4WD, rock crawling, 13b turbo
06-25-05, 05:01 AM
#27
HEAVY METAL THUNDER
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elsenborn, Belgian Eifel
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty cool project. As for the HP numbers, I suppose they were talking about the turbo setup, but the pics were takin before the turbo install. It ain't that uncommon that people first use the engine in NA setup, gget it moving, then add a turbo.
Now for rotary reliability and RPM's... Wankel engines won MANY races (before getting banned everywhere they won), mainly due to reliability. Le Mans was clearly won on reliabilty and low (relative to the rest, of course) fuel consumption.
F1 engines can only run very limited amounts of time, you could never have them revving that high for a 24H race! As a matter of fact: the very first wankel engines (end of the 50's begin of the 60's) have been running at 20.000 rpm! If you'd build a F1-type engine on a rotary platform (if they were allowed, of course) you'd easily outperform ANY current piston engine. That's why FIA rules state a 1.8 coefficient for rotary engines, and small air restrictors, making the engines less intresting. Imagine a real 3 litre engine (or 2.6 for a 26B) in NA version build to modern standards, in sprint trim. Since the 787B made about 700hp in endurance setup, the sprint version should easily be around 800-900hp, which would crush all current F1 engines.
Now for rotary reliability and RPM's... Wankel engines won MANY races (before getting banned everywhere they won), mainly due to reliability. Le Mans was clearly won on reliabilty and low (relative to the rest, of course) fuel consumption.
F1 engines can only run very limited amounts of time, you could never have them revving that high for a 24H race! As a matter of fact: the very first wankel engines (end of the 50's begin of the 60's) have been running at 20.000 rpm! If you'd build a F1-type engine on a rotary platform (if they were allowed, of course) you'd easily outperform ANY current piston engine. That's why FIA rules state a 1.8 coefficient for rotary engines, and small air restrictors, making the engines less intresting. Imagine a real 3 litre engine (or 2.6 for a 26B) in NA version build to modern standards, in sprint trim. Since the 787B made about 700hp in endurance setup, the sprint version should easily be around 800-900hp, which would crush all current F1 engines.
06-25-05, 05:25 AM
#28
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
woa woa woa woa.. a 26b is really 2.6 x 2 = 5.2 liter engine! Thats part of its strength.
I know a lot of people dont agree or understand the reasoning, but the only way its a 2.6 liter is if it has like... between 140%-200% V.E.
With a PP And N/A, it could be competetive against F1 engines, but arent springs for the apex seals too weark to support revs over 9K? Or has that been changed.
And, well, sorry to **** in your cheerios but the thermodynamic inefficiency inherant to rotaries as they exist now would make competetion in F1 potentially a bit of a bitch... I'd imagine theyd have to have wider, yet thinner rotors to make the combustion chambers less 'oversquare' (eh, hard to compare...) and some serious ceramic coatings to help turn the heat of the combustion event into movement in the eccentric shaft.
And, just so you can have fun flaming me, I'm doing a LS1/T56 Swap into a FC :P
I know a lot of people dont agree or understand the reasoning, but the only way its a 2.6 liter is if it has like... between 140%-200% V.E.
With a PP And N/A, it could be competetive against F1 engines, but arent springs for the apex seals too weark to support revs over 9K? Or has that been changed.
And, well, sorry to **** in your cheerios but the thermodynamic inefficiency inherant to rotaries as they exist now would make competetion in F1 potentially a bit of a bitch... I'd imagine theyd have to have wider, yet thinner rotors to make the combustion chambers less 'oversquare' (eh, hard to compare...) and some serious ceramic coatings to help turn the heat of the combustion event into movement in the eccentric shaft.
And, just so you can have fun flaming me, I'm doing a LS1/T56 Swap into a FC :P
06-25-05, 09:00 AM
#29
HEAVY METAL THUNDER
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elsenborn, Belgian Eifel
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That "x2" stuff is not used by FIA rules. I also clearly said "imagine", in other words: if this 1.8 coefficient wouldn't aply. I also don't agree with the x2 idea. It's true that a rotary engine has two times as many combustions per e-shaft rotation, but it's also true that the "explosion" takes place on one side at a time. The engine simply uses it's size more efficient. A two-stroke engine also has twice the number of pulses, yet isn't doubled in capacity.
As for strength: as stated before; rotary engines won races because of there reliabilty.
If you invite us: hell, a V8 into an FC... How low can you go. If you use a piston engine, could you please use a Japanese or European one? That way you'd have a modern piece of technology, instead of a relict from ancient history. There's a reason why US-car maker don't win races in Europe... (unless they get there own class, like Vette's and Vipers)
As for strength: as stated before; rotary engines won races because of there reliabilty.
If you invite us: hell, a V8 into an FC... How low can you go. If you use a piston engine, could you please use a Japanese or European one? That way you'd have a modern piece of technology, instead of a relict from ancient history. There's a reason why US-car maker don't win races in Europe... (unless they get there own class, like Vette's and Vipers)
06-25-05, 07:28 PM
#30
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*sighs* now youre trolling buddy. Congrats.
The fact that american chassis just arent up to snuff (it pisses me off too, its why instead of having a LS1 in a Camaro I am putting it in a FC) doesnt have anything to do with the fact that as an engine, or with a T-56 as a drivetrain, its VERY good, in MANY ways. Maybe you should to drive one of those v8 swapped FCs or FDs, or someone stick a G-tech into it and just show for everyone to see whats really going on? Maybe go ask owen_is_fat and ask him why he told me:
"... my LS1FC handles right on par with my friends highly modded nonturbo FC that is almost 300 pounds lighter than mine. mine tipped the scales at 2720 with a full tank of gas. my ''heavy'' widebody wheel setup, ''heavy'' tein flex coilovers, LS1T56 with true duals and newer S5 interior added some weight to my car that is otherwise an identical setup to his nonturbo. both are full interior streetcars that we autox as often as possible. we corner weighted both cars and his is something like 52/48 and mine is 54/46, they both handle very very similarly... the changes we can make with tire pressures and suspension stiffness can totally transform either car into a plowing pig or a tail happy flounder.
on another note, there is a local all-stock turbo-2 that has identical weight AND distribution as my LS1T56widebody. So dont worry about weight issues with the LS1 swap, its an old wives tale from mazda's excellent propoganda surrounding the rotary powerplants oh-so-incredible-design, pfffffffffft! I poop on your rotary's so called amazingly low weight, what a joke that is! but of course I believed the mazda rotary hype before I ever heard of an LS1FC and well before I had the numbers from our cornerweight session a month ago."
If I put a LS1 in a FC I must MAGICALLY get more gas mileage, better emissions, more torque, more power, more reliability, MUCH cheaper parts, and better streetability. BTW, thats a FACTual thing, not just something I'm saying. Oh, and it doesnt change the weight, or MAGICALLY hurt handling (GNX7 pulled 1.13 Gs in a LS1 FD, OH SNAP) at all. The RX-7 is a good car because of the chassis - it doesnt CARE what engine is in it as long as it sits in the same place and weighs the same, and it likes it if its lighter or farther back or somehow more rear-biased, as I've seen TONS of swaps with IRON block V8s end up. I know of a LT1/T-56 (iron block, how about that) thats 60 lbs heavier in the rear than the front. LS1s are all aluminum, OOPS?
Now, the Rotaries being really twice the displacement that MAZDA said they are, well, I'll let other guys argue that for me, cos I'm really not in the mood for repeating myself until I am bluefaced. When you compare it to how many combustion events it has per output shaft rotation, and how much displacement it can suck in per two rotations of it, you get a 13b out to 2.6 liters. Wanna see something REALLY ******* funny? Compare a RB26DETT to a 13B-REW! Or, go to one of those turbo calculator websites and put 2600 ccs into the displacement tab.
The only way its a 1.3 liter is if the VE is between 140 and 200% throughout the revrange - and its not! But the other rotary issues, the thermodynamic inefficiency, cant be argued away, period. If you look at the air going in (which makes it look like a 2.6 liter yet again) it doesnt make as much power with that air as a piston engine does. It also has a lot more heat ending up in the oil and water jacket than a piston engine does... which means you have to add heavy oil coolers far up in the nose of the car to help cool it off.
So, when you take ALL this into account, and the RX cars come out NOT being nose heavy, able to handle good, and light enough to take up the slack that the lack of torque and in many places power (especially relative to the newer piston engines, which btw use less gas and give off less emissions
) you have one hell of a car, despite the fact that the engine really just isnt all that great. Its a great platform, a great chassis. It puts the Corvette, and ESPECCIALLY the Viper to shame, hands down, but they do have better engines, especially the corvette.
Now, go rant and rave and hollar at me and go find some rotards to join in a shrill greek chorus in a cacophony of hatred, but the FACTS remain THE FACTS, and at the end of the day I'll have a car that burns less gas, lasts longer, runs cooler, has more power while staying reliable, much more torque, and even better emissions so I can go get a hippy GF!
The fact that american chassis just arent up to snuff (it pisses me off too, its why instead of having a LS1 in a Camaro I am putting it in a FC) doesnt have anything to do with the fact that as an engine, or with a T-56 as a drivetrain, its VERY good, in MANY ways. Maybe you should to drive one of those v8 swapped FCs or FDs, or someone stick a G-tech into it and just show for everyone to see whats really going on? Maybe go ask owen_is_fat and ask him why he told me:
"... my LS1FC handles right on par with my friends highly modded nonturbo FC that is almost 300 pounds lighter than mine. mine tipped the scales at 2720 with a full tank of gas. my ''heavy'' widebody wheel setup, ''heavy'' tein flex coilovers, LS1T56 with true duals and newer S5 interior added some weight to my car that is otherwise an identical setup to his nonturbo. both are full interior streetcars that we autox as often as possible. we corner weighted both cars and his is something like 52/48 and mine is 54/46, they both handle very very similarly... the changes we can make with tire pressures and suspension stiffness can totally transform either car into a plowing pig or a tail happy flounder.
on another note, there is a local all-stock turbo-2 that has identical weight AND distribution as my LS1T56widebody. So dont worry about weight issues with the LS1 swap, its an old wives tale from mazda's excellent propoganda surrounding the rotary powerplants oh-so-incredible-design, pfffffffffft! I poop on your rotary's so called amazingly low weight, what a joke that is! but of course I believed the mazda rotary hype before I ever heard of an LS1FC and well before I had the numbers from our cornerweight session a month ago."
If I put a LS1 in a FC I must MAGICALLY get more gas mileage, better emissions, more torque, more power, more reliability, MUCH cheaper parts, and better streetability. BTW, thats a FACTual thing, not just something I'm saying. Oh, and it doesnt change the weight, or MAGICALLY hurt handling (GNX7 pulled 1.13 Gs in a LS1 FD, OH SNAP) at all. The RX-7 is a good car because of the chassis - it doesnt CARE what engine is in it as long as it sits in the same place and weighs the same, and it likes it if its lighter or farther back or somehow more rear-biased, as I've seen TONS of swaps with IRON block V8s end up. I know of a LT1/T-56 (iron block, how about that) thats 60 lbs heavier in the rear than the front. LS1s are all aluminum, OOPS?
Now, the Rotaries being really twice the displacement that MAZDA said they are, well, I'll let other guys argue that for me, cos I'm really not in the mood for repeating myself until I am bluefaced. When you compare it to how many combustion events it has per output shaft rotation, and how much displacement it can suck in per two rotations of it, you get a 13b out to 2.6 liters. Wanna see something REALLY ******* funny? Compare a RB26DETT to a 13B-REW! Or, go to one of those turbo calculator websites and put 2600 ccs into the displacement tab.
The only way its a 1.3 liter is if the VE is between 140 and 200% throughout the revrange - and its not! But the other rotary issues, the thermodynamic inefficiency, cant be argued away, period. If you look at the air going in (which makes it look like a 2.6 liter yet again) it doesnt make as much power with that air as a piston engine does. It also has a lot more heat ending up in the oil and water jacket than a piston engine does... which means you have to add heavy oil coolers far up in the nose of the car to help cool it off.
So, when you take ALL this into account, and the RX cars come out NOT being nose heavy, able to handle good, and light enough to take up the slack that the lack of torque and in many places power (especially relative to the newer piston engines, which btw use less gas and give off less emissions
) you have one hell of a car, despite the fact that the engine really just isnt all that great. Its a great platform, a great chassis. It puts the Corvette, and ESPECCIALLY the Viper to shame, hands down, but they do have better engines, especially the corvette.Now, go rant and rave and hollar at me and go find some rotards to join in a shrill greek chorus in a cacophony of hatred, but the FACTS remain THE FACTS, and at the end of the day I'll have a car that burns less gas, lasts longer, runs cooler, has more power while staying reliable, much more torque, and even better emissions so I can go get a hippy GF!
06-27-05, 05:44 AM
#31
HEAVY METAL THUNDER
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elsenborn, Belgian Eifel
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another V-8 war! I love them! 
No serious, do whatever you like, it's your car.
But although I can see why you do it, I can't agree with the idea the handling won't suffer. I'd like to have a proffesional racedriver test that. A V8 (esp USA ones) is not exactly light, is it? Can someone give me the wheight of such an engine in kg? Not to mention a heavier exhaust (8 pipes are heavier then 2) and more carbs that add wheight.
No serious, do whatever you like, it's your car.
But although I can see why you do it, I can't agree with the idea the handling won't suffer. I'd like to have a proffesional racedriver test that. A V8 (esp USA ones) is not exactly light, is it? Can someone give me the wheight of such an engine in kg? Not to mention a heavier exhaust (8 pipes are heavier then 2) and more carbs that add wheight.
06-27-05, 07:37 AM
#32
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The weights of the engines are known. Fully dressed LS1s are below 500 lbs (226.8 kg). The other thing you seem to forget is having the turbo piping, turbo itself, IC, etc, and the oil cooler for the rotary out of the nose of the car, you took even more weight out! A actual issue with handling would be relocation of the steering rack if you do so in the swap, granted you dont get adjustable tie rods or a bump steer kit (like Hinsons V8 kit for the FD has :P)
Also, anecdotally, GNX7 took his V8 LS1 to the Ultimate Street Car Championship, and it handles great. And it pulled 1.13Gs on a skidpad. Plus Owen has auto-xed his LS1 FC, as well as one of his friends - they were the (one painted one unpainted) wide-body FCs with big *** wheels. Also, Owen had a pro drive his car and he LOVED it, although he felt the steering was slightly heavy with the 275mm wide tires on the front tires, he did like the feel.
Also, people have put cars on a scale and weighed it per axle, and per wheel. A guy with a LT1 (iron block, aluminum headsn, heavier than an all-aluminum LSx) and a T-56 was 60 lbs heavier... at the *** end. Thats a FACT, not just an arguement, that it IS *TAIL* Heavy after the swap!
Now, you say you want weights of just the engines in KGs. Im sure a search would turn one up, but I CAN tell you people have weighed their cars after the swap and they turn out between 55/45% to slightly tail heavy. It depends on what model youre swapping out, what rear end you have, and what you remove. Turbo models seem to be the best for it, as they have beefier rear ends, and get to lose the before mentioned turbo, piping, oil coolers, intercooler, and whatnot.
And, finally, suspension tuning goes a much longer way in determining handling of the car than static weight distribution. The minute you hit one of those pedals in your car, its going to lean some way or another. And there is the tire sizes and stagger... etc.
Not tring to be too inflamatory, though I am quite good at playing the role of provocateur, I'm just stating the facts.
