rotary engine.

As far as I know, the first major production car with a Wankel was the RX-7. It stopped being sold in north america because of emission standards. They are awesome engines. It's like a triangular piston that rotates in a triangular cylinder. If you imagine the corners of the piston moving against the walls of the cylinder, you can see why they can generate more power than a normal engine: they fire three times per engine rotation. I'm not sure about the new engines, but the old ones (RX-7) ran REALLY hot and really love gas. =) Great performance, though - you can easily get a redline in a rotary engine 2-3 times higher than a conventional engine. They are an amazing peice of engineering.

I guess Mazda's engineers really had to beg for Ford's permission to develope the RX-8 with a rotary engine. They are expensive to fix and Ford had already dismissed the idea of building a new car with a rotary engine quite some time ago. Lucky for us, though, they gave in and I'm sure a lot of work and dedication went into the RX-8 so that we could see more wankels in the furture.

.:|[ blat ]|:.

Yes, I remember when they first showed up in the rx-7. First one I saw was mid to early eighties. An Uncle of mine showed up with one and smoked them through three gears pulling out of our drive, much to my glee and my mother's horror.

And yes, he did get rid of it because no one knew jack about the engine and those that did charged crazily high for labor and parts. But they are a nice engine and a genius design.

yea incredibly smart. i can see thinking of a a trochoid cause of the three stages but getting it to rotate clearnly? wild.

.: someone is always someone elses one:.

theyre crap for reliability...theyre worse than your accord, unless rebuilt which 80% of them are

·°oO

Here's a really great site on the rotary in really simple "a la howstuffworks.com" terms:

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

.:|[ blat ]|:.

yeah, that site is the shiz...

What is mind? No matter
What is matter? Never mind.

yah i found one with animations and crap

.: someone is always someone elses one:.

"theyre crap for reliability...theyre worse than your accord, unless rebuilt which 80% of them are"

no, its just the stupid racer people that beat the shit out of a genious design by adding nos and other amenities that just do murder on the system. =(

but then again, i'm a racer rice kid too ... but ... yea. =(

and, in all actuality, the new RX-8 is Mazda's Rotary 2 (Renesis) engine, which is just a revamped and "tweaked" and "fine tuned" rotary engine that was introduced with the RX-7.

Wonkus, the best way and simplest way is to say this:

Rotary has no pistons, no camshafts, connecting rods, etc.

It is, by far, the most genious design for an car engine. And although one says its not reliable, it IS reliable. Their are fewer parts, therefore fewer parts to repair in the long run.

And with the come back of the RX series, I'm sure to see prices be a bit better with parts anyways. Besides, the cost of taking care of an RX is no different than somebody taking care an Lancer Evo, or a Nissan Skyline (Nismo), etc etc.

Sometimes people have to realize that things fail not because of the way its made, but because of how the person uses them (point out "sometimes", cause this is not always the case).

Anyways, I can't wait till Summer to see this car back on the streets. Do you realize how small this car is too? ;-)

+++ rkenshin +++

Oh, and you can go to www.mazdausa.com and find out all about the car (interior, exterior, performance, the rotary engine, etc).

+++ rkenshin +++

actually the first wankle to hit the streets was in a suzuki motorcycle... ford didnt want it at first.. but when the bike did well on the track ford grabbed it....

but the down side, is that no one knew how to class it, is it a 4 stroke or a 2 stroke? what was the actual displacement....(thus killing its racing days) in the end the epa ended up classing it as a 2 stroke and the emits somewhat took it off the streat...

rkenkshin... it is a rotary piston motor... your statement Rotary has no pistons, no camshafts, connecting rods, etc.
is kinda like saying a 2 stoke has no valves..

______________
if you get a penny for you thoughts... but you throw your 2 cents in.. who makes the extra penny???

no syko, the rotary engine does not have pistons. go read up your rotary history. hence why its a Rotary Engine, NOT a piston engine.
Here, I'll even take the statement from the site Blat found.

"In a rotary engine, the pressure of combustion is contained in a chamber formed by part of the housing and sealed in by one face of the triangular rotor, which is what the engine uses INSTEAD of pistons. "

+++ rkenshin +++

"The rotor and housing of a rotary engine. These parts replace the pistons, cylinders, valves, connecting rods and camshafts found in piston engines."

Why else would rotary being genious if it still used a piston? Hmmm...

+++ rkenshin +++

"People who know nothing about cars knows that the Rotary engine is not piston based" - Anonymous User

+++ rkenshin +++

boy i must have really pissed you off to warrent 3 replys in under an hour..

i was, at one point a facory certified suzuki tech... i do know my history .. as well as how a rotary works.. ive spun many a wrench on them

now its your turn to read up...
http://www.machaon.ru/tetra/veselo.htm

______________
if you get a penny for you thoughts... but you throw your 2 cents in.. who makes the extra penny???

my bad i should have given you this link... its a bit more specifc to the wankel..

and you should pay special attention to the first line of the fourth paragraph...

http://www.citroen.mb.ca/citroenet/html/w/wankel.html

______________
if you get a penny for you thoughts... but you throw your 2 cents in.. who makes the extra penny???

okay i'll go for three...

courtesy of blat
Here's a really great site on the rotary in really simple "a la howstuffworks.com" terms:

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

second damd paragraph of the same damd article

It's kind of like having a dedicated cylinder for each of the four jobs, with the piston moving continually from one to the next

______________
if you get a penny for you thoughts... but you throw your 2 cents in.. who makes the extra penny???

"It's kind of like"

meaning it IS NOT, but is similar in effect to.

"Uhhh...nachos? Did someone say there were some nachos out in the hallway?"

"but then again, i'm a racer rice kid"...godamn i had respect for you untill you called yourself rice ;)

·°oO

you guys don't know about the Rotary Engine? Barney Coopersmith invented it, duh.

syko, i wasn't pissed. i just kept thinking of new things to say after i made that original post.

Not "Its kind of like" (like AverageJoe said). It is NOT piston based.

I like colossus' statement:

"And yes, he did get rid of it because no one knew jack about the engine ........."

There are no pistons. These websites just compare it to a piston engine and say "it works kind of like this" ... but it isn't. Again, why else would it be rotary? If you had pistons, the engine wouldn't be rotary.

+++ rkenshin +++

eh i want to test drive it when it comes out. and the new protege

.: someone is always someone elses one:.

Wonkus, I don't know about there ...

but the dealerships around here, they won't let us test drive the Lancer Evolution VIII, the MazdaSPEED Protege, or the Mazda RX-8 until you sign, or about to sign, the contract.

I can understand why, but still. =) I wanna test drive 'em too. ;-)

+++ rkenshin +++

rk did you even go to the links i provieded? if you did you would see that they are called "rotary pistons" its iven in the site that you quoted from IN THE SENCOND PARAGRAPH....

let me make this easy for you...

elliptical rotor-piston which is eye-jointed to the eccentric axis

found here:
http://www.machaon.ru/tetra/veselo.htm
just under the Fig 1.A its #3

It's kind of like having a dedicated cylinder for each of the four jobs, with the piston moving continually from one to the next.

found here:
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm
second paragraph - last sentence (im begining to wonder if you read the entire article or just skimmed over it to find useless fodder)

and last but not least:
Rotary piston engines do not employ a crankshaft; the linear piston is replaced by a rotary piston coupled to a rotating shaft which performs an uniform or variable rotary movement without being affected by alternating inertial forces due to changes in piston velocity, particularly at top dead centre and bottom dead centre. Since the motion produced is rotary, it can be utilised directly without having to be transformed.

found here:
http://www.citroen.mb.ca/citroenet/html/w/wankel.html

fourth paragraph...

now there you go you dont have to click anything...

now all this being said i think your statement of There are no pistons. These websites just compare it to a piston engine and say "it works kind of like this" is horrible off the mark as you can see it is refred to as a "rotar-piston, rotary piston and as a piston (a generalized term most likey used for those who cannot visualize the two afore mentiond piston types)"

flashback i realize who "invented" it wankel just made it a bit better and popularized it alot... hell how can you refuse a name like wankel lol

______________
if you get a penny for you thoughts... but you throw your 2 cents in.. who makes the extra penny???

sorry bout the sudden second post here...

i will give rk this most people do call it a rotar, and most likely for the same reason they call con-rods con-rods and not connecting rods, its just easier to say... the same could be said about the crank (aka crankshaft)...

______________
if you get a penny for you thoughts... but you throw your 2 cents in.. who makes the extra penny???

Dude, I'm not getting in an argument over this with you.

It is not a piston based engine. All the stuff you have "copy and pasted" state "its like how a piston works". Its a comparison. And no, I didn't just "read" the website. It comes from knowledge of the car, working on cars, having friends who work on cars (tuners, domestic, european, etc).

It comes from personal knowledge of the vehicle and of the system. It is not a piston based engine. I'll say it a dozen times.

"the Rotary engine is smaller, lighter, no need for pistons connecting rods or a camshaft, produces less vibration, generates smoother power, and is more reliable due to fewer moving parts." -Mazda Website

I've read your website, the first one you linked. Your comparing what Mazda uses to a a totally different Rotary Engine.

I'll continue to say it, and I'll bet you ask any mechanic out there, any tuner person, anyone, they will tell you that the Rotary Engine is not a piston based engine.

The "HowStuffWorks" website stats "its LIKE how a piston engine works". I've read it thouroughly buddy. It even says in the article that it has no pistons. Your contradicting what your trying to prove.

Do you see any pistons in the engine in any of those diagrams? Not one. Do you know what a piston looks like if you worked for Suzuki?

Seriously. You aren't worth arguing about this. Think what you want with it.

Anyways, now there, you don't have to click anything.

+++ rkenshin +++

Sounds like your are arguing to me. =)

.:|[ blat ]|:.

from http://www.monito.com/wankel/rce.html

"The RCE Rotor supercedes the piston engine's reciprocating piston.
The RCE Eccentric Shaft [gloss] supercedes the piston engine's crankshaft and connecting rods.
The RCE Peripheral Housing [gloss] supercedes the piston engine's cylinder.
Intake and Exhaust Ports [gloss] in the housings eliminate valves, camshafts, cams, lifter rods, and timing belts. See also porting."

Oh, and maybe this is what your thinking

"Sometimes loosely called the Rotary-piston" from the same website.

+++ rkenshin +++

Bleh. =(

+++ rkenshin +++

Eh, sounds more like a friendly debate. ;-)

+++ rkenshin +++

i like rk's line of thought.. friendly debates acomplish more than agueing...

i had read this article when digging up the links that i had mentiond.. several things bothered me about it..

first off the horrible spelling, now i must admit i dont have the best spelling in the world.. but supersede (is actually supersede) and it means " to take the place of; replace" not eliminate... Secondly, it claims that wankel invented the rotary motor (engine) as stated above, he did not, and lol there is documentation of this via the patents office... but im to lazy to go look them up atm...

another thing, got to me was that they had a tendincy to contradict them selvs (specificly on who invented it), and if they did mean the word supersede to be eleminate, they distroy that concept near the end of the artilce, where they give the rotar 2 more names that it can be defined as.... ("2) Scissor action types using vanes or pistons," )

so i just dismissed this as an article writen by a misinformed author... which isnt at all a bad thing, but it is a pitty that the article(s) (posted by both you and i) arnt kept up to date with current "terminalogy" or techincal changes..

and just to clarify something.. i never said that it was a piston based engine... i said that it is a rotary piston engine... there is a difference there... and as all the "stuff" that ive "copy and pasted" cleary supports what ive said...

the statement that you posted from the mazda website is clearly dumbed down for the average consumer (and i would assume it is the same way for the how things work website)... ask any one of your friends that spin wrench if any of their customers know what bearing is being refred to in the term "spun bearing" i think that most of them wont know (cusotmers not techs)...

now, two last issues for me to address, i dont think that ive contradicted myself at all... though i may have mislead you (as well as other readers) by my first comment, if i did i appologzie for it, it wasnt ment to be taken as it seems it was, my fault there... secondly, you sir have contradicted yourself clearly... by saying "Seriously. You aren't worth arguing about this. Think what you want with it." and following up 4 post later by saying "Eh, sounds more like a friendly debate. ;-)" the later is what i prefer to have (the key word being friendly).. not a full blowen argument about this, as for every resource that i find to prove my case, you can find one that does the same for you equaly...

now with all that being said, does my inital comment, as well as my postings, about it being a rotary piston, make a bit more sence? lol you've surely made it clear that the rotary isnt a piston based engine, and i agree whole hartedly there...

by the by, you never said it that it wasnt a piston based engine, just that i didnt have a piston... if you go do dictoinary.com you'll see that there are many definitions for the word... it is the last that i think applicable, "A sliding piece which either is moved by, or moves against, fluid pressure. It usually consists of a short cylinder fitting within a cylindrical vessel along which it moves, back and forth. It is used in steam engines to receive motion from the steam, and in pumps to transmit motion to a fluid; also for other purposes" aslo note worthy is that most of, if not all of the definitions provied have to do with the displacement or comperssion of a fluid... this definition brings up another question of terminalogy, cylinder... does it have to be round? or can it be oblongated (sp) as it is in the honda NR (here is a link to its oval piston http://www.sportbikez.net/html/showpicture.php?picture=321 and another that shows the crank / piston / valve assembly http://www.sportbikez.net/html/showpicture.php?picture=323) too bad i can find an image of the top half opend up.. it was really a neat concept but horribly expencive..


______________
if you get a penny for you thoughts... but you throw your 2 cents in.. who makes the extra penny???

______________
if you get a penny for you thoughts... but you throw your 2 cents in.. who makes the extra penny???

lets not get caught up in the details boys.

.: someone is always someone elses one:.

on the test drive note, i know some company i think gm but i could be wrong is letting you sleep over with your car so you can take an escalede to the prom. heh. sounds pretty cool. and its definately nice marketing. should be interessting to see how it works out.

.: someone is always someone elses one:.

nice details and explanation of yourself. props to you. ;-)

anyways, twas a fun debate. but i can see we are on the same subject manner and have clarified each other.

wee....expensive, yes...genious, yes...fast as hell? yes. =P

+++ rkenshin +++

This is all about asad posting his wallpaper.

yea i blame him buahahahhahahahaha

______________
if you get a penny for you thoughts... but you throw your 2 cents in.. who makes the extra penny???

isnt this thread done yet?

-I don't not have no idea

no

"Uhhh...nachos? Did someone say there were some nachos out in the hallway?"

All I can say about a rotary engine is.. 10,000 RPM's Stock From The Factory... I've got an RX7 and the car can really move. Aside from the fact that I am taking the engine out and putting it into my Suzuki Samurai to turn it unto basicly a sad dune machine.... Also, look at a rotary this way, the triangular pistons are so perfectly balanced they almost spin in a perfect circle, allowing the engine to get the really High RPM's without blowing up... aslo, with a rotary, your cam shaft never goes bad, you never lose compression in any cylinder, you can Never blow a head gasket (rotary's don't have Heads to have Head gaskets to blow)... But the rotary's only drawback is that they get Really Hot Really fast.... So you can kill the engine Very easily if you don't take care of it. Also, the Carb's/Fuel Injection Systems on those things are Soo complicarted, if there is a problem with it.. it's almost cheaper to buy a new carb/injection system rather than fix it. Believe me, I work on Rotary's. They aren't cheap to fix.

.:Expect The Unexpected:.

i always thought fast cars were cool but damn i dont understand this technical stuff. holy mcJesus

whats the most miles achieved by a rotary engine? my friends say that they have an average life span of 80,000 miles before engine needs serious work but then again most of these engines are pushed to their limits.. so how long can they last?

along time deadly it depends on how well you maintain it.. just as any other engine... ive got a old beater that has well over 150000mi on it and still runs strong... but i maintain it well .. on the other hand my mothers 2001 nissan truck runs like shit because all she does is put gas in the damd thing...

______________
if you get a penny for you thoughts... but you throw your 2 cents in.. who makes the extra penny???

thank you rkenshin, you seperated the car's reliability and the driver ability. i have so many friends that blame the company or the dealership or the owners before them. its important to take responsibility for their actions. great to see their are some racer and car enthusists here. cuase i am both but not ricer!

me = antiricer

All Your Custo Are Belong To ME!

i just need some info.i have a 1979 rx7 and really love.BUT!!!I parked for a few months,when i started again and run it for a bit. I see that there is water in my oil. I’m taking to get fixed.but i would like to know what ‘s wrong, before i do ,i’m a women and don’t know a lot about this engine,and i did learn from your post.
So thanks guy’s