.. wow.. It's representative of the fact that a rotary engine of 1.3L is capable of competing with a domestic piston engine of 5+L. It's a statement that the technology in the rotary is far superior to that of a piston engine. The only people it's not relevant to are the north american mullet heads like you.
'Your understanding' is fairly typical of deep knowledge you and your ilk use to argue rotaries. That comparison weight is, IN CONTEXT, a short block, dry LS1 compared to a fully installed, wet long block in a car, 155kg to be exact. the weight of an aluminum block, short block LS1 with nothing but the oil pan and plastic intake manifold is ~300lbs.
Sure it will fit but so will a few cu/yd's of concrete.. When a rotary is sitting in an RX7 engine bay you can clearance a t90 turbo down both strut towers, you can mount a 26" deep IC in V mount.. you can hardly fit a honda battery into the engine bay with an LS1 in there.. yeah , they are
SOclose in size.. not.. try to at least use your proofs In context. A typical FC engine bay will fit a 4Rotor if chose to do so, easily.. as it is the 3 rotor requires very little movement to regain balance points ~7cm and car is back to 50-50
Trying to explain the limitations of the rotaries manufacturer baser to a rah rah domestic lover is at best futile.. however when GM was looking to beef up the power on the 72 corvette the intention was to use a 4 rotor.. NOT a piston engine. You might want to take a look around and see how many international and domestic sanctioning bodies have banned the rotaries use due to its power potential over piston engines.
As for the flagship sports car? thr rx8 you mean? it's NOT a sports car gump. it's the end result of Fords fingers in the pot.. they didn't want a sports car that would damage the sales of their mustang. Which a NEW rx7 at the price point they were shooting for, whould have done easily.. but that just allowed MAZDA to develp the next itteration of the rotary for use in the NEW rx7 .. a 16B. a 2 rotor motor developing as much power as the 3 rotor in a smaller, lighter package.
Those 'owners ' you speak of are 99% American based owners.. and as much as it pains you to hear I'm sure.. America is NOT the rest of the world.
To sum this up The rotary is and has been the number one engine of choice for non certified aircraft use. NOT the V8.. It's size, light weight, reliability under load, radial to radial power transfer, 3 moving parts, almost a complete lack of vibration/harmonics, and the fact that even if by chance one rotor is damaged and stops function.. the other chamber is self contained.. yeah that's bad technology alright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOTLFEDLT1
Power to litre ratio? Totally irrelevant, other than for use as a marketing tool, in anything other than a racing series that dictates caps on displacement. A high hp/litre ratio in itself means little to the end user.
The other two ratios you mentioned have relevance to performance. My understanding that an LS1, is within 20 lbs of the 13B. Please correct me if I am wrong. What does a fully dressed 13B weigh including turbo hardware?
Size to power? If a 422ci LS1 can fit into the same space that was occupied by a 1.3 rotary, wouldnt that ratio tilt in the favour of the v8????
If rotary engines represented superior technology than the piston engine, please explain a couple of things to me:
a) why it is used by by only one manufacturer on only one of their vehicles (and why versions of Mazda's economy car and family sedan are faster than their so-called flagship sports car. equiped with a rotary.)
b) why do owners with functioning rotary engines go through the trouble and expense of swapping out their engines for a piston powered one (supra i6, LT1, LS1, sbc's etc), yet very few swap in out their piston engines for rotaries?
|