Ontopic A Thread About Butt Mustard, For Those Who Drive Automobiles

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not a lot, really...
Reliability isn't there. They're not as efficient. They're not cheap to make, they're not mechanically simple. Making one pass emissions standards takes too much effort. They're compact but not by a whole lot, and their power/weight isn't significantly better or anything. They're a strange/interesting sort of engine, but I don't believe that justifies its continued use.

Mazda needs to bring back the turbo MZR and poke it in the Miata.
 
Reliability isn't there. They're not as efficient. They're not cheap to make, they're not mechanically simple. Making one pass emissions standards takes too much effort. They're compact but not by a whole lot, and their power/weight isn't significantly better or anything. They're a strange/interesting sort of engine, but I don't believe that justifies its continued use.

Mazda needs to bring back the turbo MZR and poke it in the Miata.

The rotary was outlawed after it won LeMans.
Wildly misinformed. :waw:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine
Wankel_Cycle_anim_en.gif
 
The rotary has had 1/100th of a penny to the dollar invested into the technology vs. the piston engine.
Because there are easier ways to get power/reliability/low-emissions/etc from a piston engine?

Homeopathy receives a minuscule fraction of the amount of money that real medicine receives, that's because real medicine works
 
Because there are easier ways to get power/reliability/low-emissions/etc from a piston engine?

Homeopathy receives a minuscule fraction of the amount of money that real medicine receives, that's because real medicine works

If people fought with their ears through the last hundred years we'd have the same results.
"OMG, FIGHT WITH FISTS?!?! THAT NONSENSE MAKES TOO MUCH SENSE!!1"

Seems to me like jet engines spin too. Hmm.
 
The reasons why the rotary were banned had nothing to do with the rotary. In '89 they started planning regulation changes that would have killed the rotary racing in that series, Mazda got concessions that allowed them to race in '91.

Pistons are wildly inefficient. There's no sound reason to argue this.
 
If people fought with their ears through the last hundred years we'd have the same results.
"OMG, FIGHT WITH FISTS?!?! THAT NONSENSE MAKES TOO MUCH SENSE!!1"

Seems to me like jet engines spin too. Hmm.
You've got to be trolling or something... You really think a turbine engine compares in any way to a Wankel other than they both use combustion of some sort of hydrocarbon to generate a rotational force?
 
You've got to be trolling or something... You really think a turbine engine compares in any way to a Wankel other than they both use combustion of some sort of hydrocarbon to generate a rotational force?

Ease of movement and economy of movement. Why don't watches use pistons? It's obnoxiously retarded and inefficient. There's no arguing this.
 
Now I don't mean to absolutely shit on the rotary - I absolutely love the 1st gen RX7's, they're a weird car with an eccentric engine and I love that.

There's a few fundamental limits with the rotary that you can't really fix. The long combustion chamber is the main one - it means more heat loss, long combustion time (unless you use many spark plugs) which limits emissions and RPM, and lastly gas condensation on the combustion chamber walls is the main reason they can't make the car meet emissions.
 
WAT

Watches don't need to make power, watches need to tell time.
And what does ease of/economy of movement have to do with this?

Ugh. Economy of motion is the pinnacle of a low power engine. This applies to cars just as much as watches. Less parts that need to be powered means more efficiency. The engine in my car is 1.3L and it makes 240hp. It's unfortunately an infant in the world of rotary engine design despite that insane output. Things are only getting better for the rotary as mentioned above. The next gen is going to be over 300hp and over 30mpg.
 
Ugh. Economy of motion is the pinnacle of a low power engine. This applies to cars just as much as watches. Less parts that need to be powered means more efficiency. The engine in my car is 1.3L and it makes 240hp. It's unfortunately an infant in the world of rotary engine design despite that insane output. Things are only getting better for the rotary as mentioned above. The next gen is going to be over 300hp and over 30mpg.

Then why does your car get gas mileage like a midrange 3 liter v6?
 
Then why does your car get gas mileage like a midrange 3 liter v6?

See above. It's an infant. Zillions of dollars have been put towards piston development. Less than a penny on the dollar to the piston. You can't compete with the science on a theoretical basis but the investment of money sure can. Why don't we have piston jet engines? We don't.
 
Last edited:
Because it's not actually a 1.3? Because Mazda says that it's a 1.3 when at any one time it has 3 "cylinders" moving, so it should actually be a 3.9L?

It's actually a 1.3L engine. There are no doubts about that. I'd have much more tq otherwise. :p That's why it's classified as a mid engine car because the engine is so small it sits behind the front wheels. It has a transverse mounted tranny as well so that puts everything that counts between the wheels. Spange rode a number of times in both the Z06 and the RX-8 and he thought the RX handled better. So there. :p

No, just douchery which you're well accustomed to driving a V6 Rustang. :lol:
doesn't get that much worse than its competitors.
Rx8- 22hwy
350z-25 hwy
S2000-25hwy

I average 16-18 and I drive mostly city and redline regularly. So change your tampon and accept it.
 
that's a 300hp, 30mpg hwy mustang that turns out is a capable drifter.

For the few times I feel the need to be stupid, which are less and less lately.
 
Last edited:
There can't be "3 cylinders" moving when it only has 2 rotors. There are 3 and 4 rotor RX cars though. This engine is so simple it's like stacking legos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.