Rx7s have no torque?
04-13-03, 01:45 AM
#26
lol, Reminds me of this guy that came up to me today.He claimed he had a 87 SE with a Turbo 2 Swap but the electrical stuff fried because the stuff in the dash won't work.
He also said that N/A FC runs 14's in the quarter stock and that TII did 13's all day stock.
He was dead serious too.
//End Thread Highjack//
He also said that N/A FC runs 14's in the quarter stock and that TII did 13's all day stock.
He was dead serious too.
//End Thread Highjack//
04-13-03, 11:30 PM
#29
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Blowtus
one eyed rotary folk crack me up... "good not to have too much torque"
bwhahahahahahaha. What do you think going to a free flowing exhaust, huge turbo and high boost does?
one eyed rotary folk crack me up... "good not to have too much torque"
bwhahahahahahaha. What do you think going to a free flowing exhaust, huge turbo and high boost does?
RX-7=no torque? True.
PJ
PJ
04-13-03, 11:56 PM
#31
Ok. I care about flat torque curve, It makes for a good Auto-x car. and "The reason we need to dump the clutch at launch is because we have no usable torque down low" no torque = dump clutch? where did you lern to race? if you slip the clutch out you can keep the revs up and will not get as mutch wheel spin. and RWD just plays a part. there is also the weight of the car, avrige HP, gearing, and the driver. and as for "rotary engine has no torque compared to anything" look at stock rx torque then look at a mr-2 or hell even a s200 has only 153 ft/lbs
04-14-03, 01:14 AM
#32
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by nillahcaz
Ok. I care about flat torque curve, It makes for a good Auto-x car. and "The reason we need to dump the clutch at launch is because we have no usable torque down low" no torque = dump clutch? where did you lern to race? if you slip the clutch out you can keep the revs up and will not get as mutch wheel spin. and RWD just plays a part. there is also the weight of the car, avrige HP, gearing, and the driver. and as for "rotary engine has no torque compared to anything" look at stock rx torque then look at a mr-2 or hell even a s200 has only 153 ft/lbs
Ok. I care about flat torque curve, It makes for a good Auto-x car. and "The reason we need to dump the clutch at launch is because we have no usable torque down low" no torque = dump clutch? where did you lern to race? if you slip the clutch out you can keep the revs up and will not get as mutch wheel spin. and RWD just plays a part. there is also the weight of the car, avrige HP, gearing, and the driver. and as for "rotary engine has no torque compared to anything" look at stock rx torque then look at a mr-2 or hell even a s200 has only 153 ft/lbs
So it's more favorable to "slip the clutch?" Not that I like to launch my FC (it depresses me), but I'd rather shock the drive train than fry my clutch by keeping the revs up and slipping it. Nonetheless, you still need to keep the revs up a ridiculous amount to get anywhere from a standstill. I'm running 245s in the rear, and I don't even dream of trying to break them loose (I'd have to rev and dump). No torque = dump clutch? Nah. No torque = don't drag race. BTW, the funny smell your car has when you "launch" is your clutch, nillahcaz.
NA FC + passenger + sound system + tank of gas = 17 second RX-7.
Whats the rear wheel torque rating of an NA FC? Anybody have a dynosheet? I have a flat torque band on that previously mentioned T-Bird, but it's a substantial amount of torque.
PJ
04-14-03, 10:55 AM
#33
I don't have a funny smell. slipping the clutch for 1 second at 3800 rpm is not going to fry a good clutch. or i got lucky and it by power of god has lasted me 2 years and is not slipping under "heavy" driving. and I'm happy you have torque in a T-Bird. I don't drag that much so tell me, what is the skid pad of that car? or how about the slaloms? what is your how wide is your power band? T-Bird +passenger + sound system + tank of gas = car that could not finish 3 laps at Laguna Seca.
04-14-03, 11:21 AM
#34
NA Powah, Every Hour!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sacramento, CA, U S of A
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yo,
I put down a whopping 115.1 ft. lbs to the wheels at 4750rpms.
