^ I wouldn't bother with him, it's not worth your time.
Printable View
^ I wouldn't bother with him, it's not worth your time.
O i know lol. Im not trying to change his mind about the Wankel engine, I just want to know what "Failures in engineering" he is talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by thegovanator
Just a friendly conversation :D
Haha well I assume he will respond with "apex seals"
the torqueless wonder, flawed from the start with oil consumption and of course apex seal failure, too much to ask from three tiny seals per rotor. Now, I used to love these things and as I've told others I rebuild them even to this day, but wow if you can't see the superiority of a piston engine then you are retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Machado
I understand your point and agree with you on some of it. But i think you went too far in calling it a "Failure in engineering". Maybe if these motors were only lasting about 30k miles you might be right, but i have see many N/A Rotary's well over 200k miles and going strong. And remember just how much R&D the piston engine has compared to the little rotary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziptied
But imo you cant beat the sound of a v8.
Just because a few have done that, doesn't mean its a success. I had a 10AE with 215k before it blew, but that's an anomaly, not the norm. The rotary has had tons of research, just not for automotive use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Machado
I was not going to bring aircraft's in to this but... The Wankel has many advantages over a piston motor in that field. Lighter, Cheaper, And safer!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziptied
Im sure we can go on and on about this. And it seems you are educated with these motors and have spent time working on them. All i am arguing is your ridiculous assumption that the Rotary is a "failure in engineering" which it clearly is not.
What is cheaper about a rotary? Nothing, cost to produce, and rebuild is more than a comparable piston engine. The piston engine will also make more hp per liter, produce more power and torque as well as produce higher MPG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Machado
In smaller aircraft it is cheaper to use a rotary due to its small size there for allowing a small frontal area for better aerodynamic's and savings in construction costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziptied
And the most important reason, i couldn't have said it better my self.
Why would so many people trust there lives with a motor that is such a "failure in engineering"Quote:
Wankel engines that operate within their original design parameters are almost immune to catastrophic failure. A Wankel engine that loses compression, cooling or oil pressure will lose a large amount of power, and will die over a short period of time; however, it will usually continue to produce some power during that time. Piston engines under the same circumstances are prone to seizing or breaking parts that almost certainly results in major internal damage of the engine and an instant loss of power. For this reason, Wankel engines are very well suited to aircraft and to snowmobiles, which often take users into remote places where a failure could result in frostbite or death.
We just have different opinions lol. You said you still rebuild rotary engine's? Who do you work for?
I get sublet jobs from Ernst at RX7 World when he is over booked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Machado
Cool I have never heard of them, seem like a cool shop from there web site!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziptied
:goodjob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Machado
But I'd rather hear a Brap, Brap.
Just shut up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziptied
If it weren't for rotaries you wouldn't be making that side money bitch. :tongue1: