And what's the argument anyway the car is unique the build is successful it sounds awwwwwwsome and the driver sucks balls but at least he got to try the thing and if course it was all fucked up after every car like that is end of discussion
@z28 you r dumb you r comparing a 4 liter with a big block a rotors makes almost double the power per liter due to the fact that it is a two stroke and has no valves or heads or cams to move, the motors weakness is low torque compared to hp due to small small displacement but I u want a fair comparison u would need another 3 liters to match one of those cars and the power outputs mathematically would favor the rotors by a land slide
That's not power..... that's noise. You want power..... look up pro modified or nitro funny cars. They pull faster times than a 8.22 and produce WAY more THUNDEROUS power. There's no rotary engine will touch a time lower than 4 seconds EVER!!!!
@Z28Racer well no pro modified or nitro funny cars will touch podium in 24hrs Le Mans, just to remind you the main advantage of rotary is power to weight, and it makes ridiculous amount of power for its size. that's why officials banned them in Le Mans. And yeah they are 4 seconds car, but i bet they wouldn't even last running for an hour straight.
don't forget that they used 110octane racing gas, wich means that you can put much more boost on the turbo and each engine was capable of running for only a race after that when it cooled was all fucked up.
@TheRotaryFan Mazda quote the chamber volume as 654cc it has three on each rotor and 4 rotors so thats 654 x 3 x 4 = 7848cc. Now you know why the drink fuel, they always will because you cant escape the 14:1 fuel to air ratio needed for combustion. Thats also why the ONLY mainstream example of a rotory engine is in the rx8 and why rotary's have gone nowhere in more than 50 years. Its dead end technology.
The Rotary to people who like it is a wonderful piece of machine. To those who oppose it the engine is an outdated pos. I marvel at Mazda and Audi for being the only two with production/concept engines for this technology. Insider.com says the Chevy Volt may go rotary as well.
@Manoo62 The Rotary is not a Dead end Technology, until now it's been used in the wrong application. Audi is coming out with a Rotary assist engine which charges the electric motor. It does not run the car merely a generator. Also Aviation uses the Rotary engine as the Piston can't keep up the RPM suited for flight with out constant repairs and upkeep, where as the Rotary may drink fuel but loves the high RPM's required .
@Manoo62 Each time a rotor's face comes to the spark plugs, it is igniting air and fuel. One complete revolution of the rotor will have three ignitions!!
I'm not a big fan of SPIKE TV, but they have a pretty straight forward explanation. Search youtube: " How a Rotary Works ".
Mazda's site has a more technical view: mazdausa.com> RX-8> RX-8's Rotary RENISIS Engine
do we know what blew off it at 55 secs? I assume its open headers, so its not the muffler packing, was it just some rubber going flying? I'm pretty sure it may have been the driver projectile shitting himself trying to get grip. Sweet build. I love it. I'm a camaro guy, but i loves me a sweet rotary.
each rotor fires once per eccentric shaft revolution. In a piston engine, only half of the combustion chambers fire for a given revolution. This means that a 2-rotor engine fires as often as a 4-cylinder engine. However, the power stroke duration in a rotary is 50% longer, it being 3/4 of a main shaft revolution to the piston engine's 1/2. This makes a 2-rotor engine similar to a 6-cylinder
your partially right its called a 2.6 because its output shaft rotates once for every 2.6 liters displaced which is the same way u measure a piston engine, how much air is displaced by the cylinders for every whole rotation . the rotor goes around once where the output shaft goes around 3
@SpecTrey85 Total crap, all engine capacity is measured as swept volume in 1 complete thermodynamic cycle, for a 4 stroke piston engine thats 2 revolutions not fucking 1 dummy. For a rotary its only 1 and the rx8 displaces 3.9L, the output shaft rotation is irrelevant it doent change the capacity of the engine!!!!!!!!!!!!!! idiot.
your partially right its called a 1.3 because its output shaft rotates once for every 1.3 liters displaced which is the same way u measure a piston engine, how much air is displaced by the cylinders for every whole rotaion
@SpecTrey85 You need to go away and read a bit about rotary's. Each one of those 3 power strokes per rev you mentioned is burning 654cc of fuel and air (3 x 654 = 1962cc) this is multiplied by the number of rotors in the engine, in this case four ( 4 x 1962 = 7848cc). In the case of the rx8 its (654 x 2 = 3924cc) Mazda choose to only quote a 1/3 of the engine capacity to make the engine sound impressive to the gullible.
HAHA, you morrons are ALL WRONG! Wankel designed the rotory, but GM perfected it in 1953, in response to the ford GT. Do your homework rotards! The mazda design is a direct take off of the GM design!
@1toDV8 GM did work on that motor but they were never able to perfect it. In fact mazda cant even perfect it 50 years later and several times have considered scrapping the engine. but yes, GM did build it first.
@biftasi is rotor very bad ? Is that why its used in high-durability crafts like boats and planes ? Known for its reliability ? Not to mention it got banned from le mans, for been to reliable.. ? You cant base how an engine works, from how it gets used in Drag races or F1...
i believe it is a 20B 3 rotor japanese engine. Mazda only made a few 4 rotors,these are not commercially available. Felix Wankel hated the Mazda design as it did not conform to his original (desired) design where the housing also rotated, plugs and all.
@amramjose There are several companies in japan and australia that sell longer crankshafts so it is possible to take a 13B engine, add two middle rotar sections from 20B engines, to form a single 4 rotar engine. From what I understand the cost is about $80 000 to build an install an engine like that. there are a number of them around. apparently naturally aspirated you can get about 560 rwhp from them. The guys at the rotary shop that I go to keep talking about building one.
@TheRotaryFan Mazda quote the chamber volume as 654cc it has three on each rotor and 4 rotors so thats 654 x 3 x 4 = 7848cc. Now you know why the drink fuel, they always will because you cant escape the 14:1 fuel to air ratio needed for combustion. Thats also why the ONLY mainstream example of a rotory engine is in the rx8 and why rotary's have gone nowhere in more than 50 years. Its dead end technology.
@Manoo62 i am not sure why you would consider the entire chamber volume as a factor for the displacement. the engine doesnt compress the entire chamber volume so why would you figure that into displacement? agreed though that the rotary concept is pretty much dead. They are cool as shit, but not the best by any means. I think most people that own them like them because they are different, not because they are the best.
@Manoo62 its 2 1.3 liter engines put together , this engine won le man in 91, mazda or no other self respecting car company would put a 7 liter in a 24 hour endurance race and expect to win, also the reason it uses alot of fuel is bescause it has 3 combustion or power strokes for every 1 revolution versus 1 for every 4 in a piston engine
@Manoo62 Get your facts straight, the air to fuel ratio is 14:1, not the fuel to air. I drive a '79 RX7, and I do a healthy 28 miles to the gallon. you should read into mazda, they have made an astounding reputation with the wankel/rotary engine, in every branch of motorsport. If you pay attention to car manufacturers, you will know that Audi is in development of a new hybrid, incorporating a wankel system.
@dondebest I dont think anyone was in any doubt what the 14:1 ratio was refering to....
'astounding reputation' 'every branch of motorsport' your having a laugh!!! like what???? They only won Le Mans because they had a massive engine that was detuned to last the race. Or are you just refering to shitty RX7 racing?
The rotary engine in the hybrid Audi only runs an electric generator its used because its light which is the only advantage rotary's have over piston engines.
@Manoo62 Actually they have the "new" 16X engine running at the same fuel consumption as their current 2 litre. They've also massively reduced the weight! The only issue that they're struggling with is the new emissions targets. So if the 16X ever makes it into production.. it's sure to win more engine awards. Time will tell.
@anyusernamesleftest Massively reduced the weight of what! rotarys will never be as good as piston engines on emissions, their capacity is just to large. By the time the rx9 is expected the Euro 6 emissions regs will have come into effect. They are twice as restrictive as Euro 5 which saw off the rx8, so they wont be winning awards any time soon, if ever.
