3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002) 1993-2002 Discussion including performance modifications and Technical Support Sections.
Sponsored by:

Why are most rotaries 654cc x #?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-25-02, 06:51 PM
  #1  
Full Member

Thread Starter
 
OptusX4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unhappy 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
Old 09-25-02, 06:56 PM
  #2  
fart on a friends head!!!

 
rotorbrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: sheppard AFB, TX
Posts: 4,104
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Old 09-25-02, 06:59 PM
  #3  
Full Member

Thread Starter
 
OptusX4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hey speaking of le mans. Isn't the 787B going to be in this year's? (next year's maybe?) I wanna watch it, how can I?
Old 09-25-02, 07:03 PM
  #4  
fart on a friends head!!!

 
rotorbrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: sheppard AFB, TX
Posts: 4,104
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
Old 09-25-02, 07:05 PM
  #5  
fart on a friends head!!!

 
rotorbrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: sheppard AFB, TX
Posts: 4,104
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
Old 09-25-02, 07:31 PM
  #6  
call me Smokie Smokerson

 
r0t0r-rooter's Avatar
 
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....
Old 09-25-02, 07:46 PM
  #7  
Senior Member

 
martini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think it's all about the thermal efficiency.
Old 09-25-02, 08:02 PM
  #8  
Rotary Enthusiast

 
reza's Avatar
 
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
Old 09-25-02, 08:38 PM
  #9  
5yr member, joined 2001

 
JONSKI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Marco Island, FL
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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....
You can also increase displacement with larger housings and rotors. 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. Part of the reason that the renesis is much more thermally efficient is because both the exhaust and intake ports are on the side housings, which means no overlap, higher compression, and retaining combustion gasses for a longer peroid of time.
Old 09-25-02, 10:08 PM
  #10  
Old [Sch|F]ool

 
peejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Posts: 12,508
Received 416 Likes on 296 Posts
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 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.
Old 09-25-02, 10:11 PM
  #11  
Your Opinion is Wrong

 
Dyre's Avatar
 
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.
Oh quiet you 12a ****!
Just kidding pj
Related Topics
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
datfast1
West RX-7 Forum
3
09-14-15 06:58 PM
andyvideopro
SE RX-7 Forum
0
09-05-15 06:56 PM
Murilli
Midwest RX-7 Forum
0
09-03-15 09:10 AM



Quick Reply: Why are most rotaries 654cc x #?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:46 PM.