1 rotor = half the gas consumption of two ?
#26
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by Gord96BRG
Nope - doesn't work that way.
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
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
Say it takes 50hp to run down the road at a speady speed of 50mph. Its going to take 50hp no matter if you have 1 rotor or 2 rotors - so your banking that the 1 rotor engine with a lot of throttle and dragging a dead rotor will be more efficient then a 2 rotor engine with minimal throttle.
It really doesn't work out too well and that also the same reason that there are relatively few gains made by the current dOd engines on the market.
#27
Any engine at full throttle is more efficient than at partial throttle (amount of fuel per power unit). Partial throttle causes a pumping loss (in piston engines) and it's a general restriction in the airflow. Also any combustion chamber (of a gasoline engine) requires a minimal amount of air/fuel mixture in order to ignite. The bigger the combustion chamber, the bigger the minimal amount of air/fuel mixture. The rotary engine has a relatively large combustion chamber and it's likely that that minimal amount of air/fuel mixture required is even higher than in a piston engine.
An alternative to shutting off one rotor would be an overdrive or a 7th gear. This would also increase the throttle setting and not only that it would reduce the amount of friction per time unit and therefore improve fuel consumption.
What does the RX-8 need to drive 55 mph? 30HP or even less?
An alternative to shutting off one rotor would be an overdrive or a 7th gear. This would also increase the throttle setting and not only that it would reduce the amount of friction per time unit and therefore improve fuel consumption.
What does the RX-8 need to drive 55 mph? 30HP or even less?
#29
Registered
Originally Posted by Ajax
50% of the power comes from that 1 rotor though and it's 50% additionaly weight to carry around.. It's still rotating mass no matter where it is in phase, right? so it still counts as extra work that one rotor has to do, plus the e-shaft was balanced to have 2 working rotors, wasnt it?
#30
Matt wrote: What about shutting off the fuel for every other cycle on both rotors? Would that work? I wonder what sort of balancing issues there would be?
#31
X-Sapper
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: where angle's fear to tread
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahhh if only mazda had mad amounts of money to throw around..they coudl get to work on all the things we babble about:p hehe aw well i can dream i guess
#32
ahhh if only mazda had mad amounts of money to throw around..they coudl get to work on all the things we babble about hehe aw well i can dream i guess
For those who don't know: The very first production car with Wankel engine was the NSU Spider and it did have a one rotor rotary engine.
http://www.der-wankelmotor.de/Fahrze...kelspider.html
#33
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by globi
I guess that would work too. But the problem is that you still compress that intake air which requires power (unless you have a very fast valve that controls the airflow). If you have 2 throttle bodies you can shut off the airflow to one rotor and won't compress any air for nothing.
I'd rather see Mazda work on increasing the eccentric offsets so the engine gets more torque.
#34
beachdog wrote: ok, so you add a throttle body and close it off. So you think that will improve efficiency because there is no air to compress on the compression cycle. Might be true, but it is just going to be offset by the energy required trying to suck in nothing on the intake cycle. Closing the throttle body won't create a perfect vacuum for the rotor to operate in. This is a port engine, no valves, so, with no intake, no compression, no ignition, no expulsion of exhaust, it would probably suck exhaust in through the exhaust port. You want variable displacement, get a piston engine.
You're right it could suck exhaust gases into the engine, which might or might not be a problem (piston engines have EGR). You can always leave the throttle somewhat open in order to avoid this or you could add a valve on the exhaust side.
Anyway it wouldn't be my first choice either.
There are many other ways to reduce fuel consumption:
* overdrive
* flywheel motor generator
* maybe a third sparkplug
* lean combustion with fuel direct injection
Mazda could try something like Honda did with its CVCC. With fuel direct injection its conceivable to generate an ignitable air fuel mixture within a very small volume/area. An alternative way to reduce the minimal amount of fuel required.
http://world.honda.com/history/chall...o03/index.html
And in order to increase torque, I'd prefer an electric assisted turbo.
#35
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by globi
Anyway it wouldn't be my first choice either.
There are many other ways to reduce fuel consumption:
* overdrive
* flywheel motor generator
* maybe a third sparkplug
* lean combustion with fuel direct injection
Mazda could try something like Honda did with its CVCC. With fuel direct injection its conceivable to generate an ignitable air fuel mixture within a very small volume/area. An alternative way to reduce the minimal amount of fuel required.
.
I believe that the CVCC used a precombustion chamber where the spark plug ignited a lean mixture which expanded into the main combustion chamber like a flame thrower. Don't know if Mazda has ever experimented with this but it would seem like a good idea. Designed right you could send a flame front wherever it was needed.
#36
Not as smart as you
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by globi
Any engine at full throttle is more efficient than at partial throttle (amount of fuel per power unit). Partial throttle causes a pumping loss (in piston engines) and it's a general restriction in the airflow. Also any combustion chamber (of a gasoline engine) requires a minimal amount of air/fuel mixture in order to ignite. The bigger the combustion chamber, the bigger the minimal amount of air/fuel mixture. The rotary engine has a relatively large combustion chamber and it's likely that that minimal amount of air/fuel mixture required is even higher than in a piston engine.
An alternative to shutting off one rotor would be an overdrive or a 7th gear. This would also increase the throttle setting and not only that it would reduce the amount of friction per time unit and therefore improve fuel consumption.
What does the RX-8 need to drive 55 mph? 30HP or even less?
An alternative to shutting off one rotor would be an overdrive or a 7th gear. This would also increase the throttle setting and not only that it would reduce the amount of friction per time unit and therefore improve fuel consumption.
What does the RX-8 need to drive 55 mph? 30HP or even less?
I apologize greatly, but I can not for the life of me, remember the name of that company.
#37
Ride Naked!
Originally Posted by globi
How many would want to pay an extra $1000 if the car would make 10% more miles on a tank?
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
#38
Originally Posted by AvatarQAZ
Some company actually MAKES overdrive kits (7th gear for 6 speeds, 6th for 5 speeds). They simply bolt on after your tranny and require a second shifter. If I remember correctly, they are relatively cheap. Primarily, they are used for older cars (3 speeds... 4 speeds) that didnt have an overdrive.
I apologize greatly, but I can not for the life of me, remember the name of that company.
I apologize greatly, but I can not for the life of me, remember the name of that company.
#39
beachdog wrote: Agreed. I have written elsewhere on this forum about overdrive. My 1969 Fiat 124 Spyder had a 2 speed rearend. Nicest way to go for overdrive. Normal 5 speed and a little button on the shifter put it into overdrive. Technically it would work in any gear but you didn't want to leave it on in first.
beachdog wrote: I believe that the CVCC used a precombustion chamber where the spark plug ignited a lean mixture which expanded into the main combustion chamber like a flame thrower. Don't know if Mazda has ever experimented with this but it would seem like a good idea. Designed right you could send a flame front wherever it was needed.
However at lean mode it might produce a lot of NOx, which they somehow need to get rid of again.
#40
Registered
Originally Posted by beachdog
I believe that the CVCC used a precombustion chamber where the spark plug ignited a lean mixture which expanded into the main combustion chamber like a flame thrower. Don't know if Mazda has ever experimented with this but it would seem like a good idea. Designed right you could send a flame front wherever it was needed.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
1.3_LittersOfFurry
Series I Trouble Shooting
9
09-22-2015 01:54 AM