For crazy we did this. I had one of the earliest haltech 4 programmed in my 1st gen.

Then..... I put this in my B2200. RX7 tranny with the truck stock end i could do 70 mph in 2nd. Smoke most anything on the street.I called it my Barreta truck. This engine was run in ITE SCCA for my first year of racing.

 

mmmm big ports



mike

 

Man I was lookin for that pen . You know what they say about guys with big ports.....they

like to get it to suck.

 

Where are the valves?

 

That. Was a joke. Which brings me to my topic: Rotary engines have three major moving parts. These three parts, the rotors and the eccentric shaft, are about the ONLY things that can cause vibration in the motor. IN the motor. So, why doesn't someone make carbon/carbon engine rotors, just like they have carbon/carbon brake rotors? Or carbon/carbon core with thin metal wear surface, or metal matrix composite just like Cooltech's lightweight brake rotors that last forever, or SOMETHING that will dramatically reduce the mass slinging around inside the motor, thus raising the available redline to even MORE Honda-obliterating levels? I can see 14,000 streetable RPM with rotors that weigh around half what they do now, or at least 12,750.



And, the wear on the entire engine would be reduced, balancing would be easier, engine mounting would be simpler, and peace would return to Sudan.



You can never have engine parts that are too light. Only too weak.



Another question: Why not just bolt together six cases, get an eccentric that will handle six rotors, all phased to cancel out maximum vibration from each other, and kick the *** off of every Ferrari ever made. Heck, Mazda already did it with only FOUR rotors at LeMans, and won the overall race. It scared the Frenchies so bad they almost swallowed the rulebook changing the rules for the next year, to eliminate the mighty Mazdas from competing.



I mean, we, of all people have the only true modular engine. Why don't we take advantage of it, and produce 4,5, and 6-rotor versions. Unlike the piston engine, which, in adddition to all that conrod and piston weight slamming back and forth with all the grace of Woody Woodpecker kissing his girlfriend, we have nearly unlimited rev potential AND modularity!



So, where are the ultra-light rotors? And where are the multi-multi rotor eccentric shafts?



Someone help me here. I would rather bolt on four more chambers than one turbo. I live for revs, not boost. I like throttle response that is instantaneous, not as slow as a Honda with a loud wastegate.

 

the casting of the rotor is very complex, it would be big dollars to duplicate them in a lighter material.

actually the 80's imsa cars were redlining at 10,500-11,000 rpms



mike

 

also.....mazda's 2 rotor turbo GTP (797A) cars where much faster than the Group C 787B

 

that's a damn big port! lol

 

Well,

why not Titanium? Start with a block and C&C the piece. Patrick racing does it with 3D C&C to make Harley jugs but out of aluminum. golf club head lightness and a Titanium

eccentric .....man you could get the motor down to 75 lbs and boost the **** out of it.

Revs of a balanced engine would go up faster and higher than the air could get in!! Wooo hoo.

only your house, 1st kid and $25,000.00!!!

 

Ah, yes, the casting is complex because it is in soft and weak aluminum. But, like carbon/carbon brake rotors, with the ultra light weight comes more leeway on shape. I have yet to see a carbon/carbon rotor brake rotor that was anything more sophisticated than a solid disc, or a solid disk with round holes drilled from the outside edge to the inside.



What about MMC? Metal matrix composite is easy to cast, conducts heat well, and is hard, for long wear and strength. They use it for aftermarket 3rd gen brake rotors. Why not engine rotors? Or does anyone hear read anything new, or just assume if 'taint 'vented yet, 'taint never gonna be?