When most people think about what the original group of American astronauts were driving back in the ‘60s, usually Corvettes come to mind. This is a safe bet, because six of the original Mercury Seven astronauts drove ‘Vettes. You math whizzes may note that there’s one astronaut left over. That astronaut was John Glenn, and the car he chose over a Corvette had a quarter the number of cylinders and was about half the size. The first American in orbit drove an NSU Prinz.
I never drove one, so I'm not at cool as John Glenn was. I remember seeing an NSU Prinz (Prince) engine that was partially torn down when I worked in a foreign car repair shop as a college student. It was a "slant" two cylinder, to allow it to fit into the small space above the rear wheels. It had connecting rods that seemed to me to be about twice as long at they should have been.
A friend of Doc's, one of only two B-29 bombers still flying.
NSU also produced a 2-seater variation of the Prinz with a single rotor Wankel engine. It was flying up and down the autobahn and impressing the German car magazines in the early 1960's.
"No limit to the power" "The RPM just keep climbing." NSU had it on sale to the public in 1964.
'Course there was no concern about efficiency, given the wonderful power/weight ratio, and it took a while to discover the time running 'till complete rebuild. American Motors had great plans for their licensed version, but the fuel consumption and durability killed it.
Burning Petard wrote: American Motors had great plans for their licensed version, but the fuel consumption and durability killed it. snailgate
AMC always prided themselves in good MPG. Their fishbowl Pacer was to be the platform for the Wankel. Then they had to shoehorn their 258 CID in-line six into it. I think the rear two cylinders were between the front passenger's feet, it sat that far back. The Pacer was not a bad car, but it sure was odd looking. I did drive one of them when it was almost new. It belonged to my aunt.
A friend of Doc's, one of only two B-29 bombers still flying.
Mazda has talked about reintroducing the rotary for the 2020 model year, as there is an RX-9 in development. The issue, of course, is the wankel engine's natural tendency for higher emissions than the 4-stroke Otto cycle engines.
Death is Nature's way of telling you to slow down.
I had a friend after college who bought a mid 70s Mazda RX-4; as I recall, it was not particularly sporty, got pretty bad gas mileage (not unusual for that time, but gas prices were rising), and had a noticeable exhaust odor. He also had it back in the shop for seal problems many times, and they never quite seemed to fix it (during the warranty period). It was pretty peppy for a "family car", but with all the time in the shop (and in those days you didn't get loaner cars unless you fought with the service manager after going black several times for the same thing), he swore he'd never buy another rotary engine car.
Rotaries are thirsty, fragile, finicky, and dirty...they also guzzle oil. Yep. But then on the other hand--When in college I worked nights in a gas station in Michigan. Somebody in a fancy Porsche pulled in and I asked the standard question for full service back then "Can I check your oil sir?" The driver smiled and said sure, popped the engine cover and went around to the back with me. There the driver pointed out the 20+ quart oil tank, complete with sight glass to check the level. The driver told me, yes they use oil.
The Mazda sports car has a rotary engine for one reason--horsepower to weight ratio. That makes all the other things forgivable. Remember the Miata was developed as a nostalgia trip for those who thought the MGTD was a great car--fun but slow. Many engines from a a RX6 were transplanted into Miata's
On the other hand, Back in the day of the early Mazda rotaries, they did NOT use any more gas than other engines of the same horsepower.
People tend to forget just how much power those tiny engines produced.
Burning Petard wrote:Rotaries are thirsty, fragile, finicky, and dirty...they also guzzle oil. Yep. But then on the other hand--When in college I worked nights in a gas station in Michigan. Somebody in a fancy Porsche pulled in and I asked the standard question for full service back then "Can I check your oil sir?" The driver smiled and said sure, popped the engine cover and went around to the back with me. There the driver pointed out the 20+ quart oil tank, complete with sight glass to check the level. The driver told me, yes they use oil.
The Mazda sports car has a rotary engine for one reason--horsepower to weight ratio. That makes all the other things forgivable. Remember the Miata was developed as a nostalgia trip for those who thought the MGTD was a great car--fun but slow. Many engines from a a RX6 were transplanted into Miata's
On the other hand, Back in the day of the early Mazda rotaries, they did NOT use any more gas than other engines of the same horsepower.
People tend to forget just how much power those tiny engines produced.
snailgate
I know that a Corvette made more power than a turbo RX7...yet used no more fuel, despite more power and more than 4x the displacement. The RX8 uses as much fuel as my 2-ton, 340HP Magnum. and more than a fire-breathing 400HP (nearly twice the RX8's power) 6 litre Corvette.
A buddy of mine had a mazda with a rotary engine. He always carried more then a few extra quarts of oil.
After he got rid of the mazda he got a vega and ended up with a warped head. Then he carried extra oil and extra antifreeze.
