16X Engine – Possible Technology Applications
Removed
|
Removed
|
Removed
|
Will we see it in new RX-7?
|
Very good read. I'm just worried about the outlook of rotary engines with current and future fuel price levels....
|
I think you should send this tome directly to Mazda so they can look it over and perhaps provide comment on your thoughts, and if you're not doing anything more fun, maybe apply for a job there as well.
People like yourself who think about rotary engines a lot should be given special consideration in our IC world lol! Thanks for the interesting and fun read - very thought provoking to say the least :) |
Mazda already knows all of this.
|
Originally Posted by BMonkey
(Post 2483167)
As you can see, the current RX8 MSRP is below the cost of all these other vehicles, but so is the power and fuel economy. I think the RX8’s current offerings to the market have hurt sales in recent years (much like the 750 class of motorcycles). Not cheap enough to compete with cars like the Civic SI or Subaru WRX, not powerful enough to compete with the cars like the 350Z or Subaru WRX STI, cars it should be competing against (fuel economy aside of course). If Mazda could get the 16X into the 320-340hp range with city fuel economy up around 18mpg, the 16X would have a legitimate shot at vehicles such as the ones I’ve listed above. Don’t think I hate the 8 or the rotary engine, I really enjoy driving and owning one. That’s why I would like to see the rotary engine in a bright future rather than being stomped out by poor sales and the overly aggressive emissions legislation.
If they can push out an engine that can run on gas or hydrogen with decent power and as great of a ride and look of the current 8 then they've got something unique on the market. That'll sell a lot more of them then a good FI 16x that allows the 8 to just fit in the current niche. It's also the current emphasis at Ford which has to be looking at leveraging the technology unique to Mazda in the auto world. The infrastructure may or may not be in place in time for the car but if it's capable of handling multiple fuel sources it can make it to the market before the infrastructure is set. Just my $.02. |
Originally Posted by rk260395
(Post 2483515)
Not sure why you would limit the 16x to gasoline if your goal is fuel economy. Mazda's already put out a hydrogen model rx8 and I can't believe that they aren't considering alternate fuel source applications for the 16x if they're looking at a 2011 model timeline.
If they can push out an engine that can run on gas or hydrogen with decent power and as great of a ride and look of the current 8 then they've got something unique on the market. That'll sell a lot more of them then a good FI 16x that allows the 8 to just fit in the current niche. It's also the current emphasis at Ford which has to be looking at leveraging the technology unique to Mazda in the auto world. The infrastructure may or may not be in place in time for the car but if it's capable of handling multiple fuel sources it can make it to the market before the infrastructure is set. Just my $.02. |
Originally Posted by rotarygod
(Post 2483500)
Mazda already knows all of this.
|
Originally Posted by BMonkey
(Post 2483527)
I'm sorry, I wanted a sports car, not a tree hugging hippie alternative fuel car.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4265910.html Maybe that's not real. After all they're not due to have a prototype out until Sept. and production until '11. Probably no such thing as a sports car that uses electricity either as a hybrid, full electric, or hydrogen and getting 300+hp: http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/...50h_hybrid.htm And of course you can't have something with similar characteristics (weight, hp, etc.) as the RX-8 that isn't powered by gas that is actually fun to drive: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ter/index.html Nope. There's nothing magical about gasoline that makes it the only way to make a car go fast. It's just cheap and there is a lot of infrastructure supporting it. When it becomes expensive and when alternative fuel infrastructure becomes viable car companies will start getting away from gas with all their models - sport, compact, suv, etc. It started with compact because people who <3 mother earth are idiots and don't mind paying 10k more for a crappy driving experience as long as it impresses their friends and it was easier to get better mileage on cars that weigh 1500lbs then 3000lbs. I'm hoping that the 16x is taking that into consideration. If they've built it to be more flexible (aka more tunable) I don't know why you'd be against that unless it's just a reflex. The RENESIS was supposedly a good candidate for alternative fuels which is why the hydrogen based 8 made it to some car shows. |
Originally Posted by rk260395
(Post 2483993)
