The only 4 rotor wankel ever made,,,

**PAT303** · 3rd April 2012, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by rick130

As far as I can recall under FIA rules, wankel's always used a x2 equivalency formula as they are effectively a two stroke, there's no dead exhaust cycle.

There's probably an article on the car in one of my old Race Car Engineering's, but I can't be bothered digging them out

The GTR's ran in the same class as the V8's Pat, with the same weight and fuel limits as they were twin turbo'd.
Again, the equivalency formula.

There were lots of things turned off in them too, they were just too sophisticated for a race vehicle at the time as it costs so much to go testing.
Things like the four wheel steering were never, ever tested, it was locked in place.
A mate of mine spannered on the Bob Forbes/GIO car that Mark Gibbs and Rohan Onslow raced.
They are nice cars.
AFAIK Bob still owns it, and it comes out to play sometimes.

The cars ran the same size tyre and were different wieghts Rick,the M3's used to run the GTR's down because of it.Later it changed but the bomberdoors,sierra's,M3's and GTR's all ran different wieghts. Pat

**isuzurover** · 3rd April 2012, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by PAT303

Technically superior in what way?,they were lighter and had a bigger fuel tank,how's that ''technically superior''?. Pat

See Rick's post. They were in the same weight class.

So you are saying that an engine which develops more power from a much smaller displacement and wins races against vehicles in the same weight class while using less fuel is not technically superior???

(Edit - just saw your post above - any proof??? - all evidence I can find says the 2600 cc GT-Rs were in the same weight class (4500cc+) as the V8s.

**33chinacars** · 4th April 2012, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by rick130

A mate of mine spannered on the Bob Forbes/GIO car that Mark Gibbs and Rohan Onslow raced.
They are nice cars.
AFAIK Bob still owns it, and it comes out to play sometimes.

Is this the one

**rick130** · 4th April 2012, 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by 33chinacars

Is this the one

Yep, that's it.

Fred Gibson built it, and AFAIK it was pretty much identical to the factory cars.

Another mate prepared and race engineered Bob's son, Rodney, in Formula Ford, and Rodney used to take the GTR out for a run occasionally on club weekends, etc. after the two make touring car series started.

**Barefoot Dave** · 4th April 2012, 10:32 AM

Low res but no sales pitch for a video game:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRrVvg4_eqY]Mazda 787b Warming Up - YouTube[/ame]

Hi res, but warming up with no high revs (above 5000)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9675TKafw3g&feature=related]787B 4rotor Start and Rev video - YouTube[/ame]

Those Option Video Loons bring a smile to my face after all this time, 20BT in a AE86!!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvPfi-ZeQRM]20b rotary powered ae 86 - YouTube[/ame]

Enjoy, Dave

**Pedro_The_Swift** · 4th April 2012, 04:44 PM

I love the second vid when it revs up a bit and the crowd cheers,,,

I clapped in front of the monitor!

**PAT303** · 8th April 2012, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by isuzurover

See Rick's post. They were in the same weight class.

So you are saying that an engine which develops more power from a much smaller displacement and wins races against vehicles in the same weight class while using less fuel is not technically superior???

(Edit - just saw your post above - any proof??? - all evidence I can find says the 2600 cc GT-Rs were in the same weight class (4500cc+) as the V8s.

Sorry but both of you are wrong,the Mazda ran in the lighter class,by almost 200kg. Pat

**isuzurover** · 10th April 2012, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by PAT303

Sorry but both of you are wrong,the Mazda ran in the lighter class,by almost 200kg. Pat

Where is your proof??? (btw - if you read properly you will find we were talking about Nissans, not Mazdas).

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Nissan then made the decision to increase the displacement to 2600 cc, and put the car in the 4500 cc class, with the car's weight near-equal to competing cars.

Either way - the bottom line is the rules were changed after superior technology started winning. Bat, ball, etc...

**Pedro_The_Swift** · 28th July 2012, 12:03 PM

Ok ,wankel fans,,
how about this?

This is what a six-rotor Wankel looks and sounds like

**MLD** · 30th July 2012, 09:27 AM

I grew up on a healthy dose of Wankel magic. Mates had 12A and 13B bridge ports, J ports. Not a machine to sneak home quietly at night. Then the turbo made an appearance in the series III RX7. Every mate wanted to jam a 13B turbo into an RX3 or Series I or II RX7. Then there was the much desired RX2 Savana Capella. A good one was worth an annual salary for a young fella on apprentice wages, not to mention the fuel usage of a young lout.

Still have a soft spot for the brap brap and always catches my ear when one drives by. A truly awesome mid life crisis will be jamming a 13B turbo in a MX5. I appreciate it's been done before.

Thanks for rekindling memories of a long ago time.

MLD

Thread: The only 4 rotor wankel ever made,,,

Thread Tools

Some of my Fave Rotor vids

Thanks for rekindling memories

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions