German supercar produces 670 hp to 1,073 hp. using E85 gets 90% GHG reduction

[JohnWxy]

the engine is a Mazda four rotor Wankel engine - with insane turbo-charging.

Before anybody goes ballistic on me this is not offered as a example of a good average people mover car. This article is posted just to show what CAN be done with a high octane fuel like ethanol and some engineering effort.

http://rotarynews.com/node/view/1122

Rotary Super Cars Germany is a young company with the goal of offering symbiosis of high performance vehicles and active environment to create new benchmarks in the areas, power efficiency, value for money or the use of high-tech materials.

~~
~~

Drivetrain:

The RSC Raptor GT S, RS, RSR and N-Spec does not have a conventional drive system as used in most of today's super sports cars. He has a self-developed and heavily modified, based on parts of the Mazda 13B MSP, high-performance engine with four rotors (4-Rotor rotary engine) and, depending on the model, a water-to-air intercooled turbo or biturbo system. This engine is the heart of the RSC Raptor GT™ and gives him his very special temperament. The power output of a rotary engine uniformly grows with increasing rpm. The high-performance engine in the RSC Raptor GT™ has the redline set depending on the selected driving mode, up to 7,500 rpm or 9000 rpm. The fuel E85 is used, which is produced from rapeseed. By using this fuel to reduce the emissions by about 90% is feasible.
(more)

more here: http://www.worldcarfans.com/110100528830/rotary-super-cars-unveils-the-raptor-gt#ixzz11VugzrTl


future versions go higher.....don't they know ethanol is a lousy fuel????LOL

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=24223">GERMAN SUPERCAR AIMS FOR 2800HP

~~
~~
In basic form, its power will come from a 2.6-litre, four-rotor, twin-turbo rotary engine. This will, its creators assure the world via their website, produce 1200hpand 1110lb ft of torque, running on E85 bio-ethanol and yet produce the emissions of a car with just 120hp.

Performance should be equally impressive, with 62mph dealt with in less than 3.0secs, 125mph reached in less than 7.0secs, and 250mph from rest on the cards in 25.0secs.

And that's just the basic car. Rotary Supercars also reckons on creating a 2800 hp, 2580 lb-ft of torque, version with a 5.2-litre, quad-turbo eight-rotor engine. Performance for that? How about 0-62mph in 0.9secs and 0-250mph in 4.8secs?

You certainly can't deny that RSC is a company with a lot of ambition, if not (from the looks of it ) all that much sanity. Honestly, take a look at the http://rotarysupercars.de/new/english/specs.html">specification section of Rotary Supercars Germany's website. It's quite a giggle...

[Bill USA]

1. 90% GHG emissions reduction! Uh-oh, Don't tell the EPA (or Dept of Energy)

EPA, Dept OF ENERGY

[JohnWxy]

8. the image! - LOL. RIGHT!

[Old and In the Way]

2. So if the engine is scaled down to 25% of it's current size (2.6L),

would the same set-up produce an engine producing 125HP? If so, that would be a real breakthrough on fuel/pollution/efficiency standards.

[JohnWxy]

5. This is really a very high performance engine. It requires some very expensive parts. A better way

to go to achieve downsizing benefit is an engine designed by three MIT scientists. It's known as the Ethanol Enabled Direct Injection Engine (http://www.ethanolboost.com) uses 5% ethanol and gets 30% better fuel efficiency than a similarly powered gasoline engine. Cost to build: $1,000 to $1,500. It doesn't approach the specific power output of the Raptor supercars but is much more feasible for average buyer.

.... one big problem, we need many more ethanol blenders pumps to make this a realistic undertaking for any of the automakers (Ford has made a prototype engine which performed just as the MIT designers predicted it would). Only Exxon-Mobil et al won't stand for that.

IF all the cars on the road were using this engine we would achieve a 28% reduction in gas consumption (by the light vehicle sector). That's a no-no to Exxon-Mobil et al. At the marginal price mentioned above, this engine would be adopted much faster than hybrids ($4,000 marginal cost) and PHEVs ($15,000 to $20,000 marginal cost) by the general public. Thus, this represents a much more imminent threat to the oil companies than electrics which will give the oil companies plenty of time to adapt (20 years to achieve perhaps 10% to 15% reduction in gas consumption). The oil industry has no intention of letting the Ethanol Direct Injection Engine become a reality.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01">Oil & Gas Industry political contributions - OpenSecrets.com

[TheWraith]

3. Interesting, but ultimately I suspect a dead end.

It's a nice technical achievement, for sure. But right now we have PRODUCTION electric cars on the market which do 0 to 60 in 3.6 seconds, and don't require even synthetic fossil fuels like ethanol. They've probably got a future in racing, and the "stupid rich guy" demographic, but I doubt it's the next Ford.

[JohnWxy]

7. as I said: .....(see quote)

"This article is posted just to show what CAN be done with a high octane fuel like ethanol and some engineering effort."


a practical example of taking advantage of the high octane ethanol property is the MIT designed engine that gets 30% better fuel economy than a similarly powered gasoline engine car, using 5% ethanol (and 95% gas) for a build cost of $1,000 to $1,500.( http://www.ethanolboost.com )

NOt to worry though, Exxon Mobil, et al, isn't about to let the government get behind this engine. Exxon Mobil is much more friendly to electrics as it will give oil companies decades to adapt to loss of sales to transportation market.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=311599&mesg_id=311606

[JohnWxy]

9. The Government Comes Through For Tesla With A $465 Million Loan For Its Electric Sedan

.. i don't know how much was loaned, guaranteed before this loan.

http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/23/the-government-comes-through-for-tesla-with-a-465-million-loan-for-its-electric-sedan/


all the MIT engine would need is some help getting some blenders pumps installed across the country (Exxon Mobil et al aren't too interested in helping any - lol).

[CJvR]

4. Huh?

A Wankel engine is insanely fuel inefficient, it is simply impossible to get a tight fit at the edge of the rotor.

http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60&Itemid=71

It has traditionally been one of those ideas that look good on the drawing board but sucks in reality. In a supercar that hardly matters since the advantages of a light, smooth running engine are considerable.

[JohnWxy]

6. Mazda seems to like them ... and sell a 'few'

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsMain&vehicleCode=RX8#/home">THE 2011 MAZDA RX-8


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Wankel_engine

[CJvR]

10. Yeah...

...it seem as if there have been major improvements - which is good, I always liked the Wankel's elegant simplicity. However improved it seems still to be a bit thirsty - not a good thing as fuel grows ever more expensive.

Found a comparisson test:
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=4402&vf=1

[JohnWxy]

11. as I said in OP this is not offered as a practical car for average buyer.. The MIT designed ethanol

direct injection engine is. Cost to build: $1,000 - $1,500 - 30% improvement in fuel consumption over engine of similar power using gasoline. fully scalable. uses 5% ethanol (95% gasoline). This means our entire fleet could be supplied by a volume of ethanol equalling 5% of our fuel supply. We now meet 10% of our fuel supply with ethanol.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x311599#311606