Marco Acosta to drag race in a 4 Rotor!
 

Yep from the IDRC site

Marco Acosta will soon debute a 4-Rotor
Auto to compete against the V8's in the IDRC

damm
now were Talking major Power!
PP 4 rotor

hahaha, he is gonna rape those V8's.


the limiting factor is gonna be the eccentric shaft.
With too much power, its gonna flex like mother fu er

DAAAAAAAAAMN!!!!

It was only a matter of time, of course...

(Can you say 6-second "import"? :evilgrin: )

Rob at Pineapple builds em too! With his motors, e-shaft flex is'nt a problem. His 4 rotor is also shorter than the factory 4 rotor engines.

Someone, needs to come up with the $$ to buy a 4 rotor, and strap something like dual T88s on it, and throw it in a car like Abels, and go run 6s all day long. What class would a monster like that fit into??

Someone, with lots of money laying around...and too much time on there hands...*cou-Jimlab-gh*:D

CJ

unfortunatly, Jim hates rotaries ( :) ) and would rather have a h8ed v8

Re: Marco Acosta to drag race in a 4 Rotor!
 

why compete against the V8's? is the 4 rotor illegal in the 'regular' pro class? it still has less displacement than a supra 2JZ-gte motor....... bullish has 2 tube framed solaras that WILL run 6 seconds this year, and they dont have to run in the pro-V8 class.

a 2.6 liter 4 rotor is only slightly bigger than the 2.3 liter honda motors run in the pro calss. this is BS!!!!

HANDICAP THE GOD DAMNED SUPRAS!!!!!

The Supra engine is 3 liters... a 4-rotor based on 13B/20B parts would equate to 5.2l...

I always thought thought 4 rotors and V10s were banned from NHRA Sport Compact.

why wouldn't a 26B have double the displacement of a 13B?
13B=1.3 liter
26B=2.6 liter

i dont agree with those funny ways of calculating rotary displacement. the combustion chambers add up to 1.3 liters, mazda says it's 1.3 liters, i'm gonna call it 1.3 liters........

Re: Marco Acosta to drag race in a 4 Rotor!
 

IDRC has no Idea. I was @ MVA shop today, Marcos pick up truck has the old 3rotor he had in the MX3 but this time he has a new intake and exhaust manifold. No 4 rotor for now...

13B = 1.3l per revolution
R26B = 2.6l per revolution

2.6l piston engine = 1.3l per revolution
5.2l piston engine = 2.6l per revolution

Simple no?

Who said anythign about revolutions?? We are talking about total displacement, not the Displacement after revolutions, or fires, or whatever.

Seems simple to me, lets run through it once more in better terms:

Piston displacement = area of cylinder (witht the "height" beign calculated by piston stroke) X number of cylinders

Rotary displacement = Area of space around the rotor in rotor housing X the number of rotorhousings.

It doesnt get much simpler than that.

Therefor a 2.6l Engine = 2.6l of displacement ROTARY OR PISTON.

Now if you want to get into the number of times they fire per revolutions or turns or Whatever, then thats a diff topic.

?????????

Re: Re: Marco Acosta to drag race in a 4 Rotor!
 

he's using his 'old' 3 rotor? so does thids mean that he recovered his stolen MX-3?

NHRA and IDRC are 2 diffrent events

here is the link to the article

read the "IDRC PRO CLass"

http://www.urbanracer.com/headline/idrc_051402.html

Wrong peejay, every compression chamber on the rotor, is responsible for 654 cc's. Now is 654 x 2 = 1308cc's. For the 2 rotor engine to complete the 4 cycles(intake,compression,power,exhaust) on just 2 chambers it takes 2 eccentric shaft revolutions, which = 1.3 liter. in just one revolution it will never complete its 4 cycles to a 1.3liter. 1 revolution will just get the engine to te point of Intake compression, the other revolution will bring the engine towards Power and exhaust, completing it's 4 cycles. In all reality is a 1.3 liter 4 cycle engine, with a very decent power stroke...

Re: Re: Re: Marco Acosta to drag race in a 4 Rotor!
 

It was the old, old frankenstein engine he broke plates on. before they stoled the Mx3. When they stoled the Mx3 it had the new so fresh and so clean engine, and the old 3 rotor was not in the car, he had it in the shop.

