I just baught an 86 base model non turbo and was wondering the cheapest way to get close to 200 hp on a rotary. I dont know too much about them and Id appreciate any ideas. Thanks

 

Flywheel or rear wheels?

Cheapest way is probably to do a turbo swap.

Look in the archive, there's a thread on making a beefy NA in there. You really need porting (pull engine completely apart, open up intake ports slightly, put engine back together) to make 200 to the wheels, but there are people getting pretty close to 200 at the wheels with the stock ports.

-=Russ=-

 

who is getting close to 200hp n/a w/ stock ports? heh no one I know, unless they're sprayin.

 

Full exhaust.
Engin management such as / standalone-magasquirt-safc-2
Ignition such as / jacobs - msd 6a
Plug wires
E-fan like moroso-flex a lite
solid motor mounts
port UIM and LIM
TB mod

This should yield you atleast 200HP without braking into the motor.

Or if you dont like the beefy method get a 75shot of N2o

 

he's pretty close with stock ports
https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...highlight=dyno

 

first make sure the car runs well. change all fluids regularly, fix anything thats broken/wearing out. im sure you know that already, but thats always the first thing i tell everyone
a good intake and exhaust is the best place to start out. what are your goals for the car-drag, roadrace, autox, drift?
good luck and enjoy your rotary!!

 

#1. The SAFC is NOT engine management. Its a piggyback, and a very poor one at that.

#2. The stock Mazda ignition has been proven good to over 400 HP. Why change it for 200?

#3. Its BREAKING, not BRAKING.

 

And what the heck do solid motor mounts have to do with horsepower???

 

I was kinda wondering, but its iceblue.. He knows EVERYTHING.

 

Less torque loss through the drivetrain with solid mounts

 

Do you really need an ingition amplifier for an NA? I thought it was only necessary for high end forced induction, like as in alot more air going into the engine?

 

Damn.. How much faster then 12.6 do you think I will go with solid mounts? 12.5? 12.4?

 

nitrous.

 

No way d00d, you'll go way faster!

 

That's BS, man, the mounts bounce back to their original position after absorbing the load, which would ADD torque if you subscribe to the belief that they LOSE torque while being compressed...

Which means everything evens out. Which means mounts don't have diddly to do with horsepower gains...

 

Solid motor mounts will increase torque through the drive train. Rubber ones will absorb it.

I have learnd some things over the yers you know.

JRat a SFAC is just a shity fule controll, we all know that but it will atleast get he job done for fule on a 50hp increase

 

It's debatable. I've read a lot of stuff about solid mounts versus rubber and how the solid ones "help" transfer torque better than rubber and therefore cause less loss.

Even if the rubber ones bounce back and "add" to the torque, they wont add everything back that went into them, right? You cannot obtain perfect reaction to the action, meaning something will be lost somewhere even if it bounces back. With a solid mount this will happen less.

That's just my belief on it, and honestly it is not something I'd ever suggest as a power adder, but more of a little thing you can do to provide less LOSS through the drive train. Kind of like synthetic fluids in the tranny/diff, same type of idea in my mind.

However, do I suggest solid mounts to everyone? Not at all, and in fact I don't suggest them to most people that daily drive their car because they add some discomfort. I have solid mounts for engine, tranny, front diff, and rear diff, but then again I am very passive and do not get bothered by much at all, so I can stand it on my daily driven car.

 

Seriously, has anyone ever recorded actual numbers in foot pounds (or inch pounds) of torque lost using solid mounts? It can't possibly be much at all, because of the very limited movement of the rubber mounts.

And all of that force that was absorbed a bit by the rubber now transfers itself to the chassis of the car- which will probably give about the total length that the mounts would have, so you've lost the torque anyway...

This just strikes me as silly- kind of like all of the "power adder" crap you'll find on e-bay...

 

Its FUEL!! F U E L..... Spell it with me.. F....U....E.....L....

And I dont buy into the solid motor mount theory. I got the Mazda Comp mounts, and my dentures dont rattle out everytime I drive my car.

 

i like my solid mounts and the vibration isnt bad at all, i had more vibration when i had stock mounts with RB torque brace

 

Ha ha ha ha...You're always good for a laugh, Rat...

It's a fairly normal occurance these days that high school graduates can't spell worth a crap. It's not their fault- it's the education system.

Sad, actually...

 

Oh I agree that there is little, if any, gain from using solid versus rubber mounts. However, since I could not care less about the "discomfort" factor, I went ahead and did them anyways because I got a package deal and was doing my rebuild anyways.

 

Uh yah... The high schools around me are sad, they really are. It's not the students fault (most of the time), rather it's the fact that there are huge waves of TERRIBLE teachers coming into the system nowadays. Ones that don't care, don't try, or just don't know what they're doing. Thankfully I have a parent that is an old school teacher from back when they were taught to actually teach (har) so I grew up with a forceful parent that I actually learn

This topic, however, is for another thread

/end

 

All right...I don't have any hard evidence, just educated assumptions based on objective reasoning. And I'm guessing nobody else here has hard numbers either, so we'll put this to rest before it flares up. If you want solid mounts, go for it

 

Well, damn man! The kid has been in racing for like 200 years or so, and he cant even spell the hydrocarbon that is the basis for the sport?!?!