4 Reasons Why The Rotary Engine Is Dead
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- 4 Reasons Why The Rotary Engine Is Dead. The Wankel engine was last seen in a production car in the Mazda RX-8, and currently there are no rotary engines in production. Mazda may bring it back in the RX Vision, however there are many disadvantages to the rotary engine which has kept it from being successful. Rotary engines have a low thermal efficiency as a result of a long combustion chamber and unburnt fuel making it to the exhaust. They also have problems with rotor sealing as a result of uneven temperatures in the combustion chamber since combustion only occurs in one portion of the engine. Oil consumption is also a problem, as oil is injected to add lubrication and help keep the rotor sealed. Finally, emissions are poor and fuel economy is terrible, and ultimately this is the cause of it’s death.
Related Videos:
How Rotary Engines Work - • How Rotary Engines Wor...
Rotary Engine Whiteboard - • Rotary Engine - Explained
2016 Mazda Miata Review - • 2016 Mazda MX-5 Miata ...
Please feel free to rate, comment, and subscribe!
And don't forget to check out my other pages below!
Facebook: / engineeringexplained
Official Website: www.howdoesacar...
Twitter: / jasonfenske13
Instagram: / engineeringexplained
Car Throttle: www.carthrottl...
EE Extra: / @engineeringexplainede...
To help create more videos, check out my Patreon page!
/ engineeringexplained
NEW VIDEO EVERY WEDNESDAY!
"Why did the rotary engine die?"
Part of it is probably how you have it all opened up on a table like that.
The patient died before it reached the operating table.... think of it as more of an autopsy.
That's known as a "post mortem".
I had a friend who wanted me to fix his RX-8...... So I talked him into putting 6.0 LS engine in it....... Then the only problem he had was keeping tires on it
Poor engenering. "The oil rec."
Not good for a engine that by nature burns a slight amount.
@@tommyemler1763 lmao
Mazda should employ the emission engineers from VW, problem solved..
i believe you mean ceo.
😂😂😂😂
It's not going to help because the problems are caused by the engine design itself.
🤣😂🤣
boom, roasted
Who wants fuel economy when you can rev to 9K RPM and spit dragon flames ?
Exactly. Besides, rotaries are more suited for race cars and not really meant for the street.
@@dandoesjunk7546 thats why they are banned in racing because they would dominate so hard. light small extreme powaaaa, like two strokes in bikes^^
Rotaries are 100% meant for racing, they can achieve a really good amount of power for their displacement or for any displacement really, they rev high and dislike low revs.
@UCjNLcDavj2EZTPqBlGQp1Pg yes but like two storkes the eco people hate on it but the little 250 cc bike is no turbo 4 rotor that goes throw gas in cubic meters and kills pandas ^^
And have a very nice sound and idling. And who could forget the perfect 50/50 weight destribution of an Rx-7
It's not about the miles per galon. But it's about the smiles per galon
Says the person with terrible miles per gallon.
Happiest man alive XD
@@gazlink1 He said galon not gallon
@@mickjager5974 still said by people with terrible miles per gallon.
Per gallon of oil?
Before watching this video, I'm going to have to say the answer is obvious: The rotatory engine died because YOU TORE IT TO PIECES!
You monster.
I thought it died because it popped an apex at 1:47
Daveros Garrett It appears by 1:47 in the video, the engine has achieved a state of 100% compression loss.
Jaron Lindow Lol
Jaron Lindow lol.
Jaron Lindow just wow *sarcasticly claps hands slowly*
1 reason why rotarys will never die.
BRAAAAPPP BRAAAPPPPP BRAAPPPPPP BRAAPPPPPPP REEEEOOOOOO BRAPPPP BRAPPPP SCHUUUUUUUUU BRAAAPPPPPP
+Titanius Anglesmith trabant
+Gotin Fuklio Trabants emit more poisonous substances than a VW diesel. And it's slower than a horse. And less reliable. And once you placed your order, it took longer to arrive than a baby horse.
But Trabants are still undeniably cool.
+Titanius Anglesmith Cshoo cshoo ccshoo
Titanius Anglesmith Holy shit, I just realised your name is a reference to the Futurama episode in which Bender became addicted to Dungeons and Dragons!
+Titanius Anglesmith Nah man, 2-strokes give you a better BRRAAAAP:CC ratio
+how old are you ?
-idk between 25 and 45
+What do you mean
-(sends pic of engineering explained guy)
😇 enes. I like this boy. good for US president. make detroid automotive win again. trump war subtitute 👍
I would go for between 15 and 45.
He was born in December 13, 1989
@@permadifauza5251 Trump war?! LOL
What do you mean by that? Do other countries view it as a coup d'etat? xD
😂😂😂😂
Thank you Mazda for taking a chance and standing behind something different! The no piston Rotary!!
Mazda took a chance... and failed.
We need more people to see the great sides of the rotary engine instead of blowing the bad sides out of proportion.
@@8828RR The Wankel engine offers no advantages over a reciprocating engine... this is exactly why the Wankel engine became the greatest financial failure in the entire history of engine manufacturing.
Legitimate engineers or engine manufacturing companies are no longer interested in this inferior and now obsolete technology.
Mazda was the very last company manufacturering the Wankel engine in series production anywhere in the world, they abandoned development in 2009 and production ended a decade ago.
Any questions?
How did they stand behind it??? isn't the motor dead???? like the video says...........
Emissions nightmare obviously a failure
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Tons. You stated a bunch of things happened without even addressing the reason behind those, and yet think you have a coherent argument and pretend to be like an expert? Lame. Why doesn't it offer any advantage over a reciprocating engine? How is it connected with everything else? You are just reiterating what basically is: "it went out of production". A lot of correct but meaningless words.
I've owned two RX-7s and fell in love with both of them. My second one was a 1993 model with twin turbos, 255 horsepower, with explosive acceleration! Sure wish I still had it.
My friend had an early model Rx7. That thing used to scare the pants off me. The only thing that seemed to limit how fast it could go was finding enough straight road. Mad car.
I just hope that material sciences will be able to solve some of the problems and we can see a return of the rotary.
@@ants621
Rotary far from dead,the vargas bros are building some epic engines, then got people like PAC & PPRE doing billet engines now 👍
@@markcozzie The Wankel engine has been completely obsolete since 2012.
@California Dreamin Mazda's board of directors cancelled further development of Wankel engines in May 2009.
There have been no new prototype Wankel engines seen since the 16X in 2008 and it too was cancelled.
Mazda has not unveiled a new production Wankel engine in a quarter of a century.
@California Dreamin Multi-valve engines are certainly not radical new technology, so definitely not a fitting analogy.
Radical new technology is VVT, VVL, VCR and electronically controlled stratified charge mode combustion made possible by direct gasoline injection.
Sadly all technology that cannot be successful adapted to the obsolete Wankel engine due to the inherent limitations of its basic fundamental geometry.
"spitting flames out the exhaust" you say that like its a bad thing.
Got worried we wouldn't see a white board for a minute. Man that was a close one :P
LMFAO
wanted to give this vid a like, but when I saw Imperial Units...
President Carter was pushing the US to go metric for several reasons, including that of making US products accepted in the rest of the world--metric versus US Standard hardware. Elementary schools started teaching kids to think in the metric system. The next president (whose name is not uttered in polite company) believed the US was the only nation that mattered. "Why should the mighty US conform with the rest of humanity? Let them accept our system." So, as he tossed Carter's solar panels off the White House roof, he also tossed out the conversion to metric.
We adopted a stealth form of metric conversion. The conversion was made and very few people noticed it. Try to buy a fifth of whisky. It's now 750 ml. Or try to buy a quart of anything.It's now a liter. That "16 oz" bottle of soda is now 500 ml, with "16.9 oz" in parentheses below. Pretty much only the road signs in miles remain unchanged.
Dannys99887 Good, the quicker metric takes over, the better, it makes more sense. (From the UK(we still use miles))
Who need good mpg when you can have braps instead
Two stroke dirt bike: INTENSIFIES
Tyler Rufener fuel efficiency ???
What’s that ?
I’m just enjoying driving 😉
Rotor Thermotech 100%
Wankel wankel...
I had an RX8 and I loved that little thing, I never had a single problem with the Rotary engine but that’s not to say others didn’t.
Yeah the Rotary engine is terrible on fuel and here in the U.K. they are in the highest tax bracket which at the time was like £500 a year because of the high emissions.
But it was a pretty dependable car as long as you checked the oil and made sure to warm the car up before racing about or turning it off.
It just gobbled the back tyres up but that was more my fault because it was great to go sideways in. :)
Also the Rotary engine made a great little noise as it was revving up and I enjoyed hitting the super high red line and every time I did the car would thank me for it.
If they could improve the fuel efficiency, less oil burn and a bit more power say 300bhp I would definitely get another Rotary car.
James Williams great to drive butunaffordabletokeepasaneverydayvehicle. Goeslikesn snot off a stck. constantlyworriedaboutheigrepairbils coming.
James Williams brilliant.
Well there are rotarys with turbos that have over 1000hp
I got one now smiles every day I love it
Oh, so you turn right to go left and vice versa, eh? That explains your back tires' wear..
Rotary fanboys: "B-BUT MUH SPINNING DORITO!!"
I'd still kill for an FD though.
If you care about fuel economy ur not a real car guy lol
bruh same
I can almost assure you.... anyone who clicked on this video would kill for a mint conditioned (or damaged but repairable) RX-7 FD
the Dorito was not even invented when the rotary smashed Mercedes hopes at lemans, B-But MUH my corvette never ran lemans, cause it was to fat and slow.
@@jiroweiler5883 hmm, rx3 for me, 600kilo lighter, you can make an rx3 handle.
The RX-7 was a well balanced car and a lot of fun to drive. Don't let it over heat.
it would have been all those things and much more with high revving 2.0 liter.
True, a 2.0 3-rotor would have been optimal for it!
Best on the rx7 is the sound
Hese are all lies. The Rotary is a minority engine being oppressed by the Patriarchy!
My son bought a neglected one years ago..I wanted him to keep it ..but no
The first point about shooting flames seems like an absolute win
It is bad for your car, and that leads to many complications, hot fuel is bad for catalytic converter too, so you are going to emit bad gasses into atmosphere.
@@aerox1930 cat delete and there’s a reason a good percentage of the road driving electric cars so emissions not a big deal for one car. If every car was rotary... different story
Apparently not since people stopped buying them..
My 2004 Rx8 would get 20.5 to 21 on the highway. Never 22. When I would drive around my school's campus for 60 miles (speed limit 20-25mph) I would get like 10mpg. But it looked sweet and sounded great, so it was good enough for me.
Buddha BlazerSS and has way more torque, tho. And it is a V8.
I'd love to have a small rotary engine as an outboard in my boat. The way lighter weight would more than make up for the fuel inefficiency in a boat setup, where it would be pushing way less water out of the way. And it would run so smooth and quiet. Very cool.
I worked for Mazda for years.....the ONLY rotary cars that came in on a wrecker either had a dead battery, run low on coolant (the water pump cavitates if the coolant is more than a quart low) or the oil level was not kept up or the oil had not been changed regularly. We raced an RX3XP and they made us stop racing it because it outran everything that we came up against. Also your comparison with the corvette is full of crap.....they shut 4 cylinders down when in cruise/highway mode to get the fuel economy and they make a HELL of a lot less HP in that mode. When they're making 400hp or more they burn a hell of a lot more fuel. Horrible comparison......BTW...if the motor is tuned correctly the carbon deposits in the curves are very minimal.....we NEVER had seal problems with cars that were taken care of. I've seen engines that had a million miles on them and still passed factory specs........They got a bad rep because of people that didn't take care of them.
The Rotary engine is fast despite the lower HP. Redline is around 8000 rpms. I had a 76 Mazda truck which was a sleeper. I could take on anyone!
Yea. You can't compare modern cars that cost thousands of more dollars to an Rx-8
In 1973 I bought a '72 Mazda RX2 with 12K miles. It got 17mpg, but gas was only 35 cents/gal. ($1.89 today). A year later gas prices had doubled, so the joke was on me. At 35K miles, the seals between the rotor housings failed, which turned out to be a known problem and right on schedule. Mazda covered half of the rebuild, but it still cost me about $350 in 70's money. After that, I drove it until 1981, 100K or so, with no more engine issues, while gas rose another 50%. A few years ago I searched the 'net for '72 RX2's - as best I could tell, virtually none even exist anymore. The thing would really run, though.
loopshackr In the early days they had side and apex seal failure. They fixed that and if properly cared for they ran great for long periods. A lot of people crapped their paints to find 4 barrel carburetors on them. They were very easy to increase the power but they came apart because of the sun gear failure at high RPM. We fixed that racing in Florida by heat treating the sun gears. We never had another failure. The RX3XP was a 90 cu inch motor and made a bunch of power. We had a ton of fun racing them on the stock car tracks.
+The real doktorbimmer nah wasn't he comparing it to a corvette?
The rotary may not be fuel efficient, but a 3-4 rotor Mazda 787/787b Group C car has to have one of the craziest sounds ever.
The best
Not to mention is was the first Japanese car to win Le man's 24 hours. First car without a recipicating engine, and got wankel engines banned from the race.
@@adamhlali8106 The Wankel engine was not banned after the race, that is a lie.
@@adamhlali8106 Mazda lost the 1091 WSC championship to Jaguar, the 797b was extremely slow and uncompetitive, it never posted a single pole position or fastest race lap.
It's lost 20 out 21 races and was quietly retired.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 yup 100 percent correct....
But one doesn't buy one for efficiency...but out of the love of rotary and the RX SERIES.
Why love it if it is not efficient?
@Cheese Phuk because it's fun. I drive an old ass gas hog pickup truck because it's fun. Driving isn't just about the numbers, it's about the experience, it's about the enjoyment.
It depends what you're into. Drive an old ass gas hog if you're into the fun of driving, or get one where you can rattle off some stats if you're a numbers engineering kinda person. It's all good
That's why an original rx3 coupe costs mega bucks now
@@clay7182 I do not love the Toyota prius.
1 of the cons is that it throws flames??? How is that a con?
Fuel getting wasted is the biggest con.
I'm from India, and we have a manufacturer "Bajaj Auto" which got patented a twin spark plug design for low capacity motorcycles, and it actually gives a better fuel efficiency and engine performance, apparently by burning fuel better.
Yamaha, Suzuki, etc. are far behind Bajaj here in sales. Only Honda is a challenge, that too only due to its scooters....
@Austin The video maker is a snowflake.
fuel burns outside the chamber meaning it doesn't combust properly and you lose power.
What advances can or have been made by or in scavengeing unspent fuel?
Seems like everyone is missing out.
I wish my fiancé’s parents would say “hello everyone and welcome” when we visit
Ok
lol, what do they say when u visit?
The best Rotary analysis I've ever watched. Now I know why this engine is never going to make it back.
I bought a brand new 1986 RX-7 and put over 140,000 tortuous mile on it before trading it in for another Mazda. I miss that car. I only got rid of it because of the 'then' girlfriend wanted a family car. I should have dumped that girlfriend, instead. Finally, four years later she was traded in.
Advantages:
1. low weight of the ENGINE, especially relative to it's HP. You should not consider the total car weight when considering the performance of an engine.
2. ability to withstand extremely high revs. Yellow @6,500, Red @8,000
3. Get there fast. With a power band (torque & hp vs rev) . Torque didn't fade out at high revs like others engines.
That very low engine weight gave you a very fast and nimble car that could send you out of a hairpin highway entrance ramp faster than the left lane 'rs because it had passive rear-wheel steering assist that would toe in/out the rear wheels when over 0.5 Gs were seen at the rear hubs. So when you took turns that would 'freak out' your passenger, the tires never squealed.
