1 rotor = half the gas consumption of two ?
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North Hollywood
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 rotor = half the gas consumption of two ?
I was wondering why they haven't considered using the rotary in a more economical and cheaper car, ...I'm by now means an engineer, but was wondering if a 1 rotor rotary would suffice for this ?
120hp and around 30mpg ? This would definitely do for most cars, ...and...maybe cheaper to produce?
120hp and around 30mpg ? This would definitely do for most cars, ...and...maybe cheaper to produce?
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North Hollywood
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it's off, it has to be, I was jsut wondering if a one rotor was possible, and if maybe it would be better on the gas, and or cheaper to produce ?
#4
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the sense that anything is possible, it's possible. As I recall, the Mazda rotary prototype was a single rotor.
Since Mazda is the only auto manufacturer building rotaries it is totally up to them whether another, smaller version ever gets built and sold.
IMHO, it isn't going to happen. Alternative (and yes sometimes quirky) powerplants are going to be very hard to market to the low end of the market. People who buying at the low end want cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, reliable transportation. they don't really care what's under the hood. The rotary is a selling feature in a high-end sports car. In an economy car it would be "so what".
Since Mazda is the only auto manufacturer building rotaries it is totally up to them whether another, smaller version ever gets built and sold.
IMHO, it isn't going to happen. Alternative (and yes sometimes quirky) powerplants are going to be very hard to market to the low end of the market. People who buying at the low end want cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, reliable transportation. they don't really care what's under the hood. The rotary is a selling feature in a high-end sports car. In an economy car it would be "so what".
#6
Mulligan User
iTrader: (1)
using your equation, would you want a 119hp, 78ft/lb single rotor coupe while a similarly priced (i'd guess) 2+2 entry coupe would feature a large displacement 4 cylinder engine making anywhere from 130-160hp, AND 120+ft/lb of torque??
the 2 rotor is already barely 'practical', would anyone looking in the 'value' class of cars even consider it??
the 2 rotor is already barely 'practical', would anyone looking in the 'value' class of cars even consider it??
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that the dual rotor is far superior to the single in ways other than it uses double the gas. First, I believe the single rotor motors are not balanced like the doubles, and thus would need some sort of a harmonic balancer. Not to mention it wouldn't be nearly as smooth since it'd be firing half as often.
#9
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh, a dreamer like me...LOL
A rotary weighs more than a I-4 yet less than some V-6 & probably all V-8's. So, for a small car it would probably not be a good choice. Also, as others have said, considering that the rotary is still not as efficient with fuel as I-4's, most V-6, and heck even a few V-8's why put it into another car other than a sports car?
The weight savings, layout, and HP per size is a good thing while us rotary owners can close our eyes to the fuel ecnomy because well...it's expected. I don't think I would build rotaries if I owned a car company (just not worth the money and effort needed) and that is why Mazda is alone in the rotary department.
Honestly, I wish more companies got involved so there could be a chance for a breakthrough with the old rotary...and I still hope and dream about it, but it seems it might always be just a special motor but not a common or efficient one.
One bright side, they (Mazda and some others) say Hydro fuel really works well with the rotary engine so maybe it's the "OLD" engine design of the future...LOL, maybe the rotary was just created before it's time...in cars that is.
A rotary weighs more than a I-4 yet less than some V-6 & probably all V-8's. So, for a small car it would probably not be a good choice. Also, as others have said, considering that the rotary is still not as efficient with fuel as I-4's, most V-6, and heck even a few V-8's why put it into another car other than a sports car?
The weight savings, layout, and HP per size is a good thing while us rotary owners can close our eyes to the fuel ecnomy because well...it's expected. I don't think I would build rotaries if I owned a car company (just not worth the money and effort needed) and that is why Mazda is alone in the rotary department.
Honestly, I wish more companies got involved so there could be a chance for a breakthrough with the old rotary...and I still hope and dream about it, but it seems it might always be just a special motor but not a common or efficient one.
One bright side, they (Mazda and some others) say Hydro fuel really works well with the rotary engine so maybe it's the "OLD" engine design of the future...LOL, maybe the rotary was just created before it's time...in cars that is.
#10
btw, there were threads a few months back about getting the rx8 to turn off half of the engine for better fuel economy at crusing speeds. You'd have to do a search to find it.
#12
Piston Traitor
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: McKinney, Tx
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rx8wannahave
I don't think I would build rotaries if I owned a car company (just not worth the money and effort needed) and that is why Mazda is alone in the rotary department.
Honestly, I wish more companies got involved so there could be a chance for a breakthrough with the old rotary...and I still hope and dream about it, but it seems it might always be just a special motor but not a common or efficient one.
Honestly, I wish more companies got involved so there could be a chance for a breakthrough with the old rotary...and I still hope and dream about it, but it seems it might always be just a special motor but not a common or efficient one.
Ok, just realized I was a little off subject so just ignore this post. :D
#13
Registered
Last summer I rigged my RX-7 up to run on 1 rotor at the flick of a switch because I had the same question. What I found was that it had far less than half the power of 2 rotor mode and it vibrated like crazy. Max speed floored was about 50 mph. My engine is ported too. If you tried to accelerate in 1 rotor mode, you'd lose a race to a Geo Metro who started out in 5th gear. It is that bad. I had postulated that even if a slightly rich a/f ratio was needed in 1 rotor mode to keep it running, that it would still be less fuel than for 2 rotors. I'm not sure how that worked out though since the car wasn't fast enough for freeway use and to shut a rotor off on any other form of road was for such a short time that it didn't do anything useful. The project was abandoned.
#14
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North Hollywood
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm....thats interesting, ..you think if they designed the engine for one rotor from the ground up they could get different results ? my only reasoning is, ...that engine was designed for 2 rotors, ...maybe something could be different. ...
awsome test though...
awsome test though...
#15
What needs to be done is a comparision between the Mazda rotary and 4, 6, and 8 cylinder engines with similar horsepower and vehicle weights. I'm pretty sure you won't see a huge difference in fuel consumption. I've heard lots and lots of horror stories on here about the gas milage of the RX-8, but so far mine does between 19-23 in mixed driving.
#16
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
Last summer I rigged my RX-7 up to run on 1 rotor at the flick of a switch because I had the same question. What I found was that it had far less than half the power of 2 rotor mode and it vibrated like crazy. Max speed floored was about 50 mph. My engine is ported too. If you tried to accelerate in 1 rotor mode, you'd lose a race to a Geo Metro who started out in 5th gear. It is that bad. I had postulated that even if a slightly rich a/f ratio was needed in 1 rotor mode to keep it running, that it would still be less fuel than for 2 rotors. I'm not sure how that worked out though since the car wasn't fast enough for freeway use and to shut a rotor off on any other form of road was for such a short time that it didn't do anything useful. The project was abandoned.
When you say that you rigged it by the flip of a switch, what exactly did you do? Shut down the fuel injectors or shut down the ignition or both?
Remember, all the piston engines with variable displacement kill the compression in the dead cylinders by leaving the exhaust valves open so there is no compression (in addition to killing the fuel injection and ignition).
In a rotary (standard anyway) there's no way to kill the compression in the unused rotor so you are using half the power just to overcome the compression of the dead rotor.
#17
Registered
Actually in the variable piston engines, they leave all the valves closed, not open so in essence it is like a spring. Unfortunately I can't simulate that. I just shut off fuel to that rotor. Ignition was pointless so no need to kill it.
#18
Registered
Originally Posted by rotarygod
Actually in the variable piston engines, they leave all the valves closed, not open so in essence it is like a spring. Unfortunately I can't simulate that. I just shut off fuel to that rotor. Ignition was pointless so no need to kill it.
I dont know if that lack of power 180 degrees out of phase would be overcome by the lack of rotating mass..
RG? that make sense?
#19
Registered
In a variable displacement piston engine, the others still have to move the nonworking ones as well.
I do feel that a dedicated 1 rotor engine would work better than the way I tried it. I just don't feel it is feasible to shut down a rotor for economy reasons as with some piston engines. For economy, maybe a turbo 1 rotor??? You could still get over 200 hp out of it.
I do feel that a dedicated 1 rotor engine would work better than the way I tried it. I just don't feel it is feasible to shut down a rotor for economy reasons as with some piston engines. For economy, maybe a turbo 1 rotor??? You could still get over 200 hp out of it.
#20
Registered
Originally Posted by rotarygod
In a variable displacement piston engine, the others still have to move the nonworking ones as well.
I do feel that a dedicated 1 rotor engine would work better than the way I tried it. I just don't feel it is feasible to shut down a rotor for economy reasons as with some piston engines. For economy, maybe a turbo 1 rotor??? You could still get over 200 hp out of it.
I do feel that a dedicated 1 rotor engine would work better than the way I tried it. I just don't feel it is feasible to shut down a rotor for economy reasons as with some piston engines. For economy, maybe a turbo 1 rotor??? You could still get over 200 hp out of it.
#22
Registered
Originally Posted by rotarygod
In a 2 rotor, each rotor is 180 degrees out from the other. How is shutting one down throwing it off? This would be a problem in a 3 rotor.
I think a 3 rotor would actually work better. You drop the center rortor, lose 1/3 the power, 1/3 the extra mass the other 2 would have to carry.. so they're still producing 66% of the power they would normally and saving maybe 25-30% of the fuel.
#24
Registered
Originally Posted by Jarred
1 rotor = half the gas consumption of two ?
Your car requires a certain amount of energy to move and maintain speed. That requirement doesn't change just because you have a smaller or bigger powerplant. I went into details in this thread (third last post, dated 01-04-2005), talking about the energy requirements.
Basically, you can run a more efficient engine to produce the required power, but you're only talking a few percent difference in efficiency, not 50% less. Further, acceleration requires different operating constraints, and history has shown that often the more powerful optional engine in a car gets better fuel efficiency than the less-powerful base engine because it spends less time at full throttle, so more time operating in a more efficient range.
Regards,
Gordon
#25
Remember, all the piston engines with variable displacement kill the compression in the dead cylinders by leaving the exhaust valves open so there is no compression (in addition to killing the fuel injection and ignition).
In a rotary (standard anyway) there's no way to kill the compression in the unused rotor so you are using half the power just to overcome the compression of the dead rotor.
In a rotary (standard anyway) there's no way to kill the compression in the unused rotor so you are using half the power just to overcome the compression of the dead rotor.
Yea, but you're still swinging around all the extra weight while not producing any power doing so.. in a single rotor engine (designed to be 1 rotor), you could possibly use less gas and get 1/2 the power as you dont have that extra weight to sling around, but you also dont have the power 180 degrees apart from the second rotor.
One rotor at high throttle setting requires less fuel than 2 rotors at low throttle setting, assuming both produce the same amount of power.
Also when you accelerate at full throttle in a high gear you need less fuel than when you accelerate at partial throttle in a low gear (same power).
However you still have to deal with that extra vibration. Another reason for the flywheel generator/motor that could reduce that vibration (that's what Honda is using it for too).