RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

I could see the change in dimensions throwing more rotor weight around, and hence a need for lower redline, but then, that can be balanced out, so maybe not? If they do lower the redline, I seriously doubt it would drop below 8,000, which was the redline for at least the FC anyway. Just uneducated guesses on my part though.

And yes, alot of it is efficiency based, but don't interpret that to just mean better gas mileage. (RG or others, correct me if I am wrong on this, i hope I don't mangle my visual image too badly) Think about the width of the rotor. If it is currently too wide, and the combustion isn't even impacting along the full width, then the combustion is losing a portion of it's 'punch' because that expansion is still occurring, with nothing to push against as it is still trying to reach the corners. So it's burning gas that isn't being converted into a pushing force on the rotor. Waste. It is also reducing the amount of possible pushing force on the rotor, not by just that portion that hasn't 'hit' anything, but as a whole. This part is hard to describe the way I see it, but what's more effective: someone standing between two walls pushing equally on each at max strength, or someone standing between the same two walls but only pushing at one of them? Pushing on both is more net push on the desired wall because they braced themselves. Same concept. Without a complete push on everything, you lose some power even on what you are pushing on.

(I hope that makes sense)

So a more efficient burn also does mean more power from the burn. Plus the mechanical advantage of the longer rotor face. And probably reduced emissions as well. 300hp is likely imo, though probably not far past it. Anything short is probably detuning.

Renesis_8

I saw this post last night on rotary news.com as well, great stuff.

I hope they build this engine tough enough for higher RPM, say 8000-8500rpm, and have intake and exhaust ports that support more power there. I am fine with them putting a RPM limit at 7500 for durability and fuel consumption. That way those who want more power can just raise the RPM limit.

I have a feeling that the side plates are simply not big enough to cut ports any bigger to support "30%" more HP compared to stock Renesis ports tho. That would be a good reason for a lower max RPM.
________
Ashlin live

j_tso

Also, it's gonna be all aluminum, which will do great things for weight.

renesisgenesis

Oh no...

Not that I don't believe you, but where did they say this?

Also, saying that a lower redline will offer a wider power band is amazingly idiotic. How would decreasing the available rpm range increase the range for power?

the 13b makes good, usable power from about 4500-9000 rpm. So explain how reducing available revs is going to increase width of this range? (other than having torque peak at very low revs, which it probly won't do anyway.)

mscamp02

iTrader: (3)

good find thanks!

Mazmart

iTrader: (12)

Ha ha!

My best guesses for hp are the same as yours. 275 to 280 is very likely. I wouldn't at all be surprized by a factory FI version at some point as well.

Paul.

rotarygod

Redline on the new engine was discussed in an SAE technical paper.

As you raise the usable redline by tuning the engine for it, you also shift the powerband higher up in the rpm range. A downside to this is that the usable powerband gets narrower and narrower as it goes up. "Usable power" and powerband shouldn't be confused as you can change the shape of a powerband and still have usable power. If you tune so you get more power up high, you decrease it on the bottom end. Where a certain engine tuned to a certain rpm limit may have a usable powerband that is 3000 rpm wide, that same engine retuned to a higher redline might only have a 2000 rpm wide usable rpm range. Usable being a subjective term as textbook and what someone will tolerate aren't always the same thing. I've see people claim that a full peripheral port engine that has no muffling, gets 8 mpg, and bucks and sputters at light throttle settings is somehow streetable. Clearly they aren't. If you tune for a higher rpm range and low end power summariliy is sacrificed, so is low end efficiency i.e. economy. It's not idiotic. It's physics. That's just how it works.

