Looks like they're stalling to clean up that photochop porn thread.

It was good while it lasted.

Thats the 7club's motto

"RX7 Club: Database Error!"

pwnd
:(

You'd think a company that maintains so many websites and forums would have no trouble at all with rx7club. :P

shits been down since 10pm last night

I don't mean any offense to them, but shit, Rx7club isn't exactly the largest car forum on the internet, it can't be THAT hard!

Haha, now rx7club is back up, but the only thing that works is the Rotary Performance forum. :D

it's just like how the rotary isn't the biggest engine in world, it can't be that hard to maintain :bigthumb:

it's all messed up now

Look what EMC's thread did.

Where'd the lounge go?

Where'd the LOUNGE GO?!

*whimpers*

Somebody hold me, I'm cold.

I wonder if they are finally going to use this as an excuse to ax the lounge.

Yes, I see no lounge. :P

They could have at least wiped out my SNTP user name so i can use it again...

it's just like how the rotary isn't the biggest engine in world, it can't be that hard to maintain :bigthumb:

I don't know that it's really that hard to maintain - I'm thinking 90% of the problems with rotary reliability have to do with "rebuilding" an engine using parts with 150,000 miles on them. :D

I don't know that it's really that hard to maintain - I'm thinking 90% of the problems with rotary reliability have to do with "rebuilding" an engine using parts with 150,000 miles on them. :D

Not to mention the moron rebuilding it, and all the associated vacuum bullshit Mazda put on them.

Well yes, eliminating the vacuum is a must - I think mine uses 4 lines. :D

mine too :)
someone should make a motivational poster thing..
"rx7 club, 60% of the time, it works every time"

and it smells like bigfoot's dick

Well yes, eliminating the vacuum is a must - I think mine uses 4 lines. :D

Have you ever really looked at a FB's? It's INSANE! When I get the parts together, I will be doing rat's nest removal.

Somehow, I have a feeling that I'll be jumped when I goto SSX. I don't think I should attend.

Have you ever really looked at a FB's? It's INSANE! When I get the parts together, I will be doing rat's nest removal.

I have! :wave: And it scares the shit out of me! Half the reason why when I get mine fixed ( after I graduate college ) I'm keeping it stock. The other half of the reason is I bought the car stock and planned on keeping it that way. I'll make the TII my Road Warrior, the FB will be my princess!

I think after the rat's nest removal it will be easier to maintain and find leaks and whatnot.

i LOVE THE 1ST GEN SECTION, THEY'RE ALWAYS LIKE, IT'S PROBABLY VACUUM LEAK... WELL WHICH ONE!?

I accidentally hit caps... oh well

http://rotaryshack.com/Engines/usedEngines.asp

4th one down.

oooh... 12AT. Nice.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2004-GTO-LS1-ENGINE-34-000-MILES-WITH-COMPUTER_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33615QQihZ003Q QitemZ130153029003QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

i reckon the oil pan is cracked cos the stupid fucker has been sitting the whole engine on the ground with nothing underneath

and it smells like bigfoot's dick

You should post your secrets. There are many people out there searching the woods for bigfoot to no avail. You've not only found him, you've smelt his dick. I'd just like to take his picture, you know, in cameraphone with smudged lens quality, just to mess with people.

I have! :wave: And it scares the shit out of me! Half the reason why when I get mine fixed ( after I graduate college ) I'm keeping it stock. The other half of the reason is I bought the car stock and planned on keeping it that way. I'll make the TII my Road Warrior, the FB will be my princess!

It's just nice when the car starts running weird to be able to look at it and go - well, it's not the vacuum lines. Depending on your state, 20-25 year old cars are exempt from emissions anyway.

Well, if they did ax the lounge then good for them. I know people have been itching to do it for a while since everyone thinks the place is worthless.

I won't get into the fact of how ironic it has been that so many members think shooting the shit and fucking around on there is worthless, yet somehow find merit in discussing wheel offsets, synthetic vs. regular oil, what type of exhausts, flooding, and the same fucking performance issues for the same fucking car for the past 10 years. Nothing new has happened, no technological breakthroughs, no improvements, nothing. The motor is still more or less a heaping pile of 80's shit that is never going to be anything spectacular again, and no one is going to develop some new way to get 1000 hp out of it.

They won't axe the lounge, because it wouldn't make sense from a business standpoint. Regardless of whether the lounge has any technical merit, what it DOES have is more hits per day than all of the generation boards combined, and hits is what sells ad space.

