Four Rotor 3 gen RX-7 video

[trev0006]

non-turbo 4 rotor 590 HP street car from New Z-land.
The car runs mid 10s and has 590hp @ 8500 rpm with
NO boost & NO NOS too!
EFI Hardware = 55mm IDA throtle bodies mounted on
custom intake manifold, eight 550cc/minute injectors,
45 litre custom fuel cell, two Bosh motorsport fuel pumps,
SX pressure regulator, eigth Bosh ignition coils Controled
by an Autronic ECU ..rx7 sereis 6 parts... (Rotors, housings,
center and side plates ..The car runs standard s6 box just
an uprated fly wheel and cluch, standard locked diff with
spool and 4.77 final drive...hookin' up on Mickey
T's ET streets. Also the has standard brakes and suspension.


http://student.lssu.edu/~ujones/4rotorfd.mpg
http://webhost.karlz.nzco.net/atomnet/fourre.mpg
http://onionz.com/albums/afterburner/quad_rotor_video.mpg

[Hercules]

If they used the RENESIS design in a 4 or 3 rotor application I think they'd push even more horsies from that badboy... the 4 rotor that ran in LeMans (and won it) was higher as I recall... :)

And mind you... that 590 horsepower car's engine weighs less than a V8 :)

[GregD]

That thing sounds just plain nasty. In a good way. :)

[TeamM3]

Mazda won Lemans in 1991 with the 767B prototpye chassis fitted with the R26B 4-rotor engine, it produced peak figures of 700 hp @ 9000 rpm and 454 lb/ft @ 6400, but it used a hydraulically-driven telescoping intake manifold that varied runner length from 7" to 14" long dependent on rpm to significantly boost lowend power


http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/787B/26b_large.jpg

[The Roadstergal]

NICE.

[TeamM3]

that's a normally-aspirated engine

several 13G 3-rotor turbo motors have made up to 1000 hp :wow:

[·clyde·]

that's a normally-aspirated engine

several 13G 3-rotor turbo motors have made up to 1000 hp :wow:
You're looking forward to driving a rotary, aren't you? :p

[TeamM3]

I began autoxing in one; '93 Rx7TT :p

[racerdave]

That was a fabulous autocross car. I didn't fit well in one, but it was truly a joy to drive. I only autocrossed one 2x, one on a few fun runs in the wet (on dried up Goodyear R-compound tires no less)... traction was inversely proporational to boost levels. The other was in the dry on a cold day... was being very careful in Wynveen's car, did rather well and still had a lot of time to gain. When set up well (and Wynveen's was), it was really rewarding.

[Optimus Prime]

http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/787B/26b_large.jpg

I need a cold shower :yumyum: :yumyum:
That picture is better than porn :freakdanc :freakdanc

[TeamM3]

here's great technical paper on the R26B 4-rotor engine that won Lemans (pictured above)

http://www.mymazdarotary.com/mazda_rotary_general/r26b/html/r26b_paper_html.htm

[RKT BMR]

Opinions on why the wankel has never spread beyond Mazda?

I've always thought it was quite an advance in engine design ever since the first one rolled off the assembly line. Simpler and more reliable (theoretically at least ;) ) too.

Why doesn't anyone else adopt it? Seems to me that the efficiency, reliability, etc. would have advanced all that much more if several manufacturers were competing (of course)...

[TeamM3]

they were the only ones who ever dedicated to figuring out the inherent sealing issues, but otherwise they can be tempermental when cold, are weak on lowend torque, get poor gas mileage, are difficult to make emissions legal, have a high driveshaft centerline that requires a tall tunnel through the passenger compartment, and are also tough to manufacture (complex machining geometries). Mazda stuck with it long after the others gave up. They've managed to overcome some of the difficulties but even as advanced as the latest Renesis version is it still has some of the same shortcomings assiociated with the Wankel design :dunno: :eek:

[·clyde·]

They've managed to overcome some of the difficulties but even as advanced as the latest Renesis version is it still has some of the same shortcomings assiociated with the Wankel design :dunno: :eek:


WRT the Renesis fuel efficiency, I've been doing some thinking about what people have been reporting and there's something that looks a little strange. The EPA figures for the RX-8 are 18/24. As we all know, the EPA estimates are based on tests that are generally regarded to be somewhat removed from reality. Even so, most people in most cars tend to get mileage that is close enough to the EPA figures that it isn't an issue. For the RX-8, the vast majority of people reporting their mileage on the different forums I read are either getting mileage in the 13/20 range or the 18/25 range. Very few are in between. It makes me wonder if Mazda might have two suppliers for one or more parts/assemblies with one of them doing a better job than the other. :dunno: