400hp 1.5 3 cylinder

[THE_Liam]

I've never had a car that used anywhere near that amount of oil, worst was my Golf using about a litre in 5k but that was on 170k and blue smoked like f*ck...

[Rippthrough]

And you couldn't hardly say they have "torque off idle"...

That RX-8 we had would piss all over any 2 litre petrol for low down torque.

[Ruan]

Well, that looks like about 100lb.ft off idle rising to about 160lb.ft at peak power.



That's a GTi180 - looks to be making about the same torque at about 2500rpm as the more powerful rotary.

But to be honest - this is the reality:

[Piggy]

Yeah they dont have much torque to talk of

But wring its neck and you wont stop smiling

[Ruan]

Totally - I'd f*cking adore one.

They sound like a strimmer, require lots of sympathy, but they are epic.

[THE_Liam]

They do sound epic. Fact is they're a novelty and nothing more, I'm surprised they haven't caught on more where size and weight is an issue, like Caterhams...

Or a 13B powered bike?!?! OMG!!!

[Martin306]

Think about what generates hp, it's torque over tiem.

So, lots of rpms and torque which is meh, gives high hp output. That's why people bang on about VTEC as well, it genuinely has no torque but the hp figure is good.

Torque is what gives you acceleration not hp.

So you need to rev feck out of rotary cos it got no torks. So Mazda fit short gears, so it revs faster which is a torque multiplier.


All in all, I'm just talking shit because I don't like rotary

[Dum-Dum]

They do sound epic. Fact is they're a novelty and nothing more, I'm surprised they haven't caught on more where size and weight is an issue, like Caterhams...

Or a 13B powered bike?!?! OMG!!!

I'm not, look at the hayabusa engines. 1300cc, and about 180bhp and 150lb/ft and weigh f*ck all

[Ruan]

My bottom are they 150lb.ft!

100lb.ft barely.

Skin and rice pudding springs to mind!



95lb.ft.

And a Hayabusa engine is considered pretty torquey!!!

[Dum-Dum]

Ruan, my bad

The older busa is 173bhp and just shy of 100lb/ft
the newer busa is 197bhp and just over 100lb/ft

Still with the PTW of the engine itself its a far better option in a bike than a 13B

[Rippthrough]

Torque is what gives you acceleration not hp.

This bit.

All in all, I'm just talking shit because I don't like rotary

Confirms this bit.

---

Ruan, my bad

The older busa is 173bhp and just shy of 100lb/ft
the newer busa is 197bhp and just over 100lb/ft

Still with the PTW of the engine itself its a far better option in a bike than a 13B

zx-14 will make over 120lbft with an exhaust and remap...

But f*ck it all, you want this:

http://www.holeshot-racing.co.uk/images/...121124.pdf

[procta]

just think in 10 years time what the engine tech will be like, compare a 1.8 from the 70s to a 1.8 now. The 70s 1.8 was like a 1.4 power wise of the 90s!

[THE_Liam]

I always tend to use the Constantly Very Harsh as an example. 132bhp from a turbocharged 1.6 is crap.

[Piggy]

They did do a rotarg engined motorbike

[THE_Liam]

They did do a rotarg engined motorbike

Norton? That's the only one I know of. I more meant the fact that a 13B would easily fit in a mid-sized bike. The Norton rotary was shit apparently.

[Piggy]

Mazda did one...
wanted to race it too, but too many arguments over what actuall capacity it was, so couldnt get in any races!

[Martin306]

Torque is what gives you acceleration not hp.

This bit.

All in all, I'm just talking shit because I don't like rotary

Confirms this bit.

So uhh, I don't understand what is shit in that statement I made?

Torque is what provides you with acceleration. Engines naturally produce torque, not hp. The "stroke" of a rotary is small, it's momentum is low therefore it has low torque.

Good night!

[THE_Liam]

Mazda did one...
wanted to race it too, but too many arguments over what actuall capacity it was, so couldnt get in any races!

I thought of another as well, Suzuki RE5.

[Toms306]

just think in 10 years time what the engine tech will be like, compare a 1.8 from the 70s to a 1.8 now. The 70s 1.8 was like a 1.4 power wise of the 90s!

In 10 years I reckon there'll be no more 1.8s coming out in new road cars.

I can see the conversations now... "Do you remember back in the 2000s, when we were driving 2 litre diesels with only 90bhp and only getting 50mpg....now the 1.0TFSi does 80mpg and has 140bhp..."

That said, petrol will probably be over £3 a litre....

[Rippthrough]

So uhh, I don't understand what is shit in that statement I made?

Torque is what provides you with acceleration. Engines naturally produce torque, not hp. The "stroke" of a rotary is small, it's momentum is low therefore it has low torque.

Good night!

Wheel torque provides acceleration.

Wheel torque for any given speed is directly related to engine power. Not engine torque.

As for the stroke of a rotary being small meaning it makes low torque, that's actually pretty wrong, the eccentric shaft is geared up by 3x compared to the rotors, the rotors are actually making 3x the torque force you see at the end of the eccentric shaft - if it could work on a straight 1:1 shaft you'd see nearly 500lbft, albeit with a 3krpm limit...

[Ruan]

So uhh, I don't understand what is shit in that statement I made?

Torque is what provides you with acceleration. Engines naturally produce torque, not hp. The "stroke" of a rotary is small, it's momentum is low therefore it has low torque.

Good night!

Wheel torque provides acceleration.

Wheel torque for any given speed is directly related to engine power. Not engine torque.

As for the stroke of a rotary being small meaning it makes low torque, that's actually pretty wrong, the eccentric shaft is geared up by 3x compared to the rotors, the rotors are actually making 3x the torque force you see at the end of the eccentric shaft - if it could work on a straight 1:1 shaft you'd see nearly 500lbft, albeit with a 3krpm limit...

Surely the same goes for a conventional piston engine, if you increased the crank throw you'd see much higher torque levels?

Hmm, or is that just because you're gearing it up rather...

I can't work it out, but f*ck it.

Yes I do want a V8 boosted 'busa engine.

[Martin306]

Ripp, just face it. Rotary engines are shit otherwise everyone would be using them.

[THE_Liam]

Ripp, just face it. Rotary engines are shit otherwise everyone would be using them.

Not shit in every way, just some ways. The way they rev is brilliant and the smoothness is amazing, not to mention the sound.

[Rippthrough]

Ripp, just face it. Rotary engines are shit otherwise everyone would be using them.

Diesel engines are shit, people still use those.
Ruan, it's just because you're gearing it up, if you changed the stroke on a normal engine that's not the same thing, and still wouldn't have the same effect.

The power density of the rotary is fantastic, so is the breadth of the torque curve on the modern ones.

[Ruan]

Ripp, just face it. Rotary engines are shit otherwise everyone would be using them.

Not shit in every way, just some ways. The way they rev is brilliant and the smoothness is amazing, not to mention the sound.

[video=youtube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LSOaWNOfEQ[/video]

Sound epic don't they

[Martin306]

If you want smoothness, just add more cylinders. Also, the more cylinders you have the better the noise.

Diesel is full of win! Runs on anything, they're not fussy.

[THE_Liam]

Even a V12 isn't as smooth as a good Wankel...

[Martin306]

Even a V12 isn't as smooth as a good Wankel...

What about 18 or even 28 cylinders?

I am being silly now btw, but engines that size do exist.

[THE_Liam]

I've seen V16s, there was an old Cadillac V16 at the Lakeland museum, would love to have a go.

[Rippthrough]

Diesel is full of win! Runs on anything, they're not fussy.

If you want something that runs on anything, it's hard to look past a nice jet turbine...