Well, I find it ironic that it is the only section not up and running right now. And I know how much the regular douchebags on that forum loathe the lounge. There are so many people that think they are so high above it, but also think they are new age Jesus because they know everything there is to know about a fucking dead technology from a car that no one really gives a shit about.

Plus with the new company taking over, I wouldn't be surprised if they did pull it. I am still not too sure what their purpose or strategy in purchasing that site is anyways, it really makes little sense to me.

The motor is still more or less a heaping pile of 80's shit that is never going to be anything spectacular again, and no one is going to develop some new way to get 1000 hp out of it.

What makes an engine developed in the 1920s and commercially available in cars and trucks since 1984 "a heaping pile of 80's shit"?

It is dead technology. It is inferior to piston motors, and it has been proven over the course of time. There is nothing new to talk about regarding a 13B or 13BT. Or even a 12A.

and that makes it "80's" ... how? The RENESIS is as different from the Turbo II as the Turbo II was from the 12A.

Well, I guess if I was one of the top executives at the biggest bank in the entire universe, maybe that'd change the way I felt about any motor that didn't appear in a Benz, Bimmer, or Lexus. :D

For the record, a handful of other sections are or were still down, like the west forums, the 2nd gen classifieds, and a handful of others.

There was a rotary in a Benz... ;)

http://images.worldcarfans.com/articles/2004/8/23/5040823.001/5040823.001.1M.jpg

and that makes it "80's" ... how? The RENESIS is as different from the Turbo II as the Turbo II was from the 12A.

It's production height was in the 80's, yes. The majority of cars that are still on the road with that motor were built in the 80's.

So you would call the RENESIS a major improvement? It took them almost 20 years to figure that motor out. I wouldn't exactly call that progress.

How did it take them 20 years? That would imply the RENESIS project began before 1982, when in fact that's when they were developing the TII. Then they moved on to the 13B-REW, THEN the RENESIS.

I said almost 20 years, to pull over 200hp out of an N/A rotary.

Point being, it's a dead technology. They are mostly pieces of shit. I'm not sure what the argument is here.

When did they start pulling 200 bhp out of emissions legal NA 4 cylinder engines?

As much as I hate to say it - Year 2000 - Honda S2000 produces 240 hp from an NA 4 cylinder 2.0L engine.

Exactly - only 3 years before the RENESIS came out, and that's with every auto manufacturer in the world developing piston engines.

True that - and Honda is still one of the very few that has crossed that barrier.

You aren't taking into account a crucial point. Who can you name that was actually TRYING to pull 200+ hp out of an NA 4 cylinder? As opposed to the amount of people who were actively trying to do so with an NA rotary, for years. Most automakers didn't have a need to do so because they could simply get that power out of a bigger motor.

Most manufacturers are smart enough to use a 6 cyl when you're around 200HP :P

Who can you name that was actually TRYING to pull 200+ hp out of an NA 4 cylinder? As opposed to the amount of people who were actively trying to do so with an NA rotary, for years.

Offhand I'd say 99% of everyone on the Civic forums. :D

You aren't taking into account a crucial point. Who can you name that was actually TRYING to pull 200+ hp out of an NA 4 cylinder? As opposed to the amount of people who were actively trying to do so with an NA rotary, for years. Most automakers didn't have a need to do so because they could simply get that power out of a bigger motor.

And there were tons of automotive manufacturers trying to pull 200+ NA horsepower out of a rotary? You can't have it both ways.

He can, I've debated with him before. "All contradictory information is irrelevant for the purposes of this argument, unless I can use it to my advantage!" :D

No one has yet to prove the base of my argument wrong at all. Rotary motors are inferior to piston motors, and it is a dead technology. The only thing that has been accomplished is skewing the argument to the fact that it took a long time to get 200+hp out of an NA 4 cylinder.

I'm still not sure what Richter's purpose is on the internet. You are like a fucking cheerleader.

No one has yet to prove the base of my argument wrong at all. Rotary motors are inferior to piston motors, and it is a dead technology. The only thing that has been accomplished is skewing the argument to the fact that it took a long time to get 200+hp out of an NA 4 cylinder.

I'm still not sure what Richter's purpose is on the internet. You are like a fucking cheerleader.

Your argument was that they were 80's crap. They weren't 80's.

So you said it took a long time to develop a 200hp NA rotary. It took only 3 years less to develop a 200hp NA 4 cyl.

So you said not many companies were trying to develop a 200hp NA 4 cyl. Only 1 company was trying to develop a 200hp NA rotary.

