Why don’t manufacturers make modular single cylinder engines that can be bolted together? It would simplify a lot of things if your entire lineup used the same modular engine block.

Why? You're adding weight, complexity and extra points of failure for no reason. It isn't difficult for a big manufacturer to take their inline 6 design and convert it to an inline 4 and then produce new tooling for that block if that is something they wanted to do.

>>28456374 (OP)
Jaguar's V6 is a V8 with 2 cylinders blocked out

>>28456393
No it's not

>>28456396
Prove it>>28456396

>>28456393
>didn't even make the block smaller
fucking lmao

>>28456399
The weight of a v8 with the power of a v6.

Lazy engineering.

>>28456374 (OP)
8 million head gaskets surely can never go wrong.

>>28456374 (OP)
For what purpose?

>>28456374 (OP)
Because its not really modular. "Modular" implies components can be added or removed as warranted.
On a rotary, each configuration has a different crankshaft. A 4 rotor engine will always be a 4 rotor engine, you just have repetitive parts.

>>28456374 (OP)
They do/did
>Pontiac v8/i4
>Buick v8/v6
>GM ATLAS i4/i5/i6
>Toyota i6/v12
>>>28456393 this thing

>>28456374 (OP)
That would most likely take up significantly more space than a single cast block with the amount of pistons you're looking for.

>>28456374 (OP)
The fact that after over a century of design, innovation, and mass production of IC engines nobody does this kind of tells you that it's a bad idea. If it were a good idea, it would already be a thing by now.

>>28456404
How much more does a V8 with a shorter rotating assembly weigh than a V6?

>>28456615
I speak fluent autist so let me elaborate for OP:
>you just have repetitive parts.
Thats what OP was getting at: he likely doesn't know rotaries use different crankshafts whenever you go from a 1 to 2 rotor, or 2 to 3, or 3 to 12 rotor engine. However what he is correct about after watching 4-rotor videos is 3 of those "cylinders" are identical, 3 of those cylinder walls are identical. I'm not well versed in rotaries but I thought I saw Dahm's 4 rotor is somewhat modular where the individual lobes are modular and splined but the overall crank is not. I may be mistaken because rotaries are cool on paper and idiotic in practice and don't care all that much.
What likely came to him in a vision is a V2 engine for example and if you wanted to go to a V4, V6, V8, or V10 you just bolt on another V2 cylinder section, and use a longer crank and longer cylinder head or just individual cylinder heads like you sometimes find on the massive (25 liters and up) diesel engines on generators or tractors for example. (pic related). Maybe you could spline crank shafts to work in different lengths but that doesn't seem as strong to me?

That all makes sense as a theory only: but what OP isn't considering is the machining and casting time to make many small parts instead of 1 big part such as a V8 block. Then on top of that you have so many machining tolerances and mating surfaces, it could never be as reliable as a traditional V8 engine for example. Someone else >>28456562 pointed out one of rotary's many flaws: even if a master engine builder puts it all together, you have so many fucking failure points it just cannot work long term and certainly not as a performance application.

>>28456374 (OP)
Retards decided to develop piston engines. Retards cant admit their own fault and doubled down on their decision.

>>28456847
Similarly, OP mentioned "modular single cylinder engines" or basically what those fuckin russians do for a laugh on the internet. These jerkoffs made a V16 out of single cylinder chainsaw engines. Thats basically the modularity OP was talking about, but in reality its just not efficient for any metric. Too big, too heavy, too many losses, overly complicated, etc. What I said about the V2 cylinder section still applies: you end up introducing too many seals for oil, water, and pressure to fuck it all up.

>>28456699
GM's done it twice with their 4.3 V6s as well. The original was a gen 1 350ci small block Chevy with two cylinders cut off, and they did the same thing for the newer 4.3 with an (imaginary) 350ci version of the LT series gen 5 V8.

>Hello everyone, today I'm going to cut these two engines apart with a hacksaw and weld them together

>>28456615
No shit you have to use a longer crankshaft. It's still modular

>>28456847
After the apocalypse perhaps manufacturing will follow "parts commonality" guidelines to supply different configurations with the limited resources available.
But as of right now we use the correct tool for the job.
We CAN break down an engine to components like a motorcycle and have cylinders and heads independent from eachother but that winds up with even more complicated assembly. It works on a rotary because there is no timing set- its just port size/placement like on a 2 stroke dirt bike which leaves very little for modifications or tuning for specific applications.
On a typical engine I can just swap out cam(s) and have a completely different power curve. On a rotary i have to modify the ports on the case which takes talent to balance. Go too far and you just ate a case.
A truly modular engine platform doesnt exist because it actually becomes much more complicated in the end.

>>28457055
To elaborate more...
Think about the motor mount boss'.
They have to be machined.
In OPs idea, each case either have to be machined to be used singularly or there would be some."master" component somewhere.
And what about oil supply?
Does each section supply their own or can they be joined?
If they're independent then thats additional pumps for each.
If theyre shared then theres machined surfaces to couple or block off depending on application. Thats more steps in manufacturing and assembly.

Im not saying the concept is bad.
But in practice it doesnt work.
Doesn't matter anyways, everything will be electric before you die.
My grandfather was born in 1909, into a world where the U.S. had 200,000 cars. Now there are 2,500,000 just in L.A.

