therm8

How would you do it? My first thought is, it hasn't been done, so it must be difficult. But then, perhaps just 1.3L has always been good enough. I don't know much about combustion chambers on a rotary. Would the rotors be wider? Or would the pockets be deeper? Or both? Getting the flame propogation down might take some research $. Wider rotors = wider housings. Ports would have to be changed. Intake manifold? Exhaust manifold?

Just my random Sunday thoughts.

Rotary Rasp

iTrader: (2)

293 hp
196 ft/lb torque

That'd be nice!

xabjw4

Read this book, there have been many configurations tried and proven.
ISBN 0-7864-1177-5 The Wankel Rotary Engine by John B. Hege

Great,
Jeff

Razz1

A 1.6L is a must or else thay might as well retire the 8, considering the 6 is so fantastic!

zoom44

they had a 1.0 liter before and a 1.2 liter as well. to go from 1.3 to 1.6 they would just widen the rotors.

PaulieWalnuts

Widen the rotors. However I think somebody found that the optimal design is the current 1.3L. Widening the rotors to 1.6L would have some sort of suboptimal affect on flame travel.

But yes, the extra HP would be awesome. I was thinking more like 2.0L. 357HP anybody?