13b-t vs LS1 vs SR20 swap!?
02-14-08, 05:19 PM
#151
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: WI
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
All that matters to me is what I like better, the problem is solved from my point of view. Having some borderline retards giving my worthless opinions isn't going to change what I already know.
02-14-08, 05:20 PM
#152
Sorry, but when comparing rotary engines to piston engines, you must count a 13b as 2.6 liters, so 2.6l*300hp/l=780hp. I assumed you'd know that much being such a well educated rotary expert.
No. This is a section for people to share information regarding other engine conversions. If people don't already know both sides they should be banned from the forum because they obviously are incapable of using the search button.
I still don't see what there is to solve? I've driven my car with a modded TII engine, and I've driven it with an ls1. I like it way better with the ls1 and it is faster in every way then it ever would have been with the rotary engine. It is my car so I'm going to build it how I want it, problem solved. Now GTFO!
google anyone?
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
No. This is a section for people to share information regarding other engine conversions. If people don't already know both sides they should be banned from the forum because they obviously are incapable of using the search button.
I still don't see what there is to solve? I've driven my car with a modded TII engine, and I've driven it with an ls1. I like it way better with the ls1 and it is faster in every way then it ever would have been with the rotary engine. It is my car so I'm going to build it how I want it, problem solved. Now GTFO!
google anyone?
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
That means, redline is equal to peak hp, since after that, they stop increasing in power? or is it set somewhere afterwards?
The T56 mates into the stock RX-7 rear end? Didn't know that.
02-14-08, 05:26 PM
#153
Pretty as a $20 whore
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the 13b, download the templates, mark the housings, and rock and roll. I've ported 13bs too. Took minutes compared to V8 heads.
HKS cast turbo mani, ebay, $340 + $25 ship
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/HKS-C...em200199089086
intercooler and piping, $199 + $50 ship
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/INTER...em250214038113
EMS $1490
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/AEM-E...em220201586060
walbro $99
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Mazda...em220200059445
And turbos range from $200 for the Chinese ones, to $600 for a good one.
My math says about $2500, and that doesn't count the bigger injectors, and all the nickle and dime **** that is gonna get you along the way. Let's just go ahead and say $3000. O, wait. How much is an LS1 pullout now?
How often do you shop for LS1 stuff? Those figures aren't common for around here either. BUT DEALS CAN BE HAD!! I've paid $4500 for a pullout as well, so figures vary greatly, it just depends on how much you search and how long you're willing to wait.
And an LS1 to me
Yes. Tons of reasons that have all been listed on this thread and countless others.
02-14-08, 05:26 PM
#154
Once again you show your inability to read. Maybe thats why you don't like ls1s? Too complex for ya? Guess some people can't understand more than two spinning doritos.
All that matters to me is what I like better, the problem is solved from my point of view. Having some borderline retards giving my worthless opinions isn't going to change what I already know.
All that matters to me is what I like better, the problem is solved from my point of view. Having some borderline retards giving my worthless opinions isn't going to change what I already know.
If all you care about is what you like better, and you've already figured that out, why the hell are you even here.
You havent brought a single useful point to your side of the arguement, you've just been a complete troll.
And yes, LS1s are too complex, along with every other piston engine, engines only need 3 main moving parts to work, why add a bunch of other crap that can break.
02-14-08, 05:30 PM
#155
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: WI
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just about every value and parameter on the gm pcm is fully adjustable, including all the fuel and spark tables, and the rev limit etc... by using easily available software such as efilive, hptuners, or ls1edit. Some software even lets you run a custom operating system to add things like nitrous fuel/spark modifiers or to help tune in speed density, alpha-n, or a combination of maf and speed density/alpha-n. You can download a trial version of efilive for free on their website and download a tune to look around in if your really interested.
Where an engine makes power is determined by a lot of factors, mostly the intake design, head flow, and camshaft selection. Shift points will be determined by where the power curve flattens off. Usually "redline" is a couple hundred rpms after the hp peak.
Yes, I even used a driveshaft out of an 80s corvette with a mazda rear flange to mate the two - very easy and cheap.
Yes, I even used a driveshaft out of an 80s corvette with a mazda rear flange to mate the two - very easy and cheap.
02-14-08, 05:30 PM
#156
Build it right the first time, it's all you need to do.
I know someone locally who has a stock T2 with 130K miles, doesnt flood, no hot start issues, makes plenty of power. Original engine and everything, it was maintained and that's all there is to it.