No skewing, just counterpoints to the argument shifts you've attempted to put forth ;) And they're still not "80's" crap. Yep, not as refined as modern piston engines, but neither were 80's piston engines.

Footnote: Mazda sold 1,000,000 rotary powered vehicles from 1969 to 1979, and only 850,000 or so in the 80s - so saying they sold more rotaries in the 80's than at any other time is also inaccurate.

Aren't they also better when run on Hydrogen or other gaseous fuels?

Rotaries seem to like that stuff.

IIRC, rotaries are better suited to hydrogen and ethanol as fuels than current piston counterparts. Something to do with the long-burning nature of the fuels, and the relatively long combustion stroke of the rotary.

But I'm not an engineer, so I could be way off :P.

No one has yet to prove the base of my argument wrong at all. Rotary motors are inferior to piston motors, and it is a dead technology. The only thing that has been accomplished is skewing the argument to the fact that it took a long time to get 200+hp out of an NA 4 cylinder.

I'm still not sure what Richter's purpose is on the internet. You are like a fucking cheerleader.

It should be obvious by now that I'm here for my own amusement. :D I thought personal attacks were off limits in STB?

Maybe he meant you like fucking cheerleaders. ;)

You are like a fucking cheerleader.

Howzat? I look sexy in a skirt? I make you horny? I shower with women after the game? :D

Maybe he meant you like fucking cheerleaders. ;)

Now that I can't argue! :D

Howzat? I look sexy in a skirt? I make you horny? I shower with women after the game? :D

You hang out with someone that uses the name "Kitten Fairy" as a gamer tag?

You hang out with someone that uses the name "Kitten Fairy" as a gamer tag?

. . . and shower with her after the game! :D

. . . and shower with her after the game! :D
:doh:

It should be obvious by now that I'm here for my own amusement. :D I thought personal attacks were off limits in STB?

Yeah, just like a cheerleader. Sitting on the sidelines and yelling "YEAH!"

Can I get a show of hands from anyone that's ever seen me just sitting on the sidelines on either forum? :D

You don't actually get involved in anything, you just throw comments at whoever is having a debate.

Actually I throw comments at everyone indiscriminately of whether they're having a debate or not. Occasionally I get into debates of epic proportion, is your memory truly so short? :D

Unless the problem is that you don't consider me to be truly debating since I don't become emotionally invested in whatever the latest topic of discussion happens to be. In which case my response is this: very few people engaged in a debate, whether online or not, will ever admit to being wrong, even when confronted with irrefutable proof of their ignorance or mistaken-ness.

There's no problem with that, really. In the great country we live in, you are entitled to be wrong. Everyone else is just also entitled to see how retarded you are. :D

No one has yet to prove the base of my argument wrong at all. Rotary motors are inferior to piston motors

From a thermodynamic perspective, I agree. The surface area to displacement ratio is higher, so for a given material the heat transfer into the cooling system will be higher. Since the heat is what does the work in internal combustion engines, heat loss = power loss, and the rotary loses more heat to internal surface area than piston engines.

From a kinematic and packaging standpoint, however, I disagree. The motion of the rotary components is indeed superior to the reciprocating motion of piston engines. Where a rotary is fully balanced radially and very well balanced longitudinally, a piston has horrendous accelerations back and fourth which basically waste energy (one reason why rotaries seem to rev so much more freely than piston engines). And about the packaging, it's obvious when looking at rotary powered aircraft how streamlined the front can be compared to something with a piston engine because of the central output shaft and round shape.

it is a dead technology.

I think the various rotary engine manufacturers who specialize in lightweight, reliable UAV engines would disagree..... they seem to have been making money for a number of years off simple air cooled rotary engines for unmanned aircraft.

The only thing that has been accomplished is skewing the argument to the fact that it took a long time to get 200+hp out of an NA 4 cylinder.

Power to # of cylinders or rotors is meaningless in the real world; it's power weight, power to size, power to cost, and power to fuel consumption ratio that designers look for. The only people who care about the amount of power extracted from low cyliner or cubic inch count are tuners, and they are a fringe group of society. In this sense, the rotary is at a severe disadvantage because Mazda has limited it to 2.6 litres of effective air / fuel consumption in 2 revolutions (the common scheme for naming displacement for piston engines). If they could compete with displacement, they might have a chance.


I'm still not sure what Richter's purpose is on the internet. You are like a fucking cheerleader.

His purpose is to make you feel like more of a man, knob gobbler. :D

LOL

Another thing to look at is the rotational "arm" of the components. Since the power acts in a constant direction in the rotary engine, without skinny little connecting rods holding the combustion surfaces, it's possible to increase the HP output of a stock engine by 300 or more percent without having to add custom internal pieces. A TII engine for example, unturbocharged, produces in the neighborhood of 110hp. With a aftermarket turbos, many people are getting over 300hp without upgrading the internals, and some are getting 400 or more.

But. . . wouldn't this discussion be better suited for the Rx7 club forum? :D

I am not arguing the efficiency of a rotary vs. piston. I am saying that the piston motor has proved to be a better motor over time. Maybe if multiple companies had invested their R&D dollars into rotaries then the case would be different. However, they haven't, and haven't for a reason, so pistons remain on top, are smoother, produce more power, and are more fuel efficient.

I doubt they're smoother. :D I haven't seen any recip makers standing a nickel on edge on top of their engine and keeping it balanced while they rev it up.

Honda could probably do it, if they put their R&D team on it and built a special engine just to do it.

Well, I know what it feels like driving an Rx-8 and an FC, vs. a car such as a 350Z or an IS350. The power delivery feels a hell of a lot smoother, as does the overall operation of the motor.

I am not arguing the efficiency of a rotary vs. piston. I am saying that the piston motor has proved to be a better motor over time.

so if you don't mean better as in more efficient, or better as in packaging, or better as in not having to upgrade internals when adding boost.... what do you mean by better? and size-for-size, there are a couple of piston engines producing more power. But not many.

There's a tradeoff; rotaries inherently aren't as tuneable when it comes to compression ratios, etc. and that makes it more difficult to increase fuel efficiency. However, it's not as tuneable because there are fewer moving parts, fewer parts slapping the bejeesus out of each other, and absolutely none trying to change direction 180 degrees every 7/1000th of a second.

You just stated that your argument is based on power delivery "feeling smoother" in specific chassis - which actually depends on far more variables than the configuration of combustion chamber. You're saying a 4 seat, 4 door car and a 20 year old car, each with a rotary engine, feel less smooth in power delivery than a new 2 seat, 2 door coupe with a piston engine. Guess what? a 350Z has smoother power delivery than my 1985 Dodge winter beater. And they both have piston engines.

If you want to prove one engine inferior to another, compare engines. Not total powertrains.

I meant not better efficiency in power vs. size. Although that can be argued with the amount of large block V8's capable of reaching well over 1000hp.

By effiency, I mean fuel consumption and emission control. Rotaries are not as efficient as piston motors.

I know everyone loves to root for the underdog, but look at the big picture here. If rotaries were truly the superior motor, what is the deal? Where are they? Why aren't more companies using them?

You're saying a 4 seat, 4 door car and a 20 year old car, each with a rotary engine, feel less smooth in power delivery than a new 2 seat, 2 door coupe with a piston engine. Guess what? a 350Z has smoother power delivery than my 1985 Dodge winter beater. And they both have piston engines.




So what about an RX-8 compared to those cars I mentioned?

If rotaries were truly the superior motor, what is the deal? Where are they? Why aren't more companies using them?

Yes, I'm sure GM, Chrysler, Toyota and Nissan are all willing to jump on board with giving money to a Ford subsidiary for the rights to use the design. :D

Unless they do, or someone else patents a non-piston rotary engine that doesn't infringe on the Wankel's patents, then they're kinda out of luck.

The RX-8 is the 4 door, 4 seater I mentioned.

So what about an RX-8 compared to those cars I mentioned?

I'm going to go with the fact that you're comparing a car with a max HP of 220-240 hp depending on model that makes most of it's power above 5-6000 rpms, to a pair of cars with max HP of 300, that makes most of their power by 3500 rpms.

Comparing the engine of an RX8 to that of an S2000 would be more apples to apples.

If rotaries were truly the superior motor, what is the deal? Where are they? Why aren't more companies using them?

Could have said the same thing to Jaguar back in the day when they were the only car manufacturer using disc brakes. "If they're so great, how come everyone else uses drums?"

Or to the Germans for their use of fuel injection - in the 1950s. "Why does every other gas car use carburetors?"

...and so on. Large numbers of a group doing something a certain way is not evidence that that method or habit is superior.

Could have said the same thing to Jaguar back in the day when they were the only car manufacturer using disc brakes. "If they're so great, how come everyone else uses drums?"

Or to the Germans for their use of fuel injection - in the 1950s. "Why does every other gas car use carburetors?"

...and so on. Large numbers of a group doing something a certain way is not evidence that that method or habit is superior.

