Best Way To Fix A Mustang
09-30-06, 05:35 PM
#101
casio isn't here.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Greenpoint, Brooklyn
Posts: 3,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2wankel
A V-8 has the advantage and will always have the advantage.
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.
09-30-06, 05:47 PM
#102
casio isn't here.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Greenpoint, Brooklyn
Posts: 3,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by casio; 09-30-06 at 05:51 PM.
09-30-06, 06:51 PM
#103
registered user
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha, I see you caught that too, after he goes and acts like he knows what he's talking about by tripling, instead of doubling, the claimed displacement to argue the technical displacement I wasn't even gonna bother with him anymore.
But you obviously can't compare strait accross without considering this fact.
09-30-06, 07:15 PM
#104
BOYCOTT EXXON MOBIL!!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Westchester County, New York. USA
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EJayCe996
Enough of the "my e-***** is bigger than yours" stuff already. In relation to the 13b, the 20b DOES make more torque. I believe someone already listed a dyno, although on stock turbos, that a 20b made ~350hp and ~425ft.lbs. of torque.... a LOT more than what a 13b could ever do. Once again you're trying to compare the torque of a 2L motor to a 5.7L that don't even have the same internal layout. Did you expect them to be the same? Some of you guys, on both sides of the engine fence, get so butt-hurt over someone poking fun at you and just can't get over it and become as immature as the people you said were immature. ITS A CAR, not your mother, not your father, not your sister, not your uncle, etc. Someone downtalks your car, your car won't cry, your car wont quit being a car...... Just smile and walk away or just run them (legally) so you can say "well my car must not be one of those POSs you were talking of, because it beat yours and didn't blow up or anything." And be done with it.
09-30-06, 07:30 PM
#105
BOYCOTT EXXON MOBIL!!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Westchester County, New York. USA
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2wankel
A V-8 has the advantage and will always have the advantage.
Piston Engine
I’d rather be on the “your not going to win side” and “win” than be on the “dude, it’s a Japanese car with a P.O.S engine” and “lose.”
Why I like the rotary? Because it is a unique, reliable, and simple engine; it has a heart that only a rotary enthusiast can understand. That melody that keeps getting louder as it reaches 9,000rpm’s; it is a sound that truly is intoxicating. Screw displacement and screw torque. I’ll take my chances with a Rotary.
Piston Engine
- 121 years of engine development
- A piston engine requires 720º of crankshaft rotation to complete a cycle. (2 complete revolutions of the crankshaft).
- More Torque
- More Displacement
- 49 years of engine development
- It takes a rotary engine 1080º of crankshaft rotation to complete a cycle. (3 crankshaft rotations per cycle).
- Less torque
- Less displacement
I’d rather be on the “your not going to win side” and “win” than be on the “dude, it’s a Japanese car with a P.O.S engine” and “lose.”
Why I like the rotary? Because it is a unique, reliable, and simple engine; it has a heart that only a rotary enthusiast can understand. That melody that keeps getting louder as it reaches 9,000rpm’s; it is a sound that truly is intoxicating. Screw displacement and screw torque. I’ll take my chances with a Rotary.
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...
09-30-06, 07:37 PM
#106
casio isn't here.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Greenpoint, Brooklyn
Posts: 3,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RX7UP
Could it be 1.3 Rotary > 4.6 V8?
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.
Last edited by casio; 09-30-06 at 07:43 PM.
09-30-06, 07:41 PM
#107
There were no survivors
Originally Posted by slo
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.
But you obviously can't compare strait accross without considering this fact.
09-30-06, 07:44 PM
#108
casio isn't here.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Greenpoint, Brooklyn
Posts: 3,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EJayCe996
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?
09-30-06, 07:56 PM
#109
registered user
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
09-30-06, 08:07 PM
#110
casio isn't here.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Greenpoint, Brooklyn
Posts: 3,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by slo
HP and torque with the same power curve is the same regardless what kind of motor its comming from.
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.
and, for what it's worth, i don't see the 13B a likely candidate for a supercar.
09-30-06, 08:16 PM
#111
registered user
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
09-30-06, 08:26 PM
#112
casio isn't here.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Greenpoint, Brooklyn
Posts: 3,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
09-30-06, 08:39 PM
#113
BOYCOTT EXXON MOBIL!!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Westchester County, New York. USA
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by casio
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.
and, for what it's worth, i don't see the 13B a likely candidate for a supercar.
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.
09-30-06, 08:57 PM
#115
casio isn't here.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Greenpoint, Brooklyn
Posts: 3,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
09-30-06, 09:01 PM
#116
casio isn't here.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Greenpoint, Brooklyn
Posts: 3,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RX7UP
Lotus Esprit turbo 4 cylinder... "supercar"
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.
09-30-06, 09:13 PM
#117
casio isn't here.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Greenpoint, Brooklyn
Posts: 3,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
09-30-06, 09:25 PM
#118
BOYCOTT EXXON MOBIL!!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Westchester County, New York. USA
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by RX7UP; 09-30-06 at 09:32 PM.
09-30-06, 10:32 PM
#119
casio isn't here.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Greenpoint, Brooklyn
Posts: 3,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RX7UP
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...
They must have been pretty close in comparison...
Originally Posted by RX7UP
On a side note, Ferrari and other supercar makers all started in there garages out back...
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.
)
09-30-06, 10:44 PM
#120
There were no survivors
Originally Posted by casio
who's driving a one rotor rx7?
Last edited by EJayCe996; 09-30-06 at 10:48 PM.
10-01-06, 12:44 AM
#122
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.
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
Last edited by pinknuggit; 10-01-06 at 12:51 AM.
10-01-06, 05:41 AM
#124
^^ 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
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
10-01-06, 04:45 PM
#125
Originally Posted by Eric Happy Meal
jesus christ you guys turned this thread to ****.
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.