least you cant put a piston through the head or a crankshaft out the side! and if you really wanna compare, make it fair. dont be hatin on rotary's. the standards use 2 rotors, when you have atleast double the pistons.
Just because you have an opinion of what you think is good or shit, doesnt make it right
guys stop the fighting.what you're doing is similar to comparing an japanese car with a german car. both totally different, but that doesnt make either one good or bad, wrong or right?
Have nothing against piston motors, nor do i against a rotary.. the rotary is extremely different, unique. that doesnt make it bad, even if they do have their own set of problems.
thts fucking awesome, rotary engines rule. and im not gonna be a tool and argue bout engine displacements wen noone gives a shit, think some people should watch the video and keep theyre opinions to themselves.
@andrewbradley130 why don't you want to argue bout engine displacements? Actually, arguments are great when you want to learn new stuff. The only thing that most people forget when they argue, is that they don't know EVERYTHING, and they should keep their mind open for new possibilities that they never thought of themselves. I argue ALOT on Youtube. And i don't do it to show off how smart i am, i do it to learn how other people think about something.
@Manoo62 well, i had no question. it's a fact that rotarys produce more horsepower at the same ccm and they got a much less chance to break, and can reach higher rpms....
@Blackrier93 The RX8 actually has a 3.9L engine making it very similar to the Nissan Z370 v6 which is slightly smaller at 3.7L however it produces about 100bhp more power, 100 lbft more torque and does about 10mpg more.
They are also very fragile engines (which must be religiously maintained) and you NEED to scream it to death to get any power out of it.
The red line at 9500rpm but so do many piston engines, F1 engines rev to 18,000rpm.
@BrooksWeg In 1 complete revolution of the engine it sucks in and burns 3.9L of air and fule. The 1.3L tag is just a sales gimmick to make the car sound more impressive.....because its not.
@petervsays For equivalency purposes you would rate it at 2/3 its capacity (2.6L) but that doesnt alter the fact that its still a 3.9L engine and drink fuel like a 3.9L.
Except it's not a 3.9L engine. Even though it has 3 combustion chambers per housing (each 654cc) it's not 3.9L because to complete a full combustion cycle in all the cambers each rotor needs to complete 1 1/3 rotations. That results in 4 rotations of the eccentric shaft and 4 rotation of the flywheel. In a piston engine a complete combustion cycle in all the cylinders results in just 2 rotations of the flywheel. So at best you could call it a 2.6L engine.
@Serothis Bollox, even common sense would tell you thats not true, each rotor completes three combustion cycles every 360 deg of rotation, its a 3.9L engine.
"each rotor completes three combustion cycles every 360 deg of rotation"
yes...except that it doesn't. clearly you lack the understanding in how the rotor head spins in the housing. BUT even if it was as clean cut as you put it, the eccentric shaft still rotates 3 times per rotation of the rotor head. which means that a complete combustion cycle spins the flywheel 1.5 times more than a piston engine after a complete combustion cycle. So even then the most you could say would be 3.2L
@Serothis The fact that the output shaft is geared 3:1 is totally irrelevant to its capacity. The capacity of any internal combustion engine is defined as the swept volume of one complete thermodynamic cycle. Which is why we dont double the size of a 2 stroke engine or reduce a rotary by 2/3. The only reason manufacturers do this is to make the engine appear more impressive because they know they'er actually crap (thats a clue why no one uses them)
So what you're saying is we should ignore the very real mechanics of the engine, specifically that it 2x the work per combustion cycle compared to a piston engine, and go with the conspiracy theory that the engineers are simply lying about their engine. A lie that would have been immediately picked up by any emissions or consumer protection regulatory agency like the EPA or the BBB.
So would you say flat-4 engines are crap too because only Subaru uses them? What about any W engine?
@Serothis You seem to be struggling with the facts, the capacity is simply a measure of the internal geometry of which there is no doubt. The 1.3L claim is a marketing gimmick to fool the gullible which seems to work quite well. As always with you rotary nuts you want to ignor the obvious, perhaps you would like to name ANY main stream example of a rotary engine in currently use?
Really? I'm struggling with facts? explain then how 4 rotations of the flywheel = 2 rotations. Explain how no automotive, emissions, business or even racing regulatory agency has taken the same stance as you. But most importantly explain how the entire interior space of the rotor housing with the rotor head removed STILL doesn't measure up to 3.9L.
@Serothis "4 rotations of the flywheel = 2 rotations" no idea what your going on about. No automotive, emissions, business or even racing regulatory agency thinks its a 1.3L. The facts your struggling with are very simple, Mazda quote the chamber size as 654cc it has three on each of 2 rotors i.e 6 x 654 = 3924cc. Which means it sucks in and burns 3.9L of fuel and air every complete rotation, how simple does it have to be?
@Manoo62 I'm going on about the fact that the wankel does 2x the work per combustion cycle. Every single automotive, emissions and business regulatory agency says it's 1.3L. Even racing agencies rate it at 2.6L NOT 3.9L. How about this, the rotor center line is 105mm and depth of 80mm that means the 2 circles that were used to draw the epitrochoid have a radius of 70mm & 35mm respectively. So each housing is 1539cc (3078cc total). take into account the e-shaft, where is this extra magical liter?
@Serothis As I have said, no automotive, emissions, business regulatory or racing authority rates it as a 1.3L. In the european engine of the year competition it was in the 2.5 to 3.0L class. For COMPARISON to a 4 stroke engine most would use the 2/3 capacity rule and call it a 2.6L but that DOES NOT change the engines REAL capacity of 3.9L.
Are you now saying Mazdas on figure for chamber volume is wrong? where do you think they get 1308cc from?????
@Serothis As I have said, no automotive, emissions, business regulatory or racing authority rates it as a 1.3L. In the european engine of the year competition it was in the 2.5 to 3.0L class. For COMPARISON to a 4 stroke engine most would use the 2/3 capacity rule and call it a 2.6L but that DOES NOT change the engines REAL capacity of 3.9L.
Are you now saying Mazdas on figure for chamber volume is wrong? where do you think they get 1308cc from????
On the discussion wether or not rotaries are crap; they are amazing pieces of engineering. Why you ask? 1. Very low weight compared to conventional piston engines 2. Amazing horsepower efficiency, from the amount of displacement 3. Very few moving parts 4. silky-smooth power transfer. People are just scared of them because of the fact that they aren't mainstream. Just like electrical cars or hydrogen. Don't be scared of what you don't know, have a taste of it first ;).
1. 500lbs poor? every ounce matters in Motorsport!
2. the horsepower is piss poor? most racing organisations count them as double their true displacement as they have such a great horsepower weight ratio.
3. They are used in a variety of stationary engines, garden applications, motorbikes etc. They have been replaced with 4 strokes because they are more refined, at the cost of power.
4. The torque curve is almost flat meaning it can accelerate harder than a equivalent piston engine.
@fatboyslinky The RX8 has 2 rotors with 3 chambers formed on each side, each chamber is quoted by Mazda as 654cc x 3 x 2 = 3924cc. So in 1 complete revolution of the rotor it draws in and ignites 3.9L of fuel and air, it seems pretty clear that its a 3.9L
@Manoo62 do you understand wankel engines? There is one lobe, no 'chambers'. The area where the rotor holds the fuel is what is counted, not the intake, compression or exhaust positions. Therefore the engine is a 1.3. If you check the specs you will find it is a 2 x 654 which is 1308cc engine. Unless you fancy arguing with Mazda themselves that is....
@6joshh6 Yes I understand rotary engines but clearly you dont. All three sides of the rotor ignite 654cc of fule and air every revolution and there are 2 rotor, simple. Mazda quote 1308cc as a sales gimmick so the gullible will think the engine sounds impressive because they know its not. Google "rotary displacement" click on the first site and read para 3.
@Manoo62 wow you can google? The Japanese car companies agreed it was, your opinion doesn't matter. It is rated a 1.3. In my opinion the sky is pink but that is opinion. I think there would have been lawsuits if mazda had being mis selling engines for the last 30 years.....
@Manoo62 1. That's the weight difference between a wankel stock and a similar 4 stroke made by Mazda. 800hp is possible from a twin rotor, that sort of hp/weight is unheard of
2. as above its a 1.3 and even if it was a 3.9 800hp is possible which isn't shabby. 3.9 Rover V8's produced less than 200hp.
4. Look at the racing RX8's . Then come back.
They haven't had the R&D that 4 strokes have, never mind the huge budgets. You don't have to get one but at least accept the amazing engineering.
@6joshh6 1. 800bhp isnt remotely possible without adding turbos which is a whole new ball game. 1.5L F1 turbo engines from the early 80's were producing more than that.
