AMC Pacer w/ Rotary?
01-26-04, 01:47 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
AMC Pacer w/ Rotary?
... Was reading MSNBC and the list of the 10 worst cars of all time.
The RX-2 made the list.
But a picture down the article shows AMC Pacer with the caption, "The AMC Pacer boasted a rotary engine and an unusual sense of styling."
There's something I didn't know.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4063790/
So, if I buy a Pacer, can I still be part of the club?
The RX-2 made the list.
But a picture down the article shows AMC Pacer with the caption, "The AMC Pacer boasted a rotary engine and an unusual sense of styling."
There's something I didn't know.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4063790/
So, if I buy a Pacer, can I still be part of the club?
01-26-04, 01:56 PM
#2
Are you Nucking Futs?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Abilene, TEXAS
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the pacer, the pinto and the vette were all at one time sloted for a rotary, but none ever made it into production.
from: http://home.att.net/~farna/amtech/engines.html#wankel
"A Wankel Interlude...
Throughout the early sixties engineers at AMC had worked on many different engine configurations, more than one four-cylinder amongst them. So how is it that they did not have a four-cylinder design by the mid seventies? The answer is in the Wankel Rotary engine.
The rotary held lots of promise in the early 70s, and almost every auto manufacturer was experimenting with the design. AMC had even engaged in a cooperative venture with Renault to co-develop an unusual five chamber experimental rotary that had a rather conventional valve system. This engine used a four lobe rotar rather than a three lobe as in the traditional Wankel design, which also used ports in the side of the block instead of valves (like a modern two stroke engine). The design produced a rather tall package that looked much like an aircraft radial engine. Only an experimental model was built.
AMC purchased a license to produce the promising Wankel rotary from Curtiss Wright, the exclusive North American distributor, in March of 1973. General Motors was also working on a Wankel design, and were much further along than AMC. At some point AMC and GM struck a deal for GM to provide AMC with rotary engines rather than AMC making their own. This would save AMC lots of development time and money, and they were always short of money by this point due to sky-rocketing tool and development costs. Development and tooling for the Pacer, which was designed specifically for the new engine, had already started hitting AMC pretty hard.
GM, however, was having troubles of their own. The GM wankel was producing less power and fuel mileage than expected due to strict emissions regulations. The rotary, by nature, produced a rather high amount of hydrocarbon emissions. The engineers weren't sure how to solve this problem, and the engine wouldn't pass future emissions standards as it was. GM asked the U.S. Congress for a 10 year emissions freeze, at least on the rotary. This would give the engineering department time to work on the hydrocarbon problem. Congress said no, so GM axed the project just one year before the Pacer was to be introduced. AMC had no choice but to modify the Pacer to accept their existing six cylinder engines. Mazda, which had been producing a rotary since 1967, solved the hydrocarbon problem and continues making rotaries to this day.
Why the wankel in the first place? It is compact and lightweight, with fewer moving parts than conventional reciprocating engines. This means it has the potential to be cheaper to produce, easier to repair, and more reliable. It isn't more efficient, however. It takes as much fuel to produce power as any other engine. The only way to take full advantage of the size and weight is to design a new car around the engine. GM wanted to take advantage of the potential manufacturing cost reductions with high volume production. They weren't interested in revamping their entire automobile line to take advantage of the package, they wanted something that could be used in existing designs until they were ready for new ones. With the first fuel crisis beginning and uncertainty in meeting future emission standards, the engine simply lost its attractiveness. GM engineers felt there was still a lot of potential in their existing reciprocating designs, so refocused their efforts in that direction instead. "
from: http://home.att.net/~farna/amtech/engines.html#wankel
"A Wankel Interlude...
Throughout the early sixties engineers at AMC had worked on many different engine configurations, more than one four-cylinder amongst them. So how is it that they did not have a four-cylinder design by the mid seventies? The answer is in the Wankel Rotary engine.
The rotary held lots of promise in the early 70s, and almost every auto manufacturer was experimenting with the design. AMC had even engaged in a cooperative venture with Renault to co-develop an unusual five chamber experimental rotary that had a rather conventional valve system. This engine used a four lobe rotar rather than a three lobe as in the traditional Wankel design, which also used ports in the side of the block instead of valves (like a modern two stroke engine). The design produced a rather tall package that looked much like an aircraft radial engine. Only an experimental model was built.
AMC purchased a license to produce the promising Wankel rotary from Curtiss Wright, the exclusive North American distributor, in March of 1973. General Motors was also working on a Wankel design, and were much further along than AMC. At some point AMC and GM struck a deal for GM to provide AMC with rotary engines rather than AMC making their own. This would save AMC lots of development time and money, and they were always short of money by this point due to sky-rocketing tool and development costs. Development and tooling for the Pacer, which was designed specifically for the new engine, had already started hitting AMC pretty hard.
GM, however, was having troubles of their own. The GM wankel was producing less power and fuel mileage than expected due to strict emissions regulations. The rotary, by nature, produced a rather high amount of hydrocarbon emissions. The engineers weren't sure how to solve this problem, and the engine wouldn't pass future emissions standards as it was. GM asked the U.S. Congress for a 10 year emissions freeze, at least on the rotary. This would give the engineering department time to work on the hydrocarbon problem. Congress said no, so GM axed the project just one year before the Pacer was to be introduced. AMC had no choice but to modify the Pacer to accept their existing six cylinder engines. Mazda, which had been producing a rotary since 1967, solved the hydrocarbon problem and continues making rotaries to this day.
Why the wankel in the first place? It is compact and lightweight, with fewer moving parts than conventional reciprocating engines. This means it has the potential to be cheaper to produce, easier to repair, and more reliable. It isn't more efficient, however. It takes as much fuel to produce power as any other engine. The only way to take full advantage of the size and weight is to design a new car around the engine. GM wanted to take advantage of the potential manufacturing cost reductions with high volume production. They weren't interested in revamping their entire automobile line to take advantage of the package, they wanted something that could be used in existing designs until they were ready for new ones. With the first fuel crisis beginning and uncertainty in meeting future emission standards, the engine simply lost its attractiveness. GM engineers felt there was still a lot of potential in their existing reciprocating designs, so refocused their efforts in that direction instead. "
Last edited by yayarx7; 01-26-04 at 02:02 PM.
01-26-04, 06:22 PM
#5
Admitted 'rexaholic'
Man, when I was in high school, a friend of mine had a pacer, I thought it was the coolest thing ever, almost as cool as my '68 LeMans.
Haven't seen one in 20 years, see a gemlin or two here and there. Used to drive a gremlin as a company car, that thing would peel tires in every gear (light rear end).
Same company also had an RX-4 wagon as a company car, we fought over who'd get to drive it.
I'd give my left nad for that beast now....
Haven't seen one in 20 years, see a gemlin or two here and there. Used to drive a gremlin as a company car, that thing would peel tires in every gear (light rear end).
Same company also had an RX-4 wagon as a company car, we fought over who'd get to drive it.
I'd give my left nad for that beast now....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
datfast1
Old School and Other Rotary
18
06-20-19 10:53 PM
Under PSI
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
19
09-23-15 11:47 PM
