wthdidusay82

iTrader: (15)

Ok I am in an argument with this guy that rotary is much superior to pistons and he keeps on coming at me with stupid nonsense.

Heres the last thing he said to me , this is on another forum.

" you don't need 350cu in to make power in an otto engine either. There are plenty of sub 2.0L engines making over 300hp

If car companies thought wankles were worth a damn, they'd put the money into research.

They are too damn unreliable for most people. People dont want to have to have their engine taken out and rebuilt after every 50,000 miles! People want to get 300-400K on a car without any major work. Piston engines can do this.


For the average public, importance in a car engine goes as follows:

1. Reliability
2. Economy
3. Performance


The only thing rotaries have going for them is performance, and they're not even that good at that. A 13B weighs as much as a friggen LT1, and you can get a WAY better powerband out of a 5.7L engine. Even if the rotary did make more horsepower, it has absolutely no bottom end.

The rotary is a cool idea, but in practice, they're terrible. "

____________________________________




So I think he's stupid because -

1. A 13B weighs much less than a LT1 correct ? probably like 100+ lbs im guessing

2. Ive never heard of really any piston engines lasting 300-400k miles , especially without smoking out the exhaust like most hondas i see that are at 200k+ miles

3.The only 13B known to have to be rebuilt every 50k is the fd3s engine, and even they can last much longer than that...the only way a 13B will only last that long is if it is very highly modded , correct ?

4. There are no piston engines smaller than a 2.0 that make even close to 300 hp stock, correct ?

5. V8s arent reliable under high hp...with high power the block will blow a hole in it or split, a rotary engine can take way more power for its size in comparison to a v8 and if it blows up the results arent as catastrophic

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

There's no way to prove "betterness" either way. It's a value judgement. It's like arguing over whether grape or orange soda tastes better.

MADDSLOW

iTrader: (11)

The life of the engine is a coin flip. From what I have researched, you can drive 100,000 miles and blow an engine, or you can drive 10,000 miles and blow an engine... there isn't really any way to tell how long the engine will last(save compression tests to see if it is gradually going downhill).

Jumbogumbp

It's not really a coin flip, it has to do with how well the motor is treated and what preventitive measures are taken, and in the case of built engines it in the tune.
I've owned now 8 rx7's from n/a 86 fc's to turbo2 fc's to fd's. One motor I had is still running flawlessly at 240000 miles, all of my engines have lasted over 100k miles and still run except one blew at 130k miles (90 turbo2). And I'm rebuilding one right now that has 45k miles that was imaculate when I pulled it apart (pulled it apart to do a half bridge port).

The 13b is better than an lt1 in some aspects and worse in others.... the good points are weight (I can dead lift a stripped 13b, I havn't found any v8's I can dead lift). Theoretic rev limit is non existant, only block seperation and balance and bearings and eccentric flex impead you. Theres no dry cycle like a piston has. Less moving parts. Takes to bolt ons very well. It's a short block. Make tons of power per liter stock (196hp per liter, a 5.7l v8 would need to make 1118hp to match). Can run pre-mix. Has TONS of airflow for it's size. There's alot more but I'm tired of writing.
There's also the fact that my n/a rx7 with 240000miles on it still averaged 26mpg. My old fd with 350whp still got 22mpg... but my first turbo 2 had a bad tune and only got 17mpg.

davemo

reciprocating piston engines are more efficient at burning fuel. they also have had a million times the research done in perfecting them then the rotary has. the rotary is definitely superior in concept. the physics involved with the reciprocating engine show it is basically trying to pull itself apart. the rotary is more reliable from an ideal view, as there are virtually only 3 moving parts, for a 2 rotor. the inherent smoothness is due to the fact that 270 degrees of rotation of the crankshaft is powered, while only 180 degrees is in a 4 cylinder.

kad

I think that there are a few point that your friend has regarding the otto engines, For instance, I just rebuilt the engine in my Mustang, it had 212k miles on it, there was nothing wrong with it overall, it was just wearing out. On the other hand, I have seen a car needing a rebuild at 50k miles on it too.

Granted, I ahven't really worked with Wankels too much either, I just got my car 2 days ago and before that my friend and I were taking apart an 85 with blown apex seals. So I can't say a whole lot about the Wankels. What I have heard though is that they can go to 150k-250k+ before a rebuild if you don't run it too hard, comparible with 100k on an Otto, 150k if you are lucky.

Zero R

iTrader: (1)

Grape on mondays is always better than orange on wednesday, sheesh and I thought you knew everything.


-S-

Monkman33

iTrader: (28)

I just say better for what? Purpose is all that matters.

And then right before I leave I say: "If rotary engines are so inferior... how come they had to have special rules made JUST for them in the Le Mans races?"

That usually shuts them up.

Judge Ito

different strokes for different folks.. I would not find myself wasting my time with a piston engine....

Polishammer

Unless it is an inline-6 diesel

REVERE

I am I die hard rotor fan, but even I get sick of rotary guys brining that up, great achievement yes but it is just one race. Sure they made regulations to make it more difficult for a rotary to be competitive, but they are doing the same thing to the Audi now.

I think the fact that 71% of all Mazda’s entered into le mans have finished is a much more of an achievement for an “unreliable engine” or even that Mazda came back the next year with an entirely new car and got 4th.

BryanDowns

iTrader: (2)

IMO, you'll have a hard time winning said arguement.

1) An Iron block LT1 does weigh more than a 13B. But even if you prove this, he'll just bring up the all aluminum LS1, which weighs about the same as a 13BREW. Yes, the 13B itself weighs far less, but when you have to put the turbos and stuff on it to match the HP (and thus end up nearly matching the weight) of the V8's he'll bring up your arguement becomes moot.

2) I've saw several Toyotas, Hondas, and Volvo's last to 300k. They arent exactly running well at that point though. 200-250k is about the max any reasonable person would go without rebuilding a piston engine. Any further and they are too poor to rebuild, or they are doing it just to see how much longer it will run.

3) FD3S engines tend to go from anywhere from 40k-90k. Some go earlier, some go later. I've saw stock cars with rebuilds with only 10k on them. I've saw some guys here overly happy and braging about their FD with 110k on the stock engine. (as if 110k is something to brag about? lol... ) I've saw plenty of TII's with 150k on them, and non-turbo's with over 200k. (note: since you are arguing performance with him too, there is no point in bringing up the non-turbos as they dont make 1/2 the HP of the v8 he is referencing)

4) Small than 2.0? not that I know of. The evo is 2.0 and really close to 300 though. As is the new solstice/sky turbo engine being a 2.0 turbo and 270ish HP (I think it was)

5) V8's are extremely reliable at high HP. Blow a hole in the block? Only if you dont know what you are doing. (and this isnt 13B "only if you dont know what you are doing" where the amount of people that do know what they are doing is small enough to compile a list. Nearly every shop in the world would know how to tune a V8, and even if they didnt there is large margin for error) I've several friends with 700-800whp turbo V8's that run just fine. I also know of several people with 1200+whp V8's, and of course on any given weekend you'll see many cars at a drag strip making 400-500+, and some making 1500+ running. Far more reliable than rotaries at those power levels. Perhaps relative to its size, but thats rather irrelevant since its about HP/weight, not HP/Liter or HP/size. The guy you are arguing/debating with will very likely bring that up, making you look foolish. I wouldnt persue that point if I were you. You dont have alot to stand on in #5.

liquidferrum

this is a childish argument, and i think persuing it any futher would sully the collective reputation of rotary fans..

also.. i thought an otto cycle engine just meant that the fuel was injected with the intake air, not that it is a reciprocating piston engine?

slo

iTrader: (1)

otto cycle engine is another term for four stroke

firzen

iTrader: (7)

Despite the fact that we all love rotaries, this argument is more of a hassle than anything now. Piston technology is alot more advanced than rotaries now and the only diehard rotary fans are ones that are addicted to the novelty of the engine (myself included).

We love rotaries because they are fun and different, not because they trump pistons at every corner, IMO.

iceblue

Well I found that wet ***** is allot more pleasant then not as wet ***** but better then overly wet *****. But for low end grunt don't listen to them about speed it's the stroke that gets the job done. You can drive her straight up a hill with enough grunt in your stroke.