Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

[/size]

OK, so now I have converted Rice, Smitt42 and GT-R32 to the truth that a 13B should be known as a 3.9 litre rotary engine. (Which of course is what I posted 20 pages or so back). All that's left is Birds, common over from the dark side and step into the light of knowledge, you're welcome too.

Mate, sorry. You never converted me. RICE has been beating this drum far longer than you have (since the early 1990s), I have known the man for nearly 10 years now. Indeed he has done it with great technical merit using concepts you fail to understand (revolutions and relatives to time). Eventually, he made this post:

http://www.ausrotary.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=158905

[/size]

So what's left in this quest...........the rotors only do 3,000 rpm................no, won that one already.

That only leaves one of my points to get agreement on, the ever difficult 2 stroke/cycle. It's hard because the rotary huggers like to throw in irrelevancies to muddy up the water, or use narrow meanings of words to stop comparisons, or when I try and use different words to help them gain understanding they accuse me of changing the terminology. This is the most difficult of the 3 arguments to win, because there are so many ways for them to get out of jail

Now we all know rotaries need oil in the combustion chamber like a 2 stroke/cycle engine. But that's not really enough evidence. We all know they sound like a 2 stroke, But that's not really enough evidence, but wait is it? Not in itself, but it is an indicator of something important. Every time a rotor face goes "past" the exhaust port it exhausts. Just like every time a 2 stroke/cycle piston goes "past" the exhaust port it exhausts. But in a 4 stroke it's only every second time the piston goes "past" the exhaust port it exhausts. I suppose they will pick on the generalisation of the word "past" because 4 strokes have valves so the piston doesn't go past the exhaust port it goes past the exhaust valve. Knit picking but I bet they use it to get out of jail.

How about this then. Every time a rotor's combustion face goes past the spark plug it fires. Just like every time a 2 stroke/cycle piston's combustion face goes past the the spark plug it fires. But in a 4 stroke it's only every second time the piston's combustion face goes past the spark plug that it fires. That's a bit better, no confusion with what "past" means, a spark plug is spark plug. Except rotaries have 2 of those, perhaps they will use that as an escape. Surely not, that's really grasping at straws. Let's see what they come up with this time.

Cheers

Gary

Gary, the silly thing is we agree on the 3.9L full (Wankel) cycle. Your failing is somehow thinking that the shaft revolutions are irrelevant and call the engine a 2 stroke. They simple aren't on any technical level.

All that's left is Birds, common over from the dark side and step into the light of knowledge, you're welcome too.

So what's left in this quest...........the rotors only do 3,000 rpm................no, won that one already.

F*** no. Your idea of knowledge is to ignore valid points and pay attention to only that which you want to hear. You also have a nasty habit of assuming you've "won" an argument. Typical engineer's ego. It's like you cover your ears, close your eyes and scream "I'm not listening, I'm not listening, you're wrong, you're wrong, why would you lie, why would Mazda lie". Why on Earth would I want a part in that?

What's left in this quest? How about every flawless argument I've presented you with that you choose to ignore. I think the last 23 pages are well representative of my ability to sustain my argument, so I'm going to leave it at that and let the audience decide for themselves, if they can be bothered reading this massive waste of space. By all means refute my last few points should you wish to have the last word in it all...but I'm going to spectate from now on (though I will probably be back knowing how much I love to shoot down poor arguments in flames).

I was just about to say we're due for another token one-liner, SAU Gary c*** sucker, but it looks like someone beat me to it.

100%.

Excellent. that seems the most realistic thing.

A rotary is like an alien compared to a piston engine, so trying to compare their workings and convert them to whichever stroke seems pointless to me.

This thread has been extremely helpful for me to understand rotaries tho... I had a fair idea, but seeing the pics of the degrees etc was extremely beneficial.

And now everyone knows why they make so much damn power, and turn such huge turbos!

I learnt to measure an engine's capacity by calculating the amount of swept volume in one combustion chamber, and multiplying it by the amount of chambers. Never heard anything about the crankshaft mentioned in that regard.

I generally use the "cc" method myself.

Easy and fairly accurate for volume/displament measuring in the shed.

Hardly the thing for modern automotive engineering though...I guess

Edited by madbung
Interesting history there. Phil Irving OBE, Repco Brabham designer, author of many books, actually did a study on rotary engine capacity in the '70's. Based on sound automotive principles he arrived at a capacity of ~3.2 litres for a 12A.

