What does it mean for an RX8 to be rotory powered?

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Check out this new engine design:

Five Stroke

Without looking at the site, it is the "extended combustion" design you spoke of, correct?

Hmm.. Not sure if it was what you were referring to or not.

That is definately an interesting design for a diesel engine. Wonder if we'll ever see anything come from them, or something similar...

It seems hard to find any inherent flaws, because it is just an extensive modification of current diesels. Of course, the questions would be.. how reliable is the so called "combustion shaft".. it seems it would be taking a great deal of abuse..

Interesting though.

I would guess less abuse than a typical cylinder, because there are no moving parts inside it, so no extra friction. Since it's a solid cylindrical mass, it should be sturdy enough for that kind of internal pressure, not sure about heat buildup though.

Well, the "combustion shaft" rotates, so there's friction somewhere.. the ports on the combustion shaft have to match up with the ports above the pistons, so there's going to be friction there..

That's kinda what I meant. It kinda sucks that any drastic engine design change probably isn't going to be embraced too well, unless it is truely revolutionary. We've managed to get our engines pretty damn reliable.

Adding more moving parts almost seems like a step in the wrong direction. I think at this point, we need better materials.

But if adding the moving parts takes the place of several other moving parts with less energy waste, then you've got a winner. That shaft cycliner could have rounded ports so they never have to line up exactly and it could be on a ball bearing mechanism to really reduce friction.

What you need is a carbon-carbon composite. Which is an existing technology. And a newer technology is diamond glossing - you can cover a surface in smooth diamond. Extremely high thermal abilities with no need for lubrication.

Diamond is a 3d crystalline matrix. You can't coat a 3d surface with it. That stuff is graphite.

Composite Diamond Coating

Diamond Film

:Q

I read about this technology a few years ago from a science magazine. They were talking about creating smooth diamond layers for touch panels like they have in Star Trek. Apparently this technology took off, because that first link actually took me to a page about diamond coated golf clubs.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Check out this new engine design:

Five Stroke

Without looking at the site, it is the "extended combustion" design you spoke of, correct?

Hmm.. Not sure if it was what you were referring to or not.

That is definately an interesting design for a diesel engine. Wonder if we'll ever see anything come from them, or something similar...

It seems hard to find any inherent flaws, because it is just an extensive modification of current diesels. Of course, the questions would be.. how reliable is the so called "combustion shaft".. it seems it would be taking a great deal of abuse..

Interesting though.

I would guess less abuse than a typical cylinder, because there are no moving parts inside it, so no extra friction. Since it's a solid cylindrical mass, it should be sturdy enough for that kind of internal pressure, not sure about heat buildup though.

Well, the "combustion shaft" rotates, so there's friction somewhere.. the ports on the combustion shaft have to match up with the ports above the pistons, so there's going to be friction there..

That's kinda what I meant. It kinda sucks that any drastic engine design change probably isn't going to be embraced too well, unless it is truely revolutionary. We've managed to get our engines pretty damn reliable.

Adding more moving parts almost seems like a step in the wrong direction. I think at this point, we need better materials.

But if adding the moving parts takes the place of several other moving parts with less energy waste, then you've got a winner. That shaft cycliner could have rounded ports so they never have to line up exactly and it could be on a ball bearing mechanism to really reduce friction.

What you need is a carbon-carbon composite. Which is an existing technology. And a newer technology is diamond glossing - you can cover a surface in smooth diamond. Extremely high thermal abilities with no need for lubrication.

Interesting, although I would tend to disagree on the lubrication aspect.. it would still eventually wear, and any reduction in friction is a good thing. Just because may technically not need lubrication doesen't mean we wouldn't use it.

If you have two diamond plated surfaces sliding against each other, it will be very hard to find a lubrication wouldn't be adding more friction and resistance. Although it would help with sealing.

 

[alkemyst]

so much misinformation and science-fiction mumbo-jumbo

Rotary = Wheel.

The Rotary engined vehicle has 2-3 wheels under the hood.

Upon each of those wheels one or more bunnies run....these bunnies are super-genetically engineered....capable of running all day as long as fuel injectors shoot fire behind them.

They make for quick cars, but sometimes the fuel efficiency is not so good....perhaps putting carrots or maybe a nice leaf of cabbage in front of the bunny instead of fire behind it could improve that.

I know this because my second cousin's high school teacher's mechanic had a friend of a friend that was the Chief Engineer of the Mazda design team Just dont let anyone else know this secret.

 

[FreshPrince]

WOW! this thread got blown up! Didn't mean to cause all this trouble.

Learned a lot though, thx for the info everybody

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Slammy1
I used to have a '79 Mazda RX-7. It was so light one time I got stuck in the snow I was able to lift the front end and move it onto the road. 70cc (2X35cc) engine, but I took it up to 120. Course, started to do bad things like shoot flames out the exhaust pipe but that's a story for another telling. The Stanley Syeamer was a rotary engine, so they've been around as long as the internal combustion engine I suppose.

Sorry, but the '79 RX-7 had the 1.3B rotary in it. Twin rotor, 1300cc (2x650cc). Came stock with 4bbl carb and headers, nice little runner with about 160hp in 2400lbs of car but they had a habit of blowing the oil seals every 50k miles.

edit: was the 1.2a in the '79? doh, the 1.3b wasn't until 81...

Still wrong. The 13b didnt get introduced into the RX7 until 1984 in the American Market when it was put into the GSL-SE.

I've owned 3 RX7's and they are fun little quirky cars.

 

[BadgerFan]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan
Rotaries aren't in many cars for the same reason we don't use large chainsaw engines. While they are compact and powerful, they tend to be fuel in-efficient, noisy, and are heavy polluters. They also burn lots of oil. Now before any of you nazis jump on me I realize this is over simplified, but for a layman, I think it is a good answer.

That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer.

I completely disagree with what you said. First of all, I bet you don't have any dyno sheets to back up your engine. If you are producing 300 hp you have a full out race motor, peripheral port, open exhaust, headers, huge carb, intake manifold etc etc. It would idle at 2500 RPM and probably have to spin to 10k. Your seal life is sketchy at best. Now if this is in some kind of race car, I would believe it.

Have you ever been to race track? Rotaries are LOUD if they have any kind of aggressive porting.

Also if you think a naturally aspirated rotary is a muscle car, then I guess you have never ridden in anything faster than a civic.

You also backed up what I said, you need tons of emissions controls to make them pass smog. HENCE THEY POLLUTE A LOT.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Check out this new engine design:

Five Stroke

Without looking at the site, it is the "extended combustion" design you spoke of, correct?

Hmm.. Not sure if it was what you were referring to or not.

That is definately an interesting design for a diesel engine. Wonder if we'll ever see anything come from them, or something similar...

It seems hard to find any inherent flaws, because it is just an extensive modification of current diesels. Of course, the questions would be.. how reliable is the so called "combustion shaft".. it seems it would be taking a great deal of abuse..

Interesting though.

I would guess less abuse than a typical cylinder, because there are no moving parts inside it, so no extra friction. Since it's a solid cylindrical mass, it should be sturdy enough for that kind of internal pressure, not sure about heat buildup though.

Well, the "combustion shaft" rotates, so there's friction somewhere.. the ports on the combustion shaft have to match up with the ports above the pistons, so there's going to be friction there..

That's kinda what I meant. It kinda sucks that any drastic engine design change probably isn't going to be embraced too well, unless it is truely revolutionary. We've managed to get our engines pretty damn reliable.

Adding more moving parts almost seems like a step in the wrong direction. I think at this point, we need better materials.

But if adding the moving parts takes the place of several other moving parts with less energy waste, then you've got a winner. That shaft cycliner could have rounded ports so they never have to line up exactly and it could be on a ball bearing mechanism to really reduce friction.

What you need is a carbon-carbon composite. Which is an existing technology. And a newer technology is diamond glossing - you can cover a surface in smooth diamond. Extremely high thermal abilities with no need for lubrication.

Diamond is a 3d crystalline matrix. You can't coat a 3d surface with it. That stuff is graphite.

You can damn well coat 3D objects with crystalline diamond (although I think that currently, there is a size limit for the substrate).

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan
Rotaries aren't in many cars for the same reason we don't use large chainsaw engines. While they are compact and powerful, they tend to be fuel in-efficient, noisy, and are heavy polluters. They also burn lots of oil. Now before any of you nazis jump on me I realize this is over simplified, but for a layman, I think it is a good answer.

That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer.

I completely disagree with what you said. First of all, I bet you don't have any dyno sheets to back up your engine. If you are producing 300 hp you have a full out race motor, peripheral port, open exhaust, headers, huge carb, intake manifold etc etc. It would idle at 2500 RPM and probably have to spin to 10k. Your seal life is sketchy at best. Now if this is in some kind of race car, I would believe it.

Have you ever been to race track? Rotaries are LOUD if they have any kind of aggressive porting.

Also if you think a naturally aspirated rotary is a muscle car, then I guess you have never ridden in anything faster than a civic.

You also backed up what I said, you need tons of emissions controls to make them pass smog. HENCE THEY POLLUTE A LOT.

Yep, it's a race car (but modified to work on the road - "illegally" - years ago, I used to win quite a few races since it doesn't look like "anything") . It's been on a dyno. It's will idle fine at 1,500 RPM and ultimate redline is 11K. Seals are fine/reliable to 10K RPM.

Rotaries are "reasonably noisy" with properly designed headers and moderately aggressive porting.

With pollution controls - they are as non-polluting as any other car but loses hp (still plenty for most enthusiasts and superb 'bang-for-buck' say compared to a Porsche).

I know a bit about rotary engines and have rebuilt a few.

 

[BadgerFan]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan
Rotaries aren't in many cars for the same reason we don't use large chainsaw engines. While they are compact and powerful, they tend to be fuel in-efficient, noisy, and are heavy polluters. They also burn lots of oil. Now before any of you nazis jump on me I realize this is over simplified, but for a layman, I think it is a good answer.

That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer.

I completely disagree with what you said. First of all, I bet you don't have any dyno sheets to back up your engine. If you are producing 300 hp you have a full out race motor, peripheral port, open exhaust, headers, huge carb, intake manifold etc etc. It would idle at 2500 RPM and probably have to spin to 10k. Your seal life is sketchy at best. Now if this is in some kind of race car, I would believe it.

Have you ever been to race track? Rotaries are LOUD if they have any kind of aggressive porting.

Also if you think a naturally aspirated rotary is a muscle car, then I guess you have never ridden in anything faster than a civic.

You also backed up what I said, you need tons of emissions controls to make them pass smog. HENCE THEY POLLUTE A LOT.

Yep, it's a race car (but modified to work on the road - "illegally" - years ago, I used to win quite a few races since it doesn't look like "anything") . It's been on a dyno. It's will idle fine at 1,500 RPM and ultimate redline is 11K. Seals are fine/reliable to 10K RPM.

Rotaries are "reasonably noisy" with properly designed headers and moderately aggressive porting.

With pollution controls - they are as non-polluting as any other car but loses hp (still plenty for most enthusiasts and superb 'bang-for-buck' say compared to a Porsche).

I know a bit about rotary engines and have rebuilt a few.

Post the dyno sheet.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan
Rotaries aren't in many cars for the same reason we don't use large chainsaw engines. While they are compact and powerful, they tend to be fuel in-efficient, noisy, and are heavy polluters. They also burn lots of oil. Now before any of you nazis jump on me I realize this is over simplified, but for a layman, I think it is a good answer.

That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer.

I completely disagree with what you said. First of all, I bet you don't have any dyno sheets to back up your engine. If you are producing 300 hp you have a full out race motor, peripheral port, open exhaust, headers, huge carb, intake manifold etc etc. It would idle at 2500 RPM and probably have to spin to 10k. Your seal life is sketchy at best. Now if this is in some kind of race car, I would believe it.

Have you ever been to race track? Rotaries are LOUD if they have any kind of aggressive porting.

Also if you think a naturally aspirated rotary is a muscle car, then I guess you have never ridden in anything faster than a civic.

You also backed up what I said, you need tons of emissions controls to make them pass smog. HENCE THEY POLLUTE A LOT.

Yep, it's a race car (but modified to work on the road - "illegally" - years ago, I used to win quite a few races since it doesn't look like "anything") . It's been on a dyno. It's will idle fine at 1,500 RPM and ultimate redline is 11K. Seals are fine/reliable to 10K RPM.

Rotaries are "reasonably noisy" with properly designed headers and moderately aggressive porting.

With pollution controls - they are as non-polluting as any other car but loses hp (still plenty for most enthusiasts and superb 'bang-for-buck' say compared to a Porsche).

I know a bit about rotary engines and have rebuilt a few.

Post the dyno sheet.

Post your credentials.

I haven't raced or even run the Cosmo since 1991 when I moved to Hawaii. It is still in storage and I don't feel like looking to prove anything to you.

As I remember, it was around 280hp and I could have got more as I made more modifications after the test.

Look it up . . . 300HP is not that unusual for a non-turboed 13B.

BTW, I have TWO 1976 Cosmos - one is completly stock.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan
Rotaries aren't in many cars for the same reason we don't use large chainsaw engines. While they are compact and powerful, they tend to be fuel in-efficient, noisy, and are heavy polluters. They also burn lots of oil. Now before any of you nazis jump on me I realize this is over simplified, but for a layman, I think it is a good answer.

That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer.

I completely disagree with what you said. First of all, I bet you don't have any dyno sheets to back up your engine. If you are producing 300 hp you have a full out race motor, peripheral port, open exhaust, headers, huge carb, intake manifold etc etc. It would idle at 2500 RPM and probably have to spin to 10k. Your seal life is sketchy at best. Now if this is in some kind of race car, I would believe it.

Have you ever been to race track? Rotaries are LOUD if they have any kind of aggressive porting.

Also if you think a naturally aspirated rotary is a muscle car, then I guess you have never ridden in anything faster than a civic.

You also backed up what I said, you need tons of emissions controls to make them pass smog. HENCE THEY POLLUTE A LOT.

Yep, it's a race car (but modified to work on the road - "illegally" - years ago, I used to win quite a few races since it doesn't look like "anything") . It's been on a dyno. It's will idle fine at 1,500 RPM and ultimate redline is 11K. Seals are fine/reliable to 10K RPM.

Rotaries are "reasonably noisy" with properly designed headers and moderately aggressive porting.

With pollution controls - they are as non-polluting as any other car but loses hp (still plenty for most enthusiasts and superb 'bang-for-buck' say compared to a Porsche).

I know a bit about rotary engines and have rebuilt a few.

Post the dyno sheet.

Post your credentials.

I haven't raced or even run the Cosmo since 1991 when I moved to Hawaii. It is still in storage and I don't feel like looking to prove anything to you.

As I remember, it was around 280hp and I could have got more as I made more modifications after the test.

Look it up . . . 300HP is not that unusual for a non-turboed 13B.

BTW, I have TWO 1976 Cosmos - one is completly stock.

You never found buyers for your Cosmos? I remember slikmunks was advising you to post them for sale in some rotary forum. It hurts me to hear of such cool cars being stuck in storage.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan
Rotaries aren't in many cars for the same reason we don't use large chainsaw engines. While they are compact and powerful, they tend to be fuel in-efficient, noisy, and are heavy polluters. They also burn lots of oil. Now before any of you nazis jump on me I realize this is over simplified, but for a layman, I think it is a good answer.

That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer.

I completely disagree with what you said. First of all, I bet you don't have any dyno sheets to back up your engine. If you are producing 300 hp you have a full out race motor, peripheral port, open exhaust, headers, huge carb, intake manifold etc etc. It would idle at 2500 RPM and probably have to spin to 10k. Your seal life is sketchy at best. Now if this is in some kind of race car, I would believe it.

Have you ever been to race track? Rotaries are LOUD if they have any kind of aggressive porting.

Also if you think a naturally aspirated rotary is a muscle car, then I guess you have never ridden in anything faster than a civic.

You also backed up what I said, you need tons of emissions controls to make them pass smog. HENCE THEY POLLUTE A LOT.

Yep, it's a race car (but modified to work on the road - "illegally" - years ago, I used to win quite a few races since it doesn't look like "anything") . It's been on a dyno. It's will idle fine at 1,500 RPM and ultimate redline is 11K. Seals are fine/reliable to 10K RPM.

Rotaries are "reasonably noisy" with properly designed headers and moderately aggressive porting.

With pollution controls - they are as non-polluting as any other car but loses hp (still plenty for most enthusiasts and superb 'bang-for-buck' say compared to a Porsche).

I know a bit about rotary engines and have rebuilt a few.

Post the dyno sheet.

Post your credentials.

I haven't raced or even run the Cosmo since 1991 when I moved to Hawaii. It is still in storage and I don't feel like looking to prove anything to you.

As I remember, it was around 280hp and I could have got more as I made more modifications after the test.

Look it up . . . 300HP is not that unusual for a non-turboed 13B.

BTW, I have TWO 1976 Cosmos - one is completly stock.

You never found buyers for your Cosmos? I remember slikmunks was advising you to post them for sale in some rotary forum. It hurts me to hear of such cool cars being stuck in storage.

I did post and had two "confirmed" buyers - although not at the same time - both gave me deposits and both buyers backed out without seeing them . . . at that point my mom got sick, I recovered sufficiently from my accident to be a "mechanic" again - and I decided it was a "sign" to keep them and eventually restore them . . . someday I will (probably).

 

[BadgerFan]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan
Rotaries aren't in many cars for the same reason we don't use large chainsaw engines. While they are compact and powerful, they tend to be fuel in-efficient, noisy, and are heavy polluters. They also burn lots of oil. Now before any of you nazis jump on me I realize this is over simplified, but for a layman, I think it is a good answer.

