Re: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities

At the track where my Uncle raced dune buggies, there was a Wankel rear engine that sometimes won, but usually ended up 2nd or 3rd. and the sound unmuffled was NASTY....... but it was the only one.

"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."
— Terry Pratchett (Diggers)

From: LarryS <vision1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, March 10, 2011 7:05:34 PM
Subject: RE: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities

Couple o' things.

The wankel rotary isn't a 2 cycle OR a 4 cycle, they are Wankel cycle.

(In fairness, I tend to think of it as 2 stroke, but that's not accurate ;-)

Mazda used the rotary in a full lineup of cars including the RX-7 and their various boxy japanese sedans. After the various apex seal problems, all the sedans dropped the rotary for the mazda 4 cylinder with the RX-7 being the lone rotary in production at all for a while.

2 stack rotaries are commonplace. Even singlestack rotaries are used, but not in cars -- you're talking all of 75 hp or so.

3 stack are common, racing and road cars, but not domestically. They are usually ordered in from Australia or somewhere. Can't make EPA, you know ;-)

4 stack are, to my knowledge, not used anywhere except experimentally on stationary applications like their "spark assisted diesel" project for electrical generation. Yup... a wankel running diesel fuel... except "spark assisted" -- talk about marketing spin.

The 4 stack has a lot of the same kind of crank probs a straight 8 can have. Too much load over too long a shaft, basically.

Among the many reasons the rotary didn't take off were those crummy apex seals -- ironically, now that there's so few of them, they've come out with good seals and the problem is gone.

Also, they never did get good mileage. Ever. That's why I think of them as a 2 stroke engine -- they chugalug the fuel.

The new Mazda Renesis (?) is a production rotary.... 3 or 4 years now? And no, you don't see many of them.

Just in case anyone was gonna lose any sleep over a stupid little japanese engine.

Oh... and if you run one without a muffler, it makes absolutely the nastiest, loudest, and most-annoying sound I have EVER heard from an engine. Talk about something that would invoke road-rage... that'd be it.

From: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Terry Atkins
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 8:31 PM
To: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities

Your exactly right that is why they ended up with the 258 and later v8's. I am sure they were going to be 2 bangers with two of those triangle things in them. They say you can get them with 3 or 4 but they are used mostly for racing because they are so expensive. The Mazda xr7 was the only car I knew of that used them in mass production. While they are an old design I remember when they first were promoted in the 70's they were suppose to be what all cars would have in them in a few short years. They died. I can also remember when the Corvair came out and the VW was in its heyday that a lot of people were saying all cars would be rear engine cars shortly. It died too. I can also remember in 68 when Olds brought out a front wheel drive car that they said it would take over. Well it did but not like the Tornado . They had straight engines with a belt going to the transaxel. Not like the sideway engines we have today.

Terry

From: Todd Tomason <jayscore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, March 10, 2011 9:05:38 PM
Subject: Re: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities

The motor that AMC planned on using was from GM. When GM dropped the project, they had to scramble to come up with something else.

Todd

----- Original Message -----

From: mrmopar00@xxxxxxxxx

To: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 3:44 PM

Subject: Re: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities

Who made the wankel engine?

Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

From: "LarryS" <vision1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sender: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:46:08 -0600

To: <BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

ReplyTo: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: RE: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities

I'm not sure what a '4 banger Wankel' is, but there's some power *available*
in them.

The 13B dual stack is around 140hp, pretty much stock. The 20B three-stack
can be easily fitted with twin-turbos and get a pretty dependable 600hp ;-)
And these engines are WAY lighter than Jeep I-6 or AMC V8s by a long way.

Which is why some homebuilders use them in airplanes.

I am told that the SBC fits in a Pacer easier and better than even their own
360/401... but I dunno.

The only reason I was interested in a front wheel drive for a Pacer (rotary
or otherwise) is just because that's what it started out to be. Kind of a
'redemption' process to go back and make a few things right.

But sure, I totally agree. V8 is a better choice than a I6 if a guy wants a
hot Pacer. Heck, a V8 is a better choice for about EVERYTHING ;-)

L.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eddie Stakes
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:23 PM
> To: BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities
>
> Agreed, they had to change from plan a to plan b on the fly.
> As for underpowered, I am not
> sure that the 4 banger Wankel engine would have been
> sufficient for the Pacer. I think the
> V8 early on would have been best choice, it is what Randall
> AMC in Mesa, AZ was doing, and
> AMC flew out some brass to check out the conversions, and
> figured if they can do it, AMC
> can do it at the factory and rest is history:
>
> http://www.planethoustonamx.com/stuff/randall-gremlin-xr.htm
>
> Eddie Stakes
> 713.464.8825
> eddiestakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.planethoustonamx.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LarryS" <vision1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:21 AM
> Subject: RE: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: Pacer motor mounts oddities
>
>
> > But when you figure the Pacer was never supposed to HAVE
> the Jeep engine,
> > the lack of interchangability makes a lot more sense.
> >
> > It was *supposed* to get the fancy, new, rotary engine in
> *front wheel
> > drive* -- a configuration, I might add, that does not exist
> domestically
> > even to this day.
> >
> > Remember, too, that the 40Mil included not just the initial
> work, but all
> > the re-tooling and re-engineering to PUT that I-6 in there
> -- ain't cheap.
> > They couldn't even use a 4cyl, the car was too heavy! Even
> with the 6, it's
> > a relative dog, but the cornering is wonderful (for the
> time) and the ride
> > is nice so the straight-line laziness was kinda easy to overlook.
> >
> > I had always wanted to do the FWD thing to a Pacer and if I
> could find a
> > decent coupe body (I have a wagon), I'd carve FWD into it
> (perhaps a 3.8 gm
> > setup). In the doing, I'd carve out the huge tunnel, too,
> front seat AND
> > back. It would be very cool, IMO, and be slackjaw
> impressive to any other
> > Pacer owner -- it'd look like it was always supposed to
> have looked ;-)
> > Flat floors, and wide open spaces.
> >
> > Or, I might ditch these Pacers altogether. There's an old
> farmer with an
> > old fastback Marlin (67 or so?) about 4 miles from me. I
> might see if he's
> > emotionally attached to that thing. It didn't look all
> that bad, really.
> > Might drop a 460 in it just to be different.
> >
> > L.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1497/3495 - Release Date: 03/09/11