why rotary engines are better?
#26
Super Newbie
Originally posted by DriftFC
Because rotory engines rarely last more than 90K miles... d'oh!
Because rotory engines rarely last more than 90K miles... d'oh!
#28
energy is still used for those exhaust strokes, its taken away from the combustion stroke that's occuring right next to it
BUT, it doesnt take an extra stroke like pistons, so it saves time and rpms
1 power stroke per revolution, that's the beauty of subary awd! err .. mazda rotary
BUT, it doesnt take an extra stroke like pistons, so it saves time and rpms
1 power stroke per revolution, that's the beauty of subary awd! err .. mazda rotary
#30
Originally posted by mazdaspeed7
FWD, by its nature has a lower drivetrain losses from a simpler drivetrain. Most front engine, rwd cars lose 15-20% in the drivetrain, and Im sure some cars lose even more.
FWD, by its nature has a lower drivetrain losses from a simpler drivetrain. Most front engine, rwd cars lose 15-20% in the drivetrain, and Im sure some cars lose even more.
#32
Rotary Freak
Ya.. The only way your not going to get over 90k is becaus hes either a chick or it wasnt driven more than once a month... I personely saw one engine at my mechanics garage with 177,000 miles on it and had good compression. Man I hate it when people make those ***-umptions. I was on the miata.net forum and people were telling me that my car will start losing power after 60k miles and I wont be happy when I need to replace the engine after like ..uuu I forgot but people are pretty much stupid about **** they dont know or not into.
#33
Rotary Freak
Ok.. I have driven my rotory for awile and got used to it.... It was my first car... MY friend has a 97 miata with JR intake and exaust. I drove in it and the engine is seriously louder than his performance exaust. All I hear is tic tic tic tic...vrrroooooooomm ehhhrhrrrrrrrr rough rough buzzz buzzzz... I love miatas but this was the impression I got of piston engines. Try not driving your 7 for a month... Then come back and u will swere ur car hasnt had as much power as before and swere that U thought it was roughfer than this... U will tell yourself as I did... Man im never selling this car. Its ******* awsome.
#34
Originally posted by von
Ok.. I have driven my rotory for awile and got used to it.... It was my first car... MY friend has a 97 miata with JR intake and exaust. I drove in it and the engine is seriously louder than his performance exaust. All I hear is tic tic tic tic...vrrroooooooomm ehhhrhrrrrrrrr rough rough buzzz buzzzz... I love miatas but this was the impression I got of piston engines. Try not driving your 7 for a month... Then come back and u will swere ur car hasnt had as much power as before and swere that U thought it was roughfer than this... U will tell yourself as I did... Man im never selling this car. Its ******* awsome.
Ok.. I have driven my rotory for awile and got used to it.... It was my first car... MY friend has a 97 miata with JR intake and exaust. I drove in it and the engine is seriously louder than his performance exaust. All I hear is tic tic tic tic...vrrroooooooomm ehhhrhrrrrrrrr rough rough buzzz buzzzz... I love miatas but this was the impression I got of piston engines. Try not driving your 7 for a month... Then come back and u will swere ur car hasnt had as much power as before and swere that U thought it was roughfer than this... U will tell yourself as I did... Man im never selling this car. Its ******* awsome.
#35
inteligent extratarestril
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Sunny B.O.P, New Zealand
Posts: 1,313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by supergoat
Um, that's not what I implied at all.
I just meant that the RX-7 seems to have a higher driveline loss than most other cars I've seen. I've seen a stock 88 non-turbo register 115 at the wheels. that's 20% loss. Same with the 89-91 registering 125. Also a 20% loss. That's higher than any stock other car I've seen dyno'd. I usually see 15-17%
Um, that's not what I implied at all.
