@1398cp I'd agree that they are heavy on fuel, they are however simple to rebuild and don't burn the quantities of oil that people rumour them to. it's normally people that have never owned one that suggest they drink oil.
@1398cp Their on fuel. They do use some oil as thats how they are designed but use no more than my 95 230K dohc 3000gt. HOWEVER if the engine is taken care of it should last pretty long as it is simpler and has less moving parts.
@1398cp ive owned a 2006 STi and a 2006/7 evo 9, a nissan s14.5 and a series 8 rx7, the Subaru used the most oil of all of them (and it was brand new). the rx7 isnt too bad on oil. its heavy on fuel. its not that hard to fix either and very reliable. rotaries dont deserve the bad rap they get.
@RemixEvolution2011 i should mention too the evo9 had 244kw at all 4 wheels (nicely modified ECU and exhaust, intake and fuelling) and used a Lot of fuel but still managed to use a Lot less than my rotary does. (which has 191kw at the rear wheels). i like the rotary engine feel though, its smooth, very revvy, very free, very nice sounding and very race like. theyre a good thing. i hope mazda continue developing the turbo variants.
actually rotary engine got double power per cycle....it mostly like two stroke engine...a conventional 4 stroke engine only ignite one time per 720 degree while rotary ignite one time per 360 degree....720/360=2...rotary got two ignition per 720 degree...even it similar like two stroke but we need to know that its not a two stroke because it still doing a four cycle per complete cycle(intake,compression,combustion and exhaust) while two stroke only got (compression and combustion)
I'm still trying to figure that out myself. The rotary engine is definitely the most efficient design because of not only having less parts for maintenance and losing so much kinetic energy like you would with pistons, but also handling multiple cycles all in a single stroke.
So I'm wondering, wouldn't an efficient design of an engine help save fueling cost? I'm not really a mechanic, but I'm just very curious to learn why a rotary engine would guzzle up more fuel than the piston.
@NaziGOPBallmer Efficiency is based on the conversion of fuel into heat and heat into work, the Wankel has a few shortcomings in both departments that effect performance. The greater surface area of the rotor chamber causes more heat loss and the greater amount of sealing area increases potential for leakage. Flame front propagation the pattern of burning air-fuel mixture is less effective, and volumetric effeciency (its ablity to pump air in and out) is less, although better w/ turbocharging
@ manoo62 I'm just learning about rotary engines but I have to say I like your argument. So I ask you, if you had the chance to buy a 1988 Rx-7 convertible with 90k miles in Texas for $3,200 would you dare to drive it home 1,400 miles to Michigan in the winter? This would not be a daily driver and I would want to do repairs myself or with minimal expense. I like unique possessions and tolerate difficulties as a labor of love.
Piston: "Ghaddammit! Why do I have to do this!? Being enslaved in this hellish workplace? I am a ghaddam Harvard top-notch Doctoral Graduate with honors!!!! This is unfair!"
@MicroOrginisum Yeah and an engine like this will not ever produce the power a V8 can either. I haven't seen a rotary yet that pull less than a 6 second time.
@Haukenslush Issue is torque, or lack of it. car must be very light and aren't great for towing. Also not super fuel efficient. But they are fast very, sound awesome and Mazda made beautiful cars in the 70's. Especially the RX3 coupe!
The biggest benefit to a rotary engine is that you can get a lot of power out of a very small, lightweight engine allowing you to place it in an optimal location easier. They're really only good for the racing world as they consume lots of oil and are not known for their longevity. (Apex seal replacement anyone?)
As far as the amazing power per 1.3L claim...yeah sure you could say that...except for each output shaft rotation it's firing all 1.3L, which is what a 2.6L 4-stroke would do.
Though where does the three come from in a 2 rotor engine? Like what other sites said, you have an alternating chamber size, and if it was 654 cc for each, then wouldn't it be terribly big? The fact of the matter is that if it's classified as a 1.3, then surely, the sizes of each chamber has to be 218 cc. Hence 218 x 3 = 654 cc x 2 = 1308 cc, hence the 1.3 L. I'm not trying to come off as arrogant, I just still don't see how it's a 3.9 L, that would be in the leagues of those (c)
Ya rotories have some problems but havent been here as long as pistons which had problems too but more time to fix them and there was more people working on fixing them.
El Motor Wankel no fue lo que se esperaba de él. Ahora hay proyectos novedosos diferentes muy interesantes, como lo son: RADMAX y The Best Rotary Engine o Motor Rotativo Yonto; en este último no existen ni triángulos impulsores ni anillos o sellos de ninguna especie, se asemeja mucho a un motor de turbina pero resulta aún más sencillo. Se puede ver aquí en YouTube en: The Best Rotary Engine, how it works
no point o argue because always will be people hwo think what is already there is good but u cant stop progress and u must be blind if u dont see the potential of such an engine, even if it has for now the flooding problem. the current classic motor is old, evry1 knows that and electric cars are bullshit so this type of engine, a bit optimized for eficiency,i think will remain in the future. Simple is better...always.
for the slow minded hwo ask why evry1 else not using rotarry engine: MONEY! , they need to change production line in all europe (i'm talking about mercedes,bmw,vw, ford,etc) , how manny of u know that the electronics and cable and interior parts of your 50keuros bmw,mercedes vw and other cars are made in third world country where the people are paid whit 1-2 dollars a day?. I personally hate bmw, vw, mercedes..is just makeup...no interes on real progres
@Treisprazece Nothing what so ever to do with MONEY! if they were any good all car manufactures would be using them, but there not, because its not progess.
i got a view here, 4 example i will take the intake phase, i think there is waste of power here when the intake phase gets full volume before the ignition in this point of time there is no ignition just still fuelling the chamber with max volume in this time there is no power in the engine and could be considered loss of tourqe
@355LTM The C111 didnt have the first rotary engine!?!?!?! it never went into production either. They went with a turbo diesel as it was a better engine.
@355LTM I know who invented the rotary engine!!! but it wasnt first used in the C111 it didnt even go into production. Also rotary's dont have cylinders..........
@355LTM The C111 wasnt the first car to use a rotary engine, the NSU was, about 5 years earlier but as I said the rotary C111 never went into production anyway and Mercedes have never done anything more with rotary's.