@Manoo62 I can say, as long as they are running gasolene fuel, cylinder motors will be cleaner than rotaries. But you don't buy one for MPG's or low emissions, you buy it for the drive! No other motor at 1.3l will give you that much fun. RX-8's took a hit in power because the world is needing practical cars that meet emission standards.
As a driver, I love all cars and their motors. Each is unique to SOME kind of situation. Just depends on what you want to do with it.
@Manoo62 Umm..I think your understanding is off a bit? Each rotor has three faces to it, but the whole piston has a 654cc volume. Example: a 13B has 2x rotors at 654cc. 654 x 2= 1308cc thus the name "13" B.
So, the 4X rotor is more like like a 2600cc.........not 7848cc. that's like 12 rotors man.
Rotories have made improvements just like any other motor. They are actually one of the best for hydrogen fuel, as seen in Japan. We've done more than you know in 50 years.
@miek127 You need to do more research, try mazdas own web site. EACH CHAMBER is 654cc and each rotor has three of them. They are no better than piston engines running on Hydrogen! In 50 years they are still way behind piston engines in all respects and they will never be better for several different technical reasons. As I said dead end technology.
@Manoo62 This is nuts. You're mis-interpreting the chambers and faces on the rotor. A 13B motor is 1.3l or 13008cc of displacement. Just ONE of the faces of the rotor has a maximum volume of 218cc, giving one rotor chamber a total of 654cc. A 13B has TWO of these mated together, giving them a total of 13008cc.
I just read some of your older posts too. Stop mis-informing people please!!
@miek127 as another point of contention to Manoo...any engine running a 14:1 fuel to air ratio has got massive problems...I feel bad for the people who believe what he says.
@jestercow My GOD! Thank you! I really don't care about people's opinion on what's a "better" motor, just don't give people the wrong info! Whether a fan or not, you have to come correct!!
your right that every rotor face has 654cc, but remember that for 1 rotor revolution there are 3 "crank" revolutions. So there is one powerstroke for each rev(as a two stroke). That's why they use only 654cc to measure displacement.
They only drink more fuel on partial load. On full load there just as fuel effecient as an four stroke. In fact the 4 rotor mazda 787b won Le Mans by being more fuel efficient than the rest!!!
@lebickmeck The fact the output shaft is geared 3:1 is totally irrelevant to the engine capacity. We dont re-rate two strokes because they fire twice as often as a 4 strokes! They only way to compare different engine sizes is swept volume for one complete thermodynamic cycle. For a rotary it one complete revolution of the rotor, so for the 787b thats 7.8 litres and the RX8 is 3.9 litres.
We rate the engine size by difference in minimum and maximum volume. For a piston engine this changes twice for each revolution. For a rotary this changes twice every 1,5 rev. Therefore they usualy double the capacity when comparing to 4 strokes.
You shouldn't compare engines based on capacity, but compare them on power/weight ratio, fuel consumption, size and torque curve. Therefore I am against a max capacity rule. They should limit the amount of fuel instead.
@lebickmeck Total rubbish, a piston engine displaces and compresses its total volume once in 2 revolutions a rotary does the same in 1 revolution. So a rotary fires twice as often as a piston engine and still only produces about half the power for the same swept volume. To compare a rotary to a typical four cylinder it is normal to measure the swept volume of 4 ignition firings on each. That would be 2/3 the full capacity of the rotary i.e 2.6L for the RX8
That's exactly what i say, just in different words (1 rev, up and down= 2 changes!!!).
I just think you shouldn't use power/displacement as a rule to compare engines. For example the corvette has a 7 litre v8 with 500hp that weight just over 200kg. The M5 has a 5litre v10 with 500hp and weights 240kg.
Now explane to me why the M5 engine is better.
It is the same with rotaries. Much better power/weight ratio, and that's what really matters in terms of peformance.
@lebickmeck The number of strokes is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is air consumed per rev.
Why do you think that F1 cars were all v12? because it was the lightest engine??.....Er No.
The COG wouldnt change at all and the polar moment change would be tiny. Fuel consumption is mostly down to engine set up and little to do with capacity, so none of those really matters.
All those v12's were beaten by the Cosworth dfv v8. Despite being less powerfull it was so much lighter that it still was faster. In the 90's&after V10's were the best compromise between power and weight for the 3L rule.
The v8 is mention is a OHV wich has a lower COG than the DOHC M5 v10.
Fuel consumption depents on 2 things: Used Power and the effieciency. That's why i want a Fuel based rule, not a displacement rule.
@lebickmeck The tiny differences you are talking about are only relevant in the F1 world where fractions of a second on a lap time is still significant.
Also race rules are not really relevant to typical road motoring. Which is why the small power to weight advantage of rotarys is of little consequence on the road. The bottom line is, if rotarys had any advantage over piston engines then manufacturers would be using them and there not....and never will.
Mazda still makes the RX-8, wich is one of the best handeling cars, thanks to it's rotary engine. The question is, if the increased fuel consumption is worth the better handeling and peformance.
Rotarys have been around for a long time and many manufacturers have looked at them but always decided not to pursue. Mainly because there is nothing better about rotarys over a piston engines except a slight weight advantage.
In a world of ever increasing emission restrictions the rotary will almost certainly die out, there is only Mazda that bother with it now. The RX8 was banned from Europe 3 years ago due to Euro 5 emission regs.
An Elise doesn't have four seats, I don't know a better handling four seater. And I said it is one of the best not that it is THE best (since dampers, tires etc all matter).
Never heard of Audi? They're looking to power plug-in hybrids with rotarys and there not the only one. Why? well LOW WEIGHT, cause the battery allready is very heavy in these cars.
And I don't say the rotary is the best engine. I just want to stop the bullshit about rating engines based on displacement.
@lebickmeck As I might have already said the only advantage rotarys have is their power to weight ratio. However its only relevant in weight critical applications such as light aircraft which is the only place rotarys are widely used. Audi are powering a generator with a small rotary so size and weight are critical. If they actually though rotarys were any good they would power the car with one.
@lebickmeck It is typical of rotary fans to want to change all the rules to favour them. Almost all motor sports are based on engine capacity for a very good reason which is how it should be. If rotarys were any good you would need to change the rules to make them competative.
@Manoo62 Please read the info you find fully first before posting it ok. In the text they only count one of the faces per rotor. Not all of the faces are at combustion at the same time. This will explain it ok. The Japanese regulations for calculating displacements for engine ratings use the volume displacement of one rotor face only, and the auto industry commonly accepts this method.
@TES1V Which is equivalent to counting the volume of one cylinder in a four cylinder engine because only one is firing at any one time!!!! Ridiculous.
Its a good con if you can pull it off but it relys on fools believing the RX8 is only 1.3L.
Insurance companies, sports governing bodies and people with two brain cells to rub together, dont accept the silly method of calculating rotary capacity because its just wrong.
@Manoo62 Mazda quote the chamber volume as 654cc it has three on each rotor and 4 rotors so thats 654 x 3 x 4 = 7848cc. Is magic in numbers...... Its dead end technology, where the hell have you been? 3 cycles in one revolution means its already got advantage over your 4 cycle piston engine. Legendary 787b Mazda whoop all your favorite cars so hard that the famous R26b engine ^ four rotor mazda engine has been banned from Le Mans 24 hour race.
@Manoo62 3 cycle's per revolution means in it has 3 power strokes, 3 exhaust breaths, 3 intake breaths. 3 power strokes means more power/torque at a continuous rate. 4 rotors x 3 power strokes per rotor means technically its v12 piston engine but 1/3 the size and definitely weighs less. Yes, in the "past" the Wankel had poor torque. Also, drastic improvements of cnc n milling, alloys and materials and the over-all design of the new Wankels make them even more dependable and stronger.
@WakingTheTragedy Very good, so the 13b from the RX8 is more like a V6 piston engine, a 3.9L V6. The Nissan Z370 has a slightly smaller 3.7L V6 which produces about 100 bhp more than the RX8 and around 100 ft/lbs more torque and does 10mpg more. Still think rotarys are any good?
@Manoo62 stop being a biased troll.... 1.3l pushing 250hp... 2.0 pushing 300hp... and 2.6l pushing 700hp+... I dont see how its a dead end technology.... 3 cycles per revolution means more torque and horsepower in a faster time then a piston engine can produce... they added another spark plug per rotor housing to burn the fuel more effectivly... it out lasted the rest of the cars for having better MPG while keeping its 700whp... the car could easily produce 800-900whp N/A....
@Tj1056 You mean 3.9L pushing out 225 bhp at only 25 mpg and a 7.8L race engine only pushing out 700bhp. Even someone as dumb as you must have wondered why NO ONE is interested in rotary technology?
@Manoo62 LOL... what? your even more retarded then the other people... you get even more liters then you can even fill in the engine... they call it a 2.6l for race class porposes... and that is the only reason... mazda would have have labeled it 1.3l if it was not... again you are not going to fit 7.8l into a 2.6l 4 rotor... also how many 7.8l N/A engines running 700hp...
@Tj1056 Your an idiot, do your home work, try googling 'rotary displacement' and look at the first site. Come back when you know what your taliking about.
An F1 engine is a genuine 2.4L and puts out around 700bhp.
Also, 13B-MSP Renesis has been designed and engineered to be able to compete and beat your gas saving Ford Fiesta, Volt, and Smart car with yet again the luxury of more power. Also, the engine runs of Ethanol, Gasoline 83, and hydrogen. GG
@WakingTheTragedy The 13B-MSP from the RX8 typically did 25mpg, where as the smart does 43.3mpg the Fiesta 48.1mpg and Volt 72mpg. The 13B-MSP was never designed with economy in mind.
@Manoo62 Your math is incorrect, the wankel only cycles its chamber volume once per rotor face per crankshaft revolution. So divide your answer by 3 and you will be more correct :)
@james3dmc The fact that the output shaft is geared down 3:1 is totally irrelevant to engine capacity. A 4 stroke only sweeps half its volume in 1 revolution but we dont half the capacity.
Might wanna check urself there. Wanna explain why the 1991 Le Mans was won by the rotary engine of the 787b? yea it was the only rotary to ever win, but thats because Group C regs were thrown out after, and you could only use piston driven engines.
@ChewRhodes The rule change to ban the Mazda, the Jag V12 and the turbos was made in 1989, due to come in force at the end of 1991. Mazda managed to negotiated a 170kg weight advantage due to the age of the car for the 1991 race. Its a massive advantage for speed, handling and fuel economy, it tipped the balance in Mazdas favour and they won after 17 years of trying.
@Manoo62 I was just pointing out that the technology wasn't going anywhere for 50 years. And yea as a marque they had been trying for 17 years, but the 787 came out in 1990, and the 787b came out in 1991. soooo....yea there were HUGE advancements and planning put into that engine. The 757 was in 86, but it was made under GTP class, tough to fight the others in the Le Mans with that. and then in 88 they had the 88. so 1991-1986= .... 17? dont think so.
@Manoo62 Cool story bro....wrong. Sauber Mercedes C11 weighed in at 904kg, and the Jag XJR-12 was 900kg flat, and the 962C Porsche was 899kg. so they had a 70kg advantage. And it was nowhere near as fast as the other cars, C11 was the fastest. It won because it was MUCH more reliable and more efficient.
@Manoo62 AS I SAID, that is not that much of a weight difference to write off a Le Mans win. The car was tested and true one of the most reliable engines in Le Mans history, not necessarily the fastest. That's an accomplishment in itself. Fuel efficiency is a HUGE part of the race. Pit strategy is one of the most important elements, and fuel has a pivotal role in that. Mercedes was actually winning the race until they shut down in the pits. Big game changer there. You have no basis of judgement
based on the fact that the 2.6L engine was smashing those of much higher displacement. You can't say the engine hasn't gone anywhere in the past 50 years, BECAUSE ITS BEEN BANNED for being too good. So shut the hell up already you troll.
@Manoo62 Given time, we may see a new resurgence. The reliability, power to weight ratio, and smaller size are all very important aspects of street cars. With changed sparkplug layouts and gear ratio tuning, efficiency can be increased further. The Chevy Volt has been said to have a rotary engine considered. Don't trash great technology that is banned from most circuits as your basis as to it "going nowhere."
@ChewRhodes Being banned from tracks has no effect on real life applications for a start. Many companies have looked into rotary's only Mazda pursued it.
"Resurgence" from what? they have never done anything!
"great technology" thats a contradiction in terms, if it was great why is no one currently using it?
If the Chevy Volt uses a rotary engine it will be powering a generator only. Because as I have said the ONLY advantage a rotary engine has is its light weight.
@Manoo62 Companies look to incorporate the technology they find tried and true on the race track. Chevy with the LS engines, Porsche with their Boxer 6-cylinder, Ford with their 4-cylinder rally cars, Audi with their Diesel technology. Bullshit it has no real life applications.
@ChewRhodes All of those were road vehicles before going on the track, not the other way round.
As I have said the likes of Ford, BMW, Mercedes have all considered rotary technology and non of them bothered to pursue it because they quickly realised it had no advantage over piston engines other than weight. In fact they have so many disadvantages even Mazda are struggling to make it work. If the RX9 doesnt make it into production then rotarys will die out due to lack of interest.
@Manoo62 Only before track engine there was the Ford inline-4 there. And it was being phased out untill rally, they were looking to push at the reliable 6-cylinders and big blocks. Porsche's engines were straight race engines. And how are you going to say the LS wasn't made with Chevy's race history written all over it.
@ChewRhodes Complete rubbish, Ford were only making 4 cylinder cars in Europe since the 50's long before any rally success. In fact they have only made 4 cyl engines in EU & a very small number of V6.
All the Porsche flat 6 were from road cars before the ever saw the track. The only race engines they make go into the Le Mans cars. As for Chevy they have never made a race engine, they are all reworked from road cars like the LS, nasty 2 valve pushrod engines that no one else produces any more.
Technically no matter what engine was put in there it would be a German design, since the Otto cycle was invented by a German, unless it was a hybrid then it would be British if you want to be that technical. The actual engine was still engineered and manufactured by Mazda they just used an engine design invented by Germans, just like every other car manufacturer in the world does.
it have a street car from trinidad 2nd gen rx7 700hp pump gas stock gear box stock supension ran 10.1 pump gas 17psi its on utube peter laquis 20b 2nd gen rx7 keep up d great work
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Find the real deal, a free energy device at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the revolution!
Germany systematically uses torture and murder to silence any opposition. Some of the murders known to the public: Uwe Barschel, Jürgen Möllemann, Heiner Gehring, Martina Pflock, Tron, Karl Koch, Bernd Seiffert, Kirsten Heisig, Fritz Bauer.
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured during 5.5 years by the German BND. He was assassinated on 11.7.09 because of our homepage.
German snitchers are following me on youtube and immediately flag my postings.
I laugh at the whole lot of you who seem to be arguing about this rotary/wankel thing... By the looks of it, not one of you know what it is, how they work and the rest of it, where as only by listening to the video, i could tell you NEARLY EVERYTHING, rotary/wankels are in my blood!...
20b Periphial Ported Quad rotor, with a customised single turbo conversion....
@thugdridah its pretty funny to read yours too when it says 4 rotor in the title... that makes it a 26B... other then that your facts seem to be strait.
@thugdridah "20b Periphial Ported Quad rotor, with a customised single turbo conversion...."
lol 20b quad rotor? 20bs are three rotors, 26b are 4. You are right about it being a 4 rotor but if you're going to try to sound so cool w/ your "where as only by listening to the video, i could tell you NEARLY EVERYTHING"check what you right first.
Dargaville Burnout Comp Weekend date is set 12th,13th feb 2011 we are looking for new Sponsors, Entrants and Spectators, we are hoping to hit $10,000 for the over all winner and there will be $1,000 for each of the 4 classes = 4cil, 6cil, 8cil, rotor & woman's. 1st $500 2nd $300 3rd $200 + plus over $3,000 to be won in the car show hard luck, bikini and wet t shirt!! prepare to camp as there is live band Tempis Fugit playing + 2 DJs + the sunday finals + mid day breast cancer car cruise
@zacxs28 actually, the German's were somewhat successful, the first car to have a rotary was the NSU Spider. The only reason it didn't sell that well was because the material's that NSU weren't up to the massive stress caused by rotaries.
heres the funny thing that has 4 in it and it hits the same speeds as v8+ drag racers... they put up to 10 roters. the v8 has more torque but a rotery has massive revs and wicked horsepower dont say that the v8 is better than a rotery without facts.
the main issue with these engine is you need two rev limiter.cause its very easy to hit rev limiter and hitting rev limiter in a rotary means byby engine!
I don't understand why he tickles the gas before he heats his tires, and when he lines up on the start. 0.0 Is it him doing it, r is it the engine rev-limiting?
@CARxRIM know what your talking about before you chat shit lol! as Millennmify said felix wankel invented the rotary engine called the wankel (pronounced vankel) this engine was in the rx7's and then mazda took the technology and designed their own rotary engine called the renesis for the rx8 although its more reliable it doesn't have the torque of the original wankel engine
I love rotary engine sound!
valcerfabri 1 day ago
And what's the argument anyway the car is unique the build is successful it sounds awwwwwwsome and the driver sucks balls but at least he got to try the thing and if course it was all fucked up after every car like that is end of discussion
xmorganconklinx 5 days ago
@z28 you r dumb you r comparing a 4 liter with a big block a rotors makes almost double the power per liter due to the fact that it is a two stroke and has no valves or heads or cams to move, the motors weakness is low torque compared to hp due to small small displacement but I u want a fair comparison u would need another 3 liters to match one of those cars and the power outputs mathematically would favor the rotors by a land slide
xmorganconklinx 5 days ago
@xmorganconklinx Your an idiot stop posting crap and go do your home work.
Manoo62 2 days ago
That's not power..... that's noise. You want power..... look up pro modified or nitro funny cars. They pull faster times than a 8.22 and produce WAY more THUNDEROUS power. There's no rotary engine will touch a time lower than 4 seconds EVER!!!!
Z28Racer 2 months ago
@Z28Racer well no pro modified or nitro funny cars will touch podium in 24hrs Le Mans, just to remind you the main advantage of rotary is power to weight, and it makes ridiculous amount of power for its size. that's why officials banned them in Le Mans. And yeah they are 4 seconds car, but i bet they wouldn't even last running for an hour straight.
/watch?v=81zhOQ5PvaE
KarlowBOI 1 day ago
That is one nasty soundin' mother fucker.
XShadowHazeX 2 months ago
hahahah compare them to the 1980 formula 1 cars 1.5 litre twin turbo pulling out 1500hp hhahahha
shufflerXTC 4 months ago
@shufflerXTC
don't forget that they used 110octane racing gas, wich means that you can put much more boost on the turbo and each engine was capable of running for only a race after that when it cooled was all fucked up.
molinobeer 3 months ago
@shufflerXTC orly?
KarlowBOI 1 day ago
amazing machine.. i guess finding tires that could handle such power is a bitch.
scootfd3s 5 months ago
@scootfd3s What power would that be??
Manoo62 4 months ago
that thing sounds pissed off at the world
Luxo087 5 months ago
imagine the time it would have gotten if it had traction the whole time....that thing is a beast...
sk8er95x 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRotaryFan Mazda quote the chamber volume as 654cc it has three on each rotor and 4 rotors so thats 654 x 3 x 4 = 7848cc. Now you know why the drink fuel, they always will because you cant escape the 14:1 fuel to air ratio needed for combustion. Thats also why the ONLY mainstream example of a rotory engine is in the rx8 and why rotary's have gone nowhere in more than 50 years. Its dead end technology.
Manoo62 5 months ago 10
SEXXX
rawrdinosaur212 5 months ago
C'et das is de fastiss civic of mah laef u must a f26 or super vtrc does it have a turfo r chafgist?
DOEYEX 5 months ago
HOLY FUCK!
RoDGSteves 5 months ago
YEA THAT DUMBASS DRIVER HAS GOTTT TO GOOO!!!
jesters001 5 months ago
nice engine and BMW
crudeoilsystems 6 months ago
Comment removed
crudeoilsystems 6 months ago
@Everyone READ!! wiki/Wankel_engine
The Rotary to people who like it is a wonderful piece of machine. To those who oppose it the engine is an outdated pos. I marvel at Mazda and Audi for being the only two with production/concept engines for this technology. Insider.com says the Chevy Volt may go rotary as well.
311ZeroCool 7 months ago
@Manoo62 The Rotary is not a Dead end Technology, until now it's been used in the wrong application. Audi is coming out with a Rotary assist engine which charges the electric motor. It does not run the car merely a generator. Also Aviation uses the Rotary engine as the Piston can't keep up the RPM suited for flight with out constant repairs and upkeep, where as the Rotary may drink fuel but loves the high RPM's required .
311ZeroCool 7 months ago
@311ZeroCool When you say the 'wrong applications' I assume you mean in competition with 'piston engines'.
Piston engines are still mostly used in aviation because the advantage of a rotary is very small.
You marvel at Mazda & Audi because you dont know anything about engine technology.
Chevy Volt - "consumer reports has deemed the most anticipated car to come out of America in years a lemon" BusinessInsider/dot/com
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62 Each time a rotor's face comes to the spark plugs, it is igniting air and fuel. One complete revolution of the rotor will have three ignitions!!
I'm not a big fan of SPIKE TV, but they have a pretty straight forward explanation. Search youtube: " How a Rotary Works ".
Mazda's site has a more technical view: mazdausa.com> RX-8> RX-8's Rotary RENISIS Engine
miek127 7 months ago
@miek127 typo- NOT 13008cc, but 1308cc. Sorry.
miek127 7 months ago
secrets and lies
Aceofspadez420 8 months ago
ur profile name fits well with the video
909Monopoly 8 months ago
do we know what blew off it at 55 secs? I assume its open headers, so its not the muffler packing, was it just some rubber going flying? I'm pretty sure it may have been the driver projectile shitting himself trying to get grip. Sweet build. I love it. I'm a camaro guy, but i loves me a sweet rotary.
brysonvelletri1 8 months ago
Comment removed
brysonvelletri1 8 months ago
Comment removed
brysonvelletri1 8 months ago
each rotor fires once per eccentric shaft revolution. In a piston engine, only half of the combustion chambers fire for a given revolution. This means that a 2-rotor engine fires as often as a 4-cylinder engine. However, the power stroke duration in a rotary is 50% longer, it being 3/4 of a main shaft revolution to the piston engine's 1/2. This makes a 2-rotor engine similar to a 6-cylinder
SpecTrey85 8 months ago
for every 1 complete turn of the rotor the output shaft spins 3 times which isnt the case for piston engines
SpecTrey85 8 months ago
your partially right its called a 2.6 because its output shaft rotates once for every 2.6 liters displaced which is the same way u measure a piston engine, how much air is displaced by the cylinders for every whole rotation . the rotor goes around once where the output shaft goes around 3
SpecTrey85 9 months ago
@SpecTrey85 Total crap, all engine capacity is measured as swept volume in 1 complete thermodynamic cycle, for a 4 stroke piston engine thats 2 revolutions not fucking 1 dummy. For a rotary its only 1 and the rx8 displaces 3.9L, the output shaft rotation is irrelevant it doent change the capacity of the engine!!!!!!!!!!!!!! idiot.
Manoo62 9 months ago
your partially right its called a 1.3 because its output shaft rotates once for every 1.3 liters displaced which is the same way u measure a piston engine, how much air is displaced by the cylinders for every whole rotaion
SpecTrey85 9 months ago
Comment removed
SpecTrey85 9 months ago
Comment removed
SpecTrey85 9 months ago
@SpecTrey85 You need to go away and read a bit about rotary's. Each one of those 3 power strokes per rev you mentioned is burning 654cc of fuel and air (3 x 654 = 1962cc) this is multiplied by the number of rotors in the engine, in this case four ( 4 x 1962 = 7848cc). In the case of the rx8 its (654 x 2 = 3924cc) Mazda choose to only quote a 1/3 of the engine capacity to make the engine sound impressive to the gullible.
Manoo62 9 months ago
god damn
slevinpolicy 9 months ago
its like the 250cc 2 strokes run in the 400ish cc 4 stroke class...
its how many power strokes per revolution etc
kronikally420 9 months ago 6
Where was the bmw?
all I saw was a tube-frame drag car..
SICKJ0KER 9 months ago
Look up vengeance power rotary engine, it works.
btester1 10 months ago
wow!!!!!!!
crackheadbobby1 10 months ago
HAHA, you morrons are ALL WRONG! Wankel designed the rotory, but GM perfected it in 1953, in response to the ford GT. Do your homework rotards! The mazda design is a direct take off of the GM design!
1toDV8 10 months ago
@1toDV8 GM did work on that motor but they were never able to perfect it. In fact mazda cant even perfect it 50 years later and several times have considered scrapping the engine. but yes, GM did build it first.
TheRotaryFan 9 months ago
rotor is very bad, because 10-15 drag race and motor fail, but very fast and strong.
4 rotor = ??? many HP?
biftasi 10 months ago
@biftasi is rotor very bad ? Is that why its used in high-durability crafts like boats and planes ? Known for its reliability ? Not to mention it got banned from le mans, for been to reliable.. ? You cant base how an engine works, from how it gets used in Drag races or F1...
skvakagud 10 months ago
@skvakagud
that's right. but cylinder engine has better life time
biftasi 9 months ago
pissd off coz itz n a fukn beema lol geta mad az mazda !!
jakeOtimi13 11 months ago
i believe it is a 20B 3 rotor japanese engine. Mazda only made a few 4 rotors,these are not commercially available. Felix Wankel hated the Mazda design as it did not conform to his original (desired) design where the housing also rotated, plugs and all.
amramjose 1 year ago
@amramjose Its a 26B
aldrairule 10 months ago
@amramjose There are several companies in japan and australia that sell longer crankshafts so it is possible to take a 13B engine, add two middle rotar sections from 20B engines, to form a single 4 rotar engine. From what I understand the cost is about $80 000 to build an install an engine like that. there are a number of them around. apparently naturally aspirated you can get about 560 rwhp from them. The guys at the rotary shop that I go to keep talking about building one.
TheRotaryFan 9 months ago
@TheRotaryFan That would sound impressive until you consider that a 4 rotor motor would be 7.8Ltr capacity, then it suddenly looks crap.
Manoo62 9 months ago
@Manoo62 i have never heard of a 2.6 liter considered to be a 7.8 litre capacity before
TheRotaryFan 9 months ago
@TheRotaryFan Mazda quote the chamber volume as 654cc it has three on each rotor and 4 rotors so thats 654 x 3 x 4 = 7848cc. Now you know why the drink fuel, they always will because you cant escape the 14:1 fuel to air ratio needed for combustion. Thats also why the ONLY mainstream example of a rotory engine is in the rx8 and why rotary's have gone nowhere in more than 50 years. Its dead end technology.
Manoo62 9 months ago 25
@Manoo62 i am not sure why you would consider the entire chamber volume as a factor for the displacement. the engine doesnt compress the entire chamber volume so why would you figure that into displacement? agreed though that the rotary concept is pretty much dead. They are cool as shit, but not the best by any means. I think most people that own them like them because they are different, not because they are the best.
TheRotaryFan 9 months ago
@TheRotaryFan Unfortunately the entire chamber volume IS the displacement, you cant just ignor bits of it or ever 2/3 of it as some people like to.
Manoo62 9 months ago
@Manoo62 its 2 1.3 liter engines put together , this engine won le man in 91, mazda or no other self respecting car company would put a 7 liter in a 24 hour endurance race and expect to win, also the reason it uses alot of fuel is bescause it has 3 combustion or power strokes for every 1 revolution versus 1 for every 4 in a piston engine
SpecTrey85 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Manoo62 i will pm you the link so you can read it yourself
SpecTrey85 8 months ago
@Manoo62 Get your facts straight, the air to fuel ratio is 14:1, not the fuel to air. I drive a '79 RX7, and I do a healthy 28 miles to the gallon. you should read into mazda, they have made an astounding reputation with the wankel/rotary engine, in every branch of motorsport. If you pay attention to car manufacturers, you will know that Audi is in development of a new hybrid, incorporating a wankel system.
dondebest 8 months ago
@dondebest I dont think anyone was in any doubt what the 14:1 ratio was refering to....
'astounding reputation' 'every branch of motorsport' your having a laugh!!! like what???? They only won Le Mans because they had a massive engine that was detuned to last the race. Or are you just refering to shitty RX7 racing?
The rotary engine in the hybrid Audi only runs an electric generator its used because its light which is the only advantage rotary's have over piston engines.
Manoo62 8 months ago
@Manoo62 Not in New Zealand. You see Them Everywhere.
alizaye 8 months ago
@alizaye ???See what everywhere???Whats your point???
Manoo62 8 months ago
@Manoo62 it's 14.7:1....
Let's not forget the 3rd gen RX-7, it was much faster than the RX-8.
toccovender 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toccovender The 3rd gen RX-7 had twin turbos to make for the lack of power, it also went out of production in 2002.
Manoo62 8 months ago
@Manoo62 Essentially the same car and chassis lasted for 10 years....couldn't have been doing too bad.
miek127 7 months ago
@toccovender let me correct you. "it *is much faster than the rx-8"
Gin132456 8 months ago
@Manoo62 Actually they have the "new" 16X engine running at the same fuel consumption as their current 2 litre. They've also massively reduced the weight! The only issue that they're struggling with is the new emissions targets. So if the 16X ever makes it into production.. it's sure to win more engine awards. Time will tell.
anyusernamesleftest 7 months ago
@anyusernamesleftest Massively reduced the weight of what! rotarys will never be as good as piston engines on emissions, their capacity is just to large. By the time the rx9 is expected the Euro 6 emissions regs will have come into effect. They are twice as restrictive as Euro 5 which saw off the rx8, so they wont be winning awards any time soon, if ever.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62 I can say, as long as they are running gasolene fuel, cylinder motors will be cleaner than rotaries. But you don't buy one for MPG's or low emissions, you buy it for the drive! No other motor at 1.3l will give you that much fun. RX-8's took a hit in power because the world is needing practical cars that meet emission standards.
As a driver, I love all cars and their motors. Each is unique to SOME kind of situation. Just depends on what you want to do with it.
miek127 7 months ago
@Manoo62 Umm..I think your understanding is off a bit? Each rotor has three faces to it, but the whole piston has a 654cc volume. Example: a 13B has 2x rotors at 654cc. 654 x 2= 1308cc thus the name "13" B.
