Did they fix the reliability and oil consumption for Rotary? The rx8 ate a lot of oil cause the oil lubricating it evaporates. Also the Rx7 rubber hoses tends to wear down over time.<p>While the rotary did won Le Man 24 hr endurance race, it is still plagues with problem. These problems isn't because Pistons are better but because Pistons had tons of time refining it. Rotary so far have been neglected and it seems like EV/battery technology will be the future while hybrid is just an intermediate step between oil and electric.<p>Another interesting engine that GM tried was Turbine, jet engine for cars. It sound like a vacuum cleaner.
I know the intent for this engine isn't for road-legal cars, but...<p>This runs on Diesel, and advertises a low-temperature exhaust; can someone who knows more tell me if diesel's need hot exhaust for emissions reduction? I know that they tend to use EGR for NOx, but every car with a diesel I've seen still has a catalytic converter to do <i>something</i>.
The benefit and trouble with rotary engines is their reliability -- fewer moving parts means they'll generally fail less during their life cycle, and running them under higher loads / higher output, within their specifications, will generally not reduce the life expectancy (as in, run a 100HP rotary continually at 30 or 100, nearly the same running life).<p>But they will have a shorter overall lifespan. That large moving inner chamber and the outer chamber walls around it will wear down, and when they fail you replace a significant amount of that combustion chamber (or just junk the entire motor).<p>It's a neat application of the technology, and particularly in contexts where either the motor is going to run for long periods at a specific speed or not be used all the time, it could make a great option for power generation.
From Another Article: The compact design of LiquidPiston's lab engine currently tips the scales at 80 lbs for the 40-hp model. It would weigh less than 50 lbs in production, the company claims, far less than a comparable 40-hp diesel that would tip the scale at around 400 lbs. [1]<p>How on earth do you get a 400lb diesel engine that ONLY produces 40HP. First, when comparing engines for power production, you should really talk about kW production capability, not HP. Engine's HP is only half the story, you also have to talk about it's torque.<p>I know rotary engines are a cool technology, but something about this smells like BS.<p>[1]<a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a8174/liquidpistons-hyper-efficient-engine-turning-the-rotary-inside-out-13817971/" rel="nofollow">http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a8174/liquidpistons-hyp...</a><p>Edit: citation added
The efficiency is mentioned, but I don't see any numbers telling how efficient it is, which is what I really wanted to hear. (Just numbers about how small it is.)
This is a version of a Wankel Engine, right?<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine</a><p>Originally invented and patented way back in 1929.