I am using Mazdas own figures dummy, they quote a chamber size of 654cc, there are 3 chambers on each rotor and there are 2 rotors (not engines) 654 x 3 x 2 = 3924cc simple. Although it might be too complicated for your brain.
@ShinMegamiTENsei537 No, as I said, each of the three chambers has a volume of 654cc hence a total 654 x 3 = 1962cc for each of the two rotors so x 2 = 3924cc which is why the drink fuel.
@Manoo62 Right, all I'm saying as that per RPM a 2.6L engine fires the same amount. The only real advantage I've ever seen to a rotary engine is if you want a very compact engine to reduce weight in a racing application. They're really only drivable at high RPM, not all that fuel efficient and haven't been known for their longevity.
@Manoo62 sorry but not all the chambers are same size at the same time so that is the proplem , that's why madzda counts the chaimbers when the compression is done
and one thing the engine is 1.3 liter engine and 654cc is one cylinder size that's why it's 654cc x 2
@Manoo62 Madza does what it does i know the facts but you cant chance the way madza counts them so dont blame me and if you apply that theory of yours on normal engine result woud be 2 liter engine woud be 4 liter engine if you think it about it
@anttiroivainen Any engines capacity is defined as the swept volume in one complete thermodynamic cycle. for a rotary its one revolution of the rotor, for a four stroke it two revolutions and a two stroke is also one revolution. Mazda call it a 1.3L as a gimmick to make the engine sound impressive because they know its not. But you cant escape the fact that it IS a 3.9L regardless of what Mazda try to claim.
@Manoo62 belive what you want but cylinder size minus piston size and result here is 654 cc are left for motor operation and there is two cylinders so it's 654 x 2 actually if you count the cc's what manges the fuel result it woud be under 1,3 liter engine but every thing is counted including exhaust and compression
and intake so its 1.3 liter engine belive me on this.
@anttiroivainen Ha ha ha what are you talking about? have you got the slightest idea how a rotary engine works? "cylinder size, piston size" they dont have either you idiot. And you think you have any credibility for knowing how to calculate the capacity of a rotary ha ha ha you havent got a clue.
@asadullah786 Glad you agree that we count the full volume of each chamber in one cycle, thats 6 x 654cc = 3942cc So what was the point of your first post idiot.
Wow pistons engine are not more reliable both have downfalls an plus my friend blew all his seals and could still drive without knowing can you do that in normal engine?
@Chevyguy2003 ye but the size of them are a lot larger, heck a 1.3 litre engine (rx-8) has almost double a 1.6 vauxhall astra in terms of bhp, though the cc of the rotary engine is doubled so on the insurance it says its a 2616cc engine while in reality its only a 1308cc due to its design creating the huge power from its small size. Um piston engines are more reliable if treated under bad conditions, good conditions rotary engines are the superiors imo
@lotussheath No, in reality the rx8 has a 3.9Ltr engine. The Z370 produces 100 bhp more 100 ft/lb more torque and has better mpg and yet has a smaller engine. There is a good reason why the only main stream example of a rotary engine application is the rx8....they're crap.
@Manoo62 its not a 3.9 since the third slot is just an exhaust, thus its a 2.6 litre but its the size of a 1.3 thus reducing weight, strain and amount of moving components needed thus theyre less likely to go wrong and the main reason why the nismo has a higher power is due to its turbo. Mazdas also trying to improve the design of the wankle rotary engine but the way it works is more efficient where the main downfall is due to its lack of containment
@lotussheath Did you actually watch the video? try 5:45 onwards. All three side of the rotor compress and fire in one revolution i.e. 3.9Ltrs of fuel and air. Which is why they drink fuel and yet still manage to have crap performance.
@Manoo62 while the rotation is 1:3 the engine itself has 1 compression, 1 combustion and 1 exhaust where a the power is generated from 2/3 of the chambers where the third is there just for a release of gas. All your quoting is a type of "gear ratio" in the same terms since a normal piston has a 1:1 ratio and the rotary engine has a 1:3 ratio though an engine is defined by its "powered" chambers and not its ratio of rotation.... just check the insurance companies...
@lotussheath So you havent watched the video then? If you had you would know that in ONE revolution of the rotor there are THREE power strokes. 3.9Ltrs is the swept volume in one complete cycle, the same as you measure any engine. Insurance companies downgrade rotary's by 1/3 on account of their poor performance compared to a piston engine.
@Manoo62 if it was the case that the power output would be defined by the ratio between the complete revolutions of the engine in comparison to the crank shaft all it would require is to but a gear system between the crank shaft on a piston engine with a 2:1 ratio to then double the cc of the engine by your explanation. The engine itself is a 1.3 in the mazda rx8 though the cc of it is 2616cc since there are 2 power chambers and 1 exhaust chamber thus 2x1.3=2616cc
@Manoo62 and the whole point in the engine is the fact its small and light weight without a shed load of components that are moving that can break.... and the insurance company cant say oh the engine is weak so we'll lower its grade.... they have to base it on its specifications... honestly you cant know more than every single insurance company in the world who will do anything to make more money... they say its a 2616cc engine thus thats the most it can be called
@lotussheath So in the video at 6:44 when he clearly states the that ignition and expansion occurs three times (in one revolution) hes wrong?? according to you. The 3:1 gearing on the rotor is irrelevant as far as capacity is concerned, all that counts is swept volume in one complete revolution of the engine.
Insurance companies rate cars on risk which has little to do with capacity they can do that however they want. They certainly dont define an engines capacity
@Manoo62 okay mazda rates the engine in the rx-8 as a 1.3 litre, 2616cc engine.... THEY MADE THE ENGINE!, the insurance company views the rx-8 as having a 2616cc engine
seriously how hard is it to come to terms with every single respectable source is saying its a 1.3 litre engine with 2616cc
just look for yourself and stop barking up the wrong tree when your trying to dispute a fact that every specification fact sheet of the rx-8 its claiming 1.3 litre and 2616cc...
@lotussheath "every single respectable source is saying its a 1.3 litre engine with 2616cc" So which one is it? 1.3L or 2.6L????? or dont you know????
Let me give you a clue, its 1.3L if you only count one of the three firings per revolution 2.6L if you count 2 of the 3 firings and 3.9L if you cound all of the firings in one revolution/cycle. The same as you would rate any other engine.....
@Manoo62 the size of the engine is 1.3l... the displacement is 2616cc... not hard to figure out.. if you got a problem with either of these then go to mazda and tell them they have there facts wrong... seriously im telling you what ive seen in both the mazdas specifications displayed on their website and multiple insurance companys where they agree its a 1.3l engine with a displacement of 2616cc
@lotussheath what mazda probably means is that they have a rotor engine that displaces 2.6L, but the rotor motor is equivalent in size, to a 1.3L piston motor... if you stated piston motor vs rotor motor, your numbers: 1.3l and 2.6l would not be confused
@fatqwert200 No they have a 3.9L rotary engine that is roughly equivalent to a 2.6L piston engine. Mazda call it a 1.3L engine to make it sound better because they know its crap when compared to an EQUAL size piston engine.
@lotussheath Wow you really are dumb, its a 1.3L that displaces 2.6L, have you any idea how stupid that statement is?? Then just when I thought it couldnt get any worse, 'its got two fucking engines now' come back when you know what your talking about idiot.
@Manoo62 the mazda engine is comprised of two small engines and im saying the capacity of the engine is 1.3L compared to a normal piston engine but based on the fact its a rotary its a 2.6l, these are split up among two engines which displace half of the total each... if you want just research mazdas latest engine and it shows theyre sticking to the smaller size to reduce the flame spread withing the combustion chamber to increase full efficiency
@lotussheath If you actually bothered to watch the video above you might learn something, you obviously need to. Mazda are actually increasing the engine size to 4.8L for the new motor.
@Manoo62 well its gone from a 1.3 to a 1.6 and thats shared between the two engines thus to reduce the flame spread
In all honesty your trying to lie about an engine to make it look crap whilst the facts are clearly there for any one to see though you want to try and prove something that clearly isnt true since your disputing points against the people who made the thing and the people who have to measure it.. Im pretty sure they know more than you do
@dadecountyhustler305 well if its warped or made incorrectly... your main issue with these engines are flooding where you leave the throttle open without turning the ignition
Truly genius. It has a ton of potential to be the greatest engine. I have one in my RX7 and its truly amazing, except for the gas mileage and emissions problem.
@musclekid13 lets hope hydrogen becomes the fuel of choice. Rotaries are unique as they use a separate chamber for induction, compression, ignition and exhaust. For volatile hydrogen this is a huge advantage.
Very Good illistration on the rotary motor, but the classic 4 stroke is being explained as a 3 stroke which is very wrong. But for the sake of explaining it should be fine.
As good as this design may seem, it has major disadvantages. Rotary engines use a lot more fuel, this is because the transfer of energy from the rotation of the rotor to the crankshaft is very poor.......the center of the rotor only moves slightly in a circler motion as the rotor goes around the chamber. It's this circler motion that then forces the crank to go around, the movement it's enough to transfer energy efficiently.
A German guy build this, but he was to smart for hes time and no one could back him up.... so a f*÷+# a guy from jap. took the idea and put it to development..... so now every ignorant thinks the jap. came up with this engine !!!!!!
all these years ive understood perfectly how a conventional piston engine worked but was stumped about rotary engines. this 1 video cleared everything up
By my understanding of this this should mean that, all things being equal, a rotary should have 6 times the power (and fuel consumption) of an equivilent capacity reciprocating engine because it's firing 3 times on each rotation whereas a reciprocating engine is firing only once on every 2nd rotation. On the other hand, the explosion is not as efficiently channeled into an obvious dirrection of motion so that's why a 2ltr MX6 engine isn't equivilent to a 12ltr engine. Also very precice machining
@meharidude well yeah my bad it regulates but it dosent have valves maybe its because since each side acts as a piston in which case they atleast have 2 rotors which equal 6 its like a 6 cyl atleast also its copletely dif so rotarys are built to be physicaly and kineticaly efficient not gas lol like most race cars
Then again, its power to weight ratio is pretty off the charts. IIRC, a Mazda RX7 motor is around 150 pounds. vs say a VW Golf 4 cyl engine which is around 350 pounds.
@under82 actually if you go further back into mazda's history there Cosmos were the first cars they made that had rotarys. That is if you want to dig a little deeper into what cars had the rotary
Mazda used the Wankel before the RX7, already in 1967 they used it in the Cosmo, and NSU used it before that in the NSU Spider. RX7 wasnt the first by a long shot.
@pimpb0tt Effeciently in terms of how the weight of its moving parts move in the same direction in one fluid motion. Not stoping after each combustin, compression and exhaust.
I guess the gas efficientcy is because of the no valve mecanissm since the engine just takes gas the comp dosent regulate the amount and even at low acceleration it still uses a fair amout of gas. IDK its just my assumption.
Compression and intake wise, it works like any other petrol engine, it sucks in a mixture of air and petrol ("gas") and regulates on the amount. its not a diesel you know:-D
Drove a 6-speed manual RX-8 over the recent weekend. Felt like the fuel tank was leaking! Haha! Like driving a turbo 2.0 or a n/a 3.0-3.5-litre. The fuel consumption, that is.
Tried a friend's BMW Z4 2.2L (auto) on Monday & spent about 60-75% less on fuel covering same distance, with similar driving conditions.
Yes, 2 less seats but I'll take the BMW anytime over the Maz. 'Stronger' badge, better build quality, tactile level, less NVH (noise, vibration & harshness) despite the soft top.
I'd rather a Rotary motor over a piston motor anyday. Because: They sound better, they are easy to build and when you blow it up, it wont wreck the block.
The Russians invented a Rotary that has the seals in the block and are easily replaced.
The are more efficient at high revs. They are ideal for range extenders only running at fixed speed. The are small, smooth and quiet. Its time may have come with the Chevy Volt.
I love this engine :D
oiram1189 1 week ago
@soraaoixxthebluesky actually the rotary has three combustion's for every 360 degree turn
rotarys are known to be difficult to fix hard on fuel and they eat oil three meals a day!
1398cp 1 month ago
@1398cp I'd agree that they are heavy on fuel, they are however simple to rebuild and don't burn the quantities of oil that people rumour them to. it's normally people that have never owned one that suggest they drink oil.
djphilmanns 1 month ago 4
@1398cp Their on fuel. They do use some oil as thats how they are designed but use no more than my 95 230K dohc 3000gt. HOWEVER if the engine is taken care of it should last pretty long as it is simpler and has less moving parts.
Jaymobe07 1 month ago
@1398cp ive owned a 2006 STi and a 2006/7 evo 9, a nissan s14.5 and a series 8 rx7, the Subaru used the most oil of all of them (and it was brand new). the rx7 isnt too bad on oil. its heavy on fuel. its not that hard to fix either and very reliable. rotaries dont deserve the bad rap they get.
RemixEvolution2011 4 weeks ago
@RemixEvolution2011 i should mention too the evo9 had 244kw at all 4 wheels (nicely modified ECU and exhaust, intake and fuelling) and used a Lot of fuel but still managed to use a Lot less than my rotary does. (which has 191kw at the rear wheels). i like the rotary engine feel though, its smooth, very revvy, very free, very nice sounding and very race like. theyre a good thing. i hope mazda continue developing the turbo variants.
RemixEvolution2011 4 weeks ago
Is rotary more efficent than normal engine?
MrDaldagnuur 1 month ago
actually rotary engine got double power per cycle....it mostly like two stroke engine...a conventional 4 stroke engine only ignite one time per 720 degree while rotary ignite one time per 360 degree....720/360=2...rotary got two ignition per 720 degree...even it similar like two stroke but we need to know that its not a two stroke because it still doing a four cycle per complete cycle(intake,compression,combustion and exhaust) while two stroke only got (compression and combustion)
soraaoixxthebluesky 2 months ago
my left ear enjoyed this one!
FrenchValleyAirport 2 months ago 8
If i understand right;
rotary motors are more powerfull, Because they dont lose any power by making each round. But they use more fuel.
The engines from now loses their power everytime they are at ther highest and their lowest point. But saves more fuel.
So a little thing i dont get is, the rotary engine doesnt lose any power but uses alot of fuel,
And the other one loses his power 2 times a round but uses less fuel??
(sorry for my bad english)
TheShadowbd 3 months ago
@TheShadowbd
I'm still trying to figure that out myself. The rotary engine is definitely the most efficient design because of not only having less parts for maintenance and losing so much kinetic energy like you would with pistons, but also handling multiple cycles all in a single stroke.
So I'm wondering, wouldn't an efficient design of an engine help save fueling cost? I'm not really a mechanic, but I'm just very curious to learn why a rotary engine would guzzle up more fuel than the piston.
NaziGOPBallmer 2 months ago
@NaziGOPBallmer Same question here 0_o
ovais909 2 months ago
@NaziGOPBallmer Efficiency is based on the conversion of fuel into heat and heat into work, the Wankel has a few shortcomings in both departments that effect performance. The greater surface area of the rotor chamber causes more heat loss and the greater amount of sealing area increases potential for leakage. Flame front propagation the pattern of burning air-fuel mixture is less effective, and volumetric effeciency (its ablity to pump air in and out) is less, although better w/ turbocharging
doktorbimmer 1 month ago
@ manoo62 I'm just learning about rotary engines but I have to say I like your argument. So I ask you, if you had the chance to buy a 1988 Rx-7 convertible with 90k miles in Texas for $3,200 would you dare to drive it home 1,400 miles to Michigan in the winter? This would not be a daily driver and I would want to do repairs myself or with minimal expense. I like unique possessions and tolerate difficulties as a labor of love.
bfoot2211 3 months ago
Too bad rotaries chug oil, require high maintenance and lack reliability, all the while being virtually torqueless.
tacomanfan344 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
0:35 to 0:44 CUTE
Piston: "Ghaddammit! Why do I have to do this!? Being enslaved in this hellish workplace? I am a ghaddam Harvard top-notch Doctoral Graduate with honors!!!! This is unfair!"
:)
N6600 4 months ago
Comment removed
N6600 4 months ago
i use only this link to show everyone whats under my bonnet, because its sol funny )
as89189 4 months ago
Thanks a lot for uploading these videos!!! The two circles part was amazing!!
k24hybrid 4 months ago
but there is one disadvantage it is not economey
azad7907 5 months ago
i like the way he say "epitrochoid" :D
X3rztesp 5 months ago
efficiency: good
fuel: not good
fitri350z 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fitri350z
efficiency: Crap
fuel: Crap
Manoo62 5 months ago
Cool engines, but nothing can ever replace the sound of a v8.
MicroOrginisum 6 months ago in playlist More videos from djphilmanns
@MicroOrginisum Yeah and an engine like this will not ever produce the power a V8 can either. I haven't seen a rotary yet that pull less than a 6 second time.
Z28Racer 5 months ago
I don't understand why every car uses this method. Is it costlier or something???
Haukenslush 6 months ago
@Haukenslush No its crap.
Manoo62 6 months ago
@Haukenslush Issue is torque, or lack of it. car must be very light and aren't great for towing. Also not super fuel efficient. But they are fast very, sound awesome and Mazda made beautiful cars in the 70's. Especially the RX3 coupe!
TalkinShitOnYouTubby 6 months ago
I love these old educational films. Much better than that garbage on the Tele these days.
tsoprano1986 6 months ago 15
@94XJ if you premix your gas then you don't have to worry about apex seals
joe44510 7 months ago
@94XJ
If you premix your gas then you don't have to worry about your apex seals.
joe44510 7 months ago
@kobolt4093 "there extremely good" utterly meaningless.
Manoo62 7 months ago
very nice. Thanks
crudeoilsystems 7 months ago
@crudeoilsystems
cheers :-)
djphilmanns 7 months ago
The biggest benefit to a rotary engine is that you can get a lot of power out of a very small, lightweight engine allowing you to place it in an optimal location easier. They're really only good for the racing world as they consume lots of oil and are not known for their longevity. (Apex seal replacement anyone?)
As far as the amazing power per 1.3L claim...yeah sure you could say that...except for each output shaft rotation it's firing all 1.3L, which is what a 2.6L 4-stroke would do.
94XJ 8 months ago
si este tipo de motores fueran tan eficientes el mundo ya estaría lleno de ellos.
oskarcity 8 months ago
@oskarcity Correct! if rotarys were any good everyone would be using them, and their not!!!!
Manoo62 8 months ago
Huge-as-hell V8s, and surely the fuel economy would reflect that..
