You are WRONG about Rotary Engine Displacement
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2024
- Little bit of a different kind of video here. After all of the comments I received about the displacement of the 13B Wankel engines, I decided to investigate for myself. In this video you will see why some people call it a 1.3 liter engine, some people call it a 2.6 liter engine, and why I choose 1.3L over 2.6L. More RX8 videos coming soon!
Im with you on this brother. Let's get this to rob dahm.
Lets get Rob Dahm into rehab
Its clearly 1.3L, people call it 2.6 just to feel better about them choosing pistons over superior rotors.
Because 1.3L making 400HP is unbelievable, whereas if they think its 2.6L making 400HP then they can justify that their piston suckers do the same
Ppl are tryna compensate for somthing. That's why they say 2.6
Also you right that's why I wanna rotery. 1.3 making 400 sounds insain
that's so true Rotary-heaters.
I've been a rotary guy for 30s yrs. There is some truth behind what they're saying. Regardless how Mazda rates the engine, a 13b moves and ignites the exact same 1.3L of fuel air mixture when compared to a 2.6L 4 stroke 4cyl piston engine when both cranks spin 720degrees. This is 100% FACTS guys. I'm getting ready to do a cheap rebuild video on an Rx8 and I may discuss this while the engine is open and show people WHY this is the case.
@@rotaryperfection So that re-enforces the idea that it's really more than 1.3L, since it does the same 4-cycles (suck-squeeze-bang-blow) as a 4 cycle. I don't see why rotary guys keep arguing this like it's a bad thing. It means that the design has even better space efficiency than advertised. Ignoring the AFM rate in naturally aspirated format (since that really shouldn't dictate displacement as you can make a 7L engine breathe less than a small 2L); if we take the max displacement formula that is used per-rotor as described per IMSA and FIA regulations pre-ban, then multiply it by how many cycles are going on per rotor continuously, we get around 7.8L's.
Call it "compensating" all you want, but the way I see it. Mazda basically made took the combustion size and power of something greater than a 427ci (7L) race engine and made it smaller than the 4-cylinder in my 944S2; with longevity that surpassed F1 and Nascar (who used 7L/427ci engines at the time).
That is way more badass than pretending it is a smaller V6 or I-6 in displacement, with all the downsides of fuel consumption, oil consumption part wear and maintenance of most forced induction I-6's, and then some.
Question
Why is the early RX4/7 engine a 13B and classed as a 2.6lt 13B.
Yet the RX8 engine also a 13B is a 1.3Lt.
Basically the same engine. Apart from side Exhausts Ports.
The RAC Blue Book class a single rotor engine a three cylinder.
Why not just class it as cubic capacity times three for each rotor.
The problem with coming up with a displacement using that formula is that is gives you the swept volume of a SINGLE face and simply multiplying it by two, because it's a two rotor engine, still does not equal proper displacement. By doing so, you are only accounting for two out of six faces. You're not combusting one face of each rotor every 3 RPM, but you are combusting EACH face of a rotor every single RPM.
You said it at the beginning of your video. If a piston has a swept volume of one liter, and its a two piston engine, this engine's displacement is two liters. It doesn't matter if that engine fires every 360 degrees, every 720, every 180, every 90, or some abstract 45 degree firing separated by 315 degrees of "silence". The total displacement of that engine is still TWO LITERS, because each swept volume is 1 liter multiplied by a factor of TWO swept volumes.
So if we're going by the same volumetric descriptor that is used on a piston engine - that being EACH swept volume is calculated into said engine's displacement - then the 13B is, in fact, actually the equivalent of a 3.9L six cylinder (654.7 PER FACE x 6 FACES = 3,928.8) because you have SIX swept volumes, not just two. Which if you think about it, makes sense. GM L67 (3.8L V6 supercharged) produced 240HP on 7-8 pounds. 13B REW produced 260HP on 8-10 pounds. Both were rated and got roughly around 16mpg city as long as you weren't flogging them all day. Other than a "lack of torque" the a rotary essentially behaves like a V6 in terms of efficiency and power, only being smaller in overall package due to engine design.
So displacement on a rotary? EVERYBODY is getting it wrong.
Thats my thoughts, it have 3 combustion chambers per rotor.
@user-go7yd8qp4c no because that is ONE swept volume putting in TWICE the work, not two volumes completing one work. The volume of that one cylinder would be the same exact 200cc (for example) whether it's four stroke or two stroke operation. Either way, you have ONE combustion surface for the whole volume; I.e., you're only sweeping ONE volume. On a rotary, you have THREE surfaces per rotor, giving you THREE swept volumes per rotor housing. It makes zero mechanical sense to measure a rotary the way they do. It'd be comparable to taking a V6 or a V8 and measuring the volume of one BANK of cylinders and making that it's labeled displacement.
The only difference two vs four stroke makes is in efficiency. Two strokes tend to make more power at the cost of significantly higher fuel consumption. They are literally putting twice the effort in whilst having significant exhaust scavenging which further reduces efficiency (it's the same reason bridgeports tend to be terrible on fuel).
@Darth Vader Wrong, All Wankel engines operate using the 4-stroke principle.
It requires 1080° degrees of crankshaft rotation to complete the firing order sequence of a Wankel engine.
A Otto or Diesel type engine only requires 720° degrees
When you say you are combusting each face of the rotor each revolution, of the rotor yes, but not of the crank shaft and that's the common point of reference, so as a wankle engine does not have an ignition on all 6 faces for every rotation of the crank they do not need to be considered, just as the cylinders in a 4-cyl reciprocating engine in exhaust and intake are not. As the ratio between crank and rotor is 3:1, only 1 ignition cycle takes place per rotation of the crank, so it IS fair to only consider 2 faces, otherwise the reciprocal engine must also consider the pistons that are present but not firing.
Or in short, you can't compare the crank in one engine with the piston in another.
That's a great job of explaining the displacement, but it still doesn't make any sense to me. What it describes is one face of a three lobed rotor. It fires three times in a single rotation. Why wouldn't the displacement be calculated then the same way that a two strokes displacement would be calculated? As an example, a 3-cylinder 2-stroke engine displacing 750 CC's wouldn't be called a 250, it would be called a 750. All cylinders will fire once throughout one rotation of the crank.
Yeah it's a 1.3L
Hey, I saw your video on your RX-8, do you still have it?
@@RX-805 yes
@@edwinptown sick
@@RX-805 ⁰⁰
ITS NOT A 1.3 LITER
The fact is that is a 1.3L. Excellent video!💪🏾
Not a 1.3 liter... the displacement is 3,924cc's
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Now I understand why people are saying that rotary engine is drinking fuel a lot. It because actually it is 3.9cc / 4.0cc powerful engine (high horsepower).
@@sofeajane6238 The Wankel engine also consumes more fuel per liter... and per horsepower generated.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Oic. Thanks for the information 👍
It is 650cc per rotor, which means that the 4 rotor le-man winning mazda was a 2.6l.
Yep, thats why its call 26b for the 4 rotor, 13b for the twin rotor and 20b for the 3 rotor
b18
7.8 liters, the 787b competed in the same engine class as the 7.0 liter Jaguar V-12s
No, the 654cc value for a 13b rotor is for a single working chamber. The rotor in the housing has 3 working chambers so in reality, because of the way engine displacement is calculated, both 1.3L and 2.6L for a 13b engine are both wrong, its really 3.9L (3924cc) because there is 6 total working cambers each having a displacement of 654cc and 654 x 6 = 3924
@@CJ-ty8sv but only a third of that is used for combustion at a time, right?
Love the comparison with the 2-stroke engine to be like "why would you double it arbitrarily, does it butthurt you so much that those engine produce that much power?"
I've also seen people use the argument "Yes but it's a swept volume with variable geometry" to justify why it would be a "2.6L" engine.. :')
Total swept volume displacement is 3,924cc's
The Wankel KKM57 engine is a 4-stroke... except that it requires 1080° degrees of crankshaft of rotation to complete its firing order sequence unlike the Otto or Diesel reciprocating engines at 720°
Engineers, government agencies and motorsports sanctioning bodies use the 2X conversion formula for calculating rhe displacement of the Wankel engine at 720°
This makes the Mazda 13b series closer to a 2.6 liter in comparison with a Otto or Diesel reciprocating engine
@@jaycool5978 The Mazda 13b series has *2 PISTONS* and a *30mm STROKE*
Each face of the triangular piston is one combustion volume (cylinder)
And each face has 4 separate cycles,
Intake, compression combustion and exhaust cycle
It takes each face 1080° degrees of crankshaft rotation to complete the firing order sequence.
Any questions?
@@jaycool5978 The Wankel KKM57 doesn't have Rotors... it's has orbiting pistons.
Only the Wankel DKM54 has a rotor.
@@jaycool5978 You really don't know anything about Wankel engines do you kid..
Mazda didn't invent it... you probably don't know the name of the man who did.
@@jaycool5978 Only the Wankel DKM54 has a Rotor.
KKM stands for _Kriess(en)kolbenmotor._
It translates into English as *"Orbiting PISTON Engine"*
Mazda 13B 2 rotor engine is a 3.9 liter engine. Its real thermodynamic cycle set at 1080° of eccentric shaft rotation (tree 360° spins) tells it
The rotor inside the housing forms 3 separated spaces (combustion chambers) and each one displaces 654cc to complete a 4 stroke Otto cycle (admision-compression-ignition-exhaust)
On one rotation ot the rotor (360° rotor rotation) all 3 combustion chambers completed a 4 stroke Otto Cycle. Thus displacing 1962cc in total (654cc x 3 = 1962cc) In that 360° of rotor rotation the eccentric shaft spun 3 times (1080°) because rotary engines are geared that way in wich One rotation of the rotor (360° rotor rotation) equals 3 rotations of the eccentric shaft, so for every 360° of rotor rotation the eccentric shaft will go 3 revolutions (360° x 3 = 1080°)
That 1080° number is importan, because you mentioned "Thermodynamic Cycle" and in a Mazda 13B engine its real thermodynamic cyle is set at 1080° of eccentric shaft rotation, not at 360° like a 2 cycle engine (Rotary engines ARE NOT 2 cycle engines), neither is set at 720° (2 crankshaft rotations) like in 4 stroke piston engines.
At 360° of eccentric shaft rotation just one side or flank of each rotor completed a 4 stroke cycle (654cc x 2 = 1308cc / 1.3L) *Remember each rotor side acts as a combustion chamber as it moves inside the housing, therefore each rotor do the work equovalent to 3 pistons in a conventional engine...But this sole rotarion of the eccentric shaft (360°) does not makes the 2 rotor engine complete a full thermodynamic cycle, it just has done 1/3 of it.
Mazda did use this method to give it a "Nominal displacement" accounting just 1/3 of its real capacity because in Japan and Europe carmakers got to pay an Engine Taxation Rule that is based on engine displacement and the more displacement, the more taxes Mazda had to pay and that placed burden on the future of the "Wankel" rotaty engine developement in its early stages in life. NSU the first company who built rotary engines did quote their displacement accounting the CCs displaced by all 3 rotor sides, so its single rotor engine with 500cc displaced by each rotor side was rated at 1500cc / 1.5L. And from that engine they did a 2 rotor engine version that displaced 3000cc / 3.0L
Then Max Benttle an Engineer from Curtis Wright told NSU that rotary engines will have problems in Europe and Japan because of the Engine Taxation System.
www.hemmings.com/stories/article/how-big-are-wankel-engines
Then motor-sports sanctioning entities came with the dilema of equalizing rotary engine powered race cars with 4 stroke cycke piston engine cars, their solution was to gave rotary engines what they called "Equivalent Displacement" The Society of Automotive Engineers S.A.E used the 4 stroke piston engine's thermodynamic cycle time (set at 720° of crankshaft rotation) to give rotary engines an "equivalent displacement" and they found that at 2 spins of the eccentric shaft (720°) 2 sides at each rotor completed a 4 stroke Otto cycle (654cc x 4 = 2616cc / 2.6L) That is the infamous 2.6 liters of "doubled displacement" many mention, but it only accounts 2/3 of its true displacement.
A Mazda 13B engine IS NOT a 2 cycle engine.
A Mazda 13B engine does not complete a thermodynamic cycle at 720° of crankshaft rotation.
The thermodynamic cycle (all combustion chambers doing one 4 stroke cycle each) is at 3 rotations of its eccentric shaft (1080°)
So lets check all 6 combustion chambers and their 4 stroke Otto cycle time
Mazda 13B engine
At 360° eccentric shaft rotation: One side per rotor (2 sides total) complete a 4 stroke Otto cycle. 654cc x 2 = 1308cc / 1.3 liters. Mazda's Nominal Displacement quote. 1/3 of its Thermodynamic Cycle.
At 720° eccentric shaft rotation: 2 sides per rotor (4 sides total) complete a 4 stroke Otto cycle. 654cc x 4 = 2626cc / 2.6 liters. This is S.A.E's "Equivalent Displacement" Formula. 2/3 of is Thermodynamic Cycle.
At 1080° eccentric shaft rotation: 3 sides per rotor complete a 4!stroke Otto Cycle. 654cc x 6 = 3924cc / 3.9 liters. Its real displacement set by its real Thermodynamic cycle.
Remember, the eccentric shaft went 3 revolutions (1080°) but each rotor did just one rotation (360° rotor rotation) with all 3 combustion chambers doing ONE 4 stroke cycle each (654cc x 3 chambers = 1962cc per rotor/housing set x 2 number of rotors = 3924cc / 3.9 liters.
Another metric that certifies the 1080° ecxe tric shaft rotation for the complete Thermodynamic Cycle of the Mazda 13B rotary engine is the Timing events in degrees per eccentric shaft rotation. In a Mazda 13B 2 rotor engine each ignition event is fired at 180° of eccentric shaft rotation amd there are 6 ignition events. 180° x 6 = 1080°
If you want to certify that a Mazda 13B engine is a 1.3 liters (1308cc) engine then get one of thos engines to work with ignition firing for just ONE side of each rotor and the other 2 sides of each rotot with no ignition firing, and kets se if it will spin at idle with just 1308cc / 1.3 liters (1/3 of capacity)
When you do a Mazda 2 rotor 13B engine compression test, you get 3 compression lectures for each rotor, not 2 ("1.3L"), not 4 ("2.6L), you get 6 (3.9L) And what each rotor side compresses? They compress 654cc. There you have it, a complete information tab about the real displacement of a Mazda 13B 2 rotot engine. 3.9L counting ALL its 654cc chambers.
654cc x 6 = 3924cc (3.9L) @ 1080° eccentric shaft rotation.
Ignition timing at 180° eccentric shaft rotation x 6 ignition events = 1080° eccentric shaft rotation.
One rotor revolution (360° rotor rotaton ) makes the eccentric shaft spin 3 times (1080°)
This is what I have tried to explain to people. There are three strokes going on. And when you see the power, fuel and oil consumption,,,not to mention the weight, Its pretty much a small inefficient V6. Best thing to do with a Rotary? Pull it out and sell it. Then swap in a K or LS
TLDR. All 3 faces of the rotor can't reach the exhaust port and complete the stroke at the same time.
Just like how pistons are measures from BDC to TDC, you have to measure a rotors displacement from one point through to that point again. If you did that, only one face could have completed a full cycle.
It's about being consistent. If you start arguing about the 3 faces, to remain consistent, people could start arguing that a 1.0 ecoboost is actually a 3.0 ecoboost because each piston has to run 3 combustion cycles before it counts as the displacement.
Why do people have to look for ways to artificially exaggerate the rotary displacement? Rotary engines can carry out more combustion cycles more rapidly and can complete a thermodynamic cycle more often. That's their advantage at cost of torque. You don't get to take that away from them because you think that low displacement, high power is unfair on piston engines. They get torque, we get more RPM.
655cc per rotor. Get over it.
I'm having a hard time finding the source to cite in which I read it, but I recall there was a specific engineering convention where the displacement was doubled purely for the sake of category competition due to opposition feeling the original wankle rotary engine was an unfair contestant, and that was the solution they arrived at, and is ultimately what birthed the double displacement misconception.
The actual swept volume displacement is calculated at 3,924cc's @ 1080°
Conventional reciprocating Otto engine completes its firing order sequence in 720°degrees of crankshaft rotation.
Engineers, government agencies and motorsports sanctioning bodies use the 2X conversion formula for calculating the displacement of a Wankel engine at 720°
Making the Mazda 13b series closet to a 2.6 liter for acurate comparison
"Tax Displacement" was an idea concocted by the marketing department of NSU as a marketing tool to improve sales in countries that have registration taxes based on engine displacement.
The theory was that if NSU invented the Wankel engine they had the right to calculate the displacement anyway they wanted whether or not this calculation was based on any accepted engineering or industry practice and theory.
Unfortunately this video performs 2 instances of bait and switch.
First you correctly compare the swept volume of a single piston to a single face of a rotary engine but then perform the total displacement calculation by multiplying the swept volume of a single face by the number of rotors, each having 3 faces.
Then when explaining the cycles you compare the piston cycle using crank rotation but then use rotor rotation for the rotary, which again is only valid per face of the rotor and requires 3 revolutions of the crankshaft. You mention this in the video but then proceed with the actual bait and switch by saying that this means that 1 Otto cycle is performed per revolution of the crankshaft which is only true when considering all 3 faces of the rotor.
The reality is that it takes 3 eccentric shaft rotations for a rotary engine to complete the full thermodynamic cycle as opposed to 2 revolutions of the crankshaft for a 4 stroke piston engine. This is the basis for why the rotary engine is sometimes classified as a 2.6L engine in competition as they are trying to even the playing field by setting displacement at 2 revolutions of the crank for all engines. In other words they aren't arbitrarily doubling 1.3L they are actually going down from 3.9L.
I also noticed your reply to a similar comment where you said that because combustion was not occuring on all faces at the same time that this somehow invalidates the calculation but this makes no sense. Surely you don't think combustion is occuring in all the pistons of a piston engine at the same time?
Excellent comment, you very elegantly cut the legs right out of this false urban myth.
Even Felix Wankel disgreed with the marketing department of NSU that concocted the fraudulent concept of "tax displacement" used by Mazda and other manufacturers to boost sales in countries that have registration taxes based on engine displacement.
Good work!
It's accurate to say that the 13B rotary pumps as much air as a 2.6L 4-cycle engine. One could also say that it pumps the same volume or air as a 1.3L 2-cycle engine, a point that you made in the video. It's similar to a 4 L 6-cylinder piston engine in that in 3 rotations of the eccentric shaft it's total swept displacement 3.924 L with 6 power (oto) cycles. A 4L 6-cylinder 4-cycle engine would do this in only 2 shaft rotations however.
Except the Wankel engine is not a 2-stroke... it operates using the same 4-stroke principle as reciprocating Otto engines.
The displacement does not change.
If you have 6 chambers, each has a swept volume displacement of 654cc's
It does not matter if the engine is a 2-stroke at 360°
4-stroke at 720°
Or a Wankel at 1,080°
The displacement will still be exactly the same *3,924cc's*
@Darth Vader Kenichi Yamamoto would disagree with you. ''The rotary engine is a four stroke one cycle engine'', Rotary Engine by Kenishi Yamamoto, p.7
its a 1.3, 1308 cc as stated by mazda,and on the compliance plates of most mazda rotaries.
That's a great job of explaining the displacement, but it still doesn't make any sense to me. What it describes is one face of a three lobed rotor. It fires three times in a single rotation. Why wouldn't the displacement be calculated then the same way that a two stroke's displacement would be calculated? As an example, a 3-cylinder 2-stroke engine displacing 750 CC's wouldn't be called a 250, it would be called a 750. All cylinders will fire once throughout one rotation of the crank. The other lobes of the rotor are simply doing the same things that the other two cylinders are doing in the three cylinder 2-stroke example while one of the Piston is on its powerstroke.
Nice video man! I have this problem were I live in Europe / Romania it is written in the cars official document as a 2616cm3 and this is because the original calculation was done to convert it to a piston engine witch is absolutely stupid. The volumetric capacity should not be based on a conversion it has to be the correct volume number like you pointed out.
