Were you aware that the AMC pacer was originally intended to be sold with a front wheel drive with a rotary engine? I did not but was watching "full throttle" and this was pointed out that AMC bought plans for a rotary set up but were unable to make it run properly so scrapped the design for a six cylinder instead.

Now thats interesting, someone should buy one and right the wrongs that were made in the past.

Nah, It's to ******* ugly.

https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...1047683485.gif

Get one, install a rotary and keep it correct wheel drive.

doesn't mercedes have a rotary project going, or did, or something?

i think everyone has had a rotary design at one point or another.

they had a big 4 rotor midengine prototype in the early 70's, i think they built 3 of em?

Chevy Monza was also designe to accept GM's rotary

imagine the shame if this was the view of the car in a race

http://www.fengsh.de/Pacer01.jpg

http://www.monito.com/wankel/corvette.htmlThe Corvette and the vega also were candidates.

yes!

yea, GM, benz, a whole bunch of companies were working on them for a while... the aerovette concept originally had a 3 rotor in it the first time it went on display. And no one can forget the NSU lol

http://autooboz.site.kz/foto/nsu/nsu_ro80(1968).jpg

The way I understand it, AMC was going to use GM's rotary, which was also supposed to go in the Vega. GM cancelled the program, and both cars were screwed over.

Yes! I knew that.

In the late 60's and very early 70's, the Wankel was thought to be the "engine of the future" and all the major players had big R&D programs. On the eve of the '73 oil embargo, I believe the GM offerings were less than a year away from being built and sent to dealers.

[quote name='1988RedT2' date='Mar 14 2005, 10:57 AM']Yes! I knew that.

In the late 60's and very early 70's, the Wankel was thought to be the "engine of the future" and all the major players had big R&D programs. On the eve of the '73 oil embargo, I believe the GM offerings were less than a year away from being built and sent to dealers.


[/quote]



Ahh, you said it before I could. I got a very informative "Rotary" Book for X-mas from a friend.



I read some of its history, and there were MANY companies interested in the Rotary engine from the start. It was during an era where Pistons were a lot less reliable and they felt an engine with less reciprocating parts would be more efficient, and the whole idea of a constant spin was extravagant!



So, many companies invested some money/time and of course had Idea's/Plans...but to produce a mass amount of these meant changing all their facilities, factories, etc.



Matter-of-Factly, the only reason Mazda didn't pull out was because it had invested TOO MUCH into it. It's kinda odd to read of Mazda's "Love" of the rotary, when you know in the back of your mind that they only stayed with it because they couldn't afford not to in the beginning... https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...>/rolleyes.gif https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub..._DIR#>/dry.png https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...IR#>/wacko.png

I doubt the reasons conjectured above are the full story. What about the big one; emissions?

[quote name='Jeff20B' date='Mar 14 2005, 03:37 PM']I doubt the reasons conjectured above are the full story. What about the big one; emissions?


[/quote]



Wow, you doubt it was the full story? How'd you guess?!?!? I mean, i thought most novels/books were 1-3 paragraphs long too!



Haha, J/M. Yes, emissions too. I left that out because....I forgot.

They had emissions testing in the 60's? https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...DIR#>/ohmy.png

Im not aware of it in the 60's. Catalytic converters werent even a requirment until 72 or 74? some where in there.

I was under the impression that it was fuel consumption/lack of efficiency that kept the rotary engine out of other automobile manufacturer's projects

i wanna get a Pacer and build the back into an aqarium so my fish can cruise with me....

[quote name='89 Rag' date='Mar 14 2005, 04:03 PM']I was under the impression that it was fuel consumption/lack of efficiency that kept the rotary engine out of other automobile manufacturer's projects


[/quote]



I agree. Clearly, it was higher fuel consumption that killed the widespread rotary development which was taking place on the eve of the 1973 oil embargo. Emissions were also becoming more of a concern to the EPA, so that didn't help the rotary's cause.

late 70's meant the end of the musclecar and the beginning of many fine dodge products that unfortunately still grace our fine roads :puke:

seems like every company had plans with the rotary, just none could get the damn thing to work.

[quote name='Eric Happy Meal' date='Mar 15 2005, 01:21 AM']seems like every company had plans with the rotary, just none could get the damn thing to work.


[/quote]



Indeed. Most stood shocked with the exact face your avatar implies...simply astounding!

[quote name='Jeff20B' date='Mar 14 2005, 11:37 AM']I doubt the reasons conjectured above are the full story. What about the big one; emissions?


[/quote]



Actually, back in the early 70's when emissions standards were first coming into play the Mazda rotaries were exceptional on emissions because of the thermal reactor. Compared to free flowing piston motors rotaries were green.

[quote name='Tom93R1' date='Mar 15 2005, 12:21 PM']Actually, back in the early 70's when emissions standards were first coming into play the Mazda rotaries were exceptional on emissions because of the thermal reactor. Compared to free flowing piston motors rotaries were green.


[/quote]

what killed it then? EPA fuel economy standards?

[quote name='Sinful7' date='Mar 15 2005, 02:24 PM']what killed it then? EPA fuel economy standards?


[/quote]



I believe it was durability and cooling issues

[quote name='Rob x-7' date='Mar 15 2005, 03:03 PM']I believe it was durability and cooling issues


[/quote]

NO!!! https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...DIR#>/ohmy.png

GASP?! I thought 1.3s were good on gas, easy to cool and lasted forever!

maybe just durability and smoke issues, I dont know, lol



I still have not read my Wankel Engine book

The reason no one (except Mazda) stuck around to work out the various challenges inherent in developing a new engine technology was ultimately the Wankel's appetite for fuel. Naturally, at the time there were longevity issues also, but I think everyone knew that these would be worked out, and of course, they were.

[quote name='1988RedT2' date='Mar 16 2005, 07:19 AM']Naturally, at the time there were longevity issues also, but I think everyone knew that these would be worked out, and of course, they were.


[/quote]

Aye, but what about ol' Shamas. Who's gonna be lovin' he? Is you? Or you? :shiftyeyed:

Collectors Car Book entry on the Pacer:



For:



Oozes '70's character

Dirt Cheap

Attrition may work in it's favor

Edsels and Corvairs weren't collected once, either



Against:



Oozes '70's character

Compromises everywhere, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.

All the major auto companies bought licenses from NSU (NSU still to this day owns Felix Wankel's patents) to make rotary engines but most bailed out because there was already 100+ years of reciprocating piston research and development. The rotary was no more than a novelty with potential. But that potential did not out weigh the shortcomings.



Rotaries were too fickle and fragile in the 60's 70s. NSU owners for example used to hold up a finger (as they passed each other on the highway) for each time they had to rebuild the engine because the apex seals were too fragile.



These reliability issues, lack of R&D when compared to reciprocating pistons, and low fuel economy helped to ensure that most auto manufacturers viewed the rotary as a novelty.