13B-REW to LS1 Perspective
04-25-08, 08:41 PM
#251
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In simple terms, the OP's argument is basically saying the rotary, as small as it is, can produce numbers an engine, 3, 4, even 5 times its displacement can.
HP/engine weight would be a better logical argument but the fact that the LS1 is all aluminum, i see why people in this thread would wanna start from there.
The fact that displacement theoretically determines how much power you're going to make, i see why the OP went with HP/L.
People still forget the fact how small the rotary engine is when you actually open it up. I mean the rotor is basically the size of a gallon of milk, perhaps a tad fatter in diameter. The rotor housings is like the size of a 10x8 picture frame.
We all know the V8, for the street, would be a better engine candidate for the FD but if that was the case, all the cars on the road would have V8's.
Its a simple idea, im sure fun to drive when its in there but in the end, IMO, its basically like a girl you see on the street when you're driving. You look at her when you go past her, then look away and go about your business.
HP/engine weight would be a better logical argument but the fact that the LS1 is all aluminum, i see why people in this thread would wanna start from there.
The fact that displacement theoretically determines how much power you're going to make, i see why the OP went with HP/L.
People still forget the fact how small the rotary engine is when you actually open it up. I mean the rotor is basically the size of a gallon of milk, perhaps a tad fatter in diameter. The rotor housings is like the size of a 10x8 picture frame.
We all know the V8, for the street, would be a better engine candidate for the FD but if that was the case, all the cars on the road would have V8's.
Its a simple idea, im sure fun to drive when its in there but in the end, IMO, its basically like a girl you see on the street when you're driving. You look at her when you go past her, then look away and go about your business.
I think the reason that not all cars on the road have V8s is because for one, it has more moving parts=more expensive, not practical.
Two, not everyone needs that kind of power...er should be allowed to have it for that matter. I'm no physics expert, but it seems like Hi performance cars get their fuel efficiency when you figure in a constant momentum. Bad for in the city, right? Better for 4-bangers?
04-25-08, 08:52 PM
#252
Ya know...that whole argument would make a lot more sense to me if a NA rotary could perform the same as a NA V8. I'm not very smart, but if it takes just as much raw fuel energy that's turbocharged (or more) to make the same HP as an engine nearly the same size...where's the efficiency? So the combustion takes place in a smaller space? How does that benefit anyone in the real world? Well, I guess that gives you the ability to SAY that. So, who cares?
I think the reason that not all cars on the road have V8s is because for one, it has more moving parts=more expensive, not practical.
Two, not everyone needs that kind of power...er should be allowed to have it for that matter. I'm no physics expert, but it seems like Hi performance cars get their fuel efficiency when you figure in a constant momentum. Bad for in the city, right? Better for 4-bangers?
I think the reason that not all cars on the road have V8s is because for one, it has more moving parts=more expensive, not practical.
Two, not everyone needs that kind of power...er should be allowed to have it for that matter. I'm no physics expert, but it seems like Hi performance cars get their fuel efficiency when you figure in a constant momentum. Bad for in the city, right? Better for 4-bangers?
A 20B stock in an FD vs an LS1 stock in an FD would perform evenly IMHO.
The rotary guzzles gas by natural design, we all knew that. It wasnt made to be fuel efficient. It is, however, POWER efficient, which is why they can make the huge power out of its tiny space. You cant compare the rotary to a modern day piston engine on fuel efficiency because the rotary was never made to be fuel efficient. By the way its design and works, can never be better on fuel than some of the 4cyl engines out there. They can only make it better than what it already does MPG.
Look at how tiny the engine is, throw a huge *** turbo, and some boost and you're making 700hp on this tiny 5 gallon jug of water size engine lol. Look up erniet and you will see his current results.
And i didnt mean it literally when i said every car on the road would have v8's. All im saying is the v8 is not the end all be all of engines. ITs a great simple engine. You want to move, you got it. Torque is right there with you. Im just saying thats an easy way out. Some people want challenges, which is why they stay with rotary. They also are rotary enthusiasts. They like the sound, they like the high revs. Whatever the case may be, there is no right or wrong in this thread. It almost like a fwd vs rwd vs awd discussion. There are too many factors that need to be played but in the end they all fall into one huge mess of opinions.
