I was using the term in the fashion that you kinda answered yourself. Only
1 car in production today has the engine in it anymore. Don't see many RX-7's
being bought nowadays... Considering the car-buying populous ratio to those
that purchase rotarys, I'd say "nobody" comes pretty close to an accurate
description... ^_^
I wasn't attempting to even try to explain the reasons, only using it as an
example of a failed radical engine design.
Hell, I'd like to see trucks with radial engines in them. Talk about
torque...
Shaun H.
---originial message---
I wouldn't say "nobody," because Mazda continues to use the Wankel
today in their RX-7. The reasons why rotaries have never achieved mass
acceptance are numerous, but I don't know if I'd interpret that as a
lack of trust. From what I've heard, they have a lot more to do with
large licensing fees paid to the patent holders, probably the Wankel estate;
not to mention the difficulty of emissions control in an engine with
a power cycle much like a 2-stroke.
I remember the days when you had a whole bunch of Mazda rotary small
cars and trucks, not to mention rotary Polaris snowmobiles, and even
a few rotary lawnmowers (never saw one of those, but did see pictures).
Ron
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:10:00 EDT