Rep Power: 336

http://www.roundengine.com/

kinda neat if you ask me.

 
Rep Power: 265

It really is an amazing engine, my friend just got a used rx-7 I couldn't even imagine the turbo version, I heard they haul tho. Imagine a 8 cyl. one? Just keep stacking them in a row.

 
Rep Power: 331

pretty neat.

 
Rep Power: 301

so it will save gas and produce more power? Is that the point?

 
Rep Power: 0

i dont get the charts???? help me out i wanna kno

 
Rep Power: 338

hmm..... I can see it as having the same intake/exhaust overlap as in the old school rotories.

 
Rep Power: 336

from my interpretation of the chart, a VGT engine with 3 cylinders at 1.2L of displacement and a compression ratio of 1.5:1 would yield 51 brake horsepower and 180 ft. lbs torque at 1500 rpms , and 78 brake horsepower with 137 ft. lbs torque at 3000 rpms.

OR

a VGT engine with 3 cylinders at 7.2L of displacement and a compression ratio of 3:1 would yield 612 brake horsepower and 2160 ft. lbs torque at 1500 rpms and 936 brake horsepower with 1644 ft. lbs torque at 3000 rpms.

etc. etc.

 
Rep Power: 336

i can see that its neat. but to power a car...idk plenty of issues to worry about. i could see it happen though

 
Rep Power: 346

That is interesting stuff... since the motion is circular, it should feel smoother than an up and down motion...

that is a lot of power. I think that would really help if Japanese manufacturers started something like that, that way you would get stump pulling power from a smaller displacement engine. Imagine a K-car like the Ist (xA) just outpulling an inline-4 with more displacement.

 
Rep Power: 328

What do you mean by "better?" It makes nice power numbers from small physical displacement much like a rotary, but it seems to me that this process that takes place in the engine would require a different way in measuring displacement.

Recall that a typical 13B rotary displaces 1.3L physically, however due to the nature of the way it does "work" in physical terms it is in essence a two stroke engine. This means that every two rotations of the eccentric shaft is equivalent to four rotations of a standard crankshaft. Because each rotor must rotate twice in order to turn one full cycle of the eccentric shaft, it displaces 2.6L in terms of the amount of work being done.

***On a side note you can also measure a 13B as displacing 3.9L if you measure the surface area across each face of each rotor. It's not a generally accepted measurement because piston engines are not usually measured in this manner either, but think of it as being a 3.9 or a 2.6 (depending on how you look at it) stuffed into a 1.3L package.

Now, back on topic. It is my belief that this new VGT engine displaces in much the same way. It would appear that the VGT engine resembles a two stroke cycle engine. What this means is that it would, much like a rotary, accomplish twice the work of a regular 4 stroke engine in half the turns. I can't say for sure, because we don't have much information on how many revolutions of the driveshaft completes the engine's cycle. If this is in fact the case, then the physical displacement is deceiving and you can general multiply any physical displacement figures by two to get what your actual displacement is.

It does appear to have very nice torque numbers though. Good amounts of torque is something that is notoriously hard to extract from a rotary especially in NA form. This is mainly due to the fact that in order to achieve torque, you need leverage. For example if you have an 8 foot lever doing work on a specified point versus a 2 foot lever, you would get a much higher amount of work done through a longer amount of leverage. As I mentioned, rotaries have small physical displacement by design, so there is little room for leverage and in turn small torque figures as well.

This particular engine claims much higher torque levels though. I would imagine the nature of the engine allows a multiplication of compression levels to accomplish this. This then leads me to ask how feasible this would be in a vehicle that is used on a daily basis, where innately high compression levels will inevitable lead to blown compression seals. The engine would be very high maintenance indeed.

So is it better than a rotary? I don't know. I know it follows some of the same basic principles. The continual spinning in the same direction and centrifugal forces that play within that to power the engine. It would run very smooth, much like a rotary, but I'd venture to say that at idle it wouldn't be very smooth. It does accomplish impressive torque figures though.

One place that I can tell right off the bat though is that it does not beat the rotary in one of the great rotary hallmarks. Simplicity. In a rotary, you have three moving parts. Two rotors and an eccentric shaft. If it's a 3 rotor, then you've got four moving parts. That design has numerous moving parts, and as you know the more moving parts, the more things to go wrong. A rotary uses the housing design and simple laws of physics to accomplish work. And it's small displacement allows it to be set behind the front axle of virtually any vehicle for a lower center of gravity, and more centered centrifugal force in cornering. I can't say whether this VGT design can accomplish the same feats. It would be good in drag applications I'm sure, but in road racing where balance and finess are key, there are few engines that do it as well as a rotary.

We'll see if this design makes some advancements and we'll see what happens, but as of right now, it's feasibility is limited, and it may be more complex than what it's worth.

 
Rep Power: 0

pretty interesting design. i have a feeling that it wouldn't make great seals (like early rotories). maybe a similar design to this would hit the market one day. but i don't see it happening anytime soon.

 
Rep Power: 340

my real concern would be reliability. if its proven to be reliable enough, i'd want one

 
Rep Power: 336

i don't understand why the torque numbers are way the hell higher than the hp. seems like hp numbers are little lacking. so the car would take off like a bat out of hell but the top speed would be around 100?

 
Rep Power: 370

That's pretty neat.

 
Rep Power: 0

100 is fast enough for me. Just run 1/8 mile then if you top out to quick lol.

 
Rep Power: 288

I'll stick with inline 16valve 4 bangers

 
Rep Power: 0

the highest speed limit around me is 65MPH... so i dont think i would need to go over 100 .......

i never saw the point of a street car that can reach speeds of 150+

 
Rep Power: 328

Oh you know it makes you feel better about the mini c.ock...

 
Rep Power: 295

Seems to be alot like a diesel engine in thought. Maybe that explains the high torque numbers?

 
Rep Power: 0

Did they fix the Carbon Buildup problem in these Rotary engines?? I heard the new Mazda RX-8 has a redesigned rotary using side ports, but carbon buildup is still a big issue.

 
Rep Power: 276

thats pretty cool

 
Rep Power: 302

Not if you drive it like you should.

I never had carbon in my RX-2 engine. Drove it like I stole it every day. God, I abused that car and it just hummed along. I'd still have it if it werent for the California smog police. Ahhhh... memories.....

 
Rep Power: 360

I can't see this becoming big in cars for a few reasons. One is the fact that if anything is off by the slightest bit, it breaks. Also it looks as if intake and exhause pipes are going to be VERY close, which causes more heat into the intake and a less efficient engine all around.
At least in a piston engine has some give on timing. You may get some knocking but nothing detrimental if it is off a little for a few seconds.
Rotarties are monsters when it comes to reliability and basically as long as the seals are good the things run forever. Like a honda engine, but smoother . /free honda compliment.

It is a cool idea though.

 
Rep Power: 360

Would you want a ferrari or lamborghini or porsche EVER?
I know you would, cause anyone would take one of those three. Of course! So you tell me, that you don't see why a street car should hit 150 after thinking of how fun and appealing the cars are that DO.
I know I wouldnt mind one. I would never hit 150 on PA roads or i would hit a hugh pothole and die, but knowing I could means alot.

 
Rep Power: 288

not to knock on your theory...but if and when I buy cars i go by the ratio of car to upkeep....ferraris and etc....you just don't want to know.....

 
Rep Power: 360

All I know is that I will own a ferrari one day and untill i sell it I will probably treat it better than my girlfriend (obviously wife by then). But my girlfriend now, who i do plan on being with for the long run, already knows that.
As for upkeep, lets just say I won't be able to afford driving it after that first service lol.

 
Rep Power: 288

lucky you...I'd end up sleeping in the damn thing hehe

 
Rep Power: 315

Thats the problem I see!

 
Rep Power: 360

considering I have had that goal since I was about 5, I have decided not even the woman I love the most will get between me and that goal. I told her that and she said that as long as I take her out in it she has absolutly no problems with buying a ferrari. Actually I told her if she lets me get one I will let her take my civic right out of college (2 years from this coming spring). So when I get a new car my baby at least stays in the family. So I agreed and she agreed. My 1st love gets my 2nd love and I get a ferrari without complaints.
Ive got it all worked out .