t-von

iTrader: (8)

Yes it is. Each rotation produces a single ignition event per rotor face. I thought everyone already knew this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuId4nuxXaM


This is exactly the reason a 1.3L rotary can be considered a 2.6 liter. If this video had 2 rotors, you would see that the rotary moves 1.3L of air every rotation of the e-shaft. When 2 rotations happen, you have moved 2.6liters.

Regardless how Mazda rates it. Engine moves 1.3L every rotation of the e-shaft.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Oopps I meant to say it's a 4 cycle with 2 stroke advantages.

He's On Toroids

iTrader: (2)

Sorry Howard, I didn't mean to side-track this thread. You always put out great info and I enjoy reading your various threads very much. I think you have single handedly convinced me that AI is an essential upgrade that is right up there with the rest of the reliability mods. But, I have seen you say 2 cycle before and had to say something.

I do think t-von is most accurate in stating that it is a 4-cycle engine. I mistyped before and should not have said strokes. The rotary has no strokes.

I agree: The point that you were trying to make was that the engine fires once every rotation and creates a heat concentration around the combustion area. This, would in part make it a 2 stroke engine. (if we were talking piston engines)

My issues with calling the engine a 2 cycle (or 2 stroke) is that it is definitely not a 2 cycle it is four. If you say 2, people get the wrong impression about the combustion process (it is in fact, an Otto cycle). If, when mentioning it to someone who only thinks in piston terms you say 2, they get the completely wrong idea about things (especially if you mention that you premix too). I just wanted to try and clear that up in hopes that people would understand these engines a little better.


On to what you were actually interested in, what can we learn from the Mclaren MP4? It costs a lot more money to buy a car from the dealership, if you want to go as fast as a heavily modded FD.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

not to be too much of a downer but the Mclaren would walk all over a 344WHP FD up and down and then stomp on it's neck. it has all over power with high rev capability as well versus domestic large piston V8's which are mainly torque monsters.

why do i say that? because engine displacement is irrelevant when the cars weigh identical amounts. the only way that the comparison would be valid is if you had a rotary engine with exactly the same displacement. even then the advantage goes to the 4 cycle engine in the lower RPM range as it retains far more torque than even a well setup rotary. AI is just a safeguard but does nothing for the low end of the motor that it lacks. the comparison is the total horsepower/torque of a car versus another with the same weight, engine size and HP per cubic inch really means next to nothing except that you are almost granted skewed torque ranges.

if you want to start revolutionizing these engines further look at the few twin charged setups and start thinking about how that can evolve these cars further.

by the way, the FC also has many of the same weight shaving technologies that the FD has and most of the time that went into designing the lightweight FD actually originated with the FC and was adapted to the 3rd generation.

edit: with boingers the cycle is counted for each 180 degrees of rotation because the piston is travelling up, one cycle, then down, another cycle(2 full rotations for 4 cycles). rotary engines do not move up and down and work on far different principles which cannot directly be compared. most people simply call them 2 cycles because it has a simple intake cycle, 1 stroke, and an exhaust cycle, 2nd stroke in one full crank rotation(a full combustion cycle is completed in 2 strokes versus 4, or in other words 360 degrees of cranking for a 2 stroke or 720 degrees in a 4 stroke). -removed some crap because it was silly.


all in all, sure the rotary can have more HP per cubic inch but it needs it in order to actually keep up with the car with the larger engine putting out the same horsepower with the same curb weight.

Montego

iTrader: (1)

Either you misunderstood the premise or I'm not following why you would make that comparison. As Howard never claimed that a 344 RWHP FD could take on the Mclaren

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

i guess i just read too much into everything leading up to the main point.

horsepower isn't everything, throttle response is also a critical component to having a supercar that is being compared here which has more response regardless of where you are in the RPM range.

wish there was a way to make an electronic paddle shifter for these old trannies. now that would be a nice way to help keep up without losing all the air in the tract between shifts. helping the lack of torque curve out.

what you also never see compared on dyno sheets is on/off throttle transition, see how quickly each engine builds back up to peak power. count the milliseconds for the rotary versus a 4 stroke V8 naturally aspirated. take the rotary out of the latter RPM range and add shifting time... it all adds up to "no comparison". equally skilled drivers on a closed course, the rotary will require more effort and time with equal power levels.

this is one reason why i'm itching to get this supercharger project underway and see how it takes to the turbo cramming air down it's throat once it has spooled. hopefully my expectations simply aren't too high with a supercharged/turbo rotary.

