Quote:
Originally posted by BooRadley
Well, I am using it, but I guess the fact that I'm interviewing with Toyota and several Tier 1 automotive company suppliers isn't using my degree, as I currently haven't accepted a job yet.
The amount of ricers that are 16 year old kids on any automotive board is obnoxious, and I've heard every nonsensical argument in the book and am frankly tired of arguing every point into the ground for the sake of spreading correct information. So , I throw out my "BS" qualifications to give myself more inital credibility. As for you Sochiro Honda comment, I've had to listen to plenty of people tell me in real life about cars and have felt like Sochiro Honda in that case. Sorry if I got a little quick with you, but I can't screen out the ricers, and for every knowledagble person there is on the internet, there are 100 bullshiters. Please accept my apology and lets not get into a flamewar.
|
Understood, sir, and I also was quick to get snarky as well.
As an aside, I'm no ricer. The Z I owned was a beat NA/AT/POS that I drove simply because I picked it up dirt cheap. I puttered around in it for about 3 months (doing repairs the whole time) and happily sold it when offered twice what I paid for it (still a good deal for the guy what bought it). I've owned far more "muscle" cars than sporty cars, and most of them have been varying shades of primer, as all the money went into engine, trans, and suspension work.
The only rice I like is steamed or fried, usually with soysauce in either format. Also, I will be wearing a shirt with "Toyota" on it myself, come next week at my new job (Yay me!)
Quote:
And , to prove that I don't have a bunch of BS qualifications, I'll attempt to prove my point.
First of all, we need to choose how we define "rotary MPG". Lets generalize it to engine only and compare it to a similar displacement, naturally aspirated internal combustion engine. The weight will be approximately the same either way, and the RX7 was a very aerodynamic and lightweight car, so the chassis got better efficency than most other cars.
|
Well, I think it would be entirely unfair to compare it on a performance/displacment. They more or less own that curve =) I do think it valid to compare similar sizes though. A large displacement engine with large bore size is not a terribly valid comparison. Something small and high-winding is closer.
Quote:
The rotary engine is a normal spark-combustion engine. It has a different configuration than the normal piston engine, but it still is a 4-cycle spark ignition engine. Classic thermodynamics states that a 4-cycle engine gains maximum theoretical efficency at the following conditions: (assuming everything else, including internal friction, remains constant and the only variable is compression ratio) :
Efficency goes up as compression ratio goes up.
The graph is roughly linear with the % efficency ( total work out, from combustion/ amount of work put into system, thereotical maximum )
|
*snip discussion of compression*
Valid points, Boo. Not being a Wankel guy, I can't really argue those numbers directly except to say that they sound a bit on the low side. I could easily see a ragged out engine putting forth low numbers like that, but I doubt they'd ever pass any sort of real emissions tests with the sort of inefficient sombustion that such low numbers would produce. Admittedly, emissions is a major weak point for the Wankels, so perhaps you are closer to correct than I see at first glance.
Quote:
Moon, I hope this illustrates my point. My sources are the Bosch Automotive handbook and Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics by Moran and Shapiro. Feel free to ask any questions.
|
Absolutely, though I think that the compression issue was covered in later posts than this. Like I said, I'm not waving the flag for Mazda, just making comment. I think you've outlined your point well, and I've made as much of a point as I am willing to make seeing as how I don't really have a dog in this fight.