1.3 liter?
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 572
Likes: 2
From: LA
1.3 liter?
okay seriously this **** is pissing me off. how many liters is the 13b? okay i remember reading something about it really being 2.6 liters due to some complications about how to measure rotary. i'm just sooo confused i'm also confused about what i read i don't know what i'm asking from you really, but someone help me out. thanks
it is 1.3 liter. So many people accept it as 1.3 liter it is hard to doubt it. There are some skeptics but ignore them. The 13b is 1.3 liters plain and simple. There are many threads about this and I'm sure you have read them. Basicly it is a big argument. But for now it is the whole rotary community aginst a select few. 1.3 stands.
Full Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: Gainesville, Florida
Hey ttb,
Yah, I visit that site too. It's definitely a 1.3 liter. The 7 wouldn't be a 7 if it weren't..hahaha. And also, to keep things consistent, the latest RX-8 flyer I got..mentions the specs for the car. The RX-8 is powered by the... 1.3 Liter Renesis Rotary Engine. So there you have it..the 1.3 liter again. ^_^
By the way, I like your picture of Avril. She's hot. (That is her right?)
Yah, I visit that site too. It's definitely a 1.3 liter. The 7 wouldn't be a 7 if it weren't..hahaha. And also, to keep things consistent, the latest RX-8 flyer I got..mentions the specs for the car. The RX-8 is powered by the... 1.3 Liter Renesis Rotary Engine. So there you have it..the 1.3 liter again. ^_^
By the way, I like your picture of Avril. She's hot. (That is her right?)
Last edited by JedahZero; Apr 24, 2003 at 12:58 AM.
Trending Topics
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
From: Hampton, VA
Originally posted by JedahZero
That's why I love the 7..such a small displacement, but huge output for the small engine. That's about 127 HP per liter...Zoom-Zoom!
That's why I love the 7..such a small displacement, but huge output for the small engine. That's about 127 HP per liter...Zoom-Zoom!
Figuring for about 20% driveline loss (~220hp) nets still 170hp per liter.
Unless you mean non-turbo applications...
Full Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: Gainesville, Florida
Originally posted by mr_ouija
255hp / 1.3l = 196hp per liter by my measurements.
Figuring for about 20% driveline loss (~220hp) nets still 170hp per liter.
Unless you mean non-turbo applications...
255hp / 1.3l = 196hp per liter by my measurements.
Figuring for about 20% driveline loss (~220hp) nets still 170hp per liter.
Unless you mean non-turbo applications...
Yah. Sorry about that. I didn't factor in the other stuff and my calculations were off...way off! Hahaha. Not sure why but I was basing it off of 2 instead of 1.3. Geez...I need some sleep! Hahaha.
But yah, you're right.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 556
Likes: 1
From: singapore
Originally posted by mr_ouija
255hp / 1.3l = 196hp per liter by my measurements.
Figuring for about 20% driveline loss (~220hp) nets still 170hp per liter.
Unless you mean non-turbo applications...
255hp / 1.3l = 196hp per liter by my measurements.
Figuring for about 20% driveline loss (~220hp) nets still 170hp per liter.
Unless you mean non-turbo applications...
Running NA mazda says it is going to put out around 250hp, which for us would actually turn out to be like 220 or 230hp. Taken that as a reference.
220hp from 1.3liters=169.2hp per liter
with a 20% lost at the driveline(20%-damn that is alot of power lost) it would be 135hp per liter .
So why the hell are people going crazy about honda's vtec. When honda's s2000 is putting out a only 240hp from 2 liters? which is only 120hp per liter at best.
Rotary Freak
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 0
From: Hattiesburg, MS
You all don't seem to have a basic understanding of the rotary engine. Yes, technically it is a 1.3L Rotary. Mazda could have just as easily designated it as a 3.9L.
In terms of displacement per rev, the 13B is equivalent to a 2.6L 4 stroke piston. Thus, saying that it makes 192 hp/liter and then comparing that to the S2K motor... that is not a valid comparison.
I find that people call it a 1.3L when comparing to piston engines merely to brag about how much horsepower they are making for such a small displacement. You're fooling yourself and showing your ignorance of the rotary.
https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...5&pagenumber=1
In terms of displacement per rev, the 13B is equivalent to a 2.6L 4 stroke piston. Thus, saying that it makes 192 hp/liter and then comparing that to the S2K motor... that is not a valid comparison.
I find that people call it a 1.3L when comparing to piston engines merely to brag about how much horsepower they are making for such a small displacement. You're fooling yourself and showing your ignorance of the rotary.
https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...5&pagenumber=1
Originally posted by KevinK2
There is no official SAE 'displacement' standard AFAIK, but most commonly used definition is "total swept volume per engine cycle" .... and an engine cycle is one rev for piston 2-stroke, 2 revs for piston 4-stroke, and 3 revs (crank) for rotary. The 'swept volume' is related to the amount of intake air pumped thru a NA engine at 100% VE in one engine cycle.
For a 2L 4-stroke boinger, the 2L is 'air swept' in 2 revs. For 2L 2-stroke piston eng, that air is swept in one rev, so it injests about twice the air, per rev, of the 4-stroke with same bore, stroke, and number of cyl's. So there was inconsistent displacement vs power ratings before rotaries.
The 1.3L rotary 'sweeps' 1.3L per rev, and will pass charge air thru all 6 chambers in 3 revs, displacing 3.9L in one engine cycle, which takes 3 revs. So by the old convention, 3.9L displacement rating.
Mazda has it's own unique rating system, rates it's rx engine's 'swept volume' displacement for just one CRANK rev ( vs engine total cycle).
