Talk:Mazda Wankel engine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Almost died in the 70's
Just how did going all rotary almost kill mazda? --Gbleem 23:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rotaries are small, powerful engines, but they are fuel pigs. The big fuel crunch hit just the time Mazda was about to make the change, and they moved back to piston engines just in time. The new rotaries are far more fuel-efficient - I hope to see a resurgence of them soon. Denni ☯ 01:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Due to their combustion chamber geometry (specifically the greater ratio of surface area to volume,) Wankel rotary engines are less thermodynamically efficient than a standard otto cycle piston engine for the same swept volume, so all other things being equal, they will always be less fuel efficient. But of course, no less fun. 203.132.65.136 11:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's a new company (Spun off in 1998), that produces Wankel style rotary engines. They are fuel efficient and very clean. They are called Freedom-Motors, and here is the website: http://www.freedom-motors.com/ Danball1976 03:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sales graph scale
The chart of yearly and cumulative sales has one (or both) of its scales showing the wrong numbers. Apparently in 1973 1.6 million (!) rotary vehicles were sold, but the cumulative figure up to 2000 is betweern 250,000 and 300,000. --203.132.65.166 07:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Um
Don't mean to sound dumb, but it seems as if this article does not explain how these engines function. Is this intended? Am I missing something?71.113.47.254 06:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Click the link to the main article Wankel engine, which is at a stupid name. SchmuckyTheCat 07:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 13B-REW
The 13B-REW description in the info table to the right side of the article seems to have absorbed the 13B Turbo-][. The REW did not start in 1986 for example, and had more than 141kW in its earliest form. 203.132.65.136 11:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
