Talk:Wankel engine

message: Article suggests that because some Wankel Engines don’t expose their oil to the combustion chamber there is no need for an oil change. This is misleading because oil breaks down with heat and oxidation so that even in ideal conditions it is still going to require oil changes as that oil breaks down with time. 174.246.130.111 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: An example an Audi NSU RO80 need no oil change. The oil is only topped up and the oil filter is changed from time to time.--HDP (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Depending on which oil. Fully synthetics last and last if not contaminated. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation about oil changes 

message: Information was scattered about. for example, motorcycles was in two separate sections. I restructured the article added sections and merged text from differing sections.  Now it is more readable. Wisdom-inc (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructured article

message: I've reverted (most of) your recent changes of "Wankel" to the more vague "rotary", as "Wankel" is used purposefully in this article to avoid confusion with other types of rotary engines. While you're welcome to disagree with me, this has long been this way in the article, and really needs to be discussed before being changed again. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problems with that. But the manufacturers do call the engine a rotary. Wisdom-inc (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And so do the myriad fan-people who occasionally show up at Rotary engine or its talk page to tell us that the article is incorrect! BilCat (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wankel or rotary 

message: After years of additions and deletions the article was all over the place. I greatly re-restructured and tidied it up, making it easier to read an navigate thru. The contents page shows it is now easier to navigate. The disadvantages appear to have been largely eradicated on the engine, with some disadvantages now largely myth, so this may need some work. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article re-structured

message: I has been suggested that the Cars section be split off into a separate article. Parts of the car section does provide tech info and history. Also most of the applications of the engine has been in cars. I think it should stay. Wisdom-inc (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting article

message: I think it's best to briefly comment on that particular edit to make my own editing transparent, and more comprehensible. User:HDP introduced a comparison of the C-W RC2-47 and the MTU MB 873-Ka 501. No source make the described comparison, which is problematic because the edit effectively introduces an unreferenced opinion (i. e., original research). This alone is a reason to revert, but there are additional things very wrong (which is the reason why I'm making this edit on the talk page). If we ignore the aforementioned OR, then the biggest problem is that the RC2-47 engine does not exist, i. e., it is a proposed design of an engine and thus all technical specifications were obtained using some sort of mathematical model. The cited source () clearly indicates this by stating that figures are estimates. Therefore, comparing this hypothetical model with a production engine in the presented context is unreasonable and misleading. The false depiction of the MTU MB engine as a common-rail engine also adds to the misleading of the reader – in fact, it is antechamber-injected, which is significantly less efficient than the claimed common-rail injection and presents the illusion that common-rail engines are not as efficient as they actually are. The MTU MB 873-Ka 501 was designed in the early 1970s (maybe even late 1960s), which is a disadvantage when compared against something that is effectively 20 years newer (the Advanced stratified charge rotary aircraft engine design study foresees that the C-W RC2-47 might be introduced in the 1990s). Therefore, I technically reverted Special:Diff/1089152178 on 17 December 2022 with Special:Diff/1127989616. Best regards, -- Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We should also not underestimate your Bogus claims regarding the first Diesel, the fuel consumption was lousy. The values that are so published come from the 22/40 and not from the first diesel engine 15/40. Even the 22/40had a specific consumption of 519g/kWh at the beginning.  15/40 and 22/40 were not pure diesels and still had spark ignition.It was not until early ~August 1895 that the 22/40 no longer relied on spark ignition. Furthermore, specific consumption in Nov 1895 was 350g/PSh= 476g/kWh at 167 rpm and maximum power ~12hp. HDP (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Special:Diff/1089152178]]: Removing of the comparison between the C-W RC2-47 and the MTU MB 873-Ka 501 

message: The previous edit introduced a lot of assumptions/claims, including the conspiracy theory that the Wankel engine's poor efficiency and emissions behaviour have been solved with a revolutionary new technology. A good look reveals that the edit was blatant advertising for a Wankel engine manufacturer. The "referencing" is WP:REFSPAM (as I have demonstrated and explained back in December), and don't get fooled by the patents. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Special:Diff/1131314528]] 

message: The formulae are difficult to interpret without illustrations showing what each parameter means. Laranjatomate (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration missing on volumes calculations