13b-t vs LS1 vs SR20 swap!?
I'm talking at least evening out aluminum vs. iron. How is comparing the weights of an engine that is mostly aluminum vs. and engine that still has iron in a majority of it's structure? At least build the rotary out of as much aluminum as you can.
You make valid points, i think it's a given that the combustion chamber shape is thermally inefficient. I'm not trying to compare emissions, as we all know who the bigger polluter is with a catalytic converter. That's why I want to see dynos of LS1's with cams, heads, intake and full exhaust with no converter. Still hoping to get peak whp @ peak whp rpm, redline, rev limit, tranny gear ratio and R&P gear ratio.
How much more money has been poured into piston R&D then rotary R&D? I'm sure it's much more than 15k.
Nice insults jimlab. And here I thought we could have an intellectual conversation. At least I'm hoping we still can. I guess your reputation does proceed you. There was no reason for that all, if you want to have an intelligent conversation, please don't do it again. If not, it would be best if you reserved your insults for someone else.
You make valid points, i think it's a given that the combustion chamber shape is thermally inefficient. I'm not trying to compare emissions, as we all know who the bigger polluter is with a catalytic converter. That's why I want to see dynos of LS1's with cams, heads, intake and full exhaust with no converter. Still hoping to get peak whp @ peak whp rpm, redline, rev limit, tranny gear ratio and R&P gear ratio.
How much more money has been poured into piston R&D then rotary R&D? I'm sure it's much more than 15k.
Nice insults jimlab. And here I thought we could have an intellectual conversation. At least I'm hoping we still can. I guess your reputation does proceed you. There was no reason for that all, if you want to have an intelligent conversation, please don't do it again. If not, it would be best if you reserved your insults for someone else.
Last edited by Roen; Feb 13, 2008 at 05:24 PM.
hmm....no one has any dyno graphs? I twould be hard to find whp from factory brochures anyway. Surely someone in OEC has dynoed a cams, heads, intake and exhaust LS1 before, no?
The last three should be the same regardless, i.e. what are the gear ratios on the most popular transmission/rearend option. ECU rev limit shouldn't change either upon mods, nor should redline change......at least I think.
The last three should be the same regardless, i.e. what are the gear ratios on the most popular transmission/rearend option. ECU rev limit shouldn't change either upon mods, nor should redline change......at least I think.
http://thunderracing.com/catalog/?ac...&vid=3&pcid=51
(the almighty trex makes 451whp with stock unported heads)
I personally have owned 6 Rx7's and I can tell you from firsthand experience that TURBO ROTARIES expensive to maintain. In saying that, I need to be fair and also say that swapping an LS1 isnt exactly cheap. I was under time constraints to finish mine so I didnt exactly look for deals. Im sure it can be done for alot cheaper then what I spent. My engine and trans (2002 LS1/T56 w 42,000 miles) cost me 4,700.00 shipped to my door. But....when I finish this swap (almost done) I wont be afraid to mash my foot in the pedal and worry about throwing an apex seal. This I must say is going to be a nice feeling
Here's a pic of my engine bay, notice how it fits well and looks like it belongs
Here's a pic of my engine bay, notice how it fits well and looks like it belongs
Lives on the Forum
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,664
Likes: 22
From: n
I brought up the Summit Racing links due to the power ratings more than anything.
Too bad they don't rate their LS1 crate motor.
I'm suspicious of people claiming to put down 400hp with a stock motor.
http://www.forumshawaii.net/vbb/showthread.php?t=343551
This is a better link for reference, since it's local to me - HAWAII.
They claim 300 at the wheels for a stock LS1.
They claim a good used motor + trans is still going to cost you $3k to $4k.
That sounds a lot more reasonable to me.
400bhp; B stands for Brake correct? arnt brakes located at the wheels? This is an honest question. i always thought bhp was hp at the brakes(aka wheels)
The term came up cause they used to measure power in an engine stand using a "brake" (where the flywheel is), thus, this how "BHP" came abount.
Basically it's power at the flywheel.
I honestly dont. his pricing seems pretty on to me.
www.Ls1tech.com I got my motor from a local guy in town for $2300. Also i would like to point out, you can get a slightly detuned 5.3L for about $700 complete. these are out of the GM trucks and are very plentiful.
And how much to get all these parts shipped to Hawaii?
So if our engines required a big turbo to get the numbers we are currently making, it would be considered, ok to have have one. Your talking about huge aftermarket turbos, not stock parts. So i'm going to assume if we threw a turbo on the V8, you prolly wouldnt complain that is an unfair advantage on our behalf.
