Rotary engines are more reliable than old fashioned piston engines

yeah, ok bro

>rotary blows a seal
>still has compression in the other face and the other rotor

>pistonshit drops a valve
>catastrophic failure

why can't pistons compete

> rotary
> blows all apex seals
> can still get enough compression to run at high enough rpm

> piston
> blows all piston rings
> completely fucked

>
>> rotary
>> blows all apex seals
>> can still get enough compression to run at high enough rpm
>completely fucks rotor and housings
>Requires basically entire base engine assembly to be replaced
>> piston
>> blows all piston rings
>> Only need a handfull if parts to repair engine
>rebuilt engine goes out and does another half million miles without issue

>Requires basically entire base engine assembly to be replaced

You mean all 3 parts? The ones that can be lifted out of the engine bay by hand?

What a tough job.

considering you literally cannot get new 12a housing anymore, having to replace housings is starting to become an issue

>replacing piston rings
>only a handful parts to repair

you have to literally dissasemble the entire engine if you want to take out the pistons

fucking busriders

I'm thinking about an FB for a project car. Any idea how hard swapping in a Renesis is?

>renesis

why, just drop a 13b from an FC

>you have to literally dissasemble the entire engine if you want to take out the pistons

Nah m8, did it on my old ferd.

>rod knock
>pull head
>pull oil pan
>unbolt knocking connecting rod
>push up through cylinder
>clean up, put new bearing on, make sure rings are still good
>button motor back up, all while still in the car
>bout 6-7 hours of constant work, drive it home that night.

the renesis doesnt like being outside of an RX8. i hear unless you plan to carb it (removing a lot of it's advantages) it can be very, very tricky to get the bastard to run right, if at all. FC or FD engine would be much easier and much better documented

>why

Because depending on the model, the Renesis make 50-100 more HP, and does so way more efficiently.

>why would I want this modern computer when my Pentium 386 does just fine?

Not him, but yes thats only if youre mechanically savvy enough to source your knock down to the cylinder, which isnt very easy.

Its difficult as fuck to fix compression seals on any motor, but dont try to make it seem like thats on avg a 6-7 hour job.

>cars are like computers

dude no

It's very easy, you take the oil pan off and wiggle the fuck out of the connecting rods. They'll tell you which one is the knocking one.

Technology is technology; the march of progress rarely halts.

rotary engines have less things to go wrong and are significantly easier to fix than piston engines.

the bad reliability myth is from americans who cant into rotary and have fucked up every single one in the country.

>whose

>march of progress rarely halts.
Unless youre GM.

Unless we get some crazy super gas in the future, I don't see engines becoming much more efficient than they are now. Compression ratios can only go so high before ping ping ping ping.

Fuck, whats the octane rating of pure hydrogen?

There's always the one dumbass who ends up breaking any new toy he gets.

no user, thats not how cars work

I'm sorry that reality does not match up with your beliefs, but there's not much I can do about that.

Are carbureted rotaries more reliable?

really, lets see

>Ford is doing great with 351w and 302 OHV v8
>release the SOHC modular
>engines are now making 150 less HP than the ones they replaced

>Nissan VG can take shitloads of boost, up to 600 hp on stock longblock
>release the VQ
>stock rotating assembly shits itself if you boost it over 450hp

another one

>Nissan SR
>ok-tier inline 4 that loves boost
>nissan releases the QR, turns out is shit, no one even bothers tuning it, not even professional builders

there are several stories like this, not only about engines

cars are not computers, the newest version is not always better than the one they replaced

>carbureted more reliable than FI

In most cases, no.

1995 Mustang 5.0
>215 hp
>285 lb-ft

1996 Mustang 4.6
>215 hp
>285 lb-ft

Remind us again how you aren't full of shit.

Why bother if you're taking it out. Just put a 13B in

>four barrel 351w of the late 60's
>290hp

>boss 302 found in late 90's mustangs
>310hp

Carbed anything is more reliable.
It's just more finicky when it's working.

>boss 302 found in late 60's* mustangs

also, the 3.8 windosr in the 95 cobra made 300hp

>3.8
meant 5.8

fuck me man fucking typos

>boss 302
>found in late 90's mustangs

>3.8 windsor
>in the 95 cobra

this thread just keeps getting better

>thinking late '60s gross HP numbers are relevant to anything

PROTIP: the 5.4L modular engine was the replacement for the 351, not the 4.6L. and it shat all over the Cleveland

see below

you are a tard if you actually belive they were not wrongly dyno'd anyway

Over 130, but it's nowhere near as energy dense as regular fuels.

No you don't, take the head off and the sump off and do rings and bearings in-frame I do it all the time at work it's not hard

Or you can take the oil pan off and start the motor, I've seen that done before to locate a big end knock. You just end up with oil on your face.

>sides
You mean apex seals.

Reliably failing when a seal breaks more like it.

I kinda want to agree with this..

Never really had a problem with a carb that couldn't be fixed with either more choke or less choke(starting), or a love tap with a screwdriver handle(stuck needle).

They're also simple as fuck to rebuild. and they just werk

>Computers
Exponential growth

>engines
Linear (if even that) growth

Gee, it's almost like the difference between 10 years of computers and 10 years of engines is so wildly different as to be incomparable. But of course people (idoits) will compare them anyway.