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.