Strip the heads and intake of the LS1 block if you want a fairer comparison, or put the turbos and intake back on the rotary.

Jeff Hoskinson has weighed a 13B-REW with all accessories and turbos and came up with approximately 420 lbs. The LS1 with full accessories weighs about 460 lbs. That's not that far off.

 

Who's talking about displacement? I'm talking about size and weight. The 13B-REW is not 1/4 the size of the LS1, nor is it 1/4 the weight. I don't give a **** what Mazda says it displaces, because it doesn't matter. If you can only fit 80 CID in a ~420 lb. package, that's a criminal waste of space when you can fit over 4 times that in a slightly larger and only slightly heavier package.

Is a 454 LS1 bigger than a 346 LS1 because it displaces another 108 cubic inches? DO THE MATH?!? No, YOU do the math.

A naturally aspirated 3.25 liter engine that would out-power an NA 13B? No problem. Or perhaps you'd like a turbocharged 3.25 liter engine that would out-power a turbocharged 13B-REW? No problem. In fact, you can do it with a 3.0 liter 2JZ-GTE easily.

You need to learn that displacement is power. The more displacement you have, physical or artificial (forced induction), the more air and fuel you can burn in a specific period of time. A bigger engine will always have more power potential than a smaller engine, given identical power adders. Period.

It was half-funny the first time, now it's just stupid. If you want to go 10 rounds, you'd better bring more to the fight, because your **** is weak...

 

You sort of proved yourself wrong with your post. If displacement is power then how come you cant get out of a ls1, that people can get out of the 3.0 liter 2jz-gte. That motor is ruffly half the displacement of the 5.7 liter ls1. Shouldnt you be able to get ruffly double the power out of your V8? I'll go one better on the issue and talk about Nissans RB26 motor. This motor is less then half the displacement of your beloved ls1. Ive seen 1500 whp out of an rb26. Using your theory on displacement is power, does this mean you should be able to get over 3000 whp out of your ls1. Ok now you can have your turn at bringing up some other issue at hand. After all thats what your good at, bashing other peoples thoughts and posts. Pesonally i dont know how your friends (if you have any) and family can deal with such a ***** that has to argue and be right about everything. Dont get me wrong, i have respect for the work you do to your car, and respect your posts when you actually post intuitive information, but i dont see a reason for you constantly picking fights with people over the internet. Do you get off on such acts? You have your opinion, we have ours, lets just leave it at that. We obviously all love the Rx7 or else we wouldnt be posting, so like Rodney King once said "Cant we all just get along"?
Adam

PS. Im sure their is some sort of error in my writings, so be sure in pointing them out.

 

Wrong Again Jimbo. The voices you hear are not really there. Weight nor size was ever an issue in our discussion. The 13B-REW is a 1.3 liter (80 CID) engine. In case you have a hard time reading or identifying numbers, I'll spell it out for you sparky.....EIGHTY CUBIC INCH DIAMETER. Eighty is less than one forth of three hundred forty six.


No argument there. But again, with a few peformance mods, the 13B-REW will compete against any modern muscle car in the 30-65K range. (1/4 mile run). This is where our love fest began.

10 rounds???. Real men still go the full 15! ,......But I'll accomodate you.

DING DING DING.....

 

Larger engines do not always generate more power. You have to factor in things like compression, ability to rev, ect.

A high compression LS1 engine has similar, possibly higher combustion chamber pressure than that of a boosted rx7 (depending on boost levels).

Not to mention horsepower per liter. The ls1 makes 350 horses in high stock trim. That is around 61 hp per liter.
The honda s2000 makes 120 per liter in stock trim. The renesis rotary makes an amazing 185hp per liter in stock trim. And even as you mentioned the 2jz makes more than 105 per liter.
Where is your antiquated LS1 now? Each of these smaller displacement engines are make double or triple the horsepower per liter. So the LS1 would have to make at least 570hp in stock trim to impress me.

As well, reliability is an issue. Sure you can turbocharge a corvette, but how long will it last?
With the right setup, you can have 500 reliable horses to the wheels with a 1.3 liter and have better gas mileage than a stock ls1.

Airflow and fuel consumption are also directly related to power output as well, but I won't get into that.

 

Brilliant. Do you remember me saying this?

"As far as size, the 13B-REW isn't all that much smaller than an LS1, and it's been proven that it's not all that much lighter, either. The only place it's small is where its underrated displacement is concerned."

If not, scroll back a few posts to my first response to you. What you're still harping on, I stated from the very first. Apparently you've got reading comprehension issues.

 

Okay Mr. jimlab. I think we're making some progress. Do you agree with me that the 13B-REW is smaller in Cubic Inches than the infamous 346 LS1?. And when comparing CID to CID,.... CID to HP ratio,.....the 13B-REW kicks major *** over the 346 LS1?? This is not a trick question!

 

Oooops. Please forgive me. I forgot...