EDIT: Weight of a LS1, fully dressed:
Auto. - 457.6 lbs. (208 kg);
Manual - 497.2 lbs (226 kg)
Weight I've found of a 13b:
The 13B-REW (the one from the '93-'95 RX7) is heavy, fully plumbed. I don't remember the exact weight, but I believe it to be a bit north of 400 lbs.. IIRC, a fully plumbed 13B-REW comes in about 40 lbs less than a Chevy LS1. - BrianK
If anyone knows for sure, please post!
Also, anecdotally, GNX7 took his V8 LS1 to the Ultimate Street Car Championship, and it handles great. And it pulled 1.13Gs on a skidpad. Plus Owen has auto-xed his LS1 FC, as well as one of his friends - they were the (one painted one unpainted) wide-body FCs with big *** wheels. Also, Owen had a pro drive his car and he LOVED it, although he felt the steering was slightly heavy with the 275mm wide tires on the front tires, he did like the feel.
Also, people have put cars on a scale and weighed it per axle, and per wheel. A guy with a LT1 (iron block, aluminum headsn, heavier than an all-aluminum LSx) and a T-56 was 60 lbs heavier... at the *** end. Thats a FACT, not just an arguement, that it IS *TAIL* Heavy after the swap!
Now, you say you want weights of just the engines in KGs. Im sure a search would turn one up, but I CAN tell you people have weighed their cars after the swap and they turn out between 55/45% to slightly tail heavy. It depends on what model youre swapping out, what rear end you have, and what you remove. Turbo models seem to be the best for it, as they have beefier rear ends, and get to lose the before mentioned turbo, piping, oil coolers, intercooler, and whatnot.
And, finally, suspension tuning goes a much longer way in determining handling of the car than static weight distribution. The minute you hit one of those pedals in your car, its going to lean some way or another. And there is the tire sizes and stagger... etc.
Not tring to be too inflamatory, though I am quite good at playing the role of provocateur
, I'm just stating the facts.EDIT: Weight of a LS1, fully dressed:
Auto. - 457.6 lbs. (208 kg);
Manual - 497.2 lbs (226 kg)
Weight I've found of a 13b:
The 13B-REW (the one from the '93-'95 RX7) is heavy, fully plumbed. I don't remember the exact weight, but I believe it to be a bit north of 400 lbs.. IIRC, a fully plumbed 13B-REW comes in about 40 lbs less than a Chevy LS1. - BrianK
If anyone knows for sure, please post!
Last edited by Nihilanthic; 06-27-05 at 07:54 AM. Reason: found LS1 engine weights!
06-27-05, 08:17 AM
#33
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Follow up, and it wont let me edit the post I made above:
Jeff Hoskinson weighed a 13B-REW with full accessories and turbos and got ~420 lbs. on a very accurate truck scale. The margine of error of the average truck scale is +/- 20 lbs. -jimlab.
This is from "THE LS1 FD IS NOT NOSEHEAVY < IT RETAINS THE 50/50 RATIO thread @ https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...+engine+weight
about halfway down page 4
Jeff Hoskinson weighed a 13B-REW with full accessories and turbos and got ~420 lbs. on a very accurate truck scale. The margine of error of the average truck scale is +/- 20 lbs. -jimlab.
This is from "THE LS1 FD IS NOT NOSEHEAVY < IT RETAINS THE 50/50 RATIO thread @ https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...+engine+weight
about halfway down page 4
06-27-05, 08:38 AM
#34
HEAVY METAL THUNDER
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elsenborn, Belgian Eifel
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wanted the wheight in kg, because I'm unfamiliar with non-metric standards. Obviosly one must compare fully plumbed engines, as none can run without all the stuff around it.
06-27-05, 09:35 AM
#35
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
420 lbs full accessires and turbos and **** on a truck scale, vs about 490 lbs for a LS1.
in kilograms, that comes out to about 420 pounds = 190.508795 kilograms, and 490 pounds = 222.260261 kilograms
***-heavy all the tim
Now, in context, that is, stock vs swap, they come out weighing the same, a little more, or a little less. They also come out 50/50. 54/46, or 49/51. This has been covered in threads over and over and over man. BTW, a 20B is a lot heavier than a LS1 :P
The weight is basically a non issue, lol.
in kilograms, that comes out to about 420 pounds = 190.508795 kilograms, and 490 pounds = 222.260261 kilograms
***-heavy all the tim
Now, in context, that is, stock vs swap, they come out weighing the same, a little more, or a little less. They also come out 50/50. 54/46, or 49/51. This has been covered in threads over and over and over man. BTW, a 20B is a lot heavier than a LS1 :P
The weight is basically a non issue, lol.
06-27-05, 12:43 PM
#36
Racing is Life.....
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern California
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hijackers go home
Any chance you guys can move the powerplant debate off of this so people interested in the actual subject (13b powered rock crawler) can focus on the original topic?
Beast
Beast
06-27-05, 01:33 PM
#37
HEAVY METAL THUNDER
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elsenborn, Belgian Eifel
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all stuff said about that project, hijacking is a lot more fun
anyway, in a Japanese magazine I read the wheight of a 13B (REW) was well below the inline six from a Skyline, and even of a Honda 4-boinger. How can a V8 be lighter or somewhere in the same area? If you ditch the "useless" parts of a rotary, and do the same with a V8, shouldn't you keep a heavier engine when you need 8 exhaustpipes (at least at manifold side) and a few carbs?
anyway, in a Japanese magazine I read the wheight of a 13B (REW) was well below the inline six from a Skyline, and even of a Honda 4-boinger. How can a V8 be lighter or somewhere in the same area? If you ditch the "useless" parts of a rotary, and do the same with a V8, shouldn't you keep a heavier engine when you need 8 exhaustpipes (at least at manifold side) and a few carbs?
