[Barry Bordes]

Originally Posted by RICE RACING

FOr some who love comparisons or measuring to others (why would you I dont know but.........)

The 13B is like the following

Power density like a 1.3lt 2 stroke!
Fuel consumption of like a bad 2.6lt 4 stroke!
Racing durability similar to a equal powered 3.9lt!

Some old boys will get what I am saying with the above.
The Wankel has allot of good attributes with its very large areas and slow speeds and this shows up in its durability as a racing engine (on equivalence basis for time related "displacement" @ equal BHP levels) compared to reciprocating alternatives. When you understand how the engine works and why this is you quickly see its not magic but its an attribute of the Wankel Cycle, its slow speed, and big area to time relationships. Sure its inefficient on ANY equivalence measure (power density, peak speed, etc) but BANG for BUCK and DURABILITY wise its very very very hard to beat.

Wankels are a cool motor its only the people into them in the majority that are weird!

It is interesting that you should describe the Rotary that way.

While watching the 24hrs of Le Mans I had a similar thought. In the parallel universe where the wankel displacement is measured after one full rotation the rotor, it could be argued that Rotor RPM would also be used and not the PTO shaft (eccentric shaft) RPM.

This would necessarily change our perspective of the Mazda win in 1991. Of course Mazda should have beaten Jaguar, Mercedes, and Porsche.

Its engine was much larger at 7848 cc, and it loafed along at 2300 RPM with a red line of 3000RPM.

It won with its superior fuel economy of this slow turning large displacement rotary.

Barry