12.3L engine in our RX-8?
07-05-2007, 04:03 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12.3L engine in our RX-8?
I was looking at the RX8 information on wikipedia a while ago and when I checked it out again today, I noticed this was added.
The RX-8 is powered by a 12.3 L (1,308 cc) naturally-aspirated Renesis rotary engine, which features newly designed side intake and exhaust ports, versus peripheral exhaust ports of its predecessor the 13B-REW. The engine is smaller and lighter than previous rotaries, primarily due to the lack of a turbocharger and associated parts. Prior to popular belief, the engine IS in fact, 12.3 liters in displacement. It is not 1.3L and Mazda has recently admitted this. Because rotaries have multiple combustion chambers per rotary, the displacement of all the combustion chambers must be measured for true displacement. When measured fully, it comes out to 12.3L. Mazda had said it was 1.3L before to make the horsepower/liter ratio appear impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8
Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting to know.
The RX-8 is powered by a 12.3 L (1,308 cc) naturally-aspirated Renesis rotary engine, which features newly designed side intake and exhaust ports, versus peripheral exhaust ports of its predecessor the 13B-REW. The engine is smaller and lighter than previous rotaries, primarily due to the lack of a turbocharger and associated parts. Prior to popular belief, the engine IS in fact, 12.3 liters in displacement. It is not 1.3L and Mazda has recently admitted this. Because rotaries have multiple combustion chambers per rotary, the displacement of all the combustion chambers must be measured for true displacement. When measured fully, it comes out to 12.3L. Mazda had said it was 1.3L before to make the horsepower/liter ratio appear impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8
Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting to know.
07-05-2007, 05:20 PM
#9
Registered
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Milan, Michigan
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was looking at the RX8 information on wikipedia a while ago and when I checked it out again today, I noticed this was added.
The RX-8 is powered by a 12.3 L (1,308 cc) naturally-aspirated Renesis rotary engine, which features newly designed side intake and exhaust ports, versus peripheral exhaust ports of its predecessor the 13B-REW. The engine is smaller and lighter than previous rotaries, primarily due to the lack of a turbocharger and associated parts. Prior to popular belief, the engine IS in fact, 12.3 liters in displacement. It is not 1.3L and Mazda has recently admitted this. Because rotaries have multiple combustion chambers per rotary, the displacement of all the combustion chambers must be measured for true displacement. When measured fully, it comes out to 12.3L. Mazda had said it was 1.3L before to make the horsepower/liter ratio appear impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8
Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting to know.
The RX-8 is powered by a 12.3 L (1,308 cc) naturally-aspirated Renesis rotary engine, which features newly designed side intake and exhaust ports, versus peripheral exhaust ports of its predecessor the 13B-REW. The engine is smaller and lighter than previous rotaries, primarily due to the lack of a turbocharger and associated parts. Prior to popular belief, the engine IS in fact, 12.3 liters in displacement. It is not 1.3L and Mazda has recently admitted this. Because rotaries have multiple combustion chambers per rotary, the displacement of all the combustion chambers must be measured for true displacement. When measured fully, it comes out to 12.3L. Mazda had said it was 1.3L before to make the horsepower/liter ratio appear impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8
Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting to know.
07-05-2007, 07:09 PM
#16
Rotary Crawfish
Is this dude on crack?!?!! I just checked Wikipedia and it says 1.3L [1308cc]
Where did he see this BS about 12.3L?? the only referece to size anomolies was that it should be a 2.6L instead of 1.3L
Where did he see this BS about 12.3L?? the only referece to size anomolies was that it should be a 2.6L instead of 1.3L
07-05-2007, 07:15 PM
#18
Registered User
07-05-2007, 08:15 PM
#19
Registered
Then it was probably a person that didn't know very much about rotaries who was reading the specs off of another site that had it typed wrong. He just copied what he saw without really knowing anything. I'd believe that. The perfect example is the 7 forum. It's full of mindless lemmings who know nothing about rotaries but just repeat what they saw, heard, or read elsewhere. It was probably someone like that who typed that.
07-06-2007, 09:21 AM
#23
the shit starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then it was probably a person that didn't know very much about rotaries who was reading the specs off of another site that had it typed wrong. He just copied what he saw without really knowing anything. I'd believe that. The perfect example is the 7 forum. It's full of mindless lemmings who know nothing about rotaries but just repeat what they saw, heard, or read elsewhere. It was probably someone like that who typed that.
sometimes I feel like that's me, and then other people post more relevant information. Always smarter too listen too people that can back themselves up.
07-06-2007, 09:56 AM
#24
Then it was probably a person that didn't know very much about rotaries who was reading the specs off of another site that had it typed wrong. He just copied what he saw without really knowing anything. I'd believe that. The perfect example is the 7 forum. It's full of mindless lemmings who know nothing about rotaries but just repeat what they saw, heard, or read elsewhere. It was probably someone like that who typed that.
and this forum is different?
07-06-2007, 10:05 AM
#25
Registered
Anyone can be a wikipedia expert.
Unlike traditional encyclopedias that invite known experts to write for articles within their field, wikipedia allows anyone who contacts them to write about a subject as long as it is still available. If you disagree with what is written in wikipedia, and can prove to them that you know better, they will transfer the subject to you. If you search wikipedia for a topic and find no entry, feel free to write whatever you want about it and submit it. Chances are they will publish it for you, but this in no way establishes you as an expert.
Basically, wikipedia is a glorified message board that presents itself as a reference. Think of it as information for the masses . . . by tools, for tools.
Unlike traditional encyclopedias that invite known experts to write for articles within their field, wikipedia allows anyone who contacts them to write about a subject as long as it is still available. If you disagree with what is written in wikipedia, and can prove to them that you know better, they will transfer the subject to you. If you search wikipedia for a topic and find no entry, feel free to write whatever you want about it and submit it. Chances are they will publish it for you, but this in no way establishes you as an expert.
Basically, wikipedia is a glorified message board that presents itself as a reference. Think of it as information for the masses . . . by tools, for tools.