|
Originally posted by Mahjik Actually, there was never a distinction of which engine for NA. Kahren simply asked about NA FD's. yes your rite, i realized it rite after i wrote it. but my point was stop gettin off the subject, i dont wanna be an ass but its annoying :stickpoke |
Originally posted by Mahjik Actually, there was never a distinction of which engine for NA. Kahren simply asked about NA FD's. there are benifits to a NA FD just as there are for a TURBO FD. |
Originally posted by wop what else was not accurate? Originally posted by wop [B]I have been reading this board for awhile and it seems like the FD crowd comes off as assholes most of the time... more so lately... and I don't get it... if you think a question is stupid then deal with it... or don't post or read it... no need to be a dick... a NA FD would be have reliability and modest power... A stock N/A FD, isn't going to be anywhere NEAR as powerful as a turbo one...especially considering the fact that it's not the lightest 7. Which would further lead me to questioning the FD's not being fast comment. Compared to what? and for how much? I'd say the basline performance on one is pretty impressive considering it's 10yrs old, and can still outperform many modern sports cars in all areas. would rather have a reliable 200hp NA FD then a not so reliable 255hp turbo FD... With the exception of the first ignorant comment in this thread, it actually has some valid points in it. https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...hreadid=173110 true there are exceptions... I guess I am not as impressed with the FD as their owners are? maybe with all the hype I was expecting more? |
stick to the subject guys, i dont care waht 3 rotor can do since its not a 2 rotor ;), and yes i am only interested in the FD for various reasons.
|
Originally posted by Shinobi-X The following: Judging by this thread, it's nothing unique to FD owners, but people in general huh? Again, nothing unique to FD owners. Everone does this, not only with vehicles, but it has nothing to do with the type of car they drive. You say this, but later you say "a stock FD isn't really fast... quick, fun, sporty? sure... FAST? no... " A stock N/A FD, isn't going to be anywhere NEAR as powerful as a turbo one...especially considering the fact that it's not the lightest 7. Which would further lead me to questioning the FD's not being fast comment. Compared to what? and for how much? I'd say the basline performance on one is pretty impressive considering it's 10yrs old, and can still outperform many modern sports cars in all areas. Througout this thread, you have been making it seem as if turbo charged cars are not reliable. Yes, a N/A car is easier to maintain, but they can overheat, and die with the right amount of abuse too. I'd say mine is more than reliable, and it's ultimately up to the user how reliable their car is/stays. You take care of your car, and it will take care of you. With the exception of the first ignorant comment in this thread, it actually has some valid points in it. https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...hreadid=173110 Here again, it's all over. All what hype? Do you mean the advances/performance Mazda made with the car, and very well earned well before the F&F crowd even knew about it? It sounds more like you have something personal going on here. There is more, but it's not worth getting into. Just be more careful making the general comments towards others, as you would also be guilty. if anyone took offense to my posts I apologize. Originally posted by Kahren stick to the subject guys, i dont care waht 3 rotor can do since its not a 2 rotor ;), and yes i am only interested in the FD for various reasons. would you be happy with a NA two rotor making 200hp? I know I would. |
i defianttly wont be happy witha 200 hp NA rotary
i have a FC that made 165 to wheels which translates to over 200 hp at crank (2nd gen looses more in drivetrain then the fd) and i am not really happy with it, its quick but not fast |
Originally posted by tbielobockie I got kindof tired of turbo related failures so I decided to build a normally asp FD. Should produce about 400rwhp and 380ft/lb of torque with instant throttle response. Here is a pic of the build underway: http://www.irondonut.com/personal/be...01_13_med.html he he i am tired of this piston in the rx7 crap stick to 13b ONLY |
Sure you can put a n/a 13b in a FD but you just need to learn to live with around 180rwhp or less if you want it to be reliable. If 80k miles is reliable enough then stay turbo and go non seq for that more linear feel
Personally, I couldnt live with a 180rwhp sports car that weights more than 1800lbs. Hell I wasnt happy with my FD till I hit 400rwhp lol Its pretty much that simple. STEPHEN |
i never said anythign about linear power band, stock sequential setup is a LOT more linear then the parallel setup, i was talkignabout the tqorque to wheels and the handling of the car. and where do u get your 180 hp mark at the wheels from?