More is not always better. Just because 9000 rpm is good does not mean 10,000 is better. It doesn't work that way. There are lots of things that need to be considered when it comes to the rest of the vehicles components in regards to redline. An engine that has a higher redline probably has fairly little low end power. That's going to be because it's small with little torque. While torque on it's own doesn't move you in the slightest, it is important to know as structural design of the drivetrain is dependent on it. An engine that makes little torque but good horsepower due to a higher redline won't have the stresses on the drivetrain that a larger engine with more torque will. Even if that engine redlines lower and has the exact same peak horsepower. You can pretty much guarantee that we'll see a new transmission design with this engine.

rotarygod

If they had merely made the engine wider then they couldn't make the ports larger. However since they made the engine taller, that gives them more room to use larger intake and exhaust ports.

zoom44

dont forget also that the overall outer dimensional size of the engine is nearly the same as the renesis which will have a very positive impact on the overall dynamics of the combined package of engine/chassis

Design1stCode2nd

The engine specs sound good, and if they can make it reliable and flood-proof I think they will have a better time selling this one. The thing that would really make the most sense to me is a Kabura/Miata size vehicle around 2,800lbs if possible. Less actually but trying to be realistic. That kind of weight would allow for the great performance numbers the magazine racers look at and of course it would have wonderful handling that Mazda is know for and better fuel economy.

Weight will make or break the next RX car. Put out a 3,200+ car and it will be adequate performance and quirky (engine) to the masses. 2,500-2,800 with near 300hp and it will be amazing with a quirky engine.

I have 4 years before I buy 2nd car if I stay on target. I hope Mazda will have something worthy to compete.

ASH8

Yep, it is a wider 13A (10A Apex)..what many off us thought...Mazda had it there right under their noses..

Now all they have to do is make it Duel Fuel, hey RG, what about Hydrogen, what a great Idea!...automatic Steam Cleaning!! removing all that Carbon.

The Perfect Fuel Combination..hey RG....duck in-coming!!

zoom44

hahaha

diabolical1

i am very excited to see this reach production. it may sound crazy, but i don't really care about factory performance numbers. i just care that it makes it to production with decent support from Mazda. there are ways to generate revenue if they play their cards right.

diabolical1

bloody classic.

freaklinkmusic

i thought about that.. but because there will be no cast iron, could that affect power potential if we decide to boost the engine?

rotarygod

Dual fuel hydrogen? They want it to make more power not less and I guarantee that if it ran on hydrogen it wouldn't be any better than the average Civic engine. If you want to use hydrogen, use it where it makes sense which is in a fuel cell. Then let a superior engine, aka an electric motor, do the work. I'd buy a piston powered 4 cylinder RX-7/8 before I'd buy a hydrogen powered rotary RX-7/8. Then again I could always just change the fuel system to something better and just outrun everyone else. Propane, natural gas, Butanol are all better choices that make far more economical sense not to mention they all make far more power. The steam engine would even make more sense efficiency wise and no that's no joke!

Was that the response you guys wanted from me?

Symbioticgenius

I say Ethanol. Many 7's run it, and attest to its cleaning and cooling properties, which IIRC are the main two problems this motor has. Plus E-85 is cheaper than 93 so it affects a problem that us people have (money). Other than having to fill up more often offsetting that, we should be great.

longpath

iTrader: (1)

From what I've read so far, I'd much prefer Butanol as an alternative fuel to dino-derived gasoline. It has more energy per unit volume than ethanol, has less of a tendency to absorb water (so it doesn't lead to as much corrosion in the fuel system) and can be readily produced from cellulosic sources such as grasses, so it doesn't impact food prices as sharply as when food crops are diverted to produce ethanol.

Symbioticgenius

but like Hydrogen... you can't find it anywhere at least not in usable bulk, and unless GOVT decides to back it instead... you wont. Since its already available and more and more places opening up every day, I say E-85.

longpath

iTrader: (1)

My understanding is that the reason you can find E85 is because the previous congress and president gave it as a subsidy to corn growers. My recollection is that it caused food prices to spike across the board. All it would take is for the government to remove that subsidy and E85 would quietly go away. On its own, it's not a viable product to produce for sale. If E85 were to go away, Butanol would then have an opportunity to fill that void; but as long as the government subsidises a competing product, there is no chance of butanol making a viable entry into the market. On the other hand, butanol is mechanically viable in many cars that are only set up to run on gasoline, whereas E85 requires modifications.