Now if you're on your 4th rotary engine in like 5 years, then yeah its time to switch to the darkside to get another car but when you think of FD, you shouldnt think of LS1 swap. Thats IMO.
04-25-08, 09:11 PM
#253
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 20B stock in an FD vs an LS1 stock in an FD would perform evenly IMHO.
The rotary guzzles gas by natural design, we all knew that. It wasnt made to be fuel efficient. It is, however, POWER efficient, which is why they can make the huge power out of its tiny space. You cant compare the rotary to a modern day piston engine on fuel efficiency because the rotary was never made to be fuel efficient. By the way its design and works, can never be better on fuel than some of the 4cyl engines out there. They can only make it better than what it already does MPG.
Look at how tiny the engine is, throw a huge *** turbo, and some boost and you're making 700hp on this tiny 5 gallon jug of water size engine lol. Look up erniet and you will see his current results.
And i didnt mean it literally when i said every car on the road would have v8's. All im saying is the v8 is not the end all be all of engines. ITs a great simple engine. You want to move, you got it. Torque is right there with you. Im just saying thats an easy way out. Some people want challenges, which is why they stay with rotary. They also are rotary enthusiasts. They like the sound, they like the high revs. Whatever the case may be, there is no right or wrong in this thread. It almost like a fwd vs rwd vs awd discussion. There are too many factors that need to be played but in the end they all fall into one huge mess of opinions.
Now if you're on your 4th rotary engine in like 5 years, then yeah its time to switch to the darkside to get another car but when you think of FD, you shouldnt think of LS1 swap. Thats IMO.
The rotary guzzles gas by natural design, we all knew that. It wasnt made to be fuel efficient. It is, however, POWER efficient, which is why they can make the huge power out of its tiny space. You cant compare the rotary to a modern day piston engine on fuel efficiency because the rotary was never made to be fuel efficient. By the way its design and works, can never be better on fuel than some of the 4cyl engines out there. They can only make it better than what it already does MPG.
Look at how tiny the engine is, throw a huge *** turbo, and some boost and you're making 700hp on this tiny 5 gallon jug of water size engine lol. Look up erniet and you will see his current results.
And i didnt mean it literally when i said every car on the road would have v8's. All im saying is the v8 is not the end all be all of engines. ITs a great simple engine. You want to move, you got it. Torque is right there with you. Im just saying thats an easy way out. Some people want challenges, which is why they stay with rotary. They also are rotary enthusiasts. They like the sound, they like the high revs. Whatever the case may be, there is no right or wrong in this thread. It almost like a fwd vs rwd vs awd discussion. There are too many factors that need to be played but in the end they all fall into one huge mess of opinions.
Now if you're on your 4th rotary engine in like 5 years, then yeah its time to switch to the darkside to get another car but when you think of FD, you shouldnt think of LS1 swap. Thats IMO.
I'll tell you what would REALLY convince me. And that is, if you had that engine produce NA V8 energy with less fuel. That potential might be there, but engineers have not found it yet.
My whole qualm with the rotary is that it's not the way it should be yet.
04-25-08, 09:21 PM
#254
I understand your point—power from smaller space. That is a phenomenal idea, but if it doesn't actually IMPROVE anyone's bottom line, then what's it good for? That's like a scientist saying, "I just built an atom bomb that's smaller!" What does that mean to you and I? Nothing.
I'll tell you what would REALLY convince me. And that is, if you had that engine produce NA V8 energy with less fuel. That potential might be there, but engineers have not found it yet.
My whole qualm with the rotary is that it's not the way it should be yet.
I'll tell you what would REALLY convince me. And that is, if you had that engine produce NA V8 energy with less fuel. That potential might be there, but engineers have not found it yet.
My whole qualm with the rotary is that it's not the way it should be yet.
Improve who's bottom line? It has been changed every time another page was added to this thread.
The originally discussion was about HP/L, then it turned into cost, then its turning into fuel efficiency and gas mileage?
Sorry thats a sorry excuse for a way to get on top. This is nothing against you but now this thread is slowly turning away from the original point.
IF a scientist can build an atom bomb the size of a penny, that would be a great accomplishment. If it can do the same thing something the size of lake george can, thats great. No matter what the outcome is, it can do it. You have to acknowledge the fact that something small can accomplish something something much bigger can.
You're also saying the rotary is not what it should be yet. Which is what exactly?
