K. Legaspi
You Buggin' Out
yea it smells fried... SHIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT... thanks for letting me know tho... is that whats making the loud ass sound too? damn it there goes all my fucking suspension moneyKuchtaboy said:
son of a bitch
*anything goes* chat v3.0 bigger, badder and uncut
- Thread starter g2teg
- Start date
- Status
son of a bitch
Kuchtaboy
Unregistered User
yeah, you might want to get that changed fast... lol, I had about 30 minutes of life left after that happened to mine, and i happened to be a couple hours away from home. then my car drained the shit out of my battery and i got stranded. lol, it sucked.Kev_98IntegraLS said:
yes, thats what's screaming under your hood.
K. Legaspi
You Buggin' Out
well ive had that noise for a whole week.. and ive been driving my car for a total of maybe 6 hours... when the noise first started i completely fucking stalled out.... ON A TURN.. so my PS was gone while i was trying to turn... lol then i pulled over started it made that screaming noise.. then i was like shit... i didnt know whati t was so i kept driving it.. lol so im probably gonna get that checked this week when i get the chance... damn it this is gay...Kuchtaboy said:
K. Legaspi
You Buggin' Out
wait so is that why my car is performing like ass lately? it seems like ive lost a lot of power and everytime the bass hits all my lights dim... could this be the effect of a bad alternator too?
spikehairboy
Non-Registered User
haha your damn right it could be. get that shit replaced ASAPKev_98IntegraLS said:
K. Legaspi
You Buggin' Out
k well i cant replace it my self and i need to buy another alternator... im bringing it to the Acura dealership this week... im surprised its lasted for a whole week like this...spikehairboy said:
dc2GS-R
Super Moderator
Mazda is full of shit. The rotary is NOT a 2-stroke engine. When they set out the parameters of designating the displacement of a rotary, they only calculated it for one crank revolution, the same way a 2-stroke displacement is calculated. Since a rotary is a 4-stroke by all means of the definition, displacement should be calculated for two complete revolutions of the crank. And since the rotors spin 1/3 the speed of the eccentric shaft due to the gear drive, it really isn't a 1.3L. The only way it could be a 1.3L is if it was a 2-stroke engine. They just decided to calculate it this way because it fires every revolution like a 2-stroke. But it still has 4 complete cycles which means Mazda engineers were either stupid when they did this, of just didn't give a damn at getting the facts rightfaylo604 said:
Last edited:
spikehairboy
Non-Registered User
my dear son. you need to learn how the rotary works before you bang on mazda's ENGINEERS.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine1.htm
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine1.htm
dc2GS-R
Super Moderator
i know how they work. I've owned one. It is a 4 stroke engine. They way your calculate displacement on a 4 stroke is by every 2 crank revolutions. So why are they calculating displacement like its a 2 stroke. Its not just me talking down, SAE themselves has denounced there claims as it being a 1.3
Last edited:
dc2GS-R
Super Moderator
From the Society of Automotive Engineers:
Rotary Displacement
For simplicity, we’ll use the 13B engine as the standard we’re calculating. You can use these ideas and apply them to a 12A or 20B yourself. The rotary engine is obviously unique. The engine has two rotors (exc. 20B) shaped roughly like a triangle. This makes for three combustion faces per rotor and a total of six for a standard two-rotor engine. Each face has a “swept volume” or displacement of 40ci(654cc) and there are a total of six faces. With this known, the engine displacement should be 40ci(654cc) times six to equal 240ci(3.9L), right? In a way, yes, but that would not be a comparable displacement to the 4-cycle engine.
The key for comparing the displacement between the 4-cycle engine and the rotary engine is in studying the degrees of rotation for a thermodynamic cycle to occur. For a 4-cycle engine to complete every thermodynamic cycle, the engine must rotate 720° or two complete revolutions of the crankshaft. The rotary engine is different. The engine rotor rotates at 1/3 the speed of the crankshaft. On two rotor engines, front and rear rotors are 180° offset from each other. Each rotation of the engine (360°) will bring two faces through the combustion cycle (the torque input to the eccentric shaft). This said, it takes 1080° or three complete revolutions of the crankshaft to complete the entire thermodynamic cycle. Obviously, we have a disparity. How can we get a relatable number to compare to a 4-stroke engine? The best way is to study 720° of rotation of the two-rotor engine. Every 360° of rotation, two faces of the engine complete a combustion cycle. 720° will have a total of four faces completing their cycle. 40ci(654cc) per face times four faces equals 160ci or 2.6L. That’s a well-reasoned number and now gives us something to be able to compare to other engines. In addition, since four faces passed by in the comparison, it’s like a four cylinder engine.
Now we know, the 13B compare well to a 2.6L 4-cylinder 4-cycle engine
Rotary Displacement
For simplicity, we’ll use the 13B engine as the standard we’re calculating. You can use these ideas and apply them to a 12A or 20B yourself. The rotary engine is obviously unique. The engine has two rotors (exc. 20B) shaped roughly like a triangle. This makes for three combustion faces per rotor and a total of six for a standard two-rotor engine. Each face has a “swept volume” or displacement of 40ci(654cc) and there are a total of six faces. With this known, the engine displacement should be 40ci(654cc) times six to equal 240ci(3.9L), right? In a way, yes, but that would not be a comparable displacement to the 4-cycle engine.
The key for comparing the displacement between the 4-cycle engine and the rotary engine is in studying the degrees of rotation for a thermodynamic cycle to occur. For a 4-cycle engine to complete every thermodynamic cycle, the engine must rotate 720° or two complete revolutions of the crankshaft. The rotary engine is different. The engine rotor rotates at 1/3 the speed of the crankshaft. On two rotor engines, front and rear rotors are 180° offset from each other. Each rotation of the engine (360°) will bring two faces through the combustion cycle (the torque input to the eccentric shaft). This said, it takes 1080° or three complete revolutions of the crankshaft to complete the entire thermodynamic cycle. Obviously, we have a disparity. How can we get a relatable number to compare to a 4-stroke engine? The best way is to study 720° of rotation of the two-rotor engine. Every 360° of rotation, two faces of the engine complete a combustion cycle. 720° will have a total of four faces completing their cycle. 40ci(654cc) per face times four faces equals 160ci or 2.6L. That’s a well-reasoned number and now gives us something to be able to compare to other engines. In addition, since four faces passed by in the comparison, it’s like a four cylinder engine.
Now we know, the 13B compare well to a 2.6L 4-cylinder 4-cycle engine
K. Legaspi
You Buggin' Out
because im retarded... and i dont have time, i dont know how, and my dad probably wont let me because according to him i dont know anything at alldc2GS-R said:
- Status