cold fusion

[News]

When was the last time Mazda put a Wankel engine in a car? 1980?

Right now, the RX8. The Russians put them in helicopters. I believe they
are also used for pumps and other things.

 

[J Baber]

When was the last time Mazda put a Wankel engine in a car? 1980?

Try today, go to the closest dealer, and he'll try to sell you one now.

 

[Gymbal Bob]

I guess if you want to call all rotary engines, including the Mazda RENESIS
engine, "Wankels" then whatever. Wankel did not invent the rotary engine.
Wankel perfected one particular style of existing rotary engine.

Mazda claims to not have used the Wankel engine since the 60s-70s.

 

[Gymbal Bob]

Do the research. Mazda does NOT claim Wankel engines and denies putting them
in at all.

 

[Morten]

When was the last time Mazda put a Wankel engine in a car? 1980?

Nope, they just released their new rx8, cracking car with a wankel engine in
it

I think that the original rx7 was released back in 1975, but the first
rotary engine mazda was released back in 1965...

Have a look at this website:
http://www.rx7uknet.dircon.co.uk/binhist/cars.html


Regards

Morten

 

[News]

Do the research. Mazda does NOT claim Wankel engines and denies putting them
in at all.

Before you wrote such things it is best you just look at a Mazda web, then
you will not make a fool of yourself. ;-)

 

[John Bengi]

Look yourself. I have. You are a fool.

Before you wrote such things it is best you just look at a Mazda web, then
you will not make a fool of yourself. ;-)

 

[Dave Hinz]

Try today, go to the closest dealer, and he'll try to sell you one now.

The nym-shifting troll called (random)Bob doesn't care so much about,
you know, facts.

 

[Dave Hinz]

Nope, they just released their new rx8, cracking car with a wankel engine in
it

The troll is making some point how it's not a Wankel because it's
a rotary, or something. Otherwise known as "his usual bullshit word-games
tactic to get people to waste time on him".

 

[Bob Adkins]

This is very a naive view. They will sell to the public what they want them
to buy, using very strong marketing departments. They create the desire. The
auto industry is not technology driven.

You underestimate the consumer.

Many consumers are technology driven, so the car manufactures are forced to
offer new technology or get left behind by their competitors.

People are too conservative to buy wild unproven technology, car makers are
too.

This is off-topic, but it's time car makers use welded tubular frames with
full cages. They can get creative about hiding and camouflaging the welded
structural tubes. It will make the cars lighter and more crash resistant.
They will make the driver feel safer. They will handle better and use less
gas.

-- Bob

 

[John Bengi]

You underestimate the consumer.

Many consumers are technology driven, so the car manufactures are forced to
offer new technology or get left behind by their competitors.

People are too conservative to buy wild unproven technology, car makers are
too.

-- Bob

We have been buying American made cars since the begining of time and they
have proven to be unproven. Hasn't stopped the hillbillies from spending
all their money on gaz-guzzlers.

 

[Me]

India is currently struggling with pollution control on taxis. See:
indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19991127/ile27031.html

How much "Polution Control" does a guy pulling a rickshaw require????
Maybe a diaper if he just can't hold it......


Me I'll let you know, when my "Engineer Brother" gets back
from his 2 week trip to India, that he is on now.....

 

[News]

If you mean the US big 3 then
they are all making them [hybrids]. In
two years time there will be about
25 to choose from, from all makers.

They are not. I can't find a single diesel
automobile model.

The point was hybrids.

You should have said that then. I was talking about diesels, and you said
they're all making them. Adding the "[hybrids]" to the quoted text after
the fact is simply cheating. You're wrong, anyway. They each have ONE
model planned by 2008 (which even with American marketing is not two
years). Everything else is in the truck/SUV area.

Hopefully they are giving diesels a wide berth for
hybrids.

Hybrids are good. There should be more of them. They're not the be-all and
end-all for transportation. Diesels have their place - which could be as a
replacement for _every_ four-stroke gasoline engine.

Not really. They have a few problems. Their exhaust stinks, the fuel
stinks, they are noisy, their power to weight ratio stinks, and they
stink. They aren't sold to the US market because most of us think they
stink and wont buy them.

I go along with that, from a man who has had two turbo diesels. Also when
it gets on the road it causes havoc to motorcyclists - very dangerous.

 

[News]

The big 3 *did* try selling diesels. Check back to the 1970's into the
80's. They tried them in all car sizes, from luxo-barges down to
econo-boxes. They sold reasonably well for a while. But most owners
got sick of having a car that sounded like a truck. They got sick of
waiting for glo plugs to heat, the gutless acceleration, and the stink
of the fuel, just to name a few things. And they found out that in the
long run, the diesels didn't save them much, if anything. Look at the
pump prices. Diesel costs more than gas. And a gas engine *of equal
power* will be smaller and get about the same mpg as a diesel.

Diesels are more popular in Europe largely because of the different tax
incentives.

The diesel engine can compete in performance only when a complex, and
expensive turbo is added - not cheap when they pack in. They are quieter
than what they were and soundproofing makes them acceptable inside the car,
except at start up when it does sound like a truck. They are also more
expensive to buy. The difference in purchase price buys a lot of gasoline.
In the UK diesel is the same price as petrol at the pumps, which is not the
case in mainland Europe, but some diesels do have better mpg, although these
days the gap is so narrow it is not worth looking at. Overall I can't see
the point in having one, unless you want a lower performance eco-box that
cost button to run. But the people who buy those cars don't do the high
mileages to justify the high mpg.

 

[Derek Broughton]

The big 3 *did* try selling diesels. Check back to the 1970's into the

That's fair (much more so than the childish mantra about how they stink).

