Most pointless engine.
Discussion
ensignia said:
Mazda's rotary wankel engine has to have a shout. Quite innovative (in a way), and credit to Mazda for persisting with it, but it is utterly horrendous in nearly every way except packaging and its high revving nature.
These can be had in similar engines but without any of the associated pitfalls.
point of order but isn't it NSU's engine which Mazda continued with?These can be had in similar engines but without any of the associated pitfalls.
ensignia said:
Mazda's rotary wankel engine has to have a shout. Quite innovative (in a way), and credit to Mazda for persisting with it, but it is utterly horrendous in nearly every way except packaging and its high revving nature.
These can be had in similar engines but without any of the associated pitfalls.
Advantages over a usual engineThese can be had in similar engines but without any of the associated pitfalls.
1. Weight drastically less
2. Smooth linear power
3. Very compact allowing lower COG and also smaller bonnet so bigger cabin or smaller car if that's what is needed
4. Few moving parts
Disadvantages
1. All other manufacturers had huge R&D vested interest in the traditional engine so continued as such only Mazda invested a little had they all done so we'd be using these engines today and vastly more economical
Welshbeef said:
Advantages over a usual engine
1. Weight drastically less
2. Smooth linear power
3. Very compact allowing lower COG and also smaller bonnet so bigger cabin or smaller car if that's what is needed
4. Few moving parts
They aren't as light as you might think. The RX8 lump weighs about 95kg completely undressed (i.e. no ancillaries at all), and there are plenty of piston engines that can compete with this.1. Weight drastically less
2. Smooth linear power
3. Very compact allowing lower COG and also smaller bonnet so bigger cabin or smaller car if that's what is needed
4. Few moving parts
Piston engines can also provide smooth linear power if designed to do so. wankel engines can have very peaky power delivery if designed to do so.
A V8 will fit under the bonnet of an RX8, so they probably aren't as compact as you might hope when fitted with all the systems required to get them running reasonably well.
wankels might have fewer moving parts, but those parts are subject to a lot of stress and consequent wear. A piston engine might have considerably more moving parts, but 200,000 miles without major work being required is absolutely commonplace these days on even quite highly tuned engines.
Welshbeef said:
Disadvantages
1. All other manufacturers had huge R&D vested interest in the traditional engine so continued as such only Mazda invested a little had they all done so we'd be using these engines today and vastly more economical
1. All other manufacturers had huge R&D vested interest in the traditional engine so continued as such only Mazda invested a little had they all done so we'd be using these engines today and vastly more economical
dme123 said:
That old 1.3 Endura-E was very dated indeed though, especially in contrast to the contemporary 1.25. Not all that many of them still rattling around now either.
I thought it worked well in the KA though. Despite its lowly output, it felt much more sprightly at sensible revs than the more modern multivalve units. And if you did the valve clearances and an oil change annually, they were pretty quiet as well. Biggest problem with it was that you couldn't get the plugs out the head after a few years.
Mr2Mike said:
Welshbeef said:
Advantages over a usual engine
1. Weight drastically less
2. Smooth linear power
3. Very compact allowing lower COG and also smaller bonnet so bigger cabin or smaller car if that's what is needed
4. Few moving parts
They aren't as light as you might think. The RX8 lump weighs about 95kg completely undressed (i.e. no ancillaries at all), and there are plenty of piston engines that can compete with this.1. Weight drastically less
2. Smooth linear power
3. Very compact allowing lower COG and also smaller bonnet so bigger cabin or smaller car if that's what is needed
4. Few moving parts
Mr2Mike said:
A V8 will fit under the bonnet of an RX8, so they probably aren't as compact as you might hope when fitted with all the systems required to get them running reasonably well.
No. A V8 will squeeze into a RX-8 like a fat girl in lycra hot pants. It fits but it's not meant to be in there. There is no thought of pedestrian safety (closeness of bonnet to the engine), crumple zones etc. It *fills* the engine bay while the RX-8 only fills ~1/2.
The front pulley of the alternator btw is the front of the RX-8 engine.
