TV SHOW Says that S2000 has most Hp/liter
Back from teh deadly!
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
From: Louisville KY 40299
Originally posted by kristopher_d
duh
duh
Im sorry. Ive got to leave the room for a second. This is just too damn funny.
The best part is, you think its so clear that you even had to add "duh"
Ill be back later.
My guess would be that the Rotary has a combustion chamber for each face of each rotor, so 6. (Just a newbie guess 
)
Secondly, maybe this will help answer the displacement question. (or at least liven up the debate )
THIS WAS TAKEN FROM FELIX'S FAQ PAGE
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/cfaqtext.html#RENESISHP
Why does a rotary engine make as much power as a boinger twice its size?
"There are lots of reasons, but the main one is that a "2292 cc" piston engine isn't actually twice as big as an 1146 cc 12A Mazda rotary.
That's right! The following comparison of a Pinto engine to the 12A explains why.
A 12A feeds two power cycles into the eccentric shaft for each revolution it makes. Each rotor face displaces a volume of 35.0 cubic inches, which is 573 cc. Therefore, 70.0 cubic inches or 1146 cc's worth of power are delivered to the output shaft for each revolution that shaft makes.
The most common Pinto engine is a 4-cycle, 4 cylinder, having four pistons that each displace 35.0 cubic inches or 573 cc. Exactly two of these four cylinders deliver power to the output shaft in one revolution, which just happens to be exactly the same 70 cubic inch or 1146 cc amount as a 12A is doing in the same amount of time.
A key point here is the element of time. We measure engine size with reference to two things: time, and output shaft movement, revolutions per minute, or RPM. To make some other form of spark ignition internal combustion power plant with distinct intake, compression, power, and exhaust phases as does the 4-cycle piston engine comparable to it, equal parameters have to be given equal consideration. Therefore, since the 12A delivers two power cycles of 35 cubic inches each per output shaft revolution, it is exactly equivalent in this regard to the 4-cycle 4 cylinder Pinto engine that does the same thing.
Another way to look at equivalence is to quit trying to convert the rotary to 4-cycle piston equivalence, instead converting the boingers to rotary equivalence. The number of working chambers or pistons is irrelevant. Simply compare displaced volume converted into combusted mixture per output shaft revolution. The 12A is 35.0 cubic inches times two, or 70.0. The early Pinto just happens to be 35.0 times two as well, making it a 12A equivalent. The 13B is 40.0 times two. Later Pintos just happen to be 40.0 times two as well, making it equivalent to a 13B. An old 2.6 liter six cylinder Datsun 260Z happens to have 26.666 times three, or 80.0 total, same as a 13B. Since 4-cycle boinger pistons only put power to the output shaft every other revolution, they should be rated at half the displacement they claim to have!
There are noteworthy differences. The rotary makes excellent HP because it easily lends itself well to operation at higher shaft speeds (RPM) that get more power pulses into the output shaft. The piston engine delivers it's power in shorter bursts of a nominal 180 degrees of output shaft revolution. The 12A nominally uses 270 degrees to deliver each of it's power "strokes".
A 12A engine is tuned to operate at a higher RPM level than the Pinto, so its maximum HP is higher. However, when both engines are operated at 5000 RPM, the small difference in HP is more a function of each's individual tuning than the differences in basic design. And, it is this correspondence that helps confirm the logic used above to compare the 12A engine to the Pinto 2.3L, and why it is the method of choice in racing classes in which rotaries are permitted to race against boingers and yet be competitive without being dominant. Doing it any differently upsets the competitive balance.
Equivalences other than 2 to 1 used by race santioning bodies are simply an attempt to equalize results instead of using what works for the boingers, capacity for them being the sole primary criteria of equivalence. The use of a factor of 2.6 recognizes that the rotaries operate at higher RPM's than the boingers in the same classes. If we convert the Pinto 2.3L into rotary equivalence, cutting the displacement in half from 140 to 70, the 2.6 becomes 1.3 to get the same equivalence. A maximum operating speed, redline if you will, of 7000 in racing trim for the Pinto, or any 2.3L stock based four for that matter, is probably realistic. Apply the 1.3 factor to the 7000 redline and what do you suppose we find? A 9100 RPM rotary redline in racing trim comparable for that class. Pretty slick of those rule makers, huh? They know more RPM can make more power."
)Secondly, maybe this will help answer the displacement question. (or at least liven up the debate
)THIS WAS TAKEN FROM FELIX'S FAQ PAGE
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/cfaqtext.html#RENESISHP
Why does a rotary engine make as much power as a boinger twice its size?
"There are lots of reasons, but the main one is that a "2292 cc" piston engine isn't actually twice as big as an 1146 cc 12A Mazda rotary.
That's right! The following comparison of a Pinto engine to the 12A explains why.
A 12A feeds two power cycles into the eccentric shaft for each revolution it makes. Each rotor face displaces a volume of 35.0 cubic inches, which is 573 cc. Therefore, 70.0 cubic inches or 1146 cc's worth of power are delivered to the output shaft for each revolution that shaft makes.
The most common Pinto engine is a 4-cycle, 4 cylinder, having four pistons that each displace 35.0 cubic inches or 573 cc. Exactly two of these four cylinders deliver power to the output shaft in one revolution, which just happens to be exactly the same 70 cubic inch or 1146 cc amount as a 12A is doing in the same amount of time.
A key point here is the element of time. We measure engine size with reference to two things: time, and output shaft movement, revolutions per minute, or RPM. To make some other form of spark ignition internal combustion power plant with distinct intake, compression, power, and exhaust phases as does the 4-cycle piston engine comparable to it, equal parameters have to be given equal consideration. Therefore, since the 12A delivers two power cycles of 35 cubic inches each per output shaft revolution, it is exactly equivalent in this regard to the 4-cycle 4 cylinder Pinto engine that does the same thing.
Another way to look at equivalence is to quit trying to convert the rotary to 4-cycle piston equivalence, instead converting the boingers to rotary equivalence. The number of working chambers or pistons is irrelevant. Simply compare displaced volume converted into combusted mixture per output shaft revolution. The 12A is 35.0 cubic inches times two, or 70.0. The early Pinto just happens to be 35.0 times two as well, making it a 12A equivalent. The 13B is 40.0 times two. Later Pintos just happen to be 40.0 times two as well, making it equivalent to a 13B. An old 2.6 liter six cylinder Datsun 260Z happens to have 26.666 times three, or 80.0 total, same as a 13B. Since 4-cycle boinger pistons only put power to the output shaft every other revolution, they should be rated at half the displacement they claim to have!
There are noteworthy differences. The rotary makes excellent HP because it easily lends itself well to operation at higher shaft speeds (RPM) that get more power pulses into the output shaft. The piston engine delivers it's power in shorter bursts of a nominal 180 degrees of output shaft revolution. The 12A nominally uses 270 degrees to deliver each of it's power "strokes".
A 12A engine is tuned to operate at a higher RPM level than the Pinto, so its maximum HP is higher. However, when both engines are operated at 5000 RPM, the small difference in HP is more a function of each's individual tuning than the differences in basic design. And, it is this correspondence that helps confirm the logic used above to compare the 12A engine to the Pinto 2.3L, and why it is the method of choice in racing classes in which rotaries are permitted to race against boingers and yet be competitive without being dominant. Doing it any differently upsets the competitive balance.
Equivalences other than 2 to 1 used by race santioning bodies are simply an attempt to equalize results instead of using what works for the boingers, capacity for them being the sole primary criteria of equivalence. The use of a factor of 2.6 recognizes that the rotaries operate at higher RPM's than the boingers in the same classes. If we convert the Pinto 2.3L into rotary equivalence, cutting the displacement in half from 140 to 70, the 2.6 becomes 1.3 to get the same equivalence. A maximum operating speed, redline if you will, of 7000 in racing trim for the Pinto, or any 2.3L stock based four for that matter, is probably realistic. Apply the 1.3 factor to the 7000 redline and what do you suppose we find? A 9100 RPM rotary redline in racing trim comparable for that class. Pretty slick of those rule makers, huh? They know more RPM can make more power."
Back from teh deadly!
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
From: Louisville KY 40299
Originally posted by Jesuscookies
My guess would be that the Rotary has a combustion chamber for each face of each rotor, so 6. (Just a newbie guess )
Secondly, maybe this will help answer the displacement question. (or at least liven up the debate )
THIS WAS TAKEN FROM FELIX'S FAQ PAGE
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/cfaqtext.html#RENESISHP
Why does a rotary engine make as much power as a boinger twice its size?
"There are lots of reasons, but the main one is that a "2292 cc" piston engine isn't actually twice as big as an 1146 cc 12A Mazda rotary.
That's right! The following comparison of a Pinto engine to the 12A explains why.
A 12A feeds two power cycles into the eccentric shaft for each revolution it makes. Each rotor face displaces a volume of 35.0 cubic inches, which is 573 cc. Therefore, 70.0 cubic inches or 1146 cc's worth of power are delivered to the output shaft for each revolution that shaft makes.
The most common Pinto engine is a 4-cycle, 4 cylinder, having four pistons that each displace 35.0 cubic inches or 573 cc. Exactly two of these four cylinders deliver power to the output shaft in one revolution, which just happens to be exactly the same 70 cubic inch or 1146 cc amount as a 12A is doing in the same amount of time.
A key point here is the element of time. We measure engine size with reference to two things: time, and output shaft movement, revolutions per minute, or RPM. To make some other form of spark ignition internal combustion power plant with distinct intake, compression, power, and exhaust phases as does the 4-cycle piston engine comparable to it, equal parameters have to be given equal consideration. Therefore, since the 12A delivers two power cycles of 35 cubic inches each per output shaft revolution, it is exactly equivalent in this regard to the 4-cycle 4 cylinder Pinto engine that does the same thing.
Another way to look at equivalence is to quit trying to convert the rotary to 4-cycle piston equivalence, instead converting the boingers to rotary equivalence. The number of working chambers or pistons is irrelevant. Simply compare displaced volume converted into combusted mixture per output shaft revolution. The 12A is 35.0 cubic inches times two, or 70.0. The early Pinto just happens to be 35.0 times two as well, making it a 12A equivalent. The 13B is 40.0 times two. Later Pintos just happen to be 40.0 times two as well, making it equivalent to a 13B. An old 2.6 liter six cylinder Datsun 260Z happens to have 26.666 times three, or 80.0 total, same as a 13B. Since 4-cycle boinger pistons only put power to the output shaft every other revolution, they should be rated at half the displacement they claim to have!
There are noteworthy differences. The rotary makes excellent HP because it easily lends itself well to operation at higher shaft speeds (RPM) that get more power pulses into the output shaft. The piston engine delivers it's power in shorter bursts of a nominal 180 degrees of output shaft revolution. The 12A nominally uses 270 degrees to deliver each of it's power "strokes".
A 12A engine is tuned to operate at a higher RPM level than the Pinto, so its maximum HP is higher. However, when both engines are operated at 5000 RPM, the small difference in HP is more a function of each's individual tuning than the differences in basic design. And, it is this correspondence that helps confirm the logic used above to compare the 12A engine to the Pinto 2.3L, and why it is the method of choice in racing classes in which rotaries are permitted to race against boingers and yet be competitive without being dominant. Doing it any differently upsets the competitive balance.
Equivalences other than 2 to 1 used by race santioning bodies are simply an attempt to equalize results instead of using what works for the boingers, capacity for them being the sole primary criteria of equivalence. The use of a factor of 2.6 recognizes that the rotaries operate at higher RPM's than the boingers in the same classes. If we convert the Pinto 2.3L into rotary equivalence, cutting the displacement in half from 140 to 70, the 2.6 becomes 1.3 to get the same equivalence. A maximum operating speed, redline if you will, of 7000 in racing trim for the Pinto, or any 2.3L stock based four for that matter, is probably realistic. Apply the 1.3 factor to the 7000 redline and what do you suppose we find? A 9100 RPM rotary redline in racing trim comparable for that class. Pretty slick of those rule makers, huh? They know more RPM can make more power."
My guess would be that the Rotary has a combustion chamber for each face of each rotor, so 6. (Just a newbie guess
)Secondly, maybe this will help answer the displacement question. (or at least liven up the debate
)THIS WAS TAKEN FROM FELIX'S FAQ PAGE
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/cfaqtext.html#RENESISHP
Why does a rotary engine make as much power as a boinger twice its size?
"There are lots of reasons, but the main one is that a "2292 cc" piston engine isn't actually twice as big as an 1146 cc 12A Mazda rotary.
That's right! The following comparison of a Pinto engine to the 12A explains why.
A 12A feeds two power cycles into the eccentric shaft for each revolution it makes. Each rotor face displaces a volume of 35.0 cubic inches, which is 573 cc. Therefore, 70.0 cubic inches or 1146 cc's worth of power are delivered to the output shaft for each revolution that shaft makes.
The most common Pinto engine is a 4-cycle, 4 cylinder, having four pistons that each displace 35.0 cubic inches or 573 cc. Exactly two of these four cylinders deliver power to the output shaft in one revolution, which just happens to be exactly the same 70 cubic inch or 1146 cc amount as a 12A is doing in the same amount of time.
A key point here is the element of time. We measure engine size with reference to two things: time, and output shaft movement, revolutions per minute, or RPM. To make some other form of spark ignition internal combustion power plant with distinct intake, compression, power, and exhaust phases as does the 4-cycle piston engine comparable to it, equal parameters have to be given equal consideration. Therefore, since the 12A delivers two power cycles of 35 cubic inches each per output shaft revolution, it is exactly equivalent in this regard to the 4-cycle 4 cylinder Pinto engine that does the same thing.
Another way to look at equivalence is to quit trying to convert the rotary to 4-cycle piston equivalence, instead converting the boingers to rotary equivalence. The number of working chambers or pistons is irrelevant. Simply compare displaced volume converted into combusted mixture per output shaft revolution. The 12A is 35.0 cubic inches times two, or 70.0. The early Pinto just happens to be 35.0 times two as well, making it a 12A equivalent. The 13B is 40.0 times two. Later Pintos just happen to be 40.0 times two as well, making it equivalent to a 13B. An old 2.6 liter six cylinder Datsun 260Z happens to have 26.666 times three, or 80.0 total, same as a 13B. Since 4-cycle boinger pistons only put power to the output shaft every other revolution, they should be rated at half the displacement they claim to have!
There are noteworthy differences. The rotary makes excellent HP because it easily lends itself well to operation at higher shaft speeds (RPM) that get more power pulses into the output shaft. The piston engine delivers it's power in shorter bursts of a nominal 180 degrees of output shaft revolution. The 12A nominally uses 270 degrees to deliver each of it's power "strokes".
A 12A engine is tuned to operate at a higher RPM level than the Pinto, so its maximum HP is higher. However, when both engines are operated at 5000 RPM, the small difference in HP is more a function of each's individual tuning than the differences in basic design. And, it is this correspondence that helps confirm the logic used above to compare the 12A engine to the Pinto 2.3L, and why it is the method of choice in racing classes in which rotaries are permitted to race against boingers and yet be competitive without being dominant. Doing it any differently upsets the competitive balance.
Equivalences other than 2 to 1 used by race santioning bodies are simply an attempt to equalize results instead of using what works for the boingers, capacity for them being the sole primary criteria of equivalence. The use of a factor of 2.6 recognizes that the rotaries operate at higher RPM's than the boingers in the same classes. If we convert the Pinto 2.3L into rotary equivalence, cutting the displacement in half from 140 to 70, the 2.6 becomes 1.3 to get the same equivalence. A maximum operating speed, redline if you will, of 7000 in racing trim for the Pinto, or any 2.3L stock based four for that matter, is probably realistic. Apply the 1.3 factor to the 7000 redline and what do you suppose we find? A 9100 RPM rotary redline in racing trim comparable for that class. Pretty slick of those rule makers, huh? They know more RPM can make more power."
s4 for life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,516
Likes: 1
From: Oahu
There are still only 2 cumbustion chambers. Each one is sealed by 3 different rotor faces at different times, but the cumbustion chamber is still in the same spot.
I know alot of you are not considering them the same chambers if a differnt rotor face is sealing it, but alot of us are.
duh
I know alot of you are not considering them the same chambers if a differnt rotor face is sealing it, but alot of us are.
duh
I'm your huckleberry..
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ
yes, think of it as 2 combustion chambers, because one rotor goes off, then the other, and the cycle starts again. with a 5.7l v8, each of the pistons have to go off before starting the cycle again, therefor its 5.7 litres.
ah nevermind, its more semantics than anything, and how one chooses to think aobut stuff.
ah nevermind, its more semantics than anything, and how one chooses to think aobut stuff.
Back from teh deadly!
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
From: Louisville KY 40299
Originally posted by 13bpower
There are still only 2 cumbustion chambers. Each one is sealed by 3 different rotor faces at different times, but the cumbustion chamber is still in the same spot.
I know alot of you are not considering them the same chambers if a differnt rotor face is sealing it, but alot of us are.
duh
There are still only 2 cumbustion chambers. Each one is sealed by 3 different rotor faces at different times, but the cumbustion chamber is still in the same spot.
I know alot of you are not considering them the same chambers if a differnt rotor face is sealing it, but alot of us are.
duh
:sigh:
Some people will just never learn.
More Than Meets the Eye
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
From: Lynnwood, WA
Originally posted by adamlewis
Uh...An LS1 doesnt fire all 8 cylinders in one combustion stroke ( which would only be 180deg rotation of the crank... ) but its still rated as a 5.7 ( the volume of ALL its cylinders added up )
By the way, you dont know dick.
Uh...An LS1 doesnt fire all 8 cylinders in one combustion stroke ( which would only be 180deg rotation of the crank... ) but its still rated as a 5.7 ( the volume of ALL its cylinders added up )
By the way, you dont know dick.
Bottom line is this. This whole discussion is about which engine is the most efficient for amount of combustion space it uses. The s2000 is a very efficient engine in this respect. But it is not as efficient as a rotary (namely RENESIS) because the rotary has the distinct design advantage allowing it to combust twice as often making it the king of efficient use of combustion space.
Last edited by MasteRX; Jan 1, 2003 at 10:15 PM.
Back from teh deadly!
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
From: Louisville KY 40299
Originally posted by MasteRX
I know how a four stroke engine works jackass. and yes its volume is rated for all its cylinders added up, no ****. Thats exactly what I was saying. My point was that just because a rotary uses its combustion space twice as often, doesnt mean it deserves to be compared to an engine twice its size. The potency of the rotary is the genius of its design.
Bottom line is this. This whole discussion is about which engine is the most efficient for amount of combustion space it uses. The s2000 is a very efficient engine in this respect. But it is not as efficient as a rotary (namely RENESIS) because the rotary has the distinct design advantage allowing it to combust twice as often making it the king of efficient use of combustion space.
I know how a four stroke engine works jackass. and yes its volume is rated for all its cylinders added up, no ****. Thats exactly what I was saying. My point was that just because a rotary uses its combustion space twice as often, doesnt mean it deserves to be compared to an engine twice its size. The potency of the rotary is the genius of its design.
Bottom line is this. This whole discussion is about which engine is the most efficient for amount of combustion space it uses. The s2000 is a very efficient engine in this respect. But it is not as efficient as a rotary (namely RENESIS) because the rotary has the distinct design advantage allowing it to combust twice as often making it the king of efficient use of combustion space.
Yep. Youre so right! I hope I can learn as much as you someday!
Back from teh deadly!
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
From: Louisville KY 40299
You know. If you really want to use the idea that the 13b is really only 1.3 liters, then lemme ask you this.
How can an S2000 use 150% the displacement of a 13B-T, make 117% the HP of a 13B-T, yet STILL get better gas mileage
Main Entry: ef·fi·cient
Pronunciation: i-'fi-sh&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin efficient-, efficiens, from present participle of efficere
Date: 14th century
1 : being or involving the immediate agent in producing an effect <the efficient action of heat in changing water to steam>
2 : productive of desired effects; especially : productive without waste
synonym see EFFECTIVE
- ef·fi·cient·ly adverb
So lets see...Which one wastes the least amount of fuel?
How can an S2000 use 150% the displacement of a 13B-T, make 117% the HP of a 13B-T, yet STILL get better gas mileage
Main Entry: ef·fi·cient
Pronunciation: i-'fi-sh&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin efficient-, efficiens, from present participle of efficere
Date: 14th century
1 : being or involving the immediate agent in producing an effect <the efficient action of heat in changing water to steam>
2 : productive of desired effects; especially : productive without waste
synonym see EFFECTIVE
- ef·fi·cient·ly adverb
So lets see...Which one wastes the least amount of fuel?
More Than Meets the Eye
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
From: Lynnwood, WA
Originally posted by adamlewis
[2 : productive of desired effects; especially : productive without waste
synonym see EFFECTIVE
- ef·fi·cient·ly adverb
So lets see...Which one wastes the least amount of fuel? [/B]
[2 : productive of desired effects; especially : productive without waste
synonym see EFFECTIVE
- ef·fi·cient·ly adverb
So lets see...Which one wastes the least amount of fuel? [/B]
). The term efficiency can refer to many things not just according to fuel. I was using the term as indicating it produces a lot of power in a small space. If high HP/L is the desired effect (which in the case of this conversation, it is), then the term efficient can be used.
Haven't we ALL heard this
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,948
Likes: 1
From: Indiana
I read something intresting and of course I do not remeber where.
It was saying that the wankel engine truely has 6 chambers and it's displacment should be based off of that. That would make the displacment greater than 1.3L. However, mazda chose not to do that. They could get away with 1.3 litters. Why? Taxation reasons. Apparently there was some sort of tax break if they rated it at 1.3 litters or 1.2 or 1.0 for that matter
Any input on that?
James
It was saying that the wankel engine truely has 6 chambers and it's displacment should be based off of that. That would make the displacment greater than 1.3L. However, mazda chose not to do that. They could get away with 1.3 litters. Why? Taxation reasons. Apparently there was some sort of tax break if they rated it at 1.3 litters or 1.2 or 1.0 for that matter
Any input on that?
James
Who owns the Chiefs?
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,630
Likes: 0
From: Dept 5, Ontario. Canada
In Europe the rating for rotary is different. They deem the 13b to be 2.4L not 1.3L as we all know it here. I'd be more inclined to agree with that assessment.
It's neat to think that 1.3L produced 160hp in an NA S5 (just referencing as the last na Rx-7 built), but the fuel consmption is much more akin to the 2.4L measurement, and that is even generous.
It's neat to think that 1.3L produced 160hp in an NA S5 (just referencing as the last na Rx-7 built), but the fuel consmption is much more akin to the 2.4L measurement, and that is even generous.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,640
Likes: 2
From: Tacoma WA
Originally posted by Jerk_Racer
Arpus - Shame on you for watching that show. Shame on you for listening to what they say.
kristopher d - 2? C'mon dude. Think about it.
Arpus - Shame on you for watching that show. Shame on you for listening to what they say.
kristopher d - 2? C'mon dude. Think about it.
I WAS TRICKED!!!! I DIDN'T DO IT... I SWEAR.
Rotary Freak
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,149
Likes: 0
From: Okinawa, Japan
Sure thing pal, sure thing.
In Japan, cars with large displacement engines have to pay higher fees. This is when registration and whatnot comes due. 2.5 liters on up is one thing that makes car owners pay more. So the RX7 has 1.3 liters. I can't say if that is why Mazda rated their engine that way, but it makes sense. Then came the FD. If is in that large motor class. Not because of the engine, but because of it's width. Cars 1.7 meters and wider get the same fees as cars with engines 2.5 liters and greater. Most cars with 2.5 liter engines or larger are generally 1.7 meters or wider already. A good set of fender flares on a smaller car will bump it up into the next class for registration even with a small engine.
In Japan, cars with large displacement engines have to pay higher fees. This is when registration and whatnot comes due. 2.5 liters on up is one thing that makes car owners pay more. So the RX7 has 1.3 liters. I can't say if that is why Mazda rated their engine that way, but it makes sense. Then came the FD. If is in that large motor class. Not because of the engine, but because of it's width. Cars 1.7 meters and wider get the same fees as cars with engines 2.5 liters and greater. Most cars with 2.5 liter engines or larger are generally 1.7 meters or wider already. A good set of fender flares on a smaller car will bump it up into the next class for registration even with a small engine.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
distr0
Canadian Forum
3
Oct 7, 2015 08:17 AM
