is this the worst invention in automotive history? >pic releated

File: Norton NRS 588.jpg (42KB, 750x497px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 750x497px

No

>>726964108
I don't know. I'm not a car guy. I'm curious though, explain what this is and why it's so shitty? You'll probably have to dumb it down for me.

>>726965125
It's an engine that rotates. The japs tried to make a car around it but failed

>>726965125
In a rotary engine the crankshaft remains still and the crankcase and cylinders rotate

>>726965412
they tried it a couple times

>>726965412
>>726965600
What was the point? What were they trying to get at that a "normal" engine like my V6 doesn't already do just fine?

>>726965125
It has poor reliability. I know a guy who had his RX 8 engine swapped out for a new one after 80 thousand miles. Also burns a lot of oil.
It's not really that bad for small performance engine that won't last too long anyway.

>>726965412
They didn't fail.. It has just been "experimental" since 1963. If you want to call 54 years of testing a failure you go ahead.
>epic fucking failure.

>>726965768
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rotary+engine

>>726964108
>http://www.rotaryeng.net/why-the-rotary-engine.html
Don't expect you to be able to make use of this link though, there are no pictures and only words.

But here, here is the definitive "fuck you"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2R76bLEIE0

>>726965636
not only japs, pretty sure germans did it too, its called the "Wankel"-motor there

or maybe the inventor was just german and the germans actually realized it wasnt going to work, anyway

>>726965899
>don't discuss a thing in the 4chan thread that was started for the purpose of discussing this thing

>>726964108
No

>>726965991
I don't know anything about cars. What does 6.51 seconds mean? What's 217MPH for?

>>726964108
Ethanol.
It isn't itself a shit invention, a high compression motor that runs off of only eth would be great. Using it as a filler for Gasoline powered vehicles is shit.

>>726966144
I don't think anyone on this site knows about cars, bro.

>>726966082
op asked "is this the worst invention in automotive history?", not how it works. that wasnt the point of the thread

>>726964108
Yeah it's a pretty fucking stupid device.

>>726965991
By this logic a rocket engine would be the "best" as it is the fastest.

>>726966615
What is a "fast" engine?

>>726966707
human leg after taco bell

>>726965999
A german legend for the NSU Ro 80 with Wankel engine was, that if two Ro80 drivers meet on the street, they hold their hands up with the number of fingers which represente the number of engines they have used.

File: 1440462395342.gif (1MB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x283px

>>726966707
rekt>>726966615

>>726966898
i seriously hate japan

>>726964108
the automatic gear box... Might as well drive a power wheels.

>>726966458
>oh no he's teaching me facts that I never once knew
OH SHIT OH SHIT TIME TO GO FULL FUCKING RETARD!

>>726967192
Reddinigger doesnt understand that no one gives a fuck about a 3 minute wikipedia search.

>>726965870
maybe it's changed but cold weather used to fuck up the rx8 really bad

>>726967040
More efficient for dummies who are still allowed to drive. Decreased demand, decreased prices.

That said, I do miss the option of a cheaper manual american car that isn't already too expensive.

>>726964108
>I just lost a race to a boosted 13b: the post
Aww shit, keep your head up son.

File: turbine-gen3.gif (43KB, 576x609px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 576x609px

>>726966615

>>Presenting the Chrysler Turbine Engine.

Enjoy

Worked well for the 787b, but you'd have to pay me to own one. Not b/c I don't like them, but b/c I'd go bankrupt fixing the damn thing.

>>726967498
>cold weather used to fuck up the rx8
Yep, this guy knows what he's talking about. Look how this one struggles to start at -20C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyRQ3Mo58_0

Have a 13b making just over 400bhp, it's only spat apex seals out once

>>726967779
rofl, this


4.2 v8 in an S4 here, I worry about boosted rotaries bating me with their dorito engines.

No flat 6 Porsche no care

>>726964108
Rotaries make good racing motors, and they'd be reasonably good as power plants for small, sporty, enthusiast-aimed cars. Situations in which it's advantageous to have a small, light, relatively powerful (in specific horsepower) engine that doesn't need to be massively reliable. Racing teams can rebuild it (and expect to) and an enthusiast will find joy in upkeep. Plus once you get a rotary figured out, they're easy as fuck to work on. My uncle has been on a mazda racing team for many years and he makes money in the side buying up RX7s and 8s that need apex seals, fixing them in a day or two in his spare time, and selling them again.

>>726967928
>Worked well for the 787b,
Why? What is the distinction between a full-out endurance race and street driven RX8?

>>726964108
internal combustion engine. 90% is wasted energy. piston moves down and then stops and goes back up. incredibly inefficient. electric motor is a million times better.