Cheers

Gary

do you know how he worked this out ,because a 12a is 1146 ,x3 =3.438

F*** no. Your idea of knowledge is to ignore valid points and pay attention to only that which you want to hear. You also have a nasty habit of assuming you've "won" an argument. Typical engineer's ego. It's like you cover your ears, close your eyes and scream "I'm not listening, I'm not listening, you're wrong, you're wrong, why would you lie, why would Mazda lie". Why on Earth would I want a part in that?

What's left in this quest? How about every flawless argument I've presented you with that you choose to ignore. I think the last 23 pages are well representative of my ability to sustain my argument, so I'm going to leave it at that and let the audience decide for themselves, if they can be bothered reading this massive waste of space. By all means refute my last few points should you wish to have the last word in it all...but I'm going to spectate from now on (though I will probably be back knowing how much I love to shoot down poor arguments in flames).

I was just about to say we're due for another token one-liner, SAU Gary c*** sucker, but it looks like someone beat me to it.

Thats a bit harsh.....but it did make me laugh :D

Edited by ylwgtr2
I learnt to measure an engine's capacity by calculating the amount of swept volume in one combustion chamber, and multiplying it by the amount of chambers. Never heard anything about the crankshaft mentioned in that regard.

That would leave you with 1308cc for a 13B. 2x 654cc combustion chambers. And funnily enough it's what Mazda use, LOL. Using this will give the rotary an advantage, which is Gary's beef.

To equalise the Wankel to a 4 stroke in a simple, theoretical sense, you need to double this as the Wankel makes power from both chambers for every revolution (360 degrees) of the (crank) shaft, where a 4 stroke will not (720 degrees). This is the relative time scale to output that some people really battle with. FYI, this doesn't take into account rotary efficiencies as CAMS and FIA do a x1.79.

That would leave you with 1308cc for a 13B. 2x 654cc combustion chambers. And funnily enough it's what Mazda use, LOL. Using this will give the rotary an advantage, which is Gary's beef.

No I wouldnt because a rotor has 3 combustion surfaces and there are 2 rotors. Therefore is it 6 x 654 = 3.9L.

No I wouldnt because a rotor has 3 combustion surfaces and there are 2 rotors. Therefore is it 6 x 654 = 3.9L.

Very much what I calculate it being as well.Now as to wether its a 2 stroke or 4 stroke...? It definately isnt a 4 stroke , Its a lot closer to being a 2 stroke but isnt quite there yet either.....Had it only have had 2 sides to the rotor I would then be calling it a 2 stroke but this isnt the case..With the Rotor being Triangular and having a 3rd face it throws the whole lot out...Its almost like a 1 and a 3rd stroke engine.....will keep an eye on this thread...interesting

[/size]

OK, so now I have converted Rice, Smitt42 and GT-R32 to the truth that a 13B should be known as a 3.9 litre rotary engine. (Which of course is what I posted 20 pages or so back). All that's left is Birds, common over from the dark side and step into the light of knowledge, you're welcome too.

high_horse.jpg

No I wouldnt because a rotor has 3 combustion surfaces and there are 2 rotors. Therefore is it 6 x 654 = 3.9L.

You said combustion chamber, originally. That's place where the 'surfaces' pass through for their power pulse. I do agree that all sides should be counted in displacement.

LOL Cam.

I'll be honest i only made it throught the first 10 pages, then the last 4 pages...but,

They don't suck.

It's the small minded people that don't know anything about them that give them a bad wrap. I have owned 3 and I never had a single problem with them at all and I dare say the people that bad mouth them have never even owned one.

Just like anything mechanical (and female) they can have issues when mistreated.

Agreed. I've owned 3 Rotary's and they were the most fun I've ever had with cars. I've even destroyed a engine @ 110 kph (i stripped the teeth from the stationary gear), and it still would start....yes it would only idle @4k+ :huh: , but it still would start.

It's like anything, look after it and it will look after you.

Can you get diesel rotaries?

Short Answer...no, with a but.

Long Answer.... Yes, with a shitload of $$$, R&D and added weight.

You said combustion chamber, originally. That's place where the 'surfaces' pass through for their power pulse. I do agree that all sides should be counted in displacement.

LOL Cam.

Lol smart ass! Well you know what I meant!

