I don't even want to spark this debate again, but since the engines are completely different designs, 2.6L is a much more realistic comparison than 1.3L.

So displacement is measured by swept volume. Swept volume per what? Per crankshaft revolution? Per two crankshaft revolutions? If you want to calculate the swept volume per combustion chamber, then the 13B is actually a 3.9L.

2.6L is the most realistic and accepted designation for comparing to piston engines.

 

so it is designated a 1.3 by Mazda, who built the engine, but your wisdom trumps theirs, is that right?

swept volume, as measured by the volume exposed to the combustion source from one power cycle to the next, irrespective of crankshaft revolution

 

man I was wondering why this thread went from 1 to 4 pages like a little over a day lol.

First on the agenda, tbielobockie got owned.........just making sure everyone caught that.

Dude you are so out of it its ridiculous, there are so many guys on here putting down over 400RWHP now and have been doing so for awhile. **** look at the new BNR twins, modified stock twins putting down over 400RWHP. I suggest you venture into the single turbo section and take a gander at whats posted there. Seriously your not right, I know you think you are but your not. Look at nocab72, around 500RWHP on a street port and GT35/40 turbo and thats at 18ish psi on pump if I am not mistaken. And thats not mentioning Crisspeed or the other drag guys that run 9s in their 7s. And there are numerous guys on here with 80k on stock engines/turbos, and another good number over 100K on stock engine/turbos. Dude for real get a clue, or read a book or something. Go buy an LS1 if you think they are the ****. I'll see you on the track, err wait I forgot they get out-cornerd by basically everything with tires. around .82Gs isn't good. I cruise with LS1s and IROCs mainly, my friend and myself are the only ones with boost in the group. The LS1 is a good engine and if I went NA I would probably buy an SS. However with that said, frankly they are far cooler and more knowledgeable then you.

You talk about NA rotaries lasting 100K, well why not add another 100K on to that....if you can, if not lets see here, get out your calculator, 100+100=200. say it with me now 200...there good job.
Wait what won LeMans again, oh yeah a 4 rotor, a race designed around the ultimate in endurance.
rotary's with boost are much more finicky then NA, but its all about how you take care of them. Frankly I don't think the engine's ability to overheat should be placed so much on the engine rather than Mazda's shitty *** cooling system. The simple reliability mods go a long way.

Again you said you owned an FD back in the late 90s, its a whole new ballpark now. I think if you hang around here you'll realize that.
If not your one of the worst types of people, those who think they are always right and can never be proven wrong regardless of what they are shown/said to prove them wrong. I believe you are one of those, and if I am correct that really unfortunate for you.

Good day and God bless......

 

"oh ****, I forgot I put my birthday on there" comes to mind here, LOL. It almost sounds like he turned 16, took out the ol LS-1 and got burned by a Rex one night or something.

 

I'm sure Mazda designated it as a 1.3L by convention only, not on logic. Most people who understand how the rotary works designate it as a 2.6L for comparing to piston engines, because it breathes as much air as a 2.6L. Why is that so hard to understand?

Also, by your definition of swept volume, what do you consider a power cycle? A cycle in which all combusion chambers produce power? In that case, the 13B is a 3.9L.

 

it is designated as a 2.6 to handicap it in such races as SCCA, etc.

and im sooo sure mazda used NO logic in designating what their pride and joy of an engine would have labeled as displacement, they just threw a monkey in a room with number on the wall and chose the first one he threw **** at....oh wait no thats right they have engineers who do such calculations for them to determine the actual/correct displacement of THEIR engines.

now if YOU designed it you cold call it a 537052409.3L for all i care.

kevin.

 

So where do you think the racing establishments came up with 2.6L? Hmmm.... let's see.... Since it is a completely different design than the piston engine, we need to come up with a way, that is fair, to compare them with a piston engine. It seems like displacement per crankshaft revolution is a good way to compare the two. Damn, that was hard! And since it is convention that piston engines are measured in displacement per two crankshaft revolutions, let's do the same for rotary *so everyone is on the same playing field*!

When people compare a 1.3L piston motor to a 1.3L rotary, of course the rotary is going to win. The exact same thing will happen if you compare a 2 stroke 1.0L to a 4 stroke 1.0L. That is not a fair comparison, and you know it. The fact that Mazda decided to designate it as a 1.3L does not change the fact that it breathes the same as a 2.6L piston. Mazda could have designated it as a 1.3L, a 2.6L, or a 3.9L, all of which make perfect sense.

1.3L: 2 combustion chambers, each ~650cc.
2.6L: Displacement per 2 crank revs, same convention as for a piston motor.
3.9L: 3 combustion chambers per rotor, for a total of 6 at ~650cc each.

In the latest issue of Sport Compact Car (got it yesterday), there is a 3rd gen buyers guide. A quote from the article p. 100, "The car's twin sequential turbocharged 13B churned 255 hp from the same 2.6 liters (or 1.3 if you prefer convention over logic) that made 135 hp in the first generation car."

You can think of it a 1.3L if you want, but that number is meaningless in the real world.

 

Ya know what ,I think tbielobockie is Joe Dirts long lost brother ,I think I saw him in an old I-ROC cruisin with both windows down {in 30 degree weather}smokin some Cambridge lights ,with that beautiful mullet hair-do flying in the wind!!!lol!! I'm sorry but this guy has got to be TT ! Ya know I hate to be cruel but this guy deserves it !! Anyone that knows an RX7 knows these tach up high like a two stroke motorcycle!!Lets see a corvette redlines about 6500-6800,and a 7 redlines near 8000!?Shut up Moe Dirt!If anything is "quick revving" that would be a rotary! In fact when Mr.Wankle first developed this marvelous motor they couldn't develop a metal {or drivetrain}strong enough to withstand the HP's and RPM's !! What is really a trip is that this guy was talking bout a boat motor being stronger or whatever,when that was what the rotary was designed for !but they couldn't find a way to control the HP's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!they kept tearing the transom out of the boats!so they took it to aircraft!and it is still powering them today !So lets see take your LS1 v8 and put it in a plane and fly your *** back to Poland ,cause you must be a F**KING Polock !and for you "ptrhahn"!!!! AMEN BROTHER!!RIGHT ON !!! FKURV8!!

 

Can't we all just get along?

 

2.6L: Displacement per 2 crank revs, same convention as for a piston motor

by your "logic" then, a two stroke 500 cc GP bike must actually be 1000 cc

get a grip

 

Exactly, for comparison purposes. Which is why you can't compare a 2 stroke and 4 stroke motor of similar displacements. The 2 stroke will always win.

 

correct, "usually"....but four stroke technology is catching up pretty quick, because of disproportionate R&D....Honda's 250F motocrosser competes fairly well with the CR250 two stroke

imagine where the rotary would be right now if there was some Honda R&D money behind it!

but the point is, the engineering measure of true displacement does not change to accomodate "fair racing"

 

I agree. I'm not saying the true displacement changes, but when you are comparing two engines of completely different designs, there has to be some logical way of equating them. All I am saying is that it misleading and unfair to compare a 1.3L piston motor with a 1.3L rotary.

My friend has an Arctic Cat Thundercat snowmobile with a 1000 cc 2-stroke 3 cylinder, and it makes 172 hp from the factory (and it weighs ~600lbs! Yeah, its crazy fast.). I don't think this has been achieved in a four stroke yet. The closest thing I can think of is the 1300 cc Hayabusa that makes 160hp, or the Honda S2K.

I've often thought about how awesome the rotary engine would be if more companies supported it and did R&D. I mean, Madza is completely alone, and I think it's pretty amazing that they have been so successful with it.

 

Keep your fingers crossed on the future success... RX-8 rotory motor ~~~> RX-7 body

could very well be a possibility

 

My friend has an Arctic Cat Thundercat snowmobile with a 1000 cc 2-stroke 3 cylinder, and it makes 172 hp from the factory. I don't think this has been achieved in a four stroke yet.

try again.... http://www.motorcycledaily.com/30jan...asv5motor.html

actually, the RC211, a 990 cc four stroke, puts down about 240 hp NA

 

I was talking about production engines, but that thing is still amazing.

 

I feel for you man..

 

for once I agree with this guy

turbocharged rotaries in small planes have been tried and met with failure

I wouldn't trust a turbo 13B if I was several thousand feet in the air, would you? ha

 

That does it! Anyone who wants a 13B-REW with only 15,000 miles on it check by my curb on garbage day. I am yanking it this weekend and tossing it out with the rest of my trash.

Then I am going to go buy that Z-28 SS I was looking at before the 7 and go terrorize the streets and racetracks. (Course I will be doing it more slowly...)

 

kind of an interesting article

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Editor...ary_reborn.htm

 

I didn't say the v-8 piston engine is the ideal solution for every power source. I said "the rotary engine isn't acceptable for turbocharging and isn't good for any more than 200 reliable horsepower (13b)" Further those who were trying to get more than 200hp out of it are wasting their time and money.

The truth hurts sometimes.



are you on some kind of mission here? you keep pounding the gavel about turbocharging being a waste of time and money, but do you really think anyone is listening? why don't you jump over to the single turbo forum so you can REALLY get your *** kicked

at this point it's just blah, blah, blah....you can't get more than 200 reliable hp....repeat....you can't get more than 200 reliable hp....repeat....

plenty of people are doing it, and they don't care what you say....do us all a favor, sell you car and buy a Camaro, we enjoy our cars and are willing to accept the risks....turbo rotary cars are a blast to drive, end of story....

 

what the hell is your point, the FD is 10 years older than a Z06. And its taken the Corvette that long to finally match/exceed the FD in overall track performance. The drivability in a 400 plus FD is probably better than one still running seq. or stock turbos. The rats nest is taken out and the overall system is greatly simplified. The drivability with a Z06 is the same, 2 seater sports car you can't do much as far as daily driving goes. If you want performance and drivability buy an E46 M3, again poor relation using a Z06. And what are you referring to when you say tractability. A tract is like an area or region so WTF are you talking about?

and why do you still own your FD if you have a poor views/opinions toward them, the rotary engine, and think they blow engines all the time?

 

hey, if I had 50k laying around like JimLab I would be picking up a Z06 daily driver as well

the point is, most of us do not have that kind of extra cash....I love the Z06, however, for now, the FD offers above average bang for the buck, considering you can often pick one up for 12k or less

 

A rotary properly tuned by a PROFFESIONAL tuner will run fine for a VERY long time with proper maintainence.

It is when people who are untrained in the tuning of an ECU or fuel plug-in start mucking around with it that things blow up.

It is when someone takes a stock '86-'88 Turbo II That makes ~186 HP and was not designed to make more (EX: The injectors/pump/AFM/Bearings/mounts were designed to work at STOCK levels, unlike the Supra which can support huge HP on nearly stock fuel system)
When someone starts slapping on a Full intake and Full exhaust from Racing Beat and just throws in a Fuel Cut defencer on an engine with over 180,000 kms and 15+ year old wiring and built up grime thinking nothing is going to happen that things start exploding on them.


Hell if you can show me ANY Supra with 700+ HP detonate at 8,000 RPM and walk away from it, I'd like to see that. The reason a Z06 with 400 HP is so reliable is because it was 100% expertly tuned by people who are so professional it is ridiculous. If you tune a car like an FD up to 400 HP on a plug-in or standalone system and get some mechanic who is not PERFECTLY trained on the unit, that could spell disaster for any car.

 

the tuning window and/or margin for error is much smaller on a turbo rotary than an NA or turbo piston engine, no one can debate that....apex seals simply do not withstand detonation without high risk of catastrophic failure

but, like I said, most FD owners accept those risks, and experienced tuners work around them...

therefore. calling us idiots will only guarantee you alot of enemies here