Rotor Power

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoudMusic
  • 58 comments
  • 2,438 views
phonypoly, i'm not saying the smilies are bad. Only when used in excessive quantities do they begin to get annoying. It's almost the same thing as typing lazily (c u l8r, etc.)
 
Mazda didn't invent the rotary engine, it was patented by the now defunct NSU ( German company ) and was named the Wankel engine. I suppose Mazda bought the patent. It's more efficient that the piston engine, but a lot more delicate to work with.
But for sure it is an elegant concept, some sarcastic people would call it a niche.
 
Anderton
Hmm, which is worse, useless or irritating? Well, since your useless "resurrection" posts almost always spawn my irritating ones, I'm going to have to say you're the prime offender here. Some of your posts irritate me, and this is how I deal with it. Go away? Never.

I didn't resurect this you dumb nut!

:) :dopey: :indiff: :yuck: :crazy: :sick: 👍 💡 👎 :guilty: :sly: :grumpy: :scared: :dunce: :ouch: :dunce: :guilty: 💡 :yuck: :dopey: :sick: 👍 :scared: :grumpy: :) :indiff: :dopey: :dunce: :ouch: 👍 :) :dopey: :crazy: 👍 :sly: :guilty: 👎 :crazy: :indiff:



If you're going to ***** about something you may as well know what the hell it is you're *****ing about. You are a usless post.
 
Biased turkey
Mazda didn't invent the rotary engine, it was patented by the now defunct NSU ( German company ) and was named the Wankel engine. I suppose Mazda bought the patent. It's more efficient that the piston engine, but a lot more delicate to work with.
But for sure it is an elegant concept, some sarcastic people would call it a niche.

It was invented by Felix Wankel, patented in the 60s by NSU, also used by Citroen, Curtiss-Wright / John Deere, Mercedes, GM (for the Corvette) and finally by Mazda who owns the only current patent to the original Wankel design. That's for cars. It was also used in motorocycles and airplanes.
 
LoudMusic
I didn't resurect this you dumb nut!

:) :dopey: :indiff: :yuck: :crazy: :sick: 👍 💡 👎 :guilty: :sly: :grumpy: :scared: :dunce: :ouch: :dunce: :guilty: 💡 :yuck: :dopey: :sick: 👍 :scared: :grumpy: :) :indiff: :dopey: :dunce: :ouch: 👍 :) :dopey: :crazy: 👍 :sly: :guilty: 👎 :crazy: :indiff:



If you're going to ***** about something you may as well know what the hell it is you're *****ing about. You are a usless post.
No of course not. You just put a completely USELESS and time/space-wasting post right after another member posted his stupid resurrection post, thereby ensuring that the thread would be reborn. You're just as guilty as the resurrector for wasting my time.

Nice smilies. Got any more?
 
No, actually it wouldn't let me put much more because of some image restriction. How lame?

You continue the useless posts by posting after my post. Here and now we form a pact, no more posts in this thread.
 
LoudMusic
No, actually it wouldn't let me put much more because of some image restriction. How lame?

You continue the useless posts by posting after my post. Here and now we form a pact, no more posts in this thread.
Very well then. Consider this a pact.

But remember, Loudmusic. wherever you post a resurrection (or contribute directly to one) of a dead thread, or post a one-word or one-sentence comment which contributes nothing to the thread, such as HERE:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50798

I'll be right there you knock you upside the head.

But for now, it appears we shall be allies.
 

Attachments

  • shake_hands.jpg
    shake_hands.jpg
    3.6 KB · Views: 8
......come on, now, no arguing 👎 ....we are all GT freaks, and.... freaks of a feather..?...blow engines together? :sly: ...BTW, NSU=No Stupid Underline?
 
According to acronymfinder.com

NSU Neckarsulm (German Car and Motorcycle Manufacturer)

You got me, man. I like your acronym better (:
 
You guys were talking about alternative fuel a little bit ago, and I have really put some thought into this subject, so I would like to share. I would like to point out that I live in the U.S., and therefore, my theories mainly apply to the U.S. exclusively.

Oil: First, we are going to run out of oil, we all know that, however, known proven oil reserves have doubled since 1980, considering that the world thought we where gonna run out during the Oil Crisis, maybe things aren't as bad as we think. Also, if idiots would stop "needing" SUVs and light trucks, and realized that what the really need are much more efficient automobiles, we could make our oil last much longer. Look at is this way, if the average efficiency of automobile doubles, you effectively double the oil reserves. This is what makes the current gasoline-electric hybrids (i.e. honda insight and civic hybrid, toyota prius, ford escape hybrid) so attractive, because they regenerate energy usually lost during braking (to heat and sound) and store it as electrical potential in a battery.

