Nihilanthic

It works just like a two stroke how?

Also, the "comformity" ploy here is a joke. PC, new-agey bullshit that might work with SUBJECTIVE things cant apply to something that can be made very much objective.

Also, trying to compare it to a gnome rotary piston enigne except the pistons go from one head to the other is... ridiculous. Doesnt work that way.

Regardless, in that cutaway picture I kindly took from a forum members "rotary engine simulator" I distinctly counted 6 seperate rotor faces. Each of those has .65 liters of air in them, IIRC. Even though in one rotation of the e-shaft they dont all intake, compress, power and exhaust... just like a piston engine, except for two strokes. And how the hell is a rotary like a two stroke? Its impossible to make a rotary function like a two stroke.

Its been explained, repeately, to those who are capable of and willing to accept it. It fires off 4 totally seperate .65 liter chambers within one 720 degree cycle, which is what the rest of the world uses as a standard. Thats why ID call it equivilant to a 2.6 liter engine, because it moves air at the same rate as a 2.6 liter, 4 stroke piston engine. If it fired off the same two .65 liter chambers, one going off every 180 degrees, it would be a 1.3 liter engine that just moves faster. It would still be doing it with 2.6 liters of air anyway...

But, well, its not. If you go by the same standard you apply to piston engines, that is, swept area, a rotary engine is sure as hell not a 1.3 liter! It doesnt ACT like any existant 3.9 liter engine becuase its SLOWER than piston engines internally (which is one of the marketing ploys to hark its reliability and longevity) so to COMPARE it to a 4stroke enigne, whcih is the standard, and which has all the math tailored to, itsa 2.6.

Putting your fingers in your ears, coming up with some fucked up engine design where pistons float from one cyl head to another, or giving us some junk science isnt going to change that fact. It doesnt do what it does at the same rate as any 1.3 liter engine, except for a 1.3 liter TWO stroke engine - (which a rotary is not) and a 1.3 liter 2 stroke moves air at the same rate as a 2.6 liter 4 stroke anyway.

I bet you dont even know the difference between work, power, and force.

GtoRx7

iTrader: (5)

I bet you dont know the difference between your hand and fantasy, because thats the impression I think your going to have tonight.

Nihilanthic

Thinking people who are smarter than you cant get laid quit being cool in highschool, dumbass.

GtoRx7

iTrader: (5)

No no no, its not that your smart, its the fact someone as simply retarded as you, that has a GAME character for a name online, and cant get in or drive anything for "real world" comparisons, yet claim to know all, COULD NEVER IN THIS CENTURY GET LAID!!!!! You sit on this high horse of knowlege that a little techno boy has read thousands of posts, and gather all this information, but you dont even know what a real rotary feels like, you dont know anything about real cars at all! If you were a true enthusists, you would have owned a car that was worth a ****, and went from there, using what your learned online, and REAL LIFE, to decide what you like! I'm a dork too, but damn at least I dont go around bashing everyone in sight.

Nihilanthic

1. Youre name is a cross between two cars, two freaking opposites at that. The GTO was a muscle car, unless you mean that Mitsu ripoff they made in the 90s.

2. Math applies to the "real world" too. In the REAL world that 13b still sucks in 2.6 liters of air per the same rate everyone else goes by... psst, that 20b aint no 2 liter either! Show me a NA RSX-S with the same output your FD has and Ill sell you a bridge in Manhattan.

3. Im not BEING on a high horse, Im simply not going to tiptoe around someones sensibilities because theyre extremely attached to some peice of machinery they have an abundance of misconceptions and too much obsession over!

Rotaries are NOT efficient, NOT superior, and NOT a 1.3 liter engine. When people come in with their superiority complexes and attitdues over their engine they THINK is this that and the other, and give me a load of ****, and I say something thats TRUE, not something malicious (Unless you think that you should have the truth hidden from you incase it hurts your feelings, or anyone else...) its not being on a highhorse, its telling it like it ******* IS.

Every rotard who comes in with wobbley knees busting a nut over high rpms and power/liter (thats twice what it actually is) and pretending those two figures actually MATTER, saying **** like "pissed-on" or "****-ton" engine (when ChrisV swaped a 302 into his FC HOW many years ago and it handles and weighs the same?) is the one on a highhorse with an attitude. And on top of that, its all because of a misconception. A fallacy.

Now, you bring up a ton of SUBJECTIVE things. SUBJECTIVE != OBJECTIVE. (Thats the logical operator for NOT). Subjective things about how a rotary feels is fine and dandy, but my decisions Im making are pragmatic and based on money in, performance out. I dont care about the soul of a rotary some advertisement or enthusaist who bought into said advertisement claims to exist.

