rotarychainsaw

I hate math! you know what I meant tho.

ROTARYROCKET7

you have problems if something like that bothers you that much. [/quote]

GUESS I DO..

rotorbrain

the thing i thought was funny about this jerks article was his idea of how to make low-end torqe on a rotary. he says to widen the rotors (new/more expensive cast), make it all out of aluminum, and add the magic power port. hes relating a rotory engine to his idea of a piston engine. wanting to add that displacement. he doesnt understand that a nonturbo rotary is gonna have inherent lack of low-end torque. he also talked about adding direct injection. right between the spark plugs. . . obviously, this slug hasnt ever changed spark plugs on a rotary. is it me or would it be kinda hard to put injectors and a rail on that part of the engine. . . AAAAAAAAND he said something about having multiple fuel injectors. . . lets fit those in there as well. thats easy, eh? then lets think about how much heat theyd take in at that point. sitting right between the plugs. . . good idea. this guys a chump. his articles are exactly what the title states. . . . "technoBABBLE". just remember. . . theres one born every minute.



paul

manntis

Well... he's part right and part wrong on the suggested changes. When Mazda went from the 12A to the 13B in 1984, the torque went from being all in the top end to as flat as cake frosting, coming on at maximum well below 3,000 RPM and staying throughout the balance of the power band.



However, the direct injection idea is a bit off. By injecting the fuel in, then swirling it through rotor action prior to the combustion chamber you give more time for atomization of the fuel, as well as giving the cool droplets a bit of time to lower the intake air temperature giving a slightly more dense and therefore greater parts per million of oxygen.



Thing is, Mazda has stuck with 13B size for a long time. Why? Larger rotors become a point of diminishing returns. More inertia, longer apex seals, more unsupported eccentric shaft material to bend or distort at speed, etc. Better to put more effort into wringing out HP through intake and exhaust than bash the rotary in the kneecaps by trying to make it as prone to blowing up at high RPMs as a boinger does...

Shane.Trammell

the title of his article isnt even right. the rx8 isnt the next rx7.

BigTurbo74

how many times is this topic gonna come up?

9BASE3

It'll never end...

ROTARYROCKET7

what are you talking about this is in the may 2003 sport compact issue. Well sorry to inconvenience you but i never heard or seen this topic in any post so..

j9fd3s

yeah i thought it was funny when he said 6 injectors, cause the rx8 already has 6 injectors. mazda had alreay tried the direct injection in 81, and basically they put an injector over by the spark plugs.

alnother thing our buddy dave missed is that the nsu's were also rated like the mazda, so nsu is "lying" not mazda. the nsu wankel spider is 500something cc one rotor (pp), the seals from a pre 73 12a will almost fit.





mike

ZeroBanger

He can use is fuzzy math all he wants and draw charts, diagrams...the whole kit and cabbootle, he can even say that the "EFFECTIVE" displacement or PISTON EQUIVELANT displacement is 2.6 liters...In the end its NOT a piston engine, its a ROTARY and in terms of a ROTARY it is 1.3 liters and He can suck dirty filthly sweaty stinky donkey ***** if he doesn't agree cause Im right and hes wrong. He has been lying to you, sorry.