Return of the ROTARY
10-13-2011, 12:33 PM
#101
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
999:
1) The "torque increase" of the 16x dimensions is more due to the change in the leverage angles. Those bits of physics work just fine in favor of it changing. That isn't the only source of the torque increase, as the narrower rotors also allow a better flame front "push" than the current 13b. And of course the actual displacement increase. But perhaps we are saying the same thing, just using different words.
2) The "16x" will not see production. Mazda did indicate that development of the 16x stopped earlier this year or last year (not sure where the time went to remember how long ago it was). This doesn't mean they stopped rotary production, but moved on to a more advanced design than the "16x", which was just a development code anyway. They learned from the Renesis, and applied those learnings to the 16x, but learned from Skyactive and 16x and moved to a new design before the 16x actually got close to production. Perhaps this "Sky-R" (our term, not Mazda's) will use 16x geometry, but it isn't the "16x"
3) I'm sure OD realizes that. You can change the "gearing" of the rotor-to-eshaft however, and I can see some possibilities which would make it a 1:1 "gear". That whole gear ring is an "initial" drive (as opposed to a final drive)
1) The "torque increase" of the 16x dimensions is more due to the change in the leverage angles. Those bits of physics work just fine in favor of it changing. That isn't the only source of the torque increase, as the narrower rotors also allow a better flame front "push" than the current 13b. And of course the actual displacement increase. But perhaps we are saying the same thing, just using different words.
2) The "16x" will not see production. Mazda did indicate that development of the 16x stopped earlier this year or last year (not sure where the time went to remember how long ago it was). This doesn't mean they stopped rotary production, but moved on to a more advanced design than the "16x", which was just a development code anyway. They learned from the Renesis, and applied those learnings to the 16x, but learned from Skyactive and 16x and moved to a new design before the 16x actually got close to production. Perhaps this "Sky-R" (our term, not Mazda's) will use 16x geometry, but it isn't the "16x"
3) I'm sure OD realizes that. You can change the "gearing" of the rotor-to-eshaft however, and I can see some possibilities which would make it a 1:1 "gear". That whole gear ring is an "initial" drive (as opposed to a final drive)
10-13-2011, 12:48 PM
#102
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-13-2011, 01:54 PM
#104
B.I.G
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AT---EIL
Posts: 1,401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16X is still in its baby development stages... needs more time! It would be cool to get a 3 Rotor car to compete against the current sports cars. Idk why people want a GTR killer.. I say give me a nice platform to build on because isnt that what aftermarket is for?!?!?!? who cares about gas mileage... but then again it prob wont sell so mazda wont do it for a select few.
10-13-2011, 01:59 PM
#106
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
You wish for a 3-rotor, but then say you don't understand people that want a "GTR Killer"? 
You confuse me.
And no, the 16x was actually in development for quite some time, but was shelved before meeting either emissions or power standards (they got 1 of the 2, but not both).
You confuse me.
And no, the 16x was actually in development for quite some time, but was shelved before meeting either emissions or power standards (they got 1 of the 2, but not both).
10-13-2011, 07:12 PM
#108
As far as I know the emission figures were much improved but still requiring work.
Paul.
10-13-2011, 07:56 PM
#111
B.I.G
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AT---EIL
Posts: 1,401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
270-300 hp is no GTR killer.. idk what GTR your referring too.
You wish for a 3-rotor, but then say you don't understand people that want a "GTR Killer"?
You confuse me.
And no, the 16x was actually in development for quite some time, but was shelved before meeting either emissions or power standards (they got 1 of the 2, but not both).
You confuse me.
And no, the 16x was actually in development for quite some time, but was shelved before meeting either emissions or power standards (they got 1 of the 2, but not both).
10-13-2011, 08:49 PM
#112
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
That is even more confusing. 3-rotors gets you more than 270-300hp... ALOT more.
That's only a 16-29% increase over the current engine. Adding a 3rd rotor gets you more than the 50% displacement increase you gain. Even if it was just 50%, that's 348hp. 400hp-450hp is closer. (all numbers at the crank)
And since Mazda would be able to do it somewhere under the GTR's fat *** weight of 3,800lbs, a 3-rotor with the inferior Renesis dimensions would be competition for it. A 2-rotor 16x is probably hitting 300-340 (just a guess), bump that to 3 rotor and you are talking 500+.
