todays crazy idea.
01-03-07, 02:23 PM
#1
pwned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
todays crazy idea.
i was thinking bout my car today at work, as usual, and came up with an engine idea. people like 3 rotor engines for hp and torque. well i was thinking what a 4 rotor engine would be like. too long. well what if it was setup like a boinger, instead of all running on one e-sahaft, have 2, side by side. maybe with smaller rotors to make the engine a bit smaller. idk. just a crazy idea. i guess this is what happens when u work in a factory all morning.. hahaha
01-03-07, 03:03 PM
#3
pwned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i know, but arent they setup the same way as like 20b? all in a row? i was thinking of a way to downsize.... ha.
plus, my dad is the main manager, or something liek that, so i can get away with sitting on my *** and daydreaming (granted that when i DO work, i bust my *** and get a lot done...
)
plus, my dad is the main manager, or something liek that, so i can get away with sitting on my *** and daydreaming (granted that when i DO work, i bust my *** and get a lot done...
)
01-03-07, 08:59 PM
#4
Instead of doing them side to side and then having to have the entire motor made smaller and have some complicated 2 input one output transmission it would be better to put them in line.
If your already making a custom engine then you could just make it to where the rotors where thinner. You would still get the amazing smoothness by having more bangs in the same ammount of time, but it wouldn't be as huge as a 654ccx4 motor.
If your already making a custom engine then you could just make it to where the rotors where thinner. You would still get the amazing smoothness by having more bangs in the same ammount of time, but it wouldn't be as huge as a 654ccx4 motor.
01-03-07, 09:10 PM
#5
Terrified.
Thin rotors ftw in custom making a 4 rotor.
Daydreaming is daydreaming though, and to have the three and four rotors to the side of the first two would make it so you would have to run two exhausts, two intakes, not to mention the complication of getting it fitted to a transmission. The intakes and exhaust wouldn't be that hard, but it would take twice as much fuel pressure, and you'd have to run more fuel lines.
It would be an insanely hard task to make, and actually taking up more space as it would take two endplates and two back plates in comparison of only one of each, not to mention that adding in the center plates and housings will just take up more forward space instead of completely clusterfucking the engine bay.
Then you have the problem of mounting it. Mounting an inline four rotor could just be moving the engine and transmission back as much as is needed to have stock mounting location and custom fabbing another couple mounts; however, mounting a side by side engine configuration would need an entirely new setup with a ton of engineering behind it as well.
Either way - too difficult to do, and definitely not worth the money, but to each his own.
Daydreaming is daydreaming though, and to have the three and four rotors to the side of the first two would make it so you would have to run two exhausts, two intakes, not to mention the complication of getting it fitted to a transmission. The intakes and exhaust wouldn't be that hard, but it would take twice as much fuel pressure, and you'd have to run more fuel lines.
It would be an insanely hard task to make, and actually taking up more space as it would take two endplates and two back plates in comparison of only one of each, not to mention that adding in the center plates and housings will just take up more forward space instead of completely clusterfucking the engine bay.
Then you have the problem of mounting it. Mounting an inline four rotor could just be moving the engine and transmission back as much as is needed to have stock mounting location and custom fabbing another couple mounts; however, mounting a side by side engine configuration would need an entirely new setup with a ton of engineering behind it as well.
Either way - too difficult to do, and definitely not worth the money, but to each his own.
01-03-07, 09:44 PM
#6
FB+FC=F-ME
Yea,who wants a "tandem" two rotor engine, when the "real" 4 rotors sound like this!!!!!!......................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmiYJ...elated&search=
Just need 20-30 thousand dollers.....(just guessing,God knows how much they really cost!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmiYJ...elated&search=
Just need 20-30 thousand dollers.....(just guessing,God knows how much they really cost!)
Trending Topics
01-03-07, 10:33 PM
#8
FB+FC=F-ME
1 FWD rotary was made in Japan....not much to write home about.
Heres a Honda with a rotary.It used a Toyota Corona FWD gearbox.....looked like fun,I just cant find the pics.....it was that green one.
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/List...33&permanent=0
Heres a Honda with a rotary.It used a Toyota Corona FWD gearbox.....looked like fun,I just cant find the pics.....it was that green one.
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/List...33&permanent=0
01-03-07, 10:37 PM
#9
Yup. Back in '69 Mazda put a rotary engine a FWD Luce and called it the R130, the only FWD rotary Mazda ever made. The R130 also got a completaly unique motor, the 13A. It was the only Mazda rotary ever to have a differant rotor diameter and eccentricity, 120mm and 17.5mm instead of the 105mm and 15mm usued by every other production rotary.
Also this.
Edit: Damn you Steve84GS TII! *shake fist*
Also this.
Edit: Damn you Steve84GS TII! *shake fist*
Last edited by DogBox; 01-03-07 at 10:42 PM.
01-04-07, 10:28 PM
#11
There is a front wheel drive rotary produced in Russia, Lada I think and it is fwd. Engine is a near total copy/ripoff of Mazda's 13B. Iirc, there is a thread in the European forum of a rotary club in Moscow, they're as nuts as we are.
Narrowing the housing would not work well as the combustion chamber would most likely be too narrow to produce a decent flame front for full combustion of the mixture. A second leading plug may help the combustion process, but the lighter rotors would reduce torque, however 4 of them may make up for some of the difference.
Narrowing the housing would not work well as the combustion chamber would most likely be too narrow to produce a decent flame front for full combustion of the mixture. A second leading plug may help the combustion process, but the lighter rotors would reduce torque, however 4 of them may make up for some of the difference.
01-04-07, 11:36 PM
#14
Originally Posted by trochoid
Narrowing the housing would not work well as the combustion chamber would most likely be too narrow to produce a decent flame front for full combustion of the mixture. A second leading plug may help the combustion process, but the lighter rotors would reduce torque, however 4 of them may make up for some of the difference.
