On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:05:31 +0100, Tim Downie wrote:

[...]

I remember my dad buying one around 1970 then putting in a Ford Corsair
v4 engine if memory serves me right.

That rings a bell. I think the engine bay was too short to fit a
conventional 4 pot engine of that era.

Tim

It was rumoured when they were current that there were more of them on
the road with Ford V4 lumps than with Wankel...

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.

"Tim Downie" wrote in message
...
Zimmy wrote:
"Tim Downie" wrote in message
...
I was driving along this morning when I spotted a car comming
towards me suddenly start spewing clouds of blue-white smoke. As it
neared, I realised it was an NSU RO80. Judging from the odd whining
noise it made as it past me, it still had a rotary engine.

It's amazing how such an old car can still look contemporary.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Ro80_1975.jpg)

Way ahead of its time (stylistically at least). Mechanically it
could be argued that the Wankel engine was a bit of a dead end.

So much so that it is still in use in Mazda RX-8s?

Yep. Still a technological dead end. Heck, people are still building new
steam engines. Just because a manufacturer happens to produce a car with
a particular engine doesn't make it the future.

I didn't say it was the future, it's obviously is a niche, but to still be
in use 40 years later doesn't make it a dead end.


Fuel consumption always has been, and I believe always will be, relatively
lousy compared to more conventional engines. Unless you believe in
miracles, there's no way it's even going to replace the present internal
combustion engine except in niche models.

Agreed, but you have to drive a rotary to appreciate the smoothness and
quietness vs the power it produces.

Look at the advances in power output vs fuel consumption and emissions with
piston engines in the past decade. If as much money been put into
development of rotaries as has been put into piston engines since the 60s,
then things might be very different now. Most manufacturers, of course, did
not take the risk and stuck with the status quo.

Z

On 03/09/2010 11:30, Chris Whelan wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:05:31 +0100, Tim Downie wrote:

[...]

I remember my dad buying one around 1970 then putting in a Ford Corsair
v4 engine if memory serves me right.

That rings a bell. I think the engine bay was too short to fit a
conventional 4 pot engine of that era.

Tim

It was rumoured when they were current that there were more of them on
the road with Ford V4 lumps than with Wankel...

Chris

It know it was a common thing to do, and certainly the original engines
expired very quickly.

On 03/09/2010 11:30, Chris Whelan wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:05:31 +0100, Tim Downie wrote:

[...]

I remember my dad buying one around 1970 then putting in a Ford Corsair
v4 engine if memory serves me right.

That rings a bell. I think the engine bay was too short to fit a
conventional 4 pot engine of that era.

Tim

It was rumoured when they were current that there were more of them on
the road with Ford V4 lumps than with Wankel...

Chris

Heh... from Wikipedia: a common "cure" for an ailing rotary engine was
to simply swap it for a Ford V4 "Essex" engine (as found in Mk1
Transits) purely as it was one of the few engines compact enough to fit
in the Ro80's engine bay. Thus in an ironic twist, one of the smoothest
engines in the world was replaced by one of the roughest.

Zimmy wrote:
"Tim Downie" wrote in message
...
Zimmy wrote:
"Tim Downie" wrote in message
...
I was driving along this morning when I spotted a car comming
towards me suddenly start spewing clouds of blue-white smoke. As
it neared, I realised it was an NSU RO80. Judging from the odd
whining noise it made as it past me, it still had a rotary engine.

It's amazing how such an old car can still look contemporary.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Ro80_1975.jpg)

Way ahead of its time (stylistically at least). Mechanically it
could be argued that the Wankel engine was a bit of a dead end.

So much so that it is still in use in Mazda RX-8s?

Yep. Still a technological dead end. Heck, people are still
building new steam engines. Just because a manufacturer happens to
produce a car with a particular engine doesn't make it the future.

I didn't say it was the future, it's obviously is a niche, but to
still be in use 40 years later doesn't make it a dead end.


Fuel consumption always has been, and I believe always will be,
relatively lousy compared to more conventional engines. Unless you
believe in miracles, there's no way it's even going to replace the
present internal combustion engine except in niche models.

Agreed, but you have to drive a rotary to appreciate the smoothness
and quietness vs the power it produces.

Look at the advances in power output vs fuel consumption and
emissions with piston engines in the past decade. If as much money
been put into development of rotaries as has been put into piston
engines since the 60s, then things might be very different now.

