Go to car


Latest Comments
Car: 57399   By: ricerocketboy   Comment: "Gold bases, gold wheels and gold accents...."
Car: Fpost   By: DiRF   Comment: "So, ..."
Car: 57399   By: DiRF   Comment: ""chase cars"... is that supposed to collectible? B..."
Car: 57399   By: wannabemustangjockey   Comment: "If nothing else, M2 cars unscrew completely so... ..."
Car: 57399   By: Adambomb   Comment: "I remeber those chip foose ones a few years back, ..."
See last 25 comments
 Go to

Next picture
Ricecop Home
Linkage
Plates
Bling Bling
Photo
Free Post

 Top 10

Top 10 Ricers
Top 10 Non-Ricers
Top 10 Other Good
Top 10 Other Bad

 New & Retired

Newest Images
Retired Images

 Other

Submit a picture
Profile Lookup
FAQ
Site Log
Leader Board
Site Stats

 Online Now

0 Ricecops
1 Guests

Detailed List

 Login

Username:

Password:


Remember Login?

Sign up!
Why sign up?
Forgot my password


View this image at full size
Click here to let us know if the image above is broken.


Go back and vote on this image.

Picture Information
URL: http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=28227
Submitted by: Obsidian
Comments: 11  (Read/Post)     Favorites: 0  (View)
Submitted on: 11-03-2003
View Stats Category: Vehicle Misc
Description:
2 Rotor Wankel engine configuration.

(if only it wasn't for the apex seals)


   Comments

Showing page: 1 of 1
[
1 ]

#1
11-03-2003 @ 10:29:17 PM
Posted By : Lemming Reply | Edit | Del
And the emissions, lack of low-end torque, and general unavailability of mechanics familiar with them.

#2
11-04-2003 @ 12:28:24 AM
Posted By : MxCx Reply | Edit | Del
Hehehe, Wankel...

#3
11-04-2003 @ 01:58:01 PM
Posted By : thirtyseven Reply | Edit | Del
"And now on to something even ruder... Wankel rotary engine".

#4
11-04-2003 @ 02:29:05 PM
Posted By : DiRF  Reply | Edit | Del
Rotors are for brakes, not engines.

*lame attempt to start a flamewar*


#5
11-04-2003 @ 08:32:58 PM
Posted By : thirtyseven Reply | Edit | Del
#4, You motherfucker! :P

#6
11-04-2003 @ 08:37:46 PM
Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck Reply | Edit | Del
I was always under the impression that rotors ran a bit cleaner, and definaely more efficently than an otto-style 4 stroke reciprocal engine???



#7
11-04-2003 @ 08:44:23 PM
Posted By : solid_snake Reply | Edit | Del
#6, if you poke around on the forums there's some stuff about trying to get RX-7s to pass emmisions

#8
11-04-2003 @ 09:23:07 PM
Posted By : thirtyseven Reply | Edit | Del
#6, As far as power efficiency goes, I'd say that 220+ HP per NA liter is pretty efficient, as far as fuel economy goes... well thats is different.


#9
11-05-2003 @ 12:51:56 AM
Posted By : camino83 Reply | Edit | Del
#8, hp per liter...those three words are the basis of almost any ricers argument about how 200 hp is the shiznit because its "110 hp/L"

#10
11-05-2003 @ 01:15:40 AM
Posted By : ambientFLIER Reply | Edit | Del
#8, its not the same "liter" as it is in a normal V-type engine, so that statement is off...i heard that you would need to double or triple the number to get the real "liter" that you could compare to any car

#11
11-06-2003 @ 11:42:19 AM
Posted By : thirtyseven Reply | Edit | Del
#10, How is it not the same? HP per cc of displacement. Yes it is a different type of engine, and is a bit like comparing apples to oranges when it come to conventional piston engines, but when it comes down to raw displacement by swept rotor volume, its the same thing.

Showing page: 1 of 1
[
1 ]


Login to leave a comment

Classifieds 
Click here to post your own classified ad






Want to send some feedback? Click here.

Server time: Sunday, November 19, 2017 07:27:31 PM

All pictures on this site are property of their respective owners.
Copyright 2000 - 2017 Ricecop. All rights reserved.