12.3L engine in our RX-8?
07-05-2007 | 05:03 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
12.3L engine in our RX-8?
I was looking at the RX8 information on wikipedia a while ago and when I checked it out again today, I noticed this was added.
The RX-8 is powered by a 12.3 L (1,308 cc) naturally-aspirated Renesis rotary engine, which features newly designed side intake and exhaust ports, versus peripheral exhaust ports of its predecessor the 13B-REW. The engine is smaller and lighter than previous rotaries, primarily due to the lack of a turbocharger and associated parts. Prior to popular belief, the engine IS in fact, 12.3 liters in displacement. It is not 1.3L and Mazda has recently admitted this. Because rotaries have multiple combustion chambers per rotary, the displacement of all the combustion chambers must be measured for true displacement. When measured fully, it comes out to 12.3L. Mazda had said it was 1.3L before to make the horsepower/liter ratio appear impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8
Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting to know.
The RX-8 is powered by a 12.3 L (1,308 cc) naturally-aspirated Renesis rotary engine, which features newly designed side intake and exhaust ports, versus peripheral exhaust ports of its predecessor the 13B-REW. The engine is smaller and lighter than previous rotaries, primarily due to the lack of a turbocharger and associated parts. Prior to popular belief, the engine IS in fact, 12.3 liters in displacement. It is not 1.3L and Mazda has recently admitted this. Because rotaries have multiple combustion chambers per rotary, the displacement of all the combustion chambers must be measured for true displacement. When measured fully, it comes out to 12.3L. Mazda had said it was 1.3L before to make the horsepower/liter ratio appear impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8
Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting to know.
07-05-2007 | 06:20 PM
#9
Registered
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
From: Milan, Michigan
I was looking at the RX8 information on wikipedia a while ago and when I checked it out again today, I noticed this was added.
The RX-8 is powered by a 12.3 L (1,308 cc) naturally-aspirated Renesis rotary engine, which features newly designed side intake and exhaust ports, versus peripheral exhaust ports of its predecessor the 13B-REW. The engine is smaller and lighter than previous rotaries, primarily due to the lack of a turbocharger and associated parts. Prior to popular belief, the engine IS in fact, 12.3 liters in displacement. It is not 1.3L and Mazda has recently admitted this. Because rotaries have multiple combustion chambers per rotary, the displacement of all the combustion chambers must be measured for true displacement. When measured fully, it comes out to 12.3L. Mazda had said it was 1.3L before to make the horsepower/liter ratio appear impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8
Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting to know.
The RX-8 is powered by a 12.3 L (1,308 cc) naturally-aspirated Renesis rotary engine, which features newly designed side intake and exhaust ports, versus peripheral exhaust ports of its predecessor the 13B-REW. The engine is smaller and lighter than previous rotaries, primarily due to the lack of a turbocharger and associated parts. Prior to popular belief, the engine IS in fact, 12.3 liters in displacement. It is not 1.3L and Mazda has recently admitted this. Because rotaries have multiple combustion chambers per rotary, the displacement of all the combustion chambers must be measured for true displacement. When measured fully, it comes out to 12.3L. Mazda had said it was 1.3L before to make the horsepower/liter ratio appear impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8
Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting to know.
07-05-2007 | 08:09 PM
#16
Rotary Crawfish
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 468
Likes: 21
From: Da swamps of La.
Is this dude on crack?!?!! I just checked Wikipedia and it says 1.3L [1308cc]
Where did he see this BS about 12.3L?? the only referece to size anomolies was that it should be a 2.6L instead of 1.3L
Where did he see this BS about 12.3L?? the only referece to size anomolies was that it should be a 2.6L instead of 1.3L
07-05-2007 | 08:15 PM
#18
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 3
From: Mississauga, ON
07-05-2007 | 09:15 PM
#19
Registered
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 25
From: Houston
Then it was probably a person that didn't know very much about rotaries who was reading the specs off of another site that had it typed wrong. He just copied what he saw without really knowing anything. I'd believe that. The perfect example is the 7 forum. It's full of mindless lemmings who know nothing about rotaries but just repeat what they saw, heard, or read elsewhere. It was probably someone like that who typed that.
07-06-2007 | 10:21 AM
#23
the shit starter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
From: Houston
Then it was probably a person that didn't know very much about rotaries who was reading the specs off of another site that had it typed wrong. He just copied what he saw without really knowing anything. I'd believe that. The perfect example is the 7 forum. It's full of mindless lemmings who know nothing about rotaries but just repeat what they saw, heard, or read elsewhere. It was probably someone like that who typed that.
sometimes I feel like that's me, and then other people post more relevant information. Always smarter too listen too people that can back themselves up.
07-06-2007 | 10:56 AM
#24
Then it was probably a person that didn't know very much about rotaries who was reading the specs off of another site that had it typed wrong. He just copied what he saw without really knowing anything. I'd believe that. The perfect example is the 7 forum. It's full of mindless lemmings who know nothing about rotaries but just repeat what they saw, heard, or read elsewhere. It was probably someone like that who typed that.
and this forum is different?
07-06-2007 | 11:05 AM
#25
Registered
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 558
Likes: 3
From: Richland, WA
Anyone can be a wikipedia expert.
Unlike traditional encyclopedias that invite known experts to write for articles within their field, wikipedia allows anyone who contacts them to write about a subject as long as it is still available. If you disagree with what is written in wikipedia, and can prove to them that you know better, they will transfer the subject to you. If you search wikipedia for a topic and find no entry, feel free to write whatever you want about it and submit it. Chances are they will publish it for you, but this in no way establishes you as an expert.
Basically, wikipedia is a glorified message board that presents itself as a reference. Think of it as information for the masses . . . by tools, for tools.
Unlike traditional encyclopedias that invite known experts to write for articles within their field, wikipedia allows anyone who contacts them to write about a subject as long as it is still available. If you disagree with what is written in wikipedia, and can prove to them that you know better, they will transfer the subject to you. If you search wikipedia for a topic and find no entry, feel free to write whatever you want about it and submit it. Chances are they will publish it for you, but this in no way establishes you as an expert.
Basically, wikipedia is a glorified message board that presents itself as a reference. Think of it as information for the masses . . . by tools, for tools.