While i was looking over my cal2 stuff I ran across something cool...There is a section called "Motivating the Chapter - The Wankel Rotary Engine and Area" I was thinking exactly that "MOTIVATING" I scaned it but it is about 702KB, so i can't load it.

Direct Quote:
" The Wankel rotary engine has several advantages over the piston engine. A rotary engine is approximatley half the size and weight of a piston engine of equivalent power. Compared with the 97 major moving parts in a V-8 engine, the typical two rotor rotary engine has only three major moving parts. As a result, the Wankel engine has lower labor and material costs and less internal energy waste."

 

i totally agree.....

 

i was just looking at that again today, everytime i get fet up studying calc 2 i seem to end up at that page. My final is this thursday, i'm going nuts. Boost problems and calculus 2, what a combiniation

 

HAHA. Tell that to some of the mechanic shops.

 

Actually i was wondering the same thing about that same thing, but they showed a FB on it, that was the 12A right? They probably did not have problem....I really do not know....

 

Actually they are less efficient. But they do have the cost part right.. a rotary is less costly to manufacture. But because it takes someone who knows what they are doing they charge you more to build a good motor.

A good street port motor shouldn't cost more then 3-4K

Now a piston engine built up will cost alot more just because all the parts that need to be changed out.


-Zach

 

I have heard of piston people spending from 7-11K easy..


-Zach

 

Cool info thanks Turbo.

 

but you don't see every piston engine being rebuilt at least once in its lifetime.

 

They are not! What a Stupid Comment! How can you own a 7 and say that!

You get 3 rotations of the eccentric shaft per 1 rotation of the flywheel. How is that ******* inefficient? The slide valves on the engine make it sloppy and inefficient. Go read up on a rotary 101 site or something.

 

Ya it was in my ap calc book in high school too. Had a pic of a 12A at the beginning of the integration chapter. I ripped the page out and saved it

 

Hehehe...... deviant!!!

 

ReZ311 is right, they are very efficient. But the way it works is that there are three revolutions of the eccentric shaft per one rotation of the rotor, but one rotation of the rotor has 3 power strokes and therefore it equates to 1 power stroke per revolution, rather than 1 power stroke per 2 revolutions in a piston engine.....

 

There is a misconception about the rotary engine. Alot of people think it is inefficient because of the low MPG )mine gets about 12 on a good day), but in reality the mechanics of the engine produce a very efficient geometry. The reason the fuel economy is so poor is directly related to the fact that the wankel rotary design can´t run lean without burning up. To avoid burning up, we have to use fuel as a coolant (as stupid as that sounds). So we run the RX7 extremely rich to avoid burning the apex seals out, etc... Its a catch-22. You don´t achieve fuel efficiency, but you definately achieve hp/cm2 and hp/weight efficieny.

 

I am talking about the efficiancy of the combustion chamber.. ever notice a rotary only makes ~80% of the power a piston engine does???


A 1.3 liter rotary is equiv to a 2.6 liter 4 stroke piston engine.


They are efficient in thier size, but not in combustion


-Zach

 

that is what i was talking about.. rotaries loose to much heat do to the shap of the combustion chamber. this is a well known fact..

 

Oops! I meant rotor, not flywheel. lol. Big difference! =P

I meant, 1 rotation of the rotor = 3 rotations of the flywheel.
Blaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!