first off, i liked your post. i would say you and i think similarly.
i wanted to retort one thing, though. you mentioned the 720degree vs 1080. since you listed the 720 in with 3 pros to the piston and the 1080 with 3 cons for the rotary, i assumed you were listing 4 pros vs 4 cons.
this reminded me of the rotary flank chart i saw in BDC's garage. i did a quick search to check myself, but came across something else.
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/disp...ngine06&bhcp=1
the author goes over this issue listing both pros and cons for both. if anything else, it's an interesting (short) read.

and to stay on topic...
i've actually wanted to do a rotary mustang for a long time now. if i were to do it, i would use an early 90s, late 80s coupe. i am extremely partial to a certain style. no fastbacks, no "pretty boy" body kit. just plain coupe.
i always envisioned dropping a crazy 13B into one. one that would rip other cars, but you could hear that it wasn't a v8.

beautiful example: http://www.performance-shop.com/yabb...8059.msg176421
i really really like that car. :)

too bad his Best ET is: 12.630@121.08

Doubling the displacement is only for the purpose of comparison to 4 stroke piston engines. The actual displacemet of a 13B is 1300CC's the actual displacement of 20B is 1900CCs. I had a honda 250 two stroke bike, honda didn't say that it was a 500 because it has twice as many power strokes for a given number of rotations.

But you obviously can't compare strait accross without considering this fact.

This is so true... I still cant figure out why a 13 year old FD can out accelerate and out handle a brand new Mustang GT... Could it be 1.3 Rotary > 4.6 V8?

Bravo! Well said!

I wonder how a 1.3 litre 2 rotor engine will match up to a 1.3 litre 2 piston engine...

Can someone say lawn mower... :balls:

no.

supercars of all sorts use big engines; v8 and bigger are not uncommon. in fact, there's a supercar that was built using ford's 4.6L cobra engine, but i'll be damned if i can find it now (since i have no clue what it was called). gm's corvette engines have also been used. you can put your money on the "1.3 Rotary" if you'd like, but i think i'd put my money on common sense.

handling: FD vs Mustang GT -- hardly the match of the ages.
"and here i thought suspension was important."
"no, bob, it's all about what engine you use."
ok.

Exactly, My guess is he was assuming each face of the rotor displaced 2L or something so the passing of the 3 faces = 6L of displacement? Lolz..... sounds like he ditched the rotary before he knew anything correct about them, no offense, it happens all the time. Just enjoy your cars.

who's driving a one rotor rx7?

HP and torque with the same power curve is the same regardless what kind of motor its comming from.

FD's are superior to mustangs (in a race), because of the chassis, weight distribution, total weight etc.

I can't immagine why you would want to build a supercar with the ford 4.6. I'm not a 4.6 fan, I think they took a step back when they put than in the mustang.

i'm not sure what you mean or who that's directed to, but i will add that it doesn't particularly make sense to me. if youre saying that if two engines make the exact same power curve than their hp and torque are the same, then i guess i agree. if two objects are the same, they're the same. yes. now, what??


i don't know enough about it -- 4 cams, 4 valves per cylinder; that's about the extent of my knowledge. but your comment is out of left field. rx7up was making an acceleration/handling comparison based on 2 engines which, as a comparison, isn't exactly filled with logic. you can put a rotary in an suv, it isn't going to make it outhandle a mustang. there's a ton of variables thrown out the window in his comparison.
and, for what it's worth, i don't see the 13B a likely candidate for a supercar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slo
HP and torque with the same power curve is the same regardless what kind of motor its comming from.


i'm not sure what you mean or who that's directed to, but i will add that it doesn't particularly make sense to me. if youre saying that if two engines make the exact same power curve than their hp and torque are the same, then i guess i agree. if two objects are the same, they're the same. yes. now, what??


That was dirrected at the engine based comparison of handling and accelleration based on different cars. Which you commented on below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slo
I can't immagine why you would want to build a supercar with the ford 4.6. I'm not a 4.6 fan, I think they took a step back when they put than in the mustang.


i don't know enough about it -- 4 cams, 4 valves per cylinder; that's about the extent of my knowledge. but your comment is out of left field. rx7up was making an acceleration/handling comparison based on 2 engines which, as a comparison, isn't exactly filled with logic. you can put a rotary in an suv, it isn't going to make it outhandle a mustang. there's a ton of variables thrown out the window in his comparison.
and, for what it's worth, i don't see the 13B a likely candidate for a supercar.

The standard mustang GT 4.6 is a SOHC.

I see a 13B as being a very good supercar engine if taking the lotus approach (ultra light weight).

sorry, i was still referring to the cobra engine as mentioned before. the sohc engine is also 2 valve. that's mostly what i was comparing to.

epa standards aren't getting more laxed. i know b passed emissions when he was making 420-something to the wheels, and i know different cars have different standards (i was surprised to find my 91 n/a had more strict numbers than a 94 impreza), but i just don't see it being a likely candidate. i personally don't consider the elise or exige supercars, nor do i think of the espirit v8 as one (just a beautiful sportscar). as for supercars, they're making upwards of near, over, around 1000hp. as for weight, i can't quote numbers, but i know they aren't too heavy (some may be, but they're running some crazier engines). with that much hp, a much torquier motor and a better all around power curve, they can be hard to match for a rotary. and i really don't feel like getting into 3-rotor/4-rotor theoretical thinking. hell, i don't even like getting near piston vs rotary/v8 vs rotary arguements.

i do, however, agree with the light weight angle. as do most supercar builders (spaceage materials, carbon fibre, titanium, etc). they're not for bling factor.

The comparison was based on the cars as a whole, not just the motors... Maybe I didn't quite make that clear.

