Another achilles heel of the rotary is that it was reported that it produces
a poor amount of torque, so it isn't that adequate for the Type 2 or
Vanagon.  All the horsepower in the world ain't worth spit if you don't have
the appropriate amount of torque to push our heavier vehicles.

While I am more familiar with the RX7 generation of the wankel, perhaps this
may have changed with the RX8 generation engine.
--
Jim Thompson
84 GL 1.9 "Gloria"
84 Westfalia 2.1 "Ole Putt"
73 K Ghia Coupe "Denise"
72 411 Station Wagon "Pug"
oldvolkshome@gmail.com
http://www.oldvolkshome.com
***********************************
On 10/4/07, Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@mac.com> wrote:
>
> The first time *(yes, it's friday now) I saw a rotary engine in
> person it was on the Mazda RX8 (never saw the engine compartment on
> the RX7 or other wankel engined vehicles). I was amazed at how small
> and compact the engine was. Almost seemed like a big generator,
> rather than the 200 hp engine it is. But yes, the achilles heal of
> the rotary has always been poor fuel economy.
>
> On Oct 4, 2007, at 11:37 PM, Jake de Villiers wrote:
>
> > Until Jim explains properly:
> >
> > The rotary isn't very efficient Craig.  Smooth, yes, powerful, yes,
> > good on
> > gas, no.
> >
> > Its also more difficult to keep the lubricating oil out of the
> > combustion
> > chamber, so the hydrocarbon emissions are a little high.