Why are most rotaries 654cc x #?
#1
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are most rotaries 654cc x #?
I know there was the 12A..., but how come there was never a larger displacement two rotor, or even three rotor? Is it something to do with the math, some inefficiency?
I was just curious, thanks for your time
Adam
I was just curious, thanks for your time
Adam
#2
fart on a friends head!!!
there was a 13g (three rotor) in the second generation and then there was also a 20b (three rotor), but it wasnt in the 2nd gen. i personally think that there isnt too much of a need for a larger displacement rotary in a street car. i could see the 20b as being big enough for me.
paul
oh yeah, and there are a lot of people that stack a larger engine in a custom type job. mazda had the 787b 4-rotor le mans killer also.
paul
oh yeah, and there are a lot of people that stack a larger engine in a custom type job. mazda had the 787b 4-rotor le mans killer also.
#4
fart on a friends head!!!
maybe mazda found that if they went any wider on the face of the rotor that they would run into ignition problems. we already have a difficult combustion chamber to ignite efficiently. dont need to make it worse. haha.
paul
paul
#5
fart on a friends head!!!
i havent heard of the 787 being in the le mans. i think they retired that a long time ago. if they were gonna make another le mans move they would come up with something a little more technologically advanced than that car. they used pulleys and belts for the air horns. haha. . . and it still smoked everybody. gotta love mazda!!!
paul
paul
#6
call me Smokie Smokerson
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine4.htm
from looking at the diagram i always thought that if the pockets on the face of each side of the rotor were larger, then compression would be waaaay too low for driveability, fuel consumption, and pollution. I'd like to know more too, if anyone has insight into this....
from looking at the diagram i always thought that if the pockets on the face of each side of the rotor were larger, then compression would be waaaay too low for driveability, fuel consumption, and pollution. I'd like to know more too, if anyone has insight into this....
Trending Topics
#8
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think bigger does not mean better.
Something to do with how fast the flame for ignition can travel.
Maybe they can make it bigger but at lower top RPM limit... Basically does not run as fast, but powerful.
I think the same thing applies to piston, that is why trucks runs at slow rpm, while s2000 can go to 10000rpm...
reza
Something to do with how fast the flame for ignition can travel.
Maybe they can make it bigger but at lower top RPM limit... Basically does not run as fast, but powerful.
I think the same thing applies to piston, that is why trucks runs at slow rpm, while s2000 can go to 10000rpm...
reza
#9
5yr member, joined 2001
Originally posted by r0t0r-rooter
http://www.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine4.htm
from looking at the diagram i always thought that if the pockets on the face of each side of the rotor were larger, then compression would be waaaay too low for driveability, fuel consumption, and pollution. I'd like to know more too, if anyone has insight into this....
http://www.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine4.htm
from looking at the diagram i always thought that if the pockets on the face of each side of the rotor were larger, then compression would be waaaay too low for driveability, fuel consumption, and pollution. I'd like to know more too, if anyone has insight into this....
#10
Old [Sch|F]ool
Originally posted by JONSKI
Compression is also determined by where the intake port is. This is why peripheral port rotaries cannot attain the compression of a side-port rotary.
Compression is also determined by where the intake port is. This is why peripheral port rotaries cannot attain the compression of a side-port rotary.
FWIW "Most rotaries" are 12As, not 13Bs... They haven't made 12As since 1985 but there are still more of 'em out there than 13Bs.
#11
Your Opinion is Wrong
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Peoples Republic of California
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by peejay
Compression ratio is defined as the ratio between maximum chamber volume (volume at BDC) and minimum chanber volume (volume at TDC). Port location has absolutely nothing to do with it.
FWIW "Most rotaries" are 12As, not 13Bs... They haven't made 12As since 1985 but there are still more of 'em out there than 13Bs.
Compression ratio is defined as the ratio between maximum chamber volume (volume at BDC) and minimum chanber volume (volume at TDC). Port location has absolutely nothing to do with it.
FWIW "Most rotaries" are 12As, not 13Bs... They haven't made 12As since 1985 but there are still more of 'em out there than 13Bs.
Just kidding pj
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