Quote:
Originally Posted by UnknownJinX
The idea has been around for a while, but I haven't seen any technical data yet, so I still have doubts.There are advantages you are overlooking.
Ever looked at a 13B and wonder, "Wow, that tiny thing makes 200+ BHP?!" It actually works out to be about 1 cubic foot in physical volume. Now imagine a generator that will supposedly have about 1/4 of the displacement of the 13B. It can be very beneficial to packaging. People call it a "shoebox" for a reason.
And if you drive a rotary car, you will definitely notice the fact it's silky smooth, to the point that RX-7 and RX-8 both have a redline beeper from the factory. This is very beneficial for the comfort.
Fuel consumption is not a huge deal. Sure, a rotary is less efficient than a piston engine, but like CorneringArtist mentioned, it's running at a constant load as a generator only, which means it will still sip fuel rather than chug it like my RX-8.
Design the exhaust for that specific RPM the generator runs at and you will barely even notice it running.
The only real concern I have is how rotary burns oil by design. Burning 4-stroke is easier for maintenance but harder for emissions, while 2-stroke burns cleaner, but requires more attention.
|
I think you are down playing how inefficient these engines were.
An Evo for example made 70hp and 150 torque more (yes double the torque), was much heavier, had AWD, and yet was able to still be more fuel efficient than an RX8.
ANNND Evos were known to be one of the worst fuel guzzlers of the day when compared to any other car like a 135i that was able to produce even more power and use much less fuel.
I can't see a rotary ever making a return, especially with all the advancements in the piston engine. Even as just a range extender, its automatically a less efficient platform which defeats the whole purpose.