Wet dream? sure, but it wouldn't sell enough to justify production for the small manufacturer Mazda is.
Proper lightweight sports car that focuses more on handling than power is what Mazda does best, has always done, and will continue to do. They will keep gaining in power, but never be a top power contender. It just isn't what they do.
That's only a 16-29% increase over the current engine. Adding a 3rd rotor gets you more than the 50% displacement increase you gain. Even if it was just 50%, that's 348hp. 400hp-450hp is closer. (all numbers at the crank)
And since Mazda would be able to do it somewhere under the GTR's fat *** weight of 3,800lbs, a 3-rotor with the inferior Renesis dimensions would be competition for it. A 2-rotor 16x is probably hitting 300-340 (just a guess), bump that to 3 rotor and you are talking 500+.
Wet dream? sure, but it wouldn't sell enough to justify production for the small manufacturer Mazda is.
Proper lightweight sports car that focuses more on handling than power is what Mazda does best, has always done, and will continue to do. They will keep gaining in power, but never be a top power contender. It just isn't what they do.
10-13-2011, 09:56 PM
#113
back to thinking like a skyactive rotary engine.
think mechanical inefficiency. A 400 hp engine at 6K rpm losses about 80 hp due to internal friction, The higher the rpm the greater the loss.
The stationary gears and bearings in this engine could stand a LOT of work. For it's size it has a lot of friction with in it.
Let the discussion begin.
think mechanical inefficiency. A 400 hp engine at 6K rpm losses about 80 hp due to internal friction, The higher the rpm the greater the loss.
The stationary gears and bearings in this engine could stand a LOT of work. For it's size it has a lot of friction with in it.
Let the discussion begin.
10-14-2011, 12:26 AM
#114
last displacement increase got the rotary about 50-80 hp and that was like 20-30 something years ago.
This time, with current MUCH MORE advance tech/process, I'm expecting at least 100 hp increase over the current gen.
I think they already got the hp part figured out(shouldn't be that hard, displacement increase will always give you more hp), probably just having issue with meeting the emission standard for the next 10-15 yrs. Look at what happen to the Renesis. EU kicked it out cuz of emission.
As for GT-R Killer, that will be hard for a 30K~ ish car. if they're selling it for 40K the least then sure they might stand a chance.
This time, with current MUCH MORE advance tech/process, I'm expecting at least 100 hp increase over the current gen.
I think they already got the hp part figured out(shouldn't be that hard, displacement increase will always give you more hp), probably just having issue with meeting the emission standard for the next 10-15 yrs. Look at what happen to the Renesis. EU kicked it out cuz of emission.
As for GT-R Killer, that will be hard for a 30K~ ish car. if they're selling it for 40K the least then sure they might stand a chance.
Last edited by nycgps; 10-14-2011 at 12:29 AM.
10-14-2011, 01:29 AM
#115
B.I.G
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AT---EIL
Posts: 1,401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in customer trim i doubt it will produce that much power.. modified yes.
That is even more confusing. 3-rotors gets you more than 270-300hp... ALOT more.
That's only a 16-29% increase over the current engine. Adding a 3rd rotor gets you more than the 50% displacement increase you gain. Even if it was just 50%, that's 348hp. 400hp-450hp is closer. (all numbers at the crank)
And since Mazda would be able to do it somewhere under the GTR's fat *** weight of 3,800lbs, a 3-rotor with the inferior Renesis dimensions would be competition for it. A 2-rotor 16x is probably hitting 300-340 (just a guess), bump that to 3 rotor and you are talking 500+.
Wet dream? sure, but it wouldn't sell enough to justify production for the small manufacturer Mazda is.
Proper lightweight sports car that focuses more on handling than power is what Mazda does best, has always done, and will continue to do. They will keep gaining in power, but never be a top power contender. It just isn't what they do.
That's only a 16-29% increase over the current engine. Adding a 3rd rotor gets you more than the 50% displacement increase you gain. Even if it was just 50%, that's 348hp. 400hp-450hp is closer. (all numbers at the crank)
And since Mazda would be able to do it somewhere under the GTR's fat *** weight of 3,800lbs, a 3-rotor with the inferior Renesis dimensions would be competition for it. A 2-rotor 16x is probably hitting 300-340 (just a guess), bump that to 3 rotor and you are talking 500+.
Wet dream? sure, but it wouldn't sell enough to justify production for the small manufacturer Mazda is.