How about instead making a 2 rotor with wider rotors and housings, maybe 800-1000cc's per rotor, use two spark plugs diagonaly or three spark plugs. You'd end up with a 2L or close to 2L rotary that may be a little smaller and simpler than the 20B by virtue of one less intermediate housing. Oh yeah, and more torque.
Now theres an idea.
01-05-07, 02:13 AM
#15
http://www.rotatorque.de/
http://www.rotatorque.de/english/bilder2/image24.gif
http://www.rotatorque.de/english/bilder2/image109.jpg
http://www.rotatorque.de/
There are alot of science fourms that share intristing inventions. You should join some, you will be amazed.
http://www.rotatorque.de/english/bilder2/image24.gif
http://www.rotatorque.de/english/bilder2/image109.jpg
http://www.rotatorque.de/
There are alot of science fourms that share intristing inventions. You should join some, you will be amazed.
Last edited by Nicholas P.; 01-05-07 at 02:21 AM.
01-05-07, 07:23 AM
#16
I have always thought that when making a multiple rotor engine, that it would be an easy idea although complicated to accomplish - In a piston engine, the parts that hold the crank in place would work. Hard to explain really, but basicall if you have a V8, then every 2 pistons there is a part that holds the crank in place and is also a bearing (sp). If you did this on say a 6 rotor engine, you would need a different iron setup, as you couldnt put the e-shaft through all of the irons (unless of course the e-shaft was different and had a larger gap between the rotor mating part). So, you would now need 2 piece irons. because of this, I am sure that side seals would need to be made of a different material or somehow redesigned to last longer as they would now rub against a slight bump or groove where the 2 iron pieces mated.
The way I see it, this would reduce the need for e-shaft strength somewhat reducing cost.
Also for ignition, it would be easiest to go with some sort of DIS system with fuel injection, so you would just need to program for more injectors, and spark plug firings. Intake and exhaust wouldnt be much of a problem really as trucks have had inline 6s and 8s before, so obviously a 6 rotor engine would be going into a larger vehicle (more space for all the intake runners, and large exhaust manifold). Engine speed itslef would be able to be reduced which would help out on a few different levels. For one, if engine speed is reduced (lets say a 6500 redline) then you would eliminate most of the high rpm apex seal chatter and therefore lengthen the lifespan of the seals. I am sure there could be other ideas added to this but this is as far as I have thought it all out.
The way I see it, this would reduce the need for e-shaft strength somewhat reducing cost.
Also for ignition, it would be easiest to go with some sort of DIS system with fuel injection, so you would just need to program for more injectors, and spark plug firings. Intake and exhaust wouldnt be much of a problem really as trucks have had inline 6s and 8s before, so obviously a 6 rotor engine would be going into a larger vehicle (more space for all the intake runners, and large exhaust manifold). Engine speed itslef would be able to be reduced which would help out on a few different levels. For one, if engine speed is reduced (lets say a 6500 redline) then you would eliminate most of the high rpm apex seal chatter and therefore lengthen the lifespan of the seals. I am sure there could be other ideas added to this but this is as far as I have thought it all out.
01-05-07, 07:15 PM
#18
Originally Posted by IanS
I have always thought that when making a multiple rotor engine, that it would be an easy idea although complicated to accomplish - In a piston engine, the parts that hold the crank in place would work. Hard to explain really, but basicall if you have a V8, then every 2 pistons there is a part that holds the crank in place and is also a bearing (sp). If you did this on say a 6 rotor engine, you would need a different iron setup, as you couldnt put the e-shaft through all of the irons (unless of course the e-shaft was different and had a larger gap between the rotor mating part). So, you would now need 2 piece irons. because of this, I am sure that side seals would need to be made of a different material or somehow redesigned to last longer as they would now rub against a slight bump or groove where the 2 iron pieces mated.
The way I see it, this would reduce the need for e-shaft strength somewhat reducing cost.
Also for ignition, it would be easiest to go with some sort of DIS system with fuel injection, so you would just need to program for more injectors, and spark plug firings. Intake and exhaust wouldnt be much of a problem really as trucks have had inline 6s and 8s before, so obviously a 6 rotor engine would be going into a larger vehicle (more space for all the intake runners, and large exhaust manifold). Engine speed itslef would be able to be reduced which would help out on a few different levels. For one, if engine speed is reduced (lets say a 6500 redline) then you would eliminate most of the high rpm apex seal chatter and therefore lengthen the lifespan of the seals. I am sure there could be other ideas added to this but this is as far as I have thought it all out.
The way I see it, this would reduce the need for e-shaft strength somewhat reducing cost.
Also for ignition, it would be easiest to go with some sort of DIS system with fuel injection, so you would just need to program for more injectors, and spark plug firings. Intake and exhaust wouldnt be much of a problem really as trucks have had inline 6s and 8s before, so obviously a 6 rotor engine would be going into a larger vehicle (more space for all the intake runners, and large exhaust manifold). Engine speed itslef would be able to be reduced which would help out on a few different levels. For one, if engine speed is reduced (lets say a 6500 redline) then you would eliminate most of the high rpm apex seal chatter and therefore lengthen the lifespan of the seals. I am sure there could be other ideas added to this but this is as far as I have thought it all out.
I thought the three rotors' rpm redline was shorter.
01-06-07, 02:56 PM
#19
pwned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
has anyone made an engine with custom made rotors? or does any company manufacture thinner rotors? and there was another engine that i read about a while ago. it was mentioned in the forum once. the quasiturbine oor somethin liek that..
01-06-07, 03:15 PM
#20
Originally Posted by Nicholas P.
I thought the three rotors' rpm redline was shorter.