WillingCoyote ha, GAYYYYYYY
#mgtow
TOFU
Not really that fast and you were lucky one to get that many miles without problems. Or you're just lying to make it sound good.
An interesting point on the emissions side.
In the 90s Mazda Japan had a fleet of 626 station wagon test vehicles running around with commercial operators testing a hydrogen version of the rotary engine.
Mazda hoped for zero emissions certification with CARB once testing was completed and the engines did indeed have no measurable emissions.
However, CARB refused to certify them as the asked Mazda ' Do you still lubricate the rotors by oil injection'?
Mazda replied that they did, but the amount was so small that emissions could not be measured with any current test technology.
CARB stood firm, and the engine was refused.
😔
That's interesting! I'm curious how a rotary would do on propane, since it is a hydrocarbon.
@@AKSoapy29 There is a bike where a guy does a propane powered rotary bike, called Dragon's Breath
@@elitewolverine Ooo, I'll have to check that out. Thanks!
I would have to see that to believe it. The Wankel injects oil into the chamber, along with the intake charge. No liquid fuel would make it a difficult proposition to properly disperse the oil necessary to keep the seals from welding themselves to the walls. There is no way, with current lubrication technology, to make a "zero emission" wankel.
@@CaberFeidh Depends on how hot the explosion gets. An air powered Wankel powered by compressed air would technically meet your standards. And if you do it in a closed loop with a screw compressor to recompress the exhaust, the air will have a lube in it from the compressor. Solving it. We just have to ensure the compressor is powerful enough to halfway keep up.
but...
Dorito Power ;-;
Thank you so much for crushing my rotary engine superiority dreams.
They were going to be crushed anyway but Jason was pretty gentle.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 He didn't cover they are difficult up to impossible to start in cold weather.
Mid 20s if you miss first try............it is over for at least 30 minutes.
@@wms1650 Very true, Wankels have low static compression and often have leaking seals after a short time in service, coupled with poor combustion efficiency they can be extremely difficult to start in cold weather.
69 likes :-)
still, having owned a number of exotic cars, this one is a CHEAP thrill.
They do not advertise the displacement of rotary engines correctly. The1.3l only takes one combustion chamber per bank into consideration. So technically it is a 3.9l. This makes the fuel econ look a bit better. But in turn makes the power output look atrocious.
It was a typo. Sorry for not noticing
It's difficult to directly compare. It's still a 1.3L, but it used it 3 times per revolution. Piston engines aren't measured on their displacement per revolution, just the total displacement of all cylinders combined. Each cylinder needs 2 revolutions per cycle, though.
unless you go two stroke :)
Right, I don't get the huff/puff over the displacement. No one takes a two stroke that is a 100cc and say it's actually a 200cc. Displacement is the chamber where ignition takes place, not each rotor face. That's usually how it's done. I know in different racing organization and countries they'll use the degrees of rotation to figure out it's "displacement" because they're only trying to give referencing to compare with a 4 stroke. So basically they would compare how many times the rotary engine would fire for a single rotor in the same time it takes for a 4 stroke piston to fire.
Either way it's all meaningless. Should just be metering how much fuel is consumed over time. Since displacement means dick when it comes to fuel consumption.
The real doktorbimmer EXACTLY haha, that's what I was saying because fuel efficiency vs displacement size was being compared and I said that it's meaningless because fuel efficiency and displacement have nothing to really do with how efficient an engine is. Only it's fuel consumption over time vs kw output.
True displacement? Then explain why a 2 stroke and 4 stroke have the same displacement under that logic. The amount of piston travel that a 4 stroke has to do is twice that of a 2 stroke. The amount of displacement between power strokes are different.
Yet no one would say a 100cc 2 stoke engine is actually a 200cc engine.
The reason why some racing organizations use degrees of rotation when figuring out its "displacement" is to compare to 4 stroke engines for figuring out rule balancing.
A four stroke engine needs 720 degrees of rotation to complete one cycle. While the basic 2 rotor engine takes 1080 degrees for all 6 faces to rotate. So within a 720 degrees of rotation (the same rotation as a 4 stroke engine) you'll have 4 faces that have fired off. So that would be 654cc X 4 which gets you about 2.6L. That would be the most apt way to compare a rotary engine to a 4 stroke engine.
But in general like 2 strokes and 4 stroke engines only being calculated based on one sweep of the face that's why you get 1.3L for the 13B rotary.
Let's all be honest here. We all really love these engines, but they make no sence what so ever...
The wiki article is good on the rotary engine. Have a look.
Great for racing though!
Is nice to see a Rotary fan with common sense. So many fanboys don´t understand that is ok to like something that isn´t the best option.
Like a lime many amazing things makes no sense
Well no... They are smaller and lighter so they can be placed lower making the car handle better. They love to rev and just look at the mazda 787b from the 1991 le mans race. It won easily
Another huge disadvantage is the difficult manufacturing process. It is not easy to machine the parts because of all the odd angles and curves. I know, I worked for an engine re manufacturer and was the engineer who assessed the disassembled engine to see what needed machined, rebuilt, or just cleaned up. I hated the programming the CNC for those jobs. And the tooling is all different too. Just a pain in the ass.
i lose curves
I imagine those special springs alone cost a ton.
i'm in the market buying a used minivan since i'm over 65 and slowing down what do u consider the best nissan honda town/conutry
This is in many ways an example of economies of scale. Because they were not widely adopted, the manufacturing remained poorly-understood, the tooling remained obscure, and the skills rare. Had they been in near-universal deployment for 100+ years as the reciprocal piston engines have, this would be a very different discussion.
The rotary engine was developed in 1929. I think it's had a lot of time to become widely adopted....
His initial explaination on the combustion chamber was wrong, rotary's have a lead and trailing plugs. Lead fires before the lobe gets to almost flat center.
I was watching that explanation and wondering why they did just not put in a second plug.
He lied
@@robstone4537 all of em had a second plug, the 787 at lemans in 1991 had three plugs per rotor.
That's why he is an engineer always right 2+2=5 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I have to agree with the emission problems. 2005 RX-8 Catalytic converter failed after only 70,000 miles. 85,000 miles the clutch pedal would get stuck, engine kept flooding with fuel, check engine light kept coming on, power steering would jerk randomly. Around 90,000 miles engine started using coolant (dealer couldn't figure it out), weird electrical issues that would cause the engine not to start. 115,000 miles apex seals blew.... Cost so much to fix. Don't get me wrong I loved the car it was very fun to drive but I was so much happier when I finally was able to get rid of it.
Mazda rx8 basura ford made it like that blame ford just blame ford
My dad had one of the first ones, it died after 60,000 miles. Only 3 moving parts what could go wrong? and popular science magazine was saying what a great invention it was.
should have spent $7,000 to get a good RX7. I've had 4 and almost no maintenance problems. 130,000 miles on my first one and it was still in spec when I sold it.
But you gotta admit, the rotary makes a bada$$ exhaust note
Aaaah no, read up on it m8, you wont regreat it . . . ;)
v6 and v8 does too.. not worth the disadvantages. it can't even provide a good amount of power.
Mate rotary's sounds like Chris Evans - the extremely annoying host of the new top gear
James G Nop, but you do. FACT!!! Rotary's sound awsome, wich is allso a FACT.
Wich leads us to the FACT that you woulden't know a good sound even if it sat on your face, wich is now obvious to all . . . =P
rotaries actually sound even worse than four-cylinders, BUT they are compact, give good power for their size (and I dont mean cc) and do rev like there's no tomorrow. Its their fuel inefficiency which killed them.
What's with the one dude who has to reply to every comment on this video and get into a pissing match each and every time?
RUclips comments can be an addicting and dangerous place haha. I try to stay nice and civil, but who knows what goes on down here.
He's got to be living one hell of a sad life to dedicate so much time to arguing over a bloody engine design.
#NeverTrump
Let the games begin.
haha i know ,right
He is obviously a right Wankel....boom, dropping in bad puns since 1981
I loved driving my dad's RX-3. It really did go "mmm" - until a corner seal fell out, and seized the engine. I rebuilt it, which was a lot of fun due to the novel design. But realistically, I would have to agree its disadvantages outweigh its benefits for the purpose. It had great acceleration though, and I seem to recall doing 50mph in 2nd gear.
Holy crap my farm truck (01 Silverado) gets exactly the same fuel efficiency as an rx-8
lol
+Jared Jeanotte probably makes 10x more torque too lol
+jeffrey625625 yeah with a ton of feed in the bed too.
+Nathan Dance
Oh, now 2-stroke engines are still around.
They may be used in lawn equipment, but they're still around.
+Watcher3223 KTM Yamaha Suzuki Kawasaki and Honda may wish to dispute that statement
3:50
It's not really good form to compare an engine from 2011 with engines four years newer.
+coolestpyro 2004 Corvette is heavier, larger engine, significantly more powerful, and still gets better fuel economy.
that's fine, it's just incorrect to compare an older engine to a newer engine in this context
The real doktorbimmer I'm not here to try and stick up for the Wankel engine, I don't really care whether it's a good engine or not as I don't own one.
If one was comparing efficiency/horsepower/acceleration/etc of, say, a Corvette, Mustang, and a Viper, would you say it would be a fair comparison if the Viper and Corvette examples were from 2015 but the Mustang example was from 4 years prior? Of course not.
Even if the results aren't much different, it's simply not good form to have a slanted comparison where all the examples except one are technology from 2015, and the odd one is is four years older.
+coolestpyro 4 years probably isn't much of a difference with todays engines anyway. The technology has kind of hit it's limit. Hell, Chevy still runs pushrod technology... Conventional engine design is over 100 years old now, the Rotary is basically the only 20th century engine :P The Rotary has had less time to design, develop and improve over the convention combustion engine.
+The real doktorbimmer cannot argue with that. Anyone with eyes and brain matter behind... Just can't argue...
A few of my racing buddies are huge rotary heads. Unfortunately it sometimes makes them the most dense people to discuss cars with. They live in this world where the FC RX-7 is one of the ultimate sports cars you can buy. Fanboyism has always eluded me.
Angel Christov yeah... Ive loved subaru for a long time but the community seems to throw me off sometimes
Angel Christov I fully understand that rotaries suck ass but I think they are cool because I like the high revs and I like the pop ups and I love every minor quirk that those 1.3l engines have. Ofc they suck but that's what makes them beautiful
It is if you are drifting, immediately after follows the S13 Silvia
Same with turbo Supra
Stubborn fanboys are definitely a PITA.
Got to drive the early 70's models (RX-2). If you revved it up and turned off the key.....KABOOM!!
Yep...I owned a RX-2
Would you do one on why steam engines are no longer used in vehicles?
They're powerful but inefficient
The real doktorbimmer Yeah gas turbine is pretty damned good, but I'd actually give the edge to a steam turbine. Fact is the only thing that limits them are the materials they're made of. If the materials could take it you could just keep superheating the steam and produce more and more power
Given the possibility that there are more efficient designs possible to harness steam, so far the only possible "legitimate" objection I have heard to steam is that there might be a large loss of energy at the point at which water is converted to steam. Does anyone know the rate of efficiency in converting water to steam? (Naturally this might be partly influenced by the mechanism of conversion, but I assume there is a maximum theoretical efficiency.)
40.7 kJ/mol, and there is about 210 moles in one gallon of water. And it's not so much as "efficiency" but more along the line of that is what is required to do it. You do not lose the energy, it is just stored in the steam, until it transitions back into liquid form. The primary way a steam engine is inefficient, is by the inability to perfectly insulate it. This issue is "mostly" resolved in nuclear reactors, because it is a sealed system, but in good old ma and pop coal burning engines the exhaust alone steals truckloads of energy from the system. the only way to make them very efficient would be to find a way to make sure every drop of heat generated goes only to the steam, and do so without use of power, which is impossible in the foreseeable future. The best use of water based "energy" systems is in hydraulics, because all it is, is moving a liquid through a tube, but the sky is the limit on it.
I am aware that Steam power is incredibly inefficient currently. I am not claiming otherwise. What I AM say is that if we manage to find a way to reuse the thermal energy, or to "pipe" it back into the start of the reaction, it COULD be made significantly more effective. And don't bother browbeating me like you have everyone else that posts in this discussion.
Rx9 is coming out in 2020 with a rotary. Not dead yet!
long live the rotary!
beat me to it
***** why do you say that? Personal opinion?
***** Oh, my sources said 2020 but I haven't looked to far into it. That second part is an odd thing to comment on a rotary video but hey.
too bad they suck...
Boost pressure goes in
Apex seals go out
lol 😂😂
Hoverbike not unless you premix
That was long ago...Update your info plse ..LOL
No problem with seals anymore...
HAHAHAHA. Yep. You sir are correct.
The way he explains is soooo simple and understandable thank you soo much ❤️🙏
I prefer the way you explain things now, with real-life parts and a bit of white board. Great job, thank you :)
Liked and subbed, great video. I think I'm gonna love this channel.
Thanks for subscribing!
who buys one for fuel efficiency they buy it for the sound and power
I recently had this dream where someone down the street from me owned this pre production copy of this Mazda hypercar called the R9. It looked kinda like the Furai but it had a 4 rotor in it and according to the owner Mazda wanted to get in on the hypercar market by making the ultimate hypercar.
It had over 750hp and weighed in the low 2000 pounds range apparently. Never got to hear it started up unfortunately but the idea of something like that sounds insane.
Check out “Rob Dahm”. His RUclips channel is making your dream
good video, i never knew it had oil injection ....
+samuel nope me neither, I just haven't gotten that much into them. God what a horrible thing, no wonder it never was a success.
+arealassassin yeah haha we have to top up oil every other time we fill up (which is a lot)
+samuel lopes Yea, I had a first gen (84) and they even had that in those model years. Just a matter of design, as he says. Since the systems were prone to failue, causing a lack of lubrication, most people just delete the system entirely and mix oil in the fuel like a 2 stroke engine. Just have to remember to add a quart or so of oil each time you fill up with fuel. Heh.
+samuel lopes yeah , is like 2 stroke engines , but 2 stroke engines are infinite better than this crap
+dragoss16 lol hater
I had an RX4 granny car which got terrible gas mileage which was explained by the Holley 4 barrel on this tiny engine. However, the impressive part was that I was able to outrun anything that lined up next to me at the stoplight. And I mean anything. And that's with a manual 5 speed. Redline was infinity. There was a buzzer sound when the car reached 8 grand. Acceleration was almost instant and flawlessly smooth. Say what you will but when that engine worked ,it really worked!
It was the ultimate sleeper car. I miss it.
Exactly ! The rotary will never die. In New Zealand they are everywhere and always in car magazines. There's also a car show just for rotarys. A mint genuine rx3 is now worth 30k Nz dollar.
+Christopher Wyller Yes they worked all right for 5 minutes at least.
I sure wished they'd try to perfect that motor. I'd get another one for sure. Even with the bad mileage. It sure was a blast having one.
+Christopher Wyller love me rotors nothing beats the sound of one at full noise anyone that complains has never been in a good one and for all the wankers that say they dont last long hasnt seen one built by a good engine builder
I was thinking of trying to rebuild the one I had but I ended up getting a Nova and a Camaro so it went to the junkyard. Pity I guess. I wasn't even sure you could get rebuild parts for one anyway.
The most elegant engine is still the electric engine.
It's a shame that we don't have adequate power storage to make it usable on a daily basis.
That used to be true! Now, the only remaining barrier is cost, and that will be coming down in the next 2-3 years. Get hyped!
Check out the Duke Engine!!
Ryan Ballantyne we can thank the smartphone industry for the advances in battery technology, and cost is not that big of a problem anymore, infrastructure is.
I'm still waiting for Tesla to expand their charging grid in Eastern Europe, otherwise their model 3 seems quite affordable.
wtf tesla cars get 500km on a charge. how is that a "Flaw" with range, who drives more than 500km in 1 sitting
+The real doktorbimmer it takes 40 minutes to fully charge at their charging stations, and the charging time will get better over time
I had a great looking 85 RX, silver, with the 11B engine and 4 bl carb. it was inefficient at any speed but it was so much fun to drive. I was the second owner and did not keep it for long, but I am a fan. I think it could come back if they made several improvements, some small, some major.
still... rx7/8 is dope ...
rx 8 is for dick, my rx8 blows up the engine in 88k kilometers and the new engine cost me 5000 euro.. so i buy a mercedes benz sl 63 amg
Apparently the rotary engine is only mostly dead. A new company has picked it up and has changed the shapes of the piston (?) and chamber. The chamber is now triangular and the piston is peanut shaped. It is supposed to fix many of the problems you mentioned. The jury is still out but it will be interesting to see if they can fix it.
+The real doktorbimmer A E S T E A T I C S C A M S
By piston I think you mean rotor.
To be honest rotaries have flaws but I love my mazda RX7 and love the unique sound it makes
Excellent and informative video. Thanks for posting. In Australia the Mazda racing rotaries swept all before them. People fell about the place laughing until their hero's were lapped on the track either in production or racing classes. Unfortunately, early problems with seals doomed public confidence and the very expensive RX8 Sports Car had few takers. These days revving little turbo fours are the go but of course, the laws of physics will see these screamers destroy themselves and then consigned to the dump, as owners are quoted for repairs.
I like how you have random engines and part just laying around makes videos expected and entertaining
Everyone thinks that RX-8's are the greatest cars "they can rev forever and so fast and sound so good like omggg" but if they ever owned one, they will quickly realize they need constant care, and will gouge your wallet on gas.
Well, atleast insurance is decently low on them, and they do sound AMAZING
Yeah I'm 17 and drive one your not kidding about the wallet
+Josh Wallace If you think rx-8's are gas guzzlers.... mate you havent seen the 13B turbo. Just picked up a 87 FC about a week ago, filled it up twice already. (50 liter tank running 98 octane). You can actually see the fuel needle dropping at 8k rpm haha
+Josh Wallace Aren't sports cars supposed to gouge your wallet though? My biggest gripe with the RX8 is that you can't really upgrade it all that much. Mazda got about as much power from an NA rotary as you can get, the renesis does not take turbo. The intake is incredibly optimized. You can port it, but that's costly for amount of power you gain. You'd have to spend a couple grand to get lighter wheels than stock.
Oh, and mine has been sitting in the driveway with a warped housing for a few months now. It still drives but you have to wait 20 minutes for it start again after turning it off. Over heated it on the hottest day of the summer sitting in traffic. If the temperature gauge moves at all above where it normally sits, the engine is warped.
+Josh Wallace its never meant for pussies,only for car guys who don't care to spend money working on it and taking care of it,just bring it to the track and you get heaven
+Josh Wallace You find me a true sports car that is cheap on your wallet please.
I owned a '80GS & a '86 Sport Package. Neither car had reliability problems, they ran great. Big problem? The '86 had 145hp and struggled to get 20mpg. I loved the cars though, had a blast with them.
The real doktorbimmer My '86 had the same power and weight as a Porsche 944. I bought the RX7 because it was $1500 cheaper, (about $14k) and I preferred the body and interior.
actually, you're wrong.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine in fact, uve actually commited a logical fallacy, which i could link to you as well, but... if you dont know what that is, a link wont help.
At the very least you get a great looking car with an RX-7 which you could always change the engine. The 944 and the 924 are just ugly POS liked only by the kind of person that would claim a BL Allegro is a classic car.
NSU Ro80 had the Wankel back in Germany. And because of it,NSU went down under recalls when they had to replace all of them with Ford V-4"s. When drivers pass each other,they would hold up their hands and indicate by their fingers how many times NSU replace their Wankels.
It was pretty sad because NUS really had a car that was a bit ahead of the rest in Germany on style and front drive tech. I drove a few when I was stationed in the "Der West BundeutschRepublic",just too bad they went with that anchor.
Back in 1980, my brother was driving the X3 station wagon . Very powerfull but also very hot for the tail pipe melted the back trunk floor.
LMAO
For those curious about the advantages: ruclips.net/video/sd6pJtR4PaY/видео.html
+Engineering Explained I didn't see any flames or brap sound sound in that video, you need to make a new one and add illustration to it.. lol ;)
+Engineering Explained you should have compared the rx8 to cars thats started production in the early 2000's to keep it fair
I had no idea your hands are that hairy!! Nice job though.
+Engineering Explained Awesome video. You should build one
+Engineering Explained Thanks for the vid, my teacher mechanics gave us a task about engines and my part is about Rotaries so this is very useful ;)
The LiquidPiston X engine looks like an interesting solution to a lot of the problems in the Wankel rotary. It seems to have DARPA support for development as a next generation replacement for the Wankel's in use in drones and might be a good option for hybrid roadgoing vehicles as well.
100%
Imagine 3 or 4 LPs together, instead 4-4 roto
1.3 makes 200 Hp impressive
+AZiZ True, but they are totally different from reciprocating engines. If they were measured the same way as the air/fuel burned per rotation, they would be considered a 2.6 liter when compared to conventional/reciprocating engines.
+Dan Bonnett I think they are considered as a 2.6 liter engine, at least that's how I remember the RX8 being road taxed in my country some years ago (2 x 1.3L displacement)
They make great horsepower, but hardly any torque.
+MaxTheKanuck bullshit. I'm sorry but i'm so tired of hearing that myth. I smash all sorts of cars going (intentionally)uphill because they still believe that tired old bullshit
+FLoYdInPink What are you running with? I have an R3 so I would agree that they are low on torque front myself, but really the Rx-8 is more of a AE86 than a 2JZ powered monster. Do you have like an FD?
My dad test drove an RX-2 when they were first imported. That was fun. Smooooth, 7,000 RPM redline. Years later he bought a used one, not running. We tore it down, needed rotor seals, the chamber plating was worn through from lack of oil despite the injection. I got on the phone to Mazda to order seals. “You don’t want seals,” the parts guy said, “they’re $500.” That was in the early 80s. Thus ended our RX-2 adventure.
When you need what the Wankel can provide, it is fantastic!
The long term effects of using what was in principal a disposable engine are certainly not so groovy.
Torpedo power plat? Great!
Running clean and efficient over long term? Nope.
While few people will argue the short coming of the rotary engine, your comparisons are badly skewed toward unreasonable. Your comparison of vehicles 4 years newer, is just off balance. That like comparing a 1965 Mustang, to my 2012 Chevy Cruze and saying the Cruze is better. (Argue that amongst yourselves).
You also made the claim that on comparison the GTI was close in power and weight to RX-8. The 2011 GTI only produced 140-170 bhp compared to the RX-8’s 212-232. On the lowest end that’s a 50hp difference. (A lot)
Your Stingray (comparably from 2011) milage is actually 16city/26hwy. The GLA wasn’t even a concept until 2013, and a more reasonable competitor would be the 2011 BMW 328 with had an inline 6 producing 230hp. It’s mpg was about 18city/28hwy, and it weighed 300 to 800lbs more.
In addition during 2013 the Washington Post reported the average fuel economy of new vehicles sold in 2011 was 22.4mpg. On perspective for the time the RX-8 falls completely average.
I love some of you videos, but please Present facts don’t skew them. There’s enough of that in politics.
I still have faith in Rotary. Who knows maybe somebody will fix all the problem and remake the rotary in the future. Just like how intake and exhaust valve lift works in VTEC, I'm not sure if alot of people know but VTEC was not even invented by Honda but it was a different manufacturer. However, it did not works smoothly as intended by whoever that manufacturer is so Honda tried their very best to make everything work smoothly then they made the VTEC patent. Hopefully Rotary engines come back to life again.I work in Mazda and there is 2 RX8's in our lot sitting collecting dust and molds because it needs an engine work "delivered by a tow truck". Sad to see those sit knowing Rotarys are one of the icons in auto racing.
+Mark
RX-Vision
ruclips.net/video/v3uGJGzUYCI/видео.html&lc=z12lvzv5ek2fhxjq104ccbhh1r3xwpwwozw0k
+Mark Honda did indeed invent the VVTI system later it was used by Toyota under licence until Mercedes and BMW decided to produce a look alike system which is still used today,
Paul Renton don't confuse VVTi from VVTL-i . VTEC has 3 different forms. There is a performance and there is an economy version. And again, no. Honda DID NOT invent this technology.
I agree with you brother! I used to an RX7 (FC3S). That was my first car I ever owned, and I loved it, however the downside was the fuel consumption and I had problems with the apex seals twice, so I had to spend money just to have it rebuilt, then one I just gave up and sold it. But, I still miss the sound of a rotary engine and I badly miss the FC.
Buenavene Abragan yea man when you own a Rotary, you should not care about fuel consumption in the first place :p . Yes the apex seals are always one that needs to be replaced. Another RX8 got towed in the shop last week and guess what it needs. We never had an RX7 yet but I understand why. RX7 FC and FD owners will rather choose to go to a tuning specialist shop than a dealership. That's what I will do too anyway haha
I bought a new Mazda RX2 back in 1973. Drove it from Florida to California. Best highway mpg was 18. Remember there was a 55mph speed limit at the time. Around town 13 to 14 was normal. Also spark plugs needed to be replaced constantly. Traded it in for a new 1975 Ford F150 when I moved to Texas.
You must make a good living, you are an engineer I suppose lol... Me too, low level mechanics though. You always seem to have a load of expensive stuff to show us. I'll sub.
+Hay_ImKeyser_Söze Appreciate you subscribing! A fellow subscriber lent me the engine for the video.
There's no other sound like it when you wind it up. Mini jet engine. Awesome. Sadly I had to put it to pasture when gas got to expensive. Guzzled half a tank each way to work. Ouch.
*Five* companies throughout the world make rotary engines.
Another great vid. Suggestion, hit up Expo markers and get sponsored by them. Everyone makes comments about your white board and how much u use it, time to cash in
Excellent explanation. I owned an RX-7 for 27 years and sold it with 178,000 miles on it. No major engine problems, but you had to educate yourself about rotaries if you owned one. A major headache was the flooding problem if you shut the engine off before attaining operating temps. Live and learn.
You obviously didn't educate yourself very well... because hard starting is a classic symptom of Wankel engine failure due to compression loss...
Most of Wankel engines still running lost compression decades ago and are still limping arpund half dead with low compression.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Read through the replies and you'll find another one of mine where I specifically mention low compression with my 178K engine. My car still ran strong and had no starting issues unless it was hot. After owning a rotary for 27 years, I think I learned a little. Hard starting due to low compression is a trait of piston engines as well. Since you seem to be the rotary savant, why don't you post a video and enlighten us all?
@@stayathome2 I don't think that you have slightest clue what you are talking about... at 178,000 miles the engine was probably barely running.. if it started at all.
Everyone knows to conduct a hot start test before buying any Wankel engine... trouble starting when hot is the surest sign of a dead engine.
I love my rotary despite the crap mileage. I'm on my third one, having had a 1st & 2nd gen RX7 (the latter being the holy grail, a 1990 GTUs) and now an RX8. There's a lot to be said for an engine with only 3 moving parts. Of all those cars, I never had a engine problem, the rotary is super reliable.
Great video, doesn't the engine also have problems producing adequate torque when compared to a similar spec'd piston engine?
Maybe in numbers, but torque is really just a matter of gearing. These engines are high revving and very powerful for their size, so with appropriate gearing torque isn't really an issue.
yes. More gutless down low than a 4 valve overhead cam motor.
okay thanks!
Engineering Explained if they are geared enough to not need that torque it would explain the mpg issue. Since there are no 10 speed manuals these things would need to run the highway at to high of an rpm while the Vette next to it idles by doing 80mpg at like 1900 rpm.
For commuting it is terrible engine .
But for racing , it is a beast .
I sold my RX8 2years ago, can't remember if i liked it or hated it , the little smile it gave me a few times doesn't rectify all the non smiling times i endured, ifonly thinking about the smiling times i would go for another one for sure, but NOT if it's going to be my only car...RX is a hobby
Well yeah ... but the "BRRRAAPP's" per mile are off the chart.
The Otto-Engine once was just as inefficient. If we had given the same amount of love to the Wankel-Engine and its optimization as we did to the Otto-Engine, they'd probably be equally good nowadays. They just didn't care about it too much I guess :) like HD-DVDs compared to Blu-Ray discs.
+raphu604
Look at my posts on this vid.
+raphu604 I've said the same thing about rotaries for years. The Otto is still an inefficient design, and was once HORRIBLY inefficient. If the rotary had the same "love" (as you put it) as the Otto, they'd probably be making 1,000hp, getting hundreds of miles to the gallon and have near zero emissions. That may be a stretch, but if regulations can make Otto's as clean as they currently are, compared how disgusting they were (especially 70's and older), and given the simplicity and continual motion of the Wankel, it may have been possible.
I was just grateful to see that someone else felt like I have.
***** Mazda made a hybrid out of the Mazda 2. The small rotary was only turning a generator. Some engineers have concluded that a modern rotary as in the R&D labs (laser ignition, direct injection, etc) in a genset can power the driving electric motors and not need a buffer battery. However a mains chargeable battery bank (energy buffer) makes them shine in performance and economy.
Liquid Piston turned the design inside out with the seals on the housing and the valves/ports in the rotary. The seals can be changed as in a normal periodic service by taking off a lid, as we periodically changing timing belts. They got US federal aid to develop and went off the radar announcing developments - as they do when government money is put in and military is in mind.
Once a crankshaft is removed the efficiency of an IC engine rises substantially.
Very interesting. I was also led to believe that the lobes on the rotor wore excessively and so maintenance costs on these things was prohibitive too. Hard to understand why they ever got past the development stage with all these givens.
Having had a 1975 RX-4 station wagon that I absolutely loved, I can understand your points. But new materials are being developed all the time especially in ceramics. Natural gas is becoming a more viable fuel all the time. The power-to-weight ratio of piston-to-rotor engines have been demonstrated beyond doubt. I read an article about aircraft applications being far safer and more reliable than piston in that as long as fuel is supplied, the rotary will get you down in one piece.
They make no sense whatsoever. I still want one, though.
Every man in the world wants tell his mates in the pub about his "rotary wankel" engine.
They make *some* sense (not much though). With a Wankel you haven't got big lumps of steel changing direction every few nanoseconds. That's about all I can come up with 😏
Nah,I wanna tell my mates about a big block V8.
Actually funny how one would think it's gonna be expensive to own a V8 machine.Then he discovers rotary.
@@Killer553 My coworker had an RX-8 and I was so damn envious, but then it broke and he told me that no matter where he asked no workshop specializing in rotary engines would try to fix it, because it was too old, and his only option was to buy a brand new engine for more than the cost of a used RX-8, or buy a used engine and hope it will not break down soon.