That being said, my understanding is that the direct injection of the 16X should make it more resistant to flooding. If that is so, is there a reasonable chance that a stop/start system might be implemented in it for stop and go traffic?

longpath

iTrader: (1)

Does the patent indicate whether the oil pump is engine-driven or not? I raise the question, not having seen the patent, because of a concern that has been raised elsewhere about the impact of stop/start systems on engine longevity.

rotarygod

The oil pump is most likely still chain driven which the oil metering system is probably full electric.

rotarygod

E85 only makes more power on a forced inducted engine. On an n/a engine it loses. The gain though comes at a huge price and that is with mileage. It falls off the planet and it does it so bad that it more than offsets the price difference. It also absorbs water and over time will lead to more corrosion related issues. For those without forced induction, there are no gains and only losses in both power and economy. Combine no benefit with ultimately paying more money per mile travelled and most people out there will not benefit from it at all. It doesn't make much sense. Only a handful of performance enthusiasts will like it and those people are probably already using it anyways.

Saying that, I actually like Ethanol for certain reasons but a replacement for gasoline for everyday drivers isn't one of them.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

Agreed. The only 'benefit' I have ever seen for the average driver is the ability to say "I use less pumped oil in my gas". It costs more, performs worse, and has repercussions with the food industry. Mass producing it was a poorly thought out idea. Which sounds about right.

There is no true (combustion) substitute for gasoline for everyday drivers. All the econo boxes need to go series hybrid, and let us enthusiasts play with the petrol

Edit:
RG corrects me again

rotarygod

Butanol is a direct replacement for gasoline. Any car today that can run on gasoline can also run on Butanol and it can do it without being retuned. Butanol can also be pumped through existing pipeline infrastructure and doesn't have to be blended before being loaded on the truck. Butanol can also be made from anything that can make Ethanol which really raises the question why aren't we? Much like Methanol and Ethanol, Butanol is just a form of Alcohol. The real reason it's not made as much is because Ethanol is the easiest to make. Just heat up some fermented grain, beer or wine will even work, until it starts to evaporate. The steam coming off is primarily the alcohol. This process of course is simple distilling and anyone and their dog can do it.

When distillers make whisky, Vodka, etc, it is all done this way. The alcohol they end up with and that we drink is Ethanol. When they start collecting their condensed steam, the very first stuff that comes out is the Methanol. Then at a slightly higher temperature, around 180*F or so comes the Ethanol. Most of the distillate is the Ethanol. Then near the end after the Ethanol is gone, the temperature starts rising again and a little bit left coming out is Butanol. After it's gone the rest of the condensate is mostly just plain old water.

Now I make that sound like Butanol and Methanol are very small proportions compared to Ethanol but that's not entirely true. The yeasts which break down and ferment sugars for beer, wine, alcohol form consumption, etc are actually pretty simple creatures. They break the sugars down into mostly Ethanol. You can leave sugar water out and after a while it will ferment on it's own from the wild yeast and bacteria in the air we breathe. The yeasts that break down sugars into mostly Butanol are a little more complex. This isn't a problem though as there are only 3 byproducts of fermentation. They are alcohol, carbon dioxide, and more yeast. You only need to propagate the first batch. After that you have an endless supply of yeast. In closed controlled fermentation conditions such as brewing or ethanol production, the yeast used is one that has been chosen for the job. It innoculates the wort (pronounced 'wert' which is the pre-fermented liquid) through controlled means. There is no "if" about what is going to do the work. It would be pretty easy for Ethanol producers to switch to making Butanol and they could do it with practically anything that can make Ethanol. High sugar crops such as sugar cane would be preferrable.

When I brew beer at home, it's no different. I use the particular strain of yeast that I want to use. Of course I'm making beer and want Ethanol to be my primary alcohol. I'm also not distilling anything. I also save some of the yeast from a previous batch and use it again. I typically only do it about 4-5 times before I throw it out and use a fresh one. Remember I'm going for taste. There's no reason why I couldn't keep using it over and over again and many of the world's brewers have been repropagating their own yeast for hundreds of years.

Butanol is the way to go for everyday people as the best substitue for gasoline. I do agree that cars need to go series hybrid and have the generators run on Butanol.