Again you cant compare to modern day piston engines. A rotary is on a level of its own. So its an apples to oranges statement.
It does what it could do by its own design and pretty well for what it is vs something that has SOOOO much R&D into it, its not even funny. I think the rotary is doing ok. We'll see when the 16x comes out.
04-25-08, 09:32 PM
#255
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Improve who's bottom line? It has been changed every time another page was added to this thread.
The originally discussion was about HP/L, then it turned into cost, then its turning into fuel efficiency and gas mileage?
Sorry thats a sorry excuse for a way to get on top. This is nothing against you but now this thread is slowly turning away from the original point.
IF a scientist can build an atom bomb the size of a penny, that would be a great accomplishment. If it can do the same thing something the size of lake george can, thats great. No matter what the outcome is, it can do it. You have to acknowledge the fact that something small can accomplish something something much bigger can.
You're also saying the rotary is not what it should be yet. Which is what exactly?
Again you cant compare to modern day piston engines. A rotary is on a level of its own. So its an apples to oranges statement.
It does what it could do by its own design and pretty well for what it is vs something that has SOOOO much R&D into it, its not even funny. I think the rotary is doing ok. We'll see when the 16x comes out.
The originally discussion was about HP/L, then it turned into cost, then its turning into fuel efficiency and gas mileage?
Sorry thats a sorry excuse for a way to get on top. This is nothing against you but now this thread is slowly turning away from the original point.
IF a scientist can build an atom bomb the size of a penny, that would be a great accomplishment. If it can do the same thing something the size of lake george can, thats great. No matter what the outcome is, it can do it. You have to acknowledge the fact that something small can accomplish something something much bigger can.
You're also saying the rotary is not what it should be yet. Which is what exactly?
Again you cant compare to modern day piston engines. A rotary is on a level of its own. So its an apples to oranges statement.
It does what it could do by its own design and pretty well for what it is vs something that has SOOOO much R&D into it, its not even funny. I think the rotary is doing ok. We'll see when the 16x comes out.
04-25-08, 09:38 PM
#256
No one is arguing that so why even bring it up?
I have already said the rotary wasnt meant to be fuel efficient by design. It was made to be POWER efficient.
You think rx8 owners got their car because they think the NA rotary would be great on gas and they can have a fuel efficient, reliable sports car? No, most of them are averaging 15 in the city. Some of the unfortunate ones are experiencing less than that.
Like i have said, you cant compare a rotary to a modern day piston engine with much more R&D to it because its not only unquestionable which one would have better numbers but its also unfair. Look at the LS7, a HUGE 7 liter v8 and it can do IIRC 25-26mpg highway.
You're taking an engine that has had little to no upgrades vs an engine that has had soo much advancements these past couple of decades and basically saying, it cant do this so you gotta go.
04-25-08, 09:41 PM
#257
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By saying that, I mean that I think that the rotary MAY be an improvement upon the piston. Conceptually, I think it works better. You have a rotary movement of a crank...which is more natural. In a piston, there is a violent up-and-down-thrust. That doesn't jive with me in terms of mechanics as well as a rotary does. I think the rotary is superior in concept, just not the in engineering thus far. Hell, the piston has had over 100 yrs of refinement. Rotary has had what...less than 40? It's just not there yet.
04-25-08, 11:19 PM
#258
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand your point—power from smaller space. That is a phenomenal idea, but if it doesn't actually IMPROVE anyone's bottom line, then what's it good for? That's like a scientist saying, "I just built an atom bomb that's smaller!" What does that mean to you and I? Nothing.
If you're looking at making an awesome sports car and you want a good engine for the job, some of the considerations should be HP/engine weight and HP/engine size. They both affect the physical dimensions and abilities of the car. Note that HP/L doesn't really affect anything, except maybe your marketing.
Now there are lots of reasons you might choose an engine that doesn't score well in those areas, such as power delivery, sound, responsiveness, novelty, etc. Rotaries are pretty sweet engines, but having a small displacement is more of a novelty than a real feature.
04-25-08, 11:56 PM
#259
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one is arguing that so why even bring it up?
I have already said the rotary wasnt meant to be fuel efficient by design. It was made to be POWER efficient.
You think rx8 owners got their car because they think the NA rotary would be great on gas and they can have a fuel efficient, reliable sports car? No, most of them are averaging 15 in the city. Some of the unfortunate ones are experiencing less than that.
