http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...category=10368

2300 cc?!? Something's messed up.

Someone please explain.

 

It must be an early addtion from OZ. Thru 1980?.. 2+2 sport coupe? weird.

 

I think the book made a mistake. I have the 1st gen Hayes manual and mine doesn't say that. I guess they fixed the problem.

 

Perhaps the Autralians rated the displacement differently. I've seen a few articles that attack rating the rotary at 1.2 or 1.3 liters.

 

my log book says 2.3 litre ... for tax purposes the UK double the cc's on the rotary

must be somthing similar in Aus

P.S mines 2+2 too

 

The SCCA considers the rotary engine to be equivalent to a 2.3 litre also.

 

Do they figure that because it has similar out as a 2.3? Or did the 4bangers complain?

 

It due to the number of strokes it takes..... pistons take a breath every other cycle, where rotaries take one every time around. so the displacement on a rotary does twice the work a similarly cc'd piston (4 Stroke) does. So some governments when the Wankel was still young decided that for this reason they would consider the displacement double.

Notice though, that 2 stroke engines aren't rated on the same principle, despite they share with the rotary the one breath per cycle per cc. So the fact that rotaries follow suit in most countries is after this tradition.

 

not many two stroke cars about though

 

I think Saab make a 2-stroke car, didn't it?

 

Some people say it should be 3 Times the known displacement because the Rotors have 3 Faces to them, and they also have combustion in One Complete Revolution.

Who gives a crap though?

 

they have 3 faces but they are rotating at 1/3 the speed of the crank ...

yep saab made a 2 stroke was it the V4 ? ... FSO made some 2 stroke cars in east germany too

 

oh ****, math...................

 

Years ago when the SCCA was first figuring out how to classify rotaries, they came up with the figure of 1.5 times the displacement of piston engines. I don't know where the heck they got that figure, I think it was probably arbitrary, and convenient at the time. It sure made the rotaries competitive, though! You could run a 13B against a 2-litre! So I suppose that the 4-bangers probably did complain.

 

 

I read through all the replies and see what I normal hear about the displacement arguments that I see about the rotary engine. Blah blah stroks blah blah piston blah blah displacement blah blah

...and then...

I run in your comment, it threw me off so much I burst out laughing, and co-workers started to look at me funny. Thanks I needed a laugh.

-Error

 

np. i'm not drunk yet so that was just a warmup.

 

If you're talking about the motor in the Saab "Sonnet", it's a horizontally opposed 4-cylinder. My friend's dad had one, but I'm not sure if it was two-stroke or not. Suzuki did put a two-stroke motor in the "mini-brute" though. I think that was Suzuki's first US car offering, if my memory serves me.

 

saab sonnet, wheres denny when you need him? deeeennnnnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

 

In the ole corncrib??

 

2 Strokes if I remember were still available and somewhat prevalant in europe at the time the Wankel made its debut. If I remember my history, in fact, the first car that they put a rotary in the Prince, was a 2 Stroke 2 cyl.

 

1 beer and youd be toast anyways

 

Nah, he has been drinkin the sissy stuff. Coronas and Rolling Rock. At least that is what he always has with him when he raids my garage.