Fun fact: "The Legendary Mazda 787B with its R26B Engine, a 4 Rotor Mazda Rotary Engine, is the First and ONLY Japanese Car to Outright Win at Le Mans. After that win the Rotary Engine was banned from ever competing again at Le Mans."
Probably because it has twice the power strokes of a piston engine.. As said in the video most people consider a rotary to be 2x size of it's listed displacement, because it's so efficient. e.g. most people will say "yeah, but that 1.3l is really a 2.6l if you think about it.."
They got banned because cheating with a non-production engine that was not related to the 13B (they implied that the 26B was 2 13B engines together, but 26B was a competition engine not related in design to the 13B with different housing designs among other characteristics. Getting banned just disqualifies their victory.
TOYOTA just won Le-Mans 24 hours recently with 2 cars and they are the legit Japanese manufacturer to do so because Mazda was banned and its Le-Mans win has no value
I own a 94 RX-7. I've always wanted a little working model of the engine to demonstrate how it works at car shows. It's really hard to describe it in a way that the average person can understand, without visuals. You did an excellent job in this video!
@FAWEXX yeah, I was broke at the time I only paid $700 for the car. The guy that had it before me couldn't get it to idle properly so I got a great deal on it and fixed the idle. I didn't have the money to do a teardown. I also didn't have a second car.
Had a '76 RX-4 with 58,000 (CA) miles on it... Like a dumbshit, I believed Arco and their graphite oil...shouldn't have done it...i think that's why the apex seals failed...then I read later that people were mixing 2-stroke oil into the fuel...great idea! Except for...California emissions! Wish I'd rebuilt the engine with new seals...
First time I heard a rotary engine was watching Le Mans as a 10yo boy in the nineties and I have loved them ever since. The sound of 26B is still in the top three engine sounds on my list and I really hope we will see Mazda bring wankel back in some form.
I had a 91 rx7. That car rocked! Fast, 9k redline, good mpg (35+) never got hot, never broke down. The car was totaled in a snow storm from an out of control pickup that went through my back yard. But I still have the engine in my lifted Suzuki samurai. 287k miles and still getting 30+ mpg. Burns some oil, but that's what they do. Love that engine!
The rotary engine is like the kid who does the science fair by himself. All the other kids had their parents do it, and came up with the same old boring solutions. When the kid then presents a creative and briliant solution to the problem given, that however isn't refined as much, it gets a C and goes home disappointet. The piston engine has been refined for almost a century by now. I bet you could develop a performance rotary engine that would blow piston engines out of the water.
doubt it, intake and exhaust timing cant be controlled independently from piston(rotor) position. huge disadvantage out the gate. the rotor is drawing air (in this case air is pressurizing the cylinder because of the turbo) , any how , it draws air the entire time it takes from one apex seal to pass the port to the next , that air has to have fuel. maybe if you could develop system of valves for it you could increase efficiency by restricting the volume of air drawn in during the intake stroke when the engine is under light loads or idling. but lean conditions create more heat something a 4 stroke piston engine deals with alot better than a rotary so it opens up a whole new set of issues.
Suzuki almost went bankrupt in the 70s trying to make these on their RE-5, Hercules made them, Norton made them, Mazda was the only cat that kept playing with this concept..
@P. Doherty mine has 60k miles. I'd rather keep it a rotary as that's what makes it special. Everyone is crushing theirs or swapping them so I feel in 20yrs there will be very few rx8s left increasing their value. I think I'd prefer swapping an LNF or LSJ if I was to swap to a Chevy powerplant.
that's the spirit lol. although i do care about apex seals. if your gonna have a vehicle or toy whatever with a rotary its still nice for that thing to be reliable regardless of how much you actually use it. id love to have one of those crazy super bikes being made with a rotary motor. i guess it blows away 1000cc factory super bikes plus i guess it has a way lower CG which makes sense seeing as it has no vertically positioned cylinders and a twin cam cylinder head mounted on top of it.
I have an 09 RX8 that I picked up in 2012. Still runs as good as it did when i picked it up. Not very fuel efficient, but its a blast to drive and has a back seat for my kid. And the rotary just makes it a tad bit more special feeling when you drive it.
I love it! My first car was a 1984/1985 RX7 (depending on which half you looked at lol). I am still fascinated by these engines 12 years later. Beautiful 3D model, by the way. Really amazing to see. That's a labor of love for sure. :)
Please talk about oils and the increased thermal heat that a full synthetic can take which lower than it is or does that increase it to say s higher temperature? The gasses not breaking down because of the viscosity and bonding capabilities of synthetic more unburnt fuel and oil reaches the exhaust ports to mainfold to catalytic converter and poisonous gas increase. That will force the intake stroke to misfire and that will cause the Apex seals to be flattened and damaged. Seals already being shrunk and then build up carbon being taken off the metals by the high mileage ful synthetic oils cleaning abilities and that is an older engines demise
Thank you! This is the best explanation and model I’ve ever seen. Very informative. I owned the 2nd gen RX7 back in the day (Ticket Red and new in 1985). Loved that car, and it ran great for 7 years before we sold it. It had a crazy high red-line, something approaching 9000 rpm, if I remember right.
Great video and explanation, congratulations. I am big fan of rotor engines and Mazda. I am owner of a Rx8 series 2, which I love. I spend a lot of hours on it. Just to let you know that Mazda is the only Japanese company that won a first place to a 24hour Le mans race on 1991. And do you know what kind of engine Mazda use on those races? Yes a rotary engine. Additional I will tell you that around the world there are a lot of rx7's and rx8's communities-club, which will be happy to see more of your videos about rotary engine. I was waiting for you long time to upload a video according rotary engines. Congratulation one more time, everything you have explained is completely right. Continue the great job you do.
The rotary engine is still one of the most simple yet complex engineering masterpieces I've ever seen. They have flaws, yes, but the sheer precision and the out of the box thinking that was involved in creating this simply blows my mind.
This is incredible. The size is amazing! I was so glad to see this because I have a decent understanding of a traditional piston type 4 cycle engine, but had no idea how a rotary engine works. It is still difficult to understand even after your excellent explanation .
Mazda had several for testing hydrogen. I'm not sure why they didn't use the regular RX-8 (they did for 1, but most used the Miata). So if Mazda found it just as easy to use a Miata as their standard company car, I would guess you could fit one in too, it may share some of the same mounting designs since its the same company (IDK, but Mazda seemed to think it was easy for a test platform, generally you make those as simple as you can)
Now this is officially the best explanation video of a Rotary Engine, this 3D-printed model is awesome and I hate to admit that is more clear than the beloved whiteboard xD. Always loved the engine from an engineering point of view, it just needs some more thinking over it to fix some flaws. Still hoping Mazda comes with a super clever idea and brings it back, so I'll look forward your next videos about it ;).
If you have the models and a 3d printer, sure you can. Oh, you're talking about the real deal... If you have the real scale models and a big enough 3d printer, sure you can! At least the moulds to glass fiber them. Engine, chassis and other mechanical bits are another issue. But a guy spent 10 years bending plates to build himself a Lamborghini. He bought the engine, transmission, wheels, chassis...
Jason, in the 90s, the US government challenged manufacturers to produce zero emissions vehicles within their range and present them for testing. Mazda spent big money developing a hydrogen version of the rotary engine. They even had a fleet of test cars (626 station wagons) running on Japanese roads to prove the technology. They did indeed produce zero measurable emissions, however, the US government asked if Mazda still used the tiny amount of engine oil from the sump (1lt between oil changes) injected into the intake for the apex seals. Mazda replied that yes they did, but it wasn't possible to measure any emissions as the amount was so small..... They were still refused certification, and the idea was killed off 👎👎👎
Absolutely brilliant model! And you gave an excellent explanation of how the Wankel rotary works and a brief discussion of its advantages and perceived disadvantages. I eagerly await more! :-)
Wow, that is amazing. I had some idea how that engine worked. But seeing it in this venue really brought the design to life. It's much easier to see the Wankel is a solution looking for a problem.
@Ungregistered User Id love a little Army of these in my garage. Rotary, Inline 6, Flat 6. I Have seen ones like this but not on this level. The way you can open it, & by far the coolest thing for me is the LED's showing the combustion
Ungregistered User the 3D files are free online. And if you really wanted one someone like me could print you one. A standard fmd 3d printer would do the trick
To learn so much about an engine in 12 minutes. Thanks so much for sharing this! I enjoyed it so much watching the video only felt like 5 minutes!! Great stuff.
Feels so perfect for small planes. Dual ignition built in. Dual turbochargers, so easy to compensate for altitude. Only rotary movement, so a failure probably means you only lose a cylinder,and still can "limp home", and great weight to power ratio...
I love the rotory for its character, despite its high maintenence. Such a cool and unique design. The similtaneous combustion is why It makes so much power though. For a piston engine, you have one power stroke for every two rotations of the crankshaft per piston. For a rotory, you have three for every one rotation. I.E you get six combustion strokes in a rotory for every one combustion stroke in a piston engine. Nice. Thats also why its so thirsty lol.
I've always been a huge fan of the Rotary despite its shortcomings. I've had more rotaries that I probably should have but I've loved every one of them. My 13B-REQ makes right near 350HP. These days not a huge amount of power but in a car that weighs a bit under 2400 lbs. it is plenty quick and handles better than many sports cars I've driven.
