why not a 6 rotor motor
12-04-2003 | 05:53 PM
#26
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
A six rotor would have SERIOUS issues with eccentric shaft rigidity. Like NA-only-drag-car-1-season-then-its-done issues. would still be freakin cool, though.
BTW, I'm gonna build a compound forced induction (SC + turbo) for my project car. Its still in the "restore donor" phase right now, though.
EDIT: WTF!?! I'm not ZoomBlack...... ???
BTW, I'm gonna build a compound forced induction (SC + turbo) for my project car. Its still in the "restore donor" phase right now, though.
EDIT: WTF!?! I'm not ZoomBlack...... ???
12-04-2003 | 06:15 PM
#28
[rapidus octus]
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
From: Sydney, Australia
I like the idea of lots of rotors - but with a much smaller capacity...
How smoothe would a six rotor be with 300~350cc per rotor??? It's not going to happen until the design can become more fuel efficient.
Funny when you think about it - there haven't really been that many true inventors over the years. There's a lot of innovation and refinement, integration and optimisation, but not much that's truly new.
How smoothe would a six rotor be with 300~350cc per rotor??? It's not going to happen until the design can become more fuel efficient.
Funny when you think about it - there haven't really been that many true inventors over the years. There's a lot of innovation and refinement, integration and optimisation, but not much that's truly new.
12-04-2003 | 08:24 PM
#29
uhhhhh....hello?
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 0
i dont think they can use 3 rotors anymore because the overlap allows the unburned hydro carbons to escape
thats why they went to side porting
________
Depakote lawsuit info
thats why they went to side porting
________
Depakote lawsuit info
Last edited by P00Man; 04-16-2011 at 09:52 PM.
12-04-2003 | 11:37 PM
#30
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
From: Phila suburbs
Why not a 22 rotor motor, it should make a whopping 2600 hp and would be lighter than a 16 cylinder engine. c'mon ya'll know ya want it and ya can shift it mad quick yo! I'll bet 0-60 would be sub 4 second, dallmmmmnnn dog!
12-04-2003 | 11:40 PM
#31
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
From: Phila suburbs
Kev, back to a relatively serious note. The internal combustion engine has been around for 100+ years. Most of the performance upgrades (super and turbos, ICs, etc) have been out there for 70+ years. Even our beloved Wankel has been around for quite a while. Truly new technology is very hard to come by. It seems like we just keep getting improved versions of what we already have. Something truly new and innovative would be refreshing.
12-05-2003 | 03:57 AM
#32
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 1
Originally posted by Senseny
Kev, back to a relatively serious note. The internal combustion engine has been around for 100+ years. Most of the performance upgrades (super and turbos, ICs, etc) have been out there for 70+ years. Even our beloved Wankel has been around for quite a while. Truly new technology is very hard to come by. It seems like we just keep getting improved versions of what we already have. Something truly new and innovative would be refreshing.
Kev, back to a relatively serious note. The internal combustion engine has been around for 100+ years. Most of the performance upgrades (super and turbos, ICs, etc) have been out there for 70+ years. Even our beloved Wankel has been around for quite a while. Truly new technology is very hard to come by. It seems like we just keep getting improved versions of what we already have. Something truly new and innovative would be refreshing.
VTeck, variable capacity, electrostatic(camles)valves, common rail,multi valve ,new materials (alloys,ceramics) etc.
The piston engine has had an lot more man hours of development time than rotaries.
03-14-2008 | 10:41 AM
#39
The game changer!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 298
Likes: 1
From: Tx
Not if they engineer the 6 lobe e-shaft to have support bearings in the side housings to cut down on flexing. It would be no different than any in-line 6 cylinder engine with 7 main bearings. I don't see the 2Jz Supra engine having crank shaft problems. It's all in how you engineer it.
Last edited by T-von; 03-14-2008 at 10:48 AM.
03-14-2008 | 10:45 AM
#40
The game changer!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 298
Likes: 1
From: Tx
Stacking a rotary isn't the hard part. Knowing how to properly engineer the e-shaft is something obviously out of Hurley Engineering's capability. That's why it failed.
Last edited by T-von; 03-14-2008 at 10:49 AM.
03-14-2008 | 11:59 AM
#43
Huge hole is huge
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,191
Likes: 1
From: Joplin, MO
03-14-2008 | 01:18 PM
#47
03-14-2008 | 01:36 PM
#50
No, it'll become a supercharger!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:R...iston_pump.svg
It's still a rotary except it's not a triangle type rotary!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:R...iston_pump.svg
It's still a rotary except it's not a triangle type rotary!