rmani

it was done by Peter Farrell Motorcars. It got 2nd only to the linginfelter vetter which costed about 40k more. But the rx7 had the potential with race fuel to make the most hp and it got 1st on the road course and 2nd on the top speed (within the limitations of the straightaway on the road course) category. For some reason you need to click on each of the cars listed in the test to see the results and read about them but it's pretty cool. It's the very first test at the top of the opening page.

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...omparo_toc.xml

RedR1

iTrader: (5)

Did ya also notice that it was a 3 rotor?

My R2

Peter Farrell can't drive. All that horsepower and he can't get low 12s in the 1/4 mile?

edpaek

Is it me or does the Lingenfelter's LS1 look like a 13BREW???

GO to the Web Exclusives on the pull down menu on the right and choose Photo Gallery, its the 6th or 7th pic, it sure as hell look like a rotary, not the V8...

JoeD

duuhh...maybe cause its not set up for drag racing?! look at the trap speeds. thats where all the horsepower comes to play.

Malachi151

Dunno about his driving one way or another, but all the cars were running 12s because of the tire restrictions and the hot and slick surface they were running on.

The key to getting any car under 12 is traction, not HP. No amount of horespower or driving skill will get any rear wheel drive car or FWD car under 12s if they don't go to drag radials and a drag suspention setup.

My R2

You speak half truths...
There are high horpsepower cars out their spinning their tires all the way through the 1/4 mile and can get 12 sec 1/4 mile times. On the other hand lightly modded cars that usually get 12 to 13 second times must get a good take off or they will not get the times they usually post.

A corvette Z06 or Viper do not need drag radials or a suspension set-up to get 12s

And a 600hp RX-7 should do better than a 12.9 in the 1/4 mile. PERIOD!

Malachi151

Well, I've read that that car has run 10s before with Peter driving it. I said that for a car to get UNDER 12 they need drag radials. That is the thing, 12s seems to be the tracktion cutoff point for 1/4 mile. A stock ZO6 poseted a better 1/4 then the Linginfelter Vette did too. Its because with 400 HP or 2,000 HP a Corvette can only get 12s or street tires no matter what.

As a rule of thumb, to get UNDER 12 you need radials.

And as I said, it was stated many times that the surface they were on sucked horribly and was very slippery, plus they were racing into a 15 MPH headwind. Overall the conditions were horrible for a race of any kind, but I guess its okay for a comparison since they were all exposed to the same conditions. You can't compare those numbers to anything else outside that event though.

My R2

Yeah, the conditions were horrible and all, I saw it on T.V. but he still should have done better than 12.9, IMO

Oh yeah there are many exceptions to the 12 second rule....
McLaren (granted it caosts more than a mansion but it does it 11.xx without drag radials), Porchse 911 turbo (it has done 11.xx before), and even the Viper has seen 11.xxx before.

turbojeff

iTrader: (30)

Peter Farrell CAN drive school boy. Why don't you do a little reading up on his qualifications before you spout off.

Jeff
93 R1
87 TII

RussellTT94

i heard that the PFS car wasn't tuned worth ****. from everything i've heard Peter Farrell is an idiot, Cam kicks his ***.

rmani

?? i thought all rotary engines in the fd were the same sorry but can u elaborate i simply dont understand. i always thought when people said 3 rotor it was just another name for the rotary engine or something. can you explain?

My R2

Why some people cannot debate or speak their differences in an adult fashion is beyond me. Example Malachi151 and I disagree, but we don't call each other names we just type our points of view and try to debate in an orderly way. Now let us turn our attention to TurboJeff who calls me School boy. I could take this as a negative but I won't because actually if you knew how long I have been in school you'd see the statement almost describes me to a tee. However, I am a man, but that is something for a latter discussion.

I could say get off Peter's nuts and grow a set of your own, but I will not I will just say -- OK. I have neither the time or desire to start a flame war of my opinions and thoughts.

Peace

My R2

rmani

All RX-7 come with 2 rotors (1.8 liter)
If a RX-7 has 3 rotors then this increase the engine size to 2.6 or 7(?). Thus MORE power. It is kinda like increasing the displacement of the engine, no that is exactly what it is

RussellTT94

who wants to set him straight?

turbojeff

iTrader: (30)

I'm not usually one for flaming but the wife pissed me off this morning, school boy was too harsh...

ALL 86+ RX7's come with a 1.3L rotary motor, only options were turbos. 1.3L is not optional.

20B's have the same size rotors as a 13B, so just add on another rotor (1.3/2). The total displacement is 1.95L, or rounded up, 2.0L.

You might notice that the naming convention of the motor sorta goes along with it's displacement, 13B=1.3L and a 20B=2.0L

suganuma

*said in butler voice*

after you good sir...



ok....so the butler rebels....

3rd gen:
1.3L for 2 rotor
2.0L for 3 rotor

....the uh 2.6L is a 4 rotor....like in the 787B Le Mans car

theyre called 20B, 12A, 13B, 13B-REW, R26B for reasons.....

i think each rotor has a displacement of 654cc if i remember right. so multiply that by # of rotors and theres your displacement and appoximate literereerage

suganuma

guess thats what i get for writing so much......someone beat me to posting it :p

rmani

thanks for the info guys do a lot of people have the 3 rotor setup? is it more reliable than the 2 rotor? how much does it cost to do that type of conversion? thanks again

My R2

I divided 1.8 by 2 instead of 1.3 my fault :p

turbojeff No problem wifes can do that to the best of us

To all:
I think you all for posting the correct explanation of the 2 rotor and the 3 rotor and not getting all smart assed about it. We all have a common bond and we should for the most part try to help one another out.

As for most of us guys having a 3 rotor, no! It costs too much.. like 25-36K. most would rather go single and get NEAR (but not means close)the same performance level ( not potential) as the 3 rotor.

Peace

neo_omega

if you have C&D the mag, the full article was on it a while ago. We finish this topic a while back too.

7-sins

LOL

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...gallery_13.xml

Check it out guys, the new rotary powered chevy. Funny the two turbos look like one big one. :p

Malachi151

WTF, what is up with that? It that really the intake manafold for that car, or is the picture messed up or hacked or something?

RedR1

iTrader: (5)

Rmani, the 3 rotor conversion has different prices Well, in a way it does. It all depends on who you take it to, and how much they charge for labor. The car n driver mag said Peter ferrel moved the firewall back like 3 inches or so, so i would guess that took a pretty penny laborwise (a place called speedcraft near me quoted 30k, so i was like screw that, maybe when i make a million). Contact Petitt, as i have heard they are the predominant company in 3 rotor swaps. There are others, i just havent heard much about them. Can anyone lend me a helping hand in the names of places that do 3 rotor swaps?

DK

iTrader: (5)

Ummm ... no no ... that's what it looks like. Chevy didn't stop with just copying the front skins of the FD ... they went under the hood, too. Strange, huh?