Ok, im new so be kind. Ok, the Mazda RX8, is it a 1.3 or a 2.6? Im very confused. Someone tell me, im told its a 1.3?

 

1.3...people argue that in order to be "properly" compared to a piston engine that you multiply by 2....

 

Wow! A new thread idea! I wonder why no one thought of this before?
I better get on this right away!

 

well that depends on which body is calculating for what purpose. i believe the taxing body in england wants to use 2.6 to caculate the taxes some racing sanctioning bodies wish to use 2.6 liter to class the car with piston engines. the international engien of the year panel classed it in a range that includes 2.6 liter but not 1.3 liter to compare it with pistons.

however it is not a piston engine its a WANKEL ROTARY and the PROPER method for determining the volume of a WANKEL ROTARY calculates it as 1.3 liter

 

I'm thinking about adding a lanyard to the side of the motor to make the conversion to two-cycle complete.
Maybe my next mod should be a magneto.

 

where would you put him...my guess is the front seat cuz he probably wont fit in the back with that helmet on

 

I said a magneto, not THE Magneto!

 

Meow if you can get THE magneto to install A magneto I think we might have something...

Not really sure what...but if you give them both time, I'm sure something cool should happen...

 

yea but which one would you rather have?!?

 

............sigh, now I am starting to understand the agony of newbs

 

I don't know if this topic have been discussed before so I'll throw this in

 

A piston engine fires all of its cylinders in 720 degrees of crank rotation. In 720 degrees of eccentric shaft rotation, a rotary fires all of its chambers twice over. So some people say that to be fair, it's a 2.6.

 

i always thought engine capacity is due to the volume of it's combustion chambers....

 

It is, but since the rotary is, essentially a two-stroke motor, it isn't fair to compare the displacement by the same method as a four-cycle.

 

I've heard practical arguments that it could be a 2.6 because of its firing methods based on general firing orders. Displacement wise its a tiny little 1.3 kicking an impressive 237 horses. And we still complain.

 

I like the lanyard idea. I have the keyless system and I think it would be way cooler to get out of my 8 and yank on a cable... Especially at the gas station.

Everyone can watch me pull off my engine cover to check my oil, add some, then add some MORE into the gas tank (at which point the poor bystanders are already very confused) and finally yank on the lanyard to start the sucker up...then they can watch me do it again in 3 days when the tank is dry. I could have Magneto sit in the back and clamber out of that funky backwards "door" to pay the cashier.

 

It is similar to a piston engine only that is combusts fuel in 4 cycles. (intake, compression, combustion, exhaust)

for every full cycle of one rotar face, the shaft turns 3 times. On a piston engine a full cycle the shaft turns 2 times. So for the one rotor face to come back to its starting position there has been 3 combustions (including itself), or 6 combustions (ie 2 rotor) for 3 shaft rotations (1080 degrees).

For sake of easy math lets shoot for 6 shaft rotations (12 rotary combustions).

Assuming a 4 cylinder engine to do the 6 shaft rotations we would need the same 12 combustions. (each cylinder would have 3 full combustion cycles since we have 2 rotations for each cycle, 2x3 = 6 rotations)

Assuming a 2.6L (650cc per cylinder) vs the 650cc per rotar, they have both used the same volume and combustion cycles to achieve the same shaft rotation.

While shaft revolutions and number of combustions should stay the same for each type of engine, the change would be in the cycles themselves. While one rotar face would have to do 2,000 full rotations, the piston would have to do 3,000 in order to achieve the same result.

Or maybe i just ate too many mushrooms and im talking out of my ***?

 

As cool as that would be, I think Jeff is referring to magneto ignition equipment (as opposed to a battery), not the X-Men character.

 

I hate the use of "cc" we have this thing called the liter. I suppose cc sounds better though.

 

could be worse, we could talk in cu. inch.

 

I'm not complaining.

 

it's a 1.3 getting 16mpg

 

I'd complain about that if it's used in a Mazda2. But as such, it's used in a sports car and gas mileage is not a priority when I am looking for a sports car.

 

There are 1000 cc in a liter.
Hence, 1.3 liter = 1300 cc.

That is actually easier since the Renesis is a nice, round 80 cu.in.

Since most people talk about engines using pounds of fuel and air, the cu.in. measurement makes more sense.

 

I do realize that MazdaManiac. But we also have this thing called the milliliter.