Ten Best
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Ten Best
Thought I might share this. If it's a repost, well, it's a good repost.
http://www.carsinaction.net/ViewArti...9&sb=1&art=113
Chimney out
http://www.carsinaction.net/ViewArti...9&sb=1&art=113
Chimney out
I'm not sure, and if someone with the mathematical fortitude can help me out here, but I remember seeing a discussion on the actual volume of the rotary engine and it comes out 2.6 liters (1.3x2) based on the way the engine works? I'm not entirely sure how that argument goes, but using 1.3 liters is considered misleading.
The engine is SMALL, there is no doubt of that. But it breathes differently than a piston engine.
The engine is SMALL, there is no doubt of that. But it breathes differently than a piston engine.
Huge hole is huge
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,191
Likes: 1
From: Joplin, MO
I'm not sure, and if someone with the mathematical fortitude can help me out here, but I remember seeing a discussion on the actual volume of the rotary engine and it comes out 2.6 liters (1.3x2) based on the way the engine works? I'm not entirely sure how that argument goes, but using 1.3 liters is considered misleading.
The engine is SMALL, there is no doubt of that. But it breathes differently than a piston engine.
The engine is SMALL, there is no doubt of that. But it breathes differently than a piston engine.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Volumetric...ained&id=47639
From that same thread, thanks Pitz. The origin of the thread wasn't a discussion on how the rotary engine's displacement is accurately portrayed, but rather mathematics on power and estimated power in turbos.
But the article listed on page 3 is basically what I was looking for.
From that same thread, thanks Pitz. The origin of the thread wasn't a discussion on how the rotary engine's displacement is accurately portrayed, but rather mathematics on power and estimated power in turbos.
But the article listed on page 3 is basically what I was looking for.
I'm not sure, and if someone with the mathematical fortitude can help me out here, but I remember seeing a discussion on the actual volume of the rotary engine and it comes out 2.6 liters (1.3x2) based on the way the engine works? I'm not entirely sure how that argument goes, but using 1.3 liters is considered misleading.
The engine is SMALL, there is no doubt of that. But it breathes differently than a piston engine.
The engine is SMALL, there is no doubt of that. But it breathes differently than a piston engine.
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
2003 engine, still produces more power per cc compared to some of the newest supercars like the R8 and GT-R some with two turbo's. Can you imagine the impact of a modest improvement on the current spec rotary? Secretly, I wish another manufacturer makes a rotary to create competition. The we will start to see some real development taking off. Just a wish, maybe Santa's listening.
Huge hole is huge
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,191
Likes: 1
From: Joplin, MO
http://ezinearticles.com/?Volumetric...ained&id=47639
From that same thread, thanks Pitz. The origin of the thread wasn't a discussion on how the rotary engine's displacement is accurately portrayed, but rather mathematics on power and estimated power in turbos.
But the article listed on page 3 is basically what I was looking for.
From that same thread, thanks Pitz. The origin of the thread wasn't a discussion on how the rotary engine's displacement is accurately portrayed, but rather mathematics on power and estimated power in turbos.
But the article listed on page 3 is basically what I was looking for.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
drebbrnator
Series I Trouble Shooting
11
Dec 27, 2018 07:02 PM