Hi Paul,
I was thinking; ya I know it's a dangerous thing to do. Normally leads to
trouble sooner or later. The thought was; could the rotor radius be
increased a bit making rotors and rotor housings and be able to use the
Mazda end housings. A bit more radius would increase the displacement and
torque/HP with the same outside dimension + or - a hair. If people are
going
to the trouble to build their own parts, might as well get more benefit
from
the effort required. Yup, already thought about that some more also. Mazda
K
factor is close to 7. You know they did a bunch of R+D with respect to
this
for optimal housing shape, apex seal lean angle, etc. R 112, e 16: R 140,
e
20. These dimensions would require end housing design also. The R 140 with
a
80 width is almost twice the displacement of the RX7 and RX8 engines. With
light rotors serious power would be possible. One rotor with 200 -250 HP
and
not much heavier than what you have now.
Dale Davies
The wankel is unique in the sense that any one parameter cannot be changed
with out affecting all others. One can stroke or bore a piston engine but
other than adding rotors or rotor width there is no way to change just one
dimension and have the engine still work.
Paul Lamar
Along those lines though, you could "weld" two rotors together, build
another shaft to accept this configuration, and double the cubic inch of a
motor. I doubt the shaft would hold up unless you lightened the rotors
dramatically. But theoretically it could work.
Bob Mears.
I think it would work for awhile as the rotor bearing journal is very
large. One might have trouble with the phasing gears however.
I am rather surprised that so many changes were made on the 3.2 L 16x.
That means a whole new Mazda engine factory as many of the machine tools
are custom designed to make the 12A and 13B. That also means that no
parts like end housings are interchangeable. Perhaps they are
revamping the old factory with all NC tools. I know the RX8 engine
required a few inserted NC mills into the old machine lines.
If I were Mazda I would merely make the 13B rotors 100 mm wide
instead of 80 mm. That would give the same 3.2 L displacement
as the 16x.
I am sure Mazda think the 16x is worth it but I cannot
figure out why yet :) Perhaps it is more 16x low RPM torque but
that could be addressed with a fast shifting paddle mechanical/automatic
transmission. The RX8 would be a lot more fun to drive with
that transmission
The only thing I can think of is they
wanted it to fit in the RX8 chassis as it has narrower rotors.
A 40 mm longer 13B/RX8 motor may not fit. It should however develop
over 300 HP. Over 350 HP with a trap door p-port.
http://www.rotaryeng.net/RX8-**p-port.html<
http://www.rotaryeng.net/RX8-p-port.html
That and cost is probably why there is no 20B option for
the RX8. If it were not for an artificial weight and RPM penalty in
the Rolex GT road racing the 3 rotor RX8 would wipe
out everybody.
It has always dumb founded me why Mazda does not sell the 3.9 L 3 rotor
in the RX8 and charge as much as a Porsche or a Corvette.
The RX8 is still $28,000 while Porsche's and Corvettes are
well over $60,000. Surely a profit could be made on a 3 rotor
option.
Paul Lamar
They can't get it passed EPA but hears a thought if you direct injected it
and had side exhaust could it then pass EPA inspection ?
I think what Mazda needs to do is come out with experimental engines for
the experimental
market bypassing the need to certify them until the market warrants it; a
turbo normalized four seat experimental helicopter based on the three rotor
would be unbeatable. Mazda could keep up with Honda at a fraction of the
price.
clifton younger
@#$%^& the EPA!
Paul Lamar
They have the ability to fine business out of existence but the sentiment is
appreciated. I, really do think Mazda should take their three rotor, and go
into general aviation with it. do a experimental compound helicopter or
gyro copter, go from there.
clifton younger
My 2004 RX8 passes Ca draconian smog rules with flying colors.
The 2 cycle oil I put in the fuel apparently helps :)
Here is the proof.
What we need is more Co2 rather than less. Food and trees grow faster.
Pretty soon the stupid EPA will ban Coke-Cola and Pepsi :)
Paul Lamar
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Youtube key word PaulLamar2
Copyright 1998-2011 All world wide rights reserved.
