willhave8

I saw a quick blurb on speed channel last weekend

Anyone have more information on a 4 rotor engine that 'the General' built on a Corvette chassis in ~1972? Reportedly had 450 horsepower but was killed due to fuel mileage and emissions issues.

MUGATU disclaimer -- I tried to search but was overwhelmed with the hits from the various options I tried -- really

dillsrotary

this guy's selling the article:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1976-...QQcmdZViewItem

snizzle

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!?!??!

A Vette w/a Rotary engine!??!?!?!?

Rasputin

GM was one of the first automotive company to sign a license contract with Wankel-NSU. They paid loads for the total automotive application rights for North America. Curtiss later secured a contract for aero applications.
I always suspected that one of the reasons Ford bought stakes in Mazda was to get access Wankel technology and license without having to pay a dime to their arch-competitor, GM. I haven't found any document confirming my thought though.

Fabrice

JRichter

Several car makers have experimented with rotary designs in the past.

Corvette 4-Rotor

Built in 1972, the 4-Rotor experimental car debuted at the Paris Auto Salon in 1973. The 4-Rotor was one of many ’Vette-inspired specialty cars that pushed the envelope of radical changes – changes that were never adopted for production partly because of cost/feasibility issues, and partly because they just didn’t fit within Corvette’s established character. These ideas included gull-wing doors, and a mid-ship mounted Wankel™ rotary engine. The 4-Rotor featured high-tech interior displays and readouts and aerodynamic styling that influenced future Corvette designs.




http://www.corvettecenter.com/_junkf...cepttoshow.htm

Rotary Combustion Engine Vehicle List:
http://www.millville.org/workshops_f.../vehicles.html

Red Devil

Haha, a Mugatu disclaimer...

Datsun/Nissan also had the rotary as have several other automotive companies. I believe Mazda is the only one since the early 60's that has put a rotary car into production.

Sapphonica

Yeah, Mazda's the only one who hasn't figured out that Wankel engines are crap. They get crummy gas mileage, don't make decent power, burn oil, and the apex seals (#1 design flaw) pop if you try to make power with FI.

Yeah, yeah, I know we're all supposed to *love* rotaries, or else why would we own 8s? Well, I would swap my ****** engine for a hot turbo 4 in an instant if it were available.

My opinion is subject to change if anyone ever figures out how to make these engines reliable, efficient, and powerful.

DrDiaboloco

Now... all of the "facts" that you posted were easily available to you when you purchased your "crap" rotary-powered car, right?

Just wondering why you took the plunge and bought the car if it's powered by such an obvious piece of crap.

Rhawb

Yeah, I've always kind of liked my engine. It was a major factor in my decision to sign the papers.

Did you not research the quirks of a rotary engine before buying?

Sapphonica

I didn't know ahead of time just how bad the gas mileage was. Also, I assumed, wrongly, that aftermarket FI would get the power up to snuff (like the FD). However, one blown engine and many thousands of dollars later, I've discovered just how wrong I was.

Love the styling of the car, love the interior, love the handling, hate the engine.

Skythe

Since when does "turbo = blown engine" ? I coulda swore there was another constant or variable in there.

I FOUND IT. "poor tuning" Lemme rework my equation

"turbo + poor tuning = blown engine"

GUYS!! Did I get the equation right? Do I get forum dollars for fixing that guys broken equation?

Tirminyl

Great job!!! You don't win any forum dollars but you won the great honor in teaching that guy not half-*** ****!

canaryrx8

iTrader: (3)

oh good God what a lame post, and we're not "supposed" to love aything, there's plent of reason to own an 8 aside from the engine. Don't make decent power? that's funny, I can't seem to remember the last time I saw a N/A 1.3l pushing over 200hp. Go trade in your car for a fwd trendmobile, you don't deserve this car.

Mugatu

iTrader: (1)

all that I ask is that you search first. i can't fault you for that.

I too was unaware that there was a vette with a rotary.

StrokerAce

If you want to see what GM did with their Wankel license just look under the hood of lots of GM (and some others) and look at the AC compressor. If the AC compressor looks like a stubby cylinder it's a wankel. The old GM AC compressors were about 4 inches round and 8-10 inches long and had 6 pistons and was very heavy and took a lot of power to turn. The rotary version is 8-10 inches around and only about 4 inches deep. Much lighter and more efficient. The Wankel makes a very good compressor.

rotarygod

Sorry to bring this back to reality but I'm just going to be blunt about this one. Your opinion would change if you would get a clue and do a little bit more research. It has all 3 of those. You just don't apparently know it. The biggest flaw the rotary has it that it is intolerant of stupidity and shortcuts. How many impatient car owners do we see who want power now without doing everything necessary to do it properly because it costs too much? We see this far too often. People are impatient. How many times do we see car owners do quick mods that might be a little bit risky because they didn't take the time to learn about it first? Again, too often this takes place.

The Renesis is an engine that is quite impressive for it's size and it is extrememly smooth. It is easily an S2000 engine's equal in terms of peak power but the Renesis has far more average power. Don't even argue that one. No one anywhere can effectively. The RX-8's power is the fault of the ecu tuning, not the engine and that's easy to correct. How many people are too cheap to pay for this but would rather complain about it. See above. Naturally aspirated rotaries have gone well over 200,000 miles or more. It's not hard to get the Renesis consistently over 20 mpg city and 30 mpg highway. This isn't impressive for a small engine but easily on par with a huge majority of the other cars out there. There will always be those better and those that are worse.

I'm not sure what your issue is with the rotary. The most logical explanation is that you aren't educated enough about it. Again, see above. Maybe it's time to get schooled on it so your opinion can get inline with fact rather than opinion. It's a great engine. It's just different.

Mazdaspeed RX8 ver2

AMEN! Thanks for schooling someone *cough*.

EDIT: forgot to add, never knew about the vette rotary. thanks for sharing that with us!! I also heard of a mercedes powered rotary in the 70's? I may be wrong but from what i heard. Can people shed light on this?

dillsrotary

i blame the full moon for the past two days post's, mine included

r0tor

iTrader: (1)

Mazda should have learned something from GM... their 4 rotor was a 6.4 liter engine and actually had *****

they also experimented with a 4.4L 2 rotor

DrDiaboloco

Hmmm... So far, my mileage has pretty much matched the numbers on the window sticker. I am not sure you can complain about that which was printed in large numerals on the Monroney sticker, saying you didn't know how bad it was. Are you getting significantly worse mileage than that published? If so, I have to wonder if it's your driving style, and further wonder if hard-driven 350Z's and Mustangs (for example) have similarly poor mileage.

As for forced induction, I'm not sure I can comment. I knew beforehand (from reading this forum) that seriously upping the power was going to be phenomenally expensive and that I would never do it... So I made the decision to buy the car knowing it was as fast as it was going to get. Unlike you, I am happy with the power at my disposal and have no problem with it.

In either case, approximating the mileage that the EPA lists or modifying the engine 'til it explodes doesn't make the engine "crap"... Nor does its appetite for motor oil, which is part of the design and something that you should've been aware of before you bought it (though if you were an early adopter of the RX-8 who wasn't told about this by the dealer, I wouldn't blame you for being annoyed to discover that you'd need to invest in extra motor oil).

As for "decent power", I have to ask... Did you DRIVE the car before you bought it? It seems the insufficient power you complain of should've been obvious from the first drive.

I agree with you that the rotary engine does have a "crap" aspect to it, but it's not anything you listed... My personal "crap" aspect to the engine is the flooding problem. I think it's simply ridiculous that I can't back a cold car out of my garage and then shut it off without worrying that I'd have to send it back to the dealer on a flatbed.

But, thanks to this forum, I knew about THAT, too, before I bought.

JRichter

My earlier post has a link to a list of all rotary powered vehicles.

69 Mercedes C111 (initially C101) 3-rotor gullwing.
70 Mercedes C111 (initially C101) 4-rotor gullwing, 16 built, 186 mph.
70s Mercedes 2-rotor sedan prototype

http://www.millville.org/workshops_f.../mercedes.html

DrDiaboloco

"The car was a heavy 2900 pounds"

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! If only they'd known then what a simple economy car would weigh in 2006.... Or, indeed, what a Mazda RX-8 would weigh in 2006.

JRichter

True that. The safety equipment required these days has killed the light weight (affordable) car.

DrDiaboloco

Here's another, MUCH more complete article about the M-B C111 series:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/classics...ml/country/gcf

army_rx8

hmm hte general made a rotary..interesting....i know a lot of companies fiddled aroudn with rotarys just didn't know Gm was amoung them. cool learn somethign new everyday.

hehe here's somethign interesting some of you might not know.

http://www.suzukicycles.org/RE5/RE5-Rotary.shtml

hehe all about the rotary motorcycle