that is what happens when the wastegate opens and closes to regulate boost...... its fixed now. next dyno charts will look alot nicer

 

Guess you don't know VOSKO do you.... LOL

 

When will that next dyno be? Any ideas?

STEPHEN

 

Hey bro ,don't be pissed off cause you smoked a big tater before you went to work on your car ,as a result of listening to the Doors and taking hits from the bong you did something wrong and screwed up your motor .Or maybe you have no mechanical skills ,ya know some people just need to pay to get things done .I graduated from MIT and the numbers that the RX7 had to offer is what got me involved with this rotary world !If you do things right you can make these cars destroy all the high priced euro cars and the big V8's!

 

The reliability issue is not so much a rotary (although it is something to be recognized), but a displacement issue. A 13B is 1.3 litres, and we're trying to compare its reliability to 3.0 to 5.7 litre motors in a similar power range??

You find me a 1.3 litre piston engine that makes 400-500 hp (particularly with production stock or near to it internals) and i'll show you one that will blow the F*ck up.

whats the cost for a "reliable" 1.3 litre motor that will make that kind of power? I bet its more that a $4000 semi-built rotary.

For gods sake this has been beaten to death. If you don't appreciate rotaries, buy something else PLEASE. Or roll over to a vintage Lotus forum and post threads about how shitty and unrealiable those cars are. Or go bitch on the Ferrari forum that the engines need a ROUTINE rebuild every 15k. Or go bitch on the Viper forum that they aren't even making 100 hp per/litre, and STILL arent toyota camry-reliable. EVERY car has its tradeoffs.

 

Obvious? Apparently not since you dont seem to get the point (are you really a technical person?)...sure there are substitutes to encourage/extract more out of a system but not without compromise. There is no getting around these thermodynamic laws. This is not about "stress" knucklehead, this is about pushing a system to exceed its practical tolerances.

It should be "obvious" in any thermodynamic cycle that power is limited by the volume of the system. Adding more fuel, air does not change this terminal number which is not possible to achieve since no system is perfectly efficient. Sure, it gets you closer, but not a great cost to the rest of the system.

I happen to really like the rotary and appreciate its unique advantages and tolerate but am not blinded by its tempestuous nature.

Really, how many of you drive your car with true calm? Not checking this or that...constantly checking boost guage, fuel maps, blah blah. I have met many supra owners...freaking beat the **** out of thier cars...park 'em til next time. I get in my car, when its running, and cannot relax....if I push my car hard it is always with apprehension and detracts from truly enjoying the car. Funny thing, wouldnt have it any other way

 

I'm not disputing the reliability of the rotary. It is unreliable and difficult to tune. The people who come on here and say 'My car is reliable and makes 3xx or 4xx hp' has no basis for calling their car reliable. It is impossible to call something 'reliable' unless several people have the exact same setup and run them for a long period of time.

I was mostly arguing the 'no replacement for displacement' thing. To make power, an engine coverts hydrocarbons and O2 into CO2 and H2O, which is an exothermic reaction. This is where the power comes from. All you have to do to increase power is to increase the amount of oxygen and fuel. The tricky part is usually adding more oxygen, which can be done by cramming in more air (forced induction), introducing things like nitrous, allowing the engine to breath more freely, increasing displacement, etc. 'No replacement for displacement' is completely wrong.

 

this post from page 1 was largely ignored, but could very well have caused the problem

The PFC could be tuned for larger injectors. Thinks of it this way, a larger injector (1600cc) at 50% duty cycle will give you 800cc flow, but with the stock 850s, you'll only get 425. The fuel map is basically a matrix consisting of injector duty cycles at given rpm and boost level.
So, if the PFC was in fact tuned for larger injectors and you slap it into a car with stock injectors, well you get the picture. But, do a compression test before jumping off the bridge.

or the fuel filter/injectors could be clogged as well

 

you should be getting that email in about 2-3 years or about 50k miles

do me a favor hold your breath we will see which lasts you or my *unreliable* engine

 

Certainly, in your technical endevours you have studied the compressibility of gases (variable = z) no?

Ok for the remedial group lets recap:

W (non-reversible) = (integral of)pdV

you see the V? thats volume (displacement) otay? Increase in volume allows for more gas, air, fuel neccesary to produce work. This doesnt mean it does it as efficiently (we all know the rotary cycle produces great power for displacement than say a piston cycle) but a 20b has greater hp potentail than a 13b right? That is what is meant by the "...displacement..." adage.

"Thanks for playing..."

 

I've already been thru one motor - stock, as in 255 manufacture rated flywheel hp (which according to your original statement, should have lasted me until eternity). I fully expect to go thru at least one or two more in my lifetime, especially since it's heavily modified now. You know, exponents and all that. I've budgeted for it, and I expect it. I can afford it, and I accept it as part of owning a hi-perf rotary engine.

But that's not the point. I'm questioning the purpose of your original post, and your tactic of covering it up with flowery prose - of which you can't back up.

Enough of this. Continue if you have to, I've made my point.

 

This is not a fair comparison dude.... A Z06 has nearly 10 years of additional development, displaces 5.7 litres, and costs 55k. Most any car from '92 would suffer just as badly in comparison.. hows a '92 M3 versus the new ones? Alot has happened.

Try comparing our cars to a '92 corvette. Why don't you have a Z06? Also, My car beats a Z06 running a nice conservative 12 psi, no aggressive porting and the usual bolt-ons, and passes VA emission with no tuning changes.