That's when I stopped dreaming about having an RX-8.
Ok, I didn't, I still want to own a red RX-8 even if it means selling my lungs.
@@TheByQQ
Well your dream is at least partially real.
I would like to travel back in time if it was possible.
....Obviously because of classic Muscle cars ;)
@@TheByQQ You don't have to sell your lungs. 1000€ for car with dead engine, 4-5k€ for rebuild and other things, and you will have a car you will never want to sell. It's not really that expensive to maintain.
Actually, these are wankel engines, not rotary engines. In a rotary engine, the crank is securely bolted to the vehicle, while the crankcase rotates. Seldom seen outside of aircraft of the WWI era and a few years afterward, but very common at that time.
Lol wtf. Makes me think of when someone tried making the rear wheel of a motorcycle THE engine. A radial type with the cylinders being the spokes
Seems to me that you're describing a Radial engine
Nope.
A radial is a fixed engine block, with a rotating crankshaft.
A rotary has a fixed crankshaft (mounted to the firewall), with a rotating engine block (that's why it's called a rotary). Also, given how the rotary works, it has a total-loss lubrication system.
The real doktorbimmer have any link to support your idea?
I mean it says right there that it is pistonless rotary engine
there is no piston
that is a ROTOR
the only person using slang here is you, calling that rotor a "piston"
The real doktorbimmer do electric motors use "pistons" too? :D you're a funny guy
1 reason to bring it back : Brap Brap Brap.
👆
These problems don't seem to be unsurmountable. Hope to see this engine come back and give another engine-option to car-buyers.
What about the amount of money put into conventional engine research vs rotary engines? WIth equivalent R&D might they be more competitive?
*Without a doubt !*
Of course they would but conventional engine guys don't understand how rotary engines work
absolutely
What happened to the LP or my dad's reel to reel deck? Did the 8 track die because the sound quality wasn't good? or did it die because a more practical more compact delivery was created. And what happened to the cassette? and then the CD? Who uses I-pods any more? Everyone I kow uses their smart phone and blue tooth ear buds now.
Will wi-fi delivered music become obsolete when a cerebral implant can receive and play any genre with the wink of my right eye right into my cochleal implant?
freedom-motors.com/freedom_performance.html
oh man! I really liked the illuminati motor
lol, damn, if the engine is Illuminati based, then I'm a big time sinner. Forgive me God. :@
Check out the new Illuminati motor design jalopnik.com/tiny-rotary-engine-thats-not-a-wankel-powers-go-kart-fo-1781988639
hahaha
+allblacks420 I think he'll forgive me just cause it's A car, actually not just a car, a speed demon.. oops
The whole oil burning thing effecting the emissions, I wonder how that compares to a diesel engine that basically burns oil
Well, depends on what you mean with clean. Diesel engines without exhaust aftertreatment are actually quite dirty. The only thing where they shine are the CO2 emissions but they are behind a comparable petrol engine in everything else. NOx, fine particle, Hydrocarbons and CO, it's all way higher than in a petrol engine. Also because Diesel engines run with surplus oxygen, the exhaust aftertreatment is way more complicated than in a petrol engine.
Good point
It compares unfavorably to a diesel engine. You realize that a diesel is compressing the air so much that the oil is burned almost completely... so much in fact, that the primary emissions problem with diesels (that the CARB tripped over their shoelaces about) is their penchant to get the nitrogen in the air too hot and compressed. They squeeze the air so much that nitrogen dioxides... purely from the air... is the big emissions bugaboo.
Diesels do put out some soot, too, which is the smoky old style diesel's nemesis. Obviously newer diesels trap the soot, too, so that liberals won't get a nosebleed.
The only diesels with emissions issues are the ones that Volkswagen cheated on... And I want to shake that guy's hand. The truth of the matter is that a turbo diesel is very fuel efficient and powerful if the government wouldn't cry about the NOx emissions and a little black, sooty smoke here and there... during acceleration and high loads.
The sulfur is pretty much gone, too. Diesels are clean now.
Wankels can't seem to clean up their act without some type of exhaust cleanup system which hasn't made it to the market.
Many vehicles cheat. Vw just got caught.
It's also worth noting that gasoline engines also black smoke, especially the newer direct injection turbo engines.
I drove a mark 1 RX-7 for a long time, great fun. My understanding is that the poor similar efficiency arises from the shape of the combustion chamber which is long and narrow such that the surface area of the combustion chamber is much higher than that for cylinder engines, and so a higher proportion of combustion energy leaks away into the coolant.
For comparison, if I drive it "smart" my 2002 Dodge 2500 4x4 Cummins Diesel Quad-Cab will average 18 mpg city/highway. And it weighs somewhere north of 7000 pounds and is about as aerodynamic as a brick. But yeah, rotaries are AWESOME.
So all we need to make it more environmentally friendly is to capture the exhaust and recollect the unspent fuel?
The solution to a design flaw isn't to add more to the original design. You just make a new design that doesn't have those flaws.
Chris L Not necessarily, there are cases (speaking in general, non domain specific) were adding something onto a design will improve it and remove/compensate for flaws in another part of the design. And of course there are other cases where the entire design needs to be rethought in order to make up for those flaws. One could argue that if you break down any design into small enough pieces that you will end up with distinct parts that chain together, each depending on the other parts before it to accomplish a task. But I don't know if I completely agree with that either,(getting a bit to abstract at that point) and if it were true how one would prove it mathematically/logically.
+Chris L
and anyone else who likes technical history might read _Longitude_ by Dava Sobel; an interesting read on the development of the Naval Chronometer. It illustrates the point made by Chris L and was also a public television series of same name.
The real doktorbimmer
*You must stop telling lies.*
*****
Good point. The design flaws on piston engines is immense. The pumping loses can't be overcome.
Such a cool looking design!
+Blake's Garage you're just everywhere lol Love your Channel Btw
+Aaron M STALKER
I had 3 of these and they were the most fun cars to drive I have ever had. The engines all failed well below expectations due to the O ring seal around the chamber charring and letting combustion gasses blow into the cooling system. This blew out the cooling water and the engine then failed. Mazda was very good about replacing these free but the loss of the car for weeks at a time while the engine was being rebuilt was a real hassle. Now I'm into electrics, which have their own set of hassles!
Amazing that they work at all.
Yes I had the same thought=can you imagine taking it to a mechanic~?????
Similar toughts... I definietly don't want it as my daily...
I have the RX8 and it's a terrible car. I love it, it's so much fun, but I admit it's a terrible engine for heat, economy, weird vapor lock problems (you can't just start it cold and move it into the driveway and shut it down again if you want to start it up again) and it's just a pathetic machine but it sounds so cool and the car is just so well balanced. Such an anachronism from the 70s, I feel like I should only drive one with bell bottom pants!
Try an s2k. Its basically a slightly better version of the rx8.
Did you buy it new or under warranty? You might be entitled to some of the class action lawsuit rewards
I had an RX-8 in England for 5 years in all weather and temperature ranges of -10C to 33C. The Renesis engine never once failed to start in 55,000 miled, predominantly 8 mile daily commutes. I had NONE of the issues you mention and my car was reliable and superb. "A pathetic machine"?! Get outta here!
anchio ho avuto x un anno una rx-8 del 2008 e non avuto nessun problema!se avessi la possibilita' la ricomprerei di nuovo!e' una macchina fantastica!
It sounds more like you didn't take care of the car
1.3 litre rotary is just an error on your part, it is actually much bigger in cubic capacity than that.
1.3 is the accepted volume.
Agreed, it is the accepted volume but it remains quite wrong. The Mazda engine has an actual volume of about 3 litres.
"WRONG! 2.6 liters is the accepted volume while the actual displacement is really 3.9 liters"
Hes not "WRONG!". Rotaries are simply measured different. It becomes WRONG when you try to "compare" 1.3 liters with a rotary, to 1.3 liters with a 4-stroke piston engine. 2.6 is only the "accepted" volume when you compare it to a 4-stroke engine. On their own, theyre 1.3 liters. If you measure the full thermal dynamic cycle, theyre 3.9 liter engines.
Context. Makes the world go round.
Back to work officer.
I think it would be right to say 1.3 litres, because combustion happens only in that area.
CC should be only the combustion area.
If we compare everything to 4 stroke, then things will complicate. For example, by the 720* logic, every 500cc 2 stroke bike is a 1000cc because it fires a 500cc space twice in the same time...
And performance figures can back my claim easily.
Anyhow, I think there's not much need to be disappointed. I've heard Norton is making 100 units of CR700P, which is a motorcycle with a rotary engine.... A road going model is going to follow too, with Euro 4 compliance.
And for a motorcycle, a 200 bhp bike with 136 kgs doesn't sound like a good idea. Its more like a "revolutionary idea"!
How many mentioned challenges of this video, are solved in this bike remains to be seen though.
Ok, so a little introduction. I'm a biker. And not too old, I'm 30 and not from a developed country, and I'm also a Commerce Post Graduate, didn't study science due to some sad reasons.
So, I know less about Wankel engines, but buddy, engineering is still very much my only passion.... :)
Yes, Wankel is on the 4 stroke principle, easy to understand that (except for moving valves). For further understanding however, its necessary to observe its working closely...
What you said about Norton is true, but there's news on that.
Here is the link of the news, and its on various other places as well:-
www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2017/april/norton-rotron-200-bhp-race-bike/
I remember back in the early 60's reading about the engines in "Popular Mechanics" (I think it was Popular Mechanics) They said it would be a very cheap throw away engine good for perhaps lawn mowers. Then I read many years later an article in an aircraft home builder magazine. The question was, would a Wankel be a good engine for a home built aircraft. This magazine was dedicated to people with the skill to build aircraft but the advice was, if the engine works, don't try to take it apart and rebuild it - you will never get it back together again.
Napoleon Dynamite, is that you ?!?
#GreatVideoThou
Come get your dinner.
Ugh, don't be jealous 'cause I've been chatting online with babes all day...
What is the point in knowing the City and Highway mpg? I need to know what mpg will be when I have it off-road hunting Wolverines..... ;-)
Interesting video though I do believe a little out of date in regards to the current markets and the State of the Art for Rotary engines, my comments below in answer to the points raised....
The Wankel engine was last seen in a production car in the Mazda RX-8, and currently, there are no rotary engines in production.
-Far from it. In fact, Wankel rotary engines are very much alive and kicking and are currently being used in Automotive, Aerospace, and Marine applications worldwide. While most people associate Wankel rotary engines with past vehicles such the Mazda RX7 & RX8 and Norton rotary motorcycles of the 1980s, the fact is Wankel engines have and are still currently used in everything from snowmobiles to speedboats to aeroplanes and even space vehicle launch systems, therefore rather than a failed obsolete technology, Wankel engines have been hugely successful in niche applications. These are typically applications that require ultra-small form factor, very low weight and high power density. AIE as a company has built on this UK track record of success in Wankel rotary engines and since its formation in 2012 developed a range of cutting-edge engines designed specifically to meet the needs of 21st century OEM’s, integrators and applications.
Rotor sealing as a result of uneven temperatures in the combustion chamber
-Thermal stability is certainly a challenge for rotary engines (as it is for many other engines) but through utilising new engine technologies such as AIE’s Compact SPARCS cooling system this thermal differential can be largely eliminated give the seals a much easier job and allowing them to perform better and for longer.
Oil consumption
-This is certainly true in the Mazda engine and some other rotary engine configurations but is certainly not true for AIE’s engines. AIE’s SPARCS cooling system combined with ceramic seals eliminates the need for direct trochoid oil injection.
Low thermal efficiency, emissions are poor and fuel economy
- Wankel rotary engines certainly have high energy exhaust (heat and sound) and due to the nature of the engine have higher emissions of HC than a piston reciprocating engine, but with similar CO and lower NOx. Emissions are not a problem (at the moment anyway) for some markets, such as unmanned aerospace, where power, weight, and reliability are the core drivers but are obviously a real challenge for automotive applications. In a series hybrid application, however, where the engine is not “throttling” and is operated at a consistently high load and rpm (with excess air), the HC emissions from a rotary are not that high. So as discussed in previous answers, the devil (for rotaries) is in the detail and the specific application in question. Wankel rotary technology targeted at specific solutions allow the engine to deliver all of its benefits (low weight, high power, low vibration) with the negatives largely mitigated or eliminated. To further enhance its rotary engine performance for series hybrid applications, AIE is developing an additional “overexpansion” or “compounding” unit called “CREEV.” CREEV utilises a second rotor with a different Wankel geometry to allow overexpansion of the engine’s exhaust to deliver significant reductions in HC emissions, while also recouping otherwise lost energy to improve the overall efficiency and fuel consumption of the engine. CREEV has the additional advantage of reducing exhaust heat and sound energy, making the required exhaust system less complex than would otherwise be required.
AIE UK Ltd
Excellent post. The video is rather too eager to dismiss the rotary engine. New developments, as you have introduced, are coming in. Another is Mazda's ignition system using HCCI or laser, which hopefully we will see on their range extender rotary in 2019.
A biased eh AIE UK Ltd? the rotary is more or less dead. if you account traditional vs rotary engine production numbers across all industry, then rotary is VERY dead, it just hasn't been unhooked from life support yet
All right, tell us who's producing a meaningful amount of rotary engines for on-road use. No-one, because in everyday use the drawbacks significantly outweigh the benefits. Just like two-stroke piston engines, rotary engines are great for racing and when maximum power-to-weight ratio is needed, but they are of little use elsewhere.
In fact, the lower NOx emissions and high HC emissions are a result of the rotary engine's poor compression and low combustion temperature compared to piston engines. NOx is generated when the nitrogen in intake air combines with oxygen, which only happens at very high temperatures and pressures, like in a diesel engine. The low temperature and pressure lead to inefficient burning, causing unburnt fuel to escape as HC emissions.
@@Tuppoo94 Funny to bring up that consider this, whats easier to buy in America answer a cheap dodge whatever it will burn more oil, and shoot gas out the exhaust more than any car with a rotary engine.... Also, 2 stroke engines are in almost every lawn mower ever soooo, clearly your not to smart there. Sure 2 strokes dont get used in cars anymore but why bother when all we humans want is fun fast and strong speed and torque. As well there are the neat little cars called Go-Karts that use 2 strokes and more recently Tiny rotary engines. which if you live down south i bet you would see them on the road.
@@Alpha-106 I don't even live in the US. And none of what you said disproves any of my points.
A Mazda13 B has 80 cubic inches. If you want proof put a P& G meter on it. A rotary is much more efficient because the eccentric shaft (output shaft) turns 3 revolutions every time the rotor turns one complete revolution. Eccentric shafts DO NOT HAVE COUNTERWEIGHTS because they are not needed in rotary engines. They also do not have a harmonic balancer because they dont need them either. Inn a piston engine the piston completely stops and REVERSES DIRECTION at TDC and BDC. Now thats inefficient! A piston engine has so much vibration it has to have a crankshaft with huge heavy counterweights and a huge heavy harmonic balancer to keep them from destroying themselves.They also have valves obstructing the ports and they are controlled by another power robbing assembly that creates even more parasitic drag. A rotary engine runs as smooth as silk with no valves because everything inside them always turns turns the same direction. Measure the torque it takes to turn a piston engine over by hand with a torque wrench! I can turn a rotary over with a 3/8 in. ratchet! Like I said, they are cheap fun.
Had a 1991 RX7 turbo. It was such an amazing car it made me learn how it works. Made me a car guy. Never cared about cars much until driving the great rotary! Thank you Mazda