Like i have said, you cant compare a rotary to a modern day piston engine with much more R&D to it because its not only unquestionable which one would have better numbers but its also unfair. Look at the LS7, a HUGE 7 liter v8 and it can do IIRC 25-26mpg highway.
You're taking an engine that has had little to no upgrades vs an engine that has had soo much advancements these past couple of decades and basically saying, it cant do this so you gotta go.
I have already said the rotary wasnt meant to be fuel efficient by design. It was made to be POWER efficient.
You think rx8 owners got their car because they think the NA rotary would be great on gas and they can have a fuel efficient, reliable sports car? No, most of them are averaging 15 in the city. Some of the unfortunate ones are experiencing less than that.
Like i have said, you cant compare a rotary to a modern day piston engine with much more R&D to it because its not only unquestionable which one would have better numbers but its also unfair. Look at the LS7, a HUGE 7 liter v8 and it can do IIRC 25-26mpg highway.
You're taking an engine that has had little to no upgrades vs an engine that has had soo much advancements these past couple of decades and basically saying, it cant do this so you gotta go.
No upgrades.
04-26-08, 04:40 AM
#260
RX-8's make a little more than 150 at the wheels.......but lust a little. 
HP/engine size is nice, if the base materials of each engine are similar. At least with the 16X, or a mostly aluminum 13B with a turbo is a much better comparison to the LS1 than the current iron side housing/aluminum rotor housing 13B's.
For the street, an aluminum-modified 20B would be my choice, for the racetrack, a dry sumped peri-ported aluminum'ed 13B NA would be my choice.
HP/engine size is nice, if the base materials of each engine are similar. At least with the 16X, or a mostly aluminum 13B with a turbo is a much better comparison to the LS1 than the current iron side housing/aluminum rotor housing 13B's.
For the street, an aluminum-modified 20B would be my choice, for the racetrack, a dry sumped peri-ported aluminum'ed 13B NA would be my choice.
04-26-08, 02:14 PM
#261
Please somebody help!!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Woodridge, IL
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-First, with a shorter "stroke" it will never produce the torque figures of a comparable piston engine.
-Second, mazda is the only company making automotive rotaries on any appreciable scale. They are also the only people doing honest to god R&D. Compare that to the piston engine. GM has been building v8's since 1914.
-Third, nothing about the dimensions is similar.
04-26-08, 02:25 PM
#262
lol damn man, i cant make it any more clear for you.
POWER efficient means it can make power with ease. Little to no effort. Which is why i said before throw a big turbo and boost and you're making a ton of hp. Because it can.
And you're still comparing the 2 engines but in the wrong format. Yeah the rx8 makes about 150rwhp and the C5 makes about 300rwhp. The point? The C5 has an engine about more than 4x the displacement of the rotary.
So stock vs stock, a tiny *** engine naturally aspirated that makes 150rwhp vs an engine 4x the displacment that makes 300rwhp.
I would say the rotary engine is power efficient.
04-26-08, 09:52 PM
#263
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the term you are trying to define is Brake Specific Fuel Consumption - BSFC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) is a measure of an engine's efficiency. It is the rate of fuel consumption divided by the rate of power production.
04-27-08, 11:56 AM
#265
The Ricer Eliminator
04-27-08, 12:46 PM
#266
having had an rx7 and a c5 corvette i wouldnt think of putting that v8 in the 7. and still dont understand why people do other then the fact they dont understand the rotary or know how to work on it. but the rotary is by far more power efficant then the v8. heres another idea lets put a rotary in a corvette and see what happens. handling would be great and you could fit a lot more stuff just a crazy idea
04-27-08, 08:51 PM
#267
Magic Triangles no more!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having had an rx7 and a c5 corvette i wouldnt think of putting that v8 in the 7. and still dont understand why people do other then the fact they dont understand the rotary or know how to work on it. but the rotary is by far more power efficant then the v8. heres another idea lets put a rotary in a corvette and see what happens. handling would be great and you could fit a lot more stuff just a crazy idea
I choose the LS1 swap because:
1. Never had a v8 before, seemed really appealing.
2. Rotary didn't have low end, plus leaky oil pan.
3. Wanted to do a big project.
4. Found killer deal on a ls1 complete pullout.
I will think rotaries are neat and wouldn't mind have a FB.
