xfeastonarsex

iTrader: (5)

Im going by what I have noticed in cincinnati and N Ky, there are a lot of early 80s camaro's(beater models) being driven by hilbillies, many of which have confederate flags and bumper stickers that say "REDNECK". I also dont think that he was going to be doing an engine swap into a new camaro that the well educated and people with money that you are talking about would be driving. So I dont think it is an iggnornat statement. It is accurate for where I live.

BogusFile

Well I am personally about to embark on a 1983 camaro project in the next month or so... and I am far from redneck. I know you are basing your statement on what you have seen in your surroundings, thats fine. I don't think that the hillbilly camaro owners are model year specific either. I have seen some idiot peices of **** driving 01 SS's. I disagree that the 83 & up are beater cars, but since a majority of them are in poor shape I can understand that statement too. I agree with the idea that a majority of grubbers(rednecks) do in fact drive trucks. Nothing like the harmony of swampers, 4.56 gears, exhaust leaks, and a 454 with no exhaust driving down the highway.

Project84

BogusFile is right. The one thing that makes the rotary engine so great is the car Mazda put it in; the RX-7. The car, being a combination of the chassis and engine, has an awesome hp/weight ratio that most cars can't compare to. Putting a rotary engine in another, heavier car keeps the hp the same, but increases the weight. The out come is the same engine under conditions causing it perform more poorly. You would be better off finding a vehicle lighter than the RX-7.

peejay

Most RX-7s have a power/weight that is laughable by modern standards. 24-26lb/horsepower? Man most econocrates will do 20lb/hp.

Don't forget that RX-7 isn't the only rotary car and it wasn't the first... (and if by "RX-7" you mean "FD" then you REALLY need to open your eyes...) most rotary cars were just regular ol' sedans (and a few trucks and motorcycles) that happened to have Wankels between the air filter and the muffler.

Project84

I know the RX-7 isn't the first rotary powered vehicle, but in my opinion, it was is the best. How many REPU's Have Land Speed Records?


All I'm saying is that if you want the rotary engine to perform on par with its potential, don't go throwing it in a land yacht like a 1972 Buick Electra.

repuguru

Aw come on now. How many RX7's have you seen loaded with 3/4 of a ton and towing a race car?

rxrotary2_7

how did this become a land speed record debate? and REPU an run some good numbers. there was one this weeknd at the track running excelent. faster than a lot of street rx's.
project84- should a rotary be put into a plane or boat? and i dont think that he wants to breakland speed records in a Camaro

Project84

Rotarys are used in planes and boats, Atkins rotary, (as well as a few others whose name slip my mind at the moment) has a whole section on rotary aviation.

All I'm saying is that a given engine, in this case a rotary engine, will perform betterwith less weight to pull. The RX-7 is lighter than a 88 camaro. The answer is yes, you can put a rotary engine in a Camaro. You can put it in a 1 ton Dulley, an Abrams Tank, or the freakin space shuttle. The heavier the vehicle that you install this given engine in, the more performance goes down. Now, granted, he more than likely won't be trying to win Bonneville in this rotary powered camaro, but isn't that what we all seek is more performance, not less? Isn't the whole idea to get from point A to point B faster than the next guy in the next car? If you want to use a Rotary engine to do it, you would be better off putting it in a lighter vehicle rather than a heavier one. Is something wrong with my thought logic cause it seems that I'm getting beat up over this.

peejay

Depending on which RX-7 you're talking about, and which '88 Camaro, the difference is slim to none

Look up a vehicle called the "Parkway 26". And the "Roadpacer" too.

SleeperRex

I have to agree with P84 on this one, you would have to be an idiot to try to put a rotary in a camaro. Can you say LS1. Rotary motors don't produce enough lowend torque to tow around a Camaro.

peejay

Look up the Parkway 26.