So, the 4X rotor is more like like a 2600cc.........not 7848cc. that's like 12 rotors man.
Rotories have made improvements just like any other motor. They are actually one of the best for hydrogen fuel, as seen in Japan. We've done more than you know in 50 years.
miek127 7 months ago 2
@miek127 You need to do more research, try mazdas own web site. EACH CHAMBER is 654cc and each rotor has three of them. They are no better than piston engines running on Hydrogen! In 50 years they are still way behind piston engines in all respects and they will never be better for several different technical reasons. As I said dead end technology.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62 This is nuts. You're mis-interpreting the chambers and faces on the rotor. A 13B motor is 1.3l or 13008cc of displacement. Just ONE of the faces of the rotor has a maximum volume of 218cc, giving one rotor chamber a total of 654cc. A 13B has TWO of these mated together, giving them a total of 13008cc.
I just read some of your older posts too. Stop mis-informing people please!!
miek127 7 months ago
@miek127 as another point of contention to Manoo...any engine running a 14:1 fuel to air ratio has got massive problems...I feel bad for the people who believe what he says.
jestercow 7 months ago
@jestercow My GOD! Thank you! I really don't care about people's opinion on what's a "better" motor, just don't give people the wrong info! Whether a fan or not, you have to come correct!!
miek127 7 months ago
@miek127 You are, of course completely wrong, why dont you go away and do some homework.
google "rotary displacement" the first site that comes up is RX7.com
Come back when you know what you are talking about.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62
your right that every rotor face has 654cc, but remember that for 1 rotor revolution there are 3 "crank" revolutions. So there is one powerstroke for each rev(as a two stroke). That's why they use only 654cc to measure displacement.
They only drink more fuel on partial load. On full load there just as fuel effecient as an four stroke. In fact the 4 rotor mazda 787b won Le Mans by being more fuel efficient than the rest!!!
lebickmeck 7 months ago
@lebickmeck The fact the output shaft is geared 3:1 is totally irrelevant to the engine capacity. We dont re-rate two strokes because they fire twice as often as a 4 strokes! They only way to compare different engine sizes is swept volume for one complete thermodynamic cycle. For a rotary it one complete revolution of the rotor, so for the 787b thats 7.8 litres and the RX8 is 3.9 litres.
Manoo62 7 months ago 5
@Manoo62
We rate the engine size by difference in minimum and maximum volume. For a piston engine this changes twice for each revolution. For a rotary this changes twice every 1,5 rev. Therefore they usualy double the capacity when comparing to 4 strokes.
You shouldn't compare engines based on capacity, but compare them on power/weight ratio, fuel consumption, size and torque curve. Therefore I am against a max capacity rule. They should limit the amount of fuel instead.
lebickmeck 7 months ago
@lebickmeck Total rubbish, a piston engine displaces and compresses its total volume once in 2 revolutions a rotary does the same in 1 revolution. So a rotary fires twice as often as a piston engine and still only produces about half the power for the same swept volume. To compare a rotary to a typical four cylinder it is normal to measure the swept volume of 4 ignition firings on each. That would be 2/3 the full capacity of the rotary i.e 2.6L for the RX8
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62
That's exactly what i say, just in different words (1 rev, up and down= 2 changes!!!).
I just think you shouldn't use power/displacement as a rule to compare engines. For example the corvette has a 7 litre v8 with 500hp that weight just over 200kg. The M5 has a 5litre v10 with 500hp and weights 240kg.
Now explane to me why the M5 engine is better.
It is the same with rotaries. Much better power/weight ratio, and that's what really matters in terms of peformance.
lebickmeck 7 months ago
@lebickmeck You need to practice your reading, 2 revs = 1 change in fuel and air for a piston engine. For a rotary 2 revs = 2 changes of fuel and air.
You would expect a v10 to be slightly heavier than a v8 but a 500bhp out of 5L rather than 7L shows its clearly a way better engine.
The slight weight advantage that rotarys have is of little consequence in road cars.
Funny tho how rotary fans alway have to mention silly engine capacities when claiming how good their motor is.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62
1 rev, volume goes to min, max and back to min volume. Two changes.
A 4 stroke needs 4 volume changes(strokes) for one cycle, a 2 stroke needs 2. Why did you think they called them that way?
Why is the v10 better? Because it is heavier, uses more space, is more expensive, and has a higher COG and polair moment and also uses more fuel?
That are things that really matter.
lebickmeck 7 months ago
@lebickmeck The number of strokes is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is air consumed per rev.
Why do you think that F1 cars were all v12? because it was the lightest engine??.....Er No.
The COG wouldnt change at all and the polar moment change would be tiny. Fuel consumption is mostly down to engine set up and little to do with capacity, so none of those really matters.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62
All those v12's were beaten by the Cosworth dfv v8. Despite being less powerfull it was so much lighter that it still was faster. In the 90's&after V10's were the best compromise between power and weight for the 3L rule.
The v8 is mention is a OHV wich has a lower COG than the DOHC M5 v10.
Fuel consumption depents on 2 things: Used Power and the effieciency. That's why i want a Fuel based rule, not a displacement rule.
lebickmeck 7 months ago
@lebickmeck The tiny differences you are talking about are only relevant in the F1 world where fractions of a second on a lap time is still significant.
Also race rules are not really relevant to typical road motoring. Which is why the small power to weight advantage of rotarys is of little consequence on the road. The bottom line is, if rotarys had any advantage over piston engines then manufacturers would be using them and there not....and never will.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62
The differences I mention apply to every vehicle.
Mazda still makes the RX-8, wich is one of the best handeling cars, thanks to it's rotary engine. The question is, if the increased fuel consumption is worth the better handeling and peformance.
RX-8 owners think it is.
lebickmeck 7 months ago
@lebickmeck Is it better than a Lotus Elise?
Rotarys have been around for a long time and many manufacturers have looked at them but always decided not to pursue. Mainly because there is nothing better about rotarys over a piston engines except a slight weight advantage.
In a world of ever increasing emission restrictions the rotary will almost certainly die out, there is only Mazda that bother with it now. The RX8 was banned from Europe 3 years ago due to Euro 5 emission regs.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62
An Elise doesn't have four seats, I don't know a better handling four seater. And I said it is one of the best not that it is THE best (since dampers, tires etc all matter).
Never heard of Audi? They're looking to power plug-in hybrids with rotarys and there not the only one. Why? well LOW WEIGHT, cause the battery allready is very heavy in these cars.
And I don't say the rotary is the best engine. I just want to stop the bullshit about rating engines based on displacement.
lebickmeck 7 months ago
@lebickmeck As I might have already said the only advantage rotarys have is their power to weight ratio. However its only relevant in weight critical applications such as light aircraft which is the only place rotarys are widely used. Audi are powering a generator with a small rotary so size and weight are critical. If they actually though rotarys were any good they would power the car with one.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@lebickmeck It is typical of rotary fans to want to change all the rules to favour them. Almost all motor sports are based on engine capacity for a very good reason which is how it should be. If rotarys were any good you would need to change the rules to make them competative.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62
1 you say rotaries have huge displacements with poor fuel consumption
2 I say rotaries differ to much to compare with displacement
3 I propose a rule based on fuel consumption
4 You say I want to change the rules in favour of rataries
That doesn't make sense to me mate.
lebickmeck 7 months ago
@Manoo62 Please read the info you find fully first before posting it ok. In the text they only count one of the faces per rotor. Not all of the faces are at combustion at the same time. This will explain it ok. The Japanese regulations for calculating displacements for engine ratings use the volume displacement of one rotor face only, and the auto industry commonly accepts this method.
TES1V 7 months ago
@TES1V Which is equivalent to counting the volume of one cylinder in a four cylinder engine because only one is firing at any one time!!!! Ridiculous.
Its a good con if you can pull it off but it relys on fools believing the RX8 is only 1.3L.
