Might work alright, but you have to consider RPM range too... Rotaries have
very high rev ranges when compared w/ piston engines. Dakotas and rotaries
are the best combo to own... Just check out my website
www.digitex.net/ecarter
Eric
2001 Dakota QC 4x4
1985 Rx7 Gsl-Se
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:15:01 -0500
From: Tom Slick North <prodog@swbell.net>
Subject: Re: DML: Re: RE: Now - Turbo Dakotas-Tom
I really doesn't matter, The twin-turbo setup from a rotary should still
be
fine for a 1.3L piston engine...
Later,
Tom "Slick"
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl" <carldavis@mac.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: DML: Re: RE: Now - Turbo Dakotas-Tom
>Umm, not sure I agree with you analogy. Not to bring rotary stuff to
>the Dakota List, but, the rotary displaces 654cc per face, times 2
>rotors, for a total of 1308cc, or 1.3 liters (if you round down).
>Rotary engine displacements and Piston engine displacements are
measured
>the same way. Displacement is the sum total of positive combustion
>chamber volume increases for one complete revolution of the main shaft
>(crank or eccentric). In a piston engine, this means the total amount
of
>space swept by its pistons. In a rotary, it is easiest to think about
>the difference between the maximum and minimum volumes for a single
>chamber multiplied by the number of rotors (where each rotor has 3
>chambers).
>
>Remember that the rotor actually revolves at one third the speed of
the
>eccentric shaft, which is the reason only one chamber's displacement
is
>used in the calculation. The difference in power is due to the fact
that
>the rotary uses its full displacement to produce power for each
>revolution of the eccentric shaft while only half the displacement of
>the piston engine is producing power for each revolution of the
>crankshaft. When you consider the facts above, you will see that on a
>rotary, each rotor fires once per eccentric shaft revolution. In a
>piston engine, only half of the combustion chambers fire for a given
>revolution.
>
>This means that a 2-rotor engine fires as often as a 4-cylinder
engine.
>However, the power stroke duration in a rotary is 50% longer, it being
>3/4 of a main shaft revolution to the piston engine's 1/2. This makes
a
>2-rotor engine similar to a 6-cylinder.
>
>A 20B displaces 654cc times 3 rotors, or 1962 cc, or 2.0 liters (if
you
>round up)
>
>This is not meant as a flame war, but a clarification. Please send
any
>responses off list to me.
>
>Carl
>99 Dakota
>88 Rx7 GXL
>84 Rx7 Base
>
>On Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 12:47 AM, Crit Bennett wrote:
>
> > The twin Hitachi units on the 93+ RX-7s are a real pain in the ass,
> > plus a sequential twin setup wouldn't be the way to go. The
> > compressors are too small for a parallel twin V8. Also, the 1.3 is
a
> > little misleading. Rather than displacing 1.3 liters for every two
> > revs, like conventional reciprocating engines do, the rotary
displaces
> > 1.3L per face and two faces pass per rev. It's essentially a 5.2L
> > engine but doesn't burn as effectively. I'm a rotary nut and would
> > gladly drop a Mazda 20B into the Dak if I could, but it's not a fair
> > analogy.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:03:19 EDT