scorp76

Ouch. When did riceboys with horrible taste develop such deep-cutting wit.

Ike

Remind us again what car you own Scorp... <laughs>

PoorCollegeKid

Please, do you have any sort of reasonable explanation? Maybe I'm completely missing the boat on this one, but Nissan is doing even better than they were 10-15 years ago as a company, their products are at (or at least near) the front of their classes as far as performance and affordability are concerned, and their reliability ratings are consistently above industry average (and before you say "Well, my friend had a Nissan and it was a pos" remember that everyone makes a few lemons. Honda, in fact, was the brand with the most cars on a recent Top Lemons list; this does not mean that all Hondas are poorly made, unreliable vehicles however). Even their styling is fairly good IMO, but since this is a subjective category I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Really, I'm truly curious as to why you believe that all Nissans are completely worthless cars.

Edit: I know that this post has been up for a few days, but bad grammar still bothers me no matter how old the post is.

scorp76

It doesn't sound like a go-kart and it isn't ugly, so clearly it isn't a WRX.

VikingDJ

That's funny. We'd like to see some pics of Fanboi's amazing car that's obviously better then a WRX. Funny how I am suddenly a riceboy. I guess all us rx8 owners are rice boys now. Great way to make friends.

scorp76

I could pick up a ride from a junkyard and it'd be better than a WRX.

Not suddenly. You became one when you wasted all that money on that little economy car with the big wing.

Unlike weak little bitches like you and Ike, Im not trying and dont need to make friends on a forum.

trash259

Scorp76.....would you mind answering PoorCollegeKid's question?

VikingDJ

What's the point. This kid has no intelligent responses that make any sense, and he's a complete idiot, so he has no answer to anything, other then to mock cars he knows nothing about. He probably doesn't even own a car yet, and has no knowledge or experience of cars other then what he reads on internet. We'll be sure to see yet another unintelligent, stupid response that makes no sense.

PoorCollegeKid

This quote right here tells me that I shouldn't hold my breath for any sort of sensical debate with scorp. He's obviously a troll just trying to stir up trouble, and this is just the best case scenario. Many of the things that he's posted show so little automotive knowledge that he's either purposely trying to act stupid to get attention or he's truly one of the most ignorant people that I've ever come across regularly in an automotive forum. After being here for almost a year, he still knows next to nothing about cars in general, and yet claims to have so much experience pertaining to this topic that he can proclaim whole nameplates as trash. Nissans and Subarus feel his wrath particularly harshly. I still get a kick out of the way that he thinks that Nissans 10-15 years ago were so much better than the Nissans of the present. I guess that he considers the cars that almost bankrupted Nissan to have been great successes for some strange, twisted reason. He obviously just gets his kicks from babbling his nonsense to the rest of us here and watching our reactions and so doesn't take the time to think things through or even make coherent, sensical posts. In case he wants to prove me wrong, here's my previous post:

RodsterinFL

Wev'e talked about this at home a lot and posted a great idea for Mazda:

The MazdaSpeed RX-8 (wish)

3-stage rotory w/ 338hp and 220 ft. lb.s of torque

This modified Renesis employs three rotors with little increase in heat or fuel requirement by using a technology originally utilized by General Motors in their 4-6-8 cylinder and more recently in newer engines. As the driver cruises along, the engine partially shuts down to only meet the power requirement minimizing heat buildup and fuel consumption; however, as power needs increase, the engine activates the needed rotors to comply. Gas mileage is relatively the same as the original Renesis 2 rotary engine but the power and torque increase is substantial and worthy of the MazdaSpeed designation.

beachdog

How do you propose to control this system?

The "variable displacement" piston engines control displacement via the valve train. Since the rotary has no valves or valve train, the technology that GM or now Chrysler uses has no application. To further complicate matters, on a piston engine, they leave the exhaust valves open on the compression stroke to minimize power losses. The way that the ports are laid out on the Renesis you are going to have to overcome three compression events per rotor per rotor revolution forcing the operating rotors to expend a lot of their energy just to power unused compression. You'd have to introduce some kind of a relief valve into the shut down rotor. Can it be done? Maybe. Would it be worth it?

shaolin

I'm pretty new to the rotary design, but wouldn't the eccentric shaft be forcing the "dormant" rotaries to spin also? It just doesn't make sense to me...

Japan8

Um in the Gm and Chrylser designs the dormant pistons are still moving as they are still connected to the crankshaft.

The point is that fuel and spark are not being used in the shut down cylinder/ rotor thus "reducing" fuel consumption.

MikeW

That is wrong. All the valves are closed, the resultant trapped gasses become a spring that oscillates between doing positive and negative work on the crankshaft.
Basically they are trying to reduce throttling losses, and heat losses.
BMW's new R6 is a better solution, valvetronic intake and electric coolant pump, and variable capacity oil pump.

shaolin

Okay, well in the rotary, it would seem that the fuel would still be taken in whether or not spark is being used or not, from the rotary turning. There is no valve to leave shut. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no valve train on the renesis, only ports. So how would you prevent fuel from being taken in by the dormant rotar?

MikeW

Fuel injection, if you don't want fuel don't put it in.
Mazda could use a triple throttle intake system and a triple exhaust system and could have the computer stop the fuel for one rotor and keep the throttle full open, but there is still pumping losses.

shaolin

Ahhh, very true. Well, in the end, this still doesn't seem very practical, but what does seem practical with this car?

Sorry if I seem newbish, but it's my first rotary car. My father had a 94 RX-7 TT, but come on, I was like 15, and I never got to drive it.

Racer X-8

Well, with a rotary, the rotor must go thru the compression stroke. That's a negative torque, if you will. Then, past the compression stroke, the compressed air produces a positive torque as it is allowed to expand thru what is normally the combustion stroke. The exhaust & intake strokes would be zero torque. So, I'm wondering, would the two opposite torques be equal, thus creating a net torque of zero? The effects to the intake & exhaust systems would have to be fixed somehow - probably would have to block the ports. The fuel delivery is also a problem. Too early in the morning for this stuff. Arghhh. But, the air spring analogy, to me, seems to fit here. The two torques must be close to equal. That's pretty cool, and that's why I posted...

visitor

uh...yes.

zoom44

displacement on demand has been talked about several times on this forum. after one quite lengthy discussion the oppurtunity presented itself to pose qusetions to the head of Mazda thanks to Rotarynews.com. Dan asked our DOD question and the rsponse was a very resounding "NO we will not be doing DOD with the rotary." so forget about it except as converstion piece. btw ask RG about his attempt at shutting of one rotor.