Boingers

[Zack]

Raymond,

> When you're rating different designs of engines against each other, you
> can't use something like displacement as a measuring stick.  Let's treat
> the devices as black boxes.  We look at what goes in, what comes out, and
> its physical size and mass.  While we're at it, let's look at how long it
> lasts.

In principle I would agree with you.  In fact, the weight and size of 
an engine is more or less closely related to it's displacement.  A 
wankel is similar in size and weight to a 1.3 liter piston engine.  
Thus, comparing engines on that basis makes perfect sense if you 
don't have exact size and weight figures directly at hand.
	In fact, then, I don't see your point.

> The Wankel doesn't shine at all in the gas consumption ratings.  It is
> acceptable, but not great.

Wankel's suffer most at part throttle low rpm cruising, where their 
low internal friction and pumping losses are negated by throttle 
plate restriction.  The BSFC of a wankel at open throttle is not as 
bad compared to a piston as some would have you believe, and is 
certainly better than a 2-stroke, which is why they do / have done 
extremely well in racing, where you're at WOT the vast majority of 
the time, and where it is also true that the proportion of engine 
mass to total car mass is much higher than in a typical street car.

> When it comes to maintenance, the Wankel really falls down.  Granted, you
> can get it to last with some special techniques.  In most of the
> discussions I have seen, however, the discussion was about how to make it
> last long enough to win a race.

Ask the folks at Mazdatrix, or Racing Beat, or Speedsource, or any of 
a whole host of other places that have experience racing rotaries 
what convinced them to go rotary in the first place.  Dave Lemmon 
will tell you it's because he was tired of getting beaten by rotary 
cars, and he was tired of watching himself and others have to rebuild 
their boingers several times per season when the rotary cars would go 
round the whole year on nothing more than oil and gas.  Other rotary 
racers will tell you the same story.

> The average driver wants to put the key in the ignition and go.

Which my RX-7 does, surprise, surprise.  The fact is I've owned 
high-revving 4 bangers and high-revving rotaries.  Small, high 
revving engines with high-specific output are more stressed than big, 
low output engines, and don't last as long.  This is a simple fact.  
	If you want to compare apples to apples, I will put my '86 RX-7 up 
against any 4 banger of the same period, and the fact is, my car 
would win hands down in the reliability department versus the 
majority of them.

> but he certainly doesn't want to be pouring 2-stroke oil into
> his gas or anything like that.

I've never poured 2 stroke oil into the gas tank of my RX-7.

> We see them used in racing because the engine only has to last one race
> and fuel consumption isn't a big issue.

Fuel consumption isn't a big issue because of full throttle BSFC I 
mentioned.  Your implication that racing rotaries can barely make it 
through the end of a short race would justifiably be met with 
hysterical laughter by people who actually race them.
 
> WHen you choose a car, you realize that you have to give up gas mileage
> to get performance, and vice versa.  If the Wankel would let you have
> both (the power of a Camaro with the mileage of a Satuurn), the cars with
> that engine would sell like hotcakes.

What you get with a wankel is the power/weight ratio of a Camaro in a 
car that weighs 800-1000 lbs. less with a perfect 50/50 weight 
distribution, and gas mileage that is basically the same.  Whether 
you see the advantages in this or not, or care, is basically an issue 
of personality and driving style.  But... I guarantee you that the 
guy's driving Corvettes at my local autocrosses who get whipped every 
racing weekend by RX-7's appreciate the difference.  Camaro's are not 
even in the same class, both literally and figuratively.

And, I keep seeing references to what a "long time" Mazda has been 
working on the rotary, and how "almost no improvements" have been 
made in that period.  Neither statement stands up to the facts.
	They've been working on it less than 30 years.  When did this become 
a "long time" for the development of anything as complex as an 
I.C.E.?  Nearly that much time elapsed between when people first 
started playing with the jet engine idea until those engines finally 
reached par with and then surpassed the performance of piston powered 
planes.  It would have been longer than that had WW2 not intervened 
and people to spend vast amounts of time and money researching all 
kinds of wacky engines in an effort to find some advantage over the 
enemy.  Anyone care to compare the state of the art in rotaries today 
vs. the state of the art in pistons around 1910?
	I am as willing to admit as anyone that the rotary has 
limitations.  It is hardly a wunder-engine, it has clear advantages 
over a piston engine in some applications, which latter happen to 
encompass a rather small niche in the automotive/aviation market, and 
rather serious and obvious disadvantages in most other "everyday" 
automotive applications.
	But, when it comes time to discuss advantages and disadvantages, 
let's stick to facts, and leave the straw men in the farmer's field 
where they belong.

Z