Jesus Villarreal wrote:
>
> Michael R. Clements wrote:
> >
> > Torque schmorque, torque is for wimps. Rotary rice burners don't
> > have much torque but they go 0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds, and that's
> > enough to beat most of those Vettes and Porsches. I'll take
> > screaming wankel squirrels on crack over a big fiberglass boat
> > powered by 100 year old thump-thump technology.
>
> I guess you don't mind being second best then.:)) And it's only 45 year
> good ol' American tech not one hundred year old. The wankel has been
> around at least that long also, if my memory is any good, 1945 in
> Germany sounds about right, albeit not very reliable until the Japanese
> made it work pretty good. Now put a turbo on one of those V8's and we'll
> see which one gets there first. You don't see any Top Fuel dragsters
> with wankels in them, or F1 cars, now, do we ????
>
> Jesus
The first wankel engine ever to run was in 1957. The first piston
engine ever to run (steam powered) was in the 1700s. The piston
engine has had about 250 years more development time than the
Wankel (guess that makes it 250 year old thump-thump technology).
Even 250 years of development time has not enabled the piston
engine to outperform the Wankel. The reason you don't see Wankels
in racing more often is that they were so successful they were
outlawed. Honda brags about the fact that the new S2000 generates
120 hp per liter; this is impressive, but Mazda gets 211 hp per
liter with the new 13B. Both engines are normally aspirated.
Wankel rules!
|