Firstly, I in NO WAY, EVER even hinted towards the fact that a rotary was superior in any other way than their horsepower output potential PER LITER to a semi-equivalent reicprocating piston motor (2.6-liter V6). And I in NO WAY compared my rotary to a piston motor. I agree, they are completely different technologies but the saying "There's no replacement for displacement" is completely ignorant to some level.
Secondly, you rate displacement per cycle. You are correct, there are three times as many exhaust pulses per cycle but the cycle lasts longer. Just because a rotary does work "three times faster" doesn't mean it's displacement increases. If Felix Wankel and the techs at the Mazda corporation agreed with your views than I'm sure they would have classified it as 4-liter motor.
Thirdly, I didn't intend on offending anyone. If I did, I apologize.
This is what it boils down to... Your motor is a balance of all working parts. You can make a KA and an SR do very similar things givin the right amount of modification and money. In some cases, extreme modification may need to be made. Hell, I can probably get an LS1 motor to do similar things to a KA or SR pending the right modifications...
The key phrase here is balance. Of course displacement matters to an extent, but it's not everything. Stroke, valve train integrity, bore, rod length, etc. More rotational momentum creates torque, which is why a longer stroke produces more torque (KA) in the low end RPM range and a shorter stroke reduces low end torque (SR). However, less rotational mass will allow for a higher revving car. Take a Camaro Z28... 5.7-liters. That car has a massive displacement but is miserably slow after first and second gear because the torque drops off in the high RPM's. After second gear it has no more will power to keep accelerating.
My Formula 1 comment was to prove that you don't need a 15-liter engine to produce big power numbers and reinforce my belief that displacement is not everything. With only 3.0 liters, Formula 1 teams are able to produce in excess of 800 hp N/A, and they are only able to do it by creating a functional power band up to 18,000 RPM's.
You're also right about rotaries... People put 20B's in RX7's because they have more potential than a 13B. Of course! The amount of fuel and air you can safely combust will always determine how much power you can create. But it's not the only important factor.
Oh, and
S13 Slide, remember our old debate about MR and RR cars promoting oversteer/understeer? I recently watched the drift bible with Tsuchiya and I'd hate to break it to you but the man you used as a reference to further your point that they promote oversteer agrees with what I was trying to say the whole time. You were right to an extent. The motor setup does promote oversteer, but ONLY under braking conditions. To further my point, he brake drifts every car he drives in that tutorial. This is absolutely not trying to spark up old flames and I'm not trying to take shots at you. I'm only trying to help clear up information on here.
dori dori said:
No Anthony. A rotor has 3 combustion sides. Using a 2 rotor (using your 13b example), that's 6 total. The displacement of each is 654cc's. You are right up until there. A rotor spins at 1/3 the speed of the crank though so a complete cycle (per rotor) doesn't occur until the crank has rotated 3 time where as a 4-stroke does it in two. So, multiply your whack number by 33% and you have the real displacement of a 13b.
Oh and I'm staying out of this KA crap from now on. You girls are too sensitive. I'll keep driving my crappy sr, that has worked for over 2 years...that I bought used...and beat the crap out of...regularly...and still has good compression.
hahhaha I'll blow it soon.
Thank you... You just gave the in depth version of what I said above.
