What the world needs now is a 20b renesis powerplant.But seriously in order to compete ,a future rx-7 would do well with this driving its rear wheels.(Perhaps with some aluminum flat housings.)They could do this with the small 4port configuration and still kick M3 butt.I'm not sure that people who suggest wider rotors will be used understand the physics of how apex seals and springs work.Any thoughts or opinions? Did I say 4port? I meant without auxillary ports.

Originally posted by CERAMICSEAL
Did I say 4port? I meant without auxillary ports.

saying 4 or 6 port is correct, and very clear. however, they're not "auxillary" ports, but tertiary ports ;)... that's the name i gave 'em, and i won that thread, so that's the "official" (?) name. :D <- beaming with pride

however, a 3 rotor RENESIS has been a HUUUUUUUUUGE topic for debate. Search, and as a rule, the larger the thread the better.
read through it, and if you've got something valuable to add, or another (unasked) question which comes from all that info, then resurect the best one and ask it. :)

to actually make a 3 rotor renisis would be pretty easy the only part that doesnt exist is the front middle intermediate housing, everything else 20b could be made to work

3 rotor pros: significantly smoother than a 2 rotor, and low end torque

3 rotor cons: it uses about 33% more fuel than a 2 rotor, has more emissions, and heat etc

i do know what i'm talking about too i have an fc with a 3 rotor

mike

3-rotor Renesis? *DROOL*

the intermediate housings need to be wider so that the rotors don't have to share the exhaust port there like they do now. so the shaft might have to be longer than the one currently used in 20b's. (i don't know the length) i say use the high power engine with the tertiary intake ports. why not?

Originally posted by j9fd3s
3 rotor cons: it uses about 33% more fuel than a 2 rotor, has more emissions, and heat etc

33% MORE!! That would give it worse fuel economy than some SUVs. That alone might make it unfeasible for production.:mad:

Originally posted by cueball1029

33% MORE!! That would give it worse fuel economy than some SUVs. That alone might make it unfeasible for production.:mad:

unless they use displacement on demand ... which would work even better with 3 rotors! :D Mazda must do that ... but even if they don't, fuel economy wouldn't be *that* bad for a sportscar. The Murcielago gets under 10 mpg, and the clk gtr gets 4. Certainly a different league, but you get the idea. As long as the price is high enough (e.g. RX-7 viewed as a supercar) people won't care :cool:

about the 3rotor consuming 33% more fuel than a twin rotor:

what if there is a fuel economy mode the engine can run on so that only 2 of the rotors are running when ur cruising... then have that 3rd rotor on demand with a switch or something??

i read that the C6 vette will have this type of technology where 4 of the pistons shut off during cruising so that it gets fuel economy like a 4banger!

is this possible with the 3rotor?

oh...vipeRX7 beat me to it..

Originally posted by rotorex

is this possible with the 3rotor?

that is exactly what viperx7 was talking about. in fact he was referencing this thread that he started about displacement on demand (http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3691&highlight=cut+out)

Originally posted by wakeech


saying 4 or 6 port is correct, and very clear. however, they're not "auxillary" ports, but tertiary ports ;)... that's the name i gave 'em, and i won that thread, so that's the "official" (?) name. :D <- beaming with pride



By the way, for those who are interested, wakeech and the guy who started the poll kinda "cheated" for that poll.

The Poll started with options like "6 port", "tertiary port", and "others". Since Mazda's official name for it is "auxillary ports", many people voted for "others". After a few days, and most of people voted already, the "auxillary ports" option was mysteriously added back to the poll and got like 2 votes. So "tertiary port" won.

Now everyone knows. :D

...and?? i won, and it's certainly the more correct term anyways :p

what if mazda introduces (as they eventually will) a "secondary auxillary" port??? i mean, that's not even a real definition... it's either auxillary, or not... i don't think that the definition of "auxillary" suits the function of the tertiary port at all either... it's not added on, it's not extra, it's an integral part of a performance motor...

primary, secondary, tertiary, (and eventually) quatrinary... just the way it should be. Japanese engineers are (understandibly) not known for their exceptional english skills. ;)

Originally posted by Smoker



By the way, for those who are interested, wakeech and the guy who started the poll kinda "cheated" for that poll.

The Poll started with options like "6 port", "tertiary port", and "others". Since Mazda's official name for it is "auxillary ports", many people voted for "others". After a few days, and most of people voted already, the "auxillary ports" option was mysteriously added back to the poll and got like 2 votes. So "tertiary port" won.

Now everyone knows. :D

ahahaha! too funny

Having apparently resurected this topic I must point out that my computer skills and familiarity with posts,threads and forums is quite limited.However I do know a thing or two about rotary engines.
Part of the reason for this post was to question the logic of people suggesting that Mazda is working on developing engines with even wider rotors than the 13b.If I'm wrong I'll humbly eat my words.
Also I'm convinced that a lighter more modern 20b doesn't have to be so thirsty.Plus the lack of lowend torque that the current Renesis produces just isn't going to cut it against the 6cylinder competition.They could use ports even smaller than the base rx-8 and still put out in the neighborhood of 300 horses with 240footpounds of torque.(Hence one of the ways by which fuel economy could be kept in check.)

Mazda time and again have said they're making a bigger motor. Curiously, they're not like other manufacturers who keep people guessing what motor they're going to release (eg R35 GTR) Mazda have been fairly forthright. The only issue is - will it be a 10mm or 20mm jump (15x or 16x motor)? Smart money would have to be on the 15x motor, but most of us would prefer the 16x motor.

A 3 rotor motor would never get off the ground. They're too big (comparatively), they're heavier, more expensive to produce and thirstier. That's some pretty big trade-offs just to get some more low-end power IMHO. It won't happen.

-pete

Originally posted by Smoker
...So "tertiary port" won... Among those who bothered with it, that is...

---jps

Originally posted by rpm_pwr
Mazda time and again have said they're making a bigger motor. Curiously, they're not like other manufacturers who keep people guessing what motor they're going to release (eg R35 GTR) Mazda have been fairly forthright. The only issue is - will it be a 10mm or 20mm jump (15x or 16x motor)? Smart money would have to be on the 15x motor, but most of us would prefer the 16x motor.

A 3 rotor motor would never get off the ground. They're too big (comparatively), they're heavier, more expensive to produce and thirstier. That's some pretty big trade-offs just to get some more low-end power IMHO. It won't happen.

-pete

i would actually like a 10a or 12a based 3rotor engine, but the 2 rotor is less expensive to make

mike

Somebody needs to explain this in very basic terms to me. I'm a rotary newby.

The intake and exaust ports on the Renesis are on the side wall of the rotor housing, right? That is partly how they achieved emissions standards this time around, right?

So, you can't place the ports in the same (side) position in the center rotor housing in a 3-rotor engine, right? So, how do you make a 3-rotor Renesis?

Don't you have to place the ports for the center rotor along the wall of the housing that faces the rotor face? Won't that mess up the emissions levels?

what if you put them on the top of the intermediate housing and routed to the side thru the casting?

In reply to the question asked by Schneegs;the intake and exhaust ports are located in what are known as flat housings.The intermediate or center flat housing has siamesed ports;in that two distinctly separate ports do join for their entrance to the exhaust manifold.Internally each rotor has two intake and two exhaust passages on a Renesis as compared with the previous design's single peripheral styled exhausts.With the 3rotor this doesn't change;except you now have an additional intermediate flat housing(Wider,since it contains an extra main bearing).

Originally posted by rpm-pwr
I must admit my ignorance re:the statements by Mazda that they are definitely working on a bigger engine.Please enlighten me as to where I might find this info.Also,does "it" specifically mention increasing rotor width?(This does have drawbacks).

I think I would much rather have a direct injection renesis 13B!!! :D :D :D :D

D.I. seems so cool.

i liked the 300hp 24- lb-ft 3 rotor idea

if mazda wants too, they WILL be able to make a 3 rotor renesis, remember, they aer an engineering compnay first, car builders second

wow, mad typos in there, comp is soooo laggy lol
________
HARMED BY AVANDIA (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

They absolutely could POOMan.rpm-pwr made it sound as if the 20b didn't already exist."A 3rotor motor would never get off the ground".j9fd3s is driving an rx-7 with one in it (I imagine it's turbocharged since that's how they came.)
I've seen one dynoed without the turbo and it created 280hp.It had a different intake and management,but that was with the pathetic stock ports they came with back then and low compression rotors.
I'm betting the competiton is about to up the ante and Mazda's not even in the game as yet.An even more high strung 2rotor renesis may be the approach they chose to create the increased power needed but that would be a shame.Torque is essential and increased revs is the only way to bump it over 250hp-not very practical.To not use the proven 20b (in renesis form)would be a shame.By the way I'm still waiting for rpm-pwr to guide me to the data or info that states Mazda is working on an even larger 2rotor motor.

yah, mine is stock turbos and ports, its really responsive on the freeway.
basically it looks like that they didnt change the internal dimensions much so a 3 rotor renisis would be a matter of casting a center housing with renisis porting.

http://www.3rotor.com/images/jc_build/jc_turbo2.jpg
see the thick iron housing? thats the one

mike

forum member 3ROTOR has a RHD JC Cosmo Type E with the 20B.
here's a pic (stole it from his avatar):)

http://www.rx8club.com/avatar.php?userid=90&dateline=1054991284

by the way here are the results (http://www.rx8club.com/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=58471&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending) of my forum search about the 10mm increase. be advised some are not about the engine. read thru these to see if you can find the mazda mention of increasing rotor width.

Mazda is working on developing engines with even wider rotors than the 13b.If I'm wrong I'll humbly eat my words.
Also I'm convinced that a lighter more modern 20b doesn't have to be so thirsty.Plus the lack of lowend torque that the current Renesis produces just isn't going to cut it against the 6cylinder competition.They could use ports even smaller than the base rx-8 and still put out in the neighborhood of 300 horses with 240footpounds of torque.(Hence one of the ways by which fuel economy could be kept in check.)