04-27-08, 09:04 PM
#268
I'll just step in here as a convert. The number one thing I like about having an LS1 is driveability I can cruise in 6th gear get 28mpg at 80 mph with my foot BARELY on the throttle.
The amount of torque delivered in the completely linear curve makes the car so much more enjoyable then the lag, then boost of even a ball bearing turbo... The best part? It's not wrapped up in an over weight solid rear axle pig. It's light and nimble just as the rotary was and it's a blast to drive. Not saying the Turbo rotary wasn't, but you get my point.
The amount of torque delivered in the completely linear curve makes the car so much more enjoyable then the lag, then boost of even a ball bearing turbo... The best part? It's not wrapped up in an over weight solid rear axle pig. It's light and nimble just as the rotary was and it's a blast to drive. Not saying the Turbo rotary wasn't, but you get my point.
04-27-08, 11:15 PM
#271
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pacifica
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand what the better gas milage arguement. Its a sports car, not a Prius, and I can't imagine buying a sports car to DD and expect to get the milage some do out of gas saver IL4s. And last time I checked, Ferraris aren't all that hot in the MPG departament, but I don't think any LSx RX-7 owner would pass on a straight trade for that particular gas guzzler.
04-28-08, 01:50 AM
#273
I'm glad this abortion of a thread is winding down. Every other month since I've been on, it seems this debate rages with people spiraling out of control.
Do what makes you happy! Motorsports and man-hood is about feeling good and feeling the "rush".
Do what makes you happy! Motorsports and man-hood is about feeling good and feeling the "rush".
04-28-08, 07:51 AM
#274
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya know...that whole argument would make a lot more sense to me if a NA rotary could perform the same as a NA V8.
I'm not very smart, but if it takes just as much raw fuel energy that's turbocharged (or more) to make the same HP as an engine nearly the same size...where's the efficiency?
So the combustion takes place in a smaller space?
How does that benefit anyone in the real world?
I'm not very smart, but if it takes just as much raw fuel energy that's turbocharged (or more) to make the same HP as an engine nearly the same size...where's the efficiency?
So the combustion takes place in a smaller space?
How does that benefit anyone in the real world?
if you look at fuel usage and actual engine weight, the rotary is not efficient at all, I cannot understand why people still tout the rotary as some magical fairy dust of performance when it really is a heavy freaking beast of a motor, I know I took mine apart by hand and let me tell you it was not lightweight, lol, it was as heavy or heavier than my Honda motors that have put out the same power, N/A to N/A, and are also capable of 9.5krpm all day long, which seems like a fair comparison, doesnt it?!? yeah yeah yeah an all aluminum housing race rotary would be superlightweight but thats not the motor made available to the public in mazdas streetcars, if it were then I would agree the rotary was a lighweight motor, but, um, its not.
04-28-08, 10:16 AM
#275
right on.
if you look at fuel usage and actual engine weight, the rotary is not efficient at all, I cannot understand why people still tout the rotary as some magical fairy dust of performance when it really is a heavy freaking beast of a motor, I know I took mine apart by hand and let me tell you it was not lightweight, lol, it was as heavy or heavier than my Honda motors that have put out the same power, N/A to N/A, and are also capable of 9.5krpm all day long, which seems like a fair comparison, doesnt it?!? yeah yeah yeah an all aluminum housing race rotary would be superlightweight but thats not the motor made available to the public in mazdas streetcars, if it were then I would agree the rotary was a lighweight motor, but, um, its not.
if you look at fuel usage and actual engine weight, the rotary is not efficient at all, I cannot understand why people still tout the rotary as some magical fairy dust of performance when it really is a heavy freaking beast of a motor, I know I took mine apart by hand and let me tell you it was not lightweight, lol, it was as heavy or heavier than my Honda motors that have put out the same power, N/A to N/A, and are also capable of 9.5krpm all day long, which seems like a fair comparison, doesnt it?!? yeah yeah yeah an all aluminum housing race rotary would be superlightweight but thats not the motor made available to the public in mazdas streetcars, if it were then I would agree the rotary was a lighweight motor, but, um, its not.
Racing Beat sells the housings.
Plus the 16X comes with aluminum side housings stock, so it's catching up with the times somewhat.
A better comparison would probably be between the LS1 and the 24X when it comes out, or when someone makes one.