2. As above when you add turbo you can have any power you want, piston or rotary so pointless comparison.
4. Which non turbo race engines are you thinking of?
They've had little development because engineers recognise the severe limitations of rotary technology long ago. Ford, BMW, Mercedes have all considered and rejected them.
@Manoo62 1. Drive an F1 engine 100,000 miles. Tuned otary engines will do that with regular services.
2. Not true, physics sets in at a point and usually turbos don't defy physics. Unless you know something the rest of us don't.
4. The Hurley rotary triple rotor. 315 lbs and 600 BHP.
Ford etc have massive investments in four stokes. A rotary would have to be miraculous. Rotaries have massive advantages which you completely ignore. Don't bother replying to this as I won't waste any more time.
@6joshh6 1. How long would an 800bhp twin rotor last? bearing in mind the 767B four rotor Le Mans car had to be detuned to 700 bhp to last the 3000 mile race.
2. Nobody said infinite power dummy, the obvious limitations are the same for both engines.
4. The triple rotor 315lb Hurley RX-777 motor produces 250bhp!
"massive advantages" yeh right, clearly not.
Ford etc will invest in any technology which gives them an advantage, obviously they could see NO ADVANTAGE in using rotary's.
@6joshh6 You never thought it slightly odd that an engine with "massive advantages" as you put it, is not used in any main stream applications other than the RX?? Even Mazda only bother to use the engine in one car!!!
The Mazda MX5 is regarded as one of the best small sports cars in the world....and doesnt have a rotary engine, funny that.
@Manoo62 i can tell you what the major problem with rotary...that little 1.3 can suck as much gas as a v8...so thats why i wouldnt buy one...but it does make a great race car engine
@Manoo62 yeah, ill give you your answer...fuel consumption, oil consumption and maintenance required, most folk are too lazy or to quick to cry about fuel costs to make this an engine thats used in all cars, so instead, mazda make the amazing engine uniquely held to a few cars...for the people that dont have a good cry to themselves about fuel prices or the fact that they have to maintain the car more than your average 2 litre piston alternative......Rotories for the hardcore intricate drivers
@Manoo62 \its a great RACING engine, but its unreliable and has horrible emissions and gas mileage. Alot of maitenance is needed as well. Thats kinda the reasons why they are not used in everyday cars.. 90% of the world dont give a shit about how much hp their car makes. They just want a good,reliable, high mpg car. Rotarys do not provide any of those characteristics. The rotary design is simple and great for motorsport though.
@mmdaniels33 Your missing the point, if rotary's had anything to offer that was better than piston engines then piston engines would have died out, they havent. The reliability would have been ironed out if it was worth pursuing, its not. If rotary's were any good for racing then everyone would be using them, and they're not. They only compete with piston engines when massive capacitys are used i.e. the 3.9L RX8 which is why they drink fuel.
@Manoo62 Reliability Only 1 company has stuck with it and used it throughout the years and it looks like they are the ones benefiting from it. Reliability is slowly getting better in them and so i gas mileage and oil consumption. 3.9L? lol wtf? A 2.0 3 rotor turbo will decimate 99% of cars on the road. Go read a book kid, for racing purposes.. A wankel is unbeatable L for L. Manufacturers dont use them because its not worth their time now. As i said before..
@Manoo62 MPG,reliability,oil consumption etc are all problems in the engine. We are now at an era where the gasoline engine as we know it is becoming extinct anyway. Why the fuck would companies all of a sudden start switching to rotary engines when, they are the worst out there for 99% of peoples concerns. You are an idiot.. Its a simple design and is extremley hard to make any advances in engineering on it. For hp numbers.. its a powerband monster.
@Manoo62 I dont know why your arguing with me either. Its simple knowledge if your a car guy.. also the maitenance required on a wankel is on par with ferraris engines. And most people that own them dont understand and know how to properly take care of them. Hence all the problems. Seriously, just go read a book, if your doubting the wankel.. your an absolute moron. Ooo and "why its not used in a miata"? Lmao. Nvm, i wont even get into that. What a stupid thing to say though.
@mmdaniels33 As usual with you rotary fan boys your only fans because you dont know anything about rotary's. The ONLY, ONLY advantage of a rotary is its light weight in every other respect there crap. They are very very inefficient engines unless run at constant high speed. They produce piss poor power for their capacity which is why the RX needs 3.9L to compete with piston engine half the size. A 2.0L 3 rotor turbo!!! what could you get from a 5.8L turbo piston engine do you think?
@Manoo62 And as usual people like you who bag them also know nothing about them. Go do some research before you start a multi-comment argument about something you know little about.
@SDET1000 Oh I see your one of the clowns who thinks the RX is a 1.3L ha ha ha. Try googling 'rotary displacement' and look at the first site rx7.com. Come back when you know what your talking about, shit head.
@Manoo62 nah... Ill come back and talk to you in 10 years when your a bit more grown up. You have to revert to calling me names because you actually don't know any real facts :) What are you.... 12? Get a life kid.
@SDET1000 If you had anything intelligent to say you would have said it by now. Do your homework next time before you open your big mouth. Now run along sonny your clearly out of your depth.
@SDET1000 Ha ha ha keep digging that hole arsewipe your making yourself look dumber with every post. I have pointed you at the facts but your too thick to understand them, you just blab the same old shit. You offer no intellegent response because you dont know what your talking about sonny. Go away and find out why the RX is a 3.9L engine, you might even realise why it has the fuel consumption of a 3.9L engine...yer thick cunt.
@Manoo62 Not at all. The 13B at all times can only use 2 combustion faces together, you can only ever utilize 1308cc. If your going to add the total volume together, it will come out to be 3.9L. You may be right about fuel consumption, but this isnt like a piston engine where each cylinder goes through 4 strokes within few crankshaft turns. I own an fc, and bought it knowing that it gets bad gas mileage. Did I say I cared? no. And dont sit here an tell me Im thick.. listen you yourself talk.
@SDET1000 !!!??!!!!? eh? a 4 cyl 2.0L piston engine only ever 'utilises' 1 piston at a time do we call it a 500cc...?...er NO. The only reason Mazda try to tell everyone its a 1.3 is because the the truth would make the engine look crap...which it is.
@Manoo62 Because rotary engines are impractical, and cost alot to produce. That alone doesnt mean that they are horrible worthless engines. ONCE AGAIN why dont you get your facts straight before you argue.
@Manoo62 Actually, if you look into the Wankel engine, both Chevrolet and Mercedes own patents on the rotary (look up rentech/mercedes rotaries). What a lot of people dont know is that the "stingray" years of the corvette, were actually tested with a 12a based 4 rotor.
@Manoo62 The economy is why we don't use them much but if they had the constant development that the 4 stroke has had, they would be a better option. The first 4 strokes didn't get above 20mpg and neither do the first Wankels.
@Manoo62 heyy dickhead who is talking about planes and generators ? and as if Mercedes would use a rotary ? Mazda created the rotary and still use it ! TOP GEAR SEEM TO LIKE THE ROTARY !!
@23jovanovski Several manufacturers such as Ford and BMW looked at using rotary engines but discounted them as there crap. Despite several manufacturers making them they are still not used widely for anything.. because their crap. Mazda didnt create the rotary they have merely devolped it in recent years because no one else was interested in them...because their crap.
@Manoo62 rotaries are great.. Just wanted to know your experience driving a rotary (if you have) and what you know about them because I think you are speaking sh*t.......
@23jovanovski WRONG several companies make rotary engines, Mercedes have a pattent they choose to do nothing with. Chevy are considering using one to power a generator and Audi are looking at doing the same. They are also made in small numbers for the light aircraft industry, all of which are niche markets.
Suck my dick cunt! I can put up vids of my cars if ud like but that wont solve the fact you think the rotary engine is shit! i dont care anways i was pissed and stoned and dont care what u think i was trying to give you a insight to them.. keep on hating! Hater!
Ae brother listen i just read through all the comments.. If your big thing is they are shit because they produce too many emmisions i laugh at u n say good! hahaha your a gimp! I hope they dont bring out any other rotary engines except for a new series 9 rx7 that would do me just great! and then let us fellahs over here in Aus n Nz turn them into firebreathing racing machines =]..GO THA ROTORS!!!! =]
theres plenty of ways to blow them up and plenty of ways to do them up... I just feel you dont know about them and are trying to diss them! Just jumping on the bandwagon ya know!....to just simply say that rotors are shit or whaever is Bullshit.. Its as stupid as saying all piston engines are shit....Seeee its bullshit yeah... Because every motor whether piston or rotary is different.. you cant slag sumthin off when you dont know about it you get me???
