Knurled wrote:
Mazdax605 wrote:
Why exactly do rotaries need wide engine bays? The engine bay in my SA isn't all that wide,and it could be a lot narrower if you ask me.
The engine itself is fairly wide compared to an inline four, and then you have to put manifolds on it, and they aren't at least up high like an inline has, and THEN you have to fit the steering around it, since the aforementioned crank centerline height means you generally have to get the engine as low as possible.
IIRC, an RX-7 bay is around 40" wide. I found this out when I looked into swapping in a Mustang II frontend to eliminate the strut towers, and found that the crossmember would practically fit inside the rails!
The problem I have always had with the Subaru engine is that it almost always sits completely in front of the axle centre line in the Suby cars. To me that isn't the best place to put the engine.
Like some people fixate on "fender gap", fixating on engine placement isn't necessarily a good thing.
Sure, the Subaru sets the engine in front of the front wheels. Almost all FWD vehicles do too! Think about it: the halfshafts run behind the engine, and the trans output centerline is usually a little in front of the axle centerline.
However... the Subaru engine is light, and almost all of the transaxle is behind the axle centerline. Transverse AWD units put the engine and most of the transaxle ahead of it... so if you care about where the drivetrain sits in relation to the axle, the Subaru method is actually the best.
Now on the rotary the entire engine is behind the axle centre line,or it is on the generation one cars at least.
It's not. Not even on my altered wheelbase car.
I wasn't looking for an argument,and you have valid points. I wasn't fixated on engine placement with the suby engine. I was just mentioning I wasn't a fan of the way of mounting an engine. It's the same to me as the Porsche/ACVW engine placement which puts it so far in the back. I know these are all perfectly suitable engine placements,but I am not a fan of it.
You are right on the crank height being high on a rotary,but in my opinion it isn't a big deal as the engine isn't very tall to begin with even with an intake. How does a 40" wide engine bay compare to other cars? I truly don't know,but I have never considered the engine bay wide on any RX car,and I have had almost every one. Maybe they look large because the engine is so small. I look in the engine bay of my father in laws Falcon,and it looks really super narrow,but maybe it is because there is a fairly wide V8 in there,and the strut towers(maybe there not struts actually I forget) seem like they intrude into the bay way too much. Now if someone was so foolish to drop a 12A in there maybe it wouldn't look so narrow,but maybe I am wrong.
Again I am not looking to argue,but rather wondering if the RX engine bay looks wide with the narrow engine in it.