Yeah, maybe in those scenarios, but I don't think it applies to this one. You said it yourself, the motor has been around since the 20's.

Yeah, maybe in those scenarios, but I don't think it applies to this one. You said it yourself, the motor has been around since the 20's.

Fuel injection was around in the 30's, but didn't become the 'regular' way of doing things in normal passenger cars 'till the late 80's. As for disc brakes, there's still lots of shitty cars with rear drums. It still doesn't mean that rear drums are better than rear discs, just that it's the lazy way to engineer it.

The rotary has its advantages and disadvantages. But for an engine that's been developed by only one company, and for a single car model at any given time, for the past 30 years the linear progression in efficiency - including fuel - and output is astounding.

Fuel injection was around in the 30's, but didn't become the 'regular' way of doing things in normal passenger cars 'till the late 80's. As for disc brakes, there's still lots of shitty cars with rear drums. It still doesn't mean that rear drums are better than rear discs, just that it's the lazy way to engineer it.

More like a cost efficient way to engineer it


The rotary has its advantages and disadvantages. But for an engine that's been developed by only one company, and for a single car model at any given time, for the past 30 years the linear progression in efficiency - including fuel - and output is astounding.

You have proved your points. However I still don't see that motor improving or being deployed by any other auto manufacturer in the future, nor would I consider purchasing another.

More like a cost efficient way to engineer it.

...if by "cost efficient" you mean "cheap and crappy", then yes ;) There really is no excuse for such yestertech 'engineering' other than consumer complacence

Yeah, the majority of people buying a car with rear drums likely don't know the difference or care.

They do keep your wheels shiny though. :D

More like a cost efficient way to engineer it

How exactly are drums and carbs more cost effective?

Remember, a car doesn't have much in the way of raw materials in it... It's the labor necessary to assemble those parts...

Lemmie price up the parts for my 1993 Civic with drums:
(Gathering prices from RockAuto.com)
Wheel Cylinders: $8.64 a piece (MFD by Raybestos)
Springs and hardware: $11.20 (MFD by Beck/Arnely)
Self adjuster kits: $18.38 (MFD by Wagner)
Shoes: $23.79 (Raybestos, mid grade)
Drum: $11.30 each (MFD by Raybestos)

All totalled up, new rear brakes would be: $93.25.

Now, looking at the EX model that has among other things, rear disc brakes:
Rear calipers: $64.79 a piece (Rebuilt by A1 Cardone)
Rear pads: $13.96 (Raybestos Ceramic)
Rotor: $10.99 each (MFD by Raybestos)

All totalled up, new rear brakes would be: $154.53.

So far, there's a difference of almost $60...

HOWEVER, what about the assembly... I'm fairly certain that you can have a robot assemble both of these setups and put them on the car, but can a robot be made to go pick up the springs that fly off across the factory during assembly or adjust the rear drums after they're assembled? Extra steps in the manufacturing process or added human interaction.

Disc brakes will just drop on and there's no adjustment required.




And on carburetors, can a robot be made to tweak a carburetor? Possibly, but it's an added step in the manufacturing process or added human interaction. For fuel injection, once you assemble the ECU, provided all the parts are good, once plugged in, it'll just work.


You have proved your points. However I still don't see that motor improving or being deployed by any other auto manufacturer in the future, nor would I consider purchasing another.

That's like my saying, there's nothing worth inventing or discovering now because everything good has already been invented or discovered.

Materials engineering is a rapidly advancing field... A concept so simple as a cooking pan has come pretty far. Not too long ago, we were frying our eggs on cast iron skillets. Now we have light weight aluminum that doesn't take any time to heat up... And we don't have to scrub it to clean it because of teflon anti-stick coatings...

They already have ceramics and other coatings that bond to metals to retain oil, reject heat, or absorb and transfer heat better. Cryogenic treatment of parts makes them stronger... Advancements and discoveries like this will push the technology along...

Coupled with the advantages of the rotary on gaseous fuels and the supposed trend to find alternatives on a large scale, I think there is definitely a future use for the engine...



That being said, at the moment, I have a 4x4 pickup, a Daily beater that gets 36MPG, and a Tow truck, all completely unsuited for the rotary... Your purchase habits are based on what you need.

How exactly are drums and carbs more cost effective?

Remember, a car doesn't have much in the way of raw materials in it... It's the labor necessary to assemble those parts...

Lemmie price up the parts for my 1993 Civic with drums:
(Gathering prices from RockAuto.com)
Wheel Cylinders: $8.64 a piece (MFD by Raybestos)
Springs and hardware: $11.20 (MFD by Beck/Arnely)
Self adjuster kits: $18.38 (MFD by Wagner)
Shoes: $23.79 (Raybestos, mid grade)
Drum: $11.30 each (MFD by Raybestos)

All totalled up, new rear brakes would be: $93.25.

Now, looking at the EX model that has among other things, rear disc brakes:
Rear calipers: $64.79 a piece (Rebuilt by A1 Cardone)
Rear pads: $13.96 (Raybestos Ceramic)
Rotor: $10.99 each (MFD by Raybestos)

All totalled up, new rear brakes would be: $154.53.

So far, there's a difference of almost $60...

HOWEVER, what about the assembly... I'm fairly certain that you can have a robot assemble both of these setups and put them on the car, but can a robot be made to go pick up the springs that fly off across the factory during assembly or adjust the rear drums after they're assembled? Extra steps in the manufacturing process or added human interaction.

Disc brakes will just drop on and there's no adjustment required.


You are assuming that auto manufacturers assemble drum brakes in this manner, and do not have the parts ready to go and slap on a car. If that much effort went into assembling every car, it would take forever. I would be that they buy those parts pre-assembled.

You are assuming that auto manufacturers assemble drum brakes in this manner, and do not have the parts ready to go and slap on a car. If that much effort went into assembling every car, it would take forever. I would be that they buy those parts pre-assembled.

Somewhere, someone has to assemble the parts, whether it's done at an outside facility or in house at the factory... The labor hasn't just magically disappeared, it simply goes elsewhere.

Hence, the cost hasn't disappeared.



True, the shoes, hardware, cylinder, and self adjuster can all be mounted to the backing plate, sitting in a stack, ready to go on with four bolts...

But then again, can't calipers have all the pads and hardware attached to them, ready to go on?

In fact, that's usually how I buy them.... Loaded calipers. They've got everything you need, all assembled. Simply slide them over the rotor and bolt in place. If you're really creative, you can put them over a new rotor and slide the whole works on like that as well...

You're also missing something more obvious - you're basing the prices on what YOU can get at a parts store, not what it costs the manufacturer. Everything listed for the drumbrakes are high fail parts, things that get replaced often. You have to be pretty hardcore to mess up a caliper, so the need for replacement calipers wouldn't be as great, meaning fewer are made.
You'd have to find out how much the manufacturer pays per unit for it to be a real good comparison.

Personally after changing brake shoes and brake pads myself, I'll take disk brakes any day.

And then find out what it cost the OEM who put it together, what they paid for labor on average, fixed costs, variable costs, etc. I assure you it is nowhere near what you quoted. Probably more along the lines of $20 a side, fully assembled to the auto manufacturer.

Still, I think Discs, while higher in materials cost, are less labor intensive and hence less costly to manufacture than drums.

That was my main point.

I am not arguing the efficiency of a rotary vs. piston. I am saying that the piston motor has proved to be a better motor over time.

Since you participate in financial markets, I'll make the point that Bank of America isn't so big just on behalf of its excellent service and financial products, it is also because many wealthy individuals bought into the idea of a national bank chain of said management. The analog to the engine debate is that many companies chose to (arbitrarily) ditch the rotary, even though the rotary is viable as an automotive powerplant.

Maybe if multiple companies had invested their R&D dollars into rotaries then the case would be different.

Many companies did. Ever hear of General Motors, Mercedes, and of course NSU?

However, they haven't, and haven't for a reason

EPA regulations were abruptly tightened right when General Motors, Mercedes, etc. were pushing their rotary cars through the pipeline. Rather than try to meet said regulations with piston and rotary engines (very different in this regard), they chose to consolidate their engineering and the piston engines were all that remained.

so pistons remain on top, are smoother, produce more power, and are more fuel efficient.

What an empty statement. In a world where your entire career rests on customer confidence in your personal integrity, it must seem OK to just make statements that are scientifically questionable and have no real technical basis. That's fine, no one really sees you as very technically inclined anyhow.

:bowdown: :bigthumb:

I'll tell you what, dude. The reason I like rotaries has little to do with power, efficiency, or emissions.

They're fun.

They're easy to pull, swap, pull from a junkyard and screw with, and they're cheap. I've found several cars that are fun, but can't really afford something new that'll devalue significantly. The FB (and RX-2) are right on the money, in that they provide tons of smile for the buck.

I'll concede that they're not efficient or particularly practical. At the same time, though, that's not all that matters.