IMO rotary engines only have bad names becasue you can work on them yourself and people that think they know what there doing but dont build one n run her lean n she pops ( There's plenty of reasons)..So far iv,e got 45k out of my j port 12a carby... runs low 12's and with Micky Thompson et streets i have run a 11.87... all in all if you know what your doing with them and who built them they will last ... its a passion but you either love um or you hate um =]
@Manoo62 Brother first off this rx8 has a 20b so its not stock.. second in my opinion i would never by an rx8 for the motor i would love one with a 20b but to much dollars for me! I Do not like 13b renesis motors that come in rx8s just to clear that up! ....mate its simple u spend about 2-3 grand on a 12a or 13b (From early model rx7 or rx2'3'4s etc as long as the housings are ok get someone who knows what there doing to port her balance her n all d rest of it n you'v got screamer.......
and now i just read some of your other comments and i think your a tool! Hahahah stop trying to diss rotary engines ya wally! you obviously have no experience with them! If you like piston motors but not 2 strokes pistons engines or rotarys good on you bro! But stop trying to diss when you know nothing about them! Only probably what you've read on the net ya gimp! =]
@SoWhnDoUThnkUrGrwnUp Since you think they are so good perhaps you could name me any main stream example of this 'great' engine being used, other than the RX8?
@Manoo62 Yeah and i live in Australia and love driving my ported rotors on the street! I love the smell of the rotor fumes =]. and Go 2 Strokes! =] Hahah Peace! =]
Who gives a shit. The thing drives so well and the motor revs to 9k. Because race car. 'Nuff said. There are trade offs for awesome and I enjoy the smoothness of the motor, the UFO idle sound, and the outstanding balance of the car. Not to mention I can drive to events with a full set of R-Comps in the back seats. I agree with Manoo62 in determining displacement. Please read the design
Wow lots of dumb posts in the comments, rotors are nice engines, let's put it at that and leave it alone. :P The 787B's engine had an incredible low center of gravity and was barred from le Mans due to unfair weight to power ratio
@sookster54 If rotary engines are so good perhaps you can explain why the only main stream example of this engine is in the RX8, which is currently out of production, or are you too bumb to work that one out?
Like most race classes the Le Mans has a fixed lower weight limit so all the cars weigh the same. They were banned at the same time as the turbos and the v12s they all went out on engine capacity being too large.
ALL YOU DUMB FUCKS SAYING A 13B IS A 3.9lt ENGINE HERE IS A QUESTION. WHY DO MAZDA, THE PRODUCER OF THE ENGINE CALL IT A 1.3l??? BECAUSE IT IS!!!!! FUCK YOU CUNTS ARE DUMB!!!
The rx8 has 2 rotors, each has 3 sides, each chamber has a volume of 654cc whcih makes a total of 3.9lts. A good comparison would be the Z370 V6 which has 100 fl lbs more torque, 100 bhp more and does about 10 mpg more.
All this bullshit about how reliable piston engines are, when in fact the rotary engined cars won hands down in the 24 hour LeMans race! Yet after the mechanics tore down the engines, they said it could have easily do another Le Mans race without any rebuilding! Can't say the same for piston engines.
@Barbarian216.. people underestimate rotary engines... @lifes2short4aname 3.9L where u get your facts from. I have a r8x r3 1.3L producing 231hp as stock. dual rotor doesn't make that 3.9L or even 2.6L.
Le mans proves it all about rotary engines.
and you very stupid if you think rotary engines are crap. do you think the first every piston engine was amazing reliable or fast? ofcourse not.
@YouAlreadyKnow27 The rx8 has a 3.9L engine but only produces 230bhp. Mazad call it a 1.3L so dumbasses like you will think its impressive.
The Le Mans car was one of the slowest in the race but won by putting in more laps. It was also considerably detuned by Mazda due to reliability issues and fuel problems.
Rotary's have been around for over 50 years and have gone nowhere for a good reason, they have no advantage over piston engine other than size.
each too there own (piston or rotor)) .... rotary's rock. problem is they spend more time at the mechanics than on the road.. my ultimate car is datsun 1200 ute with sr20 road car.... if someone can help me find 1200 ute in aus, holler please
if you care about emissions so much buy yourself a smart...dumbass. When you consider that supercars have engines that; burn a lot of gas, have high power output to weight ratios, and are never made to outlast anything else on the car, then the rotaries are the perfect supercar engines. Honestly I don't know why no one before RSC has thought of using the rotary as the powerplant for a supercar.
@lifes2short4aname I dont care about emissions at all. There is a good reason why the rx8 is the only example of a mainstream rotary engine...their crap. The rx8 has a 3.9Ltr engine, drinks petrol like a 3.9Ltr engine yet only produces the power and torque of a 2-2.5Ltr. Dumbasses think they are only 1.3Ltr and so think they are great. Insurance companies, sports governing bodies and other car manufacturers are not so dumb, does that answer your question?
@Manoo62 One thing that you haven't considered is that a 3.5L engine usually weighs over 400 lbs whereas the 2 rotor in the rx8 only weighs 285 lbs. Indeed a 370z weighs 3300 lbs whereas an rx8 weighs 2880 (an rx7 even less at 2800 lbs). So a more accurate comparison is it drinks petrol like a v6, produces the power of a v6 but weighs much less. Thats what I was trying to convey to you. I want you to take back calling them crap and I'll take back calling you dumbass.
@lifes2short4aname The ONLY advantage that rotary's have are size and weight which is why their main market is microlight aircrafts. Mazda pursue it in cars for novelty value only. The 370z is a good bit heavier than an rx8 but then it produces 100bhp more and 100 ftlb more from a slightly smaller engine and has better mpg.....
@Manoo62 you say the 370 has a slightly smaller engine when I already told you the rotary engine weighs over a hundred pounds less than a conventional v6 That weight is what lets the rx8 compete against a 370z. Both do the 0-60 within less than a second of each other in a straight line. In fact they have the exact same lap times on the top gear test track. So stop using the argument that the 370 has 100hp more when it's relative.
@lifes2short4aname The rx7 only made 270bhp with twin turbos attached! The Mitsubishi 3000GT twin turbo from the same era made 320bhp from a way smaller CAPACITY engine. More recently the Noble M12 3.0L twin turbo v6 produces 400bhp as std and is a shit load better and faster than the nasty rx7, keep dreaming.
@Manoo62 my goodness how naive you are. Do you understand how turbos work? How much power they help the engine develop depends on the pressure. A 13b fd can easily develop over 400 hp. I'm going to stop arguing with you now because I just realized how little you know about cars. Also the gto weighs 3600lbs and, again, the rx7 only 2800. Thats a difference of almost a ton. And I don't understand why you think that the v6 in the gto is a "way smaller capacity" engine when it isn't.
@lifes2short4aname That was my point, as soon as you start adding turbos you can have almost any power figure you want. Saying the rx7 was making 270bhp (with two turbos) is stupid and not in any way impressive, quite the opposite. 3.9L plus 2 turbos and it only made 270bhp! the GT & Noble are only 3.0L. The noble only weighs around 2400lb however the issue is the engine not the car.
LOL when are you going to stop staying that the RX-8 is a 3.9L engine? It's a 1.3L engine, that burns oil in the mixture (yes, that part is what hurts emissions) at a rate of a power stroke per revolution (just like a two stroke). They are in no way worse than two strokes, and the mileage is not as bad as you put it. If anything you have said up until now made any sense, Mazda wouldn't have won the 24 Hours of Le Mans on a quad rotor powered group C car. The mileage is good enough.
@corotor12345 It is what it is! It sucks in and burns 3.9L of fuel and air every revoloution, end of.
After 17 previous attempts Mazda had a huge 170kg weight advantage in the 1991 Le Mans due to the age of the car. This tipped the balance far enough in their favour for them to win.
No it doesn't. It will pump 1.3L of air per revolution (minus some losses due to volumetric efficiency. Plus the right amount of fuel), that is THE DEFINITION of displacement. You may be confusing that with the fact that insurance companies will treat a wankel as a larger engine. Also take into account that there have been many confusions regarding the nomenclature of rotary Mazda engines. AND that you can alter the gearing to have more power strokes per RPM.
@corotor12345 You obviously dont know much about rotary engines, capacity is defined as the swept volume for one thermodynamic cycle i.e one full revolution of the engine. The chamber volume of the RX8 is 654cc it has 3 chambers on each of the 2 rotors so thats 654 x3 x2 = 3924cc. Mazda choose to quote the volume of only 2 of the chamber to make the rotary sound more impressive, they have to do this or people would realise they'er crap.
And you obviously have no common sense. Jesus, if you measured the amount of air that went into the engine in one single revolution, you'd see that it's 1.3 liters.
@corotor12345 So you have absolutely nothing to back up you comments other than 'its a 1.3, just believe me'........prove it, after all its SO obvious you should have no problem at all.....
Oh of course. I'll just go and pull a random 13B outta my ass, then take a trip over to you, then present to you my findings. Look at a god damned animation. Watch how no matter how many tips the rotor has, or how much it's moving, it will only perform one intake stroke per RPM. And I mean eccentric shaft RPM, not a complete rotor revolution. Maybe that's where we're failing to understand each other.
@corotor12345 So as usual you only want to count the displacement of 1/3 the revolution of the rotor, how very convenient. The fact that the output shaft is geared down 3:1 has no effect on the engine displacement. A piston engine only displaces half its volume in one rev of the crank but we dont half its capacity because that would be ridiculous. But you think its reasonable to do that for a rotary...why?....so the engine LOOKS more impressive perhaps?
Well then in that case you do have a solid point. You ARE right, and I should've seen that coming. Anyways your argument is sound, and I was being stupid. Have fun, be smart.
@allwheeldrive1 All new CARS have to comply with Euro 5 emmission regs, the rx8 doesnt. There havent been many 2 stroke cars, they didnt catch on either, even though they are better engines than rotary's....there might be a clue there.
@belgiumlife Banned means their not imported by Mazda anymore!!!!!! it doent mean someone comes and removes them all off the street!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@belgiumlife They are not imported into Europe at all, it must be really really old stock. Production has long since stopped, hes bought a 2-3 year old car.
@HBXTQ1990 There are lots of RX8's in Europe but they stopped importing them over 2 years ago due to Euro 5 emission regs....Issued by the EUROPEAN parliment, get with the program.
@Manoo62 You are the dummy my friend, no more could be produced for import, you can personally import them legally, otherwise you couldn't import classic cars etc. That is by no means a ban on them, and if mazda wanted they could easily meet euro 5 with a revised model, but they are waiting for the launch of the new rx-7 which should be here by 2013 and will comply with euro 6.
@6joshh6 All car MANUFACTURED after Sep 2009 have to comply with Euro V, it doesnt matter if its a personal import, classics tend to have been made earlier than that dummy. Whether any new rotary's from mazda comlpy with Euro 6 remains to be seen, they are 2 years away at the earliest.
least you cant put a piston through the head or a crankshaft out the side! and if you really wanna compare, make it fair. dont be hatin on rotary's. the standards use 2 rotors, when you have atleast double the pistons.
Just because you have an opinion of what you think is good or shit, doesnt make it right
shazaindahouse 1 month ago
guys stop the fighting.what you're doing is similar to comparing an japanese car with a german car. both totally different, but that doesnt make either one good or bad, wrong or right?
Have nothing against piston motors, nor do i against a rotary.. the rotary is extremely different, unique. that doesnt make it bad, even if they do have their own set of problems.
shazaindahouse 1 month ago
numbers??
mtohlen 1 month ago
thts fucking awesome, rotary engines rule. and im not gonna be a tool and argue bout engine displacements wen noone gives a shit, think some people should watch the video and keep theyre opinions to themselves.
andrewbradley130 3 months ago
@andrewbradley130 why don't you want to argue bout engine displacements? Actually, arguments are great when you want to learn new stuff. The only thing that most people forget when they argue, is that they don't know EVERYTHING, and they should keep their mind open for new possibilities that they never thought of themselves. I argue ALOT on Youtube. And i don't do it to show off how smart i am, i do it to learn how other people think about something.
Tobiasoaz 3 months ago
shitt man
GEILOMATSEEl 4 months ago
ok seriously i couldnt tell if the car was redlining or if it couldnt get into gear
2010LILROSS 4 months ago
@2010LILROSS -->wheelspin in 1st & 2nd gear...didn't get traction till 3rd.
DAMDriver 4 months ago
really don't know what people say against rotarys. at the same ccm they produce soooooo much more horsepower!
Blackrier93 5 months ago
@Blackrier93 You may have answered your own question, They are far less efficient than four strokes and produce a lot less power.
Manoo62 5 months ago
@Manoo62 well, i had no question. it's a fact that rotarys produce more horsepower at the same ccm and they got a much less chance to break, and can reach higher rpms....
Blackrier93 5 months ago
@Blackrier93 The RX8 actually has a 3.9L engine making it very similar to the Nissan Z370 v6 which is slightly smaller at 3.7L however it produces about 100bhp more power, 100 lbft more torque and does about 10mpg more.
They are also very fragile engines (which must be religiously maintained) and you NEED to scream it to death to get any power out of it.
The red line at 9500rpm but so do many piston engines, F1 engines rev to 18,000rpm.
Manoo62 5 months ago
@Manoo62
Pretty sure the RX8 has a 1.3L
BrooksWeg 5 months ago
@BrooksWeg In 1 complete revolution of the engine it sucks in and burns 3.9L of air and fule. The 1.3L tag is just a sales gimmick to make the car sound more impressive.....because its not.
Manoo62 5 months ago
@Manoo62 the "1.3L" is more like 2.7L and has been acknowledged by NHRA
petervsays 4 months ago
@petervsays For equivalency purposes you would rate it at 2/3 its capacity (2.6L) but that doesnt alter the fact that its still a 3.9L engine and drink fuel like a 3.9L.
Manoo62 4 months ago
@Manoo62 =P just my 2cents from what i was told.
petervsays 4 months ago
@Manoo62
Except it's not a 3.9L engine. Even though it has 3 combustion chambers per housing (each 654cc) it's not 3.9L because to complete a full combustion cycle in all the cambers each rotor needs to complete 1 1/3 rotations. That results in 4 rotations of the eccentric shaft and 4 rotation of the flywheel. In a piston engine a complete combustion cycle in all the cylinders results in just 2 rotations of the flywheel. So at best you could call it a 2.6L engine.
Serothis 4 months ago
@Serothis Bollox, even common sense would tell you thats not true, each rotor completes three combustion cycles every 360 deg of rotation, its a 3.9L engine.
Manoo62 4 months ago
@Manoo62
"each rotor completes three combustion cycles every 360 deg of rotation"
yes...except that it doesn't. clearly you lack the understanding in how the rotor head spins in the housing. BUT even if it was as clean cut as you put it, the eccentric shaft still rotates 3 times per rotation of the rotor head. which means that a complete combustion cycle spins the flywheel 1.5 times more than a piston engine after a complete combustion cycle. So even then the most you could say would be 3.2L
Serothis 4 months ago
@Serothis The fact that the output shaft is geared 3:1 is totally irrelevant to its capacity. The capacity of any internal combustion engine is defined as the swept volume of one complete thermodynamic cycle. Which is why we dont double the size of a 2 stroke engine or reduce a rotary by 2/3. The only reason manufacturers do this is to make the engine appear more impressive because they know they'er actually crap (thats a clue why no one uses them)
Try again you might get 3.7L this time.
Manoo62 4 months ago
@Manoo62
So what you're saying is we should ignore the very real mechanics of the engine, specifically that it 2x the work per combustion cycle compared to a piston engine, and go with the conspiracy theory that the engineers are simply lying about their engine. A lie that would have been immediately picked up by any emissions or consumer protection regulatory agency like the EPA or the BBB.
So would you say flat-4 engines are crap too because only Subaru uses them? What about any W engine?
Serothis 4 months ago
@Serothis You seem to be struggling with the facts, the capacity is simply a measure of the internal geometry of which there is no doubt. The 1.3L claim is a marketing gimmick to fool the gullible which seems to work quite well. As always with you rotary nuts you want to ignor the obvious, perhaps you would like to name ANY main stream example of a rotary engine in currently use?
Manoo62 4 months ago
@Manoo62
Really? I'm struggling with facts? explain then how 4 rotations of the flywheel = 2 rotations. Explain how no automotive, emissions, business or even racing regulatory agency has taken the same stance as you. But most importantly explain how the entire interior space of the rotor housing with the rotor head removed STILL doesn't measure up to 3.9L.
Serothis 4 months ago
@Serothis "4 rotations of the flywheel = 2 rotations" no idea what your going on about. No automotive, emissions, business or even racing regulatory agency thinks its a 1.3L. The facts your struggling with are very simple, Mazda quote the chamber size as 654cc it has three on each of 2 rotors i.e 6 x 654 = 3924cc. Which means it sucks in and burns 3.9L of fuel and air every complete rotation, how simple does it have to be?
