And that's the April issue- I just went to Barnes and Noble and dug through the car mags- that's apparently the only one that came out.

rx7tt95, are you SURE it was Sport Compact Car?

 

this better not be a hoax ....:p

 

I'm positive it was SCC. Dave Coleman writes ONLY for SCC. I'm running over to Borders now. I'll scan in a few pages. You guys owe me:D

 

I haven't seen the article yet, but does it give any indication if the high output port was stuck open or closed. As others have stated, I find it hard to believe they would miss it if it was stuck closed. The high end power would have suffered and should have been obvious. But if the port was stuck open...
Then low rpm torque would suffer. (Tuning effect of low rpm port would be nullified.) It would be harder to notice since after leaving 1st gear, you probably are keeping the revs up in the higher rpm range where the port should be open.

That could explain some reviews that have stated there was a lack of low end torque. It would also explain why dropping the cluch at 8K rpms was needed to get a sub 6 second 0-60.

Just a thought.

~Robert

 

Here's the cover. May issue.

 

MORE!!!!......please :p

 

Let's start with the Dave Coleman article...They're B&W to make the files as small as possible yet large enough that you can easily read the words. I've cut the story up into columns as well.

 

.

 

The forum appears to be screwing with me....not posting articles in order even though I submit them in order. Let's try again.

 

next page

 

page 3

 

p. 4

 

Now a few passages from the RX8 article...

 

wa? Did I miss something or is the detuned Renesis part missing? Or is it in another article?

EDIT: nm, you just posted it while I was typing

 

the b*stards copied a published RX-7 image I took for their opening shot

 

Thanks rx7tt95

I can't tell if something happened with the RX-8 part or my computer is just being weird, I'm not seeing it. But I believe you now. What issue is that? I swear I dug through that entire car section and only saw the April issue....


Edit: nevermind, you're still posting- I'm just impatient. Sorry!

 

p2

 

In response to the Dave Coleman article (edit: the article about rotary displacement):

Many, MANY people have argued that the 13B/Renesis really has 2.6 liters of displacement. Personally, I think it has 1.3 liters (it makes the Renesis sound that much more incredible! ) but in my opinion, it doesn't really matter if the engine is 1.3 or 2.6 liters. What matters is power to weight ratio (and power to size ratio), and in that department rotaries are king. Period. Sports Car International said "Including rotors, housings and eccentric shaft, the basic engine wieghs only 121 pounds. With all ancillaries attached, running weight totals 273 pounds. That's about half the size and weight of an equivalent piston powerplant. In fact, the Wankel equals its transmission in size and weight" (page 28-29, May 2003). I'd like to see any naturally aspirated boinger that small produce 247 hp.
The reason I don't think displacement really matters is that you can get a real tiny engine to produce a ton of horsepower, but at an incredible cost. For example, in a piston engine, you can change the compression ratio, add camshafts, add more valves, use forced induction, make a more open exhaust, the list goes on, but most if not all of these factors add weight, not to mention a decrease in reliability and fuel economy. The wankel gets loads of power for its size while remaining decently economical (at least the Renesis) and N/A rotaries are famously reliable (rotary racers can go 1 or 2 seasons without changing an engine, something unheard of for conventional engines). After all, how many cars other than the RX-8 with full sized rear seats (and 4 doors) weigh only ~3050 lbs without extensive use of aluminum or carbon fiber?
Finally, the RX-8 is really fun to drive (according to its reviews) - because of it's engine. The Renesis is 5.5 inches behind the front axle in a front engine car! That causes an "extremely low polar moment of inertia" (SCI again), in other words, handling to die for. :D

 

here's my take:

yes it BREATHES like a 2.6, because its combusts the 1.3L from the 2 rotors EVERY REVOLUTION, whereas a 2.0L piston only combusts all 4 cylinders' air every TWO REVOLUTION

but there lies another BIG advantage of the rotary engine: being able to use all of its 'displacement' (aka full air intake volume for a single chamber from each rotor) EVERY REVOLUTION, whereas the piston engine only uses HALF of its full 'displacement' volume every revolution. Would you rather have your engine breathing and firing at full volume ALL THE TIME, or only HALF of its total capacity all the time? :D

I still consider the Renesis to have a 'displacement' of 1.3L, that just works twice as efficient in turning air/fuel into power than a comparatively sized piston engine

ah the beauty of maximum space usage (inside the engine that is :D )

 

p3

 

P4...it'd be a good idea to wait til I'm posting the entire article to comment. Just an idea :-)

 

p5

 

P6

 

Sorry. I was responding to the other article by Dave Coleman about how the Renesis is really 2.6 liters. Nonetheless, thanks for posting it!

 

P7...last one...feel free to comment now:D