The rotors are narrower and taller with a different wobble/geometry, for the 16X. This does not mean you are wrong by any means you just heard of a different engine being developed!

Here is a update on my current engine design/in development, may or may not be produced in the future. There are a lot of issues that will have to be worked out first.

The new 3 rotor engine should produce around 400 HP and still get better gas mileage than the current RX-8 Renesis engine. I'm estimating it will get around 25 -30 mpg.

The new engine includes direct injection, rapid burn technology, new rotor geometry from the 16X, the displacement 2.4 liters or less, gas saving tech, and an optional turbo for the Mazdaspeed version. This new rotor design will have more low end torque but the drawback is that it will reduce the redline some. FYI:gas saving tech=rotor deactivation! You will also be able to select how many rotors you want running via three way switch.


Not all of these improvements will be in the final product due to weight or cost issues.

Wow 7 year old bump. Way to start out.

lolol.

i laugh at his post.

:40oz:

There are a lot of issues that will have to be worked out first.

The new 3 rotor engine should produce around 400 HP and still get better gas mileage than the current RX-8 Renesis engine. I'm estimating it will get around 25 -30 mpg.

The new engine includes direct injection, rapid burn technology, new rotor geometry from the 16X, the displacement 2.4 liters or less, gas saving tech, and an optional turbo for the Mazdaspeed version. This new rotor design will have more low end torque but the drawback is that it will reduce the redline some. FYI:gas saving tech=rotor deactivation! You will also be able to select how many rotors you want running via three way switch.


Not all of these improvements will be in the final product due to weight or cost issues.


Ya, okay. Have fun with that. :rollingla

0.o
What the hell? Wakeech hasn't been around in 5 years and he still has more posts than I do...

Seeing this thread reminds me to follow up with Rob at Pineapple to see where he is at with the two 3 Rotor Reneses motors he is building.

Yah... but 400hp, more torque, and 25-30mpg? Ah.

Seeing this thread reminds me to follow up with Rob at Pineapple to see where he is at with the two 3 Rotor Reneses motors he is building.

Dude- we should go up there together and chat with him. It'll get me out of the house :) and I haven't talked to him in like a year.

The rotors are narrower and taller with a different wobble/geometry, for the 16X. This does not mean you are wrong by any means you just heard of a different engine being developed!

He knows more than his fair share abotu Rotaries and what Mazda is up to. At the time he made that he was correct. He is quite well educated on the 16x as well;)



Here is a update on my current engine design/in development, may or may not be produced in the future. There are a lot of issues that will have to be worked out first.

in development with whom?



FYI:gas saving tech=rotor deactivation! You will also be able to select how many rotors you want running via three way switch.


whats your scheme for dealing with pump losses? this has been discussed by several of us many years ago and a workable scheme was decided upon. But Mazda Executives have said they were not looking in this direction at all. They had looked at it and discarded the idea as to complicated and costly.

That would be great. Last September his bug him in 6 months about the builds :)

Whats your scheme for dealing with pump losses? This has been discussed by several of us many years ago and a workable scheme was decided upon. But Mazda Executives have said they were not looking in this direction at all. They had looked at it and discarded the idea as to complicated and costly.

Pump losses are kept at a minimum, this is not an issue with my designs.

In development with whom?

I meant the designs being developed, because of how many options are on this engine I haven't decided 100% on which ones to use.

All Mazda knows is that I was working on a new engine after the last project we did together.

0.o
What the hell? Wakeech hasn't been around in 5 years and he still has more posts than I do...

What ever happened to Wakeech?

PT

What ever happened to Wakeech?

PT

I honestly don't know...

went away to school. got busy with life. checked in once like 2 years ago....

okay i checked - that was 5 years ago he said hey.

Is this a thread for old time's sake?

So a 3 rotor 2.4X eh?

Is this a thread for old time's sake?

So a 3 rotor 2.4X eh?

whore,

signs say no! ;)

beers :beer:

is this a world record?

for fail?

whore,

signs say no! ;)

beers :beer:



You need to PM me a bottle

I haz ceramix indeed :mdrmed:

Zoom44, Rob put the 3rotor Renesis on the dyno last week :) You ready to head up to the shop?? PM when you are ready.

Didn't the Brits have a kit for building a 3 rotor Renesis? It seems to me I read about it a couple of years ago.

Someone overseas built one and put it into a FD. I do not recall where the builder lives though. Rob is local to zoom and myself so personally speaking it is much more exciting :D:

Didn't the Brits have a kit for building a 3 rotor Renesis? It seems to me I read about it a couple of years ago.

Hayward rotary built one and put it in a fd for drift.

http://http://www.mazdarotary.co.uk/

http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=740607

http://bluesplayer.co.uk/youtube_software/video/JZLFUCqdMZ4/Hayward-Rotary-Triple-Rotor-Renesis.html

for fail?
For that
And for the 7 year bump!

Would be nice to have a 3 rotor Renesis that turns off fuel injection to 1 of the rotor chamber while cruising for mpg concern and another mode for power.

But I wouldn't mind if Mazda just go back and improve the FD RX-7 and release it again.

Wow 7 year old bump. Way to start out.

lol at least he searched....