Ryoukun16 8 months ago
Though where does the three come from in a 2 rotor engine? Like what other sites said, you have an alternating chamber size, and if it was 654 cc for each, then wouldn't it be terribly big? The fact of the matter is that if it's classified as a 1.3, then surely, the sizes of each chamber has to be 218 cc. Hence 218 x 3 = 654 cc x 2 = 1308 cc, hence the 1.3 L. I'm not trying to come off as arrogant, I just still don't see how it's a 3.9 L, that would be in the leagues of those (c)
Ryoukun16 8 months ago
@Ryoukun16 Google 'Rotary Displacement' and look at the first site (RX7.com) you might be supprised.
Manoo62 8 months ago
Ya rotories have some problems but havent been here as long as pistons which had problems too but more time to fix them and there was more people working on fixing them.
thunderbird810 8 months ago
I wonder why most car manufacturers don't use rotary engines.... They seem to be more efficient and most importantly they sound soooooo cool =P
DjFreshmatic 8 months ago
@DjFreshmatic Because manufacturers arent stupid like you, they know that rotarys are shite compared to piston engines so they dont bother with them.
Manoo62 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
El Motor Wankel no fue lo que se esperaba de él. Ahora hay proyectos novedosos diferentes muy interesantes, como lo son: RADMAX y The Best Rotary Engine o Motor Rotativo Yonto; en este último no existen ni triángulos impulsores ni anillos o sellos de ninguna especie, se asemeja mucho a un motor de turbina pero resulta aún más sencillo. Se puede ver aquí en YouTube en: The Best Rotary Engine, how it works
yontopapa 8 months ago in playlist Motores Rotativos
A, forgot the most important thing ...EVERYTHING spins around Money.
Treisprazece 9 months ago
no point o argue because always will be people hwo think what is already there is good but u cant stop progress and u must be blind if u dont see the potential of such an engine, even if it has for now the flooding problem. the current classic motor is old, evry1 knows that and electric cars are bullshit so this type of engine, a bit optimized for eficiency,i think will remain in the future. Simple is better...always.
Treisprazece 9 months ago
just look at japan how advanced is the technology there, evrithing they use come on us 10 ore more years latter.
Treisprazece 9 months ago
for the slow minded hwo ask why evry1 else not using rotarry engine: MONEY! , they need to change production line in all europe (i'm talking about mercedes,bmw,vw, ford,etc) , how manny of u know that the electronics and cable and interior parts of your 50keuros bmw,mercedes vw and other cars are made in third world country where the people are paid whit 1-2 dollars a day?. I personally hate bmw, vw, mercedes..is just makeup...no interes on real progres
Treisprazece 9 months ago
@Treisprazece Nothing what so ever to do with MONEY! if they were any good all car manufactures would be using them, but there not, because its not progess.
Manoo62 9 months ago
awesome! this is a perfect illustration on how does a rotary engine work! very well said!
superelli2007 9 months ago
Why doesn't all automobile manufacturer's do this!? o_O
ChubbyCoconut 9 months ago
If this design is better then old fashioned piston engines... why are so many cars today still using that technology?
mnagmobile 10 months ago
@mnagmobile Probably because rotary's are shite in so many respects that manufacturers who looked into them didnt persue it.
Manoo62 9 months ago
i got a view here, 4 example i will take the intake phase, i think there is waste of power here when the intake phase gets full volume before the ignition in this point of time there is no ignition just still fuelling the chamber with max volume in this time there is no power in the engine and could be considered loss of tourqe
stroggwars 10 months ago
u should tell the German who made the 1st rotary engine in the C111
355LTM 10 months ago
@355LTM The C111 didnt have the first rotary engine!?!?!?! it never went into production either. They went with a turbo diesel as it was a better engine.
Manoo62 10 months ago
@Manoo62
the 1st C111 was with 4 clynders 1.8 liters rotary engine gasoline and then they made it with diesel also with the gasoline
and if u hear this vedio at 2:10 u will know who Invented it
355LTM 10 months ago
@355LTM I know who invented the rotary engine!!! but it wasnt first used in the C111 it didnt even go into production. Also rotary's dont have cylinders..........
Manoo62 10 months ago
@Manoo62
i didnt mean cylinders as the normal but its have 4 rotaries tringle and i am sure its 1st was in C111
355LTM 10 months ago
@355LTM The C111 wasnt the first car to use a rotary engine, the NSU was, about 5 years earlier but as I said the rotary C111 never went into production anyway and Mercedes have never done anything more with rotary's.
Manoo62 10 months ago
I am using Mazdas own figures dummy, they quote a chamber size of 654cc, there are 3 chambers on each rotor and there are 2 rotors (not engines) 654 x 3 x 2 = 3924cc simple. Although it might be too complicated for your brain.
Manoo62 10 months ago 27
@Manoo62 ya prolly but vw engines are top of the line haha. i have a 1.3L its kick ass
fatqwert200 10 months ago
@Manoo62 Shouldn't it be 654 x 2? Hence 1308cc, or, 1.3L engine?
ShinMegamiTENsei537 8 months ago
@Manoo62 And I forgot, they meant that all three chambers have the sum of 654 cc.
ShinMegamiTENsei537 8 months ago
@ShinMegamiTENsei537 No, as I said, each of the three chambers has a volume of 654cc hence a total 654 x 3 = 1962cc for each of the two rotors so x 2 = 3924cc which is why the drink fuel.
Manoo62 8 months ago
Comment removed
Ryoukun16 8 months ago
Comment removed
Ryoukun16 8 months ago
@Manoo62 One thing I heard in this one is that the output shaft spins 3 times per rotor rotation so 1.3L fires each time the output shaft rotates.
94XJ 8 months ago
@94XJ A 4 strokes only fires half their volume in one revolution but we dont half the capacity!!!
Manoo62 8 months ago
@Manoo62 Right, all I'm saying as that per RPM a 2.6L engine fires the same amount. The only real advantage I've ever seen to a rotary engine is if you want a very compact engine to reduce weight in a racing application. They're really only drivable at high RPM, not all that fuel efficient and haven't been known for their longevity.
I'll take the "old fashioned" piston engine.
94XJ 7 months ago
@Manoo62 but you forget that the eshaft is spinning 3 times to 1 rotor rotation so in terms its only making 654cc per rotation
Tj1056 5 months ago
@Tj1056 A 2.0L four stroke engine only displaces 1.0L per revolution but we dont call it a 1.0L engine.....
Manoo62 5 months ago
@Manoo62 because it takes 2 revolutions to make one stroke...
Tj1056 5 months ago
@Tj1056 No....it takes 2 revolutions to make four stroke...hence the name.....
Which is one thermodynamic cycle.
One thermodynamic cycle for a rotary is one complete revolution of the rotor, the eshaft revolutions are irrelevant to engine capacity.
Manoo62 5 months ago
@Manoo62 but one of the chambers is all ways smaller compared to others you moron
anttiroivainen 4 months ago
@anttiroivainen All of the chambers go from max to min volume in on complete rotation, its called compression....dummy.
Manoo62 4 months ago
@Manoo62 sorry but not all the chambers are same size at the same time so that is the proplem , that's why madzda counts the chaimbers when the compression is done
and one thing the engine is 1.3 liter engine and 654cc is one cylinder size that's why it's 654cc x 2
anttiroivainen 4 months ago
@anttiroivainen All six chambers go through compression in one revolution of the rotor, why do you think you would ignor four of them?
Manoo62 4 months ago
@Manoo62 Madza does what it does i know the facts but you cant chance the way madza counts them so dont blame me and if you apply that theory of yours on normal engine result woud be 2 liter engine woud be 4 liter engine if you think it about it
anttiroivainen 4 months ago
@anttiroivainen on two stroke and four stroke depending on stroke
anttiroivainen 4 months ago
@anttiroivainen Any engines capacity is defined as the swept volume in one complete thermodynamic cycle. for a rotary its one revolution of the rotor, for a four stroke it two revolutions and a two stroke is also one revolution. Mazda call it a 1.3L as a gimmick to make the engine sound impressive because they know its not. But you cant escape the fact that it IS a 3.9L regardless of what Mazda try to claim.
Manoo62 4 months ago
@Manoo62 belive what you want but cylinder size minus piston size and result here is 654 cc are left for motor operation and there is two cylinders so it's 654 x 2 actually if you count the cc's what manges the fuel result it woud be under 1,3 liter engine but every thing is counted including exhaust and compression
and intake so its 1.3 liter engine belive me on this.
anttiroivainen 4 months ago
@anttiroivainen Ha ha ha what are you talking about? have you got the slightest idea how a rotary engine works? "cylinder size, piston size" they dont have either you idiot. And you think you have any credibility for knowing how to calculate the capacity of a rotary ha ha ha you havent got a clue.
Manoo62 4 months ago
@Manoo62 you count it 3 chambers, max volume of igniting space will only be count and it is 660 CC
asadullah786 3 months ago 2
@asadullah786 So you only want to count the chamber that is on the ignition stroke?!?!?
That would mean a 4 cylinder 2.0L engine would suddenly be classed as a 500cc!!!!
Yeh that sounds reasonable dumb ass.
Manoo62 3 months ago
@Manoo62 so u are counting all 4 strokes.....its 500 cc per cylinder....so who is dumb ass you fool.....
asadullah786 3 months ago
@asadullah786 Glad you agree that we count the full volume of each chamber in one cycle, thats 6 x 654cc = 3942cc So what was the point of your first post idiot.
Manoo62 3 months ago
i wonder why it is known for Rotary Engine and not Wankle....
kdotcrooks2 11 months ago
Wow pistons engine are not more reliable both have downfalls an plus my friend blew all his seals and could still drive without knowing can you do that in normal engine?
mrdauntless 11 months ago
Look up vengeance power rotary engine, it works.
btester1 11 months ago
How could I have missed this video all my life...
LordLaharl 11 months ago
Wankel u so sexy.
nagasako7 11 months ago
Piston engines are more efficient in terms of mpg and they are more reliable which is why most cars on the road today us piston engines.
Chevyguy2003 11 months ago
@Chevyguy2003 ye but the size of them are a lot larger, heck a 1.3 litre engine (rx-8) has almost double a 1.6 vauxhall astra in terms of bhp, though the cc of the rotary engine is doubled so on the insurance it says its a 2616cc engine while in reality its only a 1308cc due to its design creating the huge power from its small size. Um piston engines are more reliable if treated under bad conditions, good conditions rotary engines are the superiors imo
lotussheath 11 months ago
@lotussheath No, in reality the rx8 has a 3.9Ltr engine. The Z370 produces 100 bhp more 100 ft/lb more torque and has better mpg and yet has a smaller engine. There is a good reason why the only main stream example of a rotary engine application is the rx8....they're crap.
Manoo62 10 months ago
@Manoo62 its not a 3.9 since the third slot is just an exhaust, thus its a 2.6 litre but its the size of a 1.3 thus reducing weight, strain and amount of moving components needed thus theyre less likely to go wrong and the main reason why the nismo has a higher power is due to its turbo. Mazdas also trying to improve the design of the wankle rotary engine but the way it works is more efficient where the main downfall is due to its lack of containment
lotussheath 10 months ago
@lotussheath Did you actually watch the video? try 5:45 onwards. All three side of the rotor compress and fire in one revolution i.e. 3.9Ltrs of fuel and air. Which is why they drink fuel and yet still manage to have crap performance.
Manoo62 10 months ago
@Manoo62 while the rotation is 1:3 the engine itself has 1 compression, 1 combustion and 1 exhaust where a the power is generated from 2/3 of the chambers where the third is there just for a release of gas. All your quoting is a type of "gear ratio" in the same terms since a normal piston has a 1:1 ratio and the rotary engine has a 1:3 ratio though an engine is defined by its "powered" chambers and not its ratio of rotation.... just check the insurance companies...
lotussheath 10 months ago
@lotussheath So you havent watched the video then? If you had you would know that in ONE revolution of the rotor there are THREE power strokes. 3.9Ltrs is the swept volume in one complete cycle, the same as you measure any engine. Insurance companies downgrade rotary's by 1/3 on account of their poor performance compared to a piston engine.