I know someone locally who has a stock T2 with 130K miles, doesnt flood, no hot start issues, makes plenty of power. Original engine and everything, it was maintained and that's all there is to it.
02-14-08, 05:31 PM
#157
Pretty as a $20 whore
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes
Redline is not set at peak hp. Look at my dynograph I posted a page or 2 back
No, T56 mates to a GM driveshaft, that driveshaft will mate to a RX7 rear with a Chrylster flange. It has the exact same bolt pattern and hubcentric ring as the RX7 but will accept a GM U joint. Chrylster flange is $25-$40 depending on where you get it.
No, T56 mates to a GM driveshaft, that driveshaft will mate to a RX7 rear with a Chrylster flange. It has the exact same bolt pattern and hubcentric ring as the RX7 but will accept a GM U joint. Chrylster flange is $25-$40 depending on where you get it.
02-14-08, 05:38 PM
#158
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: WI
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What inability to read? How about your inability to comprehend anything i just said, it displaces 1.3l, it is a 1.3l engine, there is nothing else to it.
If all you care about is what you like better, and you've already figured that out, why the hell are you even here.
You havent brought a single useful point to your side of the arguement, you've just been a complete troll.
And yes, LS1s are too complex, along with every other piston engine, engines only need 3 main moving parts to work, why add a bunch of other crap that can break.
If all you care about is what you like better, and you've already figured that out, why the hell are you even here.
You havent brought a single useful point to your side of the arguement, you've just been a complete troll.
And yes, LS1s are too complex, along with every other piston engine, engines only need 3 main moving parts to work, why add a bunch of other crap that can break.
Guess I'm not that only person that thinks so considering the renesis has won awards in the 2.5L-3.0L category....
http://rotarynews.com/node/view/379
-I'm here because this is the other engine section. Why are you here?
-I'm not trying to argue - I already know I'm right.
02-14-08, 05:40 PM
#160
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.
are you really that ignorant? or were you being facetious
02-14-08, 05:42 PM
#162
-I said when comparing rotary to pistons engines, even though its a moot point because only closet honda-owner wanna-be's like yourself care about hp/liter
Guess I'm not that only person that thinks so considering the renesis has won awards in the 2.5L-3.0L category....
http://rotarynews.com/node/view/379
-I'm here because this is the other engine section. Why are you here?
-I'm not trying to argue - I already know I'm right.
Guess I'm not that only person that thinks so considering the renesis has won awards in the 2.5L-3.0L category....
http://rotarynews.com/node/view/379
-I'm here because this is the other engine section. Why are you here?
-I'm not trying to argue - I already know I'm right.
The HP/l statement only proves that the engine is more volumetrically efficient. It's a proven fact, It's also a proven fact theyre thermally inefficient.
Only people with insecurities say an engine that displaces 1.3l is a 2.6l.
Although, I guess if you get the total volume of a rotor and subtract that from the total volume of a housing, multiply that by 2, and it comes out to 2600ccs, i may belive you, but until you somehow get that to work, the engine is a 1.3l.
02-14-08, 05:46 PM
#163
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you guys have way too much time on your hands to be arguing STILL. I had my week of posting on here but itll never end. lol Just go fast in whatever you have and like. Arent everyones fingers hurting yet??
02-14-08, 05:50 PM
#164
Pretty as a $20 whore
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therefore, you would have to measure the rotary by the volume from apex to apex from when it begins its compression stroke, multiply by 3 (for 3 sides of the rotor), then by 2 (for 2 rotors, if it's a 13b). That would equal 2.6.
Or, you could measure piston engines by rotary's standard. Take the heads off the engine and measure the volume of each cylinder with the pistons in place, connected to the crank. Each cylinder would be a different volume, but would ultimately end up being half of the engine's advertized displacement.
02-14-08, 06:33 PM
#172
Super Snuggles
Precisely.
Then you either have to limit the rotary engines to naturally aspirated configuration, or allow the LS1 the basic changes needed to make it more responsive to boost and then compare forced induction to forced induction. Otherwise, compare them as they were issued and quit trying to make excuses for one or the other.
Of course there has, it's a far more viable and financially successful platform. If the rotary engine were more advantageous, it wouldn't have been discarded by GM, Mercedes, and other manufacturers with Mazda being the lone hold-out.
So what's the point?
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).
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.
02-14-08, 06:35 PM
#173
Super Snuggles
02-14-08, 06:42 PM
#175
Super Snuggles
Every governing body in racing rates the rotary at double the "stock" displacement for a reason; because it's ingests as much air and fuel as a piston engine twice its size.