acts like a piston engine of twice its displacement, thats just one of the advantages of the rotary.

The reason I brought up my 94 Rx-7 and your turbos is this statement by YOU.

Zerobanger, my tranny is just fine, and so is my light, compact, short, boxer engine that makes far more HP and gets better gas mileage than your guys Renesissys

The reason your boxer engine makes more HP is because you have turbos. Thats all I was trying to convey. If you want to compare, compare a turbo rotary to your turbo boxer engine, or n/a to n/a.

later.

IkeWRX, I gotta ask you this, and I'm hoping you don't take this the wrong way. You spend more time on these boards than most of the members who actually own RX-8's. You constantly poke your head into threads left right and center, and whatever you might protest, I'd estimate some 60% of your writings here are 'reminding' people of things you see as negative about their cars.

To quote you:

Show me where I say anything bad about the RX-8 in this thread. I'm just reality based whereas some of you seem to want to live in your dreamworld where the car actually makes the advertised HP and it's a 1.3L when compared to a piston engine.

So you spend a lot of time on an RX-8 board (a car you don't even own), and most of it is telling people that the car they own is slower, worse value-for-money, less horsepower, poorly fuel efficient. You're talking about reality and people living in 'dreamworlds'. Do you see yourself as "IkeWRX, Destroyer of Dreams"?

Occasionally you make some informative contributions to these boards, but even you must realize that the large majority of your postings are negative, and I just don't get it. I'm wondering if you get it. Do you take enjoyment from poking holes in people's pleasure? Do you have fun 'cutting people down to size'? I mean I gotta tell you mate, judging by your post count, a goodly amount of your time is spent giving other people what you consider 'reality checks' about their car. That sure is one hell of a hobby you have there.

So, you obviously don't particularly like the RX-8, because I quite frankly cannot remember the last time I heard you say *anything* positive about it. Either its mpg is poor, it's horsepower is lacking, it has too low of a torque, some sedan could beat it in a drag race, it is overpriced, its engine isn't as good as it is supposed to be, the styling sucks... you rehash every possible negative thing about this car over and over in various threads, you don't have anything positive to say about it, so the question begging to be answered is: why are you here?

Isn't there a nice WRX forum for you to spend your time on? Or hasn't something newer come along (like the crossfire) for you to go rag on? I'm sure there is a whole gaggle of new Crossfire owners out there just waiting for you to disillusion. So I ask again, and I ask genuinely, not in a smartass, "piss off" kind of way: why are you here? I just don't get it :)

IkeWrx

An individual character that has added a lot of real valuable information to this forum .

Yes he can be full on and can irritate sometimes with his posts but he has everyrigth to be here .

Some people a wolfes others are sheep , we are all different .

I for one really enjoy IKES POSTS , and his bravado , and fun element he adds to this forum .

So let him be .

Michael

Michael, as I said I'm not trying to attack him or be an ass. I am genuinely curious.

Originally posted by aussie77
Michael, as I said I'm not trying to attack him or be an ass. I am genuinely curious.

My post was not directed towards anyone in particular , no need to feel guilty.

MICHAEL

Originally posted by aussie77
Michael, as I said I'm not trying to attack him or be an ass. I am genuinely curious.

I came here before the car was released, and I've met a lot of nice people on this site and things are still fresh and new with the RX-8 being a new car model. I think if you really look at my posts, a small portion of them is me saying anything negative about the RX-8. I've tried to back off a little lately so as to not beat a dead horse, and recently I've confined most of my posts to the lounge and general car forums.

I said the Renesis is a nice engine, and it's great that you guys are able to get a rotary, variety is a good thing. But IMO it's not as efficient as the original poster would lead you to believe, so I chimed in. I really didn't say anything revolutionary, and if you do a search,you will find that most rotary guys agree it's not fair to consider the rotary a 1.3 liter when you compare it to a piston engine. Not because the rotary has such a huge advantage, but rather because of the way the rotary works.

Ike

Originally posted by IkeWRX
I . I've tried to back off a little lately so as to not beat a dead horse, and recently I've confined most of my posts to the lounge and general car forums.


Ike

I do think you have backed off lately.........I guess it is just how you phrase things......A lot of your posts do have value.

Maybe I can make a poll out of this.

OMG, my son just laughed looking at the "funny bananas"....


I need a drink...

There are two ways to deal with things. One is to let others get to you, 'hook' your ego, your pride, your common sense ideas, your dreams and/or fantasies.

The result is you are fullfilling the other persons goal, to get you upset or angry, to 'force' you to see their 'side' or how they see reality and generally to get INTO your head and screw around in there.

Unfortunately you then have to expend way too much energy to deal with that situation that you have let develop.