06-27-05, 07:46 PM
#38
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uhh.. aluminum vs iron construction? Plus, the inherant design of a V engine vs a inline... especially a V8 vs a I6. 2JZ I6s are heavy *****. Btw, the diffy between a V8 and a I4 is that the V8 is a Y while the I4 is a I. Two heads and one crankshaft.
But I degress, youre going around the issue, that after the swap, even keeping A/C and P/S, the car is as balanced if not moreso! Nit picking about engine weights that come out almost the same (and thesewere guys on this forum weighing the engine with the **** on it, so go ask them, I even cited who said what) seems to be a bit of a last ditch to say "well the v8 weighs more, even if the car comes out fine after the swap".
They also still handle great, ask the auto-crossers!
But I degress, youre going around the issue, that after the swap, even keeping A/C and P/S, the car is as balanced if not moreso! Nit picking about engine weights that come out almost the same (and thesewere guys on this forum weighing the engine with the **** on it, so go ask them, I even cited who said what) seems to be a bit of a last ditch to say "well the v8 weighs more, even if the car comes out fine after the swap".
They also still handle great, ask the auto-crossers!
06-28-05, 05:04 AM
#39
HEAVY METAL THUNDER
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elsenborn, Belgian Eifel
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rotary is only part iron, remember? The V8 also carries more coolant and oil, if I'm right, and will be bigger, won't it? So I'm very sceptic about "handling the same"
Nevertheless, I'll have to admit they do seem to work very nice in a RX-7, if the numbers you quote are right (and I have no reason not believe they are). I guess I'd never do such a swap, because I feel you loose the one thing that makes a RX-7 stand out.
But of course, where a rotary overhere is about the same price as in the USA ( well slightly more expensive) a V8 is pretty cheap overthere, while costing big cash here due to being imported. And cash is always an issue, isn't it?
Nevertheless, I'll have to admit they do seem to work very nice in a RX-7, if the numbers you quote are right (and I have no reason not believe they are). I guess I'd never do such a swap, because I feel you loose the one thing that makes a RX-7 stand out.
But of course, where a rotary overhere is about the same price as in the USA ( well slightly more expensive) a V8 is pretty cheap overthere, while costing big cash here due to being imported. And cash is always an issue, isn't it?
06-28-05, 05:53 AM
#40
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn straight money is the issue 
. V8 parts are practically sold in bulk here theyre so cheap. Also, LS1 pullouts complete with harness, computer and transmission (T-56) are cheeaaapppppp. Also, you get much better gas mileage. People have hit 36 mpg with a LS1/T56 IN A CAMARO OR FIREBIRD GOING 85 MPG (136 kmh) ON THE HIGWHAY, so as light as a rx-7 is, expect more.
In belgium you might need to get your hands on a rover, or BMW, or whatnot - but OHC v8s will add weight and SIZE especially. Plus id imagine the premium german brand engines would be pricey as hell.
As far as the weight goes, and the handling goes, the chassis scales and the auto-cross times and impressions from both the builder AND pro drivers getting into one arent false! You also forget you lose the rather heavy oil cooler from the Front most extreme on the car, where there is the most impact made with weight distribution. The mentality that v8 = huge = heavy is hard to break, hell people still get all prissy and superior over PUSHRODS... ugh. The weight is very very similar when you take the accessories and other plumbing for turbos especially into account.
Also, just FYI, iron I6 engines are HUUUGE. Being lighter than a RB26DETT or a 2JZ is actually not much of an accomplishment. Skylines and Supras handle great with those - that should say something right there. Even if the swap did add a ton of nose weight (which it doesn't... ) they could still handle fine.
Anyway, back to a 13B crawler, thats very original... I just hope hes able to pull it off if hes going with a turbo or big port so he can rebuild, but then again crawlers dont exactly put a lot of miles on their cars LOL. (Personally I'd go with a turbodiesel, but those would be heavy as hell, so maybe this guy has a good idea going....)
. V8 parts are practically sold in bulk here theyre so cheap. Also, LS1 pullouts complete with harness, computer and transmission (T-56) are cheeaaapppppp. Also, you get much better gas mileage. People have hit 36 mpg with a LS1/T56 IN A CAMARO OR FIREBIRD GOING 85 MPG (136 kmh) ON THE HIGWHAY, so as light as a rx-7 is, expect more.In belgium you might need to get your hands on a rover, or BMW, or whatnot - but OHC v8s will add weight and SIZE especially. Plus id imagine the premium german brand engines would be pricey as hell.
As far as the weight goes, and the handling goes, the chassis scales and the auto-cross times and impressions from both the builder AND pro drivers getting into one arent false! You also forget you lose the rather heavy oil cooler from the Front most extreme on the car, where there is the most impact made with weight distribution. The mentality that v8 = huge = heavy is hard to break, hell people still get all prissy and superior over PUSHRODS... ugh. The weight is very very similar when you take the accessories and other plumbing for turbos especially into account.
Also, just FYI, iron I6 engines are HUUUGE. Being lighter than a RB26DETT or a 2JZ is actually not much of an accomplishment. Skylines and Supras handle great with those - that should say something right there. Even if the swap did add a ton of nose weight (which it doesn't... ) they could still handle fine.