>>726968298
TL;dr they have their place but they'll never be effective as mainstream engines. At least not in their current form.

File: ChryslerTurbine_01_1500.jpg (221KB, 1500x830px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1500x830px

>>726967898
Here is the 1964 Chrysler Turbine

>>726964108
On paper it looks way worse than it actually is. Super smooth power and a 9k redline with flames shooting out the back is more fun than you can imagine. Personally, I think the 787b is better than a mclaren f1, and I love the f1.

File: 1452170911128.jpg (8KB, 209x241px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 209x241px

>>726967024
umad?

>>726966458
The question was not "how does it work?". The question was "why would they make a redundant technology like this?". Thankfully this is /b/ so your cancerous snubbing of legitimate conversation about the topic at hand is expected and can be accounted for.

>>726965768
My guess would be that the engine's motion would be able to cool itself more effectively and that the centrifugal force could potentially be harnessed to eliminate the need for most pumps or would make the pumps self regulating based on the speed of rotation and could then make the whole thing work more efficiently, particularly on prop based aircraft where they were still trying to figure out how to get some extra efficiency and reliability wherever they could without the use of computerization.

From what little else I know of it, I think it had some issues with the weight of the engine causing excessive wear and tear at higher speeds and, as >>726965870 pointed out, it used a lot of oil up.

>>726967040
This. People who can't drive should only be on the road in summer. In winter they're a terrible hazard.

>>726968924
>it used a lot of oil up.
At least it's supposed to, for the sake of the swept seals. It could be much worse, like say a brand new Camry or Corolla which have several class-actions against them for excessive oil burning and lunched engines. Toyota's official stance is that 1 liter every 600miles is within spec. And that's for a shitty Camry engine.

>>726964108
because piston engines in the 1940's were sooo great. The Wankel engine never had the kind of development that the 4 stroke piston engine had.
The Wankel engine is for enthusiast owners only at this point. You can make them last, but only if you know how to drive and maintain them. Some engines last more than 300,000 miles some last 100k, some last 40k. It all depends on how you maintain them.
Turbos do shorten the lifespan though.

>>726965768
Cheaper, much lighter and no reciprocating parts. Tons of other advantages too. It had potential and it's far from the worst invention.

File: IMG_20170326_230042.jpg (561KB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 5184x3456px

>>726968924
They're designed to burn oil, you can block off the OMP and premix for more reliability (put oil in the petrol)

I think a small turbine with a good sized CVT say 12+ speed would be an exceptional combination. Gear it low enough to keep the turbines RPMs up and let the CVT control acceleration without changing turbine speed. A computer could literally handle it all by itself with extreme precision.

>>726968924
weirdly I have Aerospace Eng degree despite working nowhere near the field. Did group A/C design project for SSDR aircraft and had to research shitloads about suitable power plant. There are still viable rotary engines called Rotax that p.much smashed everything else in terms of price and power to weight. One of the big advantages at least with old A/C iirc is you have the engine spin opposite direction to prop to counter torque reaction (tendency for fuselage to roll opposite direction to prop), it also has a kind of gyroscopic effect to aid stability, also much better suited to driving a prop than a 4 stroke. Actually bumming me out how little of this shit i remember.

>>726969487
Better shop this stroke of genius around the auto industry pronto before someone steals your idea!

theres 'nowt wrong the the renesis engine, any na engine that puts out 175 per liter is doing damn well to hit 80k before rebuild, just how long would a NA LS2 making 1000hp last? sure as shit not that far, if any thing its not a fault of the engine mazda themselves, its would of made a damn good real sports car engine (caterham 7 etc) not some sporty salon/coupe hybrid.
Just think how bad the k-series VHPD would go in a freelander, but how its fucking reigns in the S1 Exige

>>726964108
Same power as 3.0L V6 but 1/4 the size. Seems much more efficient to me. Mazda bought the patent and haven't developed it further is the biggest contributor as to why it isn't as good as it should be.

>>726969718
Not enough of a demand. Chrysler manufactured a number of (I believe 100 or so) turbine powered test models in the 60s I think it was. People then couldn't get used to the throttle response and sound as petrol was much more responsive and sounded nothing like that being carbureted and what not. They abandoned the project and destroyed all but 5 I believe. 4 where dismantled and studied and one sits in a museum.

>>726970204
>Not enough of a demand.
For a stupid impractical idea? No way!

>>726970204
There was also an issue with how they warm up. Efficient combustion in a turbine required it to be hot, like over 1000 degreed worth of hot. People would end up flooding the engine trying to make it warm up faster like you can with a standard petrol engine which resulted in stalling. Since common sense is not as common today I highly doubt people now would stand any better of a chance.