Rotard

Rear-engine mounted for 50/50. Less drive-train loss and maintain the rear-wheel drive. Make the RX-? considerably lighter and slap a Renesis in it. I'm sure the numbers would make it a more serious contender. Crazy idea I know.

G3tR3DDY2GR3DDY

iTrader: (8)

what the hell are you talking about?

no matter where you put the engine, crank hp is still the same crank hp. Thats why its called crank hp.

i hope you mean to say WHP and even then i hope you are just joking.

robrecht

Not crazy at all. The mid-engine 3- and 4-rotor Mercedes C101/111 from the late 60s was one of the most promising rotaries ever. I think that was the car that got GM thinking seriously about a rotary Corvette.

Not sure why MB abandoned the rotary after they made some important advances in direct injection and I forget what the fuel economy was but it must not have been great 'cause I do recall it had two 16-gallon gas tanks.

robrecht

I think all he means is that you would lose less hp from the crank to the wheels.

Rotard

I meant parasitic loss from crank to wheels.

TheBurkeMan

chevy made a version of the corvette with a rotary engine in it... but the gas crisis in the 70's caused them to drop the idea
they even toured america in the car

PSTNLSS

iTrader: (3)

PotatoSoup

Your threads are responsible for parasitic loss of brain activity.

risky business

^ owned

j67345

PotatoSoup speaks the truth

XAreXAteX

this is a perfect opportunity for some alfy artwork.

risky business

haha^ yes. this thread made me "lol" when i saw the title

ShinkaTeen

damn.

i dont even know what to say.

I8U

iTrader: (1)

^That figures...you probably don't even know what parasitic loss means.

Renesis07

iTrader: (1)

This threads fails miserably, what a waste of my life.

Another insightful thread from rotard.

I8U

iTrader: (1)

Ya know, rotard always puts out quality reads like another member here. Man what's his name.....oh yeah, Zumn.

swoope

iTrader: (5)

no report, no ban..

that simple.

beers

alnielsen

iTrader: (4)

You would still have losses with a transaxle as with a conventional layout. the only difference is that you don't have a driveshaft. Moving the engine to the back would make a rear heavy car that would want to swap ends in the corners like the older 911's.

Rotard hasn't violated any rules for the forum. Nor, has he done anything to **** off the Mod staff. Replies to his posts come closer to that. We can't just go around deleting posts & banning people because we disagree with their posts.
If you don't like what he has to say, don't open his posts.