Notice: Support Requests - Going forward, all support requests will be handled via the forum. Please see the help section.

16 vs 8 valve

Followers

24 July, 200917 yr

I've got a simple sollution to this arguement, everybody goes Rotary :-D :-D :-D
Mazda RX7 = 1.3 no valves - 237bhp and 218 lb-ft torque

enuf said

simplez

How does the fuel get in then?

H&S

Basicly............

""Wankel engines are considerably simpler, lighter, and contain far fewer moving parts than piston engines of equivalent power output. For instance, because valving is accomplished by simple ports cut into the walls of the rotor housing, they have no valves or complex valve trains; in addition, since the rotor is geared directly to the output shaft, there is no need for connecting rods, a conventional crankshaft, crankshaft balance weights, etc. The elimination of these parts often makes a Wankel engine much lighter and it also completely eliminates the reciprocating mass of a piston engine with its internal strain and inherent vibration due to repeated acceleration and deceleration, producing not only a smoother flow of power but also the ability to produce more power by running at higher rpm""

hope that explains it

Yeah, i understood the concept, but i didnt know they didnt have conventional valves. All well and good, but the tips of those rotors wear out a lot quicker than your standard engine

But its amazing what you can do when you think out the box (bloody japs, clever lot)

H&S

Report

Replies 126
Views 13.1k
Created 17 yr17 yr
Last Reply 17 yr17 yr

Popular Days

24 July, 200917 yr

I've got a simple sollution to this arguement, everybody goes Rotary :-D :-D :-D
Mazda RX7 = 1.3 no valves - 237bhp and 218 lb-ft torque

enuf said

simplez

How does the fuel get in then?

H&S

Basicly............

""Wankel engines are considerably simpler, lighter, and contain far fewer moving parts than piston engines of equivalent power output. For instance, because valving is accomplished by simple ports cut into the walls of the rotor housing, they have no valves or complex valve trains; in addition, since the rotor is geared directly to the output shaft, there is no need for connecting rods, a conventional crankshaft, crankshaft balance weights, etc. The elimination of these parts often makes a Wankel engine much lighter and it also completely eliminates the reciprocating mass of a piston engine with its internal strain and inherent vibration due to repeated acceleration and deceleration, producing not only a smoother flow of power but also the ability to produce more power by running at higher rpm""

hope that explains it

Yeah, i understood the concept, but i didnt know they didnt have conventional valves. All well and good, but the tips of those rotors wear out a lot quicker than your standard engine

But its amazing what you can do when you think out the box (bloody japs, clever lot)

H&S

Haha yeah bleady clever lot, and dont mind experimenting with there ideas either so bleady good on them 8-)

Think the rotor tips wear out after 60,000 miles so needs to be rebuilt every 60k, but then thats what replaces the cambelt change every 60k on standard engines i spose

Report

24 July, 200917 yr

I've got a simple sollution to this arguement, everybody goes Rotary :-D :-D :-D
Mazda RX7 = 1.3 no valves - 237bhp and 218 lb-ft torque

enuf said

simplez

How does the fuel get in then?

H&S

Basicly............

""Wankel engines are considerably simpler, lighter, and contain far fewer moving parts than piston engines of equivalent power output. For instance, because valving is accomplished by simple ports cut into the walls of the rotor housing, they have no valves or complex valve trains; in addition, since the rotor is geared directly to the output shaft, there is no need for connecting rods, a conventional crankshaft, crankshaft balance weights, etc. The elimination of these parts often makes a Wankel engine much lighter and it also completely eliminates the reciprocating mass of a piston engine with its internal strain and inherent vibration due to repeated acceleration and deceleration, producing not only a smoother flow of power but also the ability to produce more power by running at higher rpm""

hope that explains it

Yeah, i understood the concept, but i didnt know they didnt have conventional valves. All well and good, but the tips of those rotors wear out a lot quicker than your standard engine

But its amazing what you can do when you think out the box (bloody japs, clever lot)

H&S

Haha yeah bleady clever lot, and dont mind experimenting with there ideas either so bleady good on them

Think the rotor tips wear out after 60,000 miles so needs to be rebuilt every 60k, but then thats what replaces the cambelt change every 60k on standard engines i spose

Never really though of it like that. But i can imagine it being a little more expensive. Apparently they use cramic tips now that dont expand when they heat up, and hence lengthten. But obviously thats taken into account with quoting reuild milages

H&S

Report

24 July, 200917 yr

both 8 and 16v's are gay.
20v ftw!

You do know that 16v Golf Mk2s are faster then more modern cars fitted with the 150bhp 1.8T.

yeah but the 16v engine isn't scene enough these days, its not like he's not gonna sound cool saying 8 or 16v ftw is he

@ kerrly: nothing a good map cant sort out...

@McLovin: :lol: me? scene? :lol: i perfer a high-revving 8v given the choice between 8 or 16... but my new 20v is so smooth and pulls really well... its easy to hate on something just coz its popular...

Report

24 July, 200917 yr

@McLovin: me? scene? i perfer a high-revving 8v given the choice between 8 or 16... but my new 20v is so smooth and pulls really well... its easy to hate on something just coz its popular...

nah mate i've been in a mk2 golf with a 20vt in it and i nearly shit a brick :lol:

i can see why they are so popular, just pulling your plonker mate :-p

Report

24 July, 200917 yr

both 8 and 16v's are gay.
20v ftw!

You do know that 16v Golf Mk2s are faster then more modern cars fitted with the 150bhp 1.8T.

yeah but the 16v engine isn't scene enough these days, its not like he's not gonna sound cool saying 8 or 16v ftw is he

@ kerrly: nothing a good map cant sort out...

@McLovin: me? scene? i perfer a high-revving 8v given the choice between 8 or 16... but my new 20v is so smooth and pulls really well... its easy to hate on something just coz its popular...

to right :nod:

Dam ECUS!

Report

24 July, 200917 yr

@McLovin: me? scene? i perfer a high-revving 8v given the choice between 8 or 16... but my new 20v is so smooth and pulls really well... its easy to hate on something just coz its popular...

nah mate i've been in a mk2 golf with a 20vt in it and i nearly shit a brick

i can see why they are so popular, just pulling your plonker mate

hahah.

mine goes alreet too, can imagine that is an amazing swap into a mk2! 8-)