Rxmfn7

iTrader: (4)

My apologies, I had completely misworded what I had meant to say.. too late now to save face so Ill just leave it as that

Finster

iTrader: (1)

The Shogun of Harlem has spoken, bow down as you have been schooled...
Howard, you should have a monthly newsletter...

We all know the FD has greatness because they had to break the mold.
If you buy a BMW M3 or a Corvette you know without a doubt that the next years model will be better and faster...
We got something different with the FD.
Some that pass me up on the road may be faster, but are they better looking? Probably not. Both? extremely rare.

Who the hell would buy a Mclaren? (oops, my bad, just you, not the rest of us)
Mazda did us all a favor by not continuing the Rx7 here.
When the next one does arrive it will be so far removed from the FD in terms of looks and engineering.
Hopefully it wil be great enough to be discontinued here within three model years just to be salivated over by our grandkids.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

his twin turbo supercharged 20B is a bit too drastic for anyone. that's like having a 1500WHP supra with full street trim, it's overkill and quite simply dyno queen.

my goal with the twin charged setup is sort of akin to what a very well setup n/a 20B would provide. not going anywhere near what he is trying to accomplish, which is just a wow factor of overkill, lol.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

^ This!

adamrs80

iTrader: (7)

Although it will never happen, it would be interesting and awesome to see an FD built with some of the exotic materials going into these expensive cars. I am sure they could shave more weight. I would think an NA 3-rotor would also save some weight.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Never say never! The new 16x has ALL aluminum side plates making the engine much lighter than the smaller Renesis. I would love to build an all aluminum 20b or 4 rotor. But yea we would be dreaming to think that Mazda would ever re-engineer the older side plates for previous rotary engines out of aluminum. The Racing Beat housings are just too damn expensive. If only we had a huge aftermarket like the domestic guys.

adamrs80

iTrader: (7)

Yes if only we had more FDs in the states there would be a bigger aftermarket. I guess that could keep prices down which is not necessarily good though.

I was really talking about exotic materials in the car itself. More aluminum and carbon fiber would probably help decrease the weight. Just dreaming, the cost would be stupid high if it were even attempted. My point was that since the FD is so capable and amazing in it's nearly 20 year old form, I wonder how awesome it could be if it were re-developed. Of course it would be forced to have a lot of new tech like side airbags and other dung.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

only barely, the turbo and intercooler weigh about the same as another 1/3 short block if not less(depends on the materials used in the turbo setup).

Prometheus

iTrader: (2)

People always say that the FD is "ahead of it's time" but I disagree.

If you look at how it is designed & shaped it is a slipstreamed machine, not an electronic wedge/ AWD monster.

If anything it defined it's time in the best way & had all the swagger of the vintage British rides (with a whole new set of problems) lol

But if you think it is futuristic, then you should look again.

Almost every automotive design similar to the FD has been abandoned.

**** boxes now have: sealed beam/ fixed lights, style lines (where as the FD is one giant style like) cup holders, paddle shifter this, smart automatic transmission that...

Basically a bunch of ****, that you'd just end up ripping out if you wanted to make it a track car. (that's where Mazda had their epiphany) the damn car is almost track ready...

Cars today are about performance, just as much as the FD was back then. They just have a different approach to their end & a different opinion of what performance is.

New autos = disconnected performance that makes it easier to achieve greatness at the track.

The FD is like sitting in a mechanical extension of ones self, greatness can be acquired, but it's going to take a lot of work/ conditioning on your part.

Their performance is based off of a sales brochure, the FD's intention of performance was a true connection to the automotive spirit.

Josh&fd

t-von. There is a guy in Canada that claims to have made the first all aluminium 3 and 4 rotor engines. I think Gordon bought his subframe off of the guy, and a friend of mine has an all aluminium 13b that the guy made for him. rotaryengine.com is his website.

