| serialk11r |
10-31-2012 03:34 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceR
(Post 529975)
Ah.. Thanks for explaining (and many of your other useful posts)!
Im still worried they will mess up the fuel efficiency part tough. I consider the 86 to have bad efficiency for its power.
High revving NA engines without much torque usually have pretty bad fuel efficiency. Previous wankel engines have been good proof of that.
For me, and several other EU countries high poweroutput with mediocre fuel efficiency is not the way to go. I will not be a happy "customer" if they mess up fuel efficiency, because then it will be very expensive due to extreme taxes..
(To be honest, even if the did make it "reasonable good", it would probably be way to expensive in Norway because of its output)
|
For certification at least the problem is that Toyota is not willing to cheat like GM and specify weird shift points. If they told you to get out of 1st gear at 10mph, get into 6th gear by 40mph, then the numbers would skyrocket. I'd rather have the car rated higher than what it can reasonably get than have it rated lower, so at least it doesn't get taxed like crazy and stuff.
The issue with the Wankel is that the displacement is so "high", yet the efficiency at lower speeds sucks because too much energy disappears into the coolant. The RX-8 was geared unbelievably short, which is a big part of why the fuel economy sucked, but Wankel engines do lose much more efficiency at low rpm which is why they can't just drop super tall gears in (well, this is my theory, but seeing how the peak BSFC of Wankel engines arrives at like 6000rpm I think it makes sense).
With the 16X they should definitely use some taller gears than the RX-8 did, because there's no way to get good fuel economy with a 2.6L revving like mad, but I think they should look into deactivating one of the rotors if they use a 2 rotor design (shouldn't be hard, just a pipe connecting the intake and exhaust with a valve in it). AFAIK the friction on Wankels is not as high but that might be wrong.
It's also possible that they bring out a single rotor engine with slightly bigger per rotor displacement to improve low end efficiency a little more, though a flagship model probably wouldn't use it. I'm personally hoping for a 0.8L-1L single rotor engine to appear in something, it would be very compact, lightweight, and not guzzle too much fuel, although it wouldn't sound very good lol.
|