Hydrogen: Everyone says over and over that hydrogen is the greatest thing ever, because the combustion reaction of hydrogen (meaning heating in the presense of oxygen) yields water. While this is true, you can only get as much energy out of this reaction as you put into by splitting the hydrogen and oxygen from water molecules. This means that you still need to produce energy to make your hyrdogen, so you probably have to burn oil or coal or wood or something to make it. Making hydrogen gas from water yields about $10-15 per gallon hydrogen. Additionally, the current most cost effective way of producing hydrogen gas is by cracking hydrocarbons, which yields about $4-6 a gallon hydrogen, in comparison to about $2 per gallon of gasoline, if the hydrocarbons had been used for that purpose. Also, one mole (6.022x10^23 molecules) of hydrogen produces way more energy than one mole of octane. While this is true, one mole of hydrogen gas takes up a ton more space than a mole of octane, to combat this, automaker store hydrogen fuel in automobiles at extremely high pressure, currently around 5000psi (340atm). Right now, Ford and GM are seeking the right to use 10000psi tanks. Consider the safety issues involved in carrying extremely flammable gas under your child's car seat. 10000psi tanks of hydrogen are so dangerous, that most companies using said tanks store them a mile or more away from where they are actually working, and pipe the hydrogen in at much lower pressures.

Electric: First, batteries have pretty much reached the limits of performance, chemically. There is very little more energy storage to be obtained from the reactions taking place in a battery. This is why battery life on laptops is beginning to plateau, all increases in battery life nowadays are due to efficiency of the appliance operating off of them, the batteries themselves are not getting any better. Also, the lelectric energy to charge the battery has to come from somewhere, and you guessed it, oil or coal burning power plants.

Solar: Don't know all that much about this, but damn, cloudy and rainy days would suck.

Alcohol: This is my current favorite alternative fuel. First, it burns cleaner than gasoline, and isn't much more expensive, plus its made from corn, and we can always grow some more corn. In fact, we (as in the U.S.) could stop paying farm subsidies to farmers and instead ask them to raise corn and creating a huge alcohol production industry. Also, I believe there are many fine agricultural sectors in Canada and Russia (and I am sure elsewhere) that remain uncultivated for either lack of necessity or general apathy. For the performance minded enthusiast, alcohol is already used in most motorsports applications and yield better or at least similar performance to a similar gasoline engine. But this is the real kicker, nearly all motor vehicles in use right now can be easily and fairly cheaply converted to run on alcohol. The only major setbacks are that internal combustion engines rely heavily on the lubricating effect of the gasoline itself, which alcohol cannot replicate, unless some oil is mixed in with it (i.e. most two-stroke engines). Also, the possibility of not being able to produce enough alcohol to meet demand. There are two solutions to this, 1) mix the alcohol with gasoline and double, triple, quadruple the fuel supply, or 2) just drive less.

Wow, that was pretty freaking long.
 
787B is a classic car, always fun to drive in GT3, too. It may not have been exactly the fastest car, but it did win Le Mans in 91!
 
F310B
787B is a classic car, always fun to drive in GT3, too. It may not have been exactly the fastest car, but it did win Le Mans in 91!

Rock on, we're back on topic.

I'm excited to see more Le Mans cars in general in GT4, but especially more rotor Le Mans cars.
 
I'll admit, the 787B was the hardest and most exciting car to get in GT3. You can't buy it, and there are only two (?) ways to win it from a race, otherwise you've got to complete 75% of the game. Plus it sounds like a pissed of demon and is a thrill to drive!
 
I would like to see them increase the size of the rotors and add another one. I bet it would push 450 easy, maybe 500hp. Slap a twin turbo on it and you're over 600. Then shoe-horn that bad mamajama into a sleek little supercar and Mazda is up kicking boots with the big boys from Italy and Germany.
 
LoudMusic
I'm excited to see more Le Mans cars in general in GT4, but especially more rotor Le Mans cars.

Will there be other rotary engined cars in GT4 than the 787B?

I don't know why I like driving the 787B in GT3, I just do, it feels nice somehow. R390 and GT-ONE are just a tad faster on most tracks maybe, but I prefer the 'feel' of the 787B.
 
First off I would like to say that I hope all of you don't go around preaching the things you've said. Second (on a good note). The Wankel rotary engine is extremely amazing. I'm currently rebuilding mine though. Due to poor tuning abilities and high boost :) . For all the people that say the rotary engine is unreliable, talk to me on AIM and bring your gameface. Anybody else wanna talk about rotary engine's over AIM, my handle is ilovemy86rx7
~Ryan
13.6 @ 103 RX-7 Turbo II
 
Oi, too many people don't know what they're talking about except for people like rx7maniac. I own a '91 streetported N/A RX-7.