Heh. Sure. Because alternative fueled cars = Prius, right? Everyone knows that:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4265910.html Maybe that's not real. After all they're not due to have a prototype out until Sept. and production until '11. Probably no such thing as a sports car that uses electricity either as a hybrid, full electric, or hydrogen and getting 300+hp: http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/...50h_hybrid.htm And of course you can't have something with similar characteristics (weight, hp, etc.) as the RX-8 that isn't powered by gas that is actually fun to drive: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ter/index.html Nope. There's nothing magical about gasoline that makes it the only way to make a car go fast. It's just cheap and there is a lot of infrastructure supporting it. When it becomes expensive and when alternative fuel infrastructure becomes viable car companies will start getting away from gas with all their models - sport, compact, suv, etc. It started with compact because people who <3 mother earth are idiots and don't mind paying 10k more for a crappy driving experience as long as it impresses their friends and it was easier to get better mileage on cars that weigh 1500lbs then 3000lbs. I'm hoping that the 16x is taking that into consideration. If they've built it to be more flexible (aka more tunable) I don't know why you'd be against that unless it's just a reflex. The RENESIS was supposedly a good candidate for alternative fuels which is why the hydrogen based 8 made it to some car shows. The other reason is because coal fired powerplants and factories are alot larger producers of pollution than most passenger cars are with the current emissions standards. Legislation targets the individual vehicle owner because they are an easy target that doesn't pay lobbyists to fight back. I'd rather see alternative power sources than alternative fuels anyday of the week. Don't you feel anything when you hear and smell a bridgeported turbocharged 13B running on race gas? |
Originally Posted by BMonkey
(Post 2484068)
I'm against it because of the reason you stated, there is an expansive infrastructure supporting gasoline. In the city I live in there are several stations that do alternative fuels, but as soon as you're not in the city, you're not going to find anything like that. Just like if I wanted to take a tesla roadster from Texas to California, good luck finding a free socket every 220 miles and sitting for a few hours in the sun while it recharges, unless you can find a small business who likes loiterers who don't buy gas... Remember that we're talking just a few years, not 20 years, cause someday yea I'm sure some little filling station in middle of nowhere New Mexico will have alternative fuels but in the next few years, you're going to be limited to driving your population centers.
The other reason is because coal fired powerplants and factories are alot larger producers of pollution than most passenger cars are with the current emissions standards. Legislation targets the individual vehicle owner because they are an easy target that doesn't pay lobbyists to fight back. I'd rather see alternative power sources than alternative fuels anyday of the week. Don't you feel anything when you hear and smell a bridgeported turbocharged 13B running on race gas? http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/21/p...c-horsepower/2 Rotaries do evoke quite a bit of pleasure from most owners here, but the fact is that combustion engines are just too inefficient and the power they provide, while readily available can be matched and exceeded by current and upcoming electrical counterparts, and it can be done for a lot less money and a lot less maintenance. Think about it.. no brakes, no more transmission, little to no emissions, longer range, all the performance, more safety... I don't see a downside, other than the fact that our electric power grids need a huge upgrade. |
Originally Posted by Ajax
(Post 2484097)
Yea, but how would you feel if you could drive a 640 horsepower AWD mini cooper from Texas to california on 1.75 tanks of gas?
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/21/p...c-horsepower/2 Rotaries do evoke quite a bit of pleasure from most owners here, but the fact is that combustion engines are just too inefficient and the power they provide, while readily available can be matched and exceeded by current and upcoming electrical counterparts, and it can be done for a lot less money and a lot less maintenance. Think about it.. no brakes, no more transmission, little to no emissions, longer range, all the performance, more safety... I don't see a downside, other than the fact that our electric power grids need a huge upgrade. I remember some of the activist groups came by my house here in Austin not too long ago and were talking about pollution in Texas. Something like 80% of the total pollution produced here is from coal fired powerplants (and if Texas was its own country it'd be the 7th most polluting country in the world). Crazy stuff. |
Originally Posted by Ajax
(Post 2484097)
I don't see a downside, other than the fact that our electric power grids need a huge upgrade.
I agree with you though. The future is electric, or hydrogen powered. Once we figure out a good way to produce hydrogen cheaply, I'm sure we will see conversion kits appearing to let you run IC engines on it, the same way you can run your car on propane. |
Originally Posted by rk260395
(Post 2483515)
Not sure why you would limit the 16x to gasoline if your goal is fuel economy. Mazda's already put out a hydrogen model rx8 and I can't believe that they aren't considering alternate fuel source applications for the 16x if they're looking at a 2011 model timeline.
If they can push out an engine that can run on gas or hydrogen with decent power and as great of a ride and look of the current 8 then they've got something unique on the market. That'll sell a lot more of them then a good FI 16x that allows the 8 to just fit in the current niche. It's also the current emphasis at Ford which has to be looking at leveraging the technology unique to Mazda in the auto world. The infrastructure may or may not be in place in time for the car but if it's capable of handling multiple fuel sources it can make it to the market before the infrastructure is set. Just my $.02.