>>28456847
as a rotary autist I can confirm 2 rotors and 4 rotors share very little parts, really just the rotor housings could be shared in theory but the mazda oem 4 rotors housings and irons they made for racing are not compatible with 2 rotor housings/irons for whatever reason. 3 rotors are even weirder because there's an extra long center iron section and even though the e-shaft lobes are 120 degrees apart they're not equally spaced longitudinally on the shaft. I'm pretty sure only the front cover can be swapped between 2-3 rotor engines. but if you were insane you could use 4 rotor parts to build 4, 5, and 6 (etc) rotor engines though it does start to get absurd. and obviously you would need a custom e-shaft and oil pan at the minimum. tl;dr if you were designing a wankel from scratch you COULD make it modular if you wanted but mazda didn't.

>>28457077
>single digit rotors
pleb

>>28457211
let me know when the clout chasing marketing executive who was on the bachelorette actually gets it running. don't get me wrong it's interesting but the only reason this one of one prototype was resurrected was for the views. I give rob shit, obviously he's smart enough and has enough money to do whatever he wants. but he's definitely some type of narcissist, and his fan base is mostly underage. wouldn't be surprised if his nuclear physicist father traumatized him into being a high acheiver.

>>28457272
No need to seethe
https://youtu.be/kQ66kYFU4d4?si=ywGDyZoJ274kRz0K
https://youtu.be/ow2u-h4FAB4?si=huA39W8jIVWXlY_1

>>28457277
>clickbait titles
pottery

anyway not sure why you think I haven't seen these, I have. sure it ""runs"" but an engine like that should make way more power, obviously he has a long way to go. I hope you're not an adult because worshipping ecelebs over the age of 12 is pretty cringe my guy. he's just a person with more money than you and a camera.

>>28457272
>>28457281
One image that is tangentially related to a random yewchewber and you are THIS asshurt? What causes schizos to freak the fuck out like this? We never should have closed those insane asylums.

>>28457292
underage retards posting annoying ecelebs deserve to be made fun of. the fact that you think I'm even mad about this says I must have struck a nerve. I don't even dislike his videos, they're decent background noise. but it's irrelevant to the topic because it's a bespoke one off prototype made by a lone engineer that rob bought, not a mass produced "modular" engine.

Yeah, that's 'tism alright.

>>28457281
>but an engine like that should make way more power
Started it once, on wastegate, and it made like 2000 horsepower on like half throttle. How much do you think it should be making? It could've made 300,000 horsepower and you'd still piss your pants about how much you hate it.

>>28457298
and he breaks half the engine and has to disassemble it every time he runs it lol. if you do the standard back of the napkin math a 2 rotor turbo 1.3l is roughly equivalent to a 2.6 liter so it can make about 400 hp conservatively on pump gas if studded and whatnot. which means that thing should be making in excess of 3000 hp on E85.

>>28457304
And there it is. Not enough power per liter. Got it. I know your car adheres to your specific engine requirements, right?

>>28457388
christ the rob damn underage defense force is really on /o/ today. obviously it's a dyno queen ""build"" for views and clout so yeah I expect it to make above average hp/liter and not melt down with 3 huge turbos, E85, and fully custom engine management. now go back to his discord.

>>28456562
it's literally just one giant oring between each plate and some hylomar.

>>28457399
>obviously it's a dyno queen ""build"" for views
But he's putting it into a top fuel drag chassis.

And again, it made like 2000hp on half throttle without any tuning. You're irrationally upset over someone actually doing stuff with rotary engines.

>>28457444
Imagine.... no o-ring and no hylomar!

Isn't one of the reasons that rotary engines "work" at all because they already make rotational power so they operate very smoothly? I assume that a piston engine that uses a similar design would see way more wear on gaskets/mating surfaces between "cylinder modules" because translating linear motion into rotational motion is a mess outside of a perfectly balanced I6 configuration

>>28456824
35-45 lbs probably. Also its pushing the motor further up but I doubt modern Jaguar owners care

>>28456374 (OP)
It's a lost art.

>>28458120
It's almost as if we learned to sand cast

>>28457899
>is a mess outside of a perfectly balanced I6
So sick of this bullshit.
Ford Indy V8 revs to 12k
ZX10 I4 revs to 15k

>>28458523
Try getting a i4 with more than 2 litres of displacement to rev to 15k retard
>look guys my single cylinder RC car does 50,000RPM!!!

>>28458531
Are you intentionally exaggerating because of rotational mass, piston mass, and overall durability?

They do in fact make 2.5L engines that rev to like 14k but they're prohibitively expensive and often break because of their use in drag racing. Billet block, aluminum pistons/rods, insane amounts of boost and hundreds of hours of tuning.

I think Lamborghini is still working on carbon fiber connecting rods and even got a working test mule with it to allegedly rev a V12 to like 12,000rpm. But the rods were something like $40,000 for the set.

>>28458563
I'm explaining to you the very real physical reason perfomance 4 cylinders were capped at 2L for decades and the reason why engines larger than that almost always had balance shafts in the domestic market.

DID SOMEBODY SAY MODULAR?

>>28458531
>ignores the 5L V8 Indy spinning at 12k
What a fucking retard.
Post 6 cylinders that rev to 15k

>>28459203
ez

>>28459347
Shitty troll.

>>28458523
Sure, but an i4 and v8 would require different balancing solutions, right? So it is difficult to imagine making a modular solution that lets you arbitrarily add cylinders in the same fashion that you can (sort of) just add another rotor. It makes much more sense to engineer an i4 solution if that is what you want, rather than some modular individual cylinder that can be daisy chained

>>28459431
>he doesn't know