It deserved way more R&D! I'm convinced a 4 rotor modern Wankel-engine developed with a F1-R&D budget would be so sick that it broke the internet! Today, the future of mobility is electric, so I'm pretty sure the Wankel will be abandoned - but it will never be forgotten! Btw I love electric-vehicle technology as well as insane loud engines 😺🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I love electric, but feeling the RX-7 white smoke the tires while half way through third gear is just something unique and beautiful. I do think that Wankels could be brought up to modern reliability figures if it had modern R&D thrown at it. To hell with efficiency, that's not what a Wankel is for.
Elton Joel Are you a condensed mater physicist? If not, it would be a very foolish endeavor to claim on a persistent public forum that some feat of engineering and material science is impossible. We have not yet even reached the golden age of materials science and engineering and ultimate knowledge of what is or is not possible isn't available to any human. Besides that, there are labs across the world working on technologies that (long story short) produce hydrocarbon fuels directly from CO2 and solar energy, so when looking at the future I'm not really that concerned about fuel efficiency because there's plenty of technological schemes that can make that problem essentially moot.
"Wank"-el. Teehee. It's pronounced "Vunkel". Interesting that the most widely used engine types were all developed in Germany. Mr. Otto, Diesel, and Wankel all say hello. Wankel had the idea as early as 1924 and patented the concept in 1933. NSU (a German car maker that eventually joined forces with Auto Union to form modern-day Audi) introduced this engine (in a production vehicle) in the RO 80 in 1967. Citroen also put one in the GSA, calling it the Birotor.
Actually it's Wunkle if you're going with typical English Phonetics: in German the W is soft and the A is as in Another, and -El of WankEl is pronounced as in i.e. wiggle
@@EchterOsti Wie bitte? Dann müssten engl. "we" und dt. "wie" genau gleich ausgesprochen werden. Werden sie das? Von Günther Öttinger vielleicht. Und dir.
Ceramic seals solved the thermal differentiation into the rotor housing. They were used in the 787B that won the 1991 LeMans 24H race. But they were expensive for small production-medium priced sport vehicles like RX7 and RX8.
Mazda chose to count one working chamber per rotor because Japan, also Europe as well, tax cars based on engine displacement and any engine over 1.5 liters was taxed more than those below 1.5 liters, which risked Mazda's Wankel cars not being sold in certain markets. However, America, also Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, doesn't have this problem and can use the Wankel's full displacement. So, Mazda decided to avoid taxation on their Wankel engines by only counting one working chamber for each rotor, instead of all three working chambers per rotor. So basically, Mazda's 13B 2 rotor, the "1.3 liter engine", is actually 3.9 liters and the Le Mans winning R26B 4 rotor is actually around 7.8 liters! Now, fuel economy and power output makes much more sense Wankel engine displacement: 3√(3) x radius x width x eccentricity (all in millimeters)= Geometric Displacement per chamber Geometric Displacement x All 3 chambers= Full Thermodynamic Displacement per rotor Thermodynamic Displacement x number of rotors= Full engine displacement **This formula applies to ALL Wankel engines Wankel engine basic dimensions: Radius- Rotor radius, center to apex (generating radius) Width- Rotor width, depth (rotor thickness) Eccentricity- Offset (radius offset) **Similar to bore and stroke dimensions of piston engines Wankel engine equivalency: 1 rotor engine- 3 chambers= 3 cylinders- Inline 3 2 rotor engine- 6 chambers= 6 cylinders- Inline 6, VR6, V6, Flat 6 3 rotor engine- 9 chambers= 9 cylinders- W9 4 rotor engine- 12 chambers= 12 cylinders- V12, W12, Flat 12 **Comparison between piston engines and Wankel engines Revised Mazda Wankel engines: Mazda 3A 3√(3) x 110mm x 45mm x 14mm= 360,093.3629~ 360cc per chamber 360cc x 3 chambers= 1080cc or 1 liter *Equivalent to a 1 liter 3 cylinder engine Mazda 40A 3√(3) x 90mm x 59mm x 14mm= 386,281.9711~ 386cc per chamber 386cc x 3 chambers= 1158cc or 1.1 liters *Equivalent to a 1.1 liter 3 cylinder engine Mazda L8A 3√(3) x 98mm x 56mm x 14mm= 399,230.7829~ 399cc per chamber 399cc x 3 chambers= 1197cc per rotor 1197cc x 2 rotors= 2394cc or 2.3 liters *Equivalent to a 2.3 liter 6 cylinder engine Mazda 10A 3√(3) x 105mm x 60mm x 15mm= 491,036.4039~ 491cc per chamber 491cc x 3 chambers= 1473cc per rotor 1473cc x 2 rotors= 2946cc or 2.9 liters *Equivalent to a 2.9 liter 6 cylinder engine Mazda 12A/12B 3√(3) x 105mm x 70mm x 15mm= 572,875.8046~ 573cc per chamber 573cc x 3 chambers= 1719cc per rotor 1719cc x 2 rotors= 3438cc or 3.4 liters *Equivalent to a 3.4 liter 6 cylinder engine Mazda 13A 3√(3) x 120mm x 60mm x 17.5mm= 654,715.2053~ 655cc per chamber 655cc x 3 chambers= 1965cc per rotor 1965cc x 2 rotors= 3930cc or 3.9 liters *Equivalent to a 3.9 liter 6 cylinder engine Mazda 13B/Renesis 3√(3) x 105mm x 80mm x 15mm= 654,715.2053~ 654cc per chamber 654cc x 3 chambers= 1962cc per rotor 1962cc x 2 rotors= 3924cc or 3.9 liters *Equivalent to a 3.9 liter 6 cylinder engine Mazda 16X/SkyActiv-R 3√(3) x 122mm x 70mm x 18mm= 798,752.5504~ 798cc per chamber 798cc x 3 chambers= 2394cc per rotor 2394cc x 2 rotors= 4788cc or 4.7 liters *Equivalent to a 4.7 liter 6 cylinder engine Mazda 13G/20B 3√(3) x 105mm x 80mm x 15mm= 654,715.2053~ 654cc per chamber 654cc x 3 chambers= 1962cc per rotor 1962cc x 3 rotors= 5886cc or 5.8 liters *Equivalent to a 5.8 liter 9 cylinder engine Mazda 13J/R26B 3√(3) x 105mm x 80mm x 15mm= 654,715.2053~ 654cc per chamber 654cc x 3 chambers= 1962cc per rotor 1962cc x 4 rotors= 7848cc or 7.8 liters *Equivalent to a 7.8 liter 12 cylinder engine You get the idea. Wankel rotary engines are actually much bigger than we thought they were. They pack a lot a power and displacement in a small, lightweight package. To fully understand these engines, all three working chambers for each rotor must be counted, despite Japan and Europe's taxation regulations, and not just only one or two working chambers per rotor
No, they chose to count one working chamber per rotor because that's how engines are measured. My 125cc 2 stroke motorbike isn't called a 250cc just because it draws an intake charge every revolution. In a Wankel, each rotor fires _once_ per engine revolution, just like a 2 stroke piston engine.
@@thisnthat3530 Mazda choose to count one chamber per rotor just to get away with paying less for engine taxation in Japan and Europe. The story is there. Mazda just gave a nominal displacement of 1/3 of its real displacement. In piston engines the cc of the bore and stroke of one cylinder is multiplied by the number of cylinders to get its displacement at a full thermodynamic cycle ( 2 crank-shaft revolutions) A Wankel rotary engine isn't a 2 stroke engine and in a Wankel rotary engine EACH ROTOR SIDE (3) fires at 1 eccentric shaft rotation. Its real thermodynamic cycle is at 3 eccentric shaft revolutions (1080°) where all rotor sides have completed one 4 stroke Otto cycle. In a 13B 654 cc x 6 chambers = 3924 cc (3.9L) @ 1080° (full thermidynamic cycle)
@@407BRR Its equivalent to 2.6L when they measure it with the piston engine's metrics or when they use the piston engine's 720° of crankshaft rotation (its thermodynamic cycle) At 720° of eccentric shaft rotation 4 rotor sides (2 per rotor) have gone one complete 4 stroke cycle, there the 1.3L doubles to 2.6L, but there are 2 more rotor sides to complete one 4 stroke cycle each and they got to be counted and thst is why its true displacement is 3.9L 654 cc x 6 chambers = 3924 cc @ 1080° (its full thermodynamic cycle)
@@EM6285 "EACH ROTOR SIDE (3) fires at 1 eccentric shaft rotation" - Wrong. Only ONE (1) rotor side fires per eccentric shaft rotation. The rotor is spinning at 1/3 the speed of the eccentric shaft. Look at the start of the video, it's all there at the very beginning. Watch closely. In a Wankel engine, each rotor only produces ONE power pulse per rotor per output shaft revolution, so why should 3 chambers be measured when only one is "active"? Do you count the volume of the intake and exhaust manifolds when calculating piston engine capacity? While I understand the desire to call a 13B a 2.6L engine, there's no way I'll accept it being a 3.9L.
0:38: I thought if you had two turbo chargers, they were either twin or sequential, but not both. Twins were identical (twins) with each driving their own bank/chamber, while sequentials were different so that one worked well with low volume and the other had high compression (both fed the same banks/chambers). I only bring this up because I just saw another video that also said "twin sequential turbo chargers".
@@EngineeringExplained Thanks. I didn't realise they used twin turbos sequentially. I had only heard of sequential systems where they were different sizes.