Originally Posted by rk260395
(Post 2483993)
... I'm hoping that the 16x is taking that into consideration. If they've built it to be more flexible (aka more tunable) I don't know why you'd be against that unless it's just a reflex. The RENESIS was supposedly a good candidate for alternative fuels which is why the hydrogen based 8 made it to some car shows.
|
Isnt the issue with hydrogen that it just doesnt provide the power that gas does? I forgot all the details but this has been debated before and I seem to remember a lot more cons than pros to it (unfortunately enough). If RG cares to chime in and restate the math and facts behind it, we can move on from that.
|
Originally Posted by BMonkey
(Post 2483554)
Most would just say they want it to look cool and have X number of horsepower. If Mazda could see that not everyone would die from having to pay for 6 sparkplugs, maybe they might consider implementing it. :)
|
Good Read Bmonkey. I have one thing to suggest on the alternative fuel front.
There is simply no way , in the foreseeable political future, of getting around the fact that all the gasoline we are going to be purchasing will have some ethanol content, at least e10 by various state mandates. This lowers overall fuel economy at standard gasoline-fueled engine pressures. But, as i have related in previous discussions, the epa and several academic bodies have shown that the use of alcohol fuels allows for increased compression because of the anti-knock capabilities of the ethanol. Increasing the compression actually can offset the loss of fuel economy and actually even make a gain over straight gasoline at the normal compression. Previous attempts at Diesel fueled rotaries have resulted in interesting "L" shaped apex seals that actually use the force of the compression and combustion forces to provide the necessary seal pressure. If these types of seals were included in the 16x and the compression increased to 12 or even 14 then it could actually realize economy AND power increases from the use of the e10-85 fuels. Possibly even Diesel rotaries emerge for those Euro-guys;) |
Originally Posted by zoom44
(Post 2485200)
Good Read Bmonkey. I have one thing to suggest on the alternative fuel front.
There is simply no way , in the foreseeable political future, of getting around the fact that all the gasoline we are going to be purchasing will have some ethanol content, at least e10 by various state mandates. This lowers overall fuel economy at standard gasoline-fueled engine pressures. But, as i have related in previous discussions, the epa and several academic bodies have shown that the use of alcohol fuels allows for increased compression because of the anti-knock capabilities of the ethanol. Increasing the compression actually can offset the loss of fuel economy and actually even make a gain over straight gasoline at the normal compression. Previous attempts at Diesel fueled rotaries have resulted in interesting "L" shaped apex seals that actually use the force of the compression and combustion forces to provide the necessary seal pressure. If these types of seals were included in the 16x and the compression increased to 12 or even 14 then it could actually realize economy AND power increases from the use of the e10-85 fuels. Possibly even Diesel rotaries emerge for those Euro-guys;) |
yes thats why i wrote "the forseeable political future"
the reality is there is ethanol in our gasoline and willl be for some time. with the 16 x there are chances to address this and turn it into a positive. change the shape of the apex seals to allow for higher compression which in turn will at the least recover the loss of economy from the addition of the alcohol and quite probably offer an actual economy(and possible power) increase which is unattainable at the near 10:1 we have now. |
Originally Posted by Socket7
(Post 2484267)
Ever see a lithium fire before? They are very hard to put out because the reaction is self sustaining, providing both fuel and an oxidizer for itself. Lithium Ion batteries are scary when they explode, and they are the only energy storage technology we have right now that provide good energy density for their volume and weight.
I agree with you though. The future is electric, or hydrogen powered. Once we figure out a good way to produce hydrogen cheaply, I'm sure we will see conversion kits appearing to let you run IC engines on it, the same way you can run your car on propane. Industry will address these issues and here's how i know: When we built our electric car at texas tech, we built in an internal fire suppression system just because of the threat of battery explosion. The entire system was good for 1-2 uses (of course we couldn't even justify the second use) and added approximately 22lbs to the weight of the vehicle. That's built by undergraduate engineers. So something coming out of industry would be significantly better than what we did as undergrads. |
If the electric car does come out, we should all pitch in for a group buy on beryllium wire for aftermarket parts :lol:
|
...
Originally Posted by Ajax
(Post 2484097)
Think about it.. no brakes, no more transmission, little to no emissions, longer range, all the performance, more safety... I don't see a downside, other than the fact that our electric power grids need a huge upgrade.
zzzzziiiiiiiiiiiii when u step on the gas:lol: |
Originally Posted by BMonkey
(Post 2485561)
If the electric car does come out, we should all pitch in for a group buy on beryllium wire for aftermarket parts :lol:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands