rotary

[beef_bourito]

it seems to me that you can get alot more power out of a rotary than a piston engine. Reasons for this? stock 1.3L pushes 238hp. They seem to be more efficient (not in terms of fuel, in terms of power) so why wouldn't they be used in places such as formula 1 where there are limitations of the engine displacement? It seems just right because they rev hig, put out good power, and that's just what f1 wants.

I've heard something about wear, that they've tried it before and they just wore down too quickly. But could they wear down significantly in one or two races? even then wouldn't they be able to replace the rotor and have a perfectly good engine?

Thanks for any info

[drdisque]

there are special displacment limits for rotary engines in the classes where they are allowed. I do not believe that they are allowed in F1.

There is one team using an RX8 in the Rolex Grand Am series. They're one of the slowest cars on the track.

[TheQuietThings]

Originally Posted by beef_bourito

it seems to me that you can get alot more power out of a rotary than a piston engine. Reasons for this? stock 1.3L pushes 238hp. They seem to be more efficient (not in terms of fuel, in terms of power) so why wouldn't they be used in places such as formula 1 where there are limitations of the engine displacement? It seems just right because they rev hig, put out good power, and that's just what f1 wants.

I've heard something about wear, that they've tried it before and they just wore down too quickly. But could they wear down significantly in one or two races? even then wouldn't they be able to replace the rotor and have a perfectly good engine?

Thanks for any info

its not actually a 1.3L, its a 2.6L

[beef_bourito]

ok, i looked on the mazda website and it said 1.3 but it probably has 2 1.3L rotors.

[DRW1000]

I believe you get hp but very limited torque

[TheQuietThings]

you're right about the rotaries, one is for compression, and the other is for exhaust. Its kinda like saying... that a Honda Civic has a .8liter engine and makes 110HP

[DRW1000]

Originally Posted by TheQuietThings

you're right about the rotaries, one is for compression, and the other is for exhaust. Its kinda like saying... that a Honda Civic has a .8liter engine and makes 110HP

I am not sure what you mean that one is for compression and one is for exhaust. A Rotary engine (In Mazdas anyways) have two rotors but one is not strictly for compression and the other for exhaust.

Each rotor goes through all 4 stages of a cycle. There are three chambers in each rotor and the chambers are reserved for intake, Compression/combustion and exhaust.

[drdisque]

what he means is that in piston engines, half of their movement and therefore half of their displacement produces no output. In rotary engines, all of their movement and all of their displacement produces power.

[DRW1000]

Originally Posted by drdisque

what he means is that in piston engines, half of their movement and therefore half of their displacement produces no output. In rotary engines, all of their movement and all of their displacement produces power.

Actually in a piston engine 1/4 of the movement produces no power.

I understand the rotary engine but I was confused that he stated one is for compression and one is for exhaust. I thought he was refering to a rotary engine at the time.

Anyway...............I think everyone understands so

Cheers!!

[SaabJohan]

The typical Mazda wankel has a displacement of .65 litres per rotor. The 1.3 litre is a two rotor, each with .65 litres displacement. The 2.6 four rotors have from what I know only been used in racing, like the R26B.

Don't know why people tend to believe that wankels use high engine speeds, because they don't use that high speeds. The R26B didn't use engine speeds higher than around 9000 rpm, which was actually less than some piston engines used in the same class.

The reason why wankels have higher power/displacement figures than most 4-stroke piston engines is because they produce 1 powerstroke per revolution on the axle per rotor similar to a two stroke piston engine while the 4-stroke piston engine does only produce on powerstroke every second revolution.

In F1 only 4 stroke V10 piston engines with amaximum displacement of 3 litres are allowed (90 degree V8 engines with a maximum 2.4 litres displacement from next year). These engines do however offer more than 900 hp from 3 litres displacement with a weight of only 90 kg. The R26B gave 270 hp per litre of displacement (700 hp in total) but with a weight of 180 kg.

[Zgringo]

Originally Posted by SaabJohan

The typical Mazda wankel has a displacement of .65 litres per rotor. The 1.3 litre is a two rotor, each with .65 litres displacement. The 2.6 four rotors have from what I know only been used in racing, like the R26B.

Don't know why people tend to believe that wankels use high engine speeds, because they don't use that high speeds. The R26B didn't use engine speeds higher than around 9000 rpm, which was actually less than some piston engines used in the same class.

The reason why wankels have higher power/displacement figures than most 4-stroke piston engines is because they produce 1 powerstroke per revolution on the axle per rotor similar to a two stroke piston engine while the 4-stroke piston engine does only produce on powerstroke every second revolution.

In F1 only 4 stroke V10 piston engines with amaximum displacement of 3 litres are allowed (90 degree V8 engines with a maximum 2.4 litres displacement from next year). These engines do however offer more than 900 hp from 3 litres displacement with a weight of only 90 kg. The R26B gave 270 hp per litre of displacement (700 hp in total) but with a weight of 180 kg.

You forgot the Wankel used in the Corvette and the ones W&P built for aircraft. But then if you talked about these engines you'd have to tell all about the 3 rotor that Mazda built and raced.