Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan
It's inefficient in that it burns a LOT more fuel relative to its output vs. piston engines. And judging from measured rwhp and acceleration times, it's really more like 220hp.
A turbo'd 1.3 liter would get better fuel economy than an n/a 2.0 liter with the same peak power, and would get WAY better fuel economy than a 1.3 rotary.
There's a reason we're seeing a shift to smaller-displacement turbos as CAFE is being jacked up again. Better fuel economy for a given power output.
Regarding rotary displacement equivalency, although rotaries aspirate their full displacement every crank rev and 4-stroke piston engines only aspirate half their displacement per crank rev, rotaries don't make twice the power per displacement. More like 1.5x (applies to 2-strokes as well).
I'd sooner argue for calling a 2.0 liter 4-stroke a 1.0 liter than to call the rotary a 2.6, which I think is kinda ridiculous.
I think that the way they are rated for displacement (1.3 liters) is appropriate. They do give a lot more power/displacement than 4-stroke piston engines.
|
Nice perspective. I love rotary engines and wish there was a business case for them. Alas, unless major technology improvements are made I fear motorsport is their last lifeline. Rotaries appeal to passion at the expense of almost all sensibility and that just doesn't work in this economy. As good as the BRZ/86 seems to be, in my opinion it just isn't as special as a rotary powered Mazda sports car - including the RX-8.