Witch? Talk about absolutely stupid.😊
Absolutely brilliant video ❤️
Good explanation mate, also I believe the 13B refers to 1.3 litre displacement.
With 1 thermodynamic cycle in piston engine, you have 2 rotations of the crankshaft. In a rotary, 2 rotations of the eccentric shaft give a thermodynamic cycle to 2 faces of the rotar. Thus, the 1.3b has VIRTUALLY the same displacement as a 2.6, even though they only have the actual displacement capacity of one face at a time. Many racing leagues count this to be fair. However, you should take into account that they can spin higher RPM, and are actually lighter than a 2.6 counterpart would be. Therefore, I agree with F1's decision to ban them entirely. Technically speaking, 1.3l. For power comparisons and racing divisions, 2.6l.
You could also argue it's a 3.9L 2 stroke.
3.9 liter 4-stroke
All Wankel engines operate using the same 4-stroke principle as reciprocating Otto or Diesel engines
No only one side fires on each rotor at one time not all 3
@@edwardwillis6409 Yes, but it does not fire once per 3 crankshaft revolutions... it fires once every revolution.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 and there are piston engines that fire every rotation they don’t double in size……………..
@@edwardwillis6409 The Wankel engine is a 4-stroke.
It operates using the exact same 4-cycle principle as a reciprocating Otto or Diesel engine.
Yeah I think of it as the description of the construction of the engine. We also don't then call forced inducted engines a larger displacement than they are because they consume more air and fuel right? where do you draw that line. So it's what was designed and built physically, not how it was utilized.
If you have 6 chambers, each has a swept volume displacement of 654cc's
It does not matter if the engine is a 2-stroke at 360°
4-stroke at 720°
Or a Wankel at 1,080°
The displacement will still be exactly the same *3,924cc's*
@@sandervanderkammen9230 ...but you dont have 6 chambers in a rotary you have only one. In other words, the same rotor face sucks air in also squeezes air and then which also exhausts it. In a regular 6 cylinder 4l piston engine you don't add the intake stroke, the compression stroke, the power stroke, and the exhaust stroke to make it a 16 liter engine do you?
@@mcdblaze No, you don't, that is exactly why the Mazda 13b is not a 1.3 liter.
You can't have it both ways.
Each one the the 13b's 6 chambers has its on intake, compression power and exhaust cycles.
You cannot ignore that
Stroke volume of 654cc each combustion face ×2 = 1308
And 3 combustion faces per rotor 1308× 3 = 3924cc
Hey Thomas! this is a conversion mate from piston to rotary and it is like comparing walking and bikes :D volume is volume its like a 1 kg of feathers and 1 kg of gold ..which is heavier ?
The problem with that argument is combustion doesn't happen on each of the 3 faces at the same time. Combustion only happen in one of the chambers at a time. Maybe that argument could be made for the liquid piston rotary engine, but not a Wankel.
Your wrong again dude, stop preaching the false narrative. 😜
Nope.
@@JapandaTuning No different than any other internal combustion engine. Each combustion chamber fires in a timed sequence.
Stroke volume is measured per face. Only one face ignites at a time so it's 654x2 = 1308.
The true displacement of the 13B is 654x6 = 3924. Each rotor has 3 faces. Two rotors is 6 faces. Obviously that's displacement and not thermal dynamic cycle.
Regards.
Yes, it's a 3.9 liter and it's a 4-stroke.
The Wankel KKM57 require 1080° degrees of crankshaft rotation to complete the firing order sequence do all 6 volumes displaced.
Sorry, you are missing the fact that each side is a separate piston, as my previous post states. I rotor = 3 cyl, so again, 3.9L if that is how you wish to measure it.
Only one side of a rotor fires at one time not all 3, 1.3l
@@edwardwillis6409 really I had no idea. But at least in a three cylinder engine, they all fire at the same time ....
@@Lonewolfz24 look up 3 cylinder firing order please
@@edwardwillis6409 But each chamber has its own intake, compression, power and exhaust cycle.
There is a combustion cycle per crankshaft revolution.
@@Lonewolfz24 The true actual displacement is 3,924cc's
Each of the chambers has its own intake, compression combustion and exhaust cycle.
Glad you brought up the real way to argue rotary displacement against piston bozos = just to bring up that two stroke piston engines don't magically double displacement vs modern 4 strokes. Same concept
Unfortunately the analogy with 2-stroke engines is completely wrong, there are no legitimate engineers that agree with this nonsense.
You totally made this presentation and double dipped on a college assignment. LOL (only kidding). Thanks for the video and great content!
Unfortunately there is a huge glaring flaw in your theory.
The Wankel engine is a 4-stroke.. not a 2 stroke and it has 3 swept volumes, not one.
Each of the 3 combustion chambers has its own 4-stroke cycle.
So like a 3 cylinder 4-stroke engines you must count all 3 when calculating displacement.
This guy is an example of someone who has a hardon for shitting on the rotary engine in every single video he can find, he cant handle the fact the japanese were on to something that bmw or German ingenuity wasnt, regardless of its German origin. Or the fact that for such a small and light engine, it produces some impressive power. Kick rocks, wheelchair boy.
@@xMorbidArtx Run along little rotard boy...
@@sandervanderkammen9230 At least I can run, meanwhile, Mr Ironside over here could use a rotary.
@@xMorbidArtx I run 3 miles a day... little rotard boy
@@xMorbidArtx If you can figure out how displacement is correctly calculated you will realize that the Wankel engine is real not that impressive for its size or the amount of fuel it burns.
That's why the can't be used in passenger aircraft or no longer used in major professional motorsports.
I've never heard anyone call it a 2.6l
I've always heard 1.3l well because 13b . . .
Exactly there’s a reason why it’s called 13b
it is x1.5 or even x2 for determining what Racing Category a Rotary has to compete in.
in the UK after 2004 the RX8 was categorised as 2.6L for Tax and Insurance Purposes !
The comparison of rotary engines to two strokes is apt. They both burn oil, both are very polluting, and both aren't used in cars any more and never will be again.
All Wankel engines operate using the 4-stroke principle.
The Wankel engine has no characteristics that are unique to 2-stroke engines that cannot also be found on examples of 4-stroke engines.
I think that displacement should be specified in volume/rotarions of input shaft. Another thing is that input shaft of a wankel engine is spining 3 times faster than rotor, but also rotor has three sides, so it's still one cycle per rotarion. Btw thank you so much for explanation of rotor dimensions.
That is not how swept volume displacement of an internal combustion engine is calculated.
The Wankel engine is a 4-stroke and each combustion face has its own 4-stroke cycle this each face has a displacement which has to be counted.
The 13b has a displacement of 3,924cc's
Right, it takes 3 crankshaft revolutions for each of the chamber faces to displace a volume of air.. 3 x 1.3 liters or a total true displacement of 3.924cc's
@Darth Vader Both are rotating, but at different speeds.
