Boingers

[Clare Snyder]

Robert Humphris wrote:
> 
> The point with the Wankel is that it is a 1.3, where as a Camaro is
> what, 3 times that displacement? Yet they have similar performance.  Add
> that to the weight of the engine, which does add to the performance of
> the car ( less weight = better power to weight ratio, and better
> handling as the car ceases to be engine heavy, so you start getting
> easier moments of force on the car ).
> Lets compare like for like, I guarentee that if you added sufficent
> number of rotors to take the displacement to that of the Camaro, fuel
> injected it, you would be unable to out drag it.  Then if you take the
> same displacement as the Saturn ( What is one of these we don't have
> that model over here in the UK ) and put it in a similar weight car,
> that the engine would be just as lively, and the performance would be as
> good if not better as the weight would be less.
> 
> Two stroke direct injection engines?  We will see what they are like
> when they are mass produced.
> 
> Rob Humphris
> >
> >I'm not talking about specialized racing applications, or even how many
> >people it takes to pick it up.  I understand that the power/weight ratio
> >is better than a four-stroke piston engine.  I'm talking about what sells
> >cars.  Go down to your favorite Mazda dealer and drive one.  Yah, it's
> >pretty fast and gets decent mileage.  Now, go to a Chevy dealer and hop
> >into a Camaro Z28.  It'll blow the doors of the RX7, and the mileage
> >still isn't that bad.  Now, go hop into a Saturn twin cam.  Much better
> >mileage and not too shabby on the performance.
> >
> >My point is that the mileage/performance balance isn't significently (if
> >at all) better than the other cars you can buy off the lot.  If I have to
> >swap an engine, I might appreciate that it is lighter.  When I'm driving,
> >I appreciate the performance of the car as a whole.
> >
> >There are some directly injected two-stroke engines on the drawing
> >boards.  I don't have the exact figures, but I would be willing to bet
> >(if I were a betting man) that the power/weight ratio of these
> >two-strokers will be similar to the Wankyl.  They won't, however, suffer
> >from the wierd-shaped combustion chamber and longevity of the Wankyl.
> >
> >
With the Wankel you have to compare to a two stroke, not a 4 stroke.
Compare 1.3 litres to 2.6, and things start to even out.When you get
125HP out of 600cc, normally aspirtated and carbureted 3 cyl water
cooled 2 stroker weighing less than 75 lbs, that translates to better
than 250 for 1.3 litres. Power domes (higher compression) and pipes can
easily put the 600 over 180HP - thats pushing 400 for 1.3 liters, and
you are not even getting tricky yet. Old Felix had a good and novel idea
- but it has not panned out as well as he hoped.
-- 
                               _/\_
                       --|-----([])-----|--
                         S    0/  \0    B
         Alls well that ends well!! www.snyder.on.ca is back
                  E-Mail service is back to normal
                  To avoid bouncing E-Mail messages
                    Reply to Clare at snyder.on.ca
                                OR
Remove the R from clsnyder in my E-Mail Address to reply. Stop the
spammers!!!
It's hard to soar like an eagle when your stuck with a bunch of
Turkeys!!!