kevinrogick

Reading through info on rotary engines, the lack of power and torque from the rotors comes from the big combustion chamber that's created when the rotor closes off its cycle. Big space = less localized power. Pistons don't have this problem. The 20B dealt with this by having three rotors. The 16X has 20% more torque by altering the epitrochoid curves, making the block out of aluminum, yadda yadda yadda.

My point is this. Would it be possible to make a 3-rotor engine, smaller than the 20B, with the same achievements as the 16X? I figure 3 medium-sized combustion chambers would be more efficient than 2 large ones without being as massive and expensive as the 20B. Hypothetically, what are the advantages and disadvantages of a 3-rotor, 1.8-Liter rotary engine?

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

No

because you need the room to turn the E-shaft to create reasonable torque.

biggest problem is emission ---- if they keep the Peripheral Port then we should be in the 300 hp range already ---- but it will never pass emission.


don't forget we have tons of stupid politicians kept crying about mpg/emission every other day just to get votes from tree huggers. who knows nothing about science. its just not gonna happen (3 rotor of anything)

Aluminum Side housing biggest benefit --- it's lighter (just compare Iron housing vs Aluminum housing right now it cuts weight like 1/2),

plus I have a feeling they will give up gas nitride spray and use plasma spray instead. if they do that it will greatly increase the wear resistance.

monchie

Someone very very smart like Albert Einstein or Bill Gates will design and create one, you'll see.

kevinrogick

Sounds like you know what I'm asking about. I'd like to know more about the torque aspect of a rotor interacting with the E-shaft because I really wanna know if a third rotor, albeit smaller, could not only compensate but add to the torque that smaller rotors would output. With the 13B, each rotor puts out 1.3 / 2 = 0.65 Liters. The 16X does 1.6 = 0.8 Liters per rotor. So I wanna do the math for three 0.6-Liter rotors and their output, size necessities and such....

So what do you think about the 16X and its new tech, the fuel injection, the new rotor shape, as well as upcoming tech like laser fuel ignition and such, could that make its way into a 20B Junior? I still find it difficult to believe there's nothing that can be done with such a genius design like the Wankel.....in your opinion, what could be done to make this theoretical engine cleaner-burning, better mpg's? I can think of a few things:
- The redesign of the 16X plus....
- Laser fuel ignition currently being tested
- Higher compression (Mazda's really on this with their Sky series)
- Bring back the damn turbos! (suddenly European cars are using turbos for this magical increase in power and efficiency)
I get that this theory's far-fetched. But I love the history of this thing. So I'd like to think it could exist.

maskedferret

iTrader: (1)

I'm hoping Albert Einstein will do it ...

8 Maniac

iTrader: (1)

I hate to derail this thread, but you brought it up... so I'm going counter that. There are quite a few well founded, undisputed reasons why we should be trying to improve gas mileage and reduce emissions. Your comment is just as unscientific as those you critique for knowing nothing of science.

On a note more related to the topic... This does have me curious now, as it's not something I've though about. How would a 2-rotor and 3-rotor of the same volume compare? Ignoring complexities of production or costs involved, which would perform better in terms of power and gas mileage?

bse50

Narrower housings are part of the 16x improvements as well. You could build a 20b using 13A parts if they're still available. Those engines should have narrower housings if i'm not mistaken.
Fujita eng. also made a 4 rotor 2.4l engine anyway... youtube it!

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

I don't know everything (I ain't Einstein) but one fact I do know is that, they forced/came up with all these "CAFE/MPG" requirements solely based on "Voters", NOT science and we all know it. Safer cars/lower emission are always good. but they go against each other simply because safer cars will ALWAYS means you have to install more equipment, but that also brings weight. Lower emission/higher mpg means you have to get things done as light as possible.

it can be done, but it will drive the price up, when that happens, everything else goes up, more inflation.

but hey we don't have any long term plans anyway (all these debts, sheesh) what does it matter? as long as the voters vote me AGAIN @ the next election. oh yeah.


to get more Torque, the formula is pretty simple, its just the distance x Force = Torque.

Why Rotary engine (NA at least) has so little torque because the distance between the center of the e-shaft is short.

After 3-4 decades, they know 13B design is running out of breathe, in order to stay competitive, they have to re-design. So they increase the stroke to improve torque production. decreasing width to improve thermal efficiency. (and other stuff)


Turbo is a simple "for the time being" answer for better hp/tq production. but in the long run, they still have to bring back better NA. cuz from a Manufacture point of view, the more stuff you install (Turbo, and all its related stuff, bigger radiator, etc), the higher the production and warranty cost (things break all the time).

Right now Mazda should be done with the power production of the engine, probably working hard on the emission side cuz if I'm Mazda or any auto company, I want the design that I spent millions on it will be able to last for the next 10-15 years.

as much as we love this engine, it has quite a lot of fundamental shortcomings. Mazda spent literary decades to fight these problems one by one. some rumor online said that they're testing a prototype under the hood of a Mazda6 body. dunno if its true, gotta wait and see.

kevinrogick

I get what the other posts have pretty much cemented, the lack of torque is because the distance between the center of the e-shaft is short. I'd figure that a 3-rotor, 1.8 Liter "20B Junior" would use fuel more efficiently due to less space the air/fuel mixture would have to fill in the combustion chamber. The power would come in smoother since it'd be coming from three rotors, and the combination of fuel injection and laser fuel ignition would create a more complete fuel burn.

Comparing, say, a 16X's 1.6-Liter displacement divided between 2 rotors vs., 3 rotors, I'm positive the 3 rotors would outperform in HP, torque, and efficiency.

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

3 rotor will outperform in HP & Torque for sure. but not efficiency.

Again, they cannot release a 3 Rotor "street" car because Japan has very strict emission laws. They even had this "280hp" limit for a long time, that's why FD/GT-R/NSX/etc were all "capped" at 280hp although it can run MUCH higher than that, stock.

They just lifted that restriction couple years ago, that's why you start seeing "over 280 hp, stock" cars without paying the hefty tax in Japanese market.

kevinrogick

^^^ that didn't really address what I'm asking about.....I know that Japan has strict emission laws. Last post had more answers. Here's what I wanna know:
What could be done to improve emissions in a 1.8 liter 3-rotor engine? Remember it's all theoretical and there's tech out there that could apply here.

Rather than saying it can't happen, what would have to be done to make it happen? Not laws or any of that, I mean physical improvements to the rotors, e-shaft, housing, seals, injectors, ports, any part of the engine. If this 20B Junior showed up on the market, what innovations would it use to be a breakthrough in the present?

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

The easiest way is to use the lightest and Strongest material, when things are lighter and stronger,it can be push faster and much harder, but it comes with cost. And No one will buy a mazda if the engine cost 15 grand alone.

For example, the Side housing - aluminum is not even new. But It took 40 something years of technology improvement for mazda to finally be able to make aluminum side housing affordable for the next engine.

Mazda tested aluminum 3 rotors back in 80s. It ran really well BUT the production cost was too high and they went back to cast iron.

When you look at mazda's 16x info. You know those guys are trying really really hard. Last displament increase was like 20 something 30 years ago and it did help rotary engine to make better power and better mpg. Increasing displacement is not easy because there are a lot of unknows. And they are targeting all the known fundenatial problem with all prior engine designs.

Will talk about it more later, i am using an ipad now and typing on this thing is such a nightmare

kevinrogick

Yea I completely agree, those guys are striving to make it work. I wanna find out more about the "unknowns" limiting the displacement. If you could add on to what you were writing about I'd really appreciate it. Seems like tech that's right around the corner, as well as innovations done by aftermarket rotary shops, could all add up to make a beast.