Camaros don't weigh much more than a loaded FC or FD. You could probably make up the difference with some simple mods (gut doors, lightweight seats...) And don't forget GEARING! You think someone would seriously go to the trouble of an engine swap and not put different gears in the rearend?

dru3m1r1

Look at power to weight. 3000 lbs+ with a low torque, high-reving, moderately high horespower powerplant. I'm sorry, I usually can see some good in all ideas, but you have no angle or edge with that chassis. Unless you could shave at least 1000 lbs or so. LOL. But anyways, look at a lighter donor to get some better performance.

rxrotary2_7

mabe this will help once you get your rotary in that camaro though...

http://www.mustangworld.com/forums/s...threadid=22230

Project84

Ok, Mazda roadpacer. A rotary engine in a large vehicle.
but the question still remains. Isn't the whole idea to get from point A to point B faster than the next guy in the next car? And to do this with a rotary engine, wouldn't you want that engine in a lighter vehicle? Nobody said it was impossible to put it in a heavier vehicle. What we are saying is that it is impractical if you plan on trying to achieve the above mentioned goal. If you want to do it just to see if the engine will make the camaro roll, then go for it. If you want to go try racing the neighborhood Civics, Accords, Mustangs or Proteges, don't expect too many check marks in the win column. Sometimes people get so focused, and over-engineer their thoughts so much that they forget to step back and look at the big picture.

peejay

Nope. Idea is to enjoy yourself, and do what you want.

Project84

why not ask Aerodogg? He started this thread. Everyone has different ideas and his was to put a rotary engine in a Camaro. But most people seem to be in one accord, believing that however likely and possible that this feat may be, it wouldn't be very practical nor would it lend it self to any revelotionary breakthrough as far a performance, for the car or engine.

Where is old Aerodogg anyway? He started this thread and hasn't been back since.

peejay

A rotary Camaro would be pretty neat, though.... Like I said earlier, you'd have to put in something either ported or turbo if you want to approximate the performance of a smogger 305 (aka no performance) But considering that most 3rd-gen F-bodies came with wheezer 2.8 V6s (110hp? 125 maybe?) and some even came with 4-bangers, having insufficient power shouldn't be a problem. 3rd-gens never were fast in a straight line anyway; they were all about handling.

Project84

I raced a V-6 camaro from a red light in a Pontiac Fiero back when my wife and I were in high school. I think he had a slug-o-matic cause I pulled away in third. The third gen would kick *** if it had AWS like the dodge stealth. Guy I work with had one. Over 25mph rear wheels would crab. They corner like a dream and hold 1G on the tilt table, not that that is 100% accurate.

peejay

AWS? What good is that? It's only there as a fuddy-factor for people who like to brag about all the techno-crap on their cars, and people who CAN drive either have to relearn to drive with the system getting in their way, or disable it. It doesn't do anything for grip, notice that 3000GTs have friggin' huge tires, that's where the grip comes from.

Well, I can think of one goos use for AWS. Would be great for trucks that tow heavy trailers, make changing lanes on the highway a lot more stable.

Project84

Chevy has a new pickup that does that. I think its chevy. The 3000GT has mad grip. Its a boinger, but its a damn fast one.

3000GT

Felix Wankel

GMC usues it.

peejay

Yep, and they use it to kill turning radius at low speed and increase highway stability. One of those "How come nobody did this yet?" things, after all you're just putting a front axle in the back

3000GT's grip has nothing to do with the AWS. It has to do with tires - not with the AWS. For that matter, I could make the argument that wearing a helmet gives my car the ability to corner at well over 1g (When I go to a road course, I wear my helmet and the car can pull over 1g... it can't be the tires I put on the car, it's gotta be the helmet! after all, F1 drivers have Mad GRiPz because they wear helmets...)

Project84

Grip sitting still is different than grip in motion. If you put the car on the tilt table, that isn't the same as taking it through a turn at 55mph. If you go into a right turn and the rear left of the car tries to come around and beat the front of the car, then momentum took over, causing the rear wheels to break traction. If the rear wheels can steer into the turn, it offers more more stability. Its not just the AWS though, its a combination of suspension, tires, and the famous pontiac line, "wider is better".

peejay

Cornering grip IS down to the tires. Suspension tuning will determine which end loses traction first.

Having the rear tires steer into or away from the corner just changes some transient characteristics. All cars have roll steer in the rear to one degree or another, it's one of the basics of suspension geometry and one of the MANY factors in determining how a car "feels".

BogusFile

I hate to be the one who says it but.....
if its so great, why doesn't formula 1 use it. Or any racing division for that matter.