Lets not assume that all new German and America cars are perfectly engineered either... i know plenty of folks who've blown up M3s, S4s, Z06s, and Supras... part of the problem the FD faces is that it IS cheap to buy, and therefore many of the people who can afford to buy one (college kids and such) can't afford to properly maintain or mod them.

 

All I am saying is that displacement is one of the many variables that you can change to make more power. If I slap a turbocharger on my engine, what happens??? I make more horsepower! WOW! I did that without increasing displacement! But how would that be possible, since there is 'no replacement for displacement'?

I could use the same logic and say 'there's no replacement for an open exhaust'. If you have a restricted 1/2" exhaust, increasing displacement isn't going to do you much good. An engine running with a 3" exhaust has more power potential than an engine with a 1/2" exhaust, right? A 20b has more power potential than a 13b too, just like you stated.

 

This only applies if the source is being continuously pushed to it's limit.

You would be a fool to race the cars in the next lane at every stop light, pushing the car to it's limit at every given opportunity. Any car would degrade in performance and reliability with constant abuse like that. I think alot of people are neglecting to see, these are NOT race cars, so they shouldn't be treated as such. They can be made into full out racers, but I seriously doubt many owners would want that out of their 7. I certainly wouldn't, I get too many looks and smiles from the general public

Sorry for adding my $0.02

DITTO

80,744 on original engine and turbos. It does need new vacuum lines and a major tune up, but that's all in keeping up the maintenance.

 

excellent point! supported by the amount fo rip-off artist on the forum either just plain stealing or selling junk.

 

The boat motor while being under much more stress than the 13b. (Not only does the boat outweigh the RX but it has to push though water rather than air) Here is what I noticed; the v-8 was more reliable, more responsive, ran on any kind of gas, and while my overboosted rotary might have on occasion touched a higher peak HP number the smallblock (if it did it was just a scant few HP more) however the rotary would have never been as quick revving, responsive or made anywhere near the torque of the v-8. Further the v-8 makes significant amounts of power over it's *ENTIRE* rev range, from idle to redline. The 13b-rew makes significant power from 4800-8200rpm.

would someone ban this clown? just shut up....sell your RX-7 or put a V-8 in it and go take a flying leap

1. a 350 chevy does not "rev quicker" than a rotary, nor is it "more responsive"......purely subjective

2. comparing 5.7 L engine performance to a 1.3 L is stupid and has already been repeated ad nauseum on this forum, your banal comments are hardly anything new....so a Keith Black 500 c.i. will eat your 350 alive! who gives a ****?

the 13B is reliable within a relatively narrow window of operation, true, but saying it is "fragile as eggshells" is just a jackass ignorant statement....get lost if you hate rotary engines that much....F-body.com has your name all over it

 

haha...ive heard every word here at least ten times over the past few years on this forum. it is a purely redundant discussion.

whoever doubts vosko should purchase a ride from him on ebay. hahaha...you still sellin vosko?




j

 

You said DERIVED. So boat motors are in fact built for boats? As in, they are not car engines?

Probably not long? Don't think the engineers who designed the rotary motor intended for it to be used in anything but lightweight cars?

Why are rotary motors favored over v-8s in aviation? Aircraft cruise hours on end at high power levels and reliability is a huge issue here. You can't simply pull to the side of the road if you loose an engine in a plane...

 

That's not quite true. RE Amemiya JGTC car makes around 300hp using the 3-rotor (NA). I imagine they get the same use out of the engine as the SCCA driver was talking about in my earlier post.

http://www.jgtc.net/race/2002/02team/02team007e.htm

Now, it's true that rotary engine don't take to heat and detonation the way piston engine do. However, those aren't necessarily good things to have for a piston engine either.

If you are talking "apples to apples", the SCCA driver hit the nail on the head. For delivering the same output (NA wise), the rotary engine has better longevity than a majority of piston engine. However, when you add in the heat from turbocharging, questionable fuel sources, etc... those small problems with the rotary begin to become larger concerns.

I do agree that the twin turbos used in the FD put out an enormous amount of heat, which is not a good thing. A single turbo like the Apexi which could deliver similar performance with less heat could/would make a "more reliable turbochaged rotary" vehicle. Probably 15 or so years ago, the twin turbo system seemed like a good idea.

 

who installed the last engine ?

 

Dude, this is a turbo vs. non-turbo issue, and a large displacement vs. small displacement issue, not V8 to Rotary issue.

The V8's you're talking about are 5.7 litres. Go find a 1.3 litre turbo charged piston motor making 500 horsepower, or even a 1.3 N/A piston motor making anywhere near 200 hp, and then you can compare.

 

I'd love to see how long a 13b would last at full boost in a boat vs. a traditional pushrod v-8. I would give it a matter of a few minutes before the thing came apart.

and I'd love to see how long your almighty V-8 would last against a turbine engine in a full season of boat racing....fact is, they get torn down every race due to compression loss, and turbine boats can go a full season without skipping a beat

there is ALWAYS a bigger and badder alternative in motorsports, so go on home and play with your 350 chevy camaro, little redneck boy

what are you trying to prove here? we like the rotary engine, you don't....WE GOT IT....now go stink up F-body.com with your jr. high level reasoning

good riddance

 

Come on now, we all know the rotary is a 2.6L, at least when compared to piston engines.

 

what an ***-hat!!

he was born in august 1986. that puts him at basically 16 1/2 years old. he bought his FD AND a boat in 1998, when he was roughly 12!!! he is a troll.

go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

 

Come on now, we all know the rotary is a 2.6L, at least when compared to piston engines

BS

displacement is always measured the same way: swept volume