The 2nd way is to put them on IGNORE (or just ignore what you see). And if curiosity raises its ugly head, any posts are always a click away. Ohterwise.... ahhhh.... peace and quiet, nuf said.

No offense to anyone in particular, just seems people are beating themselves silly trying to change an immovable object.

well i think Ike just got lost on the way to the WRX forum, found this, kinda got used to being here, and is now a permanent fixture to the community...in terms of his feelings towards the RX-8, i think he leans a little more towards the negative side but without that negativity, some ppl here would get way too carried away with their "Mazda is the greatest company in the entire world" threads, "I just killed a Viper" thread, and "The RX-8 is God's gift to man" thread...i also think a lot of times that he only retorts to speaking badly about the 8 when provoked...

well, in any case, i think he's here to stay...if you don't like it, then you can always ignore him or simply leave yourself...i for one find his criticisms often enlightening...i just wish his car wasn't so damn ugly :p

j/k

Originally posted by BRx8
some ppl here would get way too carried away with their "Mazda is the greatest company in the entire world" threads, "I just killed a Viper" thread, and "The RX-8 is God's gift to man" thread

Let's get a little real BRx8. Never seen, heard or found anyone even remotely saying anything like that... after all we aren't dummies, and we all know NONE of the above or anything like them is true or even close, and more to the point - NO ONE likes to be pulled up short on every little thing we say or write... like some kind of robotic LIE-DETECTOR! That's why we have parents... they do it out of concern (usually) rather than misplaced rightousness.

First off, a word of thanks to MikeM for showing me the way to the G20.net site. I have a '99 G20T and had no idea there was a forum for it.

Secondly, the G20T is a really nice car, in that it suits the demand for that which it exists for. Nice leather seats, a soft, yet not boat-like ride, absorbs bumps and other irritating road imperfections adequately, like a lady-type car should.

Thirdly, the RX-8 (and this is no stretch) can eat a G20/G20T for breakfast, lunch and/or dinner any/all day(s) of the/all week(s), with two tires tied behind its trunk. I don't even know redline on it, cuz after 4000rpms, it sounds like it is wanting to puke.

Fourthly, what the heck is everyone getting into arguements about here? Newsflash! Y'all aren't gonna change the opinion of each other, and nobody else is noticing, nor do they care! This is page 3 and if I read page 2, I forgot it already!!!

Fifthly, Ike, uh ... oh ... uh ... I forgot ... oh well ... :(

Let me clear this mess up....

In my right hand is an apple. In my left hand is an orange. They both make pretty damn good juice, but you gotta add water to the apple to make it any good.

Here I have a pineapple. It's bigger, and pricklier, than the orange, but to make decent juice, it doesn't need any more water than an apple would to make it.

Over here, I have a carrot. Who in the hell wants carrot juice, I'm gonna make a pina colada.

Honda is actually against the norm in that they do design their engines to do their jobs very well. Many people may be upset to hear this truth but I don't see Ford or Chevy building 1.6 liter engines that get 30+ miles per gallon and still have the power to actually move the car

Sry rotarygod I have a hard time believing this, Other then my 8, I drive a 2003 Caddy with a v-8 and average 30MPG the engine push 300HP and is 4.6L, The engine is built by chevy specifically for caddy. I can also give 30+MPG on several other GM cars that don't have 4 cyl's, mostly v-6's. I do realize that these engines aren't 1.6L's and I do recongnize that GM's smallest 4 cyl is 2.2L. I compaired GM's 2.2L to Honda's 2.0, The GM had less HP but more torque, the Honda had more HP but less torque. If you want the exact HP and Torque numbers just ask. I Think it is kinda amazing to get 30MPG out a v-8 pulling a 4,000 pound car but maybe that is just me.

On to the rotary my favorite engine, Figuring out the displacement is a very difficult, most normal people probly won't realize that, In a piston engine the equation to figure displacement is "(bore/2)^2 * 3.14 * stroke * # of Cyl" to figure out the correct displacement of the rotary your will get into figuring out triangles, curves, and "dog Bone" ovals. Maybe since the rotary isn't very common engine their is no standard to figure displacement, ex. number multiply by the number of rotor surfaces or number of rotors. I say lets the companies that are developing the rotary decide the best way to determine displacement. If Mazda says it is 1.3L then to me it is a 1.3, Maybe 1.3L was figure with the number of rotor surfaces ("1.3L /6" for a two rotor which would be .21L per surface?) About the effiencecy, Yes I think the rotary is a much more effiecient engine. On any type of engine the are several type of effieciencies, not just fuel effeciency.