Proper lightweight sports car that focuses more on handling than power is what Mazda does best, has always done, and will continue to do. They will keep gaining in power, but never be a top power contender. It just isn't what they do.
10-14-2011, 10:19 AM
#118
As you said, think skyactiv rotary. They will be implementing every modern technology for more efficient, complete combustion. Will they play with ports a whole bunch more? I would guess so. Compression ratio? Who knows. Injector type and locations? Absolutely going to be different. The management and
I'm excited about the potential future.
Paul.
10-14-2011, 10:26 AM
#119
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
Agreed Paul.
I'm pretty much canceling my Renesis Miata plans until we see what chassis Mazda is putting it in, since it's logical (given Mazda's clear direction) that the platform will be lighter than the RX-8, but with all the modern improvements.
I intend on getting one of the first ones. I typically don't agree with doing that, but I will still have my 8 as "backup", and I want to be one of the original owners exploring the intricacies, quirks, and inevitable problems of the new car
Not sure if I'd get an extended warranty to cover myself, or ignore warranty completely and really dig into stuff. Time will tell on that. I already warned my wife
I'm pretty much canceling my Renesis Miata plans until we see what chassis Mazda is putting it in, since it's logical (given Mazda's clear direction) that the platform will be lighter than the RX-8, but with all the modern improvements.
I intend on getting one of the first ones. I typically don't agree with doing that, but I will still have my 8 as "backup", and I want to be one of the original owners exploring the intricacies, quirks, and inevitable problems of the new car
Not sure if I'd get an extended warranty to cover myself, or ignore warranty completely and really dig into stuff. Time will tell on that. I already warned my wife
10-14-2011, 10:48 AM
#120
Agreed Paul.
I'm pretty much canceling my Renesis Miata plans until we see what chassis Mazda is putting it in, since it's logical (given Mazda's clear direction) that the platform will be lighter than the RX-8, but with all the modern improvements.
I intend on getting one of the first ones. I typically don't agree with doing that, but I will still have my 8 as "backup", and I want to be one of the original owners exploring the intricacies, quirks, and inevitable problems of the new car
Not sure if I'd get an extended warranty to cover myself, or ignore warranty completely and really dig into stuff. Time will tell on that. I already warned my wife
I'm pretty much canceling my Renesis Miata plans until we see what chassis Mazda is putting it in, since it's logical (given Mazda's clear direction) that the platform will be lighter than the RX-8, but with all the modern improvements.
I intend on getting one of the first ones. I typically don't agree with doing that, but I will still have my 8 as "backup", and I want to be one of the original owners exploring the intricacies, quirks, and inevitable problems of the new car
Not sure if I'd get an extended warranty to cover myself, or ignore warranty completely and really dig into stuff. Time will tell on that. I already warned my wife
All we know so far is that the development continues.Paul.
10-14-2011, 01:22 PM
#124
10-14-2011, 02:22 PM
#125
I was just using the S2 engine as an example. Addressing mechanical efficentcy within the engine is something you dont hear much about on this forum. The reduction of weight/friction, as the sky rotary concept should do, can give as much if not more return than developing different fuel/ignition systems for example.
Power/fuel milage has always been the focus of many a conversation here. So how do you accieve that without using more fuel? Right--Sky concept. Increase the mechanical efficency of the car (engine too).
Now how do you do that in a rotary engine?
Friction reducers? What friction reducers and where?
Developing a new style lighter rotor?
Developing a new type rotary/stationary gear that is a thinner and lighter set up?
Developing a hydrolic system to take the place of the stationary/rotary gears?
Developing a new E shaft system support?
Developing new type bearings/bearing system?
Developing new engine clearances tolerance?
Increasing the rotary's ability to make power in the lower rpms?
Lots of stuff to think about.
Power/fuel milage has always been the focus of many a conversation here. So how do you accieve that without using more fuel? Right--Sky concept. Increase the mechanical efficency of the car (engine too).
Now how do you do that in a rotary engine?
Friction reducers? What friction reducers and where?
Developing a new style lighter rotor?
Developing a new type rotary/stationary gear that is a thinner and lighter set up?
Developing a hydrolic system to take the place of the stationary/rotary gears?
Developing a new E shaft system support?
Developing new type bearings/bearing system?
Developing new engine clearances tolerance?
Increasing the rotary's ability to make power in the lower rpms?
Lots of stuff to think about.