Mr2Mike said:
wankels might have fewer moving parts, but those parts are subject to a lot of stress and consequent wear. A piston engine might have considerably more moving parts, but 200,000 miles without major work being required is absolutely commonplace these days on even quite highly tuned engines.
A wankel is more reliable in failure than a piston engine as in they'll keep running from things that would see a piston engine die. I see them more like two-stroke engines, the payment for the low weight, small size and relatively high performance is you've got to expect a rebuild every now and then.
Edited by Fastdruid on Friday 29th May 21:55
eldar said:
Looked after carefully, the later ones were better - I guess yours isn't an early one...
Sorry but I have to take issue here!For my sins I am on my fourth stag, it makes no difference if it's early or later model, if it hasn't been looked after you run the risk of trouble (I found this out with the first one I bought which was a 76) but general maintenance and they are reliable. BL was buying in British Steel up to 1974 and then in their wisdom decided to import steel I do believe from Italy so the early cars did tend to fair better.
What is a pain now is the poor quality parts available!
Fastdruid said:
Now find me another engine weighing <68Kg that makes >200hp! Even bike engines will struggle to get that kind of power to weight (eg things like the ZX10-R make ~175HP with ~72Kg).
No they won't. Bike engine weights also include the fly/clutch/primary drive and entire gearbox and output shaft, and without fancy non-standard casting material options even the now decade-old R1 lump in my Fisher Fury (still) makes an honest 165-170hp from 62kg inc. the free sequential 6sp dog box
Look - I really like the wankel, it has a nice smooth characteristic; but it also has some fundamental, unfixable flaws (huge wetted area, huge wiped seal area, enormous seal edge length) and even in the best-developed example (mazda) while described as 1.3 on a very debatable basis, at best it delivers power comparable to a NA 2.6l while drinking like a 3.9l. A charming diversion at best.
Edited by Huff on Friday 29th May 23:07
Huff said:
Fastdruid said:
Now find me another engine weighing <68Kg that makes >200hp! Even bike engines will struggle to get that kind of power to weight (eg things like the ZX10-R make ~175HP with ~72Kg).
No they won't. Bike engine weights also include the fly/clutch/primary drive and entire gearbox and output shaft, and without fancy non-standard casting material options even the now decade-old R1 lump in my Fisher Fury (still) makes an honest 165-170hp from 62kg inc. the free sequential 6sp dog box
Although a fair point about the gearbox (although that would't last very long at all in a ~1400Kg car!). 
gazza285 said:
280E said:
Ford V4 springs to mind....
I remember a local lad had one of these in a Mazda, after it had lunched it's rotary engine, probably went like a bag of nails, but it certainly sounded different. This would be around 1980...gazza285 said:
280E said:
Ford V4 springs to mind....
I remember a local lad had one of these in a Mazda, after it had lunched it's rotary engine, probably went like a bag of nails, but it certainly sounded different. This would be around 1980...TheAngryDog said:
I thought the one in my 91 Sapphire GLSi wasnt too bad tbh, at least as it was my first car at the age of 18! It was a square engine which made tuning difficult (same bore and stroke) so I ended up getting an RS2000 16v engine fitted to it from the Escort. Went much better after that 
, Annoyingly I sold it when I bought an XR4x4, when I should've kept it and turbo charged it or or put the 2.9 24 BOA in it. I bought a Cosworth when I was 20 so I guess I won in the end!
You definitely won in the end - Cosworth was the best thing that ever happened to a Sierra, although I believe the Turbo-Technics version of the V6 XR4i was pretty good., Annoyingly I sold it when I bought an XR4x4, when I should've kept it and turbo charged it or or put the 2.9 24 BOA in it. I bought a Cosworth when I was 20 so I guess I won in the end!As a mere youngster you don't know how lucky you were! My first car was a 9 year old MK2 Cortina, and I thought I was doing OK when I bought a V8 Rover P6B when I was 20!
loose cannon said:
Try a wdb123 200 diesel you could send it on its way in the morning then jump in the drivers seat when it caught you up at the traffic lights up ta road
Motor trader mate of mine had an automatic 190d with the 2 litre non-turbo diesel - it was frightening when he tried to get onto a roundabout!HarryFlatters said:
I could never see the point in the x25 variant of the 3 litre BMW sixes. They were the same capacity, but made less power and were barely any more economical.