When a piston engine is measured for example, total volume is given in cubic inches or liters. When a rotary engine is measured only 1/3 is claimed as its volume. What happened to the other 2/3? I think its a way of cheating in countries that used to or still tax a car by engine volume. If my 400 cubic inch GTO engine were measured this way, I could call it a 100 cubic inch engine (400 divided by 4 cycles).
Mazda chose to count one working chamber per rotor because Japan, also Europe as well, tax cars based on engine displacement and any engine over 1.5 liters was taxed more than those below 1.5 liters, which risked Mazda's Wankel cars not being sold in certain markets. However, America, also Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, doesn't have this problem and can use the Wankel's full displacement. So, Mazda decided to avoid taxation on their Wankel engines by only counting one working chamber for each rotor, instead of all three working chambers per rotor. So basically, Mazda's 13B 2 rotor, the "1.3 liter engine", is actually 3.9 liters and the Le Mans winning R26B 4 rotor is actually around 7.8 liters! Now, fuel economy and power output makes much more sense Wankel engine displacement: 3√(3) x radius x width x eccentricity (all in millimeters)= Geometric Displacement per chamber Geometric Displacement x All 3 chambers= Full Thermodynamic Displacement per rotor Thermodynamic Displacement x number of rotors= Full engine displacement **This formula applies to ALL Wankel engines Wankel engine basic dimensions: Radius- Rotor radius, center to apex (generating radius) Width- Rotor width, depth (rotor thickness) Eccentricity- Offset (radius offset) **Similar to bore and stroke dimensions of piston engines Wankel engine equivalency: 1 rotor engine- 3 chambers= 3 cylinders- Inline 3 2 rotor engine- 6 chambers= 6 cylinders- Inline 6, VR6, V6, Flat 6 3 rotor engine- 9 chambers= 9 cylinders- W9 4 rotor engine- 12 chambers= 12 cylinders- V12, W12, Flat 12 **Comparison between piston engines and Wankel engines Revised Mazda Wankel engines: Mazda 3A 3√(3) x 110mm x 45mm x 14mm= 360,093.3629~ 360cc per chamber 360cc x 3 chambers= 1080cc or 1 liter *Equivalent to a 1 liter 3 cylinder engine Mazda 40A 3√(3) x 90mm x 59mm x 14mm= 386,281.9711~ 386cc per chamber 386cc x 3 chambers= 1158cc or 1.1 liters *Equivalent to a 1.1 liter 3 cylinder engine Mazda L8A 3√(3) x 98mm x 56mm x 14mm= 399,230.7829~ 399cc per chamber 399cc x 3 chambers= 1197cc per rotor 1197cc x 2 rotors= 2394cc or 2.3 liters *Equivalent to a 2.3 liter 6 cylinder engine Mazda 10A 3√(3) x 105mm x 60mm x 15mm= 491,036.4039~ 491cc per chamber 491cc x 3 chambers= 1473cc per rotor 1473cc x 2 rotors= 2946cc or 2.9 liters *Equivalent to a 2.9 liter 6 cylinder engine Mazda 12A/12B 3√(3) x 105mm x 70mm x 15mm= 572,875.8046~ 573cc per chamber 573cc x 3 chambers= 1719cc per rotor 1719cc x 2 rotors= 3438cc or 3.4 liters *Equivalent to a 3.4 liter 6 cylinder engine Mazda 13A 3√(3) x 120mm x 60mm x 17.5mm= 654,715.2053~ 655cc per chamber 655cc x 3 chambers= 1965cc per rotor 1965cc x 2 rotors= 3930cc or 3.9 liters *Equivalent to a 3.9 liter 6 cylinder engine Mazda 13B/Renesis 3√(3) x 105mm x 80mm x 15mm= 654,715.2053~ 654cc per chamber 654cc x 3 chambers= 1962cc per rotor 1962cc x 2 rotors= 3924cc or 3.9 liters *Equivalent to a 3.9 liter 6 cylinder engine Mazda 16X/SkyActiv-R 3√(3) x 122mm x 70mm x 18mm= 798,752.5504~ 798cc per chamber 798cc x 3 chambers= 2394cc per rotor 2394cc x 2 rotors= 4788cc or 4.7 liters *Equivalent to a 4.7 liter 6 cylinder engine Mazda 13G/20B 3√(3) x 105mm x 80mm x 15mm= 654,715.2053~ 654cc per chamber 654cc x 3 chambers= 1962cc per rotor 1962cc x 3 rotors= 5886cc or 5.8 liters *Equivalent to a 5.8 liter 9 cylinder engine Mazda 13J/R26B 3√(3) x 105mm x 80mm x 15mm= 654,715.2053~ 654cc per chamber 654cc x 3 chambers= 1962cc per rotor 1962cc x 4 rotors= 7848cc or 7.8 liters *Equivalent to a 7.8 liter 12 cylinder engine You get the idea. Wankel rotary engines are actually much bigger than we thought they were. They pack a lot a power and displacement in a small, lightweight package. To fully understand these engines, all three working chambers for each rotor must be counted, despite Japan and Europe's taxation regulations, and not just only one or two working chambers per rotor
It’s because it doesn’t matter if it’s a 4 stroke or 2 stroke. It’s the measurement of how much one cylinder displaced multiplied by the number of cylinders. Very easy on a piston engine. More complicated on a rotary. But, they basically just took how much one rotor displaces and multiplied it by 2 for a 2 rotor. More power strokes doesn’t make the motor bigger.
On a 13B rotor engine each rotor side (3 per rotor) creates a "moving combustion chamber" that goes trough the 4 stroke Otto Cycle each (admission, compression, ignition, exhaust) 654 cc x 6 = 3924 cc (3.9L) Mazda just quoted 1/3 of its real displacement to pay less taxes because Japan's engine taxation laws at that time. You got to count all its 6 chambers going trough the 4 stroke Otto cycle once for a full thermodynamic cycle which takes 3 rotations of its eccentric shaft (1080°) 654 cc X 6 = 3924 cc @ 1080° rotation. Its real full thermodynamic is at 3 revolutions of the eccentric shaft when each of the 6 faces (rotor sides) have completed one 4 stroke cycle event and not at the 720° (2 revolutions) of the crankshaft of a piston engine. Anyways, using the 720° of the piston engine thermodynamic cycle puts the 13B displacing 2616 cc or 2.6L because 4 faces ( 2 per rotor) have completed one 4 stroke cycle each, but ypu got 2 more faces ( 1 per rotor) left thst will complete 1 4 stroke cycle. All have to be counted, just like in a piston engine all cylinders are counted It is not a 2 cycle engine.
@@EM6285 But the way you're talking about measuring it would end up including the exhaust stroke measurement too. Which would double the size of an engine. For displacement measuring they only go through the intake stroke, not a full 720 for a full cycle. It's purely how much one cylinder displaces on one stroke. And even though it isn't quite right a rotary is basically considered a 2 cylinder engine. So, they just take what one rotor displaces on it's intake stroke and double that for the displacement. I can see where you're coming from, but even in racing rotaries don't get classed like they are a much bigger motor. And, even with the RX-8 they were claiming the small engine size. I doubt that would fly in more modern times if it was just some sneaky trick pulled for tax reasons. Manufacturers don't get to just claim an engine size without some sort of logic to back it up.
Full thermodynamic cycle of a piston engine is at 2 crankshaft rotations (720°) where all the pistons in cylinders have completed one 4 stroke Otto Cycle. No matter how many cylinders, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 16... it will always take 2 crankshaft revolutions (720°) for all cylinders to go trough one 4 stroke cycle. Exhaust phase of the 4 stroke cycle does not doubles the displacement because no power is made and exhaust by-product of the displacement consumed at admission is being released (no power added) Inside the housing each rotor makes 3 separated chambers, each chamber goes trough the 4 stroke cycle (admission, compression, ignition, exhaust) that displaces 654 cc per "working chamber"... If in a piston engine all units (cylinders) are counted in its full thermodynamic cycle (720° crankshaft rotation) for displacement measurements, why can't all 6 working chambers in a Mazds 13B be counted? And set to mind that the rotary engine thermodynamic cycle is set at 3 revolitions of its eccentric shaft (1080°) where all 6 rotor faces (3 per rotor) had completed one 4 stroke cycle each and not at the piston engine's 720^ crankshaft rotation. Eccentric shaft revolutions / number of chambers completing one 4 stroke cycle / displacement. 1 revolution 360° / one side per rotor ( 2 ) completing one 4 stroke cycle. 654 cc x 2 1308 cc. Mazda counted just 1 side per rotor to give it a nominal displaceme to pay less taxes per engine produced. 2 revolutions 720° / 2 sides per rotor ( 4 ) completing one 4 stroke cycle. 654 cc x 4 = 2616 cc (2.6L) This gives the 13B rotary engine an equivalent displacement to compare it with 4 cylinder engines again, using the piston engune's 720° crank-shaft rotation characteristics. 3 revolutions 1080° / 3 sides per rotor ( 6 ) completing one 4 stroke cycle. 654 cc x 6 = 3924 cc. The real thermidynamic cycle for a rotary engine. On a full thermodynamic cycle, either 720° for the piston engine or 1080° for the rotary engine all the units (cylinders or rotor sides) complete just ONE 4 stroke cycle and none repeats it.
It may not be able to keep up with emissions standards, but the Wankel design is a brilliant re-imagining of the internal combustion engine. It deserves to be admired as creative engineering.