Guys, rotaries are the equivalent of a 2 cycle 4 stoke.....

They are only 1.3lt in capacity in 13B form.

A 500cc 2 stoke GP bike is only 500cc as well, but they compete against 1000cc 4 strokes, as they are breathing 1000cc in the time it takes the 4 stroke to complete its cycle.

A wankel is no different, in the time it takes a 2.6lt 4 cycle piston engine to complete it cycle (2 engine revs) the wankel has completed two cycles, hence you double the capacity to "compare it to a 4 cycle piston engine" easy as that.

They are only a 1.3lt, but they do the same amount of work as a 2.6lt 4 stroke piston engine.

Ito, you are wrong, the wankel needs just ONE crank rev to complete a full cycle, Intake, Compression, Power, Exhaust.

1 cycle in a piston engine is exactly the same as 1 cycle on a rotary. First cycle is Intake. second is compression, third power 4th exhaust. is just that simple. we could get into power stroke degrees(equivalent to a 6cil. power stroke) and other factors that give advantage to a rotary vs a 4cil. piston engines. But a cylce is a cycle when we are talking about the "OTTO Cycles" 1,2,3,4 is the same for both engines, nothing more nothing less.

In two crank revs, 4 chambers have completed cycles. 4 X 654cc = 2616cc.

To verify this all you need to see is how many times the spark plug fires, it fires 4 times over the two rotors.

Another cross check for this is when you fit an Autometer tacho to a 2 rotor, to get it to read right you set it for a 4 cylinder engine, this is cause a 4 cylinder has 4 cylinder ignition pulses for every 2 engine revs, A rotary has the same except that it only has 2 "cylinders" but over 2 engine revs it sees 4 individual pulses !

This means that it does double the work and to compare it to a 4 stroke piston engine you should double it's capacity. If you are comparing it to a 2 stroke piston engine then yeah it is a 1.3lt engine in 13B form.

Ito it is an easy mistake to make, but you are wrong.

A 4 cycle engine in reciprocating form takes 2 engine revs to fire its spark plug to generate ONE POWER PULSE.

A 4 cycle wankel takes one engine rev to fire its spark plug to generate ONE POWER PULSE.

hmm...
 

for every one rotation of the eccentric shaft, the rotor turns 1/3 of a rotation. From intake to compression.

Because every one rotation of the E-shaft the rotor turns once. 1 divided by 3 is 1/3.

It takes 3 full e-shaft rotations to complete 1 full cycle from intake back to intake, but the other sides follow around too, so it takes 1 e-shaft rotation per side to reach combustion stage.

While running this would mean that each side is combusting at 1 full revolution of the e-shaft, now if each rotor is calculated 654cc total than that means that it is only running 218cc per rotor per revolution, however I do not believe this is the case.

I am not sure on this, but I think that the calculation is 654cc per rotor per rotation, which makes 654cc per side, making 654cc per combustion per rotation x2 rotors is still 1.3 L...

It has been argued that the engine is actually a 2.6 L of ACTUAL displacement, I don't know how they calculate that, but if you wanted to calculate it funny you could say that a 2 rotor is actually 2.0L for 1 rotation of the rotor x2 rotors and you have a 4.0 L engine. But that is stupid if we are taking about per rotation, where it stands 1.3L.

But also don't the rotors combust at different times? So its really only making 654cc at a time?


Yarg...I am confused now. no more math for me.

Rice you have just amazed me. never in the history of 10A,12A or 13B or 20B will the engine complete 4 cycles in just one eccentric shaft revolution. Rice you need to touch up more on this subject. It takes no more then "2" 360 degrees of eccentic shaft revs to complete it's 4 cycles. period. been there done it myself, I havent read this info. I personally took a front side housing with the front rotor and E shaft on, plus the timing pulley on. 1 360 degree rev. will only get the rotor to intake and compression, the 2nd rev. will get the engine pass power and exhaust, and it beggins all over. Rice I have read some of your post before, it seems like you know some of your stuff, but with this statement your way offffffffff...

Listen, you guys are confusing yourselfs on this.

We all agree that to make power the plugs need to fire...right?