Manoo62 10 months ago
@Manoo62 if it was the case that the power output would be defined by the ratio between the complete revolutions of the engine in comparison to the crank shaft all it would require is to but a gear system between the crank shaft on a piston engine with a 2:1 ratio to then double the cc of the engine by your explanation. The engine itself is a 1.3 in the mazda rx8 though the cc of it is 2616cc since there are 2 power chambers and 1 exhaust chamber thus 2x1.3=2616cc
lotussheath 10 months ago
@Manoo62 and the whole point in the engine is the fact its small and light weight without a shed load of components that are moving that can break.... and the insurance company cant say oh the engine is weak so we'll lower its grade.... they have to base it on its specifications... honestly you cant know more than every single insurance company in the world who will do anything to make more money... they say its a 2616cc engine thus thats the most it can be called
lotussheath 10 months ago
@lotussheath So in the video at 6:44 when he clearly states the that ignition and expansion occurs three times (in one revolution) hes wrong?? according to you. The 3:1 gearing on the rotor is irrelevant as far as capacity is concerned, all that counts is swept volume in one complete revolution of the engine.
Insurance companies rate cars on risk which has little to do with capacity they can do that however they want. They certainly dont define an engines capacity
Manoo62 10 months ago
@Manoo62 okay mazda rates the engine in the rx-8 as a 1.3 litre, 2616cc engine.... THEY MADE THE ENGINE!, the insurance company views the rx-8 as having a 2616cc engine
seriously how hard is it to come to terms with every single respectable source is saying its a 1.3 litre engine with 2616cc
just look for yourself and stop barking up the wrong tree when your trying to dispute a fact that every specification fact sheet of the rx-8 its claiming 1.3 litre and 2616cc...
lotussheath 10 months ago
@lotussheath "every single respectable source is saying its a 1.3 litre engine with 2616cc" So which one is it? 1.3L or 2.6L????? or dont you know????
Let me give you a clue, its 1.3L if you only count one of the three firings per revolution 2.6L if you count 2 of the 3 firings and 3.9L if you cound all of the firings in one revolution/cycle. The same as you would rate any other engine.....
Manoo62 10 months ago
@Manoo62 the size of the engine is 1.3l... the displacement is 2616cc... not hard to figure out.. if you got a problem with either of these then go to mazda and tell them they have there facts wrong... seriously im telling you what ive seen in both the mazdas specifications displayed on their website and multiple insurance companys where they agree its a 1.3l engine with a displacement of 2616cc
lotussheath 10 months ago
@lotussheath what mazda probably means is that they have a rotor engine that displaces 2.6L, but the rotor motor is equivalent in size, to a 1.3L piston motor... if you stated piston motor vs rotor motor, your numbers: 1.3l and 2.6l would not be confused
fatqwert200 10 months ago
@fatqwert200 No they have a 3.9L rotary engine that is roughly equivalent to a 2.6L piston engine. Mazda call it a 1.3L engine to make it sound better because they know its crap when compared to an EQUAL size piston engine.
Manoo62 10 months ago
@Manoo62 also its comprised of two smaller engines
lotussheath 10 months ago
@lotussheath Wow you really are dumb, its a 1.3L that displaces 2.6L, have you any idea how stupid that statement is?? Then just when I thought it couldnt get any worse, 'its got two fucking engines now' come back when you know what your talking about idiot.
Manoo62 10 months ago
@Manoo62 the mazda engine is comprised of two small engines and im saying the capacity of the engine is 1.3L compared to a normal piston engine but based on the fact its a rotary its a 2.6l, these are split up among two engines which displace half of the total each... if you want just research mazdas latest engine and it shows theyre sticking to the smaller size to reduce the flame spread withing the combustion chamber to increase full efficiency
lotussheath 10 months ago
@lotussheath If you actually bothered to watch the video above you might learn something, you obviously need to. Mazda are actually increasing the engine size to 4.8L for the new motor.
Manoo62 10 months ago
@Manoo62 well its gone from a 1.3 to a 1.6 and thats shared between the two engines thus to reduce the flame spread
In all honesty your trying to lie about an engine to make it look crap whilst the facts are clearly there for any one to see though you want to try and prove something that clearly isnt true since your disputing points against the people who made the thing and the people who have to measure it.. Im pretty sure they know more than you do
lotussheath 10 months ago
The wankel engine is an extraordinary engine configuration for sport purposes.
Renceau 11 months ago
Is it possible for the rotor to get jammed? Maybe even once?
dadecountyhustler305 1 year ago
@dadecountyhustler305 well if its warped or made incorrectly... your main issue with these engines are flooding where you leave the throttle open without turning the ignition
lotussheath 11 months ago
I think i learned something new...about both the engines!!
TheRealFobican 1 year ago
LOOK OUT!!! THERE ARE CRAZY CARS RUNNING WILD WITHOUT DRIVERS!!! was this movie made in mr. rogers neighborhood?
nicholirage 1 year ago
anyone knows what's the name of this narrator???
thesomeonetwo 1 year ago
Truly genius. It has a ton of potential to be the greatest engine. I have one in my RX7 and its truly amazing, except for the gas mileage and emissions problem.
musclekid13 1 year ago
@musclekid13 Congrats, you were featured on Jalopnik!
bigBcrg 11 months ago
@bigBcrg What does that mean haha
musclekid13 11 months ago
@musclekid13 lets hope hydrogen becomes the fuel of choice. Rotaries are unique as they use a separate chamber for induction, compression, ignition and exhaust. For volatile hydrogen this is a huge advantage.
TalkinShitOnYouTubb 11 months ago
its brilliant - i want a mazda rx8 now >>
InfiltrateIndustries 1 year ago
@thewhoissuperb24 ha ha it is too :D
GregDucati 1 year ago
Sorry to everyone I have made a mistake myself.hehehehe anyway. Cheers
vindieselnr1 1 year ago
Very Good illistration on the rotary motor, but the classic 4 stroke is being explained as a 3 stroke which is very wrong. But for the sake of explaining it should be fine.
vindieselnr1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please watch:
World's Greatest Amount of Compression Ratio Engine
TABAGfrancis 1 year ago
@vindieselnr1 no, the 4 stroke engine is being explained as a 4 stroke
omgimgfut 1 year ago
this is the first video ive seen that has addressed the fact that there are 3 stages happening continually.
