On Mon, February 7, 2011 5:23 am, Tamas Rudnai wrote: > and also says: > "Only Mazda continued developing the Wankel engine." > > Anyway, wondering what is the reason not using this type of engine if tha= t > is obviously produces more power out of less combustion volume and smalle= r > mass of metal structure? > > Tamas #1 reason- they don't last. Cow-orker has an RX8. His car has less than 60,000 miles and he is now scheduled to get his 3rd engine (2nd replacement) under the original factory warranty from Mazda. The design is ioncredibly simple and concept is great for a lot of power in a small package (and basically unlimited redline due to its inherent balance not putting huge stress on the crank at high RPM). Hardest problem to overcome (I believe) is keeping the apex seals in operation. If you're willing to consider intense inspection and replacing the engine as part of normal periodic maintenance, a Wankel engine is a great option, particularly in cases where weight is a premium, like aircraft. Matt Bennett Just outside of Austin, TX 30.510843,-97.919286 The views I express are my own, not that of my employer, a large multinational corporation that you are familiar with. --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .