Originally Posted By: jrustles
On a multi-side port engine which is more emissions oriented, that would be 2 or 4 intake ports (depending on output), likened to a set of intake valves. On a peri-port ie non-MSP engine there is only one intake port, unless it's a custom built hybrid of peri- and side ports, common in racing.
My statement was sort-of sarcastic. The extra ports on a Renesis are more analogous to a variable intake manifold on a piston engine.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: Blue Angel
The efficiency and emissions of a Wankel rotary are sub-par compared to a piston engine. The Wankel has a few things going for it, but when judged on the most important criteria for a passenger car engine, it falls short.
In what regard? Tooling a 4 door sedan around at part throttle crawling in rush hour traffic in LA? Absolutely. Driving to the corner store, you betcha!
But racing? Haha. No. The wankel has superior reliability in racing and other continuous high output situations (aircraft, watercraft) and even can be more fuel efficient than the racing piston engines! And with no catastrophic failure mode on a Wankel, some people favour them for aircraft where a serious failure will still allow a limp home.
To both points (particularly fuel economy), the 4-rotor 787B race car did consume the least amount of fuel during the 24HLM. That alone is no small thing, more power on less fuel is THE holy grail of rationed fuel racing.
Yes, this is a passenger car related discussion (that is WAY off topic now). If the Wankel has no advantage over a pison engine in a passenger car application, why not skip it altogether and just use a helocopter turbine for race cars instead?
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Indeed, the North American emissions components and tuning took a penalty on the original output. Fairly easily recoverable to any owner
My purpose for mentioning the reduced power rating was to point out the very meager power output of the Renesis. At roughly 215 actual hp it's not an exiting engine at all. Maybe for a jet-ski?
Without turbocharging it just isn't capable enough for a street car, unless of course it's a car that weighs far less then an RX8.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Wankels are fantastic in constant output modes. So long as they stay lubed, cooled and sans detonation, they'll keep going. Small, single rotor units are currently being developed for compact, virtually inaudible ICE range extenders for future EVs. 30KW in a briefcase; it's appealing
If you're talking about this:
http://www.gizmag.com/liquidpistol-rotary/24623/
...it's not a Wankel. The company makes a deliberate effort to distinguish it as a new type of engine that has little if anything to do with a Wankel. Neat though.
Fact is, the Wankel just doesn't make a good street car engine. It may have a colorful past, including turbocharging and a respectable racing pedigree, but it just doesn't compete on the elements an engine needs to perform in a modern car. Unfortunate but true. If it made sense to use them you would see them being used. Airplanes, maybe, but not cars.
On a multi-side port engine which is more emissions oriented, that would be 2 or 4 intake ports (depending on output), likened to a set of intake valves. On a peri-port ie non-MSP engine there is only one intake port, unless it's a custom built hybrid of peri- and side ports, common in racing.
My statement was sort-of sarcastic. The extra ports on a Renesis are more analogous to a variable intake manifold on a piston engine.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: Blue Angel
The efficiency and emissions of a Wankel rotary are sub-par compared to a piston engine. The Wankel has a few things going for it, but when judged on the most important criteria for a passenger car engine, it falls short.
In what regard? Tooling a 4 door sedan around at part throttle crawling in rush hour traffic in LA? Absolutely. Driving to the corner store, you betcha!
But racing? Haha. No. The wankel has superior reliability in racing and other continuous high output situations (aircraft, watercraft) and even can be more fuel efficient than the racing piston engines! And with no catastrophic failure mode on a Wankel, some people favour them for aircraft where a serious failure will still allow a limp home.
To both points (particularly fuel economy), the 4-rotor 787B race car did consume the least amount of fuel during the 24HLM. That alone is no small thing, more power on less fuel is THE holy grail of rationed fuel racing.
Yes, this is a passenger car related discussion (that is WAY off topic now). If the Wankel has no advantage over a pison engine in a passenger car application, why not skip it altogether and just use a helocopter turbine for race cars instead?
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Indeed, the North American emissions components and tuning took a penalty on the original output. Fairly easily recoverable to any owner
My purpose for mentioning the reduced power rating was to point out the very meager power output of the Renesis. At roughly 215 actual hp it's not an exiting engine at all. Maybe for a jet-ski?
Without turbocharging it just isn't capable enough for a street car, unless of course it's a car that weighs far less then an RX8.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Wankels are fantastic in constant output modes. So long as they stay lubed, cooled and sans detonation, they'll keep going. Small, single rotor units are currently being developed for compact, virtually inaudible ICE range extenders for future EVs. 30KW in a briefcase; it's appealing
If you're talking about this:
http://www.gizmag.com/liquidpistol-rotary/24623/
...it's not a Wankel. The company makes a deliberate effort to distinguish it as a new type of engine that has little if anything to do with a Wankel. Neat though.
Fact is, the Wankel just doesn't make a good street car engine. It may have a colorful past, including turbocharging and a respectable racing pedigree, but it just doesn't compete on the elements an engine needs to perform in a modern car. Unfortunate but true. If it made sense to use them you would see them being used. Airplanes, maybe, but not cars.