I just meant that the RX-7 seems to have a higher driveline loss than most other cars I've seen. I've seen a stock 88 non-turbo register 115 at the wheels. that's 20% loss. Same with the 89-91 registering 125. Also a 20% loss. That's higher than any stock other car I've seen dyno'd. I usually see 15-17%
take one rx7 making 400hp at the flywheel, put it on the typical US dyno and it'll churn out 340rwhp, but put it on the typical aussie dyno system and it'll churn out 292rwhp. are you gonna try and tell us that the car is loosing an extra 48HP in the length of time it takes to shift the car from one dyno to the next???????
#36
inteligent extratarestril
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Sunny B.O.P, New Zealand
Posts: 1,313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Node
that Turbo II I'm buying has 137k and on original engine
And N/As will last well over 200k on original engine. It's mainly turbos who have problems
that Turbo II I'm buying has 137k and on original engine
And N/As will last well over 200k on original engine. It's mainly turbos who have problems
#37
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Victoria B.C. Canada
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by supergoat
I'm really drunk right now, please don't remind me abou t tihis post, but ted is still a god.
Last edited by Mazdarules; 02-16-02 at 03:31 AM.
#38
W. TX chirpin Monkey
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Mesquite, TX
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by HWO
young grasshopper you are obviously oblivious to THE FACT that different types of dyno's produce different readings, and there IS no precise way of being able to say how much HP is lost between the flywheel and the tarmac
take one rx7 making 400hp at the flywheel, put it on the typical US dyno and it'll churn out 340rwhp, but put it on the typical aussie dyno system and it'll churn out 292rwhp. are you gonna try and tell us that the car is loosing an extra 48HP in the length of time it takes to shift the car from one dyno to the next???????
young grasshopper you are obviously oblivious to THE FACT that different types of dyno's produce different readings, and there IS no precise way of being able to say how much HP is lost between the flywheel and the tarmac
take one rx7 making 400hp at the flywheel, put it on the typical US dyno and it'll churn out 340rwhp, but put it on the typical aussie dyno system and it'll churn out 292rwhp. are you gonna try and tell us that the car is loosing an extra 48HP in the length of time it takes to shift the car from one dyno to the next???????
#39
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pentagon City
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BhamBill
I'm not knocking the rotary, but any engine can be rebuilt in a weekend if you know what you're doing. Ever watch them tear down an engine and "freshen" it in 45 minutes at the drag strip?
I'm not knocking the rotary, but any engine can be rebuilt in a weekend if you know what you're doing. Ever watch them tear down an engine and "freshen" it in 45 minutes at the drag strip?
#40
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen problems of not making it over 90,000 with the first of the 2mm apex motors. But c'mon let just not lump them all together and say they are going to die at 90,000. I know of to many examples of why that statement is WRONG!!!!
#41
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by supergoat
I just meant that the RX-7 seems to have a higher driveline loss than most other cars I've seen. I've seen a stock 88 non-turbo register 115 at the wheels. that's 20% loss. Same with the 89-91 registering 125. Also a 20% loss. That's higher than any stock other car I've seen dyno'd. I usually see 15-17%
I just meant that the RX-7 seems to have a higher driveline loss than most other cars I've seen. I've seen a stock 88 non-turbo register 115 at the wheels. that's 20% loss. Same with the 89-91 registering 125. Also a 20% loss. That's higher than any stock other car I've seen dyno'd. I usually see 15-17%
Most FC's and FD's I've seen spit out about a 15% drivetrain loss on a DynoJet 128C.  I don't know what set-up you're referring to when you quote 20%, but 15% is typical of most RWD vehicles.  The lowest drivetrain loss I've seen on a rotary was an FD with all Redline fluids (MT-90 in the trans and 75W90NS in the rear diff) that spit out an incredible 12.5% drivetrain loss!
-Ted
#42
Rotary Freak
iTrader: (3)
A 1.3L rotary acts more like a 2.6L 4 cycle piston engine. An engine (piston or rotary) is basically a self driven pump. Therefore, every crankshaft rotation of a 2.6L piston engine "pumps" 1.3L of air/fuel. Every crankshaft rotation of a 1.3L rotary pumps 1.3L of air/fuel.
#43
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 1Revvin7
ah, i thought FWD cars lost more through their drivetrain? if this is true why are almost all sport and drag cars RWD? and yea i have heard the 15-20% through rwd cars alos.
ah, i thought FWD cars lost more through their drivetrain? if this is true why are almost all sport and drag cars RWD? and yea i have heard the 15-20% through rwd cars alos.
Last edited by Snrub; 02-16-02 at 11:08 AM.
#46
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Snrub
Perhaps FWD loss could be a reason, but not the main one. Picture what happens when you floor it. The weight goes to the back. Friction increases with increased weight/force, so you're able to apply more power. For racing with corners, RWD is far more condusive, because it creates overstear. FWD creates understear and you miss your turn. I've always heard FWD was less efficeint as well.
Perhaps FWD loss could be a reason, but not the main one. Picture what happens when you floor it. The weight goes to the back. Friction increases with increased weight/force, so you're able to apply more power. For racing with corners, RWD is far more condusive, because it creates overstear. FWD creates understear and you miss your turn. I've always heard FWD was less efficeint as well.
I'll take my rotary with 9'' streeters on the rear, drive it to the track, and be damn glad its not fwd any day over the extra drivetrain power....
But as for understeer goes.....in circuits thats what the TYPE R integra was desgined for......One of the only production FWD cars you can get oversteer from...I think thats really cool...even though I dont like the typical integra nor its driver...I respect the type R
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Surrey, B.C. CANADA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW, MikeL that's an awesome picture for comparison! The Rotary Engine is great, my only knock against them is that they consume more GAS then what they should with 1.3L displacement and also they can't withstand detonation as well as a piston engine.
#49
Rotary Freak
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 2,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by repuguru
I have seen problems of not making it over 90,000 with the first of the 2mm apex motors. But c'mon let just not lump them all together and say they are going to die at 90,000. I know of to many examples of why that statement is WRONG!!!!
I have seen problems of not making it over 90,000 with the first of the 2mm apex motors. But c'mon let just not lump them all together and say they are going to die at 90,000. I know of to many examples of why that statement is WRONG!!!!
Ren
P.S. repuguru -- John Denver fan?
#50
Rotary Freak
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 2,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ah, i thought FWD cars lost more through their drivetrain? if this is true why are almost all sport and drag cars RWD? and yea i have heard the 15-20% through rwd cars alos.
Perhaps FWD loss could be a reason, but not the main one. Picture what happens when you floor it. The weight goes to the back. Friction increases with increased weight/force, so you're able to apply more power. For racing with corners, RWD is far more condusive, because it creates overstear. FWD creates understear and you miss your turn. I've always heard FWD was less efficeint as well.
RWD is usually best in drag races due to the power being put to the ground at the end of the car where most of the wieght is transferred. Prime example of good production-based drag cars are Porsche 911's and VW Beetles (original), because the engine and tranny are in the rear, thus adding to the available traction. FWD is the exact opposite, most of the weight is in the wrong end of the car, and to top that, you have the drive wheels at the end of the car from which most of the weight is being transferred.
The end of the car in which most of the weight resides also determines its steering characteristics, as does the drive end. FWD cars tend to understeer due to the weight in the nose of the car, complicated by the fact that the front wheels have to drive as well as steer. RWD cars tend to be somewhat more balanced in weight distribution, and the front wheels don't have the added load of having to drive the car. Most still tend to understeer initially, but can be made to oversteer based on throttle input. RWD with rear engines tend to oversteer naturally, because most of the weight is in the back, thus overloading the rear wheels in a turn. Mid-engine RWD cars tend to be neutral in steering nature, since the weight is almost dead even in distribution. AWD cars tend to understeer because the front wheels still have the drive load like FWD cars have.
Geez, this is getting too deep now. There are books available on this topic, which I highly recommend if you REALLY want to know about handling dynamics.
Sorry for the long post.
Ren