Jerk, that is, 2nd order acceleration (a torque curve that slowly slopes up towards redline) FEELS faster, but negative jerk (from steady power, aka, torque that slopes down) is actually faster if peak power is the same. Obviously, if two equal engines have the peak torque higher in one than the other, it will be faster because it MAKES MORE POWER. However if both engines make, say, 400 hp, and one make sit for longer and with a sloping torque curve that "feels" slower, its still a faster car.

I chose performance over feel. I chose the 2.3 for money in/performance out, and that its cheap to buy (and own, modify, and operate) and abundant. I havent done the swap yet because I figured Id be curteous enough to wait for grant to finish his mounts and send them out instead of make my own. I dont wanna be a dick when I asked him in the first place.

Regardless, this is a result of your own defensiveness and the defensiveness of a lot of other people regarding their damn engine. Its a bunch of hunks of metal Mazda made based off of a german engineers design thats expensive to own and modify. Sure, if the subjective feel is more fun, fine. But unless your only objective is how fun it feels or staying true to some paradigm you feel the RX-7 should conform to, there are better decisions to make when you think rationally and want to make the most performance down the line for your buck now.

HP per liter doesnt matter. A .1 liter engine making 100 hp wont outperform a 450 lb 2.3T making 300. HP/Weight of the ENGINE by itself doesnt really matter either, as that said 100 hp engine in an identical car as the 2.3T wont have enough of a weight advantage to outperform it unless the car is EXTREMELY light. Its power/weight of the whole car.

Oh, and lower rpms are actually better, because you can get the VE curve higher over the entire RPM range, theres less losses to friction and inerta of spinning it up, and less of that AWFUL vibration thats making all those sandrails fall apart in mid air.

Ive also explained what the actual displacement of a rotary is, and the EFFECTIVE displacement when you compare it to a piston engine which 99% of the world uses (for a REASON) repeatedly. Jimlab has. Other people have. Anyone with complete comprehension of the engine can get it. Youre just SO hung up on it being of small displacement and 'efficient' (in what way?) you get pissed off and get a case of cognitive dissonance I havent seen in a long time when someone challenges it.

Get real, and get over it. You should have other things to support your worldview and existance than the supposed superiority of a damn engine.

P.S. - I dont have a psychology degree yet, but what you choose to attack me with speaks of your own insecurities and vulnerabilities. Its also hackeneyed and JUVENILE.

GtoRx7

iTrader: (5)

Alright I dont have a psychology degree either, but I have to be honest, when you type that long, no-one including me will read the whole thing. I kinda breezed through and saw a FEW, very few key points. First point was the fact that GTORX7 was created because the first real car I built was a FB with a factory mazda GTO class widebody on it, and FC s5 engine with TO4-S. SO smart ***, GTORX7 is joining the GTO class of racing with the RX7, and HOLY **** IT DOES MAKE SENSE!! Unlike your retard of a name, but that is my opinion, and not a fact.

The 20b is a 2.0 liter, until they rate a 2 stroke differently. Its a smaller engine going through twice the stress, it doesnt make it twice the engine.

A motor that only slopes up in torque towards redline with no fall-off is getting efficient at redline more than any other rpm. So the logical thing would be to rev it further, and wait for it to slope off, giving it the most power and finding the true powerband. Or option two, lengthing the intake, make the intake smaller, or reduce the port timming to effectly keep the rpms the same but make the engine peak efficiency sooner. I dont have to have a degree to know that one. I get a hint that your using my motor as this attempt to put me down, but at least I have something for you to evaluate, and yet you have none. So I have to resort to your name. But that was just the start of my project, the tip, and at least it did what I, repeat I wanted it to do.

Hp / liter doesnt matter, ..........hmmm yeah you are a little retarded to say that, must have got that from Kingwalrus on torquecentral. Hp/weight matters more huh? But not that much? Well the only way to have more Hp/weight on the same cube motor is to have more hp/liter correct? Or make the same motor all aluminum? But what about aluminum vs aluminum? Same cubes? How does one have more power per weight then? MORE HP/ LITER!!! Run that one over a few times I think you may get it.

P.S. Your still a bench racer with all talk, and no car. I dont care what you say.

GtoRx7

iTrader: (5)

Oh I read a little more. I never called my engine or car superior, so you can stop putting the words into my mouth, you silly little boy. But my car and engine dont have to be superior, because they were built to make me happy, and dust a few of you guys in the process. Both have occured, making me by definition successful.

Nihilanthic

1. Rotaries are not two strokes!

2. Just becuase YOU'RE unable to read it all... even though it took you 50 mins since I made that post to reply (not the fastest guy here are ya?) doesnt change what is true or is not. Thats YOUR fault.

3. Rotaries still arent two strokes. Its also not a smaller engine going through twice the stress. A 20b has NINE .65 chambers. It goes through 6 of them in 720 degrees. Its not a 2 liter engine that fires every 90°. It is what it is! Im not going to just ******* accept a falsehood to make you feel better!

