New Favorite Gif

Makes me want to go back to school.

sunny77: uploader didn't want to upload this for whatever reason

uploader didn't want to upload this for whatever reason

uploaded elsewhere since imagemeep doesn't like nice things.

ps: your meep smells delicious

_{On 2010-11-20 at 23:49:16, sunny77 asked to smell your meep}

ghostrider:

sadiesue:

sunny77:

Now, this just looks uncomfortable!

For whom?

looks like a good time for all parties involved

sadiesue:

sunny77:

Now, this just looks uncomfortable!

For whom?

sunny77:

Now, this just looks uncomfortable!

sunny77:

Delicious synchronicity.

Dismas: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/TTSGA.gif/220px-TTSGA.gif/img]

<img src=http://example.com/filename.gif>

_{On 2010-11-19 at 21:39:46, MstrLance asked to smell your meep}

CLAVOEDIT: To alleviate Dismas' suffering from acute retardation.

_{On 2010-11-20 at 01:15:50, Clavis_Apocalypticae asked to smell your meep}

Clavis_Apocalypticae:

I SWEAR she didn't look like that back at the bar.

Whittey:

Richard_Parker: What god posted is a rotary engine. Common misconception. A Wankel is a rotary, but a rotary is not a Wankel, in a sense.

That'd be a radial, not a rotary.

^ This.

To my knowledge, Wankel never made a piston radial. His claim to fame was the design of the rotary. I only know any of this because the very first model I ever built was a scale Wankel Rotary with lights for plugs and a clear crank case so you could watch that beautiful meeping design actually work.

Whittey:

Richard_Parker: What god posted is a rotary engine. Common misconception. A Wankel is a rotary, but a rotary is not a Wankel, in a sense.

That'd be a radial, not a rotary.

Brainfart. Thanks for the correct. I mix those up sometimes because of this:

Richard_Parker: What god posted is a rotary engine. Common misconception. A Wankel is a rotary, but a rotary is not a Wankel, in a sense.

That'd be a radial, not a rotary.

What god posted is a rotary engine. Common misconception. A Wankel is a rotary, but a rotary is not a Wankel, in a sense.

sunny77:

facial fail FTW

Stupits.

godevillivedog: I thought Mitsubishi or somebody used wankels on the Japanese zero's during WW1 but I guess it was something more like this.

Wankles didn't have pistons. You are all retardeds. Please stop retardeding.

I thought Mitsubishi or somebody used wankels on the Japanese zero's during WW1 but I guess it was something more like this.

nocal:

:Vomits noisily:

Wankels are notoriously unreliable, especially the 13a. They stepped it up with the 13b in the late 80's but when they went twin turbo with it the reliability went back to meep. The amazing thing about the wankel's is the power to displacement/weight ratio. The early 90's twin turbo's were a 1.3 litre engine that put out close to 260HP stock and I've seen 400-500HP numbers after significant modding. That's ridiculous. There are bigger motors found in most harleys. I don't know how the RX-8's are in terms of reliability, though they can't be much worse then the early 90's TT's. An elegant design for a motor, though it took them nearly 30 years to make a reliable version of it.

Richard_Parker:

Whittey: They're inefficient and expensive to manufacture. Reliability can be an issue (queue someone saying how a friends friend had 2 million miles on their 1200hp rx7). They're also generally have little low end torque. Wikipedia's advantages/disadvantages section is only moderately fanboyish and might be worth a read. -=Whittey=-

I don't find the torque thing to be an issue- rotaries are typically built light (plus wankels are naturally significantly lighter than piston engines) to counteract that. I mean, you obviously wouldn't put a rotary in your heavy-duty truck or SUV, but I never understood why people drive those to their office jobs, anyway.

The fuel efficiency also tends not to be much of an issue- buying an RX means your car is lighter than the car you probably would have bought, so it almost evens out. I barely noticed a difference between my RX-7 and my 6-cyl Monte Carlo, and it didn't appreciably effect my wallet.

Also, I know this isn't widely applicable, but many people find its unreliability to be an upside. I was really excited when I came back from vacation once and realized I forgot to ask someone to drive my RX-7 a few times while I was away. The apex seal cracked, which meant total engine rebuild! w00t!

They are definitely expensive to produce, though.

In the end, if you enjoy cars, and you think wankels are cool or interesting, it's well worth the extra coin- especially if you enjoy working on engines.

This is how fox's and coyotes hunt for rodents in the winter. The rodents stay under the snow and close to the ground where it's actually a lot warmer. The hunter will listen for them and then pounce through the crust of the snow to catch 'em. Neat stuff!

nurglets:

nocal: someone with engineering knowledge: why don't more cars use a rotary engine? _{On 2010-11-10 at 21:05:20, nocal asked to smell your meep}

nocal: someone with engineering knowledge: why don't more cars use a rotary engine? _{On 2010-11-10 at 21:05:20, nocal asked to smell your meep}

has anyone in this family even seen a chicken?

They did that? That's retarded. I wonder why it wasn't very popular.

I was posting more of a general review. Mazda did offer a pickup with a 13b and they even rebranded some 3500lb Holden's and put the 13b in there... My old '89 F150 only weighed about 300lbs more than that.

[insert awesome gif here]

-=Whittey=-

I'm 6'6". I takes what I can gets in which I can fits.

thanks for the replies, whittey and richard parker. i figured there had to be some major reason.

(omg richard parker drove a meeping monte carlo lol)

Whittey: They're inefficient and expensive to manufacture. Reliability can be an issue (queue someone saying how a friends friend had 2 million miles on their 1200hp rx7). They're also generally have little low end torque. Wikipedia's advantages/disadvantages section is only moderately fanboyish and might be worth a read. -=Whittey=-

I don't find the torque thing to be an issue- rotaries are typically built light (plus wankels are naturally significantly lighter than piston engines) to counteract that. I mean, you obviously wouldn't put a rotary in your heavy-duty truck or SUV, but I never understood why people drive those to their office jobs, anyway.

The fuel efficiency also tends not to be much of an issue- buying an RX means your car is lighter than the car you probably would have bought, so it almost evens out. I barely noticed a difference between my RX-7 and my 6-cyl Monte Carlo, and it didn't appreciably effect my wallet.

Also, I know this isn't widely applicable, but many people find its unreliability to be an upside. I was really excited when I came back from vacation once and realized I forgot to ask someone to drive my RX-7 a few times while I was away. The apex seal cracked, which meant total engine rebuild! w00t!

They are definitely expensive to produce, though.

In the end, if you enjoy cars, and you think wankels are cool or interesting, it's well worth the extra coin- especially if you enjoy working on engines.

They're inefficient and expensive to manufacture. Reliability can be an issue (queue someone saying how a friends friend had 2 million miles on their 1200hp rx7). They're also generally have little low end torque.

Wikipedia's advantages/disadvantages section is only moderately fanboyish and might be worth a read.

-=Whittey=-

someone with engineering knowledge:

why don't more cars use a rotary engine?

_{On 2010-11-10 at 21:05:20, nocal asked to smell your meep}