Funny rotary ad - Page 2

03-14-2006 | 07:11 PM

#26

missinmahseven

Glitchy Rotary Madness

Joined: Jul 2003

Posts: 470

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Rotor

I remember that add and showed it to my wife and she rembered it too. Thanks, see if you remember this... it is BIZZAR!!
http://keith.miata.net/110S/index.html

Ha. That brochure.. the colors.. they burn my eyes!!!!

But still, I want a cosmo 110 so bad I can taste it.. x.x

Reply Like

03-14-2006 | 07:14 PM

#27

RoXanneBlack8

stop flooding ur engines

Joined: Jul 2005

Posts: 587

Likes: 1

From: NE

"is that each rotor generates two power pulses for each crankshaft rotation"

u got it the other way around. the exhaust phase takes 270 degrees of eccentric shaft rotation. it would take 540 degrees of rotation to make 2 ehaust pulses. the long exhaust phase is what helps give rotary engines such awesomely straight torque bands

Reply Like

03-14-2006 | 07:17 PM

#28

missinmahseven

Glitchy Rotary Madness

Joined: Jul 2003

Posts: 470

Likes: 0

Is it just me, or are 2 different threads being interleaved in this one? Some of the posts above read like they belong in the "Is it a 1.3 or 2.6 liter?"

o.O

Reply Like

03-15-2006 | 09:48 AM

#29

bd32322

Thread Starter

Registered

Joined: Jan 2006

Posts: 146

Likes: 0

From: Worcester, MA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Rotor

I remember that add and showed it to my wife and she rembered it too. Thanks, see if you remember this... it is BIZZAR!!
http://keith.miata.net/110S/index.html

wow - now thats a brochure - complete with technical info about the rotary and power curves and nice artistic graphics too (in my opinion).

Bodi

Reply Like

03-15-2006 | 09:55 AM

#30

Redshift

Spinning Dorito Junkie

iTrader: (2)

Joined: Jul 2003

Posts: 747

Likes: 1

From: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1.3L

I've read some threads where it is stated that the 1.3L Renesis engine should really be considered a 2.6L engine when compared to a conventional piston engine. The logic (I guess) is that each rotor generates two power pulses for each crankshaft rotation. I find this odd when thinking that 2-stroke engines have been compared straight across the board to 4-stroke engines in terms of displacement. That is to say, I've never heard of a 175cc 2-stroke called a 350, either by the manufacturer or 4-stroke competition.

In my simplistic thinking, displacement is displacement. Why should crankshaft rotation have anything to do with it? I say, Kudos to the engineers who figured out a way to get more bang with less movement.

1.3L

MotoGP racing: 500cc 2-strokes vs. 980cc 4-strokes
Motocross: 125cc 2-strokes are classed with 250cc 4-strokes
250cc 2-strokes are classed wtih 450cc 4-strokes

Edit: BTW, LOVE the commercial... I've had that song in my head for a couple of days now.

Last edited by Redshift; 03-15-2006 at 10:02 AM.