faithofadragon

figured this might open up some interesting discussions. A thread devoted to "what if?"



Ill start



The year is 1974. Nixon Resigns from the Watergate Scandal, Visionz is born, and Stocker begins his 5th Sophomore year of high school. In Warren, Michigan, General Motors is working on the General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine (GMRCE). This motor, designed to be placed into the 1974 Vega showed TONS of promise. Incredible reliability over piston motors (500k miles) BUT there was a problem. It wouldn't pass emissions.



After tinkering with it, they got it to pass emissions, but it lowered fuel mileage. Emissions standards weakened so they tried to combine best of both worlds, decent emissions output and better mpgs. They didn't succeed. Motors began to fail. Eventually the entire project was scrapped (even though they didn't meet the 1974 model year deadline, they still had to pay $10 million bucks for licensing on the motor) and GM didn't release a rotary motor.



Here's the what if?



What if GM figured it out? Since GM had more resources available to them than Mazda at the time, do you believe the rotary motor would have survived and had more technological advancements to it by now?



Would they have released more of them in other vehicles?



Discuss

i8acobra

No. Rotaries are just a bad concept. That's why they failed. You can't fix a bad idea with continued R&D.

Visionz

I doubt it would have survived. Ford, Chrysler, GM were all on a mission to create a common engine (piston style) that had the best of both worlds (reliability and mileage).



And BTW...I wasnt born in 1974 dick! lol

pnutkitten

Pulling out of your driveway... and there goes your apex seals...

WytchDctr

I am not sure they would have ever gotten past a few flaws - one it consumes more fuel than a piston engine of the same output and doesn't output enough to catch the eye of those that dont care and want big power fuel mileage be damned. Thats not even looking at fuel consumption vs the displacement difference. I think they could have figured out some of the other things like the flooding issue if you cold start it then shut it off to quick, the carbon lockups for those that don't drive it hard enough, and with GMs resources they may have found a material or a oiling solution for the apex seal failures. I think Mazda had the market the rotary could have lived in cornered - light weight awesome handling cars where its center of gravity advantages shine.

wheel_of_steel

Actually most car companies dabbled with rotaries in the 60s and 70s - including GM, toyota, mercedes, and rover to name but a few. The rotary showed real promise, but kinda like electric vehicles, it takes a LOT of oomph to get a new idea to overcome the entrenched ideas about How Things Are Done Here.



What if the we didn't have big taxes placed on diesel? When's it my turn for reasonably priced torque monsters with 40 mpg, taut suspension, and maintenance that doesn't require a degree in computer science?

Tibbi

Actually economics is the reason. Since regular unleaded was (at the time) cleaner and standard gasoline was the norm, despite diesel being easier to produce it was taxed at a much higher rate so that gasoline could sell for a smaller price but the govt could still reap the monetary rewards.



Econ 101: screw you, we're gunna get paid.

wheel_of_steel

Same story in australia. The bizarre thing is that 99% of our trucks run on diesel, and 99% of the country gets its freight delivered on trucks, so...







Anyway I just want this



http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/skoda/o...s-20-litre-tdi