As far as the 13B a likely candidate for a "supercar" ... What is your definition of a "supercar"?

Speed, price, handling, status, handmade?

There are "supercars" out there people are building in there own garages everyday all over the world... Believe it or not, some even have 1.3 rotaries.

In Serious performance video volume 2 there is a "supercar" builder located in Australia that builds custom supercars using a miata half chasis and a turbo 1.3 rotary engine.

Lotus Esprit turbo 4 cylinder... "supercar"

first off, i knew what i was dragging myself into, but i was bored and jumped in. i really don't want to get stuck here ruining this guy's already dead thread...

sorry, no, you didnt make it clear. so when you said "13B > 4.6," what you meant was "lighter weight, better suspension, better weight distribution > heavier, not-so-race-proven suspension, not quite as good weight distribution"? see, your simplification was, yes, confusing.

my definition? i dont have one. i was thinking it as i typed; "i don't have a definition." just as i don't have a definition for a sports car. family car? economy car? truck? car? what is an el camino?! i don't know! nope, no definition. i can only be difficult and say "i calls em like i sees em."
speed? no. makes no sense what with civics on salt flats. price? i could live in a mansion, but i'm not calling it a supercar. handling? well, we're onto something. status? i left it in my mansion. handmade? damnit, i built my mansion.
closest i could come would be handling (suspension) based off of what would appear to be a racecar, which may also include such things as vents and proper aero. the hp/pound should be beautiful as well. without sitting here like 'the thinker,' i may just leave it at that. as far as bringing up garage-made supercars, that's highly irrelevant. but i guess you were still on the assumption side of what i might say -- fair enough.

some with 1.3 rotaries? feel free to show me; i'd like to see a car made with materials NASA still hasn't found that are missing, countless hours of r&d, and the silly sun of a gun that chose a 1.3L rotary. and then we could (but i wont) argue about how it is, in your opinion, a supercar, and in my opinion, either a kit car or some sort of auto based around a rotary. a supercar, though? holler at tvr, mclaren or porsche; they may be hiring engineers.

oh, and a miata half chassis for a supercar? i've gotta see this.

oh, and p.s.; please don't show me the rotary-powered vehicle from SCC's Ultimate Test thingy. just a heads up.

i don't call it one, but that's neither here nor there. i wasn't saying "supercars use big engines," i was rebutting your statement "13B > 4.6" referring to you implying that the 1.3 rotary was superior for acceleration and handling. i was merely adding its irrelevance.
a supercar could use an integra type r engine if the car is built right.
i still dont see how you can call that car a supercar. i guess my lines between sports and super are different. no biggie.

eh, did some digging. couldn't find much. i pretty much took the easy way out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercar

a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square.

It's a funny coincidence that you mentioned TVR in your list. In the video I mentioned above they compared both companies and cars to the turbo 1.3 rotary miata half chasis supercar thingy... lol
They must have been pretty close in comparison...

On a side note, Ferrari and other supercar makers all started in there garages out back...

That's all folks!

awesome, still waiting to see it. :(

really?

Enzo Ferrari never intended to produce road cars when he formed Scuderia Ferrari in 1929 as a sponsor for amateur drivers headquartered in Modena. Ferrari prepared and successfully raced various drivers in Alfa Romeo cars until 1938, when he was officially hired by Alfa as head of their racing department.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari
http://www.exoticcarrental.com/FerrariHistory.htm
http://www.italylink.com/ferrarihist.html

if he did, i didn't see anything which said so. i don't know, though; born in 1898 and started the company in 1929 which was building and sponsoring cars. i don't know, it doesn't matter. =/

but, come on, how many companies don't start "in a garage"? (or out back, in the dining room, in the office, on the internet; it's how lower- and middle-class citizens start businesses! even i'm working on it. :))

sorry, i was in a bit of a rush and did the quicky, just got back from participating in half of the cannonball run tonight, but yea it would be .22L per face of each rotor(or .66 to be roughly a 6L) in a 20b..... i think.

nice car mon! de wankel wins agin

The sohc 4.6, I completely agree with you on. It's ford's "multi platform" engine.. just like how chevy shoved 305's into every car they made in the 80's. There are 4.6's in everything from trucks to mustangs to linclon towncars. The same engine that powers grandpa to the store in his towncar is the same one that's hauling Maynard Mullet around in his new mustang GT... haha

The dohc 4.6, though, you gotta admit.. is pretty impressive.. There are cobras out there who are reaching 500 wheel horsepower on a stock motor with mainly just a smaller pulley and a ECU tune. And the n/a 4.6 dohc that came in the Mach1 mustang isn't that bad either. It still makes 305 horsepower and isn't that bad of a slouch.

isn't it the koenigsegg that uses *a derivative of* the dohc ford v8?
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame...php&carnum=237

jesus christ you guys turned this thread to shit.

^^ i agree. but now that its fucked up anyway, i'll contribute.

a supercar is a car with a superb combination of all the important factors in performance, IE a car that excels at acceleration, handling, braking, and at least in somepeoples definition, looks.

by that definition, there are hundreds of supercars being built by people everywhere, everyday. If you ask me, and make/model can be a supercar, as long as someone has done a good job of tuning all the important factors into a balanced package. There are many rx7s out there that could wipe up the street with a ferarri, and if you dont call them supercars just because they dont have a little dancing horsey on the bumper, youre nuts.

pat

YEP!!! Poor guy just wanted to show us a unique swap and the haters on here fucked it up like usual!

God-forbid we don't jack them off telling them how wonderful their V8 hybrid 7 is though. V8's are great engines, I just personally am not interested in something that I've seen OVER and OVER and OVER again.

2Wankel said it best, I'm all about being the underdog and taking the road less traveled.