if u guys really have nothign to say then just click teh back button :( |
Originally posted by tbielobockie Here is the bottom line. Without turbos the FD will be a very fast looking but very slow car. No torque, no horsepower and a lot more noise. The only thing that makes the FD's tiny 1.3l engine produce power is boost, otherwise it's a tiny low compression motor with little torque. Most modern SUVs would work a NA 13B powered FD. Bottom line. I hope no one would just pull the turbos and run it... :eek: |
Originally posted by tbielobockie Here is the bottom line. Without turbos the FD will be a very fast looking but very slow car. No torque, no horsepower and a lot more noise. The only thing that makes the FD's tiny 1.3l engine produce power is boost, otherwise it's a tiny low compression motor with little torque. Most modern SUVs would work a NA 13B powered FD. Bottom line. u obviously have seen many fast NA rotaries to be arguing this... |
Originally posted by wop I don't think he is talking about pulling the turbos and running a stock keg FD... I believe he is talking about building a NA two rotor and putting it into a FD... I hope no one would just pull the turbos and run it... :eek: |
Originally posted by tbielobockie It's still going to be weak. The only way to make a reasonable amount of power is to effect the timing so much that the powerband exists at very high rpm. No low end torque and with super high rpms you are right back to shitty reliability. No matter what way you slice it making a lot of horsepower with a tiny engine requires you to make some tradeoffs. Usually those involve drivability and durability. Mazda should have put a N/A 20B in this car to begin with. |
Originally posted by Kahren i never said anythign about linear power band, stock sequential setup is a LOT more linear then the parallel setup, i was talkignabout the tqorque to wheels and the handling of the car. and where do u get your 180 hp mark at the wheels from? if u guys really have nothign to say then just click teh back button :( What are you talking about? check out a few more dyno sheets. The power is much more linear with non seq. The seq system with a modified car gains around 150rwhp in less than 500rpms at 4500 which is basically like hitting a 150 shot of nitrous. On a non seq car it goes all the way up to aorund 6000rpms at about a 45 degree angle then goes flat till redline. How does that make the seq have a more linear powerband? As for the 180rwhp n/a. I was basing that off of the cars I've seen. Yes, you can make more but I figured you were wanting it to be more reliable than a turbo 13b. Sure you can scrape 300-330 out of one if you rev to 12,000rpms and run alcohol. And I obviously had something to say or else I wouldnt have typed my post. |
im jus assuming that tbielobockie doesnt know much about rotaries like kahren does. really your not going to win with this one, if u want a v8 go buy a stang, SS, something other than from japan, when i first heard of pple putting a v8 in a jap car, i thought wtf is wrong wit these pple, go one way or the other dont mix!!
lol pple are so dumb |
here is my run on the stock sequential system
http://12.243.159.121/cars/dyno%20fi...2010%20psi.JPG here is a non sequential run http://12.243.159.121/cars/dyno%20fi...2017%20psi.jpg i understand the non sequential run is much more power but tell me how its more linear? if u mean its not as responsive as the stock sequential system then thats a diffrent argument, u cant get much more linear then the stock system |
here is my run on the stock sequential system
http://12.243.159.121/cars/dyno%20fi...2010%20psi.JPG here is a non sequential run http://12.243.159.121/cars/dyno%20fi...2017%20psi.jpg i understand the non sequential run is much more power but tell me how its more linear? if u mean its not as responsive as the stock sequential system then thats a diffrent argument, u cant get much more linear then the stock system |
Originally posted by rx7raca im jus assuming that tbielobockie doesnt know much about rotaries like kahren does. really your not going to win with this one, if u want a v8 go buy a stang, SS, something other than from japan, when i first heard of pple putting a v8 in a jap car, i thought wtf is wrong wit these pple, go one way or the other dont mix!! lol pple are so dumb English, please. |
Originally posted by Kahren sorry for not stating the obvious, but its idiotic to take the turbos off and run it like that, i am talkigna bout porting the motor or most likely even using the 6 port one form the FC to be able to use the vatiable timing to keep teh low end and still have top end. |
Originally posted by Felix Wankel English, please. im sorry sir, would u like to teach me, u make fun of everyone that cant talk as well as u? :D |
Originally posted by tbielobockie I've owned rotaries longer than you've had a drivers lic. If I want to put a jet engine in my car it's my business. your right i dont know everything about rotaries, but from what from i have learned, you can make some crazy hp #s.:D |
Originally posted by Kahren here is my run on the stock sequential system http://12.243.159.121/cars/dyno%20fi...2010%20psi.JPG here is a non sequential run http://12.243.159.121/cars/dyno%20fi...2017%20psi.jpg i understand the non sequential run is much more power but tell me how its more linear? if u mean its not as responsive as the stock sequential system then thats a diffrent argument, u cant get much more linear then the stock system Well, which one of those sheets best represents a line to you??? The seq goes up to about 160-170 at 4700rpms then all the sudden jumps 50rwhp, which in a higher hp car would have been more like a 100+rwhp jump. In the non seq it just goes straight up in a LINE with no sudden jumps then levels off at 6K to a straight line. I'd have to say the non seq sheet(which is mine btw) is much more lineare As for responsive, it just depends, my car isnt even tuned below about 4K rpms and its pig rich down there. Even like it is I'm still making more power than most seq cars from 3500 up. One day I'll get around to tuning the bottom end up to 4000rpms and it'll prob equal or beat most of the seq cars from 2700up. Who cares about the power from 2000-3000, thats when I've got my cruise control on. I dont race in those rpms so its not a big deal which is why I havent bothered tuning them. STEPHEN |
Originally posted by SPOautos Well, which one of those sheets best represents a line to you??? The seq goes up to about 160-170 at 4700rpms then all the sudden jumps 50rwhp, which in a higher hp car would have been more like a 100+rwhp jump. In the non seq it just goes straight up in a LINE with no sudden jumps then levels off at 6K to a straight line. I'd have to say the non seq sheet(which is mine btw) is much more lineare As for responsive, it just depends, my car isnt even tuned below about 4K rpms and its pig rich down there. Even like it is I'm still making more power than most seq cars from 3500 up. One day I'll get around to tuning the bottom end up to 4000rpms and it'll prob equal or beat most of the seq cars from 2700up. Who cares about the power from 2000-3000, thats when I've got my cruise control on. I dont race in those rpms so its not a big deal which is why I havent bothered tuning them. STEPHEN |
oh and do u seriously think that your graph is more linear ? :smoker:
|
lin·e·ar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ln-r)
adj. Of, relating to, or resembling a line; straight. In, of, describing, described by, or related to a straight line. Your graph is far from straight, but whatever. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:08 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands