Damn I have never seen such a gangbang *** raping. Damn I feel for 13btnos now, ouch.

I think the guy gets the idea he was owned.

One comment for the guy saying the ls1 relies on big displacement, well the 13b and sr20 rely on turbos, not much innovation in that.

 

Ok, so it doesnt use something 'innovative'... who cares? OHC is as old as the piston engine itself and turbos are almost as old!

Simplicity in and of itself is a virtue and worth having. Complexity is something to be AVOIDED at all costs. REFINEMENT is a good thing, though, dont get me wrong.

Another thing you need to look at is power/weight and bang/buck. Big displacement just works, and it works really really well. It satisfies the power to weight and bang to buck ratio requirements of people with finite money rather nicely


Besides, whats the damn advantage in going with OHC? Either the engine gets bigger or you have to make the stroke shorter to fit the heads in the same engine volume. To counteract that, you have to spin it really really high. To not lose low-end by spinning real high you need VTEC and other assorted ****. A big 'dumb' v8 could quite easily be simpler, cheaper, more powerful, more reliable, and easier to work with.

And just FYI, turbos and forced induction have been around since the earliest days of the Piston engine itself. I know turbos were used on WW2 airplanes and that blowers were used on some of the earliest engines to help move air into the cylinder. The only thing thats really new that Ive seen at all is the wackedout W piston arrangement (which I dont see as better to just going with a bigger bore... but oh well, its VW not chevy) and Saab's variable compression engine, which had the cylinder integral to the head itself, and would move the head and cylidner up and down hydrualically to change the CR. But guess what? Both add insane complexity, cost, and not that much power.

The ULTIMATE bang/buck (ignoring initial cost) would be a big pushrod v8 with a nice big turbo, but the thing is that would simply be overkill for a street driven car. Plus what sells is what people want - v8s for the v8 guys, techy **** for the ricers and snobs who want pricey expensive technological **** that they probably dont even understand, and then therse people who really dont CARE what it is, they just want to get the most out of it they can.

Those people do things like put V8s into RX-7s :P

 

Nilanthic,

I think you misread Pat's post. He was on your side, and saying that 13bs and SR20s were no more innovative then the LS1.

Chill man.

 

lol, I misread his last sentance. Oh well.

 

I want to see the Drag car at Sebring for a track day.Was that not part of the original point was wieght and handling.He lives about an hour from me,I would love to drive over and see him bring that on the streets of O-town.

 

I`ll never learn. I always tell myself not to come here but I just can`t resist a good laugh at the expense of all the rotard tools that troll this forum. I must say that I hit the jackpot on this one!

Anyways, Corbic, if you are genuinely interested in this swap, check out TorqueCentral. With some poking around you will find much information about what you want to do. I`ll even do you one better and if you go here, one member is posting his SRFC for sale. He may have some advice for you.

The V8RX7 forum at TorqueCentral is much different than here. The rotards hardly ever drop in as they are sure to have a new one ripped for them before their second post. Over there tools like JonesMechanical and 13btnos are quickly dealt with and are never to be heard from again! Check it out if you are serious otherwise, stay here and keep getting misinformed by the droves of idiots that troll here looking to start an argument with anybody who despises apex seals.

Sean

 

Glad to see things have calmed down

Just throwing my two cents in here...

My car is the one that's 60lbs heavy in the rear with the iron block LT1. Yes, I have all accessories - A/C, power steering, cruise control, etc. Nothing is missing except rotary specific parts.

Also, I've checked my mileage the past month or so. 17MPG in town with my lead foot and 25MPG on the interstate while running 90MPH with the A/C on. A 3.42 gear would be PERFECT. I could probably squeeze out 30MPG on the road and low 20s in town.

 

When the torquecentral v8 rx-7 guys figure out how to adopt a cobra pumpkin you could very easily do that

Im still at my engine crossroads. I just found out a set of AFR heads and headers make a 302 on the stock cam get 400 flywheel hp, so the blue oval is tempting me and my cheapness But I know that nomatter what I go with, Im going to have a hell of a car at the end of this, and few complaints except for the attention I'll get if I drive it the way I know Im going to drive it

 

Yeah, get ready to answer the following every time you open the hood around car people:

1. How much did the swap cost?
2. Did you do it yourself?
3. How long did it take?
4. How hard was it?
5. How fast is it?

I've had a billion questions asked about my car and those questions get asked by EVERYONE. I just need to print out flyers with those questions and their answers and leave them in a "TAKE ONE" holder under the hood

 

WOW, i really must say 13btnos is just blubbering vagina, if you critisize someone for not doing theier own work the only place you have to look is at your own sandy labia.

But im doing a V8 swap because i like to be different and im taking it a step farther by using the DOHC northstar engine, i picked this engine because of its originallity and heck why not? i personally havent seen one in any other RX7 and i dont care for gobs and gobs of power but it still holds its own.

and the LS1 is one of the most up to date engines; considering that they have just taken the good ol' reliable V8 OHV to the next step and made it fuel effiecient and more compact and lightwieght. i give this "primitive" engine a big ol' ug ug for being a damn good engine.

 

wow, lot's of stupid posts in this thread, but i just couldn't get over this gem.

now, how the hell is a rotary engine with 3 moving parts, more complicated than any piston engine? one of the biggest rotard rallying points is how simply rotary engines are. the logic just escapes me.

maybe you should just stay away from cars all together. by a nice appliance like a civic or corolla.

and you are a huge ricer if you drive something just to brag about how complicated it is. sorry to break it to ya. might as well brag about how you make less power, but at least your power-to-displacement ratio is higher.

 

Whats kinda sad, is rotaries actually dont get especialyl good power/displacement when you factor in the ACTUAL displacement of the engine, that is, 2.6 liters.

a 255 hp 2.6 liter *TURBO* engine isnt exactly jaw-dropping to me, thats about 86 hp per liter. For a LS1 to have the same hp/displacement, it would be about 490 hp @ the flywheel -- about 416 at the wheels (which has been done) And a 5 liter would need to make about 430 hp... which is like falling off a log with a 302. They make 405 on the STOCK cam with a 1500-6500 rpm intake, headers, and AFR heads - the "small, torquey" heads even. Getting 25 hp over that considering you made 405 with the stock cam is DUH EASY.

OMG, v8s MUST REALLY SUCK!!!

 

Bwahaha, I love it. Guys, I just about went for and LS1 after my last rotary blowing, and after a little twin screw experiment I'll do just that. But I had to hear the two stroke on steroids sound with a whipple whining.

 

Question: whats a SC'd rotary like? Does it actually have low end or does the radical porting (the same as a cam thats open for a looong time :P) still screw over your VE% at lower pms?

 

I haven't completed the project yet but I would think the instant positive pressure would act like that seen in the Milennia S engine: supercharger forces air in a very late closing valve system against engine compression.

It'll still be slow compared to an 11 second stock LS1 powered FC.

 

LOL... well, yeah, but I was more focused on how a blower would help make up for that weakness of the rotary, not trying to compare it to a LS1 :P

Id also imagine it might be potentially more reliable... *shrugs* worth a try. I hear the Mazdaspeed rx-8 will be supercharged, so ya never know. Torquey RX chassis cars are very very fun and it wont overly cool off the exhaust gas and make the EPA get all pissy like they appear to be over turbos now.

 

Yes that's true, supercharging is the only way the RX8 will get forced induction as long as the EPA is around. I say great, knowing mazda they'll use a real lysholm compressor like they did on the Millenia S, not some roots based blower that is about 20% less efficient. I'm actually going to be using one of the millenia S superchargers on this. Nice thing about twin screw superchargers is that they can be intercooled like centrifugal chargers, but have the boost profile of the roots. I just want to run 12's.

 

Ok I have to speak up in the 1.8t's defense. The 1.8t is one of the finest VW engines made. My daily driver is a Passat 1.8t 5-speed and it is a beautiful engine. This engine was never meant to be a super high HP tuner engine, but it is very capable and responds extremely well to simple upgrades. A $500 chip will get you 50HP and 80Lbs.

One of the beautiful things about the 1.8t is that it produces it's torque LOW. Talk about 170lbs at around 2000 RPM. It's suited perfectly to normal and spirited driving. It also gets great fuel economy for such a peppy engine. I got 36 mpg on my last tank. You were also right when you said it is over engineered. This engine is bullet proof.


I'm gonna stop now cause no one here cares about VWs, but I would encourage you to not talk about things you know nothing about.

 

Originally Posted by particleeffect:

"wow, lot's of stupid posts in this thread, but i just couldn't get over this gem.

now, how the hell is a rotary engine with 3 moving parts, more complicated than any piston engine? one of the biggest rotard rallying points is how simply rotary engines are. the logic just escapes me."

Well, it never ceases to amaze me how many strong and highly critical opinions are expressed on this forum by people who have obviously never even taken one of these engines apart and put it back together. I suspect there is a lot of logic that escapes this guy.

"3 moving parts?" That is really a dumb statement Has someone figured out how to make one of these two-rotor engines run without the oil rings,seals and springs, side seals and springs, apex seals and springs, corner seals and springs, thrust bearings, oil pump, water pump, oil metering pump, and distributor, not to mention all the external accessories? Yes, there are piston engines with lots of valves and cams that are more complicated, but the rotary must be compared with the very simplest 4 cylinder engines, because those are the engines that make comparable power. If you look at the 6 port motors, there are also the valves and actuators, and if you consider a turbo, the difference in parts count from a piston engine becomes insignificant. An RX-4 motor is pretty simple if you throw away all the emissions equipment, but building an FD or RX-8 motor is a hell of a lot more complex.

 

Actually, a naturally aspirated 13B would be roughly equivalent to a 2.6 liter naturally aspirated 4-stroke piston engine. A 13B-REW on 10 psi is roughly equivalent to 4.4 liters, or about... 58 horsepower per liter.

 

You must be off your rocker-arms, saying stuff like that around here

FWIW, the renesis seems like a great step in the right direction, but helping it handle heat is going to be essential to fixing the rotary woes - as would some higher revs would help, although you might need two more sets of ports and a really short rear gear to use that.

My idea of using wider, more-square rotors, or using a twin e-shaft setup and having two banks of rotors side by side and having the E-shafts output meshed with gears to the flywheel along with that.... would that help any? Or would you be better off just going ahead and bumping up displacement and dealing with the inefficiency with metallurgy and ceramic coating the hot side of the epitrochoid?

 

How about just giving up on the Rotary concept altogether? It's highly unlikely that you would be able to match the CCE of any modern piston engine, nor would you be able to make it less than gutless ( meaning possessing of the torque).

 

Just what is CCE, exactly?

As far as the rotary concept, Mazda needs to try something original as far as the geometry of its rotors. Theyre flat and wide, which lets heat escape too much because of the high surface area. The other thing is that the ports really arent set up for low end, its all midrange and high end, sorta like a VTEC engine.

For some reason I dont want to see the concept die out, Id like to see some pros that outweigh the cons enough that theres a reason to choose them, but as it is now there really isnt because of the inferior BSFC and BMEP.

The chassis the rotaries are put into do kick major ***, so even if theyre just relics left over from the great rotary experiment (if thats what RX really stood for :P) Im going to enjoy them forever.

 

CCE = Combustion chamber efficiency = how effectively a combustion chamber can combine and process ( IE burn ) fuel input ( Fuel mass and oxidizer )

 

how do you compute that?