Check this out on ebay.


http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI....559223326&rd=1


Some guy asked this question after the seller said engine is a 2.6l


Q. just a bit confused..it says that it is a 13b-t and in then says that it is 2.6l..how is that possible.. you mean 1.3l dont you?


A: If you really know how rotaries work, you would know that the 1.3ltr of a rotary is equivalent to a 2.6ltr piston engine.

LMAO. I'm sorry but that cracked me up. So would a Rx8 13b be equiv to a 5litre? LMAO...... as if you would put what the engine is "equiv" to. haha. If I was the guy who asked the question, I would ask another one saying "were you dropped on your head as a child?"

 

that is fukin funny as hell dude! LMFAO!!! this is classic

 

I thought so.

I'll sell a 2L turbo on there and say that it's a 5l then because the power output compared to some 5l engines is the same... It's no less ridiculous than that comment!

 

my friend was tring to say that to me the other day but i mean im sure the mazda factory took that into consideration when putting out the numbers for the engine

 

actually a piston motor size is based on 2 revolutions of the crankshaft.....a rotary engine is based on 1 revolution........sooooo therefore 2 revolutions of a rotary = 2.6 litres.


and please dont interprit this as arguing, im just stating what ive heard and understood over the past years.

 

Well, I guess its in the sense how how piston engine volumes are measured. a 3.0 Litre piston engine can really only use 1.5 L of it at a time, since half the pistons are up, and half are down.

 

Damn, you're reaply wasnt there when I answered, lol. But you are right, thats the reason.

 

heh, i swing into the 1st gen section every now and then

 

The point I'm making is, no matter how much the engine power is.... the displacement is still the same. You dont say a 1000cc motor bike is the same as a 4litre car... just because of the power.... so you wouldn't label it as a 4litre motor...hahaha.

The funny thing is he said the 13b is a 2.6 litre. The whole point of the engine size section under ebay is to state what kind of motor size.... in this case 1.3.

 

There are arguements that a 13B is either 1.3L, 2.6L or 3.9L...

Arguement 1.) The 13B is 1.3 Liters because this is how much the combustion chamber displaces in one rotation. 1.3L.

Arguement 2.) The 13B is 2.6 Liters because a 2.0Liter 4 cylinder ACTUALLY displaces 1.0Liters in ONE rotation. You get power stroke every TWO rotations. And the 2.0Liter 4 cyl actually displaces it's rated size every TWO rotations. Hence you must measure the displacement of TWO rotations of the rotary. 2.6L.

Arguement 3.) The 13B is 3.9 Liters. When measuring piston displacement, you meansure ALL possible combustion chambers. Since rotaries have 3 combustion chambers per rotor and the rotors spin at 1/3rd the speed of the eccentric shaft, you must measure for 3 rotations to get all 3 rotor faces per rotor in the equasion... 3.9L.

You pick which one you want to agree with, all are valid. Goldenrod, Canary, Saffron, Paella... It's all Yellow.

Most racing organizations rate rotaries at higher than spec displacements when they class the car.

Also, the non USDM Haynes manuals rate rotaries at twice the displacement... Would one of our down under brethern like to share a photo of their Haynes cover or perhaps their registration?

 

Yea, thats for sure. He should have put 1.3L, no doubt about that.

 

Which is what makes this funny. And the response he gave the guy asking.

I'm not disputing what you guys are saying, how the rotary engines can be compared to different sizes....but the fact still stands that it is a 1.3, and you cannot technically call that a 2.6 or anything other than what it is.

Cmon, It's funny!

 

well said!

 

That one is new to me, but interesting...

 

i guess he was worried that people might have been worried that the car wouldn't be too quick with only a 1.3litre motor....

anyone who doesn't know at least that should NOT be buying that car!!

 

Perhaps someone can weigh in on displacement ratings of 2 stroke engines in the old Saabs and such.

 

Least popular of the three, but you can see there is logic behind it.

 

I really don't see what's so funny about it... a 13B DOES displace the same amount of air per revolution as a 2.6.

 

As for what the Haynes says and for registrations here.... papers state it is either a 1.2litre or a 1.3...or a 2.0 for a 20b

And so does the Haynes manual.

And while I do agree about the guy being worried that "1.3" may seem weak to the techincally weak motor knowledge of people & rotaries... if that was the case, he should state the KW/HP of the car. He still sounds like a Moron. haha.

 

So he's a moron for understanding how rotary engines work?

 

i guess its all just a matter in how you interprit things, i would actually think the guy as being more credible for putting 2.6, and then later explaining it.

 

i was gonna state this the moment i read the first post... foiled by a local friend!

 

my thoughts exactly. . .

 

LMFAO- Sometimes people just dont think- I mean if you physically look at the engine... where is there 2.6L ??- I mean hell- I have a Mitsibushi Starion and that is 2.6L and that engine is LONG and FAT... Last evening my Dad and I lifted a 12A out with a broom stick and a rope... seriously...try that with a 2.6L engine....


Ohh well- To each his own though-

 

It's not funny, nor are you making it funny. If you've been around rotaries long enough you know the arguments over displacement ratings for them. Someone buying a rotary powered car and doesn't understand the engine nor thier displacement rating method is an uninformed consumer of something they know nothing about and therefore should not bitch. Those bitching about the ebay add are bitching for the sake of bitching or forcing the more popular OPINION of the method of rating displacement.