80's. They tried them in all car sizes, from luxo-barges down to
econo-boxes. They sold reasonably well for a while. But most owners
got sick of having a car that sounded like a truck. They got sick of
waiting for glo plugs to heat, the gutless acceleration, and the stink

_none_ of those things is a problem these days - as VW and Volvo routinely
demonstrate.

of the fuel, just to name a few things. And they found out that in the

I don't see how diesel stinks any worse than gas.

long run, the diesels didn't save them much, if anything. Look at the
pump prices. Diesel costs more than gas. And a gas engine *of equal
power* will be smaller and get about the same mpg as a diesel.

Wrong, right, and wrong. Diesel pump prices tend to vary differently from
gas. Here - and anywhere else I've lived, across Canada and in Michigan -
prices are sometimes lower, sometimes higher. Mostly, they've been a
little lower (~10%). Mileage in every diesel auto I know is better than
the same model car with a gasoline engine. The result being less
greenhouse gas.

Diesels are more popular in Europe largely because of the different tax
incentives.

Diesels are popular in Europe because they work great and save money. I
_loved_ the little Citroen diesel I drove for a month in Belgium. No
problem with gutless acceleration there!

 

[News]

[email protected] wrote:

Diesels are popular in Europe because they
work great and save money.

They save money because of the tax breaks. Diesels were taking market share
in the UK. The government put up the tax to the same as petrol and then the
market share decreased.

 

[Dave Hinz]

That's fair (much more so than the childish mantra about how they stink).

Agreed (on both counts), but...the Big 3 didn't use a good design,
and the fuel at the time (and even today) is high in sulfur in the US.
The smell is helped quite a bit with low-sulfur fuel, and obviously a lot more
with a biodiesel.

_none_ of those things is a problem these days - as VW and Volvo routinely
demonstrate.

Right.
No rational engineer would bolt a new set of heads onto an existing
V8 and package it as a diesel engine, yet this is what Oldsmobile used.
VW and Volvo design well; comparing the failings of 70's US carmakers
(who I don't think anyone would say were doing well at anythying) to
current well-designed diesel technology isn't a valid comparison.

I don't see how diesel stinks any worse than gas.

Oh, it does. But you wouldn't want to get either on your hands and
smell it all day. Minor to zero difference, to me.

Diesels are popular in Europe because they work great and save money. I
_loved_ the little Citroen diesel I drove for a month in Belgium. No
problem with gutless acceleration there!

Another point - railroads use diesel electric locomotives here in the
US. For that purpose at least, it's the most economical. We could
spitball speculations back and forth forever, but unless someone
wants to show the same car, with a gas and a diesel engine, and compare running
costs, it's all just noise. I will say that the anti-diesel folks tend
to have more rhetoric and inflamatory language in their posts than
one would usually see in, say, an engineering design meeting.

 

[News]

Another point - railroads use diesel electric
locomotives here in the US. For that purpose
at least, it's the most economical. We could
spitball speculations back and forth forever,
but unless someone wants to show the same
car, with a gas and a diesel engine, and
compare running costs, it's all just noise.

The operating conditions for locos is very different to cars.

 

[Derek Broughton]

Which is more economical wasn't the question.  The question was, "Why
don't the big 3 sell them?"  And the answer is, because they can not
sell enough of them to justify the expense of bringing them to market.

Correct. That was my question, but your answer doesn't match reality.
Volvo, VW, Mercedes _all_ sell enough diesels to make it worthwhile
importing them and selling them over here. Obviously, the big 3 _could_ do
it. Heck, they have ownership relationships with those companies, so they
could just be selling their drive-trains in American models.

I don't understand why they're uninterested, but it doesn't make sense that
it's just economics.

 

[Dave Hinz]

Dave Hinz wrote:

Sulfur may contribute to the stink, but I don't think it is the main
cause. As I wrote elsewhere, diesel pickups seem to stink much worse
than the big rigs, and they are burning the same fuel.

There are a _lot_ of grades of diesel fuel.

Buses have
their own odor, again while burning the same fuel. There has to be
something about the particular designs that affects the smell. Agreed,
I have noticed some diesels burning alternative fuels that have almost
pleasent odors.

So it's the fuel and not the engine then, yes. That's my point. Let's
give heavy tax incentives to biofuel development and production efforts.
Pay the farmers, instead of people in a part of the world where they
hate us, is the way I look at it.

The introduction of diesels back then was a knee jerk reaction to the
first gas shortages. They converted existing gasoline designs because
it was quicker and more cost effective for them than starting with a
new design. They were poor designs that had many problems, and people
stopped buying them.

And, in the process, gave diesel engines for consumer cars a bad
reputation that has lasted a generation. Instead of doing the smart
thing and buying powerplants from, say, VW or someone else who had
already figured them out.

Which is more economical wasn't the question. The question was, "Why
don't the big 3 sell them?" And the answer is, because they can not
sell enough of them to justify the expense of bringing them to market.

Thing is, they could buy a powerplant from TDI, like Saab, VW, and
some of the other Europeans are doing. They don't _have_ to be experts
in diesel powerplant engineering (good thing...), because they can source
the design from somewhere else, benefit from parts commonality and
existing expertise, and all those benefits.

I am not anti-diesel, I am anti-stink And I am well aware that a
diesel can work very well in an automobile. But they are not for
everyone.

Never said they were. But when you start out with a mantra about
this stinks and that stinks and whatever else, just be aware that the
emotionally charged language cheapens your argument, and makes even
valid points look like they're talking from behind a bias.

Dave Hinz