So all you need to do is see haw many times the plug fires simple huh

I do not give a fuck if it's a 2 stroke, 4 stroke, wankel 1 cylinder 10 cylinder or 4 rotor ! ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS COUNT HOW MANY SPARKS YOU HAVE OVER AN ENGINE CYCLE.

For a 4 stroke 4 cylinder piston engine you have 4, count them 4 !!! (in two engine revolutions, cause it needs 2 revolutions to complete a cycle)

For a two rotor wankel you have 4, yes 4 mother fucking ignition pulses. THIS MEANS 4 POWER PULSES in the same two engine revolutions. THIS MEANS 654cc X 4 = 2616cc.

Which means that to compare it for what "work" it actually does then a wankel is the SAME, YES THE SAME as a 2616cc 4 stroke piston engine.

Ito, I am confused as to why you cannot follow this? you are experienced man form what I have seen...this is easy stuff to follow.

Ever size a turbo before, Ever size injectors? Ever figured out a flow rate? Ever tried compare fuel efficiency of rotaries to pistons?

If you have ever done this then there is no argument as to the capacity of a wankel in comparison to a 4 stroke piston engine. Compared to a 2 stroke, yes a 13B is 1.3lt.

wrong again, in 2 rev's the wankel engine has completed 4 cycles in just 2 chambers(1308 cc's, with the spark plugs firing 4 times. 1.3 liter 4 cycle. a 4 cil piston engine, in two 360 revs completes it's 4 cycles and 4 power strokes. A rotary in two rev.s completes 4 cycles in 2 chambers 1.3 , is just that simple, that is the only thing a rotary has in common with a piston engine, the OTTO Cycles. 2 crank shaft revs per 4 cycles...

rice racing is correct. although the rotary engin may have a 4-stroke cycle it breaths like a 2-stroke engin. do some reasearch on rotaryvalvre 2-strocks.

Ito, man in two engine revolutions a two rotor fires 4 seperate chambers, you are smoking some serious crack if you don't know this? :D

Yes Ito this is 100% right, FOR A SINGLE ROTOR 654cc ENGINE (I had to edit your post, you might learn something :) )

Rice before you keep posting, do a little more homework, Just go to your shop, and half assemble any engine, and follow your crank revs, you will see it needs 2 revs for one rotor chamber(apex seal to apex seal) to go into Intake, compression, power exhaust, after that come and post. Ill reply later on tonight. 2 crank revs 4 cycles, I repeat 2 crank revs for a wankel to go into intake, compression,power,exhaust. in 2 crank revs. 4 cycle 1.3 liter

know we are getting some where, yes in 2 revs te engine firessssssssssss 4 timessssssssssss but it only finishes the 4 cycles in a 1.3 liter formmmmmm not 2.6666666 Rice me smoking crack?? hmm 5'11 225lbs naaaaaa Crack heads dont get that big:)

one should also remember that a rotarys port configuration will flow more air than a 4-stroke of equal size. unless the 4-stroke is using huge lift and duration.

Ito, man I have done more homework than many people, I guess that is why I am a qualified engineer (this is not meant to be a put down at all).

Engineers build wankel rotaries, they understand how they work and what they do and also how to be able to compare them to more conventional power plants.

I cannot stress enough that regards less of what you want to compare a wankel to, simply measure the air flow through it, do some cals if you do not believe or cannot follow what I am saying.

You will find out that indeed the wankel DOES complete a 4 stroke cycle in ONE engine revolution. A 4 stroke piston engine take TWO engine revolutions to complete the 4 stroke cycle.

THIS IS WHY YOU DOUBLE THE CAPACITY OF A WANKEL when comparing it to a 4 STROKE piston engine, for a 2 STROKE YOU DO NOT DOUBLE THE CAPACITY.

OK finally we agree? It fires 4 times ! Each time it fires a chamber ...yes. So 4 x 654 (chamber capacity) = 2616cc

Hey hey no cursing, :cool: Yes 4 ignition pulses, but not a 2.6 liter, when the engine fires for the 4th time on the 2.6 liter chamber(the next chamber) it doesnt complete its full cycles on the other 2 chambers(the 2.6cc one's). it completes the 4 cycles on the 1.3 liter the engine has half the advantage but not the full 2.6 liter advantage

It is only a 1308cc displacement engine in 13B form (2 chambers) but it does double the "work" of a 4 stroke piston engine, this is why you need to double the capacity....easy.