As I understand it, the Wankel engine has an inherent problems limiting it's
thermal efficiency (large swept area of metal in the "cylinder" and a poor
compression ratio). It's great if you want lightness and high power output
but in terms of BHP/mpg, it's always been poor and I'm not sure that any
amount of development can make that go away.

Besides, who wants smooth quiet power, I want a bit of rortiness! ;-)

Tim

On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:11:37 +0100, Chris Bartram wrote:

[...]

Heh... from Wikipedia: a common "cure" for an ailing rotary engine was
to simply swap it for a Ford V4 "Essex" engine (as found in Mk1
Transits) purely as it was one of the few engines compact enough to fit
in the Ro80's engine bay. Thus in an ironic twist, one of the smoothest
engines in the world was replaced by one of the roughest.

:-)

Yep, that engine wasn't one of Ford's finest; it was also prone to HG
failure, especially in the long stroke 2 litre form.

It was also fitted to one of the worst cars Ford ever made, the Mk IV
Zephyr 4.

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.

On 03/09/2010 14:41, Chris Whelan wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:11:37 +0100, Chris Bartram wrote:

[...]

Heh... from Wikipedia: a common "cure" for an ailing rotary engine was
to simply swap it for a Ford V4 "Essex" engine (as found in Mk1
Transits) purely as it was one of the few engines compact enough to fit
in the Ro80's engine bay. Thus in an ironic twist, one of the smoothest
engines in the world was replaced by one of the roughest.

:-)

Yep, that engine wasn't one of Ford's finest; it was also prone to HG
failure, especially in the long stroke 2 litre form.

It was also fitted to one of the worst cars Ford ever made, the Mk IV
Zephyr 4.

Chris

Now I'm not a ford fan, but I love all Zephyrs. You'd want a 6 though.

On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:48:10 +0100, Chris Bartram wrote:

[...]

Now I'm not a ford fan, but I love all Zephyrs. You'd want a 6 though.

Interesting. I am a Ford fan, and the Mk 1 & 2 Zephyrs were great,
especially with the 6 cyl lump. The Mk 1 Consul/Zephyr introduced
MacPherson strut front suspension to the masses. The MK 3 was OKish. The
Mk 4 Zephyr was not a good car however.

Handling was a particular weak point; it was also nose heavy, and only
the Zodiac had power steering, so the steering was very heavy at low
speeds, and needed loads of turns lock-to-lock.

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.

"Dave Plowman (News)" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

It might have made more sense to try out the engine in an existing model
before introducing an all new one.

NSU had been building the Sport Spider with a single-rotor for several
years, and were working on the engines jointly (through Comotor) with
Citroen - who used the single rotor in the Ami M35 and the twin from the
Ro80 in the GZ Birotor. There were a lot of rumours, too, that the CX was
going to get a triple rotor.

Then the oil crisis hit.

On 4 Sep 2010 08:26:20 GMT, Adrian wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

It might have made more sense to try out the engine in an existing model
before introducing an all new one.

NSU had been building the Sport Spider with a single-rotor for several
years, and were working on the engines jointly (through Comotor) with
Citroen - who used the single rotor in the Ami M35 and the twin from the
Ro80 in the GZ Birotor. There were a lot of rumours, too, that the CX was
going to get a triple rotor.

Then the oil crisis hit.

Ami M35 wasn't really production but a pre-prod test program. Citroen
bought back many of the GZ birotors and tried to deny ever making the
things. A few twin rotor engines that Citroen didn't use or destroy
went into the 1977 Van Veen OCR1000 motorcycle. Made all of 38 between
77-81.

1978 Nissan killed the Silvia S11 rotary at birth and put a 4 pot in.

1975 Suzuki made a single rotor bike, RE5. Lost lots of $ having
developed their own hypertrochoidal housing machine (until CNC became
more common just about everyone else was stuck with NSU's rotor sizes)
and plating processes.

But the 1967 NSU RO80 was nearly 10 years before all of those. Mazda
are the only other contemporary maker of rotary engines.

Norton are still kicking rotary engines around,
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/Ne...norton-rotary/
I see a Commander still in use quite often at work.

If, as and when it arrives new RX-7 (RX-9?) will be rotary.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!