Insurance companies, sports governing bodies and people with two brain cells to rub together, dont accept the silly method of calculating rotary capacity because its just wrong.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62 Mazda quote the chamber volume as 654cc it has three on each rotor and 4 rotors so thats 654 x 3 x 4 = 7848cc. Is magic in numbers...... Its dead end technology, where the hell have you been? 3 cycles in one revolution means its already got advantage over your 4 cycle piston engine. Legendary 787b Mazda whoop all your favorite cars so hard that the famous R26b engine ^ four rotor mazda engine has been banned from Le Mans 24 hour race.
WakingTheTragedy 7 months ago
@WakingTheTragedy Perhaps you would like to explain why 3 cycles per revolution is an advantage??
The Mazda won ONCE because it had a heavily detuned engine so that it would last the whole race, hardly a legend.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62 3 cycle's per revolution means in it has 3 power strokes, 3 exhaust breaths, 3 intake breaths. 3 power strokes means more power/torque at a continuous rate. 4 rotors x 3 power strokes per rotor means technically its v12 piston engine but 1/3 the size and definitely weighs less. Yes, in the "past" the Wankel had poor torque. Also, drastic improvements of cnc n milling, alloys and materials and the over-all design of the new Wankels make them even more dependable and stronger.
WakingTheTragedy 7 months ago
@WakingTheTragedy Very good, so the 13b from the RX8 is more like a V6 piston engine, a 3.9L V6. The Nissan Z370 has a slightly smaller 3.7L V6 which produces about 100 bhp more than the RX8 and around 100 ft/lbs more torque and does 10mpg more. Still think rotarys are any good?
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62 stop being a biased troll.... 1.3l pushing 250hp... 2.0 pushing 300hp... and 2.6l pushing 700hp+... I dont see how its a dead end technology.... 3 cycles per revolution means more torque and horsepower in a faster time then a piston engine can produce... they added another spark plug per rotor housing to burn the fuel more effectivly... it out lasted the rest of the cars for having better MPG while keeping its 700whp... the car could easily produce 800-900whp N/A....
Tj1056 6 months ago
@Tj1056 You mean 3.9L pushing out 225 bhp at only 25 mpg and a 7.8L race engine only pushing out 700bhp. Even someone as dumb as you must have wondered why NO ONE is interested in rotary technology?
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 LOL... what? your even more retarded then the other people... you get even more liters then you can even fill in the engine... they call it a 2.6l for race class porposes... and that is the only reason... mazda would have have labeled it 1.3l if it was not... again you are not going to fit 7.8l into a 2.6l 4 rotor... also how many 7.8l N/A engines running 700hp...
Tj1056 6 months ago
@Tj1056 Your an idiot, do your home work, try googling 'rotary displacement' and look at the first site. Come back when you know what your taliking about.
An F1 engine is a genuine 2.4L and puts out around 700bhp.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 it has 20k rev limit... this rotary has 12k rev limit... and F1 use different fuel...
Tj1056 6 months ago
@Tj1056 F1 engines are limited to 16k revs by current rules, they also must run on unleaded pump fuel.
Without any rule limitations they could probably make close to 1000bhp too, all from an engine that less than a third of the capacity of the 26b...!
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 also btw after they did porting on the 4 rotor they made nearly 1000whp...
Tj1056 6 months ago
@Manoo62 how many v12 do you see pushing 800whp N/A and only weight ~550lbs... twin turbo 26b have seen 2000hp easy... remember its only a 2.6l...
Tj1056 6 months ago
Also, 13B-MSP Renesis has been designed and engineered to be able to compete and beat your gas saving Ford Fiesta, Volt, and Smart car with yet again the luxury of more power. Also, the engine runs of Ethanol, Gasoline 83, and hydrogen. GG
WakingTheTragedy 7 months ago
@WakingTheTragedy The 13B-MSP from the RX8 typically did 25mpg, where as the smart does 43.3mpg the Fiesta 48.1mpg and Volt 72mpg. The 13B-MSP was never designed with economy in mind.
Manoo62 7 months ago
@Manoo62 Your math is incorrect, the wankel only cycles its chamber volume once per rotor face per crankshaft revolution. So divide your answer by 3 and you will be more correct :)
james3dmc 6 months ago
@james3dmc The fact that the output shaft is geared down 3:1 is totally irrelevant to engine capacity. A 4 stroke only sweeps half its volume in 1 revolution but we dont half the capacity.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62
Might wanna check urself there. Wanna explain why the 1991 Le Mans was won by the rotary engine of the 787b? yea it was the only rotary to ever win, but thats because Group C regs were thrown out after, and you could only use piston driven engines.
ChewRhodes 6 months ago
@ChewRhodes The rule change to ban the Mazda, the Jag V12 and the turbos was made in 1989, due to come in force at the end of 1991. Mazda managed to negotiated a 170kg weight advantage due to the age of the car for the 1991 race. Its a massive advantage for speed, handling and fuel economy, it tipped the balance in Mazdas favour and they won after 17 years of trying.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 I was just pointing out that the technology wasn't going anywhere for 50 years. And yea as a marque they had been trying for 17 years, but the 787 came out in 1990, and the 787b came out in 1991. soooo....yea there were HUGE advancements and planning put into that engine. The 757 was in 86, but it was made under GTP class, tough to fight the others in the Le Mans with that. and then in 88 they had the 88. so 1991-1986= .... 17? dont think so.
ChewRhodes 6 months ago
@Manoo62 oh, and it only had 50kgs advantage over the Jags and C11 mercedes
ChewRhodes 6 months ago
@ChewRhodes Mazda first competed at Le Mans with a rotary in 1983 using the 717C, so it was actually 18 years.
In the 1991 Le Mans the 787b was allowed to race at 830kg when the C2 class minimum was 1000kg it was the only car allowed to do so.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 Cool story bro....wrong. Sauber Mercedes C11 weighed in at 904kg, and the Jag XJR-12 was 900kg flat, and the 962C Porsche was 899kg. so they had a 70kg advantage. And it was nowhere near as fast as the other cars, C11 was the fastest. It won because it was MUCH more reliable and more efficient.
ChewRhodes 6 months ago
@ChewRhodes AS I SAID the Mazda was the only car running at 830kg.
All the cars that finished the race had the same reliability!!!
If they finished the race without running out of fuel then efficiency wasnt necessarily a factor.
Mazda won by doing 2 laps more than anyone else in 24hrs, thats it, hardly impressive.
They won due to having a weight advantage over everyone else in the race, it was a one off.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 AS I SAID, that is not that much of a weight difference to write off a Le Mans win. The car was tested and true one of the most reliable engines in Le Mans history, not necessarily the fastest. That's an accomplishment in itself. Fuel efficiency is a HUGE part of the race. Pit strategy is one of the most important elements, and fuel has a pivotal role in that. Mercedes was actually winning the race until they shut down in the pits. Big game changer there. You have no basis of judgement
ChewRhodes 6 months ago
based on the fact that the 2.6L engine was smashing those of much higher displacement. You can't say the engine hasn't gone anywhere in the past 50 years, BECAUSE ITS BEEN BANNED for being too good. So shut the hell up already you troll.
ChewRhodes 6 months ago
@ChewRhodes The 7.8L Mazda 787b was the biggest engine in the race for a start.
Name any mainstream example of a rotary engine being used other than the Mazda RX?
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 Given time, we may see a new resurgence. The reliability, power to weight ratio, and smaller size are all very important aspects of street cars. With changed sparkplug layouts and gear ratio tuning, efficiency can be increased further. The Chevy Volt has been said to have a rotary engine considered. Don't trash great technology that is banned from most circuits as your basis as to it "going nowhere."
ChewRhodes 6 months ago
@ChewRhodes Being banned from tracks has no effect on real life applications for a start. Many companies have looked into rotary's only Mazda pursued it.
