From: dheister@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David J Heisterberg)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.tech,
	rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Camaro Z28 SS
Date: 19 Mar 1996 16:47:55 GMT

In article <4ikm8k$3ma@gozer.inri.com>, Robert L Ryder <rlr@inri.com> wrote:
>Of course when I wrote "most efficient engine" I wasn't referring to
>gas mileage for which that terminology is frequently used.  My use of 
>the word "efficient" refers to it being easier (and thus it is more
>"efficient") to generate rotational acceleration with rotational motion 

That's a very hand-waving and pretty much useless definition of
efficient.  The engine really doesn't care that much whether it
rotates or reciprocates.  A more meaningful definition is Brake
Specific Fuel Consumption.  It measures how much work you get out
for a given amount of fuel you put in.  Rotaries don't do so well
there.  Emissions aren't so good either.

But who cares?  Rotaries are great sports car engines.  Due to their
size they can be mounted low and back for good weight distribution.
They can rev high and have a wide power band.  They can run on much
lower octane gas for the same static compression.  They aren't very
popular for mid-engined race cars though since their construction
doesn't allow them to be a stressed member.

Dave Heisterberg