Astrofrank Says:

May 26, 2012 - Good explanation of the Rotary Engine, very helpful.

dreadnought1275 Says:

May 25, 2012 - the rotors are the pistons. rotary engines can still be turbocharged

Stephenalverez Says:

May 24, 2012 - This is pretty cool. Most people don't go power driving all the time, and having driven a car twice as old as I am for my entire life, I haven't really been given the chance. That said, a old, weak car such as mine has held up pretty well. I've read in some comments here that people have had problems with these engines wearing out, but that could easily be just because it's relatively new technology. What I want to know is if there are any efficiency perks with one of these.

doktorbimmer Says:

May 24, 2012 - The Wankel motor in fact has orbiting "Pistons" although they are often incorrectly called 'Rotors'

ripp3nup21 Says:

May 24, 2012 - so do the rotars replace the pistons or the turbo.. i assume the pistons but i just wana be clear. :S

doktorbimmer Says:

May 23, 2012 - 177Scmaro Wrote; Qoute "What does a 1.3L rotary engine weigh anyways? I've looked it up but it seems really hard to track down a reliable source for that info." Your words... not mine

177SCmaro Says:

May 23, 2012 - HP/L is irrelevant. I've already shown you why. 180HP 1.8L vs 500HP 7L, 7L wins. What would someone do after losing that race? Brag about how his 1.8L has more HP/L? lol pathetic. On top of that you already said you can't compare the LS3 to the 13b because the LS3 is too new, so which is it? Is a LS3 vs 13b fair game to compare or not, make up your mind. Even if the LS3 weighted 754.4lbs with its 430HP it would still have .57hp/lb.

177SCmaro Says:

May 23, 2012 - Funny how you keep the "sources" for that information to yourself. If I told you it took me about 5 minutes to find conclusive proof that Al Gore has a summer home on the planet Mercury then when you tell me you don't believe me and then I accused you of being too dumb or lazy to find that info yourself I'd sound like a real jackass wouldn't I?

doktorbimmer Says:

May 22, 2012 - Obviously your not an engineer... which is probable good seeing you can't grasp even the simplest concept such as power density.

doktorbimmer Says:

May 22, 2012 - It took me about 5min to find the exact weights for both including cross checking my sources... If you can't find the weight of the Mazda engine? you must be either too dumb or too lazy to find it yourself..

doktorbimmer Says:

May 22, 2012 - No, but you can't use your .57hp/lb figure if your using the 1.1 hp/lb for the LS3 installed weight.. which you cant use the installed weight anyway unless your going to compare them with the exact same accessories.. only stripped bare motor vs. stripped bare motor and that 178 vs. 418 and that does not factor in the difference in the displacements either! If you wanted to make a fair and intelligent assessment you have compare horse per liter as well as weight..

177SCmaro Says:

May 22, 2012 - If you repeatedly told me unicorns lived on the moon I wouldn't believe that either with no evidence. Would you? Also, I can't remember something I didn't say. Nice try.

177SCmaro Says:

May 22, 2012 - @doktorbimmer One other thing. Even if a sbc weighted 700lbs. (big block territory) That would still mean it only needs 400HP to match the 13b's .57hp/lb. On top of that a sbc isn't even the best example of how the 13b's weight to HP is unremarkable. There are any number of 4 and 6 cylinder engines with a higher HP to weight ratio. Also, the notion that the Wankel engines performance is unremarkable compared to piston engines does not make it a bad engine. I just get tired of the hype.

doktorbimmer Says:

May 22, 2012 - 178lbs, 178lbs, 178lbs... you just refuse to believe.. so be it.  Yes it is.. I just took one those steaming piles of shit to the scrap yard a few days ago.. 598lbs replete with its customary accumulation of rust and sludge. I didn't think you would remember... because you chose not to.

177SCmaro Says:

May 22, 2012 - Never said anything about bigger is better. Rather than trying to mischaracterize something I said why don't you come up a good reason why I'm wrong?

177SCmaro Says:

May 22, 2012 - You realize the small block I'm talking about is made of iron right? And the 13b is primarily aluminum? You do understand that, right? You want to get snippy with me we'll start talking about hp/lb of aluminum block and head small or big blocks. You sure you want to go there? 575lbs is not unrealistic for a dressed sbc. And for the third time you STILL haven't shown me were a 13b weighs 178lbs. As for comparing turbo/methanol engines to anything I have no idea what your talking about.

doktorbimmer Says:

May 22, 2012 - No, bigger is just always better for someone of your degree of education!

doktorbimmer Says:

May 22, 2012 - "I'm not an uneducated person" could have fooled me.. did you get an education since are last exchange??? as I recall you were trying to compare turbocharged engines running on methanol with normally aspirated engine on pump gas and wondering why the turbocharged car had more hp/liter... I find your comments the generally remedial, the remarks of chevy fanboy.

doktorbimmer Says:

May 22, 2012 - You cant compare apples to oranges son, you have been qouting long block weights for your comparision engines yet you insist that the Mazda be calculated "fully dressed" as installed so your .57hp/lb is no longer relevant here if your gonna say that a small block weighs 575lbs.

177SCmaro Says:

May 22, 2012 - @doktorbimmer HP/L is the sort of thing for armchair engineers to argue over and is ultimately meaningless. You take an "efficient" 180HP 1.8L engine and I'll take an "inefficient" 500HP 7L  and we'll stick them identical cars and see which is better at propelling that car fast. HP/lbs is a far better way to measure how well designed a given engine is. This compares the actual weight of the material compared to what it puts out.

177SCmaro Says:

May 22, 2012 - For a uneducated person to say a Wankel is unremarkable for no reason would be pretty foolish. However, I'm not an uneducated person. I'm saying the Wankel is unremarkable for reasons I've been very clear about. When comparing the weight of the material compared to it's output the Wankel is unremarkable when compared to equivalent piston engines. I do think it's a clever engine, fewer parts and all that. About uses: there are also uses where the Wankel can't compete with piston engines.

177SCmaro Says:

May 22, 2012 - I know the LS3 wasn't out in 86 but you asked broad question about how many production engines have better than .57hp/lb. If you wanted older examples: any number of 60's era muscle car engines beat .57hp/lb. And I also gave you a general example of the common small block chevy at 328HP is about .57hp/lb. I could'nt help but notice you still haven't shown me were a 13b weights 178lbs. A 13b is more in the area of 250lbs-280lbs. Show me a reliable source that says differently.

doktorbimmer Says:

May 22, 2012 - Well we are not comparing alternators or ancillery componets. LS3 was not available in 1986.. and at 418lbs and 430 hp works out to 1.1hp/lb compared to the 13b at 178lbs/160hp is .90hp/lb.. that was 20yrs ago! In fact the 6.2 liter LS3 puts out an utterly unremarkable 69hp/liter considering its the same for a VW Golf Diesel!