RAZZOR,
sounds like he rotated the tranny like i mentioned. Hey, you should contact him. I'm very interested in that car.

 

1. forget about doing a FWD Rotary. too much of a pain, really not worth the trouble.

2. who told you guys Rotary engines are heavy? They are not heavy, which is one of the reasons why they are the choice for many engine swaps into datsuns and starlets etc... and why RX7's-3's maintain a low curb weight. that and they make crazy power.

3. rotating the engine so the spark plugs face up is NOT an option. Your working against the forces of gravity there.

 

Rotaries are quite heavy compared to an aluminum 4-cylinder. People who swap small-block Fords in RX-7s find that the front ride height doesn't even change with the stock soft springs, what does that tell you?

and be sure not to tell airplane enthusiasts not to rotate the engine to plugs-up, that is the way they install rotaries in airplanes! the oil passages that return "used" oil back to the oil pan go diagonally from the top of the plug side to the bottom of the ports side. by rotating in a plugs-up fashion the oil still flows downhill, although as you rotate the engine more and more you really need to make a new oil pan and pickup.

 

I'm not talking about oil, I'm talking intake. your Intake would be facing down. how do you expect to get gas in the engine. Rotaries are not heavy, a 4 cylinder is heavy. I can pick up a Rotary engine short block and move it. It's easier than a 4 cylinder short block. Try lifting a 4 cylinder out of an engine bay without an engine hoist. Maybe a rotary is not much lighter than a ford engine if the rotary has every single one of those heavy accessory on it. take all the unecessary stuff off, light engine.

comparing an engine in an airplane to one in a car, not a good comparison. cars don't turn upside down unless you crash and roll the car. The engines are not built up the same way.

 

We're not talking about rotating the engine a full 90 degrees... it's just a little bit, enough that the exhaust ports would clear the axleshaft.

Fuel injection doesn't care how the injectors are mounted. Heck I can easily see making a wedge adapter for an IDA manifold if you want to go carby.

 

My uncle has an '89 323. The rotors are spinning in his head. He wants to do a rotary in it. Lucky me!

 

Tonight at Lakeland Motorsport Park in Florida, Gato Performance runs for the first time his project, its a Mazda 323 with a 13B rotary engine, Jerico tranny and Ford 9" rear axle, to make it front wheel drive. It runs 7.0 at 1/8 mile in the first pass.

the video...
http://www.savefile.com/files.php?fid=2596048

video & info from http://agracingphoto.com/home/

 

How come people seem to believe rotary engines are heavy overhere???? This discussion comes up every now and then, even V-8's would be lighter then a 13B according to some. When I shipped a shortblock 13B (remember: unlike a piston engine shortblock, a rotary shortblock is a complete engine just misses manifolds, pumps etc. A piston shortblock comes without head(s) so it isn't complete) and it had just less then 100kg! A complete boinger (so complete but minus manifolds etc) sure won't have less!
The main problem seems to be in the fact that people compare shortblock wheights while a rotary shortblock can't be compared to a piston shortblock.
Rotary engines are not heavy at all!

 

oh, and BTW Citroën produced FWD/transverse mount rotary cars. (GS Birotor)
The engine was the Comotor, in fact a NSU Ro80 engine.

 

*MAZDA* produced a FWD rotary... the R-130 Luce. Had the 13A engine.

Those manifolds and water pump housing *do* add up to a fair bit of weight. I've hefted iron block 4-cylinders that were lighter than a 12A. Yes including cylinder head and etc.

 

Of course manifolds and waterpump add up, but they do so on piston engines aswell don't they? I'd reckon alternators, pumps, alts... for our rotaries aren't heavier then those for piston engines. As for manifolds: a tubular exhaust manifold for a 2 rotor engine can't be heavier then a tubular manifold for a 4 cylinder or more. Two pipes can't put more on the scale than 4, sorry.
About the Luce: yep, it was FWD, but didn't it use a transaxle setup much like the NSU Ro80? I thought we were talking about a FWD transverse engine here?

 

Ok guys there is alot of misinformation floating around on this thread. I have been into adapters and finding the answer to this question.

First the rotary is as light as most 4 cylinder engines fwd and rwd. I have the kennedy engineering book with the weights in front of me. Of coarse turboing would make both engine weigh close enough to the same.

Second the Luce is RWD not FWD. it is based on the 929 that came here to the states that is RWD.

Third the SHO package is actually pretty small. I have seen this motor put in a 1991 626 with only minor mods and it only had to have a hood scoop put on to cover the protruding. I have the same model mazda 626 and the engine bay is pretty small.

There have been FWD done, mainly in the UK, Japan and Austraila. There is a company that makes the adapter for the 12a(13b should be the same) to fit the Toyota Corona FWD tranny. Ahhhh now you are gonna say the Toyota Corona was RWD, well thats half right. The UK, Japan and Austraila Toyota Corona was FWD with factory LSD. So they have a market for it over the big pond, but not here in the states cause you would have to import a tranny and the adapter$$$$$$.


Well where does that leave us? We need to find a FWD tranny that came here to the states factory. It would have to rotate the correct direction(so no honda trannys). It would have to be relativly CHEAP, LSD would be nice, or at least cheap. Handle the HP.

I am researching a FWD celica tranny. I am open for suggestions for any others. The FWD in the 626 might be a close option, but the LSD for it is $1200. It has major torque steer in the turbo models already. Maybe the SHO tranny??

 

Hey Saltyslug, I think you are talking about a different Luce there. The RWD one you refer to, is the later (929-based) car. The one we were talking about is the R-130 Luce, and was introduced in 1969. It was powered by a 13A engine, which is different from the common (10A, 12A, 13B) engines in such that exentricity was larger, as such making it a long-stroke engine if you'd compare it with piston engines. This gave 126hp and 171NM torque.
The later Luce (Luce name also used for the RX-4 if my information is correct) you mention is the HC Luce, which had a 13BT in a 929 body.

 

A mate of mine in NZ has a BF Familia running FWD 13PP.
Insane torque steer and 13 second 1/4's - someone else has apparently built a 4WD BF Familia running 3rd gen 13B turbo too which I look forward to seeing soon.

 

Isuzu turbo motors have been proven to 400+ wheel Hp 100% stock and an 11.3@125 1/4
http://www.isuzu-mods.com/Imark_RS/D...nd_racing.html

another geo storm (isuzu impulse) ran a 10.6
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...75134390375655



btw these icons are pimp

 

Hi, I don't know much about this subject, but a while ago I was reading in the ausrotary.com about a similar thing. There is a person there that have a civic with a 12A BP on it. I just took the picture from the site coz I think it looks kinda cool. A search might help there to shed more light on this.

 

I thought it would be a dune buggy .

 

When you guys compair engine weight, you must comapir intalled weight. To get this I recomend using factory specifications, not this engine felt heavier then that one method. ( not trying to bash anyone). Suposivly teh factory installed weight for a 12 is 300lbs or something like this, and the b6 engine instaled weight in the Mazda 323 is 350lbs ish. The engine in a Mazda 323 installed is probably a smidge lighter.

There is a fellow on here who probably knows the exact weights.

Keep in mind, those pistons, and conecting rods are often made of iron too.

 

*edit* mods delete this post.