Please link to the post where I stated all of the weight was below the crank.

So now you're not only making up your own information, but you're making it up for other people too? What a pal.

 

Clever. That was precisely the question that would have proved my knowledge about rotary engines.

Sorry, but anything irrelevant to the debate about your ability to determine the CoG of an engine by sight IS changing the subject.

There was no point in answering because it was irrelevant. See above.

And that should have been your first clue...

 

Your little lacky Black magic needs to research before opening his mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RomCIKez7Lw



What's more ignorant me be being on a rotary based forum defending the rotary engine or you talking **** about rotarys on a rotary based forum. I could give a **** what section it is. At least I'm not on the LS1 forum talking **** about the LS1.

 

Post 107 chump your own quote "Were you aware that only about 80 lbs. of a 460 lb. LS1 is above the camshaft centerline? Were you aware that the heaviest section of the block and the heaviest components of the engine are at the bottom of the block? Were you aware that at any given time, roughly half of the weight of the engine's rotating assembly is below the centerline of the crankshaft? Now, where is the CoG of an LS1?"



The only thing I'm at fault with here is having to constantly remind you of the things you forget. Do you need a 1-a day pill for memory or is it just plain alzheimers?

 

How is being honest about the fact that A) the rotary engine is an inefficient design, B) it consumes more air than the rated displacement, and C) horsepower per liter figures are irrelevant "talking ****"?

 

Just the same how irrelevent it was for you to make such a huge deal about my typing errors. Also as long as you were able to find something to disprove my beliefs, you were going to run with it come hell or high water.

 

Stop right there, and work on your reading comprehension. I've highlighted the relevant section.

Note that I did not say "below the crank".

Here's another chance to work on your reading comprehension.

I said that roughly half of the weight of the rotating assembly is below the centerline of the crankshaft, not roughly half of the weight of the engine.

You honestly have no idea how big an *** you're making of yourself, do you. Do you actually believe you're winning these exchanges?

 

"What's more ignorant me be being on a rotary based forum defending the rotary engine or you talking **** about rotarys on a rotary based forum. I could give a **** what section it is. At least I'm not on the LS1 forum talking **** about the LS1"
Enough said right there.
Thank you very much.

 

Once again, it's relevant because aside from the ridiculous statements you're making, it shows a lack of education.

Disproving your beliefs is easy, because they're not based on fact.

The point was to make you realize that if you want your beliefs to be taken seriously, you should make a greater effort to present yourself as an educated and informed source. Your excuse that you were responding to multiple posts quickly was just that... an excuse. You make mistakes even when you only have one post to respond to.

You've obviously done no research, you don't even know how a V8 is constructed, and you can't even express yourself legibly. Why should anyone take you or your viewpoints seriously?

 

This comment doesn't have **** to do with me defending the rotary. Your trying to flip the conversation again.A) Inefficent design? 3 moving parts (4 and 5 for a 20b and 4 rotor) vs 30 plus for a V8 and you call the rotary inefficent? B)I don't classify the engine as 1.3L I know better. Even then, every time I did the hp calculations based on true displacement, the rotary has always over acheived when compared to the V8. C) On irrelevent in your eyes as you can't stand the fatc thay we use this info as a true comparison to show how hard the engine is really working. If it was irrelevent, why is the displacment doubled in the racing world? It's because that's what it really is.

 

No you didn't but where is the crank based on your pic? At the bottom!


So it's ok for you to guess an assume you know where all the weight is but I can?

I don't care about winning, I just want people to better undertstand the differences and not be so judgemental about rotary's short commings when they are totaly un-educated about them.

 

Yes. It produces less power with the gas consumed than an equivalent 4-stroke piston engine.

Do some research on BSFC, not on "number of moving parts". You might learn something.

Then you should know enough to know that your horsepower per liter comparisons were ridiculous.

Your math included assumptions that were inaccurate, and "over-achieved" is a subjective opinion, not fact.

The only relevant measurement of "how hard the engine is really working" is the torque produced at the flywheel.

Doubling displacement for equivalency to 4-stroke piston engines because their displacement is based on two rotations of the crankshaft, not one rotation of the eccentric shaft, has nothing to do with horsepower per liter calculations.

You should have spent more time awake while you were in school.

 

If the rotary engine is such an inefficient design then why did they outlaw it in Lemans?
Why? because when it was introduced, they kept winning hands down.

 

Great racing engine, ****-poor street engine. Damn, 9 people viewing.

 

ha ha, afraid to admit when he fucs up. Clearly it's not our reading comprehension, it's dead on. you either don't know what you're talking about or you have trouble saying what you mean.

 

Yes, the crankshaft is usually at the bottom of the block. Would you like a cookie?

I know where all the weight is because I know exactly what the rotating assembly weighs, and I know how a V8 block is constructed. Your assumptions were based solely on external appearances.

How did you determine that we're the ones who are uneducated about rotary engines?

It seems to me that you don't even have a very good understanding of how they work, since you have no grasp of the concept of diminishing efficiency when combustion chamber size increases. Why do you think Mazda has based all their designs for the last 20+ years off the 13B housing and scrapped the 15A and 21A prototypes?

If you knew anything about the rotary engine, you wouldn't have made a post like this...
https://www.rx7club.com/rotary-car-performance-77/mazda-21a-22a-engine-285869/

Doesn't look like you've learned anything since, either.

 

Do some research.

 

So you're freely admitting that you're as uneducated as t-von is?

If you had any idea what a V8 crankshaft looks like, you'd know exactly what I meant.

 

i can say the same for you

 

Keep running with if you want. English is one small peice in the education system. Your not aware that I have over 85hrs of college and got an "A" in Aviation maintanence (which took 2 full years for me to get). Yea my english really comes in handly when I'm turning wrenches an can get those kinds of grades because I odviously know how to read instructions. The engine I disassembled and reassembled was the fastest starting engine in my class history. The prop turned over twice and the engine fired up and ran perfect. Yet you would like to think that I'm uneducated. What's your opinion of the Puerto ricans in this country that speak broken english? Last I checked they build some hellacious rotarys that donminate in the drag world. What about all the middle eastern Dr's here that are speak broken english? Your going to tell me they are unedgucated because of how they use the english language? Hell don't just single me out.l What about everyone else? If this is how you truely think, then your are the most ignoratant person I have had the displeassure of meeting on-line.

 

Only because you don't have any idea what the rotary's history at LeMans was prior to the one and only win, or what their history was afterward. Yes, rotary cars competed in LeMans after the single 1991 win. Look it up.

The 787B lead the race in 1991 for only the final 30 minutes or so, after a record number of drop-outs that year. Mazda had three 787B cars in the 1991 race, and the now-famous #55 car finished only 2 laps ahead of the first of the Jaguar XJR 12s that finished 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. The other two 787Bs finished 6th and 8th.

The previous year, the best showing for Mazda was a 767B car that finished 20th, and the two 787B cars did not finish.

If you're going to use LeMans as an argument for proof of rotary superiority, shouldn't you at least know a little about what you're talking about?

 

I guess it would be a surprise to him that english orignally came from german, and that english is actually an incorrect languange the way it is spoken.

 

one and only win? ok man your reasearch is based off of just the internet wikipedia website isnt it?
Not everything is accurate, why do you think they allow people to improve the article if they can?

 

There's nothing quite like the way you repeatedly make Jim's point for him. You write like a 4th grader. There are at least 10 misspelled words in your little contribution.

 

Stock 2.6L 13brew 255hp = 98.07hp per liter.

Stock Ls7 7.0L 500hp = 71.42hp per liter.

Hmmm it's odvious the 13b is over achieving. Mine lasted over 108k making that kind of power with it's much smaller displacment. You may not be impressed but I am.