That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer.

I completely disagree with what you said. First of all, I bet you don't have any dyno sheets to back up your engine. If you are producing 300 hp you have a full out race motor, peripheral port, open exhaust, headers, huge carb, intake manifold etc etc. It would idle at 2500 RPM and probably have to spin to 10k. Your seal life is sketchy at best. Now if this is in some kind of race car, I would believe it.

Have you ever been to race track? Rotaries are LOUD if they have any kind of aggressive porting.

Also if you think a naturally aspirated rotary is a muscle car, then I guess you have never ridden in anything faster than a civic.

You also backed up what I said, you need tons of emissions controls to make them pass smog. HENCE THEY POLLUTE A LOT.

Yep, it's a race car (but modified to work on the road - "illegally" - years ago, I used to win quite a few races since it doesn't look like "anything") . It's been on a dyno. It's will idle fine at 1,500 RPM and ultimate redline is 11K. Seals are fine/reliable to 10K RPM.

Rotaries are "reasonably noisy" with properly designed headers and moderately aggressive porting.

With pollution controls - they are as non-polluting as any other car but loses hp (still plenty for most enthusiasts and superb 'bang-for-buck' say compared to a Porsche).

I know a bit about rotary engines and have rebuilt a few.

Post the dyno sheet.

Post your credentials.

I haven't raced or even run the Cosmo since 1991 when I moved to Hawaii. It is still in storage and I don't feel like looking to prove anything to you.

As I remember, it was around 280hp and I could have got more as I made more modifications after the test.

Look it up . . . 300HP is not that unusual for a non-turboed 13B.

BTW, I have TWO 1976 Cosmos - one is completly stock.

What credentials would I need to read a dyno sheet? I have built and raced many cars and have spend the majority of my years with greasy hands. I am currently a Junior in ME if that helps. I believe you that you have a near 300 hp car, like I said a race car could make that much. However you seem to present it like it is some kind of streetable engine when it obviously isn't. There is no free lunch when it comes to engines, rotary or reciprocating. Properly equipped so that it would be street legal it won't make near those numbers. You could make 2.4l inline 4 have near 300 horsepower, but I would never go around telling people that this is anywhere near normal or close to legal. Don't get the idea that I am some kind of rotary hater either, I just believe it is right to present both sides of the story especially when you are giving information to people who don know a lot.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan
Rotaries aren't in many cars for the same reason we don't use large chainsaw engines. While they are compact and powerful, they tend to be fuel in-efficient, noisy, and are heavy polluters. They also burn lots of oil. Now before any of you nazis jump on me I realize this is over simplified, but for a layman, I think it is a good answer.

That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer.

I completely disagree with what you said. First of all, I bet you don't have any dyno sheets to back up your engine. If you are producing 300 hp you have a full out race motor, peripheral port, open exhaust, headers, huge carb, intake manifold etc etc. It would idle at 2500 RPM and probably have to spin to 10k. Your seal life is sketchy at best. Now if this is in some kind of race car, I would believe it.

Have you ever been to race track? Rotaries are LOUD if they have any kind of aggressive porting.

Also if you think a naturally aspirated rotary is a muscle car, then I guess you have never ridden in anything faster than a civic.

You also backed up what I said, you need tons of emissions controls to make them pass smog. HENCE THEY POLLUTE A LOT.

Yep, it's a race car (but modified to work on the road - "illegally" - years ago, I used to win quite a few races since it doesn't look like "anything") . It's been on a dyno. It's will idle fine at 1,500 RPM and ultimate redline is 11K. Seals are fine/reliable to 10K RPM.

Rotaries are "reasonably noisy" with properly designed headers and moderately aggressive porting.

With pollution controls - they are as non-polluting as any other car but loses hp (still plenty for most enthusiasts and superb 'bang-for-buck' say compared to a Porsche).

I know a bit about rotary engines and have rebuilt a few.

Post the dyno sheet.

Post your credentials.

I haven't raced or even run the Cosmo since 1991 when I moved to Hawaii. It is still in storage and I don't feel like looking to prove anything to you.

As I remember, it was around 280hp and I could have got more as I made more modifications after the test.

Look it up . . . 300HP is not that unusual for a non-turboed 13B.

BTW, I have TWO 1976 Cosmos - one is completly stock.

What credentials would I need to read a dyno sheet? I have built and raced many cars and have spend the majority of my years with greasy hands. I am currently a Junior in ME if that helps. I believe you that you have a near 300 hp car, like I said a race car could make that much. However you seem to present it like it is some kind of streetable engine when it obviously isn't. There is no free lunch when it comes to engines, rotary or reciprocating. Properly equipped so that it would be street legal it won't make near those numbers. You could make 2.4l inline 4 have near 300 horsepower, but I would never go around telling people that this is anywhere near normal or close to legal. Don't get the idea that I am some kind of rotary hater either, I just believe it is right to present both sides of the story especially when you are giving information to people who don know a lot.

You need to work on either your reading skills or comprehension or both, junior.

Please reread my posts and/or perhaps ask someone to explain them to you.

I am NOT presenting my Cosmo as you are claiming.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan
Rotaries aren't in many cars for the same reason we don't use large chainsaw engines. While they are compact and powerful, they tend to be fuel in-efficient, noisy, and are heavy polluters. They also burn lots of oil. Now before any of you nazis jump on me I realize this is over simplified, but for a layman, I think it is a good answer.

That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer.

I completely disagree with what you said. First of all, I bet you don't have any dyno sheets to back up your engine. If you are producing 300 hp you have a full out race motor, peripheral port, open exhaust, headers, huge carb, intake manifold etc etc. It would idle at 2500 RPM and probably have to spin to 10k. Your seal life is sketchy at best. Now if this is in some kind of race car, I would believe it.

Have you ever been to race track? Rotaries are LOUD if they have any kind of aggressive porting.

Also if you think a naturally aspirated rotary is a muscle car, then I guess you have never ridden in anything faster than a civic.

You also backed up what I said, you need tons of emissions controls to make them pass smog. HENCE THEY POLLUTE A LOT.

Yep, it's a race car (but modified to work on the road - "illegally" - years ago, I used to win quite a few races since it doesn't look like "anything") . It's been on a dyno. It's will idle fine at 1,500 RPM and ultimate redline is 11K. Seals are fine/reliable to 10K RPM.

Rotaries are "reasonably noisy" with properly designed headers and moderately aggressive porting.

With pollution controls - they are as non-polluting as any other car but loses hp (still plenty for most enthusiasts and superb 'bang-for-buck' say compared to a Porsche).

I know a bit about rotary engines and have rebuilt a few.

Post the dyno sheet.

Post your credentials.

I haven't raced or even run the Cosmo since 1991 when I moved to Hawaii. It is still in storage and I don't feel like looking to prove anything to you.

As I remember, it was around 280hp and I could have got more as I made more modifications after the test.

Look it up . . . 300HP is not that unusual for a non-turboed 13B.

BTW, I have TWO 1976 Cosmos - one is completly stock.

What credentials would I need to read a dyno sheet? I have built and raced many cars and have spend the majority of my years with greasy hands. I am currently a Junior in ME if that helps. I believe you that you have a near 300 hp car, like I said a race car could make that much. However you seem to present it like it is some kind of streetable engine when it obviously isn't. There is no free lunch when it comes to engines, rotary or reciprocating. Properly equipped so that it would be street legal it won't make near those numbers. You could make 2.4l inline 4 have near 300 horsepower, but I would never go around telling people that this is anywhere near normal or close to legal. Don't get the idea that I am some kind of rotary hater either, I just believe it is right to present both sides of the story especially when you are giving information to people who don know a lot.

Why wouldn't it be legal?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Howard
Why wouldn't it be legal?

Could be something as simple as a non-CARB approved airbox in California, or no cats, or illegal noise level, etc.....easy to make a car street illegal

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Something about what I consider street cars:
They don't have problems with the local DOT

 

[BadgerFan]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan
Rotaries aren't in many cars for the same reason we don't use large chainsaw engines. While they are compact and powerful, they tend to be fuel in-efficient, noisy, and are heavy polluters. They also burn lots of oil. Now before any of you nazis jump on me I realize this is over simplified, but for a layman, I think it is a good answer.

That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer.

I completely disagree with what you said. First of all, I bet you don't have any dyno sheets to back up your engine. If you are producing 300 hp you have a full out race motor, peripheral port, open exhaust, headers, huge carb, intake manifold etc etc. It would idle at 2500 RPM and probably have to spin to 10k. Your seal life is sketchy at best. Now if this is in some kind of race car, I would believe it.

Have you ever been to race track? Rotaries are LOUD if they have any kind of aggressive porting.

Also if you think a naturally aspirated rotary is a muscle car, then I guess you have never ridden in anything faster than a civic.

You also backed up what I said, you need tons of emissions controls to make them pass smog. HENCE THEY POLLUTE A LOT.

Yep, it's a race car (but modified to work on the road - "illegally" - years ago, I used to win quite a few races since it doesn't look like "anything") . It's been on a dyno. It's will idle fine at 1,500 RPM and ultimate redline is 11K. Seals are fine/reliable to 10K RPM.

Rotaries are "reasonably noisy" with properly designed headers and moderately aggressive porting.

With pollution controls - they are as non-polluting as any other car but loses hp (still plenty for most enthusiasts and superb 'bang-for-buck' say compared to a Porsche).

I know a bit about rotary engines and have rebuilt a few.

Post the dyno sheet.

Post your credentials.

I haven't raced or even run the Cosmo since 1991 when I moved to Hawaii. It is still in storage and I don't feel like looking to prove anything to you.

As I remember, it was around 280hp and I could have got more as I made more modifications after the test.

Look it up . . . 300HP is not that unusual for a non-turboed 13B.

BTW, I have TWO 1976 Cosmos - one is completly stock.

What credentials would I need to read a dyno sheet? I have built and raced many cars and have spend the majority of my years with greasy hands. I am currently a Junior in ME if that helps. I believe you that you have a near 300 hp car, like I said a race car could make that much. However you seem to present it like it is some kind of streetable engine when it obviously isn't. There is no free lunch when it comes to engines, rotary or reciprocating. Properly equipped so that it would be street legal it won't make near those numbers. You could make 2.4l inline 4 have near 300 horsepower, but I would never go around telling people that this is anywhere near normal or close to legal. Don't get the idea that I am some kind of rotary hater either, I just believe it is right to present both sides of the story especially when you are giving information to people who don know a lot.

You need to work on either your reading skills or comprehension or both, junior.

Please reread my posts and/or perhaps ask someone to explain them to you.

I am NOT presenting my Cosmo as you are claiming.

Ok, this is what you posted:

"That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer. "

You say zip, zero zilch about it being a race car. From the second sentence it seems like you are even saying the car passes smog and isn't noisy. Now obviously you are talking about two different cars now that you explained it, but I think this would be very confusing to anyone reading it. You should have said something along the lines of "A full on race rotary can achieve 300hp with extensive modifications. Streetable engines will require smog controls, a less agressive port, and complete exhaust system and thus make less power but still have plenty left to make them fun." I also stand by my original respose, I don't think it was bad at all. Just admit you are a rotary zealot and lets end this.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BadgerFan
Rotaries aren't in many cars for the same reason we don't use large chainsaw engines. While they are compact and powerful, they tend to be fuel in-efficient, noisy, and are heavy polluters. They also burn lots of oil. Now before any of you nazis jump on me I realize this is over simplified, but for a layman, I think it is a good answer.

That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer.

I completely disagree with what you said. First of all, I bet you don't have any dyno sheets to back up your engine. If you are producing 300 hp you have a full out race motor, peripheral port, open exhaust, headers, huge carb, intake manifold etc etc. It would idle at 2500 RPM and probably have to spin to 10k. Your seal life is sketchy at best. Now if this is in some kind of race car, I would believe it.

Have you ever been to race track? Rotaries are LOUD if they have any kind of aggressive porting.

Also if you think a naturally aspirated rotary is a muscle car, then I guess you have never ridden in anything faster than a civic.

You also backed up what I said, you need tons of emissions controls to make them pass smog. HENCE THEY POLLUTE A LOT.

Yep, it's a race car (but modified to work on the road - "illegally" - years ago, I used to win quite a few races since it doesn't look like "anything") . It's been on a dyno. It's will idle fine at 1,500 RPM and ultimate redline is 11K. Seals are fine/reliable to 10K RPM.

Rotaries are "reasonably noisy" with properly designed headers and moderately aggressive porting.

With pollution controls - they are as non-polluting as any other car but loses hp (still plenty for most enthusiasts and superb 'bang-for-buck' say compared to a Porsche).

I know a bit about rotary engines and have rebuilt a few.

Post the dyno sheet.

Post your credentials.

I haven't raced or even run the Cosmo since 1991 when I moved to Hawaii. It is still in storage and I don't feel like looking to prove anything to you.

As I remember, it was around 280hp and I could have got more as I made more modifications after the test.

Look it up . . . 300HP is not that unusual for a non-turboed 13B.

BTW, I have TWO 1976 Cosmos - one is completly stock.