GabrielOfTheeInferno 1 year ago 30
@GabrielOfTheeInferno this is a good fact. I noticed that older tutorials are better than the new ones in 3d and shit were they dont explain much
felixnogood 10 months ago
Great engine and much less complicated than the Cylinder engine...Mazda Citroen and NSU were the companies that fitted it...
lazakas 1 year ago
As good as this design may seem, it has major disadvantages. Rotary engines use a lot more fuel, this is because the transfer of energy from the rotation of the rotor to the crankshaft is very poor.......the center of the rotor only moves slightly in a circler motion as the rotor goes around the chamber. It's this circler motion that then forces the crank to go around, the movement it's enough to transfer energy efficiently.
69aussieguy 1 year ago
that is by far the mot educational video i have watched on this topic..
redrocketman123 1 year ago
@redrocketman123 There's another olden day educational video on differentials on here which is just as good.
olden days are so much cooler than now.
lolbewbz 1 year ago
A German guy build this, but he was to smart for hes time and no one could back him up.... so a f*÷+# a guy from jap. took the idea and put it to development..... so now every ignorant thinks the jap. came up with this engine !!!!!!
craizygolf1980 1 year ago
@craizygolf1980 yes everyone knows that Felix Wankel designed this...
Tj1056 1 year ago
Everything is so much easier to understand if it's a cartoon.
Now I know how to build a rotary engine, which can take you to the moon.
FrozenBlaze 1 year ago
Wow great video. Learnt alot
TheStaniG 1 year ago
all these years ive understood perfectly how a conventional piston engine worked but was stumped about rotary engines. this 1 video cleared everything up
guerilla619 1 year ago
one smart cookie who made this...
3rdgenration 1 year ago
ok in a way these are like 2strokes.
dreadnaught6399 1 year ago
@dreadnaught6399 nah man there are three sides so one is always combusting so everystroke (technically) is a power stroke.
3rdgenration 1 year ago
Its a simple concept, less moving parts that waste energy and better transfer of that kinetic energy to the transmission.
ROCKSOLID19 1 year ago
damn asians are smart
ruberneck43 1 year ago
@ruberneck43
Germany is not in Asia.
USGiorgi 1 year ago
At first it looks like an optical illusion.
Elementalg1 1 year ago
By my understanding of this this should mean that, all things being equal, a rotary should have 6 times the power (and fuel consumption) of an equivilent capacity reciprocating engine because it's firing 3 times on each rotation whereas a reciprocating engine is firing only once on every 2nd rotation. On the other hand, the explosion is not as efficiently channeled into an obvious dirrection of motion so that's why a 2ltr MX6 engine isn't equivilent to a 12ltr engine. Also very precice machining
tangent272 1 year ago
@meharidude well yeah my bad it regulates but it dosent have valves maybe its because since each side acts as a piston in which case they atleast have 2 rotors which equal 6 its like a 6 cyl atleast also its copletely dif so rotarys are built to be physicaly and kineticaly efficient not gas lol like most race cars
supboy666 1 year ago
i feel primitive for owning a piston engine car!!!
supboy666 1 year ago
...
60UDA 1 year ago
Heh... not that efficiently. IIRC, rotary engines get crappy gas mileage.
pimpb0tt 1 year ago
@pimpb0tt
Then again, its power to weight ratio is pretty off the charts. IIRC, a Mazda RX7 motor is around 150 pounds. vs say a VW Golf 4 cyl engine which is around 350 pounds.
pimpb0tt 1 year ago
@pimpb0tt Were did you hear a RX7 rotary engine (the 13B) only weighs 150lbs? They actually weigh closer to 250lbs. Which is still pretty light.
Warblade118 1 year ago
@Warblade118 rx7 is a rotary engine its actualy the first model to have a rotary engine and the only one until the rx8 came out
under82 1 year ago
@under82 actually if you go further back into mazda's history there Cosmos were the first cars they made that had rotarys. That is if you want to dig a little deeper into what cars had the rotary
Hexisu 1 year ago
@Hexisu
Sure but NSU made the first Wankel engined car.("rotary" as they call them now).
meharidude 1 year ago
@under82
wrong
meharidude 1 year ago
@meharidude oo i understand you are right ``wrong´´ explains evry thing
under82 1 year ago
@under82
Mazda used the Wankel before the RX7, already in 1967 they used it in the Cosmo, and NSU used it before that in the NSU Spider. RX7 wasnt the first by a long shot.
meharidude 1 year ago
@meharidude i know some1 told me already
under82 1 year ago
@under82
sorry:D
meharidude 1 year ago
@pimpb0tt Effeciently in terms of how the weight of its moving parts move in the same direction in one fluid motion. Not stoping after each combustin, compression and exhaust.
I guess the gas efficientcy is because of the no valve mecanissm since the engine just takes gas the comp dosent regulate the amount and even at low acceleration it still uses a fair amout of gas. IDK its just my assumption.
supboy666 1 year ago
@supboy666
Compression and intake wise, it works like any other petrol engine, it sucks in a mixture of air and petrol ("gas") and regulates on the amount. its not a diesel you know:-D
meharidude 1 year ago
Drove a 6-speed manual RX-8 over the recent weekend. Felt like the fuel tank was leaking! Haha! Like driving a turbo 2.0 or a n/a 3.0-3.5-litre. The fuel consumption, that is.
Tried a friend's BMW Z4 2.2L (auto) on Monday & spent about 60-75% less on fuel covering same distance, with similar driving conditions.
Yes, 2 less seats but I'll take the BMW anytime over the Maz. 'Stronger' badge, better build quality, tactile level, less NVH (noise, vibration & harshness) despite the soft top.
oolat 1 year ago
Cool vid, thanks for uploading!!
ARRdelaSierrra 1 year ago
Thanks to the makers of this video and sharing it. I now fully understand how the rotary engine works.
ndrils4767 1 year ago
I'd rather a Rotary motor over a piston motor anyday. Because: They sound better, they are easy to build and when you blow it up, it wont wreck the block.
Lancedrummer2 1 year ago
@Lancedrummer2
The Russians invented a Rotary that has the seals in the block and are easily replaced.
The are more efficient at high revs. They are ideal for range extenders only running at fixed speed. The are small, smooth and quiet. Its time may have come with the Chevy Volt.
NearAbbeyRoad 1 year ago
so it's just one rotating triangle? the piston have like four...
Navlek79 1 year ago