robert luis rabello wrote: >David Miller wrote: > > > >>I love looking at new engines:) How'd that old mazda commercial go? >>"Engines that go hmmmm" ? >> >> > > You're dating yourself, now! (And me, too!) > >
Hey, I can remember Coke "I'd like to teach the world to sing" commercial. I was pretty young then though, so that does help date me:) >>The biggest drawback to this engine would seem to be the efficiency - >>the faq lists its best case as .47 lb per horsepower hour, and .55 or >>more was pretty typical. By comparison, an efficient piston diesel will >>be down in the low .3's. In other words it would use about 50% more >>fuel for the same HP output. >> >> > > How would this compare to a typical Otto cycle piston engine? > Typical 4 stroke otto cycle (OK, that's redundant:) engines usually run in the .4 to .5 lbs/hp-hour. This engine is pretty typical for a wankel. It's interesting that the airplane crowd has to take special precautions with wankels because the exhaust is so hot. Obviously this is because a mark of its inefficiency - the higher the efficiency the lower the exhaust temperature. --- David _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
