Notices
RX-8 Discussion General discussion about the RX-8 that doesn't fit in one of the specialty forums.

It's really a two stroke motor!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 04-24-2005, 07:44 AM
  #1  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
BasenjiGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ITB, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's really a two stroke motor!

Thought about this for a while. Owned an '84 RX-7 GSL-SE 13B and my '04 RX-8. A friend of mine built a MGB with a 12A street ported motor. Been around rotaries a little. I've been a gear head all my life. I also own a two stroke motor scooter.

This topic has been covered before, but I'll state my case anyway:

The rotary, in terms of combustion properties is a two stroke. Each rotor face draws in fuel thru the intake port as it begins to pass thru the combustion chamber. Then the sparks are ignited, the fuel burns, and as the rotor continues its trip thru the combustion chamber as the burned fuel is exhausted thru the exhaust port. Each rotor face goes thru this operation as it rotates around in the case.

There is no pass thru a combustion area that only draws in fuel, only compresses fuel, only burns fuel, or only exhausts burned fuel. Each pass draws in, compresses, burns, and exhausts fuel. It doesn't make any difference what the crankshaft is doing, in terms of whether or not the engine is a two or four stroke - it's what's happening in the combustion chamber.

Some people have argued that the rotary is a four stroke because each rotor ends its trip thru the combustion area by expelling the burned fuel, then by the next time it passes thru the combustion chamber the rotor is entering an exhaust free combustion chamber as it draws in fuel. I don't think this makes the engine a four stroke. I think it has to do with having separate strokes, or in the case of the rotary, as separate trip thru the combustion chamber to expel burned fuel. Rotaries don't do this. Everything happens in one trip thru the combustion chamber, just like a two stroke piston engine. Two stroke piston goes down, exhausts burned fuel and draws in unburned fuel. Piston goes up, compresses fuel, burns fuel, and begins downward power stroke again. Those two strokes are just like a rotor's combustion cycle as it passes thru the combustion chamber.


People have also argued, if I'm understanding them correctly, that the rotary is a four stroke because of what is effectively a reduction gear effect that the elliptical shaft and crank create: Each rotor revolution results in three crank revolutions, and the four stroke proponents use this to argue that this effect breaks down the rotor's trip into four cycles. I don't agree with this - two or four stroke-ness has to do with what goes on during combustion. Forget about how many times the crank revolves for each rotor revolution. That has nothing to do with combustion.

It's a two stroke!

Last edited by BasenjiGuy; 04-24-2005 at 07:58 AM.
Old 04-24-2005, 09:09 AM
  #2  
Registered User
 
TRZ750's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canyon Lake, TX
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is not the trips through the combustion chamber that determines the 2-4 stroke. It is the fact that there is a positive change in volumn for each stroke. The piston 2 stroke has the piston realitively in the same position as the exhaust and intake is occuring. The rotary has a very distinct movement of the rotor causing a increase in volumn to draw the intake air in - then a positive reduction of volumn for compression - then a positive increase in volumn during power - and finally a very positive reduction in volumn as exhaust occurs. These are at different places inside the engine, but a true 4 strokes.
Old 04-24-2005, 05:42 PM
  #3  
Registered User
 
RX4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
its not a 2 stroke!simple! :p
Old 04-24-2005, 05:57 PM
  #4  
X-Sapper
 
army_rx8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: where angle's fear to tread
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm inclined to agree with TRZ750. a very nice concise way to put it. i like things i can understand and make sense...kudos to you...kudos:D
Old 04-24-2005, 06:47 PM
  #5  
Registered
 
rotarygod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 21 Posts
This is way off. Not even close to a 2 stroke. I'm just going to link my response to this from an old thread. Scroll down to the long post.

https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-tech-garage-22/why-1-3-a-15316/
Old 04-25-2005, 08:14 PM
  #6  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
BasenjiGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ITB, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I read that thread last year - it does have some great stuff in it.
That being said, I'll back off

