![]() |
Originally Posted by MightyBobo I remember hearing that somehow the "true" displacement of a rotary was in actuality double what they say it is, but I cant remember why...I'll have
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 (permalink) | |
|
Base Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Port Washington, WI
Age: 49
Posts: 183
Drives: 2004 RX-8
Rep Power: 18 ![]() |
Quote:
You are correct. It is actually 1.3L per rotor, so technically it is a 2.6. So you essentially have a 2.6L rotary engine that has the low end power of a 4-cylinder and the gas mileage of a V-8. Not real impressive when you look at it that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) | |
|
A True Z Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,926
Drives: 2006 350Z
Rep Power: 21 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Wankel_engine ***** In auto racing, the displacement of a Wankel engine is usually doubled for classing purposes. For Japanese tax purposes, the displacement of Wankel engines is defined as the equivalent of 1.5 times the nominal displacement. So the 1.3 L 13B engines count as just under 2.0 L for these purposes. The 13B is the most widely produced engine. It was the basis for all future Mazda Wankel engines, and was produced for almost 30 years. The 13B has no relation to the 13A. Instead, it is a lengthened version of the 12A, having 80 mm (3.1 in) thick rotors. Each rotor had a displacement of 654 cc, for a total of 1308 cc displacement in the engine. ***** The upped cc measurement was strictly for balancing racing capabilities.
__________________
keep Chubbs in your pocket - Chubbs |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| For the curious -- My Oil Analysis @ 1000mi | ZzzZz | Engine & Drivetrain | 7 | 04-24-2009 07:09 PM |
| just curious | bossman | The Lounge (Off Topic) | 3 | 01-18-2009 03:54 AM |