Yes it "breaths" 2616cc, though it only "measures" 1308cc.....

This is why people get confused :D

Rice this topic is fun. many people coud learn from it. I was talking to Jim Mederer from Racing Beat and he told me, that 1/2 the reason Mazda lost creditbility in IMSA was because Mazda engineers never fixed this 1.3 liter with a 6cil. power stroke and the 2.6 cc's 1/2 advantage...

This thread is fun, I'm learning more and more. Keep it up guys! :) I tried to rate it has a 5 star thread but they wouldn't let me so I had to do a 4 star.

interesting ;)

For ANY positive displacement engine you need to find out how much air it breaths over a set standard.

The set standard in 2 engine revs because a mojority of engines require 2 engine revs to complete ONE FULL cycle.


Wankel & piston = chamber volume x rotors x (cycles completed in 2 engine revs "set standard)

now lets compare 2 rotor & 2 cylinder engines.

eg 654cc x 2 x 2 = 2616cc rated as a 1.3lt

Piston 2 cylinder 2 stroke

eg 654cc X 2 X 2 = 2616cc rated as a 1.3lt

Piston 2 cylinder 4 stroke

eg 654cc X 2 X 1 = 1308cc rated as a 1.3lt

All of the above are 1.3lt engines, but the two stroke and the wankel breathe double the 4 stroke piston engine can in the same time cause they do double the work.

Now no one would argue that a 2 stoke piston engine does double the work of a 4 stroke ??? well the same applies to the wankel rotary my friends :D

remember, the extra 2.6 liter chamber fires but never finishes it's 4 cycle job. but we still get some advantage.

more math...
 

apples and oranges.

if the e-shaft turns 3 times per 1 rotor rotation, once the rotor has turned 1 full rotation (from spark lets say) if you count the beginning of the rotation from spark, to spark of the same side, then doesn't the rotary make 3 ignitions per rotation? so one spark per rotation of the e-shaft per rotor? Technically speaking of course, so 2 sparks per e-shaft rotation technically speaking.

Oh well...screw it. How is displacement calculated anyway? Is it just the volume of the chambers added? the volume per chamber? The volume that actually gets used per rotation? Yarg I am confused.

I know how a rotary works, but rotary math and stuff makes homer go something something...

It is totally :D Nothing beats talking about rotaries and when we all get together to understand more then that is when we have done our job right.

I only wish shit like this was around 10 years ago when I was first learing :mad:

Ok, go to this Quicktime clip and count the revolutions.
http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.c...tions/RE4a.mov

True, but where exactly did you start from? see what I mean.

The same applies to a piston engine example.

That is why over 720 degrees of "output" shaft rotation a 2 rotor has 4 evenly spaced ignition or power pulses, a 4 cylinder 4 stroke has the same 4 evenly spaced power pulses as well, hence they are doing the same work.

This is why it is easiest to count the frequency of the ingnition pulses of a set duration of crank revs to see what realy is happening. Forget the engine, just want to know the cahmber size and how many power pulses it sees over a set time, then I will tell you what it is achieving (power, breathing etc) regardless of engine type.

the only way I know how much nitrous I could put into my 13B Bp is excatly for this reason, I know how the engine behaves as far as cc's and when you take your nitrous horsepower formula, N20hp X cubic inch = a happy Ito...

When mazda claimed 1.3l they did it by its 4 strokes. but it's a large engine. but that is another case. Rice some people around my way argue to death that it's a 6 cil. They say it has 6 chambers and it fires the 6 chambers in 2 crank revs. I argue until Im blue.. that is why this is a good topic, a matter of fact NIRA (National import racing Ass.) placed the 13B and 12A in te 6 cil class. thank god they no longer exist..

LOL that is funny shit, if anything a 20B or any tripple rotor with evenly spaced firing order should be rated as a 6 cylinder, all you need to do is listen to them to see what I mean, they sound the same ! cause the firing order "frequency" is the same....funny that :D

Just as some 4 cylinder "non boxer" firing order sound similar to two rotor engines.

And a four rotor, well that just sounds fucken unreal ! I don't give a shit how they go, I just want one for the sound !

for my money nothing sounds better than a 2 or 4 rotor, a 3 rotor sounds like a six cylinder POS :D