But then the same is true of the 118d, 120d and 125d - same basic engine with different mapping on the first 2 and a second turbo on the last. It's just cheaper to make them this way! On the E87 1 Series Birds offered an upgrade on the 118d to give 120d performance with 118d CO2 - cannot believe BMW couldn't have done the same!Mind you this still true of 6 cylinder BMW diesels AFAIK - 330d, 335d, 640d, X5/6 5.0d still fundamentally the same engine with different mapping/turbo set-up.
daytona365 said:
Most pointless engine ? Anything over, say, lets be generous, 2litres ! Unless its for heavy haulage/military etc.
Well you haven't posted your garage on your profile, but if you have a V12 Ferrari of 4.4 pointless litres please let me know when I can relieve you of it - I'll do it for free!BTW are you the David Watts that The Jam wrote about, the one I went to school with in Ewell or maybe another one?
TurboHatchback said:
dbdb said:
mat205125 said:
Anything moderately large capacity and petrol fuelled.
There's always going to be people that want (or covet) the ultimate M5 / AMG / RS6 hyper model, and we can only pray that these remain petrol fuelled for the future, albeit with forced induction and fewer cylinders that we'd like.
The ones that don't make sense to me are the 2.6 to 3.2 kinda size petrol V / straight engines ..... especially if they are normally aspirated.
The performance isn't there to justify the extra fuel over a diesel version IMO, so what's to gain?
The original post of this seems to have disappeared (maybe on Mumsnet)?There's always going to be people that want (or covet) the ultimate M5 / AMG / RS6 hyper model, and we can only pray that these remain petrol fuelled for the future, albeit with forced induction and fewer cylinders that we'd like.
The ones that don't make sense to me are the 2.6 to 3.2 kinda size petrol V / straight engines ..... especially if they are normally aspirated.
The performance isn't there to justify the extra fuel over a diesel version IMO, so what's to gain?
Forced induction and fewer cylinders that you may like, but I like more cylinders and naturally aspirated petrol fuelled thanks! Even if the taxation system doesn't!
And in terms of your reference to 2.6 to 3.2 engines especially "normally aspirated" - well try a diesel of that capacity that doesn't have forced induction and report back! Good luck - you may be late home!
If you do then at least try a "normally aspirated" petrol of the same capacity as a point of reference and let us know how the performance compares!!
There is loads to gain - drive a normally aspirated W123 300 diesel Mercedes than a normally aspirated E46 330i (or better still an M3).
B
r, forgot it was half-term!dme123 said:
I suspect it was also used because an engine with a 16V head wouldn't fit in the engine bay of the Ka. Even when they did finally put a better engine in it in 2002 it was with an 8V SOHC one.
That old 1.3 Endura-E was very dated indeed though, especially in contrast to the contemporary 1.25. Not all that many of them still rattling around now either.
That old 1.3 Endura-E was very dated indeed though, especially in contrast to the contemporary 1.25. Not all that many of them still rattling around now either.
The Sigma engine wouldn't fit into the Ka, but I doubt they'd want to bother anyway, given that it's main selling point was extreme cheapness.The 1.3 was available in the Mk IV Fiesta as well, and even in the Mk V for a short time, both sold alongside variants with the 1.25 Sigma engine, so I suspect cost was an overriding factor.
Fastdruid said:
Go on then, ~230hp and lighter than an RX-8 engine. Note that the 95kg is *with* a flywheel. It's also worth pointing out that's with cast iron housings. If you (and you can if you desire) replace them with aluminium it drops the weight down to ~68Kg. Now find me another engine weighing <68Kg that makes >200hp! Even bike engines will struggle to get that kind of power to weight (eg things like the ZX10-R make ~175HP with ~72Kg).
The Kawaskai engine includes a gearbox. How much does the RX8 engine and gearbox weigh?How about the Caterham R500 Evo making 250bhp from a K series, which is around 100kg for the complete engine (not undressed).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff