Delorean finally gets the engine it should have had all along - 3 rotor Wankel
In the late sixties and early seventies, many car companies were enamored with the power density of Wankel rotary engines, including NSU, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz and General Motors. GM ultimately built at least two mid-engine "Corvette" concepts with Wankels, one with two rotors and the other with four. The four-rotor was eventually replaced by a small block to become the Aerovette. When John Z. Delorean left to create his own car, he envisioned it propelled by a rotary engine as well.
As was the case with every other carmaker save Mazda, the Wankel was ultimately abandoned in favor of a piston engine. But one Delorean owner didn't forget the original vision. Through the 1980s and 1990s the only rotary-powered car sold in the US market was the Mazda RX-7 although Mazda did offer the engine in other Japanese-market models. One of those was a coupe called the Eunos Cosmo. The Cosmo eventually got a 2.0L three-rotor version of the engine that put out 300hp. One of these was sacrificed to provide a new heart for the Delorean you see here.
There's more commentary after the jump, and a video, too.
[Source: EliseUSA.com via CarScoop]
The Wankel is bolted to the back of a six-speed gearbox from a 1995 Porsche 911 C2, while the original instrument cluster was swapped out in favor of the electronic cluster from the Cosmo. The end result is a very respectable 0-60mph time of 4.5 seconds, which is less than half the time a stock model would take. If all the Deloreans were as quick as this one and looked as good thanks to the paint job, the boss might not have had to resort to a bungled drug deal to try and save the company.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
chris 9:07AM (5/20/2007)
Aaha, that's one of the coolest cars I've ever seen. Looks great, sounds great, quite fast, what more could you ask for?
Reply
Ian 9:53AM (5/20/2007)
That's a great idea. Except you won't get the engine from my RX7:)
Seriously though, I have always wondered why nobody ever put the rotary engine into a Caterham 7 body/chassis. Now that would make some monster.
Reply
sammy z 9:59AM (5/20/2007)
this is really old,
that has been kicking around for about 3 years now.
Reply
Bryan 11:49AM (5/20/2007)
"this is really old, that has been kicking around for about 3 years now." - sammy z
Hey Sometimes old news is new, news to someone else.
Reply
Phoebe 12:22PM (5/20/2007)
Heeheehee...that was awesome! I loved the intro =)
Reply
Chet 2:09PM (5/20/2007)
Interesting transplant, but I can't help but think it's a net loss to save a DeLorean at the expense of a Cosmo.
Unless maybe somebody shoved an LS2 in the donor Cosmo, in which case automotive yin-yang would be maintained.
Reply
wiggyx 2:31PM (5/20/2007)
"Seriously though, I have always wondered why nobody ever put the rotary engine into a Caterham 7 body/chassis. Now that would make some monster."
It's been done.
Reply
Deezee 5:06PM (5/20/2007)
Thats a bad ass delorian. I wonder how much it would cost.
Reply
LtColumbo 6:15PM (5/20/2007)
Maybe some Wankle expert could answer a question I've had for some time. Why do they get such awful mileage? They seem to be as fuel efficient as an old school 289.
PS: AMC wanted to put a Wankle in the Pacer when it came out too!
Reply
Phil Davis 10:03PM (5/20/2007)
I will tell you one thing....though this car was designed over 15 years ago, it looks FAR better than the new Camaro coming out in the future. DeLoren had a great design and it still is...the Camaro will have $500 rebates within the first year of sales.
GM we knew you when
Reply
Kyle 8:16PM (5/20/2007)
For the love of all that is holy, why did someone paint the Delorean?!?
Nice engine mod but minus 100 pts for entirely missing the Delorean spirit by covering stainless steel in black paint.
Reply
swaggles 9:47PM (5/20/2007)
LtColumbo, Most of the bad gas mileage is due to the difference in the AFR. The AFR on a wankel is lower than a conventional piston engine could even run at. They sure are fun to race though!
Reply
Steven Refta 11:16PM (5/20/2007)
Just for clarification, John De Lorean was not convicted of any drug deal. He was coerced into the deal, and it was ruled to be entrapment. Unfortunately, by the time his name was cleared, everyone knew him as a drug dealer, and his credibility as a business owner was destroyed. It was all political and ultimately, very sad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_delorean#Entrapment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_Motor_Company#Downturn
And I have to agree that anything other than the original stainless steel is a bit of a disgrace. Still, cool mod.
Reply
btman 12:35AM (5/21/2007)
Painting the body panels does seem a bit of a sacrilege, but even so it's nice to see the DMC-12 in a color other than the one we've always seen it in to date. Black is a good choice, like with many of Guigiaro's other "folded-paper" designs.
It's a timeless look, quite unlike the melted-bar-of-soap stylings of the 90s.
Reply
Jon W 2:52AM (5/21/2007)
Really shouldn't have painted over the stainless steel - how about a re-skin with carbon fiber. Now that would be cool!
Reply
Electronicaxle 5:29AM (5/21/2007)
cool and stupid
Reply
ArchAngelEB 7:54AM (5/21/2007)
Honestly, what do they need all that power for. It only needs to get up to 88.8mph. That could be easily done with say a 4 cylinder from a toyota corolla with the transmission from a lawn tractor.
Reply
Phil L. 8:17AM (5/21/2007)
Regarding painted DeLorean's: I always presume that a painted DeLorean has had body damage in the past, and painting it was cheaper than tracking down clean stainless replacement panels. Dealing with body damage was always one of the weak points of the unpainted stainless steel approach.
Reply
saar 8:32AM (5/21/2007)
"Honestly, what do they need all that power for. It only needs to get up to 88.8mph. That could be easily done with say a 4 cylinder from a toyota corolla with the transmission from a lawn tractor"
yeah, except it will take a week to get up there and by that time there wont be any need to jump into the future
Reply
Josh 10:35AM (5/21/2007)
"Maybe some Wankle expert could answer a question I've had for some time. Why do they get such awful mileage? They seem to be as fuel efficient as an old school 289."
I'm not a wankel expert - but I have heard that the reason why wankels are naturally more fuel inefficient and polluting than their piston counterparts is because of the basic inability for the delta shape of the rotor to properly seperate between the 4 otto cycles of internal combustion.
As the rotor spins, it goes through the intake, compression, combustion, exhaust cycles as the rotor spins through the engine. The Apex seals at the corners of the rotor seperate these cycles and the ability for them to do their job is what dictates how efficient and polluting the engine is. They are also known to wear out.
Reply