So, to answer your question. Yes.
*grin*
Kevin
1989 GTUs "But...115 is more than my buddies B16A can do."
I put down a whopping 115.1 ft. lbs to the wheels at 4750rpms.
So, to answer your question. Yes.
*grin*
Kevin
1989 GTUs "But...115 is more than my buddies B16A can do."
04-14-03, 11:34 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's hope our cars don't have "no torque", mine only has none when it is not running 
COnsider this, the engine is only 1.3 liters. Compared to others of the same size, torque is good. Compared to a 426 Hemi, torque is bad. It is all in your point of reference. I owned a 1970 Cuda 440 6-pack in high school. NOTHING feels powerful to me.....
COnsider this, the engine is only 1.3 liters. Compared to others of the same size, torque is good. Compared to a 426 Hemi, torque is bad. It is all in your point of reference. I owned a 1970 Cuda 440 6-pack in high school. NOTHING feels powerful to me.....
04-14-03, 05:36 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah, compared to tiny little 1.3 litre shopping kart pieces of ****, it makes good torque, so whats anyone whinging about?!? 
1.3 litre shopping karts are the rx7's main rivals aren't they?
bloody hell
1.3 litre shopping karts are the rx7's main rivals aren't they?
bloody hell
04-14-03, 06:54 PM
#38
Rotary Freak
I made 160rwp stock ports and 128rwp of torque at the wheel with my VDI open...The torque was almost completly flat. The HP went streight up smoother than any other car ive ever seen with absolutly no dips up to 7300 rpms leveling out at 8000.
Lets see 128rw torque is better than any honda and prelude besides the S2000. I think it had around 130 something torque. My car on stock ports has almost that much. Imagine if I port it ?
Lets see 128rw torque is better than any honda and prelude besides the S2000. I think it had around 130 something torque. My car on stock ports has almost that much. Imagine if I port it ?
04-15-03, 05:40 PM
#41
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by nillahcaz
I don't have a funny smell. slipping the clutch for 1 second at 3800 rpm is not going to fry a good clutch. or i got lucky and it by power of god has lasted me 2 years and is not slipping under "heavy" driving. and I'm happy you have torque in a T-Bird. I don't drag that much so tell me, what is the skid pad of that car? or how about the slaloms? what is your how wide is your power band? T-Bird +passenger + sound system + tank of gas = car that could not finish 3 laps at Laguna Seca.
I don't have a funny smell. slipping the clutch for 1 second at 3800 rpm is not going to fry a good clutch. or i got lucky and it by power of god has lasted me 2 years and is not slipping under "heavy" driving. and I'm happy you have torque in a T-Bird. I don't drag that much so tell me, what is the skid pad of that car? or how about the slaloms? what is your how wide is your power band? T-Bird +passenger + sound system + tank of gas = car that could not finish 3 laps at Laguna Seca.
As for my powerband, here:
Not incredible, but if I wanted power with no compromise, I would not ave chosen to mod a V6. That sheet is on an engine without tuning. Forced induction is in its future, but it will be a while. I'm not done with either of my cars yet. I know the RX- has better handling potential than any T-Bird- it weighs half as much-- but drag racing an NA FC is not what I consider fun.
PJ
04-15-03, 06:15 PM
#42
I'm with stupid -----^
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm.. your dyno run starts at aprox 3800rpm and your torque curve progressivly falls as rpm rise...
now.. here is a dyno run from my "no torque" rx-7 .. mind you, much like you, this run was done prior to doing any real tuning with my ems.. we'll see how it ends up this summer...
now.. here is a dyno run from my "no torque" rx-7 .. mind you, much like you, this run was done prior to doing any real tuning with my ems.. we'll see how it ends up this summer...
Plus you got the extra 600lbs that will make your car a LOT faster. and i would love to see a 2.0l swap in to a T-bird that gives 500 to 600hp
04-17-03, 02:20 AM
#45
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris NG, that's a turbo car, right? I'm talking NA cars here, as I mentioned earlier. Assuming that's a turbo car, how much boost are you running? If that's an NA dyno sheet, I would me really impressed. Otherwise, it doesn't relate to the subject at hand. I didn't post that dynosheet to start any sort of car war-- nillahcaz ased ti see the powerband.
The reason the run starts at 3800 rpm is because it's an automatic car. I didn't have a programmer that could lock my torque converter, so anything before that 3800 would be false readings (over apmlified numbers). At 3800 rpm the converter is at full lock-up. The torque would read greater at lower rpms had the pull started earlier.
Nillah, instead of comparing rotary 20b swaps, take an engine that ha 50% more displacement than mine, then turbocharge it. Then we'll talk. moot moot moot.
I hold... NA RX-7s have no torque. Guys, I frickin' own one. Sheesh.
PJ
PJ
The reason the run starts at 3800 rpm is because it's an automatic car. I didn't have a programmer that could lock my torque converter, so anything before that 3800 would be false readings (over apmlified numbers). At 3800 rpm the converter is at full lock-up. The torque would read greater at lower rpms had the pull started earlier.
Nillah, instead of comparing rotary 20b swaps, take an engine that ha 50% more displacement than mine, then turbocharge it. Then we'll talk. moot moot moot.
I hold... NA RX-7s have no torque. Guys, I frickin' own one. Sheesh.
PJ
PJ
04-17-03, 05:25 AM
#46
inteligent extratarestril
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Sunny B.O.P, New Zealand
Posts: 1,313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ-4.2L - HELLO!!!!!!!!! slap in the face with a cold fish there mate. Torque is directly related to how much cubic capacity a engine has, NO WHERE have i seen anyone claim that a 13B rotary (1308cc) to be 4200cc which is what you seem to want to compare its torque output to. for what its worth, in equal terms a 13B therefore rated at 2616cc actually has fractionally more torque than 2.6L 4 cylinder and 6 Cylinder engines, NORMALLY ASPIRATED on all examples.
What are you trying to prove with your dyno sheet??? how extremely unusable your engine is with its MASSIVE 1600RPM powerband, man if my motor had a power band of 1600RPM i'd be ashamed. even the 'peakiest' of rotary's, the mighty Peripheral Port, has at least 2500rpm of power band, more so if you are revving it higher, thats 7-9500rpm worth of powerband.
Torque is cheap, HP costs money
What are you trying to prove with your dyno sheet??? how extremely unusable your engine is with its MASSIVE 1600RPM powerband, man if my motor had a power band of 1600RPM i'd be ashamed. even the 'peakiest' of rotary's, the mighty Peripheral Port, has at least 2500rpm of power band, more so if you are revving it higher, thats 7-9500rpm worth of powerband.
Torque is cheap, HP costs money
04-17-03, 08:42 AM
#47
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actually the 13B makes closer to the torque of a 2.0 engine. I sent a letter to dave coleman of SCC contending his 2.6 argument (just for kicks) and 2.6's (of which there are very few) make more than the 13b. i can pull the numbers i used if you want.
04-17-03, 10:36 AM
#48
Full Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lino Lakes MN
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sport compact Cars do not have any torque compaired to V8 I laugh at Honda torque...compaired to Hondas etc we have enough.
WAnt Torque in your RX-7 do a 5.0 conversion
WAnt Torque in your RX-7 do a 5.0 conversion
04-17-03, 01:52 PM
#49
and you miss the point..... wow... The 20B a 2L running with S5 rotors will put out more torque and have a larger power band than your 4.2. so for half the cylinders and half the displacement you get same or more power. now if you are smarter than you sound you will see that I'm saying its that we have a lot of torque for the displacement, we just have a small displacement. If you are so unhappy with the car SELL it to some one who will enjoy it. I'm done wasting my time on you, If your to dumb to under stand then fine go talk to a tree.
