Originally posted by Blk560:
I'm not sure where or why you are including the number of cycles or 'how it breathes' in your determination of displacement. Displacement is just that - combustion chamber volume (L^3, in dimensional analysis speak). Not volume per cycle or volume per crankshaft revolution. It is not a function of crank theta or omega. It is the swept volume of each combustion chamber multiplied by the number of combustion chambers.


Indeed, 2-cycle piston engines have their displacements calculated the same way as 4-cycle versions: (pi/4)(bore^2)(stroke)(N), where N is the number of cylinders. However, their breathing (and power output) characteristics are quite different. But these characteristics are not captured by engine displacement.


...If Mazda--the leading automotive developer of Wankel engines--has been using the wrong method of deriving the displacement of its engines for so many years, then perhaps you could put your expertise to work and share with us the formula that you propose should be used, and supporting reasons behind why it should deviate from the method used to calculate displacement for 4-cycle piston engines. Might be a good idea to share it with Mazda, and any 2-cycle engine makers out there also.



So when the questions get tough, the names start flying?

Anxiously awaiting a toned response to the questions posed, particularly with respect to how you would characterize the displacement of a 2-stroke piston engine by applying the 'cycle' concepts you're trying to apply to the Wankel.

TTFN...see ya Monday (traveling for Easter).

B. Riley Melbourne, FL '01 Camry LE V6/5-spd Was: '00 Black/Tan SVT Contour #560 - Sold 3/26/03 Before that: '95 Champ/Blue Contour GL V6 ATX