You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access
to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to start new topics, reply to conversations, privately message other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join RX8Club.com today!
Just got my car and driver today and almost pooped myself when a mention of the rx8 made it in... Even though it was only in the backfires...
Copied out of car and driver....
(In response to the Ferrari 458)
"Ferrari has been claiming a world record for "specific output in a nonturbo production engine" in its mid engined V-8 cars since the introduction of the F355, and you guys have been touting it as biblical truth ever since. I'm tired of hearing it. This claim has always been incorrect. The current champ is the Mazda RX-8. With 238 horses from 1308cc, it produces 177.4 horsepower per liter, dwarfing that of the Ferrari. The previous champ was the 90-92 Mazda RX-7. With 160 ponies from the same 1.3 liters it produced 122.3 hp/liter from only 1308cc, making any such claims about previous Ferraris incorrect"
-Brian Sullins
Avondale, Arizona
"Ahem, a world record for nonturbo production piston engines--Ed
---------------
Brain, if you're out there in the RX8 Club here... well played!
And as always, sorry if this is a repost.
This ad is not displayed to registered and logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on RX8Club.com!
While it could be argued that this is 'technically correct' according to published specifications of the RENESIS, it is functionally incorrect. In a piston engine the published capacity is a sum of the volumes when pistons are compressed during an engine cycle. That's fine, and it is self evident. In a rotary "as each rotor gives a power stroke per revolution it is therefore the same as a two stroke. So effectively all of the engine's capacity is being used for every rotation of the output shaft (as for a two stroke). Therefore the actual volume used is twice that of a 4 stroke."
So effectively all of the engine's capacity is being used for every rotation of the output shaft (as for a two stroke). Therefore the actual volume used is twice that of a 4 stroke."
Game over, sorry.
Hardly game over.
All you did is solidify that piston engines are wasting half of their capacity. If pistons used all of their capacity, rather than half, maybe they would indeed be beating the rotary in this measurement. But I guess the rotary engine found a way to use all of the capacity while the piston engine still lags behind.
Do you stick a guy in a wheelchair up against Mr Bolt, and then say that Mr Bolt isn't faster because this was a race between people not using their legs? No. Oh, between people not using half their body, Mr Ferrari might be faster, but Bolt still beats them silly. He still IS faster.
^Agreed, I'll bet there are 2 stroke engines that can beat the Ferrari claim. They just don't make 2 stroke engines for automobiles anymore.
__________________ Don't try this at home. It could be dangerous. I have years of experience.
Emissions and fuel economy haven't exactly been areas of strength for past rotary power plants, but absolutely no one with a soul has ever cared. - Autoweek
Rotary History:1982 RX7 GS, 1985 RX7 GSL-SE, 2004 RX8 Sport-Continuous Rotary Owner since 1985
Racing History:SCCA Solo II 1979-1986, Skip Barber Comp School 1983, SCCA Club Racing 1987-1993, 2004-2011 Track Days
While it could be argued that this is 'technically correct' according to published specifications of the RENESIS, it is functionally incorrect. In a piston engine the published capacity is a sum of the volumes when pistons are compressed during an engine cycle. That's fine, and it is self evident. In a rotary "as each rotor gives a power stroke per revolution it is therefore the same as a two stroke. So effectively all of the engine's capacity is being used for every rotation of the output shaft (as for a two stroke). Therefore the actual volume used is twice that of a 4 stroke."
Game over, sorry.
actually doubling isn't correct either. Simply put, engine capacity is how much it displaces in 1 turn of the drive/crank/output shaft/eccentric shaft. Typical piston engine realizes full capacity in 1 turn of the crankshaft whereas a rotary requires 3 turns of the eccentric shaft to realize full capacity. many forget that the rotary is essentially internally geared. The "doubling effect" that is often used as the equalizer comes from the historical 4stroke 2stroke equalizer from other arenas because the rotary has many similarities as 2 strokes. So really the 2-rotor rotary of present is either 1.3 or 3.9l depending how you view it. We've had these debates on other RX forums back in the day, believe me.
All you did is solidify that piston engines are wasting half of their capacity. If pistons used all of their capacity, rather than half, maybe they would indeed be beating the rotary in this measurement. But I guess the rotary engine found a way to use all of the capacity while the piston engine still lags behind.
Do you stick a guy in a wheelchair up against Mr Bolt, and then say that Mr Bolt isn't faster because this was a race between people not using their legs? No. Oh, between people not using half their body, Mr Ferrari might be faster, but Bolt still beats them silly. He still IS faster.
We still hold the record.
Always two sides to it...
That would be exactly why a guy in a wheelchair and bolt wouldn't be compared in the first place
Now, put bolt on the wheelchair (classifying the 13b as a 2.6/3.9 or whatever) and the comparison would make sense.
Who cares who makes the highest hp/l anyways
__________________
2004 6spd Titanium Grey GT. Mods: too little to name
amber corners ftw!! RIP 10/30/2009
Wait. Did I just imply that the renesis was efficient?
Well, it uses it's volume more efficiently than 4-stroke piston engines do
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjkim
Always two sides to it...
That would be exactly why a guy in a wheelchair and bolt wouldn't be compared in the first place
Now, put bolt on the wheelchair (classifying the 13b as a 2.6/3.9 or whatever) and the comparison would make sense.
Putting Bolt on a wheel chair would be figuring out how to make the rotary a 4-stroke cycle.
I get what you are saying, that this is trying to compare 2 different things. However, it's fact that 4-stroke piston engines only provide power over half of their swept capacity.
...
I was about to say that rotaries provide power over their entire swept capacity, but that isn't accurate. they only provide power over about 1/3rd of their swept capacity. So I guess this gets down to this question (I'm sure someone knows, someone up on the rotary math)
Is the 1.3L calculation A) calculating the entire housing swept space?
Or B) is it calculating only the swept space where power is provided?
Road and Track did the same thing and I think someone here in the forums set them straights and the correction made it to the next issue as well. Nice.
Yeah, Honda's big claim is 1HP for every Cubic Centimeter.
The 99 Civic Si I had was a 1.6 and made 160 HP... not bad VTAK! But like the rotary, all the power is in the high revs.
I never heard of Honda claiming 1 bhp per every cubic centimeter. That would mean they claim almost 2,000 BHP for the roughly 2,000 CC f20 AP1 motor.......
I have never heard them claim this.
I have heard that it makes 2 bhp per cubic inch though. (roughly 60 cubic inches in a liter )
__________________
08' RX8 40th Anniversary
I Have the need...the need for speed.
(Tom Cruise)
We've had these debates on other RX forums back in the day, believe me.
Linear Mode