There is a 1:3 ratio
Its a 1.3 for volume alone, but it does act like a 2.6 because it runs like a 2stroke
Hey, so we in Germany say it's an 1.3l too.
You are correct it's 1.3 L engine. The only 2.6 L engine is in the Mazda race car 787b and it's sister versions.
I wonder why Mazda just make the measurements of the engine bigger to make more power and torque
Its wrong, the concept called "tax displacement" was conceived by the marketing department of NSU to increase sales in countries that have registration taxes based on engine displacement.
The Mazda 787b was powered bu rhe R26B with a total displacement of 7.8 liters. It competed in the over 5.0 liter class
Great video man! Can you do a video about where I can find blinker fluid? Every where I go, they say they don’t have it :(
don"t forget to check your muffler bearing as well LOL
In the UK theyre registered as a 2.6L engine to warrant paying more tax on the car. 2 stroke engines follow the same rule as 4 stroke engines so I dont see why rotaries have to be different. luckily if you bought a n imported RX7 a lot of those were registered as 1.3 L engines
Wankel engines are all 4-stroke, they are not 2-stroke.
It's a 3.9 liter engine, adjusted to 2.6 liters at a 720° degree cycle.
The why I have described the size is every 2 rotors is 1.3 then half it for 1 rotor, then add that per rotor you have in your car
Engine displacement is calculated by the volume of the combustion chambers, which totals 1.3l for the 13b. I understand that it's necessary to get into more technicalities when comparing with standard engines, for competitive or insurance purposes, but it's a 1.3 rotary engine and saying it's a 2.6 or 3.9 is misleading and plain wrong
Thank you so much for your video you put the rest of those nerds to shame. You made it look simple 👏🏿
This is really going to ruffle some feathers but actually if you really want to get technical neither of those are right because an engines displacement has nothing to do with the number of stokes or cycles since that is only relative to a single working cylinder or camber.. The true *_"COMPLETE ENGINE DISPLACEMENT"_* is 3.9L (3924cc's).
The reason is, an engines displacement is the volume of one working chamber times the number of working chambers. Example, a 2L 4 cylinder engine has 4 500cc cylinders (or you could say 4 500cc stroke volume working chambers) thus equaling 2000cc for a complete *_engine cycle_* , a 5L V8 has 8 625cc working chambers for a complete engine cycle. At the same time, a single cylinder 250cc 2stroke engine has a single 250cc cylinder (single 250cc stroke volume working chamber) for a complete engine cycle. *_"Complete engine cycle"_* is the key aspect here.
The number of rotations it take for the crank shaft has absolutely nothing to do with the engines calculated displacement (complete engine cycle). Displacement is simply sweep volume of a single working chamber x the number of working chambers.
With that said, the 654cc value for a 13b engine (which you forgot the /1000 at the end of the formula you put up starting at 1:40 mark of the video) is for one rotor face and there are 3 faces per rotor and 2 rotors (obviously referring to a 2 rotor engine here namely the 13b) so here is 6 working stroke volumes and thus the really apple to apples comparison is 654 x 6 = 3924 just a a 2L 4cylinder engine is 500 x 4 = 2000
Who cares really?
Excellent comment.
@@xMorbidArtx Anyone that wants to have a serious inteligent conversation comparing the performance of the Wankel engine compared to other types of 4-stroke engines like the Otto or Diesel.
Tax displacement is not a valid method of calculating swept volume displacement, never has, never will.
Tax displacement is pure marketing and advertising strategy and is not recognized by engineers, Government agencies and motorsports sanctioning bodies.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Or a troll like you who revisits the same videos and comments over the years to shit on the enthusiasts.
@@xMorbidArtx Childish insults won't prove the 13b is 1.3 liters... or make you look smarter son.
False. 1.3L partial displacement would only be correct if a 4.0L V8s were rated as 0.5L while each single cylinder fires.
0.5L and 1.3L are partial displacement. 4.0L and 3.9L (1.3 x 3) are total displacement. This is why so many people are disappointed in the irl fuel economy because they’re being quoted a partial displacement number, while the motor lives with its total displacement in the real physics, not marketing. Sadly, the EPA could not do the math that you did at the beginning of this video and were as confused as anyone else.
can we just say it’s 3.9L? At least that would explain the fuel consumption 😅
Yes, 3,924cc's is the true total displacement...
The trouble comes when you go to compare this with a Otto or Diesel engine that only requires 720° degrees of rotation to complete the firing order sequence.
I'd suggest calling it a 2-stroke and then it would explain the oil consumption!
Kenichi Yamamoto says it's 1.3L, so it's 1.3L. Racing classes double that to gain parity with piston engines. There's no technical reason to call it 2.6L. I've said it's like a 2 stroke 4 cylinder
Sorry Chris, Felex Wankel, Hanns Paschke and Walter Freode all say you are wrong.
The true, total displacement of a Mazda 13b series is 3,924cc's.
We use the 2x conversion formula to adjust the timing sequence from 1080° to the normal 720° because the Wankel engine is 4-stroke..
Not a 2-stroke.
Any questions son?
But wouldn't the stroke volume be each of the chambers? So it should be 6xx CC's X 3 X 2 rotors! Making it more like a 3.8 litre engine!
definitely the best argument for 3.9L yet. It is so difficult to put an exact displacement on these engines because displacement was defined for piston engines that we are now trying to apply to something completely different!
Actually no, as there's only one chamber where the "boom" happens so it's only a 1.3L.
You can check it in other videos about that topic that can explain it in more detail. Anyway it's 1.3
@@danogh2227 thank you, at last another person saying that only 1 side of the rotor fires at one time
@@edwardwillis6409 yeah there is only one chamber that does the fire, it's just that the other does exhaust and intake at the same time
@@danogh2227 Sorry, but you are wrong.
The Wankel engine operates using the 4-stroke principle.
Each chamber has its own intake, compression, power and exhaust cycle.
1.3L Engine with a 2.6L Power...
and beyond !
I agree. It is technically a 1.3L. That rotor is clean though... must have been premixed lol
Not even Felix Wankel believes this tax displacement nonsense...
No way new post
It is a 1.3L per Mazda and the Japanese government for tax purposes, ( hence why Mazda argued for the smaller displacement). This also has been argued alot for 1.3, 2.6, or even 3.9 on rotary engines since they were first created. Even more so, all three answers are correct depending how you do the measuring.
1.3 - Correct for the way in which we measure a piston engine. Cyl displacement x number of cylinders.
This comes to 1.3 for a Mazda rotary 13B engine, as there are 2 rotors, with a displacement of 654cc each = 1.308L
2.6 - Correct if you figure that a piston engines power figure is based on a 720 degree 4 cycle power delivery.
A rotary makes full power stroke every 360 Degrees meaning its effective power is double same sized piston engine.
(this is BTW why when rotary engines are in racing series, they are doubled in displacement, to equalize the numbers)
3.9 - Correct when you consider that unlike a piston engine, a single rotor has three sides all working at the same time.
Imagine a piston engine with a combustion chamber on BOTH sides of it, then displacement would be double.
On rotary engines, one rotor has 654cc displacement on ONE side of three, then x2 rotors.
The Best and easiest way to look at a rotary engine is to see each rotor as 3 cyl, with 654cc displacement per, making power every 360 degrees of rotation. This would make a 13B about the equivalent to a 2.6L (power) 6 cyl (2 rotor x3 sides) 3.9L (efficient) engine.
If you have 6 chambers, each has a swept volume displacement of 654cc's
It does not matter if the engine is a 2-stroke at 360°
4-stroke at 720°
Or a Wankel at 1,080°
The displacement will still be exactly the same *3,924cc's*
@@sandervanderkammen9230 I don't disagree, the point wasn't to say it should be called a 2.6L, but that the power output is like that of a two stroke, which is why in racing, they tend to calcify the rotary engines as double, to give a comparable piston engine an even playing field.
@@Lonewolfz24 The 2X conversion formula is intended to compare rhe Wankel engine wirh reciprocating 4-stroke engines.
To compare the relative displacement at the same 720° cycle duration.
The Wankel engine is not a 2-stroke which is where much of the misunderstanding begins.
Most engineers, government agencies and motorsports sanctioning bodies use the 2X formula for calculating the displacement of the 654cc's chambers at 720°.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 you know, this argument is getting tiring. Everything you said is correct. Notice I didn't say the rotary is a two cycle. I said as it makes a power stroke Every 360 degrees of the "crank" LIKE a two cycle, that's why they do the 2X for racing conversion. Which is what you just repeated. Simple, true displacement is 3.9 6cylinder making power at double the crank (yes it's not called a crank) like a two cycle engine. Another way you can argue it is to say the rotary runs at double the rpm as a piston engine for purposes of power. My whole original point was that you can make the argument for any of the three displacements depending how toy want to look at it. The 1.3 being the most incorrect IMO.
@@Lonewolfz24 A 6-cylinder Otto engine has 3 combustion cycles per crankshaft revolution.
The Mazda 13b only has 2.
The Wankel engine runs at 2/3rds the cyclic rate of a 4-stroke reciprocating engine.
In fairness to everyone, its a difficult calculation. How do you calculate the displacement of an Ilmor five stroke engine. One piston does nothing but recover lost energy. Is it part of the combustion cycle. Or how about a Stirling engine?
its actualy 1.1 IF you are using the CORRECT method of calculation FOR the engine INTENDED
2.6 is a 4 rotor. The holy grail of rotories! Mine is labeled as a 1.3. Parts are ordered by 1.3. Soooo it's a 1.3.
Sorry but you are wrong.
If you have 6 chambers, each has a swept volume displacement of 654cc's
It does not matter if the engine is a 2-stroke at 360°
4-stroke at 720°
Or a Wankel at 1,080°
The displacement will still be exactly the same *3,924cc's*
@@sandervanderkammen9230 here we go again with you
@@KenBober The facts don't change... you just have not learned anything.
@@KenBober If you still have trouble understanding how displacement is calculated correctly I would be happy to explain it to you.
Easy way to tell is the fact that the manufacturer would have taken advantage of labeling the motor with a higher displacement if what all the rotary fan boys in the comments said was true/legitimate way to measure the displacement.🤷♂️
It's not the rotary follows fault that the engine is more efficient like you said it's 321 they can get that through that thick head which makes it 1.3 liter
I wouldn't calle it efficient if consumes like a V6 with the trq of a i4
The only reason I’ve heard it called a 2.6ltr is insurance companies so they can charge more for your premium.
A twin rotary engine is and always will be a 1.3ltr.
1.3 was created to cheat governments and insurance companies..
@Andy Pandy We use the well-known and understood industry standard called the 2X formula for determining the "Comparative Displacement"
The Mazda 13B series has a true total displacement of 3.9 liters.
When we compare it to other 4-stroke engines with a 720° degree cycle we consider it a 2.6 liter.
In Ireland my RX-8 is registered as a 1744 cm^3… really bonkers how they came up with that
You actually bought a RX8?
You poor bastard! My condolences mate.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 You actually hate RX8s?
You poor bastard! My condolences mate.
@@JQNAH *What is there to like about the RX8? It's the worst sedan Mazda ever made.*
@@JQNAH *You have to be very gullible and naive to buy a RX8... its a pile of junk.*
@@sandervanderkammen9230 There is a lot to like about the RX8, the unmatched rotary sound, the smoothness of the engine, the flames, the pops and bangs, the handling, the looks. It's a damn good car! And plus, it's a 4 door "quad" coupe, not a sedan, so I'd say you're the naive one here. But me? No. I knew the risks and I took them and I do not regret it. It is definitely not a car for the weak. And tell me, do you own an RX8?
1 rotor is 654,7 cc so x 2 for 13B or x3 for 20B and x4 for a 26B
Wrong, 13B displacement is 3,924cc's
20b is 5,896cc's
R26B is 7,848cc's
Off topic but I wamt that rx8 rc car body been trying forever to get one to match my mazda where can you get those??
You need to have a word with my insurance company, my logbook (title deeds) clearly states its a 2600cc
Absolutely right!
People just can’t handle loosing to a 1.3L
Or losing* even.
Loozing
engineer here. don't pick fights over semantics, they are the worst. obviously, when it comes to communicating, one can always clarify by defining what is being spoken or written. it's displacement obviously is 1.3L but I dunno if someone wants to emphasize that it's effective displacement (relative to 1 revolution, compared to 4 cycle inline) is 2.6L i don't have a bone to pick with that.
You seem unfamiliar with the history and controversial logic behind _"tax displacement"_
Tax Displacement is a concept concocted by the marketing department of NSU as a way to improve sales in countries that have registration taxes based on the engine displacement.
No legitimate engineer agrees with this advertising nonsense including Felix Wankel himself.
Max Bentele left NSU because he refused to acknowledge tax displacement.
Insurance companies, Government agencies and motorsports sanctioning bodies no longer recognize the validity of tax displacement and universally accepted the 2x conversion formula.
Then you got people like Sander whose sole purpose in life is to go around every possible video he can find about an Rx8 to fling shit. Literally. Makes you wonder doesnt it?
Ant clue how the car running now currently waiting for the same set up
Top notch video
What pisses me off about the idiots who circulate this myth that it's a 2.6L, is that insurance companies get wind of it and because they will look for any excuse to charge people more money, they list it as a 2.6L even though it is mechanically a 1.3L.
Idiots trying to compare apples to oranges by trying to use piston logic to determine the displacement of a rotary. 😡
can you make an tutorial how to install an sandwichplate? Cant find it on Yt.
