4 ms·
Yap I understand why Wankel didn't meet emission standards. But neither would have the standard piston architecture if it weren't for innovation i.e. extension
by semerda 12y ago
Yap I understand why Wankel didn't meet emission standards. But neither would have the standard piston architecture if it weren't for innovation i.e. extension of it's complexity.
As a ex-fan of combustion motors for many years, and having built a race car, I no longer see investment in combustion motors as sound. Electric motors are far simpler and smaller and are starting to yield similar results to combustion motors. That's where innovation should be heading.
- jrapdx3 12y agoAs a past owner (many years ago) of a Wankel-engine powered car I was entertained at the mention of "Wankel". Emissions were the least of its problems, reliability being far less than desirable, as in barely able to keep going at all. Later on there were more reliable rotary engines, e.g., Mazda. If memory serves, there were emission problems and the engine was eventually discontinued for that reason. Rotaries were an interesting idea, hypothetically better, but implementation was obviously difficult and ultimately a failure. In today's world, we need to stop burning fossil fuels and electric-powered vehicles look promising. I'm looking forward to advances that will make electric cars practical. Of course, burning coal or natural methane to make electricity wouldn't be ideal, though possibly more efficient than the distributed combustion we now use.
- Gravityloss 12y agoAudi was considering a Wankel range extender for plugin hybrids around 2010 but they later moved to conventional three cylinder engines. I don't know the specific reasons for that.