If you don't take care of it, it won't last. It's that easy. It's not the car's fault that you don't make the effort to maintain it. If you want a car that just goes without doing anything to it, get a Mustang instead.
How do you explain that there are rotary cars owners that has changed engine in just 60000km and some others go to 200000km with the same engine? It's not engine's fault, it's owner's fault. If you treat the way that has to be treated a rotary engine will last for really long. I am talking for personal experience, first hand, not what I have heard or rumors, which the most of times are not real.
I dunno. Got mine to 180K+ with zero problems. I believe it'ss all about a strict maintenance schedule, using the correct oils and staying on top of the spark plugs. Worst case, if a rebuild is needed, it's ridiculously easy. Never had to do mine but my bros '87 did. Only took us high school knuckleheads like a day in the driveway. Eeeeeeasy.
Rotaries need extra TLC to live a relatively healthy and long(er) life. Maintenance is key. Premixing your fuel helps as do upgrades to the cooling system. Aftermarket apex seals have come a long way.
All I have done is basic maintenance nothing to hard and I'm over 170km and still running strong most of you people who comment this either had bad luck or just didn't take care of it like you should these engines need to be revved not one day has gone by where I don't hit redline. They are great engines if you take care of them just like any other car
A single rotor will actually be equivalent of 3 cylinder engine, since each rotor have three sides(every 120 degrees), so 2 rotors = 6 cylinder engine, this way its easier for "piston heads" to wrap their brains around Wankel. I also like your analogy of 1.3 litter = 2.6 litter in 4-stroke terms. Excellent job!
I live in a town that has a company called Freedom Motors that developed and builds custom rotary engines for many different uses. I recently purchased an 8 foot personal watercraft built in the mid 60's with a fixed outdrive and a rotary engine. Currently not running but who knows, I may reconstruct the engine. It's corroded after sitting for years.
Do a video on theoretical "fixes" to the intrinsic weaknesses of a rotary engine. Ceramic thermal coatings on the rotor housings and plates. Better ignition management. Better fuel delivery and porting options. Better oil injection. I would love to see a theoretical analysis of what would happen by using thermally superior surface coatings on this engine so it's not producing so much waste on the ignition cycles.
You’re actually the right guy for this question… You should draw up a diagram of a concept rotary motor. The revised version should have both intake and exhaust valves that alternate between taking in clean air and blowing out the exhaust in order to Distribute temperatures more evenly.
Wow it amazes me that within the tiny housing it produces that much power, that's incredible. How did the RX-7 ever pass emissions considering it was designed to burn oil?, that is almost as astonishing as the 250+HP that it makes and boggles the mind
Ooh! A Skyactive-X rotary engine? Looking forward to that video! Mazda's Skyactive-X technology is extremely cool -- I can't wait to see how they might apply it to a rotary engine.
Wonderful presentation on many levels. I drive my RX8 regularly, and after a significant learning curve re: its idiosyncrasies, I remain very much in love with her. I liken it to driving a temperamental, comfortable go-cart. (By all means, get the 6 speed manual if you are in the market).
Here is an idea to help with thermal efficiency. Allow some exhaust to pass over the intake to maintain a higher temp and have an independent refrigerant to pass through the exhaust side. Only problem then is how much exhaust and refrigerant to pass. Doing this also allows for better cooling since the engine would need it's own a/c unit just like the cabin, so you can have unit send cold air to the radiator as well. As far as unburnt fuel and burning oil goes, all I can think of is figuring out a way to have high compression; that way it can run diesel fuel. What do ya think?
Thanks for the TL;DW version of why the rotary engine died video. I can only remember the good stuff about this engine because I think it is cool, I wish I could test drive one.
Great 3D working model, and explanation of why it's really a 2.6L engine. What I have never seen explained is the process of making torque with a rotary, and I hope you can make a video of this. With a 2D approach, you can assume balanced combustion pressure on a rotor face, and have a single force vector from the center of the face to the center of the rotor. The lever arm is the distance between this vector and the shaft center. For this face, as with pistons, there is no torque at TDC and BDC. Although the stroke appears to be 2 x e, it's actually 3 x e, unique to the rotary. You can back calculate it based on the face displacement (.65L) , and the projected area of the rotor face (22.53 sq in).
I'm looking forward to Eric taking it to the next level by making a model of a complete car, with all major mechanical components intact and functioning at this scale and level of detail. And also CarPlay.
Plot twist:
The 3D print is to scale, it's just that EE channel decided to use a giant version of Jason
hahahaha wtf
This made a lot more sense, did they expect us to believe somebody will make a 1:3 scale model of a Wankel engine?
Mindblown
Lord giant stick man. Much love Jason. Rotary is cool just all by itself in its elliptical nature.
I can't unsee it now. :P
And yet here I am, unable to make a structurally sound bird-house.
i made a bird house successfully, but the pet bird didnt like, my cat went in it instead!
That's because you spent an inordinate amount of your time focusing on the Tweeter! 😉
i think im a natural guessing by the fact birds seem to want to make my house their homes
U couldnt make a hole in a cardborad box? Lol
I once made a Bird house in wood shop and the fair housing committee condemned it
I guess those 3D printed apex seals have already been worn down to invisible XD
Yeah that high performance turbo didn't help either
As a rotary owner, I find this funny hahaha.
Oh snap!!!!
Probably in the turbo by now.
never joke about sth serious as 3d printed apex seals..
You blew me away with that turbo demonstration.
I get it!
Fun fact: "The Legendary Mazda 787B with its R26B Engine, a 4 Rotor Mazda Rotary Engine, is the First and ONLY Japanese Car to Outright Win at Le Mans. After that win the Rotary Engine was banned from ever competing again at Le Mans."
Probably because it has twice the power strokes of a piston engine.. As said in the video most people consider a rotary to be 2x size of it's listed displacement, because it's so efficient. e.g. most people will say "yeah, but that 1.3l is really a 2.6l if you think about it.."
@@JesusChrist-uu2te Apple to pear comparison.
@@JesusChrist-uu2te wouldnt a rule like " rotary engines can only have half the size of normal ones" be fair?
They got banned because cheating with a non-production engine that was not related to the 13B (they implied that the 26B was 2 13B engines together, but 26B was a competition engine not related in design to the 13B with different housing designs among other characteristics.
Getting banned just disqualifies their victory.
TOYOTA just won Le-Mans 24 hours recently with 2 cars and they are the legit Japanese manufacturer to do so because Mazda was banned and its Le-Mans win has no value
I own a 94 RX-7. I've always wanted a little working model of the engine to demonstrate how it works at car shows. It's really hard to describe it in a way that the average person can understand, without visuals. You did an excellent job in this video!
still have mine... think I'll go drive NOW!
@@oldrrocr cherish it. I actually sold my car not long after making that comment. Wish I could have kept it, but life got in the way.
@@nimravus01 Good riddance to old obsolete junk...
apex seals are gone, not suprised
That's what killed mine years ago Apex seals fell out after wearing down.
lol
@FAWEXX yeah, I was broke at the time I only paid $700 for the car. The guy that had it before me couldn't get it to idle properly so I got a great deal on it and fixed the idle. I didn't have the money to do a teardown. I also didn't have a second car.
Had a '76 RX-4 with 58,000 (CA) miles on it... Like a dumbshit, I believed Arco and their graphite oil...shouldn't have done it...i think that's why the apex seals failed...then I read later that people were mixing 2-stroke oil into the fuel...great idea! Except for...California emissions! Wish I'd rebuilt the engine with new seals...
ahhh, rotaries and apex seals...
Who else at first glance thought he was flipping us off in the thumbnail 😂😂😂
I didn't see it till I read the comment it was so worth
Me😆😆😆
First time I heard a rotary engine was watching Le Mans as a 10yo boy in the nineties and I have loved them ever since. The sound of 26B is still in the top three engine sounds on my list and I really hope we will see Mazda bring wankel back in some form.
i hear that Mazda is wanting to bring a rotary back as a generator for a hybrid
I had a 91 rx7. That car rocked! Fast, 9k redline, good mpg (35+) never got hot, never broke down. The car was totaled in a snow storm from an out of control pickup that went through my back yard. But I still have the engine in my lifted Suzuki samurai. 287k miles and still getting 30+ mpg. Burns some oil, but that's what they do. Love that engine!
✌I prefer experiences over opinions.
That engine needs a rebuild. The apex seals are completely gone.
Elton Joel it may as well be
At-205 try some of that
The rotary engine is like the kid who does the science fair by himself. All the other kids had their parents do it, and came up with the same old boring solutions. When the kid then presents a creative and briliant solution to the problem given, that however isn't refined as much, it gets a C and goes home disappointet.
The piston engine has been refined for almost a century by now. I bet you could develop a performance rotary engine that would blow piston engines out of the water.
doubt it, intake and exhaust timing cant be controlled independently from piston(rotor) position. huge disadvantage out the gate. the rotor is drawing air (in this case air is pressurizing the cylinder because of the turbo) , any how , it draws air the entire time it takes from one apex seal to pass the port to the next , that air has to have fuel. maybe if you could develop system of valves for it you could increase efficiency by restricting the volume of air drawn in during the intake stroke when the engine is under light loads or idling. but lean conditions create more heat something a 4 stroke piston engine deals with alot better than a rotary so it opens up a whole new set of issues.