Plz don't flame my responce, or tear it apart. I try to be accuarate but I am tired and have dificulty putting technical things in words ( I strugled pasting my english classes)but when it comes to math and science I consider myself top notch and I am also very knowledgeable on engines along with a couple other things. Take my post read it analys it, and think about it. For me to understand something, I will ponder it for hours. I think how every part is working to gether, what it looks like inside while it is running. A simple problem should be looked at in every possable direction and every direction will have its own outcome. I believe the first post in this thread to be accurate.



There is a big difference between flywheel numbers and rear wheel numbers, There is a big power lose between the tires and the engine due to friction.

Has anyone actually disassemble the renesis and measure the volumn of the groove on each of the rotors surface to get an actual number for the displacement? Just out of curiousity.

*groan*

the depressions on the rotor faces are the combustion chambers. since that volume isn't swept (it remains a constant volume throughout the entire cycle), it does not count as displacement (as it's volume is never displaced). it is used to determine the compression ratio.

as for all this bullsh*t about the rotary being efficient, it isn't. it is an engine which will displace 2.6L of volume when you account it by your usual 4 stroke method. accounting for displacement the "rotary" way, it's a 1.3L (displaces 1.3L in one rotation, as opposed to 2). it makes tons of power for its size because it has one power stroke per revolution of the output shaft (the same as a 2 stroke engine), but does complete all 4 stages of the otto cycle.

learn something and read through www.rotaryengineillustrated.com. it's not in my sig for nothing. seriously, don't resurrect threads that are just full of nonsense like this.

As far as I can tell,

Ike is a an auto enthusiest. It appears that he regularly reads and posts on forums for many autos.

I've seen him make positive and negative posts, and he sometimes gives us a non-biased point of view. I think he could be an asset to any discussion.

I could be wrong

Hey Ike, can I get that $50 now?

Originally posted by aussie77
IkeWRX, I gotta ask you this, and I'm hoping you don't take this the wrong way. You spend more time on these boards than most of the members who actually own RX-8's. You constantly poke your head into threads left right and center, and whatever you might protest, I'd estimate some 60% of your writings here are 'reminding' people of things you see as negative about their cars.

To quote you:



So you spend a lot of time on an RX-8 board (a car you don't even own), and most of it is telling people that the car they own is slower, worse value-for-money, less horsepower, poorly fuel efficient. You're talking about reality and people living in 'dreamworlds'. Do you see yourself as "IkeWRX, Destroyer of Dreams"?

Occasionally you make some informative contributions to these boards, but even you must realize that the large majority of your postings are negative, and I just don't get it. I'm wondering if you get it. Do you take enjoyment from poking holes in people's pleasure? Do you have fun 'cutting people down to size'? I mean I gotta tell you mate, judging by your post count, a goodly amount of your time is spent giving other people what you consider 'reality checks' about their car. That sure is one hell of a hobby you have there.

So, you obviously don't particularly like the RX-8, because I quite frankly cannot remember the last time I heard you say *anything* positive about it. Either its mpg is poor, it's horsepower is lacking, it has too low of a torque, some sedan could beat it in a drag race, it is overpriced, its engine isn't as good as it is supposed to be, the styling sucks... you rehash every possible negative thing about this car over and over in various threads, you don't have anything positive to say about it, so the question begging to be answered is: why are you here?

Isn't there a nice WRX forum for you to spend your time on? Or hasn't something newer come along (like the crossfire) for you to go rag on? I'm sure there is a whole gaggle of new Crossfire owners out there just waiting for you to disillusion. So I ask again, and I ask genuinely, not in a smartass, "piss off" kind of way: why are you here? I just don't get it :)

I can see that some people don't know what happens in any engine, Wakeech you said "the depressions on the rotor faces are the combustion chambers. since that volume isn't swept (it remains a constant volume throughout the entire cycle), it does not count as displacement (as it's volume is never displaced). it is used to determine the compression ratio." You statement shows that you don't know what displacement is and that you really don't know what you are talking about. If you were correct the displacement of the engine would be 0.0L. Displacement means the same thing weather the engine is rotary or piston.

Displacment = The differnece in Volume from maxiumum and minimum volumes.

The Volume of air in the a engine piston or rotary does change. The volume changes when the rotor, in this case, compresses the air/fuel mixture. This is simple physics that I learned in high school. To prove my point take a syringe (with out needle) and fill it with air, plug it with your finger and push the plunger. It will compress the air and show you at the same time the change in volume. The engine does compress the mixture or it wouldn't have a compression ratio or the compression ratio would be 1:1 not 10:1. I could show you a picture of the rotor compressing the mixture but don't want to waste bandwidth. I think this link will show my point, watch the compression and the ingition stroke http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/rx8/rx8_main_flash.jsp?linksmart=18

Ok now Engine displacement,

The Displacement of a convential reciprocating engine is calculated by multiplying swept volume of one cylinder times the number of cylinders.