The 787b was a 2.6L and N/A (GT3 says it was turboed, it wasn't). And it had 3 spark plugs per rotor.

The reason the rotary isn't very fuel efficient is not because of the seals or whatever. Rotaries have a long combustion chamber, therefore it's thermodynamic effiency is reduced and has poor mileage. This long cumbustion chamber is also why there are more than one spark plug per rotor.

And rotaries are actually really reliable for high performance engines. There are many reports of N/A rotaries lasting over 300,000 miles. I think one reason many rotaries get blown is people not driving their engines hard enough. The RX-8 owner's manual actually encourages redlining the car to get rid of carbon build-up

But yeah, those are the faux pas that I remember. In case you hadn't noticed, I love rotaries, and I'm a piston retard.

Can't wait to play with the Cosmo 3-rotor TT in GT4!
 
^^^smarty pants..... Covering reliability I think everybody should check out Mazdas new record of 24 hours of racing in a stock RX8. The RX8 should be substantially more reliable than the RX7, due to the fact that there are no peripheral exhaust ports. The apex seals won't warp as much and thus won't break as much. Now hopefully Mazda will turbo it :)
 
The only negative thing I hear about rotary is that the seals are a little weak, and are expensive to replace. The low end power is also not as good, but open up a hood of an RX8 or 7 and its hard to belive the engine is that small. Power to wheight on one is just phenominal. Another cool aspect is that you can just stack on more roater one top of each other. A nine thousan rpm redline for a street car isn't bad either.
 
Leet_Newb
The only negative thing I hear about rotary is that the seals are a little weak, and are expensive to replace. The low end power is also not as good, but open up a hood of an RX8 or 7 and its hard to belive the engine is that small. Power to wheight on one is just phenominal. Another cool aspect is that you can just stack on more roater one top of each other. A nine thousan rpm redline for a street car isn't bad either.

The stock seals can take above 30psi boost with proper tuning. Who uses low end power anyways. Agreed that the engine is small,
576427_41_full.jpg
That comment about stacking rotors made me laugh histarically. You can do it. But believe me, barely anyone has the resources. Redline..whats a redline... ;)
 
I didn't meen you could just go buy another one and throught it in your car. I meant that its cool that when designing a car you can have many diffrent roators. A car company could make several cars with the same engine and diffrening horsepower.
 
Test drove the RX-8 last weekend and I was sort of disapointed. 240 hp on a light weight car, thought it might not be bad power wise. It had no torque at all, I would floor it and hear the engine scream but it didnt feel fast, not much fun :( But the handling was awesome compared to the american cars I am used to driving, like my dads Z28, I passed a guy on a nice corner at about 110km/h with ease compared to a big american sports car.

Anyone else test drove one of these things? What do you think?
 
I test drove the 8, but there were 2 other people in the car. Kinda hard to judge the acceleration when theres 350 extra lbs in the car. It did feel a little wimpy though. I never even got a chance to have fun around corners either :(
 
Im gonna go a little backward in this post and hope for the best that I dont start a flame war.

BrianCNorton
The 787b was a FOUR rotor, 4.7 Liter engine, and it made about 700 Hp.

Yes 787B was a four rotor engine. No it wasnt 4.7 litres. the 787B had the four rotor 26B motor. The 26 in the engine code dictates the engine capacity ergo 13B 1.3 Litre, 12A 1.2 Litre, 20B 2 litre etc. So therefore the 26B quad rotor powerplant was 2.6 litres. Yes Rotors make from 2 to 4 times the amount of power as their piston driven rivals.

Also the 787B was running NA at 700HP back at Lemans since they didnt want to worry about turbo failure or something along those lines from what I read.

Now a little back on topic... The only thing holding the 787B back a little in GT3 was the fact it only had a 5 speed gearbox. That drove me nuts. It needed another gear to allow higer speed to be attained without sacrificing low down acceleration.
 
Add the turbo upgrade and 5 gears are ample.
Agree standard car hampered with only 5 forward gears compared to Nissan and Toyota with 6 forward gears.
 
Uncle Harry
Add the turbo upgrade and 5 gears are ample.
Agree standard car hampered with only 5 forward gears compared to Nissan and Toyota with 6 forward gears.

I actually meant that with the turbo on it although it had the power to push the car quite fast it was majorly disadvantaged with no 6th gear as you would sacrifice a lot of acceleration IMHO to get the gearbox to pull all the way to 390KMH which is where I like it. So a 6th gear would be handy if only for overdrive.
 
Back