16X dimensions and tech info - Page 3

Sep 28, 2009 | 02:46 PM

#51

Mazmart

Registered

iTrader: (12)

Joined: Mar 2004

Posts: 4,794

Likes: 67

^^^
This is why I say RG has the biggest brain around these parts

Paul

Sep 28, 2009 | 04:58 PM

#52

Razz1

Mu ha.. ha...

Joined: Aug 2004

Posts: 14,361

Likes: 3

From: Cali

I'll

to that... ahhh

Sep 29, 2009 | 02:55 PM

#53

dynamho

Registered

Joined: Apr 2006

Posts: 1,963

Likes: 7

From: Norwood, NJ

Wow. Thanks for the link.

Oct 9, 2009 | 12:23 PM

#54

Renesis_8

Registered User

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 2,047

Likes: 0

From: Toronto, Canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

True, I see it now.

I was thinking today. With extra room to cut larger intake and exhaust ports on the side plates, the 16X could get by with only 4 ports. That might eliminate some weight by removing the two ports and the valves/ducting that directs air to them.

Also, I think if we have a thicker intermediate plate (shouldn't be hard for Mazda), with equal port sizes compared to the back and front plate. That could open up the possibility of 16X MSP-Renesis based 3-rotor engine. And this time around, it will pass emissions without too much trouble. And with decent fuel consumption as well.
________
VAPORIZER VOLCANO

Last edited by Renesis_8; Sep 11, 2011 at 03:22 PM.

Oct 9, 2009 | 01:53 PM

#55

longpath

Registered

iTrader: (1)

Joined: Apr 2005

Posts: 631

Likes: 3

From: Stamford, CT

It would be nice if the intermediate housing was thick enough to provide some separation of the Siamesed exhaust ports. Do we know if the overall length of the engine is the same? If so, I would think it would follow that if the rotors are not as wide that the rotor housings are also not as wide and the side housings are thicker. Is this kind of detail available in the patent?