What credentials would I need to read a dyno sheet? I have built and raced many cars and have spend the majority of my years with greasy hands. I am currently a Junior in ME if that helps. I believe you that you have a near 300 hp car, like I said a race car could make that much. However you seem to present it like it is some kind of streetable engine when it obviously isn't. There is no free lunch when it comes to engines, rotary or reciprocating. Properly equipped so that it would be street legal it won't make near those numbers. You could make 2.4l inline 4 have near 300 horsepower, but I would never go around telling people that this is anywhere near normal or close to legal. Don't get the idea that I am some kind of rotary hater either, I just believe it is right to present both sides of the story especially when you are giving information to people who don know a lot.

You need to work on either your reading skills or comprehension or both, junior.

Please reread my posts and/or perhaps ask someone to explain them to you.

I am NOT presenting my Cosmo as you are claiming.

Ok, this is what you posted:

"That's the really OLD rotaries.

My 1976 RX5 (Cosmo) has a 13B rotary engine - 1.3 L and produces almost 300hp without turbocharging.

The only problem was with needing much smog controls. They are NOT noisy with headers or a muffler and mild polluters with emission controls and FAST . . . excellent gas mileage FOR a "muscle car".

And your's is OVERsimplified and a bad answer. "

You say zip, zero zilch about it being a race car. From the second sentence it seems like you are even saying the car passes smog and isn't noisy. Now obviously you are talking about two different cars now that you explained it, but I think this would be very confusing to anyone reading it. You should have said something along the lines of "A full on race rotary can achieve 300hp with extensive modifications. Streetable engines will require smog controls, a less agressive port, and complete exhaust system and thus make less power but still have plenty left to make them fun." I also stand by my original respose, I don't think it was bad at all. Just admit you are a rotary zealot and lets end this.

You are truly clueless . . . I have TWO 1976 Mazda Cosmos - one is set up for "race" (illegal to drive because it has NO smog controls and headers - plus) and the other is stock and can be registered.

No one else seems confused by this . . .

Don't tell me what "I should have posted" so persons of below-average intelligence can understand.

l

 

[alkemyst]

Truth is most people even with car *experience* have no idea. Since their experience stems from bringing their car down on a saturday morning to a shop.

People laughed at my VW GTI VR6 and now my Saturn...when they hear about it. However most people that see it don't believe it's a Saturn....my wife thinks it's funny now when I say it's a 1996 Saturn SC2 Classic, and they come back with "heheeh come on who makes it". I don't know....those are just the responses I get. Sure some have kicked my rear and said idiot in a saturn, but I wasn't racing since I knew I was already out matched.

You have two things mainly with cars, weight and power...lower the first or raise the second and you are heading ahead faster. My Saturn with full power and leather weighs a little under 2500lbs...it made about 127hp at the factory and maybe 140-150 now....probably less since my engine is about done (100k)....rebuild it to about 170-200hp and now I will be moving....add a simple turbocharger and now I am really moving (some are putting out 450HP in daily trim). Of course a turbo *kit* is $3k....but what is a kit? The hardest part is the exhaust manifold...then you just bolt on parts and electronics.....it's an engine/powerplant not rocket science

The cosmo's I really like, I considered one once. I had a 1966 Mustang GT showcar and I have to say I rather have the creature comforts.

Maybe when I have a 4 car garage or more I can buy a couple weekend cars without any power or A/C.

 

[Eli]

If your engine is done at 100k there is something seriously wrong with your maintenance or driving habbits.

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
It's the Wankel Engine!

Is it powered by Oompa Loompa?

On a serious node, the potential for this engine is much greater for any piston engine. You can cramp as much power in it and it will not blown as a ppiston engine.

 

[BadgerFan]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
It's the Wankel Engine!

Is it powered by Oompa Loompa?

On a serious node, the potential for this engine is much greater for any piston engine. You can cramp as much power in it and it will not blown as a ppiston engine.

Oh lord help us all.

 

[Looney]

my old high school science teacher had a brother that patented a new fuel system that gave engines (back in the day) 200 miles to the gallon, but an engine company bought it off him and then shelved it permanently.

I know i'm late in this discussion, but this is the funniest BS i've heard in a long time. LOL

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Eli
If your engine is done at 100k there is something seriously wrong with your maintenance or driving habbits.

My car had a known oil consumption issue....most lasted less than mine. There was no recall on this...but since 40k miles I have had to add 1 quart of oil for every 200-1000 miles, mostly in the 200-400 range per quart. Many have had engine replacements before 100k.

My engine bay looks brand new though It's what's inside that matters though . I got the car at 37k.