Well, since its from 1954/1957 - it is not new or better - you need 16% more gasoline for the same power. It just not efficient enough.
Suzuki almost went bankrupt in the 70s trying to make these on their RE-5, Hercules made them, Norton made them, Mazda was the only cat that kept playing with this concept..
Wankel or Otto-Engine does not matter anymore, they will get obsolet very soon. E-mobility is coming quick...
@@hadookentft
Luckily or sadly, depends on how you look at it ;D.
Just got an RX8, I really enjoyed this. I'm a piston mechanic and am excited to tear my engine apart when the time comes.
Apparently aftermarket apex seals last longer, so if the compression is below 6, I would do it just for peace of mind.
There is a channel called Driven by Madness. The guy made a ton of videos about the RX-8. Definitely worth checking out.
good luck... keep the rotary spirit going!!
@@tiborklein5349 Yeah they bend instead of breaking, you definitely pay the difference however lol
@P. Doherty mine has 60k miles. I'd rather keep it a rotary as that's what makes it special. Everyone is crushing theirs or swapping them so I feel in 20yrs there will be very few rx8s left increasing their value.
I think I'd prefer swapping an LNF or LSJ if I was to swap to a Chevy powerplant.
Still love the Wankel. Don't care about the oil consumption. Or the fuel economy. Or the apex seals. Or the high emissions.
😅😅
Sounds so stressful haha
that's the spirit lol. although i do care about apex seals. if your gonna have a vehicle or toy whatever with a rotary its still nice for that thing to be reliable regardless of how much you actually use it. id love to have one of those crazy super bikes being made with a rotary motor. i guess it blows away 1000cc factory super bikes plus i guess it has a way lower CG which makes sense seeing as it has no vertically positioned cylinders and a twin cam cylinder head mounted on top of it.
No valves . No pistons no camshafts . One eccentric shaft and two rotors and a few seals . Three moving parts .
nearest orgasm you can get with rotary engine is a 2 stroke motorcycle..
That screwdriver is giving me flashbacks from the dentist visits
Its a 'pick'. But yeah it thus give you those flashbacks. :)
Their the worst XD
I have an 09 RX8 that I picked up in 2012. Still runs as good as it did when i picked it up. Not very fuel efficient, but its a blast to drive and has a back seat for my kid. And the rotary just makes it a tad bit more special feeling when you drive it.
runs faster than rob’s 4 rotor
What ya say to that, Rob!
and wired better than rob's 3 rotor
@@TheAnoniemo Maybe the bad wiring is another away of starting a fire to kill the spiders!!!!
His 4 rotor doesn’t even work
@@shahrozalijafri8816 that's the joke.... 😑
I love it! My first car was a 1984/1985 RX7 (depending on which half you looked at lol). I am still fascinated by these engines 12 years later.
Beautiful 3D model, by the way. Really amazing to see. That's a labor of love for sure. :)
Great way to show how the rotary works!
He just leaching off others work for content like always.
Jack at HP logic showed this off last week. The attention to detail is impressive.
The future is now! I need a VR6 one of these babies.
Hello there! ✌😸
Yes it is! And, that's a great idea!
Hey Jason! -Tempted to make a VR6 3Dprint engine-video now?
😺👍👍👍👍👍
Please talk about oils and the increased thermal heat that a full synthetic can take which lower than it is or does that increase it to say s higher temperature? The gasses not breaking down because of the viscosity and bonding capabilities of synthetic more unburnt fuel and oil reaches the exhaust ports to mainfold to catalytic converter and poisonous gas increase. That will force the intake stroke to misfire and that will cause the Apex seals to be flattened and damaged. Seals already being shrunk and then build up carbon being taken off the metals by the high mileage ful synthetic oils cleaning abilities and that is an older engines demise
Thank you! This is the best explanation and model I’ve ever seen. Very informative. I owned the 2nd gen RX7 back in the day (Ticket Red and new in 1985). Loved that car, and it ran great for 7 years before we sold it. It had a crazy high red-line, something approaching 9000 rpm, if I remember right.
It's a very nice engine design. Great video!
Cool! I've been printing & building this for a couple of weeks. I had several RXs in the '80s, they were great fun to drive and modify.
Great video and explanation, congratulations. I am big fan of rotor engines and Mazda. I am owner of a Rx8 series 2, which I love. I spend a lot of hours on it. Just to let you know that Mazda is the only Japanese company that won a first place to a 24hour Le mans race on 1991. And do you know what kind of engine Mazda use on those races? Yes a rotary engine. Additional I will tell you that around the world there are a lot of rx7's and rx8's communities-club, which will be happy to see more of your videos about rotary engine. I was waiting for you long time to upload a video according rotary engines. Congratulation one more time, everything you have explained is completely right. Continue the great job you do.
The rotary engine is still one of the most simple yet complex engineering masterpieces I've ever seen. They have flaws, yes, but the sheer precision and the out of the box thinking that was involved in creating this simply blows my mind.
This is simply fascinating! I need to get into 3-D printing. Too Cool! Thank you for sharing!
This is incredible. The size is amazing! I was so glad to see this because I have a decent understanding of a traditional piston type 4 cycle engine, but had no idea how a rotary engine works. It is still difficult to understand even after your excellent explanation .
...that motor would of been awesome in the Miata as an option. 👍🏻
I think the engine sound wouldn't fit to the miata
basically a RX-8 with less doors and seats
Mazzy The MazdaTiger only in the NC version of the Miata.
A rotary Miata would kill everything.
Mazda had several for testing hydrogen. I'm not sure why they didn't use the regular RX-8 (they did for 1, but most used the Miata). So if Mazda found it just as easy to use a Miata as their standard company car, I would guess you could fit one in too, it may share some of the same mounting designs since its the same company (IDK, but Mazda seemed to think it was easy for a test platform, generally you make those as simple as you can)
Now this is officially the best explanation video of a Rotary Engine, this 3D-printed model is awesome and I hate to admit that is more clear than the beloved whiteboard xD.
Always loved the engine from an engineering point of view, it just needs some more thinking over it to fix some flaws.
Still hoping Mazda comes with a super clever idea and brings it back, so I'll look forward your next videos about it ;).
I thought u were pointing ur Middle finger in thumbnail lol
Such long fingers u have
The better to point at things with!
I think the rotary community really appreciates this, and we’d look forward to more rotary information. As always your work is the best, Thank You!
Is that a 3D printed engine stand for the model 😄👍
Partially haha, some steel as well.
Never have I understood Rotors until this video - perfectly delivered!
Hmm... can I 3D print myself an R34 GT-R?
YoU woUlDn'T dOwNlOaD a cAR
Those pirates......
If you have the models and a 3d printer, sure you can.
Oh, you're talking about the real deal...
If you have the real scale models and a big enough 3d printer, sure you can! At least the moulds to glass fiber them. Engine, chassis and other mechanical bits are another issue. But a guy spent 10 years bending plates to build himself a Lamborghini. He bought the engine, transmission, wheels, chassis...
You can... And place it in front of your house forever...
Only if your 12
WOW!!!. The best demonstration and explanation of a rotary engine I have ever seen....GREAT JOB!!
Jason,
in the 90s, the US government challenged manufacturers to produce zero emissions vehicles within their range and present them for testing.
Mazda spent big money developing a hydrogen version of the rotary engine. They even had a fleet of test cars (626 station wagons) running on Japanese roads to prove the technology.
They did indeed produce zero measurable emissions, however, the US government asked if Mazda still used the tiny amount of engine oil from the sump (1lt between oil changes) injected into the intake for the apex seals. Mazda replied that yes they did, but it wasn't possible to measure any emissions as the amount was so small.....
They were still refused certification, and the idea was killed off 👎👎👎
Absolutely brilliant model! And you gave an excellent explanation of how the Wankel rotary works and a brief discussion of its advantages and perceived disadvantages. I eagerly await more! :-)
I really would like to see the rotary engine make a comeback, obviously without all the downsides. Then again I’m an in-line 6 guy so...
Wow, that is amazing. I had some idea how that engine worked. But seeing it in this venue really brought the design to life. It's much easier to see the Wankel is a solution looking for a problem.
Cool as, well done :)
When I was a kid I had a plastic 'invisible' rotor engine model. Similar to this except plastic and the housing was clear. I loved it.
Brap...Brap...Broken!!! Just kidding!! I legit would buy that model tho
Ungregistered User Assembly required. You would need to put the leds, motor etc.
@Ungregistered User Id love a little Army of these in my garage. Rotary, Inline 6, Flat 6. I Have seen ones like this but not on this level. The way you can open it, & by far the coolest thing for me is the LED's showing the combustion
Ungregistered User the 3D files are free online. And if you really wanted one someone like me could print you one. A standard fmd 3d printer would do the trick
To learn so much about an engine in 12 minutes. Thanks so much for sharing this! I enjoyed it so much watching the video only felt like 5 minutes!! Great stuff.
best utube channel.
Feels so perfect for small planes. Dual ignition built in. Dual turbochargers, so easy to compensate for altitude. Only rotary movement, so a failure probably means you only lose a cylinder,and still can "limp home", and great weight to power ratio...
*_Dude they just put a Fidget Spinner in an Engine it’s no big deal_*
bruuuuhhh
I find fidget spinners annoying, but this made me lol
I hate fidget spinners too even though I own like 17
UHH NORMIE JOKES NOT FUNNY AT ALL!
Normie jokes make me mad because when you are commenting one of them sometimes you dont know if they aren't kidding
I love the rotory for its character, despite its high maintenence. Such a cool and unique design.
The similtaneous combustion is why It makes so much power though. For a piston engine, you have one power stroke for every two rotations of the crankshaft per piston. For a rotory, you have three for every one rotation. I.E you get six combustion strokes in a rotory for every one combustion stroke in a piston engine. Nice. Thats also why its so thirsty lol.
No valves needed? No camshaft then, either. Very simple design, and clever!
just a little more ingenious than the 2 stroke engine...
Unfortunately, both are oil burners.
Very very good job to the person who made this model. Very detailed and with the color-change lighting.
Rob Dahm wants to know your location.
Mr Reaper I have his number. Triangulating now
Rob Dahm 😂
I've always been a huge fan of the Rotary despite its shortcomings. I've had more rotaries that I probably should have but I've loved every one of them. My 13B-REQ makes right near 350HP. These days not a huge amount of power but in a car that weighs a bit under 2400 lbs. it is plenty quick and handles better than many sports cars I've driven.
The rotary engine is a tragically brilliant design limited by the abilities of modern materials science.
It deserved way more R&D!
I'm convinced a 4 rotor modern Wankel-engine developed with a F1-R&D budget would be so sick that it broke the internet!
Today, the future of mobility is electric, so I'm pretty sure the Wankel will be abandoned - but it will never be forgotten!
Btw I love electric-vehicle technology as well as insane loud engines 😺🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙
im sure if they put space shuttle like research effort, improving the apex seal reliability will only be a cat paw away from reality
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I love electric, but feeling the RX-7 white smoke the tires while half way through third gear is just something unique and beautiful.
I do think that Wankels could be brought up to modern reliability figures if it had modern R&D thrown at it.
To hell with efficiency, that's not what a Wankel is for.
Elton Joel Are you a condensed mater physicist? If not, it would be a very foolish endeavor to claim on a persistent public forum that some feat of engineering and material science is impossible. We have not yet even reached the golden age of materials science and engineering and ultimate knowledge of what is or is not possible isn't available to any human.
Besides that, there are labs across the world working on technologies that (long story short) produce hydrocarbon fuels directly from CO2 and solar energy, so when looking at the future I'm not really that concerned about fuel efficiency because there's plenty of technological schemes that can make that problem essentially moot.
@@AtlasReburdened I have an 1988 RX 7 FC Turbo. From what reliability problems are U talking ? Took it for a spin yesterday ...
Very cool. Its so much better to see how things work. 3d printing should be a big help in schools one day.
"Wank"-el. Teehee. It's pronounced "Vunkel". Interesting that the most widely used engine types were all developed in Germany. Mr. Otto, Diesel, and Wankel all say hello. Wankel had the idea as early as 1924 and patented the concept in 1933. NSU (a German car maker that eventually joined forces with Auto Union to form modern-day Audi) introduced this engine (in a production vehicle) in the RO 80 in 1967. Citroen also put one in the GSA, calling it the Birotor.
Actually it's Wunkle if you're going with typical English Phonetics: in German the W is soft and the A is as in Another, and -El of WankEl is pronounced as in i.e. wiggle
@@EchterOsti No, the German "W" is pronounced like the English "V". So "Vunkle", if you will. I am German. I should know.
@@andypre1667das englische W wird genau wie das deutsche ausgesprochen, also warum überhaupt v erwähnen?
@@EchterOsti Wie bitte? Dann müssten engl. "we" und dt. "wie" genau gleich ausgesprochen werden. Werden sie das? Von Günther Öttinger vielleicht. Und dir.
"the most widely used engine types were all developed in Germany."
I'm pretty sure the car was too...
Ceramic seals solved the thermal differentiation into the rotor housing. They were used in the 787B that won the 1991 LeMans 24H race. But they were expensive for small production-medium priced sport vehicles like RX7 and RX8.
get you a man that can blow like he blows a turbo
I’m a flat 6 engine lover but I can’t help but to appreciate the idea of this engine!!
Ummmmm, can I use highway on and off ramps as race tracks?
Yes, you can. But should you?
Tibor Klein I don’t see why not
I own a V8 Mustang now, but I will always have a place in my heart for my ex- 2005 Mazda RX-8.
@Oshe Shango
With a rotary?
Mazda chose to count one working chamber per rotor because Japan, also Europe as well, tax cars based on engine displacement and any engine over 1.5 liters was taxed more than those below 1.5 liters, which risked Mazda's Wankel cars not being sold in certain markets. However, America, also Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, doesn't have this problem and can use the Wankel's full displacement. So, Mazda decided to avoid taxation on their Wankel engines by only counting one working chamber for each rotor, instead of all three working chambers per rotor. So basically, Mazda's 13B 2 rotor, the "1.3 liter engine", is actually 3.9 liters and the Le Mans winning R26B 4 rotor is actually around 7.8 liters! Now, fuel economy and power output makes much more sense
Wankel engine displacement:
3√(3) x radius x width x eccentricity (all in millimeters)= Geometric Displacement per chamber
Geometric Displacement x All 3 chambers= Full Thermodynamic Displacement per rotor
Thermodynamic Displacement x number of rotors= Full engine displacement
**This formula applies to ALL Wankel engines
Wankel engine basic dimensions:
Radius- Rotor radius, center to apex (generating radius)
Width- Rotor width, depth (rotor thickness)
Eccentricity- Offset (radius offset)
**Similar to bore and stroke dimensions of piston engines
Wankel engine equivalency:
1 rotor engine- 3 chambers= 3 cylinders- Inline 3
2 rotor engine- 6 chambers= 6 cylinders- Inline 6, VR6, V6, Flat 6
3 rotor engine- 9 chambers= 9 cylinders- W9
4 rotor engine- 12 chambers= 12 cylinders- V12, W12, Flat 12
**Comparison between piston engines and Wankel engines
Revised Mazda Wankel engines:
Mazda 3A
3√(3) x 110mm x 45mm x 14mm= 360,093.3629~ 360cc per chamber
360cc x 3 chambers= 1080cc or 1 liter
*Equivalent to a 1 liter 3 cylinder engine
Mazda 40A
3√(3) x 90mm x 59mm x 14mm= 386,281.9711~ 386cc per chamber
386cc x 3 chambers= 1158cc or 1.1 liters
*Equivalent to a 1.1 liter 3 cylinder engine
Mazda L8A
3√(3) x 98mm x 56mm x 14mm= 399,230.7829~ 399cc per chamber
399cc x 3 chambers= 1197cc per rotor
1197cc x 2 rotors= 2394cc or 2.3 liters
*Equivalent to a 2.3 liter 6 cylinder engine
Mazda 10A
3√(3) x 105mm x 60mm x 15mm= 491,036.4039~ 491cc per chamber
491cc x 3 chambers= 1473cc per rotor
1473cc x 2 rotors= 2946cc or 2.9 liters
*Equivalent to a 2.9 liter 6 cylinder engine
Mazda 12A/12B
3√(3) x 105mm x 70mm x 15mm= 572,875.8046~ 573cc per chamber
573cc x 3 chambers= 1719cc per rotor
1719cc x 2 rotors= 3438cc or 3.4 liters
*Equivalent to a 3.4 liter 6 cylinder engine
Mazda 13A
3√(3) x 120mm x 60mm x 17.5mm= 654,715.2053~ 655cc per chamber
655cc x 3 chambers= 1965cc per rotor
1965cc x 2 rotors= 3930cc or 3.9 liters
*Equivalent to a 3.9 liter 6 cylinder engine
Mazda 13B/Renesis
3√(3) x 105mm x 80mm x 15mm= 654,715.2053~ 654cc per chamber
654cc x 3 chambers= 1962cc per rotor
1962cc x 2 rotors= 3924cc or 3.9 liters
*Equivalent to a 3.9 liter 6 cylinder engine
Mazda 16X/SkyActiv-R
3√(3) x 122mm x 70mm x 18mm= 798,752.5504~ 798cc per chamber
798cc x 3 chambers= 2394cc per rotor
2394cc x 2 rotors= 4788cc or 4.7 liters
*Equivalent to a 4.7 liter 6 cylinder engine
Mazda 13G/20B
3√(3) x 105mm x 80mm x 15mm= 654,715.2053~ 654cc per chamber
654cc x 3 chambers= 1962cc per rotor
1962cc x 3 rotors= 5886cc or 5.8 liters
*Equivalent to a 5.8 liter 9 cylinder engine
Mazda 13J/R26B
3√(3) x 105mm x 80mm x 15mm= 654,715.2053~ 654cc per chamber
654cc x 3 chambers= 1962cc per rotor
1962cc x 4 rotors= 7848cc or 7.8 liters
*Equivalent to a 7.8 liter 12 cylinder engine
You get the idea. Wankel rotary engines are actually much bigger than we thought they were. They pack a lot a power and displacement in a small, lightweight package. To fully understand these engines, all three working chambers for each rotor must be counted, despite Japan and Europe's taxation regulations, and not just only one or two working chambers per rotor
No, they chose to count one working chamber per rotor because that's how engines are measured. My 125cc 2 stroke motorbike isn't called a 250cc just because it draws an intake charge every revolution. In a Wankel, each rotor fires _once_ per engine revolution, just like a 2 stroke piston engine.
No, the 13B as Jason stated is equivalent to a 2.6 L engine. He did the math int eh video, watch again.
@@thisnthat3530 Mazda choose to count one chamber per rotor just to get away with paying less for engine taxation in Japan and Europe. The story is there. Mazda just gave a nominal displacement of 1/3 of its real displacement.
In piston engines the cc of the bore and stroke of one cylinder is multiplied by the number of cylinders to get its displacement at a full thermodynamic cycle ( 2 crank-shaft revolutions)
A Wankel rotary engine isn't a 2 stroke engine and in a Wankel rotary engine EACH ROTOR SIDE (3) fires at 1 eccentric shaft rotation. Its real thermodynamic cycle is at 3 eccentric shaft revolutions (1080°) where all rotor sides have completed one 4 stroke Otto cycle.
In a 13B 654 cc x 6 chambers = 3924 cc (3.9L) @ 1080° (full thermidynamic cycle)
@@407BRR
Its equivalent to 2.6L when they measure it with the piston engine's metrics or when they use the piston engine's 720° of crankshaft rotation (its thermodynamic cycle)
At 720° of eccentric shaft rotation 4 rotor sides (2 per rotor) have gone one complete 4 stroke cycle, there the 1.3L doubles to 2.6L, but there are 2 more rotor sides to complete one 4 stroke cycle each and they got to be counted and thst is why its true displacement is 3.9L
654 cc x 6 chambers = 3924 cc @ 1080° (its full thermodynamic cycle)
@@EM6285 "EACH ROTOR SIDE (3) fires at 1 eccentric shaft rotation" - Wrong. Only ONE (1) rotor side fires per eccentric shaft rotation. The rotor is spinning at 1/3 the speed of the eccentric shaft. Look at the start of the video, it's all there at the very beginning. Watch closely. In a Wankel engine, each rotor only produces ONE power pulse per rotor per output shaft revolution, so why should 3 chambers be measured when only one is "active"? Do you count the volume of the intake and exhaust manifolds when calculating piston engine capacity? While I understand the desire to call a 13B a 2.6L engine, there's no way I'll accept it being a 3.9L.
0:38: I thought if you had two turbo chargers, they were either twin or sequential, but not both. Twins were identical (twins) with each driving their own bank/chamber, while sequentials were different so that one worked well with low volume and the other had high compression (both fed the same banks/chambers). I only bring this up because I just saw another video that also said "twin sequential turbo chargers".
Twin means two turbos. The 13B-REW has two identical turbos (twin) that are used sequentially. First one gets air, then at higher RPM both get air.
@@EngineeringExplained Thanks. I didn't realise they used twin turbos sequentially. I had only heard of sequential systems where they were different sizes.
When a piston engine is measured for example, total volume is given in cubic inches or liters. When a rotary engine is measured only 1/3 is claimed as its volume. What happened to the other 2/3? I think its a way of cheating in countries that used to or still tax a car by engine volume. If my 400 cubic inch GTO engine were measured this way, I could call it a 100 cubic inch engine (400 divided by 4 cycles).
Mazda chose to count one working chamber per rotor because Japan, also Europe as well, tax cars based on engine displacement and any engine over 1.5 liters was taxed more than those below 1.5 liters, which risked Mazda's Wankel cars not being sold in certain markets. However, America, also Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, doesn't have this problem and can use the Wankel's full displacement. So, Mazda decided to avoid taxation on their Wankel engines by only counting one working chamber for each rotor, instead of all three working chambers per rotor. So basically, Mazda's 13B 2 rotor, the "1.3 liter engine", is actually 3.9 liters and the Le Mans winning R26B 4 rotor is actually around 7.8 liters! Now, fuel economy and power output makes much more sense
Wankel engine displacement:
3√(3) x radius x width x eccentricity (all in millimeters)= Geometric Displacement per chamber
Geometric Displacement x All 3 chambers= Full Thermodynamic Displacement per rotor
Thermodynamic Displacement x number of rotors= Full engine displacement
**This formula applies to ALL Wankel engines
Wankel engine basic dimensions:
Radius- Rotor radius, center to apex (generating radius)
Width- Rotor width, depth (rotor thickness)
Eccentricity- Offset (radius offset)
**Similar to bore and stroke dimensions of piston engines
Wankel engine equivalency:
1 rotor engine- 3 chambers= 3 cylinders- Inline 3
2 rotor engine- 6 chambers= 6 cylinders- Inline 6, VR6, V6, Flat 6
3 rotor engine- 9 chambers= 9 cylinders- W9
4 rotor engine- 12 chambers= 12 cylinders- V12, W12, Flat 12
**Comparison between piston engines and Wankel engines
Revised Mazda Wankel engines:
Mazda 3A
3√(3) x 110mm x 45mm x 14mm= 360,093.3629~ 360cc per chamber
360cc x 3 chambers= 1080cc or 1 liter
*Equivalent to a 1 liter 3 cylinder engine
Mazda 40A
3√(3) x 90mm x 59mm x 14mm= 386,281.9711~ 386cc per chamber
386cc x 3 chambers= 1158cc or 1.1 liters
*Equivalent to a 1.1 liter 3 cylinder engine
Mazda L8A
3√(3) x 98mm x 56mm x 14mm= 399,230.7829~ 399cc per chamber
399cc x 3 chambers= 1197cc per rotor
1197cc x 2 rotors= 2394cc or 2.3 liters
*Equivalent to a 2.3 liter 6 cylinder engine
Mazda 10A
3√(3) x 105mm x 60mm x 15mm= 491,036.4039~ 491cc per chamber
491cc x 3 chambers= 1473cc per rotor
1473cc x 2 rotors= 2946cc or 2.9 liters
*Equivalent to a 2.9 liter 6 cylinder engine
Mazda 12A/12B
3√(3) x 105mm x 70mm x 15mm= 572,875.8046~ 573cc per chamber
573cc x 3 chambers= 1719cc per rotor
1719cc x 2 rotors= 3438cc or 3.4 liters
*Equivalent to a 3.4 liter 6 cylinder engine
Mazda 13A
3√(3) x 120mm x 60mm x 17.5mm= 654,715.2053~ 655cc per chamber
655cc x 3 chambers= 1965cc per rotor
1965cc x 2 rotors= 3930cc or 3.9 liters
*Equivalent to a 3.9 liter 6 cylinder engine
Mazda 13B/Renesis
3√(3) x 105mm x 80mm x 15mm= 654,715.2053~ 654cc per chamber
654cc x 3 chambers= 1962cc per rotor
1962cc x 2 rotors= 3924cc or 3.9 liters
*Equivalent to a 3.9 liter 6 cylinder engine
Mazda 16X/SkyActiv-R
3√(3) x 122mm x 70mm x 18mm= 798,752.5504~ 798cc per chamber
798cc x 3 chambers= 2394cc per rotor
2394cc x 2 rotors= 4788cc or 4.7 liters
*Equivalent to a 4.7 liter 6 cylinder engine
Mazda 13G/20B
3√(3) x 105mm x 80mm x 15mm= 654,715.2053~ 654cc per chamber
654cc x 3 chambers= 1962cc per rotor
1962cc x 3 rotors= 5886cc or 5.8 liters
*Equivalent to a 5.8 liter 9 cylinder engine
Mazda 13J/R26B
3√(3) x 105mm x 80mm x 15mm= 654,715.2053~ 654cc per chamber
654cc x 3 chambers= 1962cc per rotor
1962cc x 4 rotors= 7848cc or 7.8 liters
*Equivalent to a 7.8 liter 12 cylinder engine
You get the idea. Wankel rotary engines are actually much bigger than we thought they were. They pack a lot a power and displacement in a small, lightweight package. To fully understand these engines, all three working chambers for each rotor must be counted, despite Japan and Europe's taxation regulations, and not just only one or two working chambers per rotor
It’s because it doesn’t matter if it’s a 4 stroke or 2 stroke. It’s the measurement of how much one cylinder displaced multiplied by the number of cylinders. Very easy on a piston engine. More complicated on a rotary. But, they basically just took how much one rotor displaces and multiplied it by 2 for a 2 rotor.
More power strokes doesn’t make the motor bigger.
On a 13B rotor engine each rotor side (3 per rotor) creates a "moving combustion chamber" that goes trough the 4 stroke Otto Cycle each (admission, compression, ignition, exhaust)
654 cc x 6 = 3924 cc (3.9L)
Mazda just quoted 1/3 of its real displacement to pay less taxes because Japan's engine taxation laws at that time.
You got to count all its 6 chambers going trough the 4 stroke Otto cycle once for a full thermodynamic cycle which takes 3 rotations of its eccentric shaft (1080°)
654 cc X 6 = 3924 cc @ 1080° rotation.
Its real full thermodynamic is at 3 revolutions of the eccentric shaft when each of the 6 faces (rotor sides) have completed one 4 stroke cycle event and not at the 720° (2 revolutions) of the crankshaft of a piston engine. Anyways, using the 720° of the piston engine thermodynamic cycle puts the 13B displacing 2616 cc or 2.6L because 4 faces ( 2 per rotor) have completed one 4 stroke cycle each, but ypu got 2 more faces ( 1 per rotor) left thst will complete 1 4 stroke cycle. All have to be counted, just like in a piston engine all cylinders are counted
It is not a 2 cycle engine.
@@EM6285 But the way you're talking about measuring it would end up including the exhaust stroke measurement too. Which would double the size of an engine. For displacement measuring they only go through the intake stroke, not a full 720 for a full cycle. It's purely how much one cylinder displaces on one stroke. And even though it isn't quite right a rotary is basically considered a 2 cylinder engine. So, they just take what one rotor displaces on it's intake stroke and double that for the displacement.
I can see where you're coming from, but even in racing rotaries don't get classed like they are a much bigger motor. And, even with the RX-8 they were claiming the small engine size. I doubt that would fly in more modern times if it was just some sneaky trick pulled for tax reasons. Manufacturers don't get to just claim an engine size without some sort of logic to back it up.
Full thermodynamic cycle of a piston engine is at 2 crankshaft rotations (720°) where all the pistons in cylinders have completed one 4 stroke Otto Cycle.
No matter how many cylinders, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 16... it will always take 2 crankshaft revolutions (720°) for all cylinders to go trough one 4 stroke cycle. Exhaust phase of the 4 stroke cycle does not doubles the displacement because no power is made and exhaust by-product of the displacement consumed at admission is being released (no power added)
Inside the housing each rotor makes 3 separated chambers,
each chamber goes trough the 4 stroke cycle (admission, compression, ignition, exhaust) that displaces 654 cc per "working chamber"... If in a piston engine all units (cylinders) are counted in its full thermodynamic cycle (720° crankshaft rotation) for displacement measurements, why can't all 6 working chambers in a Mazds 13B be counted?
And set to mind that the rotary engine thermodynamic cycle is set at 3 revolitions of its eccentric shaft (1080°) where all 6 rotor faces (3 per rotor) had completed one 4 stroke cycle each and not at the piston engine's 720^ crankshaft rotation.
Eccentric shaft revolutions / number of chambers completing one 4 stroke cycle / displacement.
1 revolution 360° / one side per rotor ( 2 ) completing one 4 stroke cycle. 654 cc x 2 1308 cc. Mazda counted just 1 side per rotor to give it a nominal displaceme to pay less taxes per engine produced.
2 revolutions 720° / 2 sides per rotor ( 4 ) completing one 4 stroke cycle. 654 cc x 4 = 2616 cc (2.6L)
This gives the 13B rotary engine an equivalent displacement to compare it with 4 cylinder engines again, using the piston engune's 720° crank-shaft rotation characteristics.
3 revolutions 1080° / 3 sides per rotor ( 6 ) completing one 4 stroke cycle. 654 cc x 6 = 3924 cc. The real thermidynamic cycle for a rotary engine.
On a full thermodynamic cycle, either 720° for the piston engine or 1080° for the rotary engine all the units (cylinders or rotor sides) complete just ONE 4 stroke cycle and none repeats it.
It may not be able to keep up with emissions standards, but the Wankel design is a brilliant re-imagining of the internal combustion engine. It deserves to be admired as creative engineering.
Great engine, just for about 100,000 km.
Nah fam you have no idea what you're talking about
You're being generous with your numbers. Lol
If you don't take care of it, it won't last. It's that easy. It's not the car's fault that you don't make the effort to maintain it. If you want a car that just goes without doing anything to it, get a Mustang instead.
How do you explain that there are rotary cars owners that has changed engine in just 60000km and some others go to 200000km with the same engine? It's not engine's fault, it's owner's fault. If you treat the way that has to be treated a rotary engine will last for really long. I am talking for personal experience, first hand, not what I have heard or rumors, which the most of times are not real.
then i have 3000km left :(
Hey Jason, please cover Liquid Piston X's Inverse Rotary engine!
The disadvantage of this engine is that it destroys itself every 100'000klm if not sooner...
I'll be a very happy panda if they last to 100000 km. XD
I dunno. Got mine to 180K+ with zero problems. I believe it'ss all about a strict maintenance schedule, using the correct oils and staying on top of the spark plugs. Worst case, if a rebuild is needed, it's ridiculously easy. Never had to do mine but my bros '87 did. Only took us high school knuckleheads like a day in the driveway. Eeeeeeasy.
Rotaries need extra TLC to live a relatively healthy and long(er) life. Maintenance is key. Premixing your fuel helps as do upgrades to the cooling system. Aftermarket apex seals have come a long way.
All I have done is basic maintenance nothing to hard and I'm over 170km and still running strong most of you people who comment this either had bad luck or just didn't take care of it like you should these engines need to be revved not one day has gone by where I don't hit redline. They are great engines if you take care of them just like any other car
A single rotor will actually be equivalent of 3 cylinder engine, since each rotor have three sides(every 120 degrees), so 2 rotors = 6 cylinder engine, this way its easier for "piston heads" to wrap their brains around Wankel. I also like your analogy of 1.3 litter = 2.6 litter in 4-stroke terms. Excellent job!
I live in a town that has a company called Freedom Motors that developed and builds custom rotary engines for many different uses. I recently purchased an 8 foot personal watercraft built in the mid 60's with a fixed outdrive and a rotary engine. Currently not running but who knows, I may reconstruct the engine. It's corroded after sitting for years.
I don’t know a thing about engines. But after watching this thorough demonstration I feel like a genius
That is a pretty awesome 3D Printed model, the LED's do a great job of visualizing how it's combustion cycle works as well.
Do a video on theoretical "fixes" to the intrinsic weaknesses of a rotary engine.
Ceramic thermal coatings on the rotor housings and plates.
Better ignition management.
Better fuel delivery and porting options.
Better oil injection.
I would love to see a theoretical analysis of what would happen by using thermally superior surface coatings on this engine so it's not producing so much waste on the ignition cycles.
I've been thinking about this engine a lot lately, especially what Mazda might be doing with it. Can't wait!
Cool design, never in my life seen something like this. This should be shown in the New York International Auto Show
I always thought you hated rotary engine cars. Glad to see you give them some love.
You’re actually the right guy for this question… You should draw up a diagram of a concept rotary motor. The revised version should have both intake and exhaust valves that alternate between taking in clean air and blowing out the exhaust in order to Distribute temperatures more evenly.
this is by far one of your best videos. looking forward to more 3D models!
Awesome and simple description of a 13BREW Another advantage is the sweet noise they make specially if Bridge Ported. brap, brap, brap, brap
Wow it amazes me that within the tiny housing it produces that much power, that's incredible. How did the RX-7 ever pass emissions considering it was designed to burn oil?, that is almost as astonishing as the 250+HP that it makes and boggles the mind
Ooh! A Skyactive-X rotary engine? Looking forward to that video! Mazda's Skyactive-X technology is extremely cool -- I can't wait to see how they might apply it to a rotary engine.
Wonderful presentation on many levels. I drive my RX8 regularly, and after a significant learning curve re: its idiosyncrasies, I remain very much in love with her. I liken it to driving a temperamental, comfortable go-cart. (By all means, get the 6 speed manual if you are in the market).
I do too, and feel exactly the same way (6 speed also, with a new engine core).
Always been a huge fan of this engine design. Awesome 3D print model!
Rotary is back! Do a video on turbo encabulator! The rotary community will love this...
Watching this makes me miss my 91 FC. Loving revving it to redline and hearing that backfire everytime I shift.
Best use of 3d printing I've ever seen!
Love him or hate him, but ever since subscribing to Tall Guy Car Reviews I don’t skip any TH-camrs Ads. That includes your videos Jason
The rotary is AWESOME! I love them.
those lights were an amazing touch
Circles turning in circles. That model is a bobby dazzler!
Here is an idea to help with thermal efficiency.
Allow some exhaust to pass over the intake to maintain a higher temp and have an independent refrigerant to pass through the exhaust side. Only problem then is how much exhaust and refrigerant to pass.
Doing this also allows for better cooling since the engine would need it's own a/c unit just like the cabin, so you can have unit send cold air to the radiator as well.
As far as unburnt fuel and burning oil goes, all I can think of is figuring out a way to have high compression; that way it can run diesel fuel.
What do ya think?
Be cool to do one of these on the Liquid Piston rotary engine. Because we will probably never see it now that DARPA has taken interest.
Thanks for the TL;DW version of why the rotary engine died video. I can only remember the good stuff about this engine because I think it is cool, I wish I could test drive one.
Really cool application of 3D printing for learning about motors. Would love to see more like this.
Great 3D working model, and explanation of why it's really a 2.6L engine. What I have never seen explained is the process of making torque with a rotary, and I hope you can make a video of this. With a 2D approach, you can assume balanced combustion pressure on a rotor face, and have a single force vector from the center of the face to the center of the rotor. The lever arm is the distance between this vector and the shaft center. For this face, as with pistons, there is no torque at TDC and BDC. Although the stroke appears to be 2 x e, it's actually 3 x e, unique to the rotary. You can back calculate it based on the face displacement (.65L) , and the projected area of the rotor face (22.53 sq in).
I'm looking forward to Eric taking it to the next level by making a model of a complete car, with all major mechanical components intact and functioning at this scale and level of detail. And also CarPlay.
Jason, I'm glad you brought up the idea that the 13B is more comparable to a 2.6L engine. Whenever i hear "...and its only 1.3L." smh.
EXCELLENT video Jason!!! Bravo my friend
its crazy how these engines can run 5 and 6 seconds in the 1/4 mile built right 💪🏻 And they sound awsome'
This is why i love your videos!
U make engeneering seem so simple, then i do an exam and fail❤️
Amazing work as always. Love your channel. Phenomenal little model engine. Thank you for what you do, Sir.