I dont know of too many people that have put that kind of milage on their lS motors, but i have no doubt that it will run to 140k-160k with regular maintence.
what does the avg. 20b swap cost?
-Ted
Lives on the Forum
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,664
Likes: 22
From: n
Like I said in the prior post, it was mainly for the power rating.
...and a custom exhaust, right?
And how much does all of that labor cost from a competent shop?
Or are you assuming that the average Joe can do all of that without any problems?
Got a write-up?
Now you're assuming anyone can port heads?
That's just as bad as assuming anyone can port a 13B...
I never said it was "cheep[sic]".
I said it was "trivial".
HKS cast turbo manifold + any # of turbos from eBay + custom plumbing + EMS + Walbro fuel pump = 400hp
No, that ain't cheap, but it's still within the $3k - $4k budget for an LS1 + trans.
See previous post.
Those $ figrues are not common down here.
All I'm questioning is the costs involved on doing this conversion.
Look at the thread subject - this is a debate between the motors listed.
Questions are queries, so WTF does this have to do with "bringing any info to the table"?
I've posted links to me references, and I'm sure all you bitches gonna say is that it's overpriced.
I buy used rotor housings for under $200 a pair off eBay shipped to me in Hawaii.
I buy used side housings for under $400 for a set of 3 off eBay shipped to me in Hawaii.
I buy used rotors for under $300 for a pair off eBay shipped to me in Hawaii.
Rebuilding a 13B is trivial to me.
Does this mean it applies to you?
Not necessarily...
There's a reason why you all went V8, right?
-Ted
Stock motor + cam/springs + longtubes= 400hp
And how much does all of that labor cost from a competent shop?
Or are you assuming that the average Joe can do all of that without any problems?
Got a write-up?
Porting bit from Summit = $45, that covers the heads and TB
That's just as bad as assuming anyone can port a 13B...
Show me a motor where 400hp is cheep.
I said it was "trivial".
HKS cast turbo manifold + any # of turbos from eBay + custom plumbing + EMS + Walbro fuel pump = 400hp
No, that ain't cheap, but it's still within the $3k - $4k budget for an LS1 + trans.
And, yes. 90% of the swappers get their engines from wrecked cars. Where do you get your rotary cores? Straight from the Mazda dealership? I've bought pullouts (meaning engine, tranny, computer, & harness) with a 6speed for $2000, and with an auto for $1700. Granted, those are slammin deals, but deals can be had.
Those $ figrues are not common down here.
I have to agree with Jim on this one, if you're not bringing any info to the table, your questions are useless.
Look at the thread subject - this is a debate between the motors listed.
Questions are queries, so WTF does this have to do with "bringing any info to the table"?
I've posted links to me references, and I'm sure all you bitches gonna say is that it's overpriced.
I buy used rotor housings for under $200 a pair off eBay shipped to me in Hawaii.
I buy used side housings for under $400 for a set of 3 off eBay shipped to me in Hawaii.
I buy used rotors for under $300 for a pair off eBay shipped to me in Hawaii.
Rebuilding a 13B is trivial to me.
Does this mean it applies to you?
Not necessarily...
There's a reason why you all went V8, right?
-Ted
Lives on the Forum
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,664
Likes: 22
From: n
no I paid 1250 for an LS6 long block(405bhp stock)
ls2 now? didnt you say not to include those?
[QUOTESee now your just being a toolbag.[/QUOTE]
So it comes to you calling me names now?
Can't you just be mature about this?
If you can't, then don't bother replying.
First you asked me how much it costs to get them to 400rwhp now your pulling something completely different out.
And no, yours are. Why the **** would ANYONE buy a brand new crate motor when they can buy a used one and completely rebuild it and still come out cheaper than a new OEM one? Again, yes the average joe(and smart joe) would go this route
And no, yours are. Why the **** would ANYONE buy a brand new crate motor when they can buy a used one and completely rebuild it and still come out cheaper than a new OEM one? Again, yes the average joe(and smart joe) would go this route
Research. its something you dont do obviously. And yes with good rod bolts they are.(which is included in the price)..and im going off the prices I paid with my machine shop.
If you want to answer these questions, then just say say so or STFU.
No it just proves your an uneducated idiot looking for a fight.
From the sounds of it the only thing you consider is *****.
Plus with the power the car makes NA, I wont need it to beat you.
According to your words yes, which is why we can't include the LS9, which is also FI stock...cuz we are talking about factory stock right?
Very good you can read, and you also asked me prices on making power and I provided real numbers to you, wheres your numbers?
You are.
Im stating the facts and educating the people who lack the proper knowledge before making a decision.
