Why rotary engines are better than piston engines!
 

I am writing an essay on why rotary engines out perform piston engines in one of my classes. It would be cool if everyone could just give me some key points, or some good arguments as to why rotary engines are better engines. Some pros and cons are also appreciated thanks for helping me out…… p.s. rotory enignes rule!!!!! :rock:

DAMN, that's a good idea for an argumentative essay. Can't believe I didn't think of that for one of my essays, and now the semester is over :mad:

1). Not as many moving parts, less wear and tear, supposedly longer lasting
2). Sound cool

it goes on...

howstuffworks.com has a lot of the info you are looking for.

Yep Lots of info here. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

This might help also. http://www.autospectator.com/modules...hp?storyid=302

Because it looks like a spinning dorito and doritos are good. mmmmm doritos.

Also take a look at almost anything that RotaryGod has posted.

the rotary isnt necessarily "better". it all depends on what your looking for and define "better"

denward

Yeah there's definitely benefits and drawbacks to each type of engine...

Simply because it is not pist-on! :rock:

Really, how about the significant size and weight savings?
________
Laguna Bay Condominium Prathumnak

Doesn't the way a rotary engine is designed provide an opportunity for better handing over the design of a piston engine?

Look, it's SO simple:

Piston engine goes BOING BOING BOING BOING BOING-- but the Mazda goes Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

The engine itself isn't necessarily imbued with superior handling, unless you count vibration and balancing a component of handling. Indirectly, though, it does help - the motor is lighter and smaller, which allows for a lower and more central positioning to improve centre of gravity, for example.

That's the part that I was talking about.

This again? Why not do a search and learn the research skills that your teacher wants you to learn. Even on this forum you will find this very same question for the very same purpose asked and answered a dozen times.

Sheesh

are you trying to get us to do your hw?
LOL i like those doritos. mmmmmm :mdrmed:

If I get plagarized, I'd better end up getting credit for the class!

lol, thanks for all the help everyone this thing is going to be a piece of cake

Nice mid-70's Mazda jingle reference!

Simple:

Piston engines suck

Rotary engines don't

As a former RX-7 owner and current RX-8 owner, I think the wankel is fantastic as a small sporty car engine. However, it's difficult to imagine wankel powered semi-trucks, tractors, large sedans, pickup trucks, etc. At least not until the MPG thing is conquered. So, as wonderful as the Wankel is, it still is not a one-type-fits-all solution. It's a great engine, but not the answer to every vehicle need.

1.3L

One thing to add to your research is the amount of money invested in the piston engine versus the rotary. If the rotary had and equivlent amount things might be a lot different.

Remeber only one company has successfully made a production rotary, and that is Mazda. Also go look up GM and their rotary program (scrapped during the 70's gas chrisis) the Vette almost got a rotary engine. :Eyecrazy: :Eyecrazy: :ylsuper: :ylsuper:

All joking aside, the primary benefits are:

- High HP/displacement ratio (238 to 1.3 L? Wow! That's racing engine territory in a piston car)
- Exceptionally compact packaging, again, compared to power generated (if memory serves, the core of the engine (basically the block and end plates stripped of accessories and intake/exhaust manifolds, etc.) occupies about 3 cubic feet or less. This allows optimum placement in the chassis for best weight distribution, lower cowl and hood profiles for better aerodynamics, etc.
- Exceptionally light weight compared to power generated - another insane figure that borders on racing territory.
- 3 moving parts in the engine compared to dozens and more in a piston engine (and more and more with increasing cylinder counts into V-8, -10 and -12 configurations).
- And that spinning Dorito thing ... :)

Seriously one of the best engine designs ever - too bad no one besides Mazda put serious effort into totally perfecting it - I agree, had it gotten the same R&D as the piston engine, we might all be driving around going Hmmmmmm instead of Boing Boing.

As far as automobiles go, rotaries are only suited for sports cars and racing due to their poor fuel economy.

Many rotary advantages have diminished in recent decades since Mazda (a relatively small company) is the only automotive manufacturer still doing rotary development. While rotaries have seen output, fuel economy, emissions, and reliability improvements, piston engines have improved in those areas even more so. For example, the F20C in from the Honda S2000 is only slightly heavier/larger than the RX-8's 13BMSP, yet the F20C provides similar output and better fuel economy.

However, the F20C is a more expensive engine (both to manufacture and overhaul). And on that note, rotaries can often be used throughout entire racing seasons or even multiple seasons without needing to be rebuilt (while piston engines often need to be overhauled after each race). I know some people who race with rotaries because they're a cheap way to get high power out of a small engine.

Also, some empirical evidence that rotary advantages exist: there's a decent market for inexpensive, lightweight, balanced, practical RWD cars with 200+ hp. If someone could build a piston-powered car with all those attributes, why haven't they?

More rotary history: http://www.monito.com/wankel/rce.html (there are lots of other interesting pages at that site)

I'm interested in reading your essay, if you're comfortable with sharing it.

no problem ill post it when im done, i am actually honered that you would consider reading it, its due in like a week or two so ill have it up maybe in a week