So excited right now cause 2 days ago i finally bought another FD after wanting another one for two years. Ah i cant wait to start working on it and prove to my friends that their pistons have no chance against my rotary.

 

We want pics

 

were you on the forum before? is this a new username?

 

Welcome I think! Let's see it!

 

a.) Congratulations on your purchase, post some pics up some time and have fun!

b.) "and prove to my friends that their pistons have no chance against my rotary" is just....not true. A built piston engine has far more torque than you'll ever achieve, it is a fact. I wouldn't go trying to smoke some 400 hp Civic or Eclipse just yet....lol! There is nothing about the rotary engine that makes it dominant in any way...they are cooler than hell yes, and unique and capable of some amazing things for their displacement, but....can you think of ONE race car or racing team, even in the drag world, that has an all-conquering rotary? I can't.

 

Ill work on getting pics up, but its Calicos's 94 R2 i picked up from the 3rd Gen for sale thread, and im a new guy to this forum.
And ya Bajaman i agree with you about piston motors im not expecting my motor to make 600 torqu/ 600Hp like my stroked 440 i had, im just having some fun, i just like how unique a rotary is and how there is less moving parts. Mainly i wanted to go to the far end of the spectrum compared to mhy last car, Which was a 1968 dodge charger with said stroker 440

 

And of course, keep in mind the FD's real strength is in its handling. Not too many cars, even now, that can hang with it.

Ah man....that '68 Charger sounds like it was FUN!

God, I miss my Chevelle.....sigh.

 

haha thats funny cause when i sold my first FD to keep my charger i was like damn i miss turning. What year Chevelle and what was the drivetrain?

 

'72 with a 350, Edelbrock manifold, Hooker headers, TurboHydramatic 350. Nothing special, sounded good, ran pretty decent for a 350. It was my first car, lots of good memories in that thing for sure!

Someday, I'll get a cherry '69 or '70 with a big block and be a happy camper.

 

Yeah, with 3, 4, and even 5 times the displacement. See Howard Coleman's threads, nothing moves air better than a turbocharged rotary, for the same displacement...period

 

And?

Real life isn't an engineering design competition...

 

It is when you're highly competitive individual and a professional engineer....I like to win...you don't?

 

You can only win if you enter a competition. Declaring yourself a winner without an actual competition present is compensation.

 

Im guessing this is the car you bought?
https://www.rx7club.com/3rd-generation-rx-7-1993-2002-vehicles-107/1994-silver-fd-r2-879407/

If so congrats its a clean FD

 

Tell that to the last Cayman S and M3 driver I smoked, both straight line and curvy backroads. These people don't like losing to a "lowly" FD, believe me.

Here's a hint, son: don't spew random bs when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about (again)

 

Mark,

Apparently you have in the past found disagreement with me. If there are any outstanding points that require further discussion bring them up where they take place rather than make weak references.

Your activity on this forum centers more on putting down others and puffing up your personal superiority more than sharing useful ideas and discussion.

To the OP, Howard Coleman is not the be-all end-all of rotary builders, but he has put together very nice setups and writes about it very well. You can do little wrong by reading his postings and approach to making big streetable power on a turbo rotary. Warning, it won't be nice on your wallet.

Dave

 

++^^What Dave said....and I'm a "Professional" engineer too.

 

Im sorry but i have to just comment on how this thread took a huge skew in direction, but on the bright side its made for some entertaining reading.

 

I'm sorry but don't single turbo rx7s in their everday clothes run anywhere between 10s to 12s @ 1/4mile. An Enzo runs 11.xx Torque or rolling start is another story but still our cars have pretty good power to weight ratio.

Eitherway I'm not really into drag racing so I don't care but for me the strength of our cars are not just in the handling but in the total packageness if there is such a word lol. And it's pure cause it was built before electronics started taking over. I wonder compared to our cars how a 1700kg GTR would drive if you disabled the electronics.

 

It's an interesting question.

On the track it's still a power comparison. In autocross on a small course I can say I've consistently beaten a GT-R with my very lightly modified FD. Electronics have nothing to do with suspension geometry and weight distribution.

Dave

 

Maybe I'm wrong but I'd say it'd be like an understeering pig on a tight autocross track. 1750kg is 1750kg. FD is light, agile, goes hard and revs high. I'm not saying this to disagree with you but electronics indirectly effect all that when they move the torque on each wheel, braking on each corner, and ecu related curves around.

 

That's right, he was not able to get through the slaloms and turns as quickly. Trail-braking can help but that only works when there is speed available to scrub off.

This course had no significant straightaways. With a straightaway where WOT comes into play it would have made up time quickly based on torque.

 

Welcome, We demand PIX

 

SpeedSource Race Engineering is doing pretty well.

 

yeah the GT series in rolex is almost entirely RX8's now