Technique for fast take-off
02-03-2005, 06:05 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tesseract' date='Feb 3 2005, 03:41 PM
also gotta consider the rx-8....1.3L getting somewhere in the 150s...
Oh great another RX-8 comparision. It's not even the same kind of engine.
02-04-2005, 01:34 PM
#23
Registered User
Originally Posted by tesseract' date='Feb 3 2005, 01:41 PM
also gotta consider the rx-8....1.3L getting somewhere in the 150s...
I believe in the EU that it is considered a 2.6L due to this issue and to just aweful fuel economy. On average, I think the S gets 5-7mpg more.
also, is the 13B's displacement all 6 chambers or is it just 2? I know piston engines take the volume of all cylinders, but do rotaries take the volume of the single combustion chamber per rotor (but with 3 sparks per revolution)?
02-04-2005, 01:58 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dupont Circle, Wash. DC
Posts: 1,004
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i was just saying...the size of the engine is 1.3 litres...i've seen it, and it's freakin tiny. not that any of this is on topic or anything, but it's stupid to say it shouldn't count in the comparison because it is still a combustion engine that follows the same rules as our pistons...face it, the rotary is still an interesting option that offers great power for a small footprint, at the cost of fuel economy.
02-04-2005, 03:04 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tesseract' date='Feb 4 2005, 04:58 PM
i was just saying...the size of the engine is 1.3 litres...i've seen it, and it's freakin tiny. not that any of this is on topic or anything, but it's stupid to say it shouldn't count in the comparison because it is still a combustion engine that follows the same rules as our pistons...face it, the rotary is still an interesting option that offers great power for a small footprint, at the cost of fuel economy.
02-04-2005, 03:16 PM
#26
Registered User
How quickly are you trying to take off from a stop? I let the clutch out @ 1100 to 1300 rpm and I'm still the quickest car off the line, 25% throttle, shifting up at 3,500 rpm.
02-04-2005, 03:50 PM
#27
Registered User
Originally Posted by steven975' date='Feb 3 2005, 02:59 PM
actually, the e46 m3 engine (s54?) makes 83lb-ft/L, compared to 75.5 on the F20C.
the f20c has awsome torque, but not the best per liter.
the f20c has awsome torque, but not the best per liter.
02-04-2005, 03:55 PM
#28
Registered User
Originally Posted by tesseract' date='Feb 4 2005, 04:58 PM
i was just saying...the size of the engine is 1.3 litres...i've seen it, and it's freakin tiny. not that any of this is on topic or anything, but it's stupid to say it shouldn't count in the comparison because it is still a combustion engine that follows the same rules as our pistons...face it, the rotary is still an interesting option that offers great power for a small footprint, at the cost of fuel economy.
to calculate the volumetric efficiency you'd essentially have to double the size of it's engine depending on the model, even triple the size.
02-04-2005, 07:03 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dupont Circle, Wash. DC
Posts: 1,004
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whatever...i know exactly what a rotary engine is and how it works...with fewer moving parts than a piston engine it is pretty simple. i give up on your guys.
