Power yes, but horrible fuel mileage for a 2000lb 2-seat car with good aerodynamics and little frontal area. Due to the inefficiency at lower rpms.

Wankel, NSU, DKW, and Horsch (sp?) were the four car companies that became the Auto Union back in the 20s or 30s, the reason that Audi's symbol is four interlocking rings, and Audi has the patent for the original Wankel / rotary engine. Has nothing to do with Ford buying Mazda.

__________________

Gone to the dark side

- Jeff

This "barrel" type engine has recriprocating pistons arranged around a wobble shaft and would probably be able to be converted to diesel.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=808

__________________
-Evan


Benz Fleet:
1968 UNIMOG 404.114
1998 E300
2008 E63


Non-Benz Fleet:
1992 Aerostar
1993 MR2
2000 F250

if you are going by the rated 1.3L engine that is where you are getting the horrible mileage figure from... yes a 1.3L engine should get better than 26mpg... but 26mpg is pretty good for a 3.9L

__________________
-Trevor

OBK #12
1980 300SD 333,XXX miles - Totaled
1986 Mazda RX-7 212,XXX miles - impounded and auctioned off
2005 Jeep Liberty CRD Limited 33,000- SEGR, Provent, Fumoto

It has nothing to do with it. It's a general statement about principles we are aware of but don't have an efficient solution for it at the present time.

__________________
1974 240D 3.0L 4(M) - 250K -OM617.910 + 300D FW + Rajay turbo power!
1977 6.9 3(A) - 84k

Also the high head pressures that diesels need to ignite from combustion are beyond our capabilities in a rotary. The metal stresses would be phenominal and cost prohibitive to put into production! It would be like spending $20,000.00 for a replacement engine for your W123!

There was one like it sitting out in the hall at work on display for many years. It looked a bit larger than that one. I never asked the what and whys. Might look up Bricklin-Turner engine for a piston rotary engine. As I remember it was invented either in Texas or Canada, by a guy named Turner. Malcolm Bricklin (Subaru, Bricklin sports car, Yugo) bought into it, to develope it further. Suposvily 500hp from a 250 lb engine. I had heard years ago the Isrealli army was looking at it. THe piston rods are shaped in a 'V". The 'V's rotate around and thus move up and down.
Tom

Mazda rotaries haven't used carbon apex seals since 1974. Rolls Royce built a diesel rotary about that time using a rotary engine as a supercharger to a smaller rotary. It was a flop.
Rotaries typically get poor fuel mileage because of thermal inefficiencies due to the 4 parts of the otto cycle occuring in different places in the engine.
Wankel was never part of the Auto Union or even a car company. The Auto Union was comprised of Horch, Wanderer, DKW, and Audi. Wankel worked for/with NSU which became part of Audi long after the end of Auto Union.

Audi is the "new" name for the auto union. They liked the work Audi, roughly translated from latin "to listen", felt it was a good name.

If you're thinking that 26mpg hwy is good fuel mileage for a 1800?lb car with a 5-speed stickshift, tiny 2-seater with good aerodynamics and very small frontal area, I guess that my daughter's winter car: a '94 Olds 88 Regency with 3.8L V-6, 4-speed automatic, and 3600lbs getting 26mpg hwy is outrageously good. Basically, the RX-7 fuel mileage has always been its down-side, was always commented on in road tests and reviews when it was new, still is. Has nothing to do with the effective displacement of the engine. Great, you like your former RX-7, I liked mine, but I try to be objective.

The RX-8 was an awesome car also, IMO far cooler than the gen II RX-7, but fuel mileage stunk.

__________________

Gone to the dark side

- Jeff