"Resurgence" from what? they have never done anything!
"great technology" thats a contradiction in terms, if it was great why is no one currently using it?
If the Chevy Volt uses a rotary engine it will be powering a generator only. Because as I have said the ONLY advantage a rotary engine has is its light weight.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 Companies look to incorporate the technology they find tried and true on the race track. Chevy with the LS engines, Porsche with their Boxer 6-cylinder, Ford with their 4-cylinder rally cars, Audi with their Diesel technology. Bullshit it has no real life applications.
ChewRhodes 6 months ago
@ChewRhodes All of those were road vehicles before going on the track, not the other way round.
As I have said the likes of Ford, BMW, Mercedes have all considered rotary technology and non of them bothered to pursue it because they quickly realised it had no advantage over piston engines other than weight. In fact they have so many disadvantages even Mazda are struggling to make it work. If the RX9 doesnt make it into production then rotarys will die out due to lack of interest.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 Only before track engine there was the Ford inline-4 there. And it was being phased out untill rally, they were looking to push at the reliable 6-cylinders and big blocks. Porsche's engines were straight race engines. And how are you going to say the LS wasn't made with Chevy's race history written all over it.
ChewRhodes 6 months ago
@ChewRhodes Complete rubbish, Ford were only making 4 cylinder cars in Europe since the 50's long before any rally success. In fact they have only made 4 cyl engines in EU & a very small number of V6.
All the Porsche flat 6 were from road cars before the ever saw the track. The only race engines they make go into the Le Mans cars. As for Chevy they have never made a race engine, they are all reworked from road cars like the LS, nasty 2 valve pushrod engines that no one else produces any more.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Manoo62 thats also why the most common configuration is 2 instead of 4.
Grimdopple 6 months ago
Rotor engine + BMW = one damn good German
KA7Blak 1 year ago
Technically no matter what engine was put in there it would be a German design, since the Otto cycle was invented by a German, unless it was a hybrid then it would be British if you want to be that technical. The actual engine was still engineered and manufactured by Mazda they just used an engine design invented by Germans, just like every other car manufacturer in the world does.
ACEnEagles 1 year ago
it have a street car from trinidad 2nd gen rx7 700hp pump gas stock gear box stock supension ran 10.1 pump gas 17psi its on utube peter laquis 20b 2nd gen rx7 keep up d great work
7777shooter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Find the real deal, a free energy device at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the revolution!
offertorycardiacml 1 year ago
Thats A 3 rotor listen to the idle
Moore20506 1 year ago
@Moore20506 thats is A 3 rotor
rhysdude1 1 year ago
@rhysdude1 its a quad, its obvious
MrKinghit 1 year ago
@Moore20506 its a quad, to any rotary enthusiast it is obvious
MrKinghit 1 year ago
You say it has a rotissire engine?
PistolPete2 1 year ago
where is this track?
roaringwaterbay 1 year ago
Your piece of shit honda cant do this...
Luxo087 1 year ago
does bmw use rotaries in any cars they build right now?
roaringwaterbay 1 year ago
@roaringwaterbay not that im aware of.... it was dropped in it
wrrider128 1 year ago
@roaringwaterbay no, thats just a beamer shell over a monster dragster.
kobukankingkona 1 year ago
was that mph haha
XxROCKSTARxX69 1 year ago
I want one
bmwe30e36m3 1 year ago
INSANE!
swefor 1 year ago
INSANE!
swefor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Germany systematically uses torture and murder to silence any opposition. Some of the murders known to the public: Uwe Barschel, Jürgen Möllemann, Heiner Gehring, Martina Pflock, Tron, Karl Koch, Bernd Seiffert, Kirsten Heisig, Fritz Bauer.
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured during 5.5 years by the German BND. He was assassinated on 11.7.09 because of our homepage.
German snitchers are following me on youtube and immediately flag my postings.
wwwtotalitaerde 1 year ago
Nice! its like a modern-day NSU! (the original Rotary)
fatsubsonic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it's probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
faerydhhlo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it's probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
fittingciobb 1 year ago
Comment removed
Wykk1dCl0wnz4Lyfe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here! The Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
revolution!
slipshodcoqbgg 1 year ago
holly crap is that a 26B? sounds like one.
VooDooAssassin2 1 year ago
I laugh at the whole lot of you who seem to be arguing about this rotary/wankel thing... By the looks of it, not one of you know what it is, how they work and the rest of it, where as only by listening to the video, i could tell you NEARLY EVERYTHING, rotary/wankels are in my blood!...
20b Periphial Ported Quad rotor, with a customised single turbo conversion....
This is so funny to read all these messages.....
thugdridah 1 year ago
@thugdridah its pretty funny to read yours too when it says 4 rotor in the title... that makes it a 26B... other then that your facts seem to be strait.
blackedoutFC3S 1 year ago
@thugdridah "20b Periphial Ported Quad rotor, with a customised single turbo conversion...."
lol 20b quad rotor? 20bs are three rotors, 26b are 4. You are right about it being a 4 rotor but if you're going to try to sound so cool w/ your "where as only by listening to the video, i could tell you NEARLY EVERYTHING"check what you right first.
1337Metalface 1 year ago
this thing sounds pissed off at the world
runtz52 1 year ago 57
@runtz52 Best comment ever
lomansik 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@runtz52 Best comment ever
lomansik 1 year ago
@runtz52 at 1664HP & 1200 ft lb torque dyno tested u bet it is, u got have your balls screwed on tight to get behind the wheel of that thing!
RalphdaCuban 1 year ago
@runtz52 lol sure does nasty mean sound to.
matthewmarrs123 9 months ago
@runtz52 sounds aweomse!!!!
maxyarn 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dargaville Burnout Comp Weekend date is set 12th,13th feb 2011 we are looking for new Sponsors, Entrants and Spectators, we are hoping to hit $10,000 for the over all winner and there will be $1,000 for each of the 4 classes = 4cil, 6cil, 8cil, rotor & woman's. 1st $500 2nd $300 3rd $200 + plus over $3,000 to be won in the car show hard luck, bikini and wet t shirt!! prepare to camp as there is live band Tempis Fugit playing + 2 DJs + the sunday finals + mid day breast cancer car cruise
454blowen 1 year ago
the germans invented the rotary ,,but could'nt perfect it..the japs bought the technology an made it better..got to love the japs..
zacxs28 1 year ago
@zacxs28 actually, the German's were somewhat successful, the first car to have a rotary was the NSU Spider. The only reason it didn't sell that well was because the material's that NSU weren't up to the massive stress caused by rotaries.
oldsoulyoungbody 1 year ago
heres the funny thing that has 4 in it and it hits the same speeds as v8+ drag racers... they put up to 10 roters. the v8 has more torque but a rotery has massive revs and wicked horsepower dont say that the v8 is better than a rotery without facts.
Hitlo58 1 year ago
the main issue with these engine is you need two rev limiter.cause its very easy to hit rev limiter and hitting rev limiter in a rotary means byby engine!
drbaltazar 1 year ago
Mate 2nd gear is off the chain!!! Go Da Rotors!!! Australia!!!
AnswersDumbQuestions 1 year ago
Sounds like crap but sure lays down some smack!
detroitiron302 1 year ago
however the japs made it cool
chazz187 1 year ago
hey look its a mushroom cloud
RoboticArmy88 1 year ago
I don't understand why he tickles the gas before he heats his tires, and when he lines up on the start. 0.0 Is it him doing it, r is it the engine rev-limiting?
ManyTailedFox 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CARxRIM know what your talking about before you chat shit lol! as Millennmify said felix wankel invented the rotary engine called the wankel (pronounced vankel) this engine was in the rx7's and then mazda took the technology and designed their own rotary engine called the renesis for the rx8 although its more reliable it doesn't have the torque of the original wankel engine
badboijay1 1 year ago