Anyway, back to a 13B crawler, thats very original... I just hope hes able to pull it off if hes going with a turbo or big port so he can rebuild, but then again crawlers dont exactly put a lot of miles on their cars LOL. (Personally I'd go with a turbodiesel, but those would be heavy as hell, so maybe this guy has a good idea going....)
06-28-05, 11:14 AM
#42
HEAVY METAL THUNDER
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elsenborn, Belgian Eifel
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a shortblock 13B (so block + flywheel) is 95kg, I know, cause I shipped one once, and payment was by wheight So I can't believe the rest adds over 100kg... That 325lb seems more correct indeed.
So I can't believe the rest adds over 100kg... That 325lb seems more correct indeed.
06-29-05, 03:28 AM
#43
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortblock isnt accessories and fluids. The shortblock for a LS1 is about 200 lbs... whoopie do. Throw in water for the waterjacket and oil, accessories, and it magically gets heavier. AND there is the turbo plumbing, turbos themselves, IC, and the oil cooler that ALL rotaries need, plus the second one for thsoe putting out any sort of power (and heat). The IC and Oil coolers are at teh extreme front end of the car, where their weight will upset the balance the most due to leverage.
Regardless of that, it doesnt MATTER when after the swap the car comes out roughly the same weight with the same, if not insignifigantly better/worse weight distribution.
We're flogging a dead horse.
Regardless of that, it doesnt MATTER when after the swap the car comes out roughly the same weight with the same, if not insignifigantly better/worse weight distribution.
We're flogging a dead horse.
06-29-05, 05:43 AM
#44
HEAVY METAL THUNDER
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elsenborn, Belgian Eifel
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmm, I guess alternators will be the same, waterpumps not much different. But does a LS1 shortblock include heads? Fluids will be more in the V8 I guess, as I'd suppose it has larger capacity. Manifolds for the V8 are heavier, no doubt. I'm still puzzled by the light weight of those V8's, btw.
06-29-05, 11:38 AM
#46
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim - slip torque converters and getting a smallish turbo for torque could work. Dodge made a 100 hp turbo engine (a 4 banger) that had 100 hp from idle to redline - and a max torque of 400 foot lbs... so if you used a teeny turbo even a rotary could make torque. Just dont port it!
REmotions - v8s arent these giant clunkers they think they are. There are small block, and big block v8s. Let me tell you that big blocks ARE big - but small blocks are not, theyre small. The DISPLACEMENT is huge, but thats a result of the pushrod geometry. It lets you have really, really small heads on top of the block so the overall size can be much smaller. Look at a DOHC ford v8 vs a pushrod... VAST size difference. Btw, small block chevies can go all the way from 5(302) liters to 7(427)... Ive even seen a 454 (7.4 liters) small block, but the long stroke would probably make it impractical for anything but drag racing.
REmotions - v8s arent these giant clunkers they think they are. There are small block, and big block v8s. Let me tell you that big blocks ARE big - but small blocks are not, theyre small. The DISPLACEMENT is huge, but thats a result of the pushrod geometry. It lets you have really, really small heads on top of the block so the overall size can be much smaller. Look at a DOHC ford v8 vs a pushrod... VAST size difference. Btw, small block chevies can go all the way from 5(302) liters to 7(427)... Ive even seen a 454 (7.4 liters) small block, but the long stroke would probably make it impractical for anything but drag racing.
06-29-05, 03:13 PM
#47
those weights are way off. My friend and I have defended the rotary side of the v8 argument plenty of times. Here are some more facts to consider:
20b, NA, with exhaust headers, street port, intake manifold, water pump, alternator, fully accessorized, is less than 300lb. 400 horsepower. 300 lb. I weighed it. 190 lb lighter than LS1, same power.
SHORTBLOCK REW engine weighs 180lb, from clutch to front cover, including oil pan. with none of that, its closer to 155.
Okay, the rotary is cast iron. It sucks. Those housings are heavy. So lets compare ours to an LT1. A 13b REW has similar power outputs to a LT1 police edition engine (or impala SS), and weighs at least 250 lbs less. I have friends who spend their lives on LT1's. They admit they are heavy as ****. By the way, Racing Beat manufactures aluminum side housings for rotaries.
Weight balance is extremely important. Suspension tuning is easy. Suspension tuning makes a huge difference, yes; but consider this: a properly tuned mid engined car (all things equal) will have more grip on a road course than a 50/50 or front biased car. AutoX cars love a slightly front biased car, it has a quicker turn in.
Ok, doubling the displacement of a rotary is somewhat bullshit. It is the same as doubling a 2 cycle engine. The rotary makes better use of the space given to it. Its physical displacement is 1.3 liters for a 13b. Yes, it IS sucking in and firing twice that per revolution of the e-shaft. But this is physical displacement, not displacement per revolution. So even if you do double the displacement, consider this. The RB26DETT is huge in comparison. Heavy, too. So our power to external dimension ratio (which seems to be the underlying argument of my v8 buddies and collegues for the new kickass LS7, which still uses pushrods) is still much better than that engine.
Ok, im done ranting. Just wanted to clear up some grey areas and throw a couple more facts out there.