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

in all honesty that's all a load of crap.

like saying i would rather break my arm to be more competetive in football. who makes their life more difficult to be competetive? competition is about using what you have at your disposal, all those new gadgets have a use and they outperform the basic sportscars of the old days that didn't have all those bells and whistles. are you going to sit there and tell me that .1 second to shift is much better than rev match downshifting in your car at a full second? nearly half that while upshifting? the bells and whistles allow you to manage the same tasks quicker and focus on the road more. understeer and oversteer? not an issue of trying to feather the throttle or brakes anymore with traction control.

Prometheus

iTrader: (2)

Some people chase the ghost, looking to "out perform" the next guy & that's fine with me, but that's not why I bought & am building my FD.

If trophies is what you're after, then by all means drive an automatic that does all the shifting for you, so you can focus on your steering, or just put your car on rails, so you don't even have to worry about that either.

In fact, why don't you hire someone who is a better driver than you are to drive your car for you & have someone go to the track, tape the race & post it up to your DVR, so you can watch it after you wake up from your nap.

Personally, my car is going to be built to be enjoyed, not to outstage newer cars or other FD's

As for saying "that's a load of crap" well, if my FD doesn't hold a candle to a modern "sports car" in YOUR view of performance, I'm not going to loose any sleep over it.

P.S. Some of the new features are cool, but I do like having to put in a little myself.

Finster

iTrader: (1)

^^Hell yes!
We are getting away from the OP's original post (like alot of HC's threads can do)

All you have to di is check yourself as regards why you have an FD in the first place.

Did BMW or GM or ANYBODY make a body as beautiful as the FD? Corvettes are kinda close.

FD's are AFFORDABLE performance. Mclarens are FAST. But you dont care. Do you?
Anything you want to change/modify on the FD you can!
THAT in itself makes the FD BETTER in ways that only WE can comprehend.
I'm glad the rest of the FD community keeps sniping on more performance.
I just end up w/a better car.
The day we all stop bitchin about the FD's place is the day the fd aftermarket stops improving.
Another thread may be what car out there has improved as much as an FD due to its following and aftermarket?
What the hell else made in 1992 is still around for ANY reason?!

XLR8

iTrader: (52)

NA built 20B's have always fascinated me.

Now that my single build is complete and for the first time I am seeing good numbers, I can say that 400whp is more than enough fun for a street car of our weight.

With peak HP sorted, the next two factors are torque curve & reliability/simplification of the setup. The NA 20B satisfies that quite well.

Great thread btw Howard.

I consider my FD of supercar status. It pounds most everything else on the road. It's fully built and turns heads EVERYWHERE I go. It's gorgeous, sleek, and I get continuous compliments on it. I only drive it in warm weather with clean roads. It's garage kept & spends most of it's life as such. I don't drive it to be parked in compromising area's and it is always clean, dust free and ready to drive...... If that doesn't define a Supercar, I don't know what does

Finster

iTrader: (1)

So you wouldn't have done the same thing with a Mclaren? Though a Mclaren would "stomp all over its neck"? (no dis Karack)

These OBSCURE cars however superior stil cant F w/ an FD for the simple fact that an FD has a bigger crowd to please.

Its weight to power (the OP's topic?)are still advantageous.

The general public (me)didnt know about AI (HC's threads always lead us back there,...)

We all may have to deal with the fact that we may be hitting a performance/functionality ceiling with the FD. The way other (classic car) enthusiasts do.

There may be a optimum functionality/performance threshold that we're hitting when we start comparing the FD to Mclarens (et, al)

But we aren't Lotus hags yet!

Howard Coleman

iTrader: (6)

there really are alot of excellent posts laid down in this thread.

it is interesting to me where it is heading. sort of into the classic fully debated do you want to operate the car or do you want the car to operate you.

there is, of course, no one answer here. take your pick.

my view is that the FD was engineered in a simpler time. while the time did dictate quite alot on the car the FD was still radical. an outlier. and given Mazda's true philosophy... (Lotus-like) the product was not a surprise.

while i have loved the rotary since 1983, to me, the single most attractive part of the FD is the chassis. while a camber curve might not be as sexy or visual as a dyno chart i can assure you it is a more important part of the FD's road going mastery. the absolute race car suspension dynamics make the car a breed apart. double A arms... so beautifully cast in aluminum. grab a spare, polish it and mount it on your wall. exquisite.

rear drive in a FWD world

rear drive can and does deliver 50-50 static weight distribution! on the power 20% weight transfers reward promoting traction. in a corner on the power (you do all your braking in a straight line before the corner) weight goes rearward thus enabling the overworked front tires more traction. braking shifts 20% static weight forward... FWD cars have at least 61% front weight... shift more weight up front under braking and you have overworked front tires JUST before you ask them to turn the car into the turn.. and underworked rear tires therefore underworked rear brakes.

car magazines are filled w EVOs doing time attack etc... you can band aid anything and that is what happens w any FWD. lipstick on a pig.

the first thing i look at in assessing any car is weight and the second thing is where is the weight. generally it is a function of the location of the driven wheels.

weight is evil and front weight is most evil. my FD has almost 53% rear weight.

so Mazda made the correct basic decisions w the FD... light overall weight, rear drive and 50-50 distribution.

they then made the correct decision w re to the suspension.

double A arms in a strut world

unequal double A arms provide negative camber gain on bump, about 1.75 degrees at 2 inches bump. so the car rolls a couple of degrees and the all important front and, to a lesser degree, rear outside tires gain negative camber so your tire bites into the asphalt while the strut car goes positive and washes out.

it is no accident that FDs generally rule ontrack. for instance, Steve Kan has been having fun w his FD in Texas. Fritz Flynn generally shows his rear bumper to lots of cars at VIR. a few years ago i ran 4 Ferrari Club of North America events at flat out (165 first turn) Brainerd and was never beaten... at that time i was running the factory turbo setup on racegas and drove the car to Brainerd from Milwaukee about a 6 hour drive. the look on the faces of ferrari, porsche, viper, corvette drivers was priceless. most initially didn't even know what make the car was... (i have all the markings off the car).

back to driving the car V the car driving you.

probably it was just the age in which i lived but i enjoy the traditional type trans. i know that the "new" setups shift faster blah blah blah but i guess i am just old school. although i do have a Tremec T56 6 speed close ratio gearbox currently in my car so maybe i am not that old school... a friend has a GTR and i have put a few hundred miles on it. it is probably one of the best examples of "new" school... the car driving you. it is beautifully engineered and, given what it is, it performs beautifully. but it leaves me cold. it feels like i am just sitting on the couch playing a video game. i don't feel as connected. "I" want to be the one who decides what gear i am in and when to shift. i want to decide when my tires slide in a corner.

BTW, on this theme i converted my FD to manual steering in 99 and consider it to be my favorite mod. ABS gone a few years ago and i run manual brakes. maybe i am hardcore

in addition to being an amazingly efficacious car, the FD may become much more rare than even we realise because new "FDs" (if they ever arrive) will not be quite like old FDs as they will be built and engineered in a different time/enviornment. as someone posted above... the FD may eventually be recognised as the high water point for a mass produced high performance sportscar that is devoid of all the traction control auto shift stuff.

a Driver's sportscar.

i have alot of faith in Mazda remaining true to their spirit, especially after having bought back most of their stock from Ford. whatever they come up w will be unique and authentic.

i probably will be too busy messing w my FD to give it serious consideration.

howard

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

hell, my car doesn't have ABS or power steering. i'm sure the ones i may have offended might think i drove an automatic with the turbos vented so i could manage the car better. nope, mine is as basic of a car as you can get, where it takes almost everything you have to keep it on the road at times.

and sometimes that gets old, where i would almost rather take away some of the work and just enjoy the ride versus really work for it all of the time.

Prometheus

iTrader: (2)

Not offended at all, I just aggressively defend my perspective.

Some race to win (which is the main objective I guess) I on the other hand will race to enjoy the experience (winning is also my objective, but not at the cost of the driving experience)

Maybe once I spend more time on the track I'll start to want something different & start looking for things the FD doesnt have to offer (but I'll always have my FD)

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

i know for it's age the cars were top of the line, but by today's standards they are still 20 years old.

for the driving you versus driving the car argument. on top of the line cars all functions can be turned off to basically a manual perspective so they really do not hinder the car at all if you feel it does or want to actually drive the way you had to before all the aids were available. it's just an option that is there with no drawback except for weight which was already subtracted from in other areas of those cars.

some people are just old school, like the way that all motor guys simply want to try and push a motor for all it's worth with just the wind in it's face while turbo/supercharger/nitrous/etc guys go to the next level. it's not like either is wrong, they just have different perspectives of what they want from their car.