DING DING DING

 

Who gives a **** about hp/L? All you should care about is power/weight. I mean, you could have a 0.5L engine that puts out 100 hp (200HP/L), and I'm not putting it in my car. 100H pushing a 3000 lb car wouldn't be very exciting now would it?

As for a 500 HP rotary (I assume you mean the 13brew becasue there aren't very many other 1.3L engines) that gets better gas mileage than a stock LS1, let's just say I'd believe that when I see it.

With my stock 13brew I was getting about 12mpg city and 19 hwy, and with my cammed ls1 I'm getting 17 city and 32 hwy. If anything, modifying the 13brew to make that kind of HP is going to take more than the sotck fuel system can provide, and mileage is going to be worse.

As far as turbocharging and how long it would last:

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131736

Turbocharged f-body on a stock 120,000 mile block. He's been trying to blow it now for awhile to find the limits and then replace the motor with a built one. He's logged over 120 dyno pulls on it, so I'd say it would last as well as the tune, assuming you didn't do something stupid.

 

Let me answer that with a question... are you bright enough to realize that this was never in doubt? Never in question? In other words, the argument that you've made the focus of your last three posts was never even an issue. Now... how stupid do you feel?

Based on the displacement rating method used by Mazda, the 13B-REW makes an incredible amount of horsepower per liter... as any arbitrarily tiny forced induction engine would. That said, let me know the next time you win a race with horsepower per liter. There are cars with engines making half the power per liter or less that would blow your doors clean off.

 

The point isn't that the ls1 is the best engine in existence (and for the record, Jim is putting an lt1 into his car, for some reason lots of people seem to get that wrong). The point is that HP/L is a pretty meaningless measurement. It does very little for you in terms of performance.

The other point that everyone seems to be missing is that the precious little examples they put forth, like the 2jzgte or the rb26dett accomplish their high power through forced induction, which increases their effective displacement. Same thing with the 13brew. That 1.3L (or some might say 2.6L) engine pushing 14.7 psi has an effective displacement of 2.6L (5.2L), and all of the sudden the real world comparison isn;t as one sided as you all would have everyone believe.

I mean, how much boost is that 1500HP rb26dett running? Probably around 30psi at least. So that 2.6L engine is all of the sudden an effective 7.8L engine. Still impressive, but not any more so than any other engine running massive amounts of boost.

 

You forgot to be gay? That's rather hard to believe...

 

I've stopped giving rides to people I don't really trust...

Back in '90 a friend wanted to see how fast my vert was. I told him it wasn't really fast but handled great.

He still wanted to take a ride, so I oblighed him...

I hit a twisty on-ramp near work and was doing around 80 by the time I was on the highway. I looked over and he was halfway out the car. The only thing holding him in was the seat belt.

I asked him WTF, and all he could say was that he got so scared (flashbacks from an accident a few months earlier) that he had to get out of the car. I never went fast with him in the car again.

Another time, I was in the 94 - again accelerating onto the highway when another friend paniced and started to reach for the parking brake. I slapped his hand away before he could grab it.

 

Thanks. I'll take that as a YES to my question.

Sorry jimbo,...YOU LOSE,........ again!!

 

I see these v8 vs rotary / displacement vs FI threads have hit a new low.

 

Sure, whatever.

 

Well this is the way I see it. IMO The only real problem I see with the rotary is the fact that Mazda hasn't "lately" experimented with higher displacement versions of the engine. 1.3 liters will only take you so far. Lets face the facts! In the past 30 years Mazda has only provided us with 3 displacment versions of a "production" rotary engine. The reality of this is that "NO ONE" can really estimate on how much better the rotary can be untill we accually get differant versions of the engine. Until then, in the real world the rotary will always be a fad that people will expect to eventually become extinct.


I am however exited that Mazda is finally making some profit with their newly designed cars. With more money brings on the possibilty of us finally seeing more advancement of the rotary engine in general. With limited funds I feel Mazda has done an excellent job with the renesis project. Also with it's early run in production, it's far to early for some of us to really start to assume that this engine will not be a success. Every manufacture will have the majority of it's problems in its first year vehicle. 3rd gen anyone? I can pretty much guarantee you that the series 7 & 8 versions of the Fd were way more reliable compared to the "Red Headed Step Child" versions we got her in the states.

Oh well I will always love my Fd with a passion.

 

Double post!

 

Finally better that you piston guy's at something

"Unlike other alternative fuels, which are reliant on fossil fuels for their production, hydrogen is a naturally occurring gas which when burnt produces water as an exhaust product, making it the most environmentally friendly fuel available.

However, due to the volatile nature of the gas, the more common Otto cycle (reciprocating) engine needs substantial and expensive development to run on hydrogen to avoid pre-ignition on the intake cycle.

The rotary engine, due to its unique nature, can run on hydrogen with very little modification. It has the injection, compression, ignition and exhaust areas separated from each other so no pre-ignition of the gas occurs.

 

Don't say other than blowing engines damnit!!