Anyone know anything about Rotary Engines
#1
Posted 09 November 2005 - 04:09 PM
Let me know what you think
Ian
#2
Posted 09 November 2005 - 04:17 PM
#3
Posted 09 November 2005 - 04:18 PM
In a spaceframe'd car, you could use RWD and the rotary engine easily. But then it wouldn't really be a Mini, and you'd be looking silly money or lots of development time!
#5
Posted 09 November 2005 - 05:19 PM
#6
Posted 09 November 2005 - 06:27 PM
IMHO they have a high volume:surface area and historically they tend to run damn hot and be a tad unreliable and ineffecient.
I don't know about the later variants of the Wankel engines though?? P'raps there have been vast improvements!
by the way Ollie, nice spaceframe Mini! Is that one of yours then? lol
#7
Posted 09 November 2005 - 06:31 PM
It's currently my wallpaper :fear: :cool: :grin:
#8
Posted 09 November 2005 - 06:41 PM
I reckon that engine must need some serious cooling too.
Looks good though and definitely different. :grin:
#9
Posted 09 November 2005 - 06:45 PM
WANKELS
EDIT: Also worth noting is that these engines are not classed as a 1.3, they are generally rated at a higher capacity (something like a 2.6) for tax and emmissions bracketing (not sure about this country but certainly abroad)
Edited by mini mad me, 09 November 2005 - 06:47 PM.
#10
Posted 09 November 2005 - 06:48 PM
People harp on about bad reliability, no, they are more reliable than ANY normal piston engine, its just people don`t rebuild (replace rotor tips) when they are supposed to. Plus, complete engine rebuild, inc uprated tips etc will set you back around £500 in parts, and that will be a NEW engine! Engines are put together like a sandwich and aren`t that hard to do.
They would work amazingly in a mini, as they do prefer lighter loads.
Thing is, cost for doing it would completely outweigh the power increase. A VTEC with a turbo upgrade would be easier/cheaper in the long run.
#11
Posted 09 November 2005 - 06:56 PM
#12
Posted 09 November 2005 - 07:00 PM
But I have spoken to two RX-8 owners who reckon they regularly get less than 20 mpg from theirs! :saywhat: :erm:.......you would get 1.3 fuel econmy due to the low compression.......
Is this just them not driving properly??
#13
Posted 09 November 2005 - 07:16 PM
#14
Posted 09 November 2005 - 07:19 PM
#15
Posted 09 November 2005 - 07:19 PM
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users











