Horsepower Confusion!?

alright, i agree, the rotary is junk. We had to replace a Fuel filter, THE SOB TOOK 3 DAYS!!! but i'd woop him on the street. but currently my mav is garaged for paint and repairs.

 

As other people have said, don't underestimate the power of the rotary engine. It is slowly making a come back. Having been to a lot of the street races (illegal and legal) there are some pretty quick RX-7's around. And unfortuantely I have to give it to some of the "ricers" in that they have found ways to make 4 cylinders that put out 160-200+hp stock and added to the fact that most of them weigh around +/- 2800lbs. While I love my mav I do have to give credit the foreign car manufacturers. And just to say something about drivers of the "ricers" not all of them are a$$holes. To truely call yourself a car lover you must respect the time and dedication that it takes to fix up a car, no matter what car it is. And just because you have a particular preference does not make your opinion right, if we start passing judgement on people and cars that we know nothing about then aren't we just as bad as the "ricers" that we hate? Just my opinon.

 

I got a rotary motor. Their torquey little things and sound neat too.

 

Are you going to put the Wankel motor in your '71 Maverick? lol

 

Wouldnt that be original, a mav with a rotary motor in it. Hey dont those le mans cars or some sort of fast race cars have rotary motors in them?

-Todd

 

there is a 787b with a 28b rotary in it, thats 4 rotors.

 

Awww....a baby wankel!

I have known quite a few guys that have owned rotaries...from RX-2's to the late model RX-7's--including some "pretty fast" turbos. Some of them were even revved up to 14,000 rpms (with electric water pumps, since that is the real limitation on RPMs...cavitation). I will give the Germans credit for an ingenious idea, but i must hold my head in shame for the japanese to put such an engine in a car. Unfortunately, i think the design is flawed in that it cannot be reliably sealed. I have heard the same from the owners of such cars. The aftermarket has plenty of copper gaskets that boost sealing, but the end result is the same...burns oil at 50k and blows up at 100k. They lack torque and make poor power at anything less than excessive RPMs. The wankel, in my opinion, is best suited for model airplane engines (i think that's what you got there, right mavaholic?) and smaller applications. I don't think that the 4-cycle engine is the ultimate design or anything, i just think the rotary has reliability issues that can't be solved. Only the swipe of a finger on the back of an RX-8 after a year on the road will tell the real story (the things are ugly IMO anyways, i have yet to see a buyer).
In reality though, i think if Mazda thought it was such a great design, they'd have it in all their cars, wouldn't they?

 

I believe the Wankel engine was designed around 1936. Not sure when it first appeared, mabey eary 1960's in Motorcycles. If the rotary had as much testing and refinements as a piston engine, there would be no question as to which was the better engine.( rotary would win , no questions about it.In a piston engine, the piston has to (stop) and change direction every time it reaches the top or botom of its stroke. With the valves doing the same thing, look at all the wear possibilities there are. The rotary spins round and roundand far as I know nothing has to change direction. Take equally new piston and rotary engines and floorboard them both just sitting there and see which one comes apart 1st. Nostalga tells me I like the v8's the best, but have to admit the rotary is one hell of a design. Jan

 

I had always heard the rotary engine is inefficient because of the large surface area in the combustion chamber. Heat is wasted through the surface instead of used to push the rotor. Special coatings were tried to keep in the heat but they would rub of causing sealing problems.

 

The rotary engine is HIGHLY efficient, it gets 3 power strokes to one revolution, vs our 1 power stroke to every 4 revolutions.

I have mixed feelings about the engine though, and in the end, decide I still like the SOUND that cannot be achieved without large displacement, and that ends that for me.

 

Ah, Jeremy, thats 1 power stroke for every 2 revolutions.

 

oops, has been a while since I read up on the rotary's, I was pretty sure it was one power per one revolution, but I guess I am wrong.