In a rotary engine each rotor forms three working chambers, and rotor displacement is figured as the swept volume of ONE of these chambers. The swept volume is the chamber volume at its greatest minus the chamber volume as it smallest.

The rotary engine displacement is the displacemnt of one rotor times the number of rotors in the engine. In the 13B engine, the single chmaber displacement = 40cu.in. (654cc). Since this is a 2 rotor engine displacement is twice this number or 80cu.in.(1308cc).

It is only one chamber because the other two chambers are doing other things at the time of compression and ignition. All three chambers can't do the intake, compression, ignition, and exhaust at the exact time. But between the two the rotors there is 2 intakes at the same time, that is why you times it by the number of rotors.

Engine effeciency isn't fuel effeciency. There is a big difference between the two and that isn't being relized. Just be the the rotary doen't get 30mpg doesn't mean it is a ineffecient engine. The most effecient engines are racing engines, and they get horrable gas milages. Engine effeciency is how well it can make power using the fuel it gets. Reciprocating engines aren't very effecient because everytime the piston stops to go up or down there is a major amount of power lost, and in side these engine you have well over 100 parts that all produce friction. Oil doesn't remove friction is just reduces it. Friction is never fully removed. Over 100 moving parts, How can that be effecient. The a 2 rotor, rotary has three moving parts. 2 rotors and 1 eccentric shaft, and there are about 10 points of friction. The apex seals and the points wear the shaft goes out the engine. The effcency is the power out for the size of the engine. Remember fuel effciency isn't engine effciency.

Everything is here is fact, I read animatedrotaryengineillustrated.com and there explanation of displacement is wrong. Everything I stated came from mazda's engineers, how could they be wrong, they have been developing this engine for a long time. Dr. Wankle probly had this figure out when he and NSU designed "this" engine. Dr. Wankel came up with 600 different type of rotary, this one was the most practacl.

Read this and learn, I told you how correct displacement is figured, yes the engine is 1.3L and I told you why the rotary is the more effecient engine.

Originally posted by Chevy
I can see that some people don't know what happens in any engine, Wakeech you don't know what displacement is and that you really don't know what you are talking about. If you were correct the displacement of the engine would be 0.0L. Displacement means the same thing weather the engine is rotary or piston.

I told you how correct displacement is figured, yes the engine is 1.3L and I told you why the rotary is the more effecient engine.

this is barely worth my time, so i'll keep it short.

there are no discrepencies between what you posted, and what i said abou displacement. none.

i said that the depressions in the rotor's face do not count as displacement because they're never displaced. that volume in the depression, plus the rest of the geometrically necessary gap between the rotor's face and the vertical sides of the rotor housing is that minimum volume which is never actually sucked in and pushed out. they account for the dead volume which determines the compression ratio (like the combustion chamber in a head, and valve-gapping depressions in the top of a piston). i have no idea how the heck you're trying to say i'm wrong.

the efficiency question: it is thermal efficiency (which yes, is exactly how much power is made from yea much fuel). the wankel engine is fundamentally less thermally efficient than a piston engine. the volume of the combustion chamber in relation to the surface area is pretty small, not to mention that having the combustion chamber stretched into such a long and thin shape makes combustion a naturally inefficient process, with plenty of "cold spots" of non-or-semi-combusted fuel (hence the flame-throwing, even at an A/F ratio close to stoic, when you don't have a cat).

and yes, fuel efficiency does relate to thermal efficiency strongly: even though some of the best racing engines are fairly efficient, they're not all that great at it. automotive writers usually don't know their heads from their asses, and use the word "efficient" to substitute for "effective". race engines are terribly effective at burning shitloads of fuel and air together as efficiently as possible, but it's quantity that matters more than the efficiency.

Chevy,
If you take a look at a rotor, all by itself, you will see what wakeech is refering to as the "combustion chamber".

Look at any of the 3 faces of the triangular rotor. In the center of the face, you will notice a cup-like depression in the face.

That is the "combustion chamber" of a rotary engine - way different than a combustion chamber of a piston engine, which is the chamber of air entrapped by the cylinder wall, piston head & cylinder head/valves/spark plug. OK?

So, now that you know, you will agree that the volume in that little cup-like depression of the rotor face(s) is a constant throughout the rotary cycle. Thus, it does not affect the displacement, but it will affect the compression ratio. The bigger the cup-like depression ("combustion chamber"), the smaller the compression ratio.

Ok I admit i didn't include everything on displacement. I didn't fully think threw the the role of the combustion recces, and I determined that it does effect displacement. If the reccess is smaller the engine can't take in as much air, which means it can't displace as much (Max. volume minus Min. Volume). The bigger the reccess the more air can be taken in and the more the engine will displace. I think I can see the problem and why there is a debate here, and I will try to explain. The reccesses aren't enclosed so that makes it part of the 2 volumes (Minimum and Maximum). So it is safe to say, since the depression is open to the chamber its volume is changed. Now if is was enclosed and not compressed its volume would always stay the same.

Ok wakeech I figured the Thermal efficiency of the wankle rotary engine and compared it to the thermal efficeny of a honda 2.0L just for you. The Rotary's thermal efficeny is 28% and the Honda engine was only 22%. These numbers are correct average engines in a consumer cars are only 20 - 30% thermally efficient. I used the manufactures MPG on both cars, Honda claimed 30 MPG and Mazda claimes 25MPG. According to the numbers the rotary is more efficent.

Yes racing engines are effective at burning fuel but the fact is racing engines are some of the most effiecnt engines. I wasn't told that by a automotive writer, but by the engineers that designed the engines, and figure the numbers out.

The number i gave to you above are factual, and I can give you the equation to figure it out its not hard. There is my proof that the rotary is more efficieny theremally, and internally.

Originally posted by Chevy
If the reccess is smaller the engine can't take in as much air, which means it can't displace as much (Max. volume minus Min. Volume). The bigger the reccess the more air can be taken in and the more the engine will displace. I think I can see the problem and why there is a debate here, and I will try to explain.

Ok wakeech I figured the Thermal efficiency of the wankle rotary engine and compared it to the thermal efficeny of a honda 2.0L just for you. The Rotary's thermal efficeny is 28% and the Honda engine was only 22%. These numbers are correct average engines in a consumer cars are only 20 - 30% thermally efficient. I used the manufactures MPG on both cars, Honda claimed 30 MPG and Mazda claimes 25MPG. According to the numbers the rotary is more efficent.

The number i gave to you above are factual, and I can give you the equation to figure it out its not hard. There is my proof that the rotary is more efficieny theremally, and internally.


alrighty. well, the larger any combustion chamber is, whether it's a depression on the rotor face, or a chamber in the head above a piston, it's concievable that you think more air would come in, and thus have a larger displacement. but on the "out" side of things, all that extra volume you think came in, doesn't actually go out, as the volume of the combustion chamber doesn't change, it stays the same.

haha, uh, wow. ok, so how did you figure these numbers?? an eqution?? i'd like to see that. but realize that the only way you can actually figure something like that is to run them on a dyno, taking very very careful measure of how much potential energy you're putting in (fuel, and knowing how much power is stored in it), and how much energy is coming out in other ways, the one most concerned about being mechanical (kinetic). seriously, there are advantages and disadvantages to the wankel engine design, efficiency is definitely not one of them, although power to mass/volume doesn't get better.

Originally posted by guy321
As far as I can tell,

Ike is a an auto enthusiest. It appears that he regularly reads and posts on forums for many autos.

I've seen him make positive and negative posts, and he sometimes gives us a non-biased point of view. I think he could be an asset to any discussion.

I could be wrong

Hey Ike, can I get that $50 now?


You said $20, I'm never doing business with you again!

From the Algonkin Indian - Melewahkay - meaning "The Good Earth".

I do wonder when Ike actually drives his car...

The equation is "[BTU per horse divided by btu of fuel multiplied by amount of fuel consumed (in pounds)] * 100" Some of my numbers could be a little high, like pounds of fuel consumed, but if you lower it the efficiency number will go up a few percentage points. I was to lazy to go get a accurate measurement for how much 1 gallon of fuel ways. wakeech maybe you should have finished school, or should have taken some chemisty? There is a big difference between putting to gether and know exactly how something works. These numbers are true and are based on the the number honda a mazda gave me.

I know it is hard to see and believe these numbers, and to me figuring these out is ver basic to me. I have known these equations since i started middle school. I gave you the equation and equations are pretty good at giving the information, the key in this equation is btu per horse power, and btu per pound of fuel. If i was wrong on the weight of the gas then you will see the percentages go up 1 or 2. Chemistry is interesting to be a good mechanic you should have taken it, but cause like it said before there is a difference between know how to put it together and know how exactly it works.

I strongly believe in showing the facts, and just saying i know, the only way to really contest what I have shown, is to PROVE I'M WRONG. You just can't say I am wrong, I want proof to show i am wrong. Lets see it.

Ike, you can be on my forum anytime. Oh wait... wasn't that supposed to be, "you can be my wingman anytime." Oh I don't know but you rock Ike!

Originally posted by Chevy
"[BTU per horse divided by btu of fuel multiplied by amount of fuel consumed (in pounds)] * 100" Some of my numbers could be a little high, like pounds of fuel consumed, but if you lower it the efficiency number will go up a few percentage points. I was to lazy to go get a accurate measurement for how much 1 gallon of fuel ways. wakeech maybe you should have finished school, or should have taken some chemisty? There is a big difference between putting to gether and know exactly how something works. These numbers are true and are based on the the number honda a mazda gave me.

I know it is hard to see and believe these numbers, and to me figuring these out is ver basic to me. I have known these equations since i started middle school. I gave you the equation and equations are pretty good at giving the information, the key in this equation is btu per horse power, and btu per pound of fuel. If i was wrong on the weight of the gas then you will see the percentages go up 1 or 2. Chemistry is interesting to be a good mechanic you should have taken it, but cause like it said before there is a difference between know how to put it together and know how exactly it works.

I strongly believe in showing the facts, and just saying i know, the only way to really contest what I have shown, is to PROVE I'M WRONG. You just can't say I am wrong, I want proof to show i am wrong. Lets see it.

dude, simply because i decided that a fruitless career in economics wouldn't be as good as a potentially great career in automotive doesn't mean i'm unknowledgeable, stupid, or don't know a fake when i see one.

you haven't shown anything. your equation is alright, but where are these numbers from?? what were the test conditions?? those numbers seem terribly made up, and you claim this is fact when it's clear you hadn't the slightest clue about what compression ratios are all about (a seriously less complicated idea than thermal efficiency).

the oddest thing i find about your posts is how you plainly state that i don't know how these machines work, when it's only more evident you don't have the first clue.

It's very simple, really.

Horsepower per gallon of fuel burned.

For cars in the 240ish HP range, there's plenty which get better mileage. Or to look at it another way, there's plenty of cars in the 14-20 MPG range which make quite a bit more power. Granted, you can't use JUST a car's MPG numbers, there's other factors at play (vehicle weight, drag, etc)...but still.

Another thing that bugs me--people talking about internal displacement as if it means anything, in and of itself. Example--see the Ford 4.6 DOHC versus the 302. It takes up more room in the engine bay and (IIRC) weighs more...so why the bragging? Engine weight, engine external dimensions, power output, efficiency, and reliability are what concern me.

And if you want to be completely accurate about it, 2.6L is probably the most accurate measurement for the Renesis, since it's firing 3x as often as a piston engine. But it makes decent power, it's lightweight, and the external dimensions are nice and small, so who cares.

I never said you were stupid, you can say I am wrong, but you need to prove it. all the numbers i had came from Honda, and Mazda. This is my last post in thise thread, and I will always continue to think the rotary is the most efficient engine. Its theremal efficiency is that of a typical gas burning engine, the average consumer gas engine is 20 - 30 % thermally efficient the rotary falls in this range. Remember, compression ratio has a direct effect on thermal efficiency, that is part of the reason gas racing engine are efficient. I did mention in my previous posts that it was most efficient in Engine efficiency. There is a connection between thermal efficency and power. I didn't want this the get into a heated debate, even though I knew this would happen. This is getting more and more complex and is getting to the point were it is hard for me to put in words, I am a science and math guy, not a language expert. I will say this, the 2 rotor Wankel rotary engine is a 1.3L, has a thermal efficiency that is the same of engines with simular power, but the Engine efficiency is really good because of less friction inside the engine. The rotary is a highly efficient engine fuel consumption alone doesn't determine efficiency. I know people will think i don't know what I am talking about but I don't care, to truely know that you would have to meet me in person. I maybe a net admin that is still being trained but I school i am taking, calculus III, chemisty, and thermaldynamics.

This is the last time I will speak in the thread call it running away if you want, but I am just tired of being told I don't know what I am talking about, yes i do have problems putting my knowledge in words and that probly caused the problems.

all the numbers i had came from Honda, and Mazda.

Links plz

This is my last post in thise thread, and I will always continue to think the rotary is the most efficient engine.

Well there's the small matter of diesels...or do a google search for stirling engines, or Tesla's bladeless turbine. :) (Ok, not exactly ideal powerplants for automobiles, at the moment anyway. I'll stick to "practical" powerplants.)

Volumetric efficiency (engine size vs. power)? Yes, the rotary gets a lot of power for the small size it takes up.
Thermal efficiency? Absolutely not. This is scientific fact, not opinion.

Its theremal efficiency is that of a typical gas burning engine, the average consumer gas engine is 20 - 30 % thermally efficient the rotary falls in this range.

No, it really doesn't. Any rotary owner will tell you that there are plenty of engines making more power or getting better mileage (or both). Of course, there's other benefits to a rotary--center of gravity, weight, moment of inertia, simplicity, etc.

Remember, compression ratio has a direct effect on thermal efficiency, that is part of the reason gas racing engine are efficient. I did mention in my previous posts that it was most efficient in Engine efficiency. There is a connection between thermal efficency and power. I didn't want this the get into a heated debate, even though I knew this would happen. This is getting more and more complex and is getting to the point were it is hard for me to put in words, I am a science and math guy, not a language expert. I will say this, the 2 rotor Wankel rotary engine is a 1.3L, has a thermal efficiency that is the same of engines with simular power, but the Engine efficiency is really good because of less friction inside the engine.

I think you mean to say "volumetric efficiency". Then again...

The rotary is a highly efficient engine fuel consumption alone doesn't determine efficiency.

No, but fuel consumption per horsepower does determine thermal efficiency. And the rotary engine--using gasoline, anyhow--is not as efficient as a good many piston motors, including just about any modern Honda. Maybe with some new innovation it could be (the research hours into rotaries are miniscule compared to piston motors), or maybe on a faster burning fuel, or....who knows. Right now, it simply doesn't have the same thermal efficiency.

Originally posted by BaronVonBigmeat
It's very simple, really.

Another thing that bugs me--people talking about internal displacement as if it means anything, in and of itself. Example--see the Ford 4.6 DOHC versus the 302. It takes up more room in the engine bay and (IIRC) weighs more...so why the bragging? Engine weight, engine external dimensions, power output, efficiency, and reliability are what concern me.

But it makes decent power, it's lightweight, and the external dimensions are nice and small, so who cares.

Concur -- the Renesis is a lot smaller than the displacements everyone seems to be equating it to (2.6, 3.9... whatever). I'm not a mechanic, but it occurs to me that the coolest thing about the damn engine is the simple fact that it is so light, compact, and powerful... not to mention smooth as buttah.

This has been a very funny thread.....

first....IKE is a not complete asshole.....just 80%.....a man after my own thinking.....and I would have it not other way.

If anybody does not like IKE and what he does here, they can go and join the George Bush RX-8 censorship forum. In fact you all bashing IKE sounds a lot like what Howard stern is going through......censorship by people how do like what he says. EVERY discussion needs antagonist. And IKE fill the roll perfectly. He is respectfully and knowledgeable…and fun. Yes sometimes he annoys me sometimes, ( and that is probably from my own short comings)……so do taco bell commercials….and you know what….I IGNORE THEM. If IKE ever leaves this forum it truly will be a sad day. FREE SPEECH if the number one rule in our society, and to deny this is a grave mistake. He NEEDS to be here. Sorry about the ramble but censorship is by biggest issue with what is happening in the world today.

So IKE, I hate you, I love you, please never leave ME!!!!


P.S. This guy Chevy ….quote: "I was to lazy to go get a accurate measurement for how much 1 gallon of fuel*** ways.*** wakeech maybe you should have finished school, or should have taken some chemisty?" …….Jesus Christ!!! My 8 year old brother can spell better than me, but so self respecting intellectual would spell weighs…ways?!?!?!? …..let alone chemist"r"y. So perhaps when you are done with whatever you are doing you should maybe START school, because it is PAINFULLY obvious you do not understand what you are talking about…..you read half a book and are now quoting it….for shame….for shame.

I don't know, he said he took thermaldynamics. Sounds like a fart smeller, er uh, smart feller to me...

give it a rest, i'm sure he's embarrassed enough.

You can always compare the rotary engine to other 1.3L piston engines or bring the power/volume ratio into consideration to make the engine look good. The biggest advantage of the rotary engine is its size and weight, nothing more. Like the RX-8 ad states 'Weight is the enemy.'

For example, compare $25k-30k vehicles - the Mazda RX-8 Renesis engine offers less power, torque, fuel economy and less proven reliability than the 3.5 V6 Altima, V6 Honda Accord, V6 Acura, and plenty of other piston engines out there. Piston engines also do not suffer from the engine flooding issue amoung other rotary-specific concerns.

As far as usage, rotary engine's reliability is still unknown since the Renesis does not exactly have a proven history like other Japanese V6 and I-4's do.

The most similar engine to the Renesis is the NA S2000 engine from Honda. After the 2003 update, the new S2000 engine is now more powerful, has more torque, and bettre fuel economy than the Renesis. (not that it wasn't before the update) The fact remains the Renesis is very light, and unique in the automobile world.

Lastly, the International Engine of the Year Award described the Renesis as a 280hp NA engine that can get close to 30mpg on a daily basis. Where is that engine now?

Thanks Sea... I think... :p I'm gonna run out of 20s soon if you guys keep it up.

Traditionally displacement was determined by the combustion chamber volume multiplied by the number of cylinders or combustion chambers. Mazda gets mileage out of calculating each rotor as one combustion chamber, thus the 1.3 liter number. If you just as arbitrarily designate each rotor face as a cylinder you get 3.9 liters displacement!

It seems a more accurate way is to look at combustion events per revolution of the output shaft. In the number of bangs per revolution department, the 13B Renesis is equivalent to a 2.6 liter piston engine.

The rotary has several efficiecies that are along the average of a typical piston engine. I find is kinda funny that people still aren't seeing the main point, Thermal efficieny is the average, volumeteric efficiency is average, because there are alot of variables that effect those. The efficiecy that was originally stated has been forgotten. I didn't bring thermal efficiecy up.

The wankle rotary is more efficient because of the design of the engine. A 2 rotor wankle rotory has three moving part the average piston engine has over 100 moving parts.

In a piston engine you lose alot of power when the piston has to stop going down and start going up and vice versa. Now out of the 100 moving parts something is moving them. The connections to make it move take power from some were, Piston to conron to crankshaft to camshaft to valves in a OHC engine. The piston's havbe ring which touch the cylinder walls, along with the each piston touching the walls. the conrod is connected to a pin and the conron is also connected the crank and the crank is held to the block using bearings. The camshaft opens and closes the valves and valves have spring retainers and guides. Ok very basic operation of the piston engine lets take a closer look. just looking at on cylinder there are at least ten points of Friction (only considering 2 valves on the head). Every point where friction is there is a lose of power.

In a 2 rotor Rotary. The 2 rotors are connected to the eccentric shaft and each rotor has apex seals and sides seals which come in contact with the rotor housing. In the renesis on one rotor there is are at least 6 points of friction and the rotor always spins in one direction. This is were the efficiency come from, not as many parts robbing power. 3 moving parts vs 150 moving parts.

That is where is efficiency is coming from. I am not embarassed by any of my posts here because me and my groups of friends ( a group of highly intellegent engineers) come up with them.

BTW engine oil only reduces friction, friction is never completely gone. I did say this in one of my earlier posts. To me it shows people are against some because it is different...Just my opinion



Mike


Knowing how to put it together is way different then knowing how is works, and why it works.

Chevy,
You said you weren't going to post any more on this topic. What gives? You aren't hauling anything and getting 30mpg.
I think the Rotary is great. I don't see how the Renesis makes the 8 superior when compared to the S2000. They're both front-engine with rear-wheel-drive setups and weigh about the same. The Honda gets better gas mileage and is faster. These are the numbers I think about.
The Ren's engine size and weight advantages weren't utilized at all. I think the 8 would have been better suited with a V6 or a Mid engine setup.

dude, Chevy, you're not fooling anyone. seriously, leave it alone. the friction arguement is another complete bs arguement, just like your thermal efficiency arguement.

bubble, you're completely wrong. the 13B-MSP is about 40% the size and weight of the F20C (please search on F20C and you'll see the innumerous threads that Buger compared the two). the RX-8's ~2900lb weight (in the "Sport" trim... cloth, no options, 6 speed) is possible only by this.
and again the engine has been completely muddled by Mazda. the A/F ratios are completely wrong for sake only of the catalytic converter... what's needed is someone to get brave and move that SOB back in the exhaust a good 6-10", maybe with radiating fins on the exhaust if necessary, to reduce the heat getting to that cat meaning that leaning hte engine out will not be as detrimental to the motor (and cat lightoff will still take less time than warming up the engine).

anyways, forget all that. there is absolutely no possible way that you can have a ~3000lb car with a 240hp (sorta... get Canzoomer's mod and you're back where the engine should have been) engine that has (here's the important bit) four completely usable seats and a usable trunk if you go to a V6 mounted in the front (the mass of the car balloons, and upsets the weight balance of the car), and especially if you have it in the back (what back seat?? mid engine setups aren't exactly thrifty on the space).

there is no other way you could have the same car shape, and mass, unless you went to a FWD 4 banger setup, and then you're left with an Acura whatever-it-is-that's-the-Euro/Japan-Accord (not TL, right?). yay?? no, i don't think so.

fuel economy can be fooled with. power output can also be fooled with. i know you're not making an attack on the motor, but i'm simply pointing out that it isn't possible with any other motor.

ok sorry Chev, i had to run out of the house five minutes after i logged on.

the whole argument that how the wankel is somehow more efficient by any measure is simply incorrect. thermal efficiency is the be-all, end-all measure of mechanical efficiency and takes into account even the fact that there are more points of contact (though not necessarily meaning more total friction... which would be an extrordinarily difficult statement to prove) in your usual SOHC piston engine.

at the end of the day, no wankel will ever be quite as efficient as a piston engine, and considering that the R&D of Mazda by itself versus the rest of the automotive world isn't going to measure up at any rate, not to mention you haven't any sort of reference for your supposed experimental data "proving" the 13B-MSP is more thermally efficient than any other specified engine (which you haven't, either), your argument is just hot air.

just drop it: notice how this "technical" thread is still in the lounge?? that's because it's not.