This shit hasn’t been an argument since the ‘70s. Seriously, don’t ever listen to CZcams “experts” in the comments.
Eche rotor have 3 explosion by 2 is a 6 explosion making it a 6 cilinder so it can not be a 1.3 liter .
That's wild!
I say 1.3l. As do the engineers who get paid over 1/4 mllion and went to collage 2 years more then my 4 years that work for Mazda. Oh, and the Federal, safty, race track safty and technical inspector's plus Aviation safty (was in airplanes before cars) a few more im missing. Thay determined 1.3L before the motor ever achieved flight. (YES was in plans before you could buy them in cars). Any one tells you its not a 1.3L laugh at them and ask how long ago a 1.3L smoked thier 5.0L. Their just looking to not feel bad. Its not about size its about efficiency. Anyone tells you otherwize its because your not efficient, or its blown out and sloppy so you need the displacements to make up for it.
You better tell the insurance company's it's a 1.3L. They're also following the 2.6L bandwagon.
Insurance companies, Government agencies and Motorsports sanctioning bodies no longer recognize NSU or Mazda's use of the _"Tax Displacement"_ method.
Engineers and automotive experts understand that this is a invalid and completely contrived marketing and advertising concept.
Unfortunately, UK insurance companies classify them as 2.6L 🤣😭
No they don’t mines insured as a 1.3(they might have used to), The tax is the problem I pay more road tax than insurance!
@@MrMillander I'm with Admiral and they've got it listed as "Engine Size: 2616". My insurance is only ~£450 a year (I'm early 30s), and road tax £609 a year 🤣
@@thefinewineinvestor same price as me mate but I’m with AxA, The Tax is a joke!
@@MrMillander actually the RX8 up until 2004 was classified as 1.3L.
after that the Government changed it to 2.6L for Tax and Insurance Purposes !
This isn't rocket science. The rated displacement is 1.3L however a 13b ignites that displacement every 360 degrees of the e-shaft. People don't talk enough about the spark events. People forget the basics. Displacement is measured based on the combustion chamber max intake volume of each chamber/cylinder vs a SINGLE ignition event of that volume per chamber/cylinder. This is why it's comparable to a 2.6L 4 stroke 4 cyl piston engine because that engine will only have ignited the exact same 1.3L as the rotary every 360 degrees (1 single ignition event of the fuel air in both front and rear chambers vs 2 piston cylinders). Instead of doing all the math (which is too confusing to many) try to talk about the air the engine MOVES every 360 degrees. Combustion engines at their core are nothing but air pumps. That's the easiest way to compare a rotary to other 4 stroke piston engine. So yes a 13b is comparable to a 2.6L 4 stroke piston because that 13b will have MOVED and ignited 2.6L of fuel air mixture in 720 degrees of e-shaft rotation with 4 total ignition events as that 2.6L piston.
Except that's not even right since number of shaft rotations has absolutely nothing to do with how an engines displacement is calculated. Would you say that if someone converted a 2.0L 4 cylinder 4 stroke engine into a 2 stroke that it suddenly becomes a 4.0L engine because it now moves it complete displacement in 360 rather than 720°? NO, you wouldn't because the number of rotation has zero to do with its calculated displacement.
Engine displacement is simply a chamber's (cylinder's) swept volume times the number of chamber's (cylinder's) it has. Example, a 4 cylinder 2.0L engine has 4 cylinders that displace 500cc each and thus 500 x 4 = 2000cc (2L) and a 500cc single cylinder 2 stroke engine has a single 500cc swept volume cylinder and thus is a 500cc engine.
Now with that said, a 13b rotary for example has a single chamber swept volume of 654cc and each rotor has 3 chambers so the true displacement of a single rotor is 1962cc (654 x 3 = 1962) and being a 2 rotor engine, the total engine displacement is 3924cc (1962 x 2 = 3924).
@@CJ-ty8sv You miss the whole point. 13b Rotary moves 1.3l of air with one rotation of the e-shaft and has 2 ignition events during that time period. 2.6L 4 stroke piston engine will move and ignite that same amount with the same number of spark events. No need to over complicate this. I used crank rotation as a base because BOTH engines calculate rpm the same exact way so to compare the two different types of engines geometry, you have to know how much air is being used and is ignitied for each combustion event per rpm. That's why a 1.3l rotary is comparable to a 2.6l piston because both engines will move and ignite the exact same amount of air in 2 rotations of their crank along with the same amount of ignition events. Knowing this fact is why the 787b was banned from Le Mans because that 2.6l engine was moving 5.2l of air compared to the other 3.5l on the field in 2 rotations of the cranks.
This makes sense, I noticed Forza Horizon 4 Has it listed as 1,308cc.
You are quoting a video game as a reference???
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Yes as it stated in my comment :) just another place that agrees with the 1.3L. What about it guy?
''I noticed''
@@SimplyOHC A very poor reference source with zero credibility.
Government agencies, Insurance companies and Motorsports sanctioning bodies no longer recognize the validity of "tax displacement"
Not even Felix Wankel himself believed that tax displacement was valid.
Tax Displacement was created by by the marketing department of NSU to boost sales in countries that have registration tax based on engine size.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Dude your giving me depression. what the fuck are you on about
(I dont care) I said forza not tAx DiSpLaCeMeNt. Call it a 2.6L idrc, go pick a battle with somebody that cares
Mazdas four rotor?
Look up Mazda impossible lemans victory they raced a 4 rotor there
*SIGH*...ONE week ago I picked up my 2005 Shinka with a brand new Mazda remanufactured engine...I'm STILL in the 1000 mile, under 5K RPM break in time before I can really push her....I'm only been able to put on 300 miles because of work...even a new engine is frustrating with this car!
Most cars have that break in distance… not just the rx8.
I also hear it's a 3.9L
Only from the haters
1.3l with 231 HP.... Sounds like a Ford Ecoboost😅
Ofcourse it's 1.3, didn't even hear anyone dumb enough to state such a nonsense
auto cycle has absolutely NOTHING to do with displacement, now i do disagree with Mazda about it being 1.3 Liters for the 13B because their math and the formula that you have shown, DOES NOT account for the 3 combustion pockets in each rotor, it is much easier to calculate displacement in piston engines, bore X bore X Stroke X3.14 X number of cylinders, HOWEVER, displacement varies even on 2 identical engines if the pistons of one engine has been replaced with either domed or dished pistons, displacement is defined as the total maximum volume of AIR that the engine can utilize, so a 5.7 liter engine while it does in fact displace 350 cubic inches from the factory, it can loose as much as 40 cubic inches because of domed pistons, or gain as much as 25 cubic inches when utilizing dished pistons, it is just easier to refer them as 5.7 liter since that is the displacement that was intended from the factory, same thing with the pockets on the Mazda Rotors should at some point be included into the calculations, the 2.6 liter argument is even more preposterous than the auto cycle one, although the Rotary engine does in fact share the same auto cycle with a 2 stroke engine, multiplying one revolution with one auto cycle of the 2 stroke does not compare with the 3 auto cycles that the Rotary completes with every revolution per rotor, the formula that Mazda uses I think is a good starting point, but the displacement of the pockets needs to be included as well!