Lol smart ass! Well you know what I meant!

I know exactly what you meant. But it all needs to be in perspective.

See the following for a RX8:

WankelCyclesLi.jpg

It compares to a 1.3 litre two stroke. 360 degree crank rotation completes cycles.

It compares to a 2.6 litre four stroke. 720 degree crank rotation completes cycles. <-- learn more about the engine in your car if you don't get this!

It compares to a 3.9 litre six stroke. 1080 degree crank rotation completes cycles.

Look at this and think about how it fires:

injectiontimingfd.jpg

The bar at the bottom sums it up. The rotary-pistons might only 'rotate' at 3000RPM for the 9000RPM where the BHP is measured, but the rotor fires 3 times per revolution (3x 3000 of 654cc x2) and once per crank revolution (9000 x 654cc x2). Hence the noise - where it reflects 9000RPM of 654c x2 volume of combustion per revolution despite rotor speed (and as I have been saying is like discussing piston speed!).

F*** no. Your idea of knowledge is to ignore valid points and pay attention to only that which you want to hear.

I'm sorry but I beleive I have addressed every one of your so called valid points and ober ruled them with alternative and valid mathematics, sound engineering principles

You also have a nasty habit of assuming you've "won" an argument. Typical engineer's ego. It's like you cover your ears, close your eyes and scream "I'm not listening, I'm not listening, you're wrong, you're wrong, why would you lie, why would Mazda lie". Why on Earth would I want a part in that?

Do you agree that a 13B is a 3.9 litre roatry engine? Please note that I am not asking you whether or not that's the same as a 3.9 litre piston engine. What I am asking you is very specific, is a 13B a 3.9 litre rotary engine or not.

The next question do the rotors in a 13B do 3,000 rpm (call it cycles or orbits if you wish) when the crankshaft is doing 9,000 rpm? Please note that I am not asking you whether or not that's the same as 3,000 rpm of the pistons in piston engine. What I am asking you is very specific, do the rotors do 3,000 rpm or not.

What's left in this quest? How about every flawless argument I've presented you with that you choose to ignore.

I haven't ignored them, I believe I have answered every one of them and given an appropriate alternative argument, justified and supported.

Of course you believe your arguments are flawless, just as I believe mine are. The difference is you are basing your arguments on the unque ways Mazda choose to value the capacity of their rotary engines. Which is not the same way as any other engien manufacturer. In fact it's not the same way as Mazda value the capacity of their other engines. Whereas I am basing my arguments on what every other engine manufacturer does. So yes, your arguments are flawless if you are only looking at how Mazda do it, but I have countered that with what every onther engine manufacturer does. that;s why I beleive my flawless arguments are more flawless than yours.

At this point I feel quite justifed in calling pot, kettle, black. You completely refuse to accept the undeniable fact that only Mazda with their rotary engines use eccentric shaft degrees to measure capacity. So if anyone is ignoring flawles arguments it's you.

I think the last 23 pages are well representative of my ability to sustain my argument, so I'm going to leave it at that and let the audience decide for themselves, if they can be bothered reading this massive waste of space. By all means refute my last few points should you wish to have the last word in it all...but I'm going to spectate from now on (though I will probably be back knowing how much I love to shoot down poor arguments in flames).

Well let's get on with it then, I'm still feeling fireproof.

BTW, I haven't quoted the last line of your post because I believe it contributes nothing to the discussion.

Cheers

Gary

The difference is you are basing your arguments on the unque ways Mazda choose to value the capacity of their rotary engines. Which is not the same way as any other engien manufacturer. In fact it's not the same way as Mazda value the capacity of their other engines. Whereas I am basing my arguments on what every other engine manufacturer does. So yes, your arguments are flawless if you are only looking at how Mazda do it, but I have countered that with what every onther engine manufacturer does. that;s why I beleive my flawless arguments are more flawless than yours.

Cheers

Gary

the way mazda value the capacity of the rotary engine is not unque, or unique to mazda .other manufacturers of rotary engines have done the same thing,so it is the same as other engien manufacturers or other engine manufacturers

Edited by ~rx3~

Bugger me. We finally have the answer. Those Wankels suck. Really hard! 3.9ltr worth per Wankel cycle. No wonder the little f@%kers go hard! And chew the gas?

Terrific read, most informative.

Thanks guys.

:D

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...