Actually, I have one final thing. Rotaries suffer from having 1 division of 1 car manufacturer develop it. they have also been produced for 45 years. In 1945, or even 1955, engines did not last very long. I have a 75 year old neighbor who said engines (v8s and the rest) lasted 2-3 years before needing replaced in the 40s and 50s. This is a very important argument to consider. I am not trying to make excuses for any of the rotaries shortcomings, but remember, the money and technology put into this engine is vastly surpassed by the reciprocating type.
20b, NA, with exhaust headers, street port, intake manifold, water pump, alternator, fully accessorized, is less than 300lb. 400 horsepower. 300 lb. I weighed it. 190 lb lighter than LS1, same power.
SHORTBLOCK REW engine weighs 180lb, from clutch to front cover, including oil pan. with none of that, its closer to 155.
Okay, the rotary is cast iron. It sucks. Those housings are heavy. So lets compare ours to an LT1. A 13b REW has similar power outputs to a LT1 police edition engine (or impala SS), and weighs at least 250 lbs less. I have friends who spend their lives on LT1's. They admit they are heavy as ****. By the way, Racing Beat manufactures aluminum side housings for rotaries.
Weight balance is extremely important. Suspension tuning is easy. Suspension tuning makes a huge difference, yes; but consider this: a properly tuned mid engined car (all things equal) will have more grip on a road course than a 50/50 or front biased car. AutoX cars love a slightly front biased car, it has a quicker turn in.
Ok, doubling the displacement of a rotary is somewhat bullshit. It is the same as doubling a 2 cycle engine. The rotary makes better use of the space given to it. Its physical displacement is 1.3 liters for a 13b. Yes, it IS sucking in and firing twice that per revolution of the e-shaft. But this is physical displacement, not displacement per revolution. So even if you do double the displacement, consider this. The RB26DETT is huge in comparison. Heavy, too. So our power to external dimension ratio (which seems to be the underlying argument of my v8 buddies and collegues for the new kickass LS7, which still uses pushrods) is still much better than that engine.
Ok, im done ranting. Just wanted to clear up some grey areas and throw a couple more facts out there.
Actually, I have one final thing. Rotaries suffer from having 1 division of 1 car manufacturer develop it. they have also been produced for 45 years. In 1945, or even 1955, engines did not last very long. I have a 75 year old neighbor who said engines (v8s and the rest) lasted 2-3 years before needing replaced in the 40s and 50s. This is a very important argument to consider. I am not trying to make excuses for any of the rotaries shortcomings, but remember, the money and technology put into this engine is vastly surpassed by the reciprocating type.
06-29-05, 04:15 PM
#48
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats nice, but the RX-7s still come out weighing about the same after the swap (some are even tail heavy, including a LT1 10th anniversary... 60 lbs heavier in the rear than the front, imagine that! ) And, its much more reliable than a 20b. No damn apex seals to blow out if you knock, and less gas consumpiton, and its more thermodynamically efficent, and better emissions. And cheaper parts. *yawn* And you dont need the heavy *** oil coolers in the nose of the car, etc.
Also, dude, do some math for turbo sizing, and argue with the other rotary guys here. Its a 2.6 liter, period - this isnt about how you measure the displacement mechanically, that is, swept area, its referring to the rate at which air is moved. Piston engines require two crank revolutions per cylinder to fill all of the cylinder, and given that all the equations are based off of that, putting 1.3 into a calculator for figuring out air moved would require a VE ov 140-200%... thats just not the case.
Now, is a RB26DETT *BIG*? Yeah, its a damn I-6. Is it heavy, yeah, its a I-6 made from iron. Did you go into the same old "omg pushrods" arguement again? Yeah, ya did - all pushrods allow is cheaper manufacturing to let money be better spent elsewhere (or just sell it for less) and let you have MUCH Smaller heads - 7 liters out of a smallblock is very nice. Ford's 4.6 (which uses 4 cams, two per head, which MUST be better, right?) is HUGE by comparsion to a small block, mostly in the head size. Ive seen a picture of a 302 (5.0) and a 4.6 DOHC side by side and its like comparing an X-box to a gameboy. And to finally put to rest the pushrod bickering - price per pony, pushrods are cheaper. And, GM did make a DOHC v8 for the corvette - the LT5. But, it was a flop, the power gains werent that signifigant, and you had $$$ out the ***, the inability to really mod it iwthout dumping money on it (FOUR CAMSHAFTS!) and the larger weight/volume.
Id dare you to find an aluminum 2.6 liter I-4 with good headflow, especially on the exhaust side to match the peripherial exhaust ports of a 13b, stick the same turbo on that that a rotary has, tune it accordingly, and tell me how good it does. Its gonna be much more reliable, and due to the fact that it has lower BSFC and more thermodynamic effeciency, it might make more power at the same boost!
Do you really want that? Do you really wanna blow that kind of money on a HUGE engine with low displacement, and basically make it cost prohibitive to change out the cams on it? Sure. Id much rather have a well set up pushrod engine thats smaller overall, cheaper, and with more displacement relative to its external dimensions than something with less power and more size just because it has DOHC heads.
And finally, guess what? Rotaries are always going to have higher BSFC and thermodynamic inefficiency due to the bathtub combustion chamber, **** torque (even if it was a 1.3, which it aint, because of the geometry of it, which means its its a compact 2.6 liter as far as air flow, fuel consumption, and turbo sizing goes) hot exhaust gas, and the achilles heel of apex seals.
Rotaries seem to be very good in racing, and add variety to it, but as far as what I want in a street car, Id rather go with a LSx v8. Its not the 1950s, and it can handle sustained power much longer than a 13B or 20B could with the same power levels, AND it has cheaper parts despite the longetvity of it, and it doesnt burn oil or suck down gas like a rotary does, and it makes more power with the same air being moved in it relative to a rotary engine.
Where it counts in practical terms, its simply a superior altenative to yet another rebuild, and the savings in rebuilds, oil, gas, and down time pay off. The swaps come out 55/45 at worst comparable to a lot of rotary cars on the street right now, and at best come out *** heavy. Plus it can simply support more power than a rotary in the end, its a 5.7 liter engine! I can make it bigger than that without having to get a funny two-piece E-shaft and a seperate rotor and housing on the end of it. Oh, and I can knock audiably without having to call up my shop for a rebuild or order new apex seals and rent a cherry picker.
Rotaries can be competitive in racing, Im not disagreeing here, and are worth it to people who really do like them despite their downfalls, but for my purposes Id rather have a car with the same weight distrubiton, but with more torque, streetability, lighter on my wallet in terms of oil and gas, cheaper parts, more power out of the box without a pound of boost and more potential if I put a turbo or blower on it, and MUCH more reliable stock, and even more reliability if its tuned up and pushing out some serious power.
) And, its much more reliable than a 20b. No damn apex seals to blow out if you knock, and less gas consumpiton, and its more thermodynamically efficent, and better emissions. And cheaper parts. *yawn* And you dont need the heavy *** oil coolers in the nose of the car, etc.Also, dude, do some math for turbo sizing, and argue with the other rotary guys here. Its a 2.6 liter, period - this isnt about how you measure the displacement mechanically, that is, swept area, its referring to the rate at which air is moved. Piston engines require two crank revolutions per cylinder to fill all of the cylinder, and given that all the equations are based off of that, putting 1.3 into a calculator for figuring out air moved would require a VE ov 140-200%... thats just not the case.
Now, is a RB26DETT *BIG*? Yeah, its a damn I-6. Is it heavy, yeah, its a I-6 made from iron. Did you go into the same old "omg pushrods" arguement again? Yeah, ya did - all pushrods allow is cheaper manufacturing to let money be better spent elsewhere (or just sell it for less) and let you have MUCH Smaller heads - 7 liters out of a smallblock is very nice. Ford's 4.6 (which uses 4 cams, two per head, which MUST be better, right?) is HUGE by comparsion to a small block, mostly in the head size. Ive seen a picture of a 302 (5.0) and a 4.6 DOHC side by side and its like comparing an X-box to a gameboy. And to finally put to rest the pushrod bickering - price per pony, pushrods are cheaper. And, GM did make a DOHC v8 for the corvette - the LT5. But, it was a flop, the power gains werent that signifigant, and you had $$$ out the ***, the inability to really mod it iwthout dumping money on it (FOUR CAMSHAFTS!) and the larger weight/volume.
Id dare you to find an aluminum 2.6 liter I-4 with good headflow, especially on the exhaust side to match the peripherial exhaust ports of a 13b, stick the same turbo on that that a rotary has, tune it accordingly, and tell me how good it does. Its gonna be much more reliable, and due to the fact that it has lower BSFC and more thermodynamic effeciency, it might make more power at the same boost!
Do you really want that? Do you really wanna blow that kind of money on a HUGE engine with low displacement, and basically make it cost prohibitive to change out the cams on it? Sure. Id much rather have a well set up pushrod engine thats smaller overall, cheaper, and with more displacement relative to its external dimensions than something with less power and more size just because it has DOHC heads.
And finally, guess what? Rotaries are always going to have higher BSFC and thermodynamic inefficiency due to the bathtub combustion chamber, **** torque (even if it was a 1.3, which it aint, because of the geometry of it, which means its its a compact 2.6 liter as far as air flow, fuel consumption, and turbo sizing goes) hot exhaust gas, and the achilles heel of apex seals.
Rotaries seem to be very good in racing, and add variety to it, but as far as what I want in a street car, Id rather go with a LSx v8. Its not the 1950s, and it can handle sustained power much longer than a 13B or 20B could with the same power levels, AND it has cheaper parts despite the longetvity of it, and it doesnt burn oil or suck down gas like a rotary does, and it makes more power with the same air being moved in it relative to a rotary engine.
Where it counts in practical terms, its simply a superior altenative to yet another rebuild, and the savings in rebuilds, oil, gas, and down time pay off. The swaps come out 55/45 at worst comparable to a lot of rotary cars on the street right now, and at best come out *** heavy. Plus it can simply support more power than a rotary in the end, its a 5.7 liter engine! I can make it bigger than that without having to get a funny two-piece E-shaft and a seperate rotor and housing on the end of it. Oh, and I can knock audiably without having to call up my shop for a rebuild or order new apex seals and rent a cherry picker.
Rotaries can be competitive in racing, Im not disagreeing here, and are worth it to people who really do like them despite their downfalls, but for my purposes Id rather have a car with the same weight distrubiton, but with more torque, streetability, lighter on my wallet in terms of oil and gas, cheaper parts, more power out of the box without a pound of boost and more potential if I put a turbo or blower on it, and MUCH more reliable stock, and even more reliability if its tuned up and pushing out some serious power.
