The problem is your thinking of what would have to be a massive engine for performance application. That doesn't work. There is a reason small engines are able to rev so high and big V8's redline at 5500. The larger the part, the more mass it has, which makes it harder to control, harder to speed up and slow down. This drastically limits the revs it can handle before parts start breaking and it eats horsepower just to get and keep the parts moving. Larger parts also add thermal mass, which means a hotter running engine. Those ridiculously large rotarys are likely diesel fueled generators, not actual automotive engines. They would spin at much slower speeds and wouldn't be going up and down throughout the rev range.

Your best bet would be to mate 12A housings and rotors together to make a 2.2 liter engine. Basically weld two housings together and two rotors, stick a plate between them and then add another set. A custom E-shaft and some playing with the exhaust ports and your good to go. P-Port so it will get the intake flow required, and ceramic or carbon apex seals to limit the chances of apex seal failure. But if you go that far, you might as well just build a 4 rotor.

 

well maybe NOT a rotary,as we know it.

couple weeks back, i was lookin at a Gas turbine engine, with a gear box on it,
it was about 15" diameter,( around the size of 13b) maybe 36" long, made 1800HP for up to 2hrs, back it down to 1500hp for continuous steady runnin.

thing is they slow on acceleration,but past half track nothin can keep up.

and it will be along time before we see a Top Fuel car be beat in the 1000ft drag race.
about a month ago NEW record set 307mph, in 3.8tenths seconds, in 1000ft.

now how you gonna beat that, goes against the laws of physics, engineers all over the world, sayin ,NO way!

and with ancient American technology, V8 two valve , push rods, from an engine designed and sold in 1952.

course gives ya somthin to shoot for!

 

I think your going the wrong way with it. I wish 10a parts where easy to find. I would love to build a 3L 6 rotor.

 

A six rotor would have way too much e shaft flex because of how long it would be, hence the reason why you will never see one.

For max power, the 4 rotor is what we have to count on in the future. No one has really pushed the limits of this motor because of the high amount of cost.

Look how far the 3 rotor has come and with new billet parts, it will only continue to get better for the rotary.

 

you do know a 10a rotor is 20mm narrower than that of a 13b? A 13b has a rotor with of 80mm. It would be no bigger than a 5 rotor using 13b rotors and one 20b wide midplate, and no longer than the crank of a V12.

And just as an FYI I have seen a few 6 rotors made from 13b rotors and a 20b front mid plate with a roller bearing in the middle of the engine used to drive a trailer generator. But if it will have to much flex due to you saying it will..... fine what ever.

 

^ Your absolutely correct.

Hurley (the apex seal company) has already made a 6 rotor motor. 3 Piece e-shaft and 12a center plates with grooves cut in them for the coolant seals if I remember right. It was used in a plane though.

 

here u go 7.8 liter

 

Please show me a video of a running 6 rotor. Surely if there was a six rotor running today there would be a video and a full write up of it.

And the one on the Hurley site was just a mock up and never ran.

Too much money and too much shaft flex guys and no real application for it to be used.

 

You do realize not everyone in the world is on the internet or youtube. You'd be surprised what exists off the internet.

And on top of that, I'm sure all the top drag racers in the world that don't share their setup with anyone tell you about it all the time, right?

Sure, everyone hears about 13b-pp w/ a modded s475 or a 20b with a gt45, but what about the setups you don't hear about?

 

Actually,Shaft flex would be at minimum or about the same as current rotaries.the reason being is because current after market 4 rotor engine's from green brother's ,pulse performance etc. all require two modded center plate's to except mazda stationary gears and bearing for the extra two rotor's. and since there are two extra bearings,the shaft is more supported therefore flex is kept at bay.

so a reliable 6 rotor is possible,provided that you can find a large enough engine bay to house it

 

There is no reason why go for more than 4 rotors... Its all about maximum/mean torque ratio. This ratio is important when creating drivetrain for given engine... 2 rotor or 4stroke 4 cylinder has this ratio 2:1, 3 rotor or 6 cylinder 1,5:1 and 4 rotor or 12 cylinder 1:1....there is no reason fore more cylinders/chambers...

Then, you have to assemble such engine... shaft for outer chambers would have to be tapered for even smaller diameter than for 3rd and 4th rotors...

And then again.... Larger eccentricity and generating radius is far better for adding displacement than adding chambers...

 

Very good point pointed out here. If you look at even mazda and their 16x engine, that goes on for years before it even comes out to the public. Alot of companies are very hush hush about what they do and that why they're all in big closed up very restricted areas. For all we know there could be a 4 rotor 32x already inproduction for a mazda supercar. Seem like everybody is giving it a shot at the supercar market ... look at the new Lexus.

Now why is it that hurley on their website have said : "900 BHP Hurley Six Rotor Engine Seeing is Believing !" although i have never seen it running personally.

 

IMO,, before i spend the money to make a reliable 4-6 rotary,,

I would go the GAS Turbine route, with a gear box connected to a rear end.

reliable 1500hp for yrs on end, and old helicopter engines are showin up all over place, like GE T58s, and they aint larger in diameter than a 13B, but shorter than a 6 rotor and they have a shaft stickin out the back. and much lighter than a 4rotor.

best thing is they run on almost any fuel,like Jet A, Jeta1, kerosene, diesel fuel, biofuel, stale whisky(just kiddin)

SO why go to all that work on wankel,, when it would still be a rotary engine.LOL

 

did you miss the "trailer generator" part of it?

lol here you go look at this pic
http://www.made-in-china.com/image/2...sel-Genset.jpg
and open this link in 3 tabs all playing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO3lSTO8uWg

and yes i know thats sad.

 

if u say there us no reason for more cylinders the guy that mad the bugatti don't know what they are going, right?

 

This guy in a Bugatti Veyron didn't know were he was going.....

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/V...ing_719255.htm

~Mike..............

 

Can you say bragging rights?? Old VR6s slapped together... no technical advantage over V12... In the end of the day, it still Volkswagen, it may have 1000 HP, but still its just 2 tons boat anchor...

 

Did you watch me vid? lol...boat anchor

 

Old 13b's slapped together on a bucket in the back yard by some drunk puerto ricans. Doesn't put out #'s, but sure mops the floor with higher power cars. But at the end of the day, its still a 1.3L that blows up whenever it decides to be picky.

Your argument is invalid.

The difference between a 1000hp VW or rotary and a Bugatti is that the Bugatti will last with that 1000hp for x amount of year/s. 1000hp 4 and 6 bangers and rotarys have to get rebuilt every weekend. Sometimes you pay a price for reliability. Just ask the people that have the high hp built cars here on the forum.

 

been done

 

You both are living in lala land if you think that there is a running 6 rotor engine out there in a race car that no one knows about. Do I even have to go into detail why or can you guys figure it out on your own?

 

I have been hoping some one would have said something about the math

2 = 4
3 = 6
4 = 12

that is about as sound as this
x = y

x² = xy

x²-y² = xy-y²

(x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y)

(x+y)(x-y)
(x-y)
=
y(x-y)
(x-y)

oºo (x+y)=y

If x=1 y=1

1 +1 = 1

Are you trying to argue a compleat engine sequence, crank vs Eshaft rotation? what is your logic on this?

for a compleat engine sequence
rotary
1080º
2rotor = 6 combustions
3 = 9
4 = 12

piston
720º combustions is the same as number of cylinders
1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,24 hell i fixed 2 of the 7 *i think* cams out of a classic Zvezda 42 cylinder once but that was a radial and is arguably not in context here but the 1-24 are inline or V so would fit this argument just fine.

for Eshaft / crank rotation 360º
2 rotor = 2 combustions 4 cylinder = 2
3 rotor = 3 combustions 6 cylinder = 3
4 rotor = 4 combustions 8 cylinder = 4
* rotor = same as # of rotors *cylinder = ½ the number of cylinders

 

I didn´t talk about reliability/durability...sure if you have certain HP from 3x bigger capacity, BMEP is much lower-about 3x(don´t considering friction and different RPMs....)

I just pointed out, that NOTHING is special about V16 engine slaped together from base engine which you can find in some old Golfs....

 

No.... This isn´t about crank vs. e-shaft rotations. 1080° rotary cycle has been already covered(despite some people who jump on bandwagon of magazine BS will argue till the death about it )

Its about torgue fluctuation... simply, no need for more than 4 rotor, 12 cylinder 4-stroke or 6 cylinder 2-stroke.

 

This is why I ask, The pistion data is nothing new for me.

The question still stands. I would assume you know what peak torque/mean torque is, how did he figure this out for a rotary? Don't get me wrong I know who he is but the math on diminishing returns of Peak vs Mean torque, one would think, would be less than how it has been graphed. It looks to me as if he is counting the rotary as a 2 stroke and using the rotational difference between a piston engine to figure out that the 4 rotor has the highest mean torque.

You do also know that passing the peak/mean ratio will still grant you positive results?

For automotive use the I6 requires little to no internal balancing just as the v12. I4 and V8's are easy to balance internally and V12 engines where used for the extra power output over there smaller counter part and a stunningly smooth running engine. V12 engines have perfect even and odd harmonic balance making them very smooth but with the higher peak/mean than the I6 it is even more so. Engines with more than 12 cylinders are usually not used in cars due to the cost of making them run smooth enough for use in an auto is grater than the NOW DIMINISHING returns of the added cylinders. notice the now diminishing returns.

For you the cost may not be your thing but like Veyron you hate just due to its auto maker more power can be made in a smoother engine with a longer life.
So what ever.