why not a 6 rotor motor
12-04-2003, 04:53 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A six rotor would have SERIOUS issues with eccentric shaft rigidity. Like NA-only-drag-car-1-season-then-its-done issues. would still be freakin cool, though.
BTW, I'm gonna build a compound forced induction (SC + turbo) for my project car. Its still in the "restore donor" phase right now, though.
EDIT: WTF!?! I'm not ZoomBlack...... ???
BTW, I'm gonna build a compound forced induction (SC + turbo) for my project car. Its still in the "restore donor" phase right now, though.
EDIT: WTF!?! I'm not ZoomBlack...... ???
12-04-2003, 05:15 PM
#28
[rapidus octus]
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the idea of lots of rotors - but with a much smaller capacity...
How smoothe would a six rotor be with 300~350cc per rotor??? It's not going to happen until the design can become more fuel efficient.
Funny when you think about it - there haven't really been that many true inventors over the years. There's a lot of innovation and refinement, integration and optimisation, but not much that's truly new.
How smoothe would a six rotor be with 300~350cc per rotor??? It's not going to happen until the design can become more fuel efficient.
Funny when you think about it - there haven't really been that many true inventors over the years. There's a lot of innovation and refinement, integration and optimisation, but not much that's truly new.
12-04-2003, 07:24 PM
#29
uhhhhh....hello?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont think they can use 3 rotors anymore because the overlap allows the unburned hydro carbons to escape
thats why they went to side porting
________
Depakote lawsuit info
thats why they went to side porting
________
Depakote lawsuit info
Last edited by P00Man; 04-16-2011 at 08:52 PM.
12-04-2003, 10:37 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Phila suburbs
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not a 22 rotor motor, it should make a whopping 2600 hp and would be lighter than a 16 cylinder engine. c'mon ya'll know ya want it and ya can shift it mad quick yo! I'll bet 0-60 would be sub 4 second, dallmmmmnnn dog!
12-04-2003, 10:40 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Phila suburbs
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kev, back to a relatively serious note. The internal combustion engine has been around for 100+ years. Most of the performance upgrades (super and turbos, ICs, etc) have been out there for 70+ years. Even our beloved Wankel has been around for quite a while. Truly new technology is very hard to come by. It seems like we just keep getting improved versions of what we already have. Something truly new and innovative would be refreshing.
12-05-2003, 02:57 AM
#32
Originally posted by Senseny
Kev, back to a relatively serious note. The internal combustion engine has been around for 100+ years. Most of the performance upgrades (super and turbos, ICs, etc) have been out there for 70+ years. Even our beloved Wankel has been around for quite a while. Truly new technology is very hard to come by. It seems like we just keep getting improved versions of what we already have. Something truly new and innovative would be refreshing.
Kev, back to a relatively serious note. The internal combustion engine has been around for 100+ years. Most of the performance upgrades (super and turbos, ICs, etc) have been out there for 70+ years. Even our beloved Wankel has been around for quite a while. Truly new technology is very hard to come by. It seems like we just keep getting improved versions of what we already have. Something truly new and innovative would be refreshing.
VTeck, variable capacity, electrostatic(camles)valves, common rail,multi valve ,new materials (alloys,ceramics) etc.
The piston engine has had an lot more man hours of development time than rotaries.
12-05-2003, 07:51 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Phila suburbs
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely the improvements are phenomenal. I am just saying the original technology is over 100 years old. Its lasted becuase it works and much of our economy is based on it.
03-14-2008, 09:41 AM
#39
Not if they engineer the 6 lobe e-shaft to have support bearings in the side housings to cut down on flexing. It would be no different than any in-line 6 cylinder engine with 7 main bearings. I don't see the 2Jz Supra engine having crank shaft problems. It's all in how you engineer it.
Last edited by T-von; 03-14-2008 at 09:48 AM.
03-14-2008, 09:45 AM
#40
Stacking a rotary isn't the hard part. Knowing how to properly engineer the e-shaft is something obviously out of Hurley Engineering's capability. That's why it failed.
Last edited by T-von; 03-14-2008 at 09:49 AM.
03-14-2008, 10:59 AM
#43
Huge hole is huge
