Talk:Mazda Wankel engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

13b engine[edit]

This article states that the 13b engine is the most widely produced engine in the world. Is there a citation for this? I find this surprising, considering some of the other engines out there. Johnv474 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that means the most produced wankel engine. ~blahblahsignaturewhatever

Almost died in the 70's[edit]

Just how did going all rotary almost kill mazda? --Gbleem 23:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rotaries are small, powerful engines, but they are fuel pigs. The big fuel crunch hit just the time Mazda was about to make the change, and they moved back to piston engines just in time. The new rotaries are far more fuel-efficient - I hope to see a resurgence of them soon. Denni 01:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Due to their combustion chamber geometry (specifically the greater ratio of surface area to volume,) Wankel rotary engines are less thermodynamically efficient than a standard otto cycle piston engine for the same swept volume, so all other things being equal, they will always be less fuel efficient. But of course, no less fun. 11:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a new company (Spun off in 1998), that produces Wankel style rotary engines. They are fuel efficient and very clean. They are called Freedom-Motors, and here is the website: Danball1976 03:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The above comments are interesting, because the article doesn't mention that they are "fuel pigs". Clearly, this is important and is well-known. It should be in the introduction, in fact: "Rotary engines are noted for being relatively small and powerful, at the expense of poor fuel-efficiency." I'm going to put this in the intro. Perhaps someone could help me by adding a reference or two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sales graph scale[edit]

The chart of yearly and cumulative sales has one (or both) of its scales showing the wrong numbers. Apparently in 1973 1.6 million (!) rotary vehicles were sold, but the cumulative figure up to 2000 is betweern 250,000 and 300,000. -- 07:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Don't mean to sound dumb, but it seems as if this article does not explain how these engines function. Is this intended? Am I missing something? 06:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Stupid name? It's named after its inventor... 03:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


The 13B-REW description in the info table to the right side of the article seems to have absorbed the 13B Turbo-][. The REW did not start in 1986 for example, and had more than 141kW in its earliest form. 11:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, how many rotors in that engine ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

author indicates the 13B-MSP Renesis engine weighs 122 kg (247 lbs) however 122kg == 269 lbs ! 247 lbs 247 lbs == 112 kg

"When the automotive industry made the leap from 2-stroke, to 4-stroke engines..."[edit]

Eh? This sounds highly dubious to me. When exactly did the automotive industry use two strokes? Other than some very small cars produced in the Soviet Union, I thought that almost all cars since the beginning of the 20th C used four stroke engines?

The cited reference makes no mention regarding the reference to two stroke engine displacements, and I think this statement is a misrepresentation of the quoted article / original research.

I think this reference should be removed re/written unless someone can find a reference to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Routlej1 (talkcontribs) 13:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Displacement calculations have nothing to do with the combustion cycle. Displacement of a conventional reciprocating (non-wankel rotary) is simply the sum of the piston-swept volume of all cylinders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Freedom motors USA[edit]

Perhaps that should be mentioned ? Appearantly, it's based on the Mazda Wankel engine design (more or less)

KVDP (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)