- I'll just say that the rotary has some 2 stroke-ish qualities - intake, compression, combustion, and exhaust occur with one rotor face pass thru the combustion chamber - no trips around just to take in or exhaust fuel/burned fuel. That's somewhat similar to a two stroke with all of its events occuring in 1 complete TDC to TDC event. And, the rotary has to inject oil into its fuel in order to lubricate the rotors - similar to how a 2 stroke has to inject oil into its fuel mixture in order to lubricate the rings and cylinder wall. The 6 stroke theory is pretty funny, and somewhat apt, but again, I don't care what the "crank" is doing; I'm more concerned about the surfaces that create combustion when I make the observation. In fact, I like the 1 stroke analogy the most; maybe that's the most accurate way to describe the process...

Last edited by BasenjiGuy; 04-25-2005 at 08:17 PM.
Old 04-25-2005, 09:07 PM
  #7  
Registered
 
beachdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BasenjiGuy
I read that thread last year - it does have some great stuff in it.
That being said, I'll back off

- I'll just say that the rotary has some 2 stroke-ish qualities - intake, compression, combustion, and exhaust occur with one rotor face pass thru the combustion chamber - no trips around just to take in or exhaust fuel/burned fuel. That's somewhat similar to a two stroke with all of its events occuring in 1 complete TDC to TDC event. And, the rotary has to inject oil into its fuel in order to lubricate the rotors - similar to how a 2 stroke has to inject oil into its fuel mixture in order to lubricate the rings and cylinder wall. The 6 stroke theory is pretty funny, and somewhat apt, but again, I don't care what the "crank" is doing; I'm more concerned about the surfaces that create combustion when I make the observation. In fact, I like the 1 stroke analogy the most; maybe that's the most accurate way to describe the process...
I think that you are confusing strokes and cycles. Cycles are what is going on in the combustion chamber. Strokes have to do what the crank/eccentric shaft is doing. The rotary has 4 distinct cycles just like a 4 cycle piston engine.

If you want to say that the rotary is like a 2 cycle because it uses ports for intake and exhaust rather than valves you'd be more on target.
Old 04-25-2005, 09:33 PM
  #8  
No respecter of malarkey
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 26,724
Received 2,009 Likes on 1,638 Posts
yes, it is inherently similar to a 2 stroke except there is a continuous sweep instead of a stroke, that's why racing organizations use a 2x multiplier on the rotary displacement, it also explains why you get 240hp out of what appears to be only 1.3L; a 4 stroke piston engine only makes power on every other compression stroke while a rotary makes power on every compression sweep the same way a 2 stroke piston engine makes power on every compression stroke.

fwiw, 2 stroke piston engines drink gas, have loud exhausts, and emissions issues too

Last edited by TeamRX8; 04-25-2005 at 09:38 PM.
Old 04-25-2005, 09:44 PM
  #9  
Registered User
 
Hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Palatine, Illinois
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can't we just call it a 3 stroke? :D Kind of a mix between a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke?

Being the son of an English father and having grown up reading English car magazines, I was always under the impression that one side of the pond uses "stroke" and the other uses "cycle." Kind of like "boot" and "trunk", and "bonnet" and "hood." No?

Stupid question alert: This is my first rotary. As it seems that there are 3 ignition sequences each time the rotor goes around the center shaft, when we talk about a 9,000 RPM limit, that means that the rotor is going around 9,000 times, not 3,000 times. Right?

Hunter
Old 04-25-2005, 10:02 PM
  #10  
No respecter of malarkey
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 26,724
Received 2,009 Likes on 1,638 Posts
sigh ....

Wankel engine

Wankel Engine in Deutsches MuseumThe Wankel engine is a type of internal combustion engine, invented by Felix Wankel, which uses a rotor instead of reciprocating pistons. This design promises smooth high-rpm power from a compact, lightweight engine; however Wankels are criticized for poor fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions. Since its introduction in the NSU and Mazda cars of the 1960s, the engine has also been commonly referred to as the "rotary engine"; however, that name also applies to a wide variety of other engine designs, most notably the rotary piston engine once commonly used in aircraft, as well other rotary combustion engine designs such as a more recent concept called the Quasiturbine. Although many manufacturers licensed the design, only Mazda has produced Wankel engines in large numbers. Today, the engine is only available in a single Mazda car, the RX-8.