The more I think about it, the more I think it's 3x1.3L displacement for the three faces of the rotor forming 1.3L swept volume. However, displacement should be displaced (not total!) volume of air in a single stroke. So I would not consider the pockets in the faces of the rotor to count towards displacement. It is the same thing as the clearance at the top of a piston compressor/engine. It changes compression ratio, but not displacement because that (clearance or pocket) volume is always considered at both TDC and BDC. That is why displacement is commonly considered as the maximum volume of air (at BDC) MINUS the minimum volume of air (TDC) and not just the max volume.
@@PeterArmour Yeah, true complete engine displacement is 3924cc (or 3.9L).
I don't understand why people get so hung up on the whole displacement relative to crank (or in this case "E-Shaft") rotation when that has absolutely NOTHING to do with an engines displacement. As keith basically pointed out, an engines displacement is the volume of one working chamber (cylinder) times the number of chambers (cylinders) and a Rotary (13b for this example) has a 654cc swept volume chamber and has 3 chambers per rotor and 2 rotors so that is 654 x 3 x 2 = 3924cc just as a 2.0L 4 cylinder engine has a basic 500cc swept volume per cylinder and has 4 cylinders thus has a total engine volume of 500 x 4 = 2000cc (2L)
The Wankel engine does not have any dome, the combustion chamber recess is a negative space and has no effect on swept volume displacement.
The key argument is does each chamber face displace a volume of air? Because All Wankel engines operates using the exact same 4-stroke operating principle The answer is YES, all 3 volumes must be counted when determining displacement.
The catch is when you compare the 4-stroke Wankel with the 4-stroke Otto and Diesel engines.
They complete their firing order sequence in 720° degrees of crankshaft rotation while the Wankel requires 1080° degrees.
This is why engineers, regulating agencies and motorsports sanctioning bodies all use and agree on the 2x conversion formula.
The 13b series for example has a total true displacement of 3,924cc's but when compared to a reciprocating 4-stroke we classify it as being approximately 2.6 liters.
This is the video for me #bigbraingang
So in my „Zulassungsbescheinigung Teil 1“ in Germany is written 1.3L. So it is a 1.3L. Who would doubt that?!?
Max Bentele and Felix Wankel himself...
ah yes, the european insurance companies' favorite little lie
Wankle engines are obviously 2-stroke, that's why they burn so much oil! 🤪
1.3 pawarrrrrrrrre
Sorry... 2.6
@@sandervanderkammen9230 hold on I though you said 3.9 …. You got some explaining to do
@@edwardwillis6409 *Power of a 2.6..*
2.6L comes from insurances, they can justify higher prices
No, it comes from the 2x conversion formula for calculating the Wankel engine at 720°.
I much rather it being a 1.3 cos then inshuence will like it more 😎
yo bro do you have an instagram?
Because they cant do math... its a 1.3L engine!
"Tax Displacement" was invented by the marketsing department at NSU Motorenwerkes GmbH... none of NSUs staff including Felix Wankel agrees with this phony advertising campaign rubbish.
All 3 faces have thier own displacement volumes.
God damn why don't they teach us this math in grade 8
so what i got is it's a 1.3l that just fires more per revolution of the crank. . . kind of obvious to you people who think it's a 2.6l
Tax displacement is fictitious method concocted by NSU Motorenwerkes GmbH. to cheat the vehicle registration taxes in countries where taxes are based on engine displacement.
Both Felix Wankel and Max Bentele publicly rebuked "Tax displacement" as inaccurate, deceptive and misleading.
The Mazda 13B series has a total true swept volume displacement of 3,924cc's and when compared to the Otto or Diesel Cycle engine approximately 2.6 liters using the 2x conversion formula.
Engineers, Government agencies and motorsports sanctioningbodies all recognize the 2x conversion formula.
Any questions?
And they all mad cuz a 1.3L whoops on thise pistons motors so much 😆
The only people who claim rotories are 2.6s are insurance coumpany crooks who no one at all likes and are scammers and people who hate on rotories because there asses got drug by one previously 😂
Why you bent
Its a 2.6 because thats what insurance companies class them as.
im gonna have to disagree with you there. my 8 is classed as a 1.3L economy sedan. laughable I know, but that is the fact.
@@dmedwardsiii an economy sedan because it could singlehandedly keep the oil economy alive.
@@dmedwardsiii well in the uk they count it as a 2.6.
Here in the uk the insurance companies are morons lol.
@@iCozzh In Germany they count it as a 1.3
If it actually was a 2 stroke engine you would be correct about it being a 1.3L. But because it's actually a 4 stroke engine it's a 2.6L. People joke the engine is the size of a 1.3L, has the displacement of a 2.6L and gas consumption of a 3.9L.
it has gas consumption of a 3.9L because it is an 3.9L. remember that each rotor has 3 faces, so the calculation should be 654.7 CC stroke volume × 3 faces per rotor × 2 rotors = 3928 CC.
@Brazio20 You can think of it like that. However, the 13b is a 2 rotor engine, which is equivalent to a 4 piston 4 stroke. So, if you use the 4 stroke standard for displacement calculations, you get 2 pistons per combustion chamber x 0.65 L per chamber, which is 2.6 L. In racing classification, this engine is also considered to be a 2.6L. It certainly does consume gas at least like a 3.9L.
@@mischiefpwns Don't get me wrong, I agree with 2.6L because racing associations need to balance rotary engine to make sure rotary engine cars aren't overpower or underpower in their classes.
I said it is technically a 3.9L engine because, for example, 2L 4 pistons 4 stroke is essentially a 4 × 500cc engine, and 1 rotor in rotary engine has 3 rotor's faces that are pulling the works of 3 pistons 4 stroke, so 2 rotors is essentially a 6 pistons × 655cc. this is where my "technically a 3.9L engine" comes from.
@Brazio20 This engine can definitely be a 1.3, 2.6 or 3.9 depending on how you want to think about it. You are correct there are technically 3 rotor faces per combustion chamber which could compare to a V6 and not a 4 cylinder. In that case you would be right to classify it as a 3.9L.
People call them 2.6l because it has 2 rotors and that’s the math for 1 rotor alone. The full engine has 2. If anyone is saying in 1 rotor that it’s a 2.6l you just flat out have no clue what your talking about
Remember when he argued that each rotor’s displacement is 654cc. Because the 13B has two rotors its displacement is 1309cc or 1.3L
People call them 2.6l because it has 2 rotors and that’s the math for 1 rotor alone. The full engine has 2. If anyone is saying in 1 rotor that it’s a 2.6l you just flat out have no clue what your talking about