i think somebody needs to build a 6 rotar engine and stuff it in something

 

That'd be cost effective.

 

6 rotor? That's pretty wild and probably pretty tough to make. We're better off making a 3 or a commemorative 4 rotor (1991 LeMans winner) engine first. There's plenty of 3's out there and that's what they used in Japan's GT series RX-7... 3 rotor n/a. Not the most competitive car, but it had a win last season. They should make use of that compact engine and build some more displacement.... no replacement for...

 

as if cost effectiveness is really an issue when a butt load of car junkies throw away 80-100k into a car that is 10 years old.

 

lol, a 6-rotor would be longer than the car...

I would like to see a 3-rotor with larger rotors though. I'd even let them use my car to test it out!

 

ok so lets see someone scale the motor to a 1.95l motor and bumo the rotor size to match. we have all seen a 3 rotor so maybe a big *** 2 rotor would be cool

 

why not 8

 

Think of a fuel economy on that 6 rotor engine... btw if more car manufacturers were experimenting with a rotary engine it might have replaced a regular engine... and would be much more refined

 

6 rotor? 3 is heavy already and it would make the 50/50 balance go away and I don' think the handling would be that great.

 

Check out:

http://www.hurleyrotary.com/hme13b.aspx

Scroll to the bottom of the page...

:D

 

As far as I can remember, Mazda originally wanted the 8 to have a 3 rotor NA or a 2 rotor FI power plant.

However, even at the drawing board stage they realised that the fuel economy would be so poor (compared to the performance delivered) that no-one in their right mind would buy it (apart from very rich enthusiasts).

Mazda are owned by Ford, and Ford need money. A few rich enthusiasts were never going to help Ford with their money problems. What Ford needed was for Mazda to sell more volume - that meant a 2 rotor NA at most.

 

6 rotors? wow.

That (at 650cc each) would be equivelant to an 18 cylinder 8 litre pison engine and give 750bhp + in Renesis tune. Why? And that would be 3 times the Renesis fuel consumption :eeek:

You can add a 2 or 3 rotor with FA and get 800bhp for racing.

 

not that it matters but I think a 6 rotor would make more than 750bhp, thats about what the 4 rotor 1991 le mans winner was pushing out of there 4 rotor

 

In Renesis tune I said. Each rotor in the Renesis puts out ~125bhp, 6*125 = .....

Of course Forced induction (turbo pr supercharger), porting etc can up that but a 6 rotor engine isnt going to be used in any racing car, to big, heavy and uneconomical.

Much better to use a turbo 2 rotor or 3 rotor.

 

like i said stick it in Something. It could be a freaking funny car for all i care. if you have the money to dod a motor like this then you obviously dont really give a rats *** about the fuel consumption.

 

What about the new Ford GT......?

 

how about a 2.6l sinlge rotary ONE BIG ONE and then turbo that.

 

The 'new' forg GT is cobbled together from parts found all over the ford group. Very little development time or money was spent, and as they'll be making 4000+ of them it'll make money (but not a lot) , the whole project was only started as a 'halo' project for fords centenary.

mazda have done remarkably well getting out of the hole thew were in, their previous director(CEO) pushed a design lead restructure of the mazda product range and reduced the platform./parts count, so mazda are actualy making money now, even so the RX-8 needs to sell and make money, ford cant bail mazda out atm.

In fact ford were so impressed with mazda's imrovement they 'poached' the head guy, moved him to ford Europe.

 

My new C&D has a test between ferri, porsche and the GT..

The GT smoked them...

I am not sure how many parts are lifted from the corp bin, but I can not believe it is that many.

By the way, I am not a Ford fanboy, I really dislike the company, based on my SVO ownership...

FORD=Found On Road Dead...

 

6 rotor engine..900BHp! I wonder how much it cost Hurley engineering to make that.

 

I would have to imagine a 6 rotor would have concentric shaft problems. That would be a lot of stress. A one off is one thing, any sort of mass production is another. Maybe for an airplane or boat. Weight would be overcome by power. If we are fantasizing about interesting set ups for future cars, why not just have a 20b up front powering the front wheels, and another three rotor in the back to power the rear wheels with a clutch that controls boths transmissions.

 

I don't think it would be as bad as 3 times the fuel consumption, except at the track or anywhere you spend a lot of time at WOT.

During normal city and highway driving, I would expect that the fuel economy would be worse than a two rotor, but not by a whole lot. At least that is what I would expect.

 

WOO-HOO! 4WD, 50-50 weight distribution, and twin rotaries! Yeah! Torque this!

As a side bonus if one engine floods, you can "push start" the dud :D

 

Nubo I'm glad you like my idea. Now if I could just get some mechanical ability I would be fine. My other grand dream is a supercharger and turbo set up on the same engine, super for low end, turbo for the high end. But I have been told (on the 7 forum) compressing compressed air can be dangerous to the engine. But there has to be a way.

 

Old rally cars use to do both super and turbo back in the day (Peugeot or Citroen or some French co.). Now Turbos with ball bearings spool so quickly it's not effecient to have both.

I'd wait to see what Paul Yaw can do with a Super Charger for the Renesis engine. Hopefully they can hit their target 450 hp for the SpeedGT series. Unfortuanately, it takes a long time to tune everything and a lot of R and D.

I think Mazda can do a lot with the rotary block... sensors ect to be able to run different fuels, different compressions, new technologies, exotic fuels, etc. They have an advantage with the Hydrogen cars... we'll see if Pres. Bush keeps his promise of hydrogen powered cars in the US.