How it works
In the Wankel engine, the four strokes of a typical Otto cycle engine are arranged sequentially around an oval, unlike the reciprocating motion of a piston engine. In the basic single rotor Wankel engine, a single oval (technically a trochoid) housing surrounds a three-sided rotor (a Reuleaux triangle) which turns and moves within the housing. The sides of the rotor seal against the sides of the housing, and the corners of the rotor seal against the inner periphery of the housing, dividing it into three combustion chambers.


The Wankel cycle: Intake (blue), Compression (green), Ignition (red), Exhaust (yellow)As the rotor turns, its motion and shape and the shape of the housing cause each side of the rotor to get closer and farther from the wall of the housing, compressing and expanding the combustion chamber similarly to the "strokes" in a reciprocating engine. However, whereas a normal four stroke cycle engine produces one combustion stroke per cylinder for every two revolutions, i.e. one half power stroke per revolution per cylinder, each combustion chamber of each rotor in the Wankel generates one combustion 'stroke' per revolution, i.e. three power strokes per rotor revolution. Since the Wankel output shaft is geared to spin at three times the rotor speed, this becomes one combustion 'stroke' per output shaft revolution per rotor, twice as many as the four-stroke piston engine, and similar to the output of a two stroke cycle engine. Thus, power output of a Wankel engine is generally higher than that of a four-stroke engine of similar engine displacement in a similar state of tune, and higher than an engine of similar physical dimensions. Regulatory bodies in automobile racing variously consider the Wankel engine to be equivalent to a four-stroke engine of 1.5 times to twice the displacement; some view it as offering so pronounced an advantage that they ban it altogether.


Advantages
Wankel engines have several major advantages over reciprocating piston designs, in addition to having higher output for similar displacement and physical size. Wankel engines are considerably simpler and contain far fewer moving parts; for instance, because valving is accomplished by simple ports cut into the walls of the rotor housing, they have no valves or complex valve trains; in addition, since the rotor is geared directly to the output shaft, there is no need for connecting rods, a conventional crankshaft, crankshaft balance weights, etc. The elimination of these parts not only makes a Wankel engine much lighter (typically half that of a conventional engine with equivalent power), but it also completely eliminates the reciprocating mass of a piston engine with its internal strain and inherent vibration due to repetitious acceleration and deceleration, producing not only a smoother flow of power but also the ability to produce more power by running at higher rpm. In addition to the enhanced reliability due to the elimination of this reciprocating strain on internal parts, the construction of the engine, with an iron rotor within a housing made of aluminum which has greater thermal expansion, ensures that even when grossly overheated the Wankel engine will not seize, as an overheated piston engine is likely to do; this has substantial benefit for aircraft use.

The simplicity of design and smaller size of the Wankel engine also allow for a savings in construction costs, compared to piston engines of comparable power output.

As another advantage, the shape of the Wankel combustion chamber and the turbulence induced by the moving rotor prevent localized hot spots from forming, thereby allowing the use of fuel of very low octane number without preignition or detonation. This is a particular advantage for Hydrogen cars.


Disadvantages
The design of the Wankel engine with its numerous sliding seals and its housing, typically built as a sandwich of cast iron and aluminum pieces which expand and contract by different degrees when exposed to heating and cooling cycles in use, led to a very high incidence of loss of sealing, both between the rotor and the housing and also between the various pieces making up the housing. Further engineering work by Mazda brought these problems under control, but unfortunately, they were then confronted with a sudden global concern over both hydrocarbon emission and a rise in the cost of gasoline, the two most serious drawbacks of the Wankel engine.

Just as the shape of the Wankel combustion chamber prevents preignition, it also leads to incomplete combustion of the air-fuel charge, with the remaining unburned hydrocarbons released into the exhaust. At first, while manufacturers of piston engined cars were turning to expensive catalytic converters to completely oxidize the unburned hydrocarbons, Mazda was able to avoid this cost by paradoxically enriching the air/fuel mixture enough to produce an exhaust stream which was rich enough in hydrocarbons to actually support complete combustion in a 'thermal reactor' (just an enlarged open chamber in the exhaust manifold) without the need for a catalytic converter, thereby producing a clean exhaust at the cost of some extra fuel consumption.

Unfortunately for Mazda, their switch to this solution was immediately followed by a sharp rise in the cost of gasoline worldwide, so that not only the added fuel cost of their 'thermal reactor' design, but even the basically lower fuel economy of the Wankel engine caused their sales to drop alarmingly.

Another disadvantage of the Wankel engine is the difficulty of expanding the engine to more than two rotors. The complex shapes of the rotor, housing, and output shaft and the way they fit together requires that engines with more than two rotors use an output shaft made of several sections assembled during the assembly of the rest of the engine. While this technique has been used successfully in Wankel powered racing cars, it negates a great deal of the relative simplicity and lower cost of the Wankel engine construction.
Old 04-25-2005, 10:18 PM
  #11  
X-Sapper
 
army_rx8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: where angle's fear to tread
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hunter
Can't we just call it a 3 stroke? :D Kind of a mix between a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke?

Being the son of an English father and having grown up reading English car magazines, I was always under the impression that one side of the pond uses "stroke" and the other uses "cycle." Kind of like "boot" and "trunk", and "bonnet" and "hood." No?

Stupid question alert: This is my first rotary. As it seems that there are 3 ignition sequences each time the rotor goes around the center shaft, when we talk about a 9,000 RPM limit, that means that the rotor is going around 9,000 times, not 3,000 times. Right?

Hunter
every time the rotor does one full revolution the e-shaft does 3...so at 9000 rpm, the rotor is going at 3000 while e-shaft is going 9000. :D hope that helped
Old 04-25-2005, 10:24 PM
  #12  
Registered User
 
RX8-CARL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Middlesbrough,ENGLAND
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A stroke is BDC to TDC or TDC to BDC, of a piston engine.
So no stroke in a Wankel.
Old 04-25-2005, 10:27 PM
  #13  
X-Sapper
 
army_rx8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: where angle's fear to tread
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
^hehehehehe i like that answer.:D
Old 04-25-2005, 10:28 PM
  #14  
Registered User
 
RX8-CARL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Middlesbrough,ENGLAND
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Old 04-26-2005, 09:02 AM
  #15  
Registered User
 
Hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Palatine, Illinois
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by army_rx8
every time the rotor does one full revolution the e-shaft does 3...so at 9000 rpm, the rotor is going at 3000 while e-shaft is going 9000. :D hope that helped
yes, thanks. it did. and, unless I've got this completely backwards, it's why the rotory is considered to have very little torque. Is that right?

Hunter
Old 04-26-2005, 09:05 AM
  #16  
X-Sapper
 
army_rx8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: where angle's fear to tread
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hmmm no i think it sucks in the torque department b/c of the motion of the rotay (eliptical, and only one direction as opposed to a pistons)..but i'm a lill hazy about this...anyone want to chime in and help me out?:D
Old 04-26-2005, 09:29 AM
  #17  
Metatron
iTrader: (1)
 
StealthTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: A Pacific Island.
Posts: 7,280
Received 173 Likes on 130 Posts
Talking I was that drunk once.....

I is also a very high torque engine!

It is a similar situation as if a V6 motor had its 'output' shaft to the gearbox from its overhead cam; not a true indication of 'actual' engine revs.
The planetary gear triples the output shaft speed to 9k, dividing the torque-per-cycle by three, which then is rectified immediately by the gearbox, back to a realistic 450 ft/lbs, at 3000 actual rotor revolutions! Now tell me that I am not DEEPLY in denial !!!!Can anyone deny that this motor has a 3:1 planetary gearset at it's center?
Then let us not get seriously upset at it lack of torque.... it is only a figment of your imagination- it is geared up by a factor of three before it ever sees daylight, then it is geared down, back o reality.... face it - those big lumps of triangular alloy could never get over four thousand revs, anyway! Embrace the JOY! 450 ft/lbs! How can anyone look at this design and ignore the planetary gearset?


...a quote from an old post (Torque thread) that cost me a lot of cred.


:D :D S
Old 04-26-2005, 11:41 AM
  #18  
Registered
 
beachdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by army_rx8
hmmm no i think it sucks in the torque department b/c of the motion of the rotay (eliptical, and only one direction as opposed to a pistons)..but i'm a lill hazy about this...anyone want to chime in and help me out?:D
No flames for the following oversimplification, please.

The torque output is tied very tightly to mechanical advantage. Remember simple machines? Levers specifically.

The elliptical motion vs reciprocating motion is not the source of low torque. It is how the elliptical motion of the rotor is converted to rotation. I forget the actual offset of the eccentric shaft, but I seem to recall that it is only about 1.5 inches. If you compare this to a piston engine, the crank offsets are much greater, anywhere from 3 to 5 inches depending on the size of the engine.

If you set up a lever where the input side is say 1.5" and the output side is .5", you will have leverage of 3:1. If you have a lever with an input side of 3" and an output side of .5" you have leverage of 6:1. The longer the crank or eccentric shaft offset, the greater the leverage.

Years ago, Honda motorcycles was experimenting with the practical limits for the internal combustion engine. They wanted to find how fast flame fronts propogated and at what piston speeds would an engine no longer generate additional power. They built highly oversquare engines - big piston diameters compared to very short strokes. Some of the engines had strokes as short as .5". They found that they could generate useful power past 20,000rpms (ie flame propogation was still faster than piston speed). These ultra short stroke engines were able to produce a lot of horsepower but very low torque.
Old 04-26-2005, 12:44 PM
  #19  
Registered
 
rotarygod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by beachdog
I forget the actual offset of the eccentric shaft, but I seem to recall that it is only about 1.5 inches.
.59" offset for a total of only 1.18"
Old 04-26-2005, 12:57 PM
  #20  
Registered User
 
Hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Palatine, Illinois
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't know, beachdog, sounds like you hit the nail on the head to me. You were able to state much better than I was trying to get at. If you were to take a reciprocating piston engine and reduce the length of the piston strike by 2/3rds, you would also have a "very low" torque motor!
Old 04-26-2005, 07:07 PM
  #21  
Registered User
 
rx-8_or_?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A "stroke" is the vertical motion of a piston. In a rotary engine, there are no strokes, just revolutions. A 2-stroke motor fires every two strokes, a 4-stroke motor fires every 4 strokes. The Renesis fires thrice every revolution of the rotor, so it's really a 1/3 revolution motor!
Old 04-26-2005, 07:20 PM
  #22  
Registered
 
rotarygod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 21 Posts
A piston is nothing more than an extension of the offset of the crankshaft lobe. The rotary has this too. It goes up and down 6 times per face. It is irrelevant that there are 3 sides to the rotor. It doesn't matter if it were 3 rotors with 1 side each (more like a piston engine that only uses 1 side of the piston) or 1 rotor with 3 sides each. Either way, the same amount of force is still transferred to the eccentric shaft.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ASH8
General Automotive
2019
01-19-2024 04:57 PM
bosstin87
Series I Tech Garage
8
10-05-2015 06:52 AM
Luke.s
New Member Forum
4
09-30-2015 05:57 PM
XianUnix
Series I Trouble Shooting
6
09-29-2015 03:48 PM
tommy26Germany
Series I Trouble Shooting
11
09-29-2015 10:33 AM



You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: It's really a two stroke motor!



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 PM.