Race equiv's rules are most clear when grouping equivelant engines, the 1.3 mazda = 1.3L 2 stroke boinger = 2.6L 4 stroke boinger ....... all will ideally pump the same air per crank rev at 100% VE.
Historic practice is to normalize to the most popular engine, the 4 stroke piston engine, with 2 revs to exercise it's rated displacement of charge air. The 1.3L mazda rated rotary becomes a 2.6L engine, and a 500cc 2 stroke piston engine runs against 1000cc 4 strokes.
regarding stroke, the piston stoke is linear, and exactly 2x crank offset. The wankel stoke is not linear, as the active rotor face chases the eccentric offset. Knowing the rotor face displacement, and it's projected area, the actual effective stroke is 1.5 times the eccentric shaft offset.
There is no official SAE 'displacement' standard AFAIK, but most commonly used definition is "total swept volume per engine cycle" .... and an engine cycle is one rev for piston 2-stroke, 2 revs for piston 4-stroke, and 3 revs (crank) for rotary. The 'swept volume' is related to the amount of intake air pumped thru a NA engine at 100% VE in one engine cycle.
For a 2L 4-stroke boinger, the 2L is 'air swept' in 2 revs. For 2L 2-stroke piston eng, that air is swept in one rev, so it injests about twice the air, per rev, of the 4-stroke with same bore, stroke, and number of cyl's. So there was inconsistent displacement vs power ratings before rotaries.
The 1.3L rotary 'sweeps' 1.3L per rev, and will pass charge air thru all 6 chambers in 3 revs, displacing 3.9L in one engine cycle, which takes 3 revs. So by the old convention, 3.9L displacement rating.
Mazda has it's own unique rating system, rates it's rx engine's 'swept volume' displacement for just one CRANK rev ( vs engine total cycle).
Race equiv's rules are most clear when grouping equivelant engines, the 1.3 mazda = 1.3L 2 stroke boinger = 2.6L 4 stroke boinger ....... all will ideally pump the same air per crank rev at 100% VE.
Historic practice is to normalize to the most popular engine, the 4 stroke piston engine, with 2 revs to exercise it's rated displacement of charge air. The 1.3L mazda rated rotary becomes a 2.6L engine, and a 500cc 2 stroke piston engine runs against 1000cc 4 strokes.
regarding stroke, the piston stoke is linear, and exactly 2x crank offset. The wankel stoke is not linear, as the active rotor face chases the eccentric offset. Knowing the rotor face displacement, and it's projected area, the actual effective stroke is 1.5 times the eccentric shaft offset.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 572
Likes: 2
From: LA
yeah it must be bs because i didn't get what the guy was actually trying to say. Now i believe it's 1.3 liters. btw avril is sooooo nasty! and she's stupid too. i was watching one of her interviews and like she's the biggest bimbo in the world ( and not the hot blonde kind, but the nasty ones). she was like i'm 18 and i'm not a poser i've been skating since i was 17. i was wtf that's only one year bitch! i should slap your dirty ***. SHE HAS NOTHING....she's sooo flat....hahah i guess this is kinda off topic, but boy did that **** **** me off 
anyways hahah yeah 1.3
anyways hahah yeah 1.3
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 572
Likes: 2
From: LA
btw now i hate all those magazines. =/ i'm still subscribed to them all, but not i'm just going to look at their pictures man they're so unreliable. or maybe it's just the fact that it was about rotary! maybe we should like file a complaint to them just to **** them off!
man they're so unreliable. or maybe it's just the fact that it was about rotary! maybe we should like file a complaint to them just to **** them off!
Rotary Freak
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 0
From: Hattiesburg, MS
Yes, that's true, but if you go and say, for example, that the rotary is better because it has a higher hp/liter ratio than a S2K motor, you are completely wrong. You can't compare the two types of motors that way.
Originally posted by ZeroBanger
its a 1.3, not 2.6
its a 1.3, not 2.6
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Indiana
I'd do Avril
I'd stick it in her no questions asked. The reason I like her is because she doesn't look like a ho she looks like trash.
On the original note.
It is a 1.3l for sure.
And why can't we compare a rotary engine to a piston engine. They are both internal combustion both use spark plugs and run off the same pump gas.
On the original note.
It is a 1.3l for sure.
And why can't we compare a rotary engine to a piston engine. They are both internal combustion both use spark plugs and run off the same pump gas.
Rotary Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 6
From: Delaware
Re: I'd do Avril
Originally posted by BadBirdLT1
......It is a 1.3l for sure.
And why can't we compare a rotary engine to a piston engine. They are both internal combustion both use spark plugs and run off the same pump gas.
......It is a 1.3l for sure.
And why can't we compare a rotary engine to a piston engine. They are both internal combustion both use spark plugs and run off the same pump gas.
'displacement' ratings are not consistent among 2 stroke and 4 stroke piston engines, and rotaries. The usual starting point for corrections to the published displacement among the three engine types is volume of air sucked in by engine in one crank rev (assuming 100% chamber filling).
On that basis, the 1.3L rotary sucks in the same air per rev as a 2.6L 4-stoke piston eng, or 1.3L 2-stroke piston eng.
Reality is 2-strokes lose a lot of their effective stroke, so the rotary would put out power more like a 1.8L 2-stroke. And the rotary has low thermal efficiency, so it would more properly be compared to about a 2.3L boinger.
check bottom of link page, for 2003 sports challenge series.
the mazda rotary is considered 2.9L! (sounds excessive, the usual 2.0 to 2.6L assumption is closer to reality.
http://www.hsrrace.com/pdf/classes.pdf
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
datfast1
Old School and Other Rotary
18
Jun 20, 2019 10:53 PM
datfast1
West RX-7 Forum
3
Sep 14, 2015 06:58 PM