Hey, I bet at one point in your life, you didn't know jack **** about any of this.
Yes, which is where I went with it, and you, knowing that im correct, are trying to go off in a completely different direction. Your somewhere over in left field.
Yes. My STOCK LT1 lasted 140,000 horribly abused miles with nitrous before blowing up as a result of a headgasket blowing because of a stuck thermostate, so I junked the car.
So...
You can build an LS1 for about...$3,000, was it?
How's about this...
You build the car to make 400 at the wheels for $3k, and I'll BUY it from you for that price.
-Ted
Lives on the Forum
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,664
Likes: 22
From: n
Lives on the Forum
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,664
Likes: 22
From: n
What I do have a problem with people talking **** about the swap and calling us idiots when theyve never even owned/driven/or been in one.
When did I "talk ****" about the swap?
When did I call you an idiot?
-Ted
Torque Monster
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
From: Connecticut
Torque Monster
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
From: Connecticut
P.S. The reason I brought up my old LT1 lasting that long is because its an LT1. Completely outdated and the LS1 is a much stronger, better, more efficient/reliable motor.
Lives on the Forum
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,664
Likes: 22
From: n
You should have just left this one alone.
Almost everything you posted as fact in this thread is blatantly wrong, thats why you where stupid to respond. You should have just left this one alone.
This proves only that you have far more time on your hands than you know what to do with.
Almost everything you posted as fact in this thread is blatantly wrong, thats why you where stupid to respond. You should have just left this one alone.
This proves only that you have far more time on your hands than you know what to do with.
hp/l is a useless argument that honda fanboys(and you...) use to try to make your tiny engines seem more impressive. Hp/weight or hp/physical size might hold up in an argument.
Yawn. Everyone is building a 700+hp t2 engine. Wake me up when you actually accomplish something. I'll be out driving my ls1 powered car in the mean time.
Yawn. Everyone is building a 700+hp t2 engine. Wake me up when you actually accomplish something. I'll be out driving my ls1 powered car in the mean time.
Otherwise there is nothing else i have to add, ted pretty much has it covered.
Oh, other than the fact of asking why ted comes in here, since this is supposed to be a section for people to ask questions about getting different engines. Don't people need to know both sides? Seriously, what's the point if everything is one sided?
The only way to solve this would to take 2 stock S5 T2s with fresh mazda remans, put $10k into them and race them down the strip, at auto-x, and at a track.
I seriously doubt there is anyway that could get set up by anyone other than some expensive magazine, and i doubt anyone would want to cover that though. Because all everyone is throwing out there is estimated ballpark costs, with no relation to, if that part will work, shipping, and labor, broken parts, etc.
You've got to be ******* kidding.
The rotary engine has had 50+ years of R&D, and it "only has 3 moving parts", to quote the favorite saying of rotards everywhere. If that's the case, what's so ******* difficult to perfect about the rotary that they couldn't manage it in 50 years?
I've got news for you. You've already seen the pinnacle of rotary development, and it's called the Renesis. Unfortunately, it still has all of the same problems every other rotary engine has. 3 moving parts or not, combustion chambers shaped like a football do not produce efficient combustion and never will, no matter how much R&D dollars you throw at the problem. The same goes for dumping partially burned fuel into the exhaust. You're never going to make much power and be able to pass emissions standards.
My advice? Stay on your meds and don't try to think.
The rotary engine has had 50+ years of R&D, and it "only has 3 moving parts", to quote the favorite saying of rotards everywhere. If that's the case, what's so ******* difficult to perfect about the rotary that they couldn't manage it in 50 years?
I've got news for you. You've already seen the pinnacle of rotary development, and it's called the Renesis. Unfortunately, it still has all of the same problems every other rotary engine has. 3 moving parts or not, combustion chambers shaped like a football do not produce efficient combustion and never will, no matter how much R&D dollars you throw at the problem. The same goes for dumping partially burned fuel into the exhaust. You're never going to make much power and be able to pass emissions standards.
My advice? Stay on your meds and don't try to think.
https://www.rx7club.com/old-school-other-rotary-63/new-16x-rotary-engine-694120/
I agree with you on the rest though.
Torque Monster
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
From: Connecticut
Super Snuggles
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 10,091
Likes: 34
From: Redmond, WA
There was no reason for that all, if you want to have an intelligent conversation, please don't do it again. If not, it would be best if you reserved your insults for someone else.
Don't post stupid **** and I won't tear you up. The rotary engine already has an advantage to make up for whatever shortcomings you can legitimately attribute to the engine design, and that's forced induction. Take away the hairdryers and rate the engine at its actual swept volume and the rotary engine is sad ****, especially if it has to pass emissions.
