Renesis a 2.6L
04-21-2003, 10:30 PM
#51
Metatron
iTrader: (1)
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 its 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 to reality.... face it - those big lumps of triangular iron 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?
(Ah, screw this, I am taking this to the Tech Forum, rats asses are not given.....)
Then let us not get seriously upset at its 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 to reality.... face it - those big lumps of triangular iron 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?
(Ah, screw this, I am taking this to the Tech Forum, rats asses are not given.....)
Last edited by StealthTL; 04-21-2003 at 10:35 PM.
04-21-2003, 10:34 PM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Denial.....
Originally posted by StealthTL
Embrace the JOY! 450 ft/lbs! How can anyone look at this design and ignore the planetary gearset?
Embrace the JOY! 450 ft/lbs! How can anyone look at this design and ignore the planetary gearset?
04-21-2003, 10:55 PM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well most specs put the torque at 162ft/lbs at 7500rpm but lets use 450ft/lbs anyway.
So what Stealth is saying is that at 7500rpm it has 450ft/lbs, so it must then have 643hp at that rpm!
So what Stealth is saying is that at 7500rpm it has 450ft/lbs, so it must then have 643hp at that rpm!
04-21-2003, 11:00 PM
#55
mostly harmless
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahahaha.. no, no... he's joking: he's saying that AT THE ROTOR the car has something like 450ftlbs force when it's making 150 at the flywheel... so, it wouldn't be at 7500rpm, it'd be at ummm... 7500/3 (whatever that is) rpm, which means (even with the unit conversions) the horsepower stays the same... 
those "torque wins races" guys are full of it: horsepower is what gets it done :p
those "torque wins races" guys are full of it: horsepower is what gets it done :p
04-22-2003, 12:15 AM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh no! First a displacement discussion, then a HP-versus-torque discussion... this thread is doomed! Let's just get it over with... is it okay to use synthetic oil in a rotary? 
It isn't very useful to consider the RPM of anything but the output shaft. And, yes the rotors rotate at 1/3 that speed. There are stationary gears and gears on the rotors, but none on the spinning eccentric shaft. The stationary gears are concentric with the eccentric shaft, but the gears are not moving with the shaft.
-Max
It isn't very useful to consider the RPM of anything but the output shaft. And, yes the rotors rotate at 1/3 that speed. There are stationary gears and gears on the rotors, but none on the spinning eccentric shaft. The stationary gears are concentric with the eccentric shaft, but the gears are not moving with the shaft.
-Max
04-22-2003, 12:19 AM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've happily run Mobil 1 Synthetic in all of my 2.3 litre and 2.6 litre rotaries for the past 15 years.
However I have heard that the 1.1 and 1.3 litre rotaries run better on mineral oil. I can't comment as I have never owned one of those
However I have heard that the 1.1 and 1.3 litre rotaries run better on mineral oil. I can't comment as I have never owned one of those
03-22-2009, 09:54 PM
#58
Registered
Yes, I can. That's a common misconception. It's actually a 3:2 ratio. If you don't believe me, count the teeth, you should come up with 51 teeth on the larger internal gear and 34 teeth on the smaller external stationary gear. 51:34 or 3:2 ratio.
03-23-2009, 12:55 PM
#61
so it's a V twin?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well know i Know why when sport compact mag does its 100 terms you should know about cars they define 13b as 2.6 liter, and follow it with "dont ask" and "no letters Please."
03-23-2009, 04:38 PM
#62
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
gtorx7
RX-8 Parts For Sale/Wanted
3
05-30-2016 07:46 PM
badinfluence
Series II Aftermarket Performance Modifications
6
08-31-2015 11:51 AM