Manoo62 4 months ago
@Manoo62 I'm going on about the fact that the wankel does 2x the work per combustion cycle. Every single automotive, emissions and business regulatory agency says it's 1.3L. Even racing agencies rate it at 2.6L NOT 3.9L. How about this, the rotor center line is 105mm and depth of 80mm that means the 2 circles that were used to draw the epitrochoid have a radius of 70mm & 35mm respectively. So each housing is 1539cc (3078cc total). take into account the e-shaft, where is this extra magical liter?
Serothis 4 months ago
@Serothis As I have said, no automotive, emissions, business regulatory or racing authority rates it as a 1.3L. In the european engine of the year competition it was in the 2.5 to 3.0L class. For COMPARISON to a 4 stroke engine most would use the 2/3 capacity rule and call it a 2.6L but that DOES NOT change the engines REAL capacity of 3.9L.
Are you now saying Mazdas on figure for chamber volume is wrong? where do you think they get 1308cc from?????
Manoo62 4 months ago
@Serothis As I have said, no automotive, emissions, business regulatory or racing authority rates it as a 1.3L. In the european engine of the year competition it was in the 2.5 to 3.0L class. For COMPARISON to a 4 stroke engine most would use the 2/3 capacity rule and call it a 2.6L but that DOES NOT change the engines REAL capacity of 3.9L.
Are you now saying Mazdas on figure for chamber volume is wrong? where do you think they get 1308cc from????
Manoo62 4 months ago
Comment removed
SuPrAmAd101 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Manoo62 The rx8 is regarded as a 1.3 in the uk.
The tax alone is £400+ a year and thats simply because its a 1.3 with such high emissions.
Iv heard of it being classed as a 2.6 and yes, technically it is... But where the fuck do you get 3.9 from?
My father works for hodgson Mazda and even he agrees that your an arse. Its never been advertised or let alone talked about being a 3.9
always a 2.6 or a 1.3
Your just playing the smart arse who uses wikipedia
SuPrAmAd101 4 months ago
@Blackrier93 That would be why the rx8 is the only main stream example of a rotary engine in production??? because they are soooooo good??? Clown.
Manoo62 3 months ago
Why is there an anti rotary argument on every single video of one? Some people like them, some people don't- end of story.
13brotary 5 months ago
@13brotary people have their the right to opions apparantly to enthusiast about it. lol
BlueAllJ 5 months ago
On the discussion wether or not rotaries are crap; they are amazing pieces of engineering. Why you ask? 1. Very low weight compared to conventional piston engines 2. Amazing horsepower efficiency, from the amount of displacement 3. Very few moving parts 4. silky-smooth power transfer. People are just scared of them because of the fact that they aren't mainstream. Just like electrical cars or hydrogen. Don't be scared of what you don't know, have a taste of it first ;).
DrIfTeRsOnLy 5 months ago
@DrIfTeRsOnLy 1. The weight advantage of a complete engine is not that great.
2. The horsepower is piss poor from the amount of true displacement.
3. 2 strokes only have 3 moving parts, where are they now?
4. Smooth power transfer is a pretty minor advantage if at all.
People are scared of the fuel economy which is similar to a badly running V8 but without the power.
Dont suppose you ever considered WHY no one uses rotary's?
Manoo62 5 months ago
@Manoo62
1. 500lbs poor? every ounce matters in Motorsport!
2. the horsepower is piss poor? most racing organisations count them as double their true displacement as they have such a great horsepower weight ratio.
3. They are used in a variety of stationary engines, garden applications, motorbikes etc. They have been replaced with 4 strokes because they are more refined, at the cost of power.
4. The torque curve is almost flat meaning it can accelerate harder than a equivalent piston engine.
6joshh6 5 months ago
@6joshh6
1. 500lbs?? what are you refering to?
2. The RX8 is a 3.9L engine and yet only produces 225bhp, so yes piss poor.
3. Maybe garden aplications, wouldnt know, I dont think there are currently any bikes using rotary's all those that have didnt last long.
4. The torque curve is flat, the problem is its also very low due to the crank leverage being tiny, which is just about impossible to improve.
They've been around 50 years or more and still pretty poor.
Manoo62 5 months ago
@Manoo62 It is not a 3.9 litre engine. It equates to about a 1.3 litre engine.
fatboyslinky 5 months ago
@fatboyslinky The RX8 has 2 rotors with 3 chambers formed on each side, each chamber is quoted by Mazda as 654cc x 3 x 2 = 3924cc. So in 1 complete revolution of the rotor it draws in and ignites 3.9L of fuel and air, it seems pretty clear that its a 3.9L
Manoo62 5 months ago
@Manoo62 do you understand wankel engines? There is one lobe, no 'chambers'. The area where the rotor holds the fuel is what is counted, not the intake, compression or exhaust positions. Therefore the engine is a 1.3. If you check the specs you will find it is a 2 x 654 which is 1308cc engine. Unless you fancy arguing with Mazda themselves that is....
6joshh6 5 months ago
@6joshh6 Yes I understand rotary engines but clearly you dont. All three sides of the rotor ignite 654cc of fule and air every revolution and there are 2 rotor, simple. Mazda quote 1308cc as a sales gimmick so the gullible will think the engine sounds impressive because they know its not. Google "rotary displacement" click on the first site and read para 3.
Manoo62 5 months ago
@Manoo62 wow you can google? The Japanese car companies agreed it was, your opinion doesn't matter. It is rated a 1.3. In my opinion the sky is pink but that is opinion. I think there would have been lawsuits if mazda had being mis selling engines for the last 30 years.....
6joshh6 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Manoo62 I understand what you are saying about "654cc x 3 x 2 = 3924cc. So in 1 complete revolution of the rotor it draws in and ignites 3.9L"
But that would be 3 full rotations on the E-shaft, right? So it would be 3.9 / 3 = 1.3L?
stichy420 4 months ago
@Manoo62 1. That's the weight difference between a wankel stock and a similar 4 stroke made by Mazda. 800hp is possible from a twin rotor, that sort of hp/weight is unheard of
2. as above its a 1.3 and even if it was a 3.9 800hp is possible which isn't shabby. 3.9 Rover V8's produced less than 200hp.
4. Look at the racing RX8's . Then come back.
They haven't had the R&D that 4 strokes have, never mind the huge budgets. You don't have to get one but at least accept the amazing engineering.
6joshh6 5 months ago
@6joshh6 1. 800bhp isnt remotely possible without adding turbos which is a whole new ball game. 1.5L F1 turbo engines from the early 80's were producing more than that.
2. As above when you add turbo you can have any power you want, piston or rotary so pointless comparison.
4. Which non turbo race engines are you thinking of?
They've had little development because engineers recognise the severe limitations of rotary technology long ago. Ford, BMW, Mercedes have all considered and rejected them.
Manoo62 5 months ago
@Manoo62 1. Drive an F1 engine 100,000 miles. Tuned otary engines will do that with regular services.
2. Not true, physics sets in at a point and usually turbos don't defy physics. Unless you know something the rest of us don't.
4. The Hurley rotary triple rotor. 315 lbs and 600 BHP.
Ford etc have massive investments in four stokes. A rotary would have to be miraculous. Rotaries have massive advantages which you completely ignore. Don't bother replying to this as I won't waste any more time.
6joshh6 5 months ago
@6joshh6 1. How long would an 800bhp twin rotor last? bearing in mind the 767B four rotor Le Mans car had to be detuned to 700 bhp to last the 3000 mile race.
2. Nobody said infinite power dummy, the obvious limitations are the same for both engines.
4. The triple rotor 315lb Hurley RX-777 motor produces 250bhp!
"massive advantages" yeh right, clearly not.
Ford etc will invest in any technology which gives them an advantage, obviously they could see NO ADVANTAGE in using rotary's.
Manoo62 5 months ago
@6joshh6 You never thought it slightly odd that an engine with "massive advantages" as you put it, is not used in any main stream applications other than the RX?? Even Mazda only bother to use the engine in one car!!!
The Mazda MX5 is regarded as one of the best small sports cars in the world....and doesnt have a rotary engine, funny that.
Manoo62 5 months ago 20
@Manoo62 i can tell you what the major problem with rotary...that little 1.3 can suck as much gas as a v8...so thats why i wouldnt buy one...but it does make a great race car engine
philtripe 5 months ago
@Manoo62 yeah, ill give you your answer...fuel consumption, oil consumption and maintenance required, most folk are too lazy or to quick to cry about fuel costs to make this an engine thats used in all cars, so instead, mazda make the amazing engine uniquely held to a few cars...for the people that dont have a good cry to themselves about fuel prices or the fact that they have to maintain the car more than your average 2 litre piston alternative......Rotories for the hardcore intricate drivers
TheJonSlesser 2 months ago
@Manoo62 \its a great RACING engine, but its unreliable and has horrible emissions and gas mileage. Alot of maitenance is needed as well. Thats kinda the reasons why they are not used in everyday cars.. 90% of the world dont give a shit about how much hp their car makes. They just want a good,reliable, high mpg car. Rotarys do not provide any of those characteristics. The rotary design is simple and great for motorsport though.
mmdaniels33 1 month ago
@mmdaniels33 Your missing the point, if rotary's had anything to offer that was better than piston engines then piston engines would have died out, they havent. The reliability would have been ironed out if it was worth pursuing, its not. If rotary's were any good for racing then everyone would be using them, and they're not. They only compete with piston engines when massive capacitys are used i.e. the 3.9L RX8 which is why they drink fuel.
Manoo62 1 month ago
@Manoo62 Reliability Only 1 company has stuck with it and used it throughout the years and it looks like they are the ones benefiting from it. Reliability is slowly getting better in them and so i gas mileage and oil consumption. 3.9L? lol wtf? A 2.0 3 rotor turbo will decimate 99% of cars on the road. Go read a book kid, for racing purposes.. A wankel is unbeatable L for L. Manufacturers dont use them because its not worth their time now. As i said before..
mmdaniels33 1 month ago
@Manoo62 MPG,reliability,oil consumption etc are all problems in the engine. We are now at an era where the gasoline engine as we know it is becoming extinct anyway. Why the fuck would companies all of a sudden start switching to rotary engines when, they are the worst out there for 99% of peoples concerns. You are an idiot.. Its a simple design and is extremley hard to make any advances in engineering on it. For hp numbers.. its a powerband monster.
mmdaniels33 1 month ago
@Manoo62 I dont know why your arguing with me either. Its simple knowledge if your a car guy.. also the maitenance required on a wankel is on par with ferraris engines. And most people that own them dont understand and know how to properly take care of them. Hence all the problems. Seriously, just go read a book, if your doubting the wankel.. your an absolute moron. Ooo and "why its not used in a miata"? Lmao. Nvm, i wont even get into that. What a stupid thing to say though.
mmdaniels33 1 month ago
@mmdaniels33 As usual with you rotary fan boys your only fans because you dont know anything about rotary's. The ONLY, ONLY advantage of a rotary is its light weight in every other respect there crap. They are very very inefficient engines unless run at constant high speed. They produce piss poor power for their capacity which is why the RX needs 3.9L to compete with piston engine half the size. A 2.0L 3 rotor turbo!!! what could you get from a 5.8L turbo piston engine do you think?
Manoo62 1 month ago
@Manoo62 And as usual people like you who bag them also know nothing about them. Go do some research before you start a multi-comment argument about something you know little about.
SDET1000 1 month ago
@Manoo62 Uh why dont you try the 2.0L 3 rotor... because rotarys dont go any higher than a 2.6L which is 4 rotors. 3.9L rotary doesnt even exist.
SDET1000 1 month ago
@SDET1000 What facts are you thinking about there dip shit.
Manoo62 1 month ago
@SDET1000 Oh I see your one of the clowns who thinks the RX is a 1.3L ha ha ha. Try googling 'rotary displacement' and look at the first site rx7.com. Come back when you know what your talking about, shit head.
Manoo62 1 month ago
@Manoo62 nah... Ill come back and talk to you in 10 years when your a bit more grown up. You have to revert to calling me names because you actually don't know any real facts :) What are you.... 12? Get a life kid.
SDET1000 2 weeks ago
@SDET1000 If you had anything intelligent to say you would have said it by now. Do your homework next time before you open your big mouth. Now run along sonny your clearly out of your depth.
Manoo62 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
SDET1000 2 weeks ago
@SDET1000 Ha ha ha keep digging that hole arsewipe your making yourself look dumber with every post. I have pointed you at the facts but your too thick to understand them, you just blab the same old shit. You offer no intellegent response because you dont know what your talking about sonny. Go away and find out why the RX is a 3.9L engine, you might even realise why it has the fuel consumption of a 3.9L engine...yer thick cunt.
Manoo62 2 weeks ago
@Manoo62 Not at all. The 13B at all times can only use 2 combustion faces together, you can only ever utilize 1308cc. If your going to add the total volume together, it will come out to be 3.9L. You may be right about fuel consumption, but this isnt like a piston engine where each cylinder goes through 4 strokes within few crankshaft turns. I own an fc, and bought it knowing that it gets bad gas mileage. Did I say I cared? no. And dont sit here an tell me Im thick.. listen you yourself talk.
SDET1000 2 weeks ago
@SDET1000 !!!??!!!!? eh? a 4 cyl 2.0L piston engine only ever 'utilises' 1 piston at a time do we call it a 500cc...?...er NO. The only reason Mazda try to tell everyone its a 1.3 is because the the truth would make the engine look crap...which it is.
Manoo62 2 weeks ago
@SDET1000 Hey where have you gone knuckle head? come back and entertain us with your stupidity and lack of education.
Manoo62 1 week ago
@Manoo62 Because rotary engines are impractical, and cost alot to produce. That alone doesnt mean that they are horrible worthless engines. ONCE AGAIN why dont you get your facts straight before you argue.
SDET1000 1 month ago
@Manoo62 Actually, if you look into the Wankel engine, both Chevrolet and Mercedes own patents on the rotary (look up rentech/mercedes rotaries). What a lot of people dont know is that the "stingray" years of the corvette, were actually tested with a 12a based 4 rotor.
mbusby1146 1 day ago
@Manoo62 The economy is why we don't use them much but if they had the constant development that the 4 stroke has had, they would be a better option. The first 4 strokes didn't get above 20mpg and neither do the first Wankels.
6joshh6 5 months ago
Hmmm, got to love the rotary :)!
DrIfTeRsOnLy 5 months ago
heres a scenario: you're at a party and cops show up. u hop in ur rx8 and take off.. oh wait its gotta warm up first.... and now u are in jail :(
get a speed 3 if ur up mazdas ass. k thnx bye :)
paulwall921 5 months ago
@paulwall921 No need to warm up before you drive it, just need to warm up before you shut it off.
Caige 5 months ago
@Manoo62 heyy dickhead who is talking about planes and generators ? and as if Mercedes would use a rotary ? Mazda created the rotary and still use it ! TOP GEAR SEEM TO LIKE THE ROTARY !!
23jovanovski 6 months ago
@23jovanovski Several manufacturers such as Ford and BMW looked at using rotary engines but discounted them as there crap. Despite several manufacturers making them they are still not used widely for anything.. because their crap. Mazda didnt create the rotary they have merely devolped it in recent years because no one else was interested in them...because their crap.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 rotaries are great.. Just wanted to know your experience driving a rotary (if you have) and what you know about them because I think you are speaking sh*t.......
23jovanovski 6 months ago
@Manoo62 btw
23jovanovski 6 months ago
mate rotors are owned and produce ONLY by MAZDA.. so suck a fat one
23jovanovski 6 months ago
@23jovanovski WRONG several companies make rotary engines, Mercedes have a pattent they choose to do nothing with. Chevy are considering using one to power a generator and Audi are looking at doing the same. They are also made in small numbers for the light aircraft industry, all of which are niche markets.
Manoo62 6 months ago
Suck my dick cunt! I can put up vids of my cars if ud like but that wont solve the fact you think the rotary engine is shit! i dont care anways i was pissed and stoned and dont care what u think i was trying to give you a insight to them.. keep on hating! Hater!
SoWhnDoUThnkUrGrwnUp 6 months ago
Ae brother listen i just read through all the comments.. If your big thing is they are shit because they produce too many emmisions i laugh at u n say good! hahaha your a gimp! I hope they dont bring out any other rotary engines except for a new series 9 rx7 that would do me just great! and then let us fellahs over here in Aus n Nz turn them into firebreathing racing machines =]..GO THA ROTORS!!!! =]
SoWhnDoUThnkUrGrwnUp 6 months ago
theres plenty of ways to blow them up and plenty of ways to do them up... I just feel you dont know about them and are trying to diss them! Just jumping on the bandwagon ya know!....to just simply say that rotors are shit or whaever is Bullshit.. Its as stupid as saying all piston engines are shit....Seeee its bullshit yeah... Because every motor whether piston or rotary is different.. you cant slag sumthin off when you dont know about it you get me???
SoWhnDoUThnkUrGrwnUp 6 months ago
IMO rotary engines only have bad names becasue you can work on them yourself and people that think they know what there doing but dont build one n run her lean n she pops ( There's plenty of reasons)..So far iv,e got 45k out of my j port 12a carby... runs low 12's and with Micky Thompson et streets i have run a 11.87... all in all if you know what your doing with them and who built them they will last ... its a passion but you either love um or you hate um =]
SoWhnDoUThnkUrGrwnUp 6 months ago
@Manoo62 Brother first off this rx8 has a 20b so its not stock.. second in my opinion i would never by an rx8 for the motor i would love one with a 20b but to much dollars for me! I Do not like 13b renesis motors that come in rx8s just to clear that up! ....mate its simple u spend about 2-3 grand on a 12a or 13b (From early model rx7 or rx2'3'4s etc as long as the housings are ok get someone who knows what there doing to port her balance her n all d rest of it n you'v got screamer.......
SoWhnDoUThnkUrGrwnUp 6 months ago
@SoWhnDoUThnkUrGrwnUp AS I SAID "name me any main stream example of this 'great' engine being used, other than the RX8?"
The rest of the world has passed jugment on rotary engines, not me.
Either put up or shut up.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 can you name me any mainstream example of an ass besides yourself? stop saying this over and over and over
sookster54 6 months ago
and now i just read some of your other comments and i think your a tool! Hahahah stop trying to diss rotary engines ya wally! you obviously have no experience with them! If you like piston motors but not 2 strokes pistons engines or rotarys good on you bro! But stop trying to diss when you know nothing about them! Only probably what you've read on the net ya gimp! =]
SoWhnDoUThnkUrGrwnUp 6 months ago
@SoWhnDoUThnkUrGrwnUp Since you think they are so good perhaps you could name me any main stream example of this 'great' engine being used, other than the RX8?
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 Yeah and i live in Australia and love driving my ported rotors on the street! I love the smell of the rotor fumes =]. and Go 2 Strokes! =] Hahah Peace! =]
SoWhnDoUThnkUrGrwnUp 6 months ago
Nothing is an RX8 lol
grpanos13 6 months ago
not much of that is an rx8
jesseiseighteen 6 months ago
Who gives a shit. The thing drives so well and the motor revs to 9k. Because race car. 'Nuff said. There are trade offs for awesome and I enjoy the smoothness of the motor, the UFO idle sound, and the outstanding balance of the car. Not to mention I can drive to events with a full set of R-Comps in the back seats. I agree with Manoo62 in determining displacement. Please read the design
liquidfleming 6 months ago
For some reason i can't post links. Just read the design section of the wikipedia article for "Wankel Engine"
liquidfleming 6 months ago
Wow lots of dumb posts in the comments, rotors are nice engines, let's put it at that and leave it alone. :P The 787B's engine had an incredible low center of gravity and was barred from le Mans due to unfair weight to power ratio
sookster54 6 months ago
@sookster54 If rotary engines are so good perhaps you can explain why the only main stream example of this engine is in the RX8, which is currently out of production, or are you too bumb to work that one out?
Like most race classes the Le Mans has a fixed lower weight limit so all the cars weigh the same. They were banned at the same time as the turbos and the v12s they all went out on engine capacity being too large.
Manoo62 6 months ago
Comment removed
Nolegu 6 months ago
ALL YOU DUMB FUCKS SAYING A 13B IS A 3.9lt ENGINE HERE IS A QUESTION. WHY DO MAZDA, THE PRODUCER OF THE ENGINE CALL IT A 1.3l??? BECAUSE IT IS!!!!! FUCK YOU CUNTS ARE DUMB!!!
A31SKIDDAA 6 months ago
@A31SKIDDAA Mazda CALL it a 1.3L so that thick cunts like YOU think its impressive, anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together isnt so Dumb!!!!
Manoo62 6 months ago
if you dont like rotary dont buy rotary, now quit your bitchin'
NikkoFiT 7 months ago
@NikkoFiT Even if you don't like them, its pretty cool that the engine was designed by a guy called Wankel!
22timingram 7 months ago
875 cv
zouaiFrancho26 7 months ago
silly rx8 fanboys. gave the rx series a bad name for sure.
sudoGaron 7 months ago
its not an rx8 if it has no resemblance :P
superfly1842 7 months ago
WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT EMISSIONS YO. NO ROTOR YOU GOT NO MOTOR PERIOD!!!!!
YOYOMAN786 8 months ago 11
@YOYOMAN786 thats why they stopped making them?
mageac 5 months ago
YouTube: The largest community with professional racing drivers, and engeneers!
CONAPOWA 8 months ago 2
@CONAPOWA And retards.....thanks for identifying yourself.
Manoo62 8 months ago
power to weight ratio ftw!
dzuy12 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i just got an orgasm
D00M2027 8 months ago
such a small engine with that much horsepower quite an amazing invention
bonitomeistro 9 months ago
@bonitomeistro How much power was that???
Manoo62 9 months ago
god i love the sound of a rotary engine
dacasman 9 months ago
this car needs an ls3 swap
catalyst216 9 months ago
burn that rice.
mr1000rx 9 months ago
damb wheres the engine lol for such a small engine it sure makes a lot of power!
mrstrongable 9 months ago
Go kart ?
crazyredneckwifknife 10 months ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
The rx8 has 2 rotors, each has 3 sides, each chamber has a volume of 654cc whcih makes a total of 3.9lts. A good comparison would be the Z370 V6 which has 100 fl lbs more torque, 100 bhp more and does about 10 mpg more.
Manoo62 10 months ago
All this bullshit about how reliable piston engines are, when in fact the rotary engined cars won hands down in the 24 hour LeMans race! Yet after the mechanics tore down the engines, they said it could have easily do another Le Mans race without any rebuilding! Can't say the same for piston engines.
Barbarian216 10 months ago
@Barbarian216.. people underestimate rotary engines... @lifes2short4aname 3.9L where u get your facts from. I have a r8x r3 1.3L producing 231hp as stock. dual rotor doesn't make that 3.9L or even 2.6L.
Le mans proves it all about rotary engines.
and you very stupid if you think rotary engines are crap. do you think the first every piston engine was amazing reliable or fast? ofcourse not.
rotary engines and still being explored.
YouAlreadyKnow27 9 months ago
@YouAlreadyKnow27 The rx8 has a 3.9L engine but only produces 230bhp. Mazad call it a 1.3L so dumbasses like you will think its impressive.
The Le Mans car was one of the slowest in the race but won by putting in more laps. It was also considerably detuned by Mazda due to reliability issues and fuel problems.
Rotary's have been around for over 50 years and have gone nowhere for a good reason, they have no advantage over piston engine other than size.
Manoo62 9 months ago
@Manoo62 .. and the diamond came out of the dirt shining did it? you will see :)
YouAlreadyKnow27 9 months ago
@YouAlreadyKnow27 They have been trying to polish it for 50 years and its still a lump of coal :-(
Manoo62 9 months ago
@Manoo62 .... what the diamond?.. you are delusional :)
YouAlreadyKnow27 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YouAlreadyKnow27 ....and You are gullible....
Manoo62 9 months ago
each too there own (piston or rotor)) .... rotary's rock. problem is they spend more time at the mechanics than on the road.. my ultimate car is datsun 1200 ute with sr20 road car.... if someone can help me find 1200 ute in aus, holler please
thetalkingelement 11 months ago
Damn what an scaled off RX8! lol.
TheRealFobican 11 months ago
all i saw was an engine on the frame with wheels.
kalargyi 1 year ago
haha try and piss off the car jocks by writing pistons are beta
aidertron 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love Rx-8?
Check out Rx-8 Mega Gathering 2010 - Trailer 2
(stay tuned for a RARE Rx-8!)
Blacknightzzzzz 1 year ago
well technically rotary engines are more efficient and produce more horsepower
bnrbeanz 1 year ago
@bnrbeanz Yeh thats why they only do 20 to the gallon and the RX8 has been banned from Europe due to emissions, they are worse than 2 strokes.
Manoo62 1 year ago 22
@Manoo62
if you care about emissions so much buy yourself a smart...dumbass. When you consider that supercars have engines that; burn a lot of gas, have high power output to weight ratios, and are never made to outlast anything else on the car, then the rotaries are the perfect supercar engines. Honestly I don't know why no one before RSC has thought of using the rotary as the powerplant for a supercar.
lifes2short4aname 9 months ago
@lifes2short4aname I dont care about emissions at all. There is a good reason why the rx8 is the only example of a mainstream rotary engine...their crap. The rx8 has a 3.9Ltr engine, drinks petrol like a 3.9Ltr engine yet only produces the power and torque of a 2-2.5Ltr. Dumbasses think they are only 1.3Ltr and so think they are great. Insurance companies, sports governing bodies and other car manufacturers are not so dumb, does that answer your question?
Manoo62 9 months ago
@Manoo62 One thing that you haven't considered is that a 3.5L engine usually weighs over 400 lbs whereas the 2 rotor in the rx8 only weighs 285 lbs. Indeed a 370z weighs 3300 lbs whereas an rx8 weighs 2880 (an rx7 even less at 2800 lbs). So a more accurate comparison is it drinks petrol like a v6, produces the power of a v6 but weighs much less. Thats what I was trying to convey to you. I want you to take back calling them crap and I'll take back calling you dumbass.
lifes2short4aname 9 months ago
@lifes2short4aname The ONLY advantage that rotary's have are size and weight which is why their main market is microlight aircrafts. Mazda pursue it in cars for novelty value only. The 370z is a good bit heavier than an rx8 but then it produces 100bhp more and 100 ftlb more from a slightly smaller engine and has better mpg.....
Manoo62 9 months ago
@Manoo62 you say the 370 has a slightly smaller engine when I already told you the rotary engine weighs over a hundred pounds less than a conventional v6 That weight is what lets the rx8 compete against a 370z. Both do the 0-60 within less than a second of each other in a straight line. In fact they have the exact same lap times on the top gear test track. So stop using the argument that the 370 has 100hp more when it's relative.
lifes2short4aname 9 months ago
@Manoo62 also screw you. The rx7 has a 2 rotor engine making 270 hp and it's way faster than any other car you can name with a v6.
lifes2short4aname 9 months ago
@lifes2short4aname The rx7 only made 270bhp with twin turbos attached! The Mitsubishi 3000GT twin turbo from the same era made 320bhp from a way smaller CAPACITY engine. More recently the Noble M12 3.0L twin turbo v6 produces 400bhp as std and is a shit load better and faster than the nasty rx7, keep dreaming.
Manoo62 9 months ago
@Manoo62 my goodness how naive you are. Do you understand how turbos work? How much power they help the engine develop depends on the pressure. A 13b fd can easily develop over 400 hp. I'm going to stop arguing with you now because I just realized how little you know about cars. Also the gto weighs 3600lbs and, again, the rx7 only 2800. Thats a difference of almost a ton. And I don't understand why you think that the v6 in the gto is a "way smaller capacity" engine when it isn't.
lifes2short4aname 9 months ago
@lifes2short4aname That was my point, as soon as you start adding turbos you can have almost any power figure you want. Saying the rx7 was making 270bhp (with two turbos) is stupid and not in any way impressive, quite the opposite. 3.9L plus 2 turbos and it only made 270bhp! the GT & Noble are only 3.0L. The noble only weighs around 2400lb however the issue is the engine not the car.
Manoo62 9 months ago
@Manoo62
LOL when are you going to stop staying that the RX-8 is a 3.9L engine? It's a 1.3L engine, that burns oil in the mixture (yes, that part is what hurts emissions) at a rate of a power stroke per revolution (just like a two stroke). They are in no way worse than two strokes, and the mileage is not as bad as you put it. If anything you have said up until now made any sense, Mazda wouldn't have won the 24 Hours of Le Mans on a quad rotor powered group C car. The mileage is good enough.
corotor12345 6 months ago
@corotor12345 It is what it is! It sucks in and burns 3.9L of fuel and air every revoloution, end of.
After 17 previous attempts Mazda had a huge 170kg weight advantage in the 1991 Le Mans due to the age of the car. This tipped the balance far enough in their favour for them to win.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62
No it doesn't. It will pump 1.3L of air per revolution (minus some losses due to volumetric efficiency. Plus the right amount of fuel), that is THE DEFINITION of displacement. You may be confusing that with the fact that insurance companies will treat a wankel as a larger engine. Also take into account that there have been many confusions regarding the nomenclature of rotary Mazda engines. AND that you can alter the gearing to have more power strokes per RPM.
corotor12345 6 months ago
@corotor12345 You obviously dont know much about rotary engines, capacity is defined as the swept volume for one thermodynamic cycle i.e one full revolution of the engine. The chamber volume of the RX8 is 654cc it has 3 chambers on each of the 2 rotors so thats 654 x3 x2 = 3924cc. Mazda choose to quote the volume of only 2 of the chamber to make the rotary sound more impressive, they have to do this or people would realise they'er crap.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62
And you obviously have no common sense. Jesus, if you measured the amount of air that went into the engine in one single revolution, you'd see that it's 1.3 liters.
corotor12345 6 months ago
@corotor12345 So you have absolutely nothing to back up you comments other than 'its a 1.3, just believe me'........prove it, after all its SO obvious you should have no problem at all.....
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62
Oh of course. I'll just go and pull a random 13B outta my ass, then take a trip over to you, then present to you my findings. Look at a god damned animation. Watch how no matter how many tips the rotor has, or how much it's moving, it will only perform one intake stroke per RPM. And I mean eccentric shaft RPM, not a complete rotor revolution. Maybe that's where we're failing to understand each other.
corotor12345 6 months ago
@corotor12345 So as usual you only want to count the displacement of 1/3 the revolution of the rotor, how very convenient. The fact that the output shaft is geared down 3:1 has no effect on the engine displacement. A piston engine only displaces half its volume in one rev of the crank but we dont half its capacity because that would be ridiculous. But you think its reasonable to do that for a rotary...why?....so the engine LOOKS more impressive perhaps?
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62
Well then in that case you do have a solid point. You ARE right, and I should've seen that coming. Anyways your argument is sound, and I was being stupid. Have fun, be smart.
corotor12345 6 months ago
@Manoo62 What? Rx8 has been banned in Europe??
wardogmobius 9 months ago
@wardogmobius The factory in hiroshima stopped making them a year ago.
Manoo62 9 months ago
@Manoo62 20mpg? how you do that? teach me, i only manage about 17 lol haters, go get a 2 stroke then
wimprezax 8 months ago
@Manoo62
If that was the case then why have 2 strokes been banned for emissions for decades? Rotaries make big power in small packages.
allwheeldrive1 8 months ago
@allwheeldrive1 All new CARS have to comply with Euro 5 emmission regs, the rx8 doesnt. There havent been many 2 stroke cars, they didnt catch on either, even though they are better engines than rotary's....there might be a clue there.
Manoo62 8 months ago
@Manoo62 dude a guy from a workshop here drives an Rx8 lol and i live in belgium dude
quanahverreycken 8 months ago
@quanahverreycken When was the car bought new?
Manoo62 8 months ago
@Manoo62 4years ago i tthink could be a year or 2 wrong i don't know exactly
quanahverreycken 8 months ago
@Manoo62 i see them alot here in belgium so i don't think they banned here
belgiumlife 7 months ago
@belgiumlife Banned means their not imported by Mazda anymore!!!!!! it doent mean someone comes and removes them all off the street!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62 they are still imported cause my mate bought one 4months ago
belgiumlife 7 months ago
@belgiumlife They are not imported into Europe at all, it must be really really old stock. Production has long since stopped, hes bought a 2-3 year old car.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62 maybe , he bought it at a mazda dealer in was a showroom car
belgiumlife 7 months ago
@Manoo62 yeah thats why i drive one in europe, right? because of people like you we europeans think of americans the way we do.
HBXTQ1990 6 months ago
@HBXTQ1990 There are lots of RX8's in Europe but they stopped importing them over 2 years ago due to Euro 5 emission regs....Issued by the EUROPEAN parliment, get with the program.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@HBXTQ1990 I'm pretty sure you just pwnd a shit ton of people on this lol. right on man.
flybyboy77 6 months ago
@Manoo62 Emissions, Really? Gimme a break! I can't stand that tree hugger crap.
hulk625 6 months ago
@hulk625 Neither can I, the point was they are so crap you cant easily get them to meet regulations that piston engines achieve without problem.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 Banned from Europe? Get your facts straight!
yorickdem 5 months ago
@Manoo62 Banned from europe? What are you on about? I've seen lots of them around!
bonecrime 5 months ago
@bonecrime Euro 5 emissions regs of Sep 2009 meant that no more RX8's could be imported into the EU i.e they are banned, do your homework dummy.
Manoo62 5 months ago
@Manoo62 You are the dummy my friend, no more could be produced for import, you can personally import them legally, otherwise you couldn't import classic cars etc. That is by no means a ban on them, and if mazda wanted they could easily meet euro 5 with a revised model, but they are waiting for the launch of the new rx-7 which should be here by 2013 and will comply with euro 6.
6joshh6 5 months ago
@6joshh6 All car MANUFACTURED after Sep 2009 have to comply with Euro V, it doesnt matter if its a personal import, classics tend to have been made earlier than that dummy. Whether any new rotary's from mazda comlpy with Euro 6 remains to be seen, they are 2 years away at the earliest.
Manoo62 5 months ago