Why can't they make 1 rotor shut down or cut the fuel to it when not needed like when just cruising down the hwy? seems like that would really save on the old MPG.
I know some V8 and V6's do something like that.

 

I'd assume it would have to do with the fact that if one of the rotors shut down, the other rotor is moving the car plus spinning the dead weight that is the other rotor. It would probably make more sense physics wise to just have the other spin.

 

correct me if i'm wrong but I believe that on V6's and V8's when they stop running the cylinder the valves also stop moving so that the air still works the cylinder and it's not just dead weight and pumping losses. I'd imagine you could have a similar set-up on the rotary by having a valve in the intake and exhaust ports to seal of the rotor and get the same effect.

 

Both rotors are conneceted to the e-shaft, so you would have to design some way so dis-engaging one of the rotors while keeping the other spinning. Got any ideas on how to do that? cus I sure dont

 

With just 1 rotor powering the car it might not have enough power to be a workable solution to better MPG? I imagine the single rotor would be pushed too hard for this to work. Now a 3 rotor cutting down to 2 on cruises might work but I don't know how many people would go for that.

 

Seems to me if each rotor is making half the 232hp
then one would produce over 100hp more
than enough to be able to cruise at 70mph.
I'm sure it could be done, how that's the ?

 

Are we really talking about this?

 

And the fuel savings are minimal, hardly woth the extra complexity and issues. Honda's V6 with cylinder shut-down gets maybe 1-2 better mpg and has had some reliability issues.

 

This being my 4th rotary I knew what to expect
but, still makes me sick that a new 300hp
camaro gets 29mpg. So many of us complain
and end up getting rid of these great cars only
because of the sucky mpg. Just tossing out ideas..

 

don't believe that bullshit about the Camaro and Mustang

You will only get 25MPG on cruise only!

Your average for both vehicles will be around 16.5 MPG.

That's for the V8

The V6 you will get a little bit more.

 

uhh..

my friend (and former member here) has a 400whp 2001(iirc) camaro. it has the v8 of course. ls1. just about all the bolt ons.

he averages 23mpg.

 

you're really dumbing it down. in all internal combustion engines, and especially rotaries, its not just as simple as each cylinder or rotor making X horsepower. its a case of the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts" if you follow me. also, it makes 232 HP somewhere north of 8000rpm so thats a mute point all together.

also, do you seriously think if this was as easy to do as you are making it sound that mazda would not have done it already? they love their beloved wankle and would do nearly anything to make fuel economy even the slightest biit better. I would almost bet money on them having tried this already in testing and deemed it non profitable in more ways than one.

people need to face it. this is the rotary. this is what it does. these simple bandaid solutions that other companies apply to their cars to sneak under the radar and acheive certain numbers to get government grants and bragging rights dont apply to rotaries or really any of mazdas fleet for that matter.

 

If the engine were used to turn generators for a series hybrid drivetrain, then I presume it would be feasible to use two generators, one for the rear rotor and one for the front rotor. At that point, it's essentially two one rotor engines in a common housing. Outside of that context, having a single common output shaft requires a lot of extra complexity.

 

Admonishing others for "dumbing it down" and not knowing the difference between "mute" and "moot"... way to go.

 

Are you really posting here?

 

if you want to use half the gas:

Step 1:let up on the throttle, if you let up enough, you will cut down the amount of fuel you inject by half.

Step 2: Enjoy driving 25 mph on the highway

 

not true i have a 2ss/rs and ive been averaging about 24 to 25 since i got it ... and i checked that myself not using the onboard mpg calculation

 

commenting on grammar/spelling mistakes and not adding anything to the thread....way to go.

 

commenting on commenting on grammar/spelling mistakes, and not adding anything to the thread, way to spice it up!

 

now you're adding to this mess too. i know by replying im not helping, but i really dont feel like even attempting to be the bigger person here. Also, of the three of us now involved in this nonesense, im the only one yet to contribute something about the actual topic. so lick my left nut.

 

The difference between you and I, is that my post was intentional. Meanwhile you failed to see the irony in your post chiding someone for doing exactly what you were doing. Which happened to be my point.

 

... between you and me. Use the objective case after a preposition. IBTL!

 

About saving mpg's, didn't/aren't they developping alternate fuels for the Wankel?
Shut off a rotor to save gas? That is not how wankels work. FI & such is paramount.

 

@ this thread

IBTL