Super Snuggles
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 10,091
Likes: 34
From: Redmond, WA
Super Snuggles
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 10,091
Likes: 34
From: Redmond, WA
Your comments didn't indicate the presence of intelligent life, hence my response.
Why, they don't work on you?
Don't post stupid **** and I won't tear you up. The rotary engine already has an advantage to make up for whatever shortcomings you can legitimately attribute to the engine design, and that's forced induction. Take away the hairdryers and rate the engine at its actual swept volume and the rotary engine is sad ****, especially if it has to pass emissions.
Why, they don't work on you?
Don't post stupid **** and I won't tear you up. The rotary engine already has an advantage to make up for whatever shortcomings you can legitimately attribute to the engine design, and that's forced induction. Take away the hairdryers and rate the engine at its actual swept volume and the rotary engine is sad ****, especially if it has to pass emissions.
It's called high school, everyone's been insulted there, right? I've just learned to let them say their piece and move on. Feels like I'm doing them a favor letting them release their energies. No sense to get into an argument about it, you can't win and you just waste energy. I'd rather focus my energy somewhere else.
At least you know your ****. That alone makes reading more than 50% of your posts worthwhile. I usually ignore the other 50% since they're comprised mostly of insults and serve no purpose to the community, unless it's entertaining. There really is no reason to make assumptions and be a ***** about it, seriously. I'm not trying to get into an e-fight of any sort, we all know the lengths you go to prove someone wrong (as seen in some of your ownage threads).
My original goal was to try to set up an experiment that was a fair comparison between the LS1 and the rotary engines (13B, 20B). If you would be so kind to produce something meaningful and provide the dyno numbers for a LS1 engine with cams, heads, intake and full exhaust, that would be greatly appreciated.
peak whp @ peak whp rpm
redline
ecu rev limit
T56 gear ratios
R&P gear ratio
You can't deny that there's been much more money invested into the 8 cylinder alone, than the rotary engine. Adapting that point of view, I don't see why it wouldn't be fair to let the rotary owners spend a little more money on aluminum sideplates and lightened rotors. It's not like it affeccts the power, especially in my proposed experiement. Once, I get those numbers, I'll propose my experiment, and if you think it's dumb, go ahead, free free to rip into it.
The only way to solve this would to take 2 stock S5 T2s with fresh mazda remans, put $10k into them and race them down the strip, at auto-x, and at a track.
I seriously doubt there is anyway that could get set up by anyone other than some expensive magazine, and i doubt anyone would want to cover that though. Because all everyone is throwing out there is estimated ballpark costs, with no relation to, if that part will work, shipping, and labor, broken parts, etc.
I seriously doubt there is anyway that could get set up by anyone other than some expensive magazine, and i doubt anyone would want to cover that though. Because all everyone is throwing out there is estimated ballpark costs, with no relation to, if that part will work, shipping, and labor, broken parts, etc.
My original goal was to try to set up an experiment that was a fair comparison between the LS1 and the rotary engines (13B, 20B). If you would be so kind to produce something meaningful and provide the dyno numbers for a LS1 engine with cams, heads, intake and full exhaust, that would be greatly appreciated.
peak whp @ peak whp rpm
redline
ecu rev limit
T56 gear ratios
R&P gear ratio
peak whp @ peak whp rpm
redline
ecu rev limit
T56 gear ratios
R&P gear ratio
http://lgmotorsports.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=3
ecu rev limit is adjustable, redline is when they stop making power
T56
2.66
1.78
1.30
1.0
0.74
0.5
Stock rx7 r&p is 3.9 or 4.1
Last edited by rosey; Feb 14, 2008 at 04:53 PM.
It makes as much power as a 2.6L engine because it doesnt waste an engine rotation on compressing the mixture, thats why it's so efficient volumetrically you ******* retard.
And yes, i know its thermally inefficient, thats why it gets bad gas mileage etc etc.
Still doesnt change the fact, that the "Displacement", for all of the morons out there, look up the definition, is 1.3L.
In addition, the comparison i set up, is to see how much fast each platform is with a certain amount of money. Not whichever engine rosey likes better in their car.
And yes, i know its thermally inefficient, thats why it gets bad gas mileage etc etc.
Still doesnt change the fact, that the "Displacement", for all of the morons out there, look up the definition, is 1.3L.
In addition, the comparison i set up, is to see how much fast each platform is with a certain amount of money. Not whichever engine rosey likes better in their car.
Last edited by TehMonkay; Feb 14, 2008 at 05:08 PM.