4. Youre talking about how to increase power. If you had read what I said, you would have seen that POWER BEING THE SAME, having MORE OF IT is more useful. Thats why if you have a 400 hp peaky engine vs a 400 hp "torquey" engine the latter has the advantage. Sure, the former feels faster, go play with that. Id rather have a wide powerband. Also, most of the time when people make race rules they cap power/weight... so why woudln't you want to make the same power level for longer? I guess those Audi guys racing a 5.5 liter turbo diesel in LEMANS dont know what theyre doing with 850 foot lbs of torque and 650 hp

5. HP LITER DOESNT MATTER. If there was a car made that weighed 2800 lbs and made 400 hp, if the engine was effectively a 20 liter engine, guess what? its still a fast car.

6. Power/weight(OF THE WHOLE CAR) matters a lot more than power/weight(OF THE ENGINE). A engine that weighs one lb and makes 3 hp has a better power weight ratio than a stock LS1 but it sure as **** wont go faster unless you put it in a car that had zero mass, zero drag and zero wind resistance.

7. Math and Physics isn't bench racing. Bench racing is "FD VS Skyline". Discussion is what happens when you know all the variables and examine them scientifically, not go in terms of generalities and vagueness.

The bottom line is it comes down to this - you want me and others to accept what isn't true to be true, to make you feel better. Im not that kind of person and Im not EVER going to do that, for ANY reason.

If youre unable to understand what I have to say, go to school. If you can but choose not to because you dont want to exchange your belief for knowledge of the truth then its your own choice.

Just dont expect everyone to tiptoe around your sensitivities becuase of it. As a matter of principle I sure as hell wont.

Nihilanthic

I never said you did. I meant the bow-legged rotards who cream their pants at the utterance of "twenty-bee".

What you do to make you happy is what you do to make you happy. Thats a matter of subjectivity, just like what color the paint is.

OBJECTIVITY of performance for your dollar is a different thing, however. I was wondering why the power of a stock LS1 for 15K just so you can have higher revs and the feel of peaky power delivery was worthwhile. I should have just accepeted its what you want. My mistake.

The people coming in here calling a 2.3T a "tractor motor" are just stirring **** up. BTW, did you know rotaries were used in lawnmower engines? Hurr.

Also, your 20 FD is only able to 'dust you guys' because you made the car ligther. Giving the engine less weight to move (that anyone else could have just as easily done...) has zip.**** to do with the engine. Furthermore, you 'dust you guys' comment speaks of your antagonism.

This ******* rotary vs piston (or turborotary vs v8) **** is all MARKETING. Its brand ****** loyalty and makes people pissed so you go buy more expensive **** to make someone rich.

Regardless, you can like whatever you want. Im not here to try to change that. The attititudes I get from a lot of people as a result of their MISCONCEPTIONS is something I take issue with. I also dont accept falsehoods just so someones feathers dont get ruffled.

GtoRx7

iTrader: (5)

What are you talking about being slow? I do look at other more important things on the computer than just your smart ***!

Here is some good examples for you, which is a faster car-
(EXAMPLE ONLY, NOT PURE FACTS)

a 2800lbs Rx-7 with 400 hp?
a 2650lbs 240sx with 400hp?
a 2650lbs S2000 with 600hp?
The Rx-7 weighs 2200lbs without motor
The 240sx weighs 2200lbs without motor
The s2000 weighs 2200lbs without motor

Lets say that the additional weight of the Rx7 was caused by using a 1981 350cu-in cast iron engine vs a LS1 engine in the 240sx. The S2000 has a LS1 also, but has more bolt-ons making the additional hp.

SO What was that? You said the 240sx is faster than the Rx-7? Why? Because the LS1 is a lighter motor? So the weight of the engine is important? Because it made that car faster? Really? And the S2000 is faster because its using the lighter motor, AND that motor has more hp/liter?? Really? But how, its not important?

No you and no-one else needs to make me feel better, I feel pretty good already. I enjoy building crappy rotaries, hearing it wind out into nice rpms, and killing bikes on the freeway. Using a **** engine, and making it stomp new piston engines, and turbo engines, is really really fun for me. I enjoy it. Sorry about that, I'm not trying to make a believer out of you. But It will be fun to go head to head with your car, built with all the knowledge you have, vs. my POS stupid knowledge I have. Man, I'm not sure how I could ever have a chance. Oh ....oh ....yeah thats right I remember now. My car exists.

Nihilanthic

I said in the first place that its power/weight of the whole car, not JUST the engine, is more important than power/weight of the engine.

You just proved me right!

However, if you didnt understand what I meant, Ill clarify - when I said the whole car, I meant the engine and the car, not just chassis weight. I thought it would imply what I meant to convey, I suppose I didnt.

Also, hp/liter still doesnt matter.

Also, the antagonism is coming from *YOU*. Rotaries arent 'crappy' anymore than a 2.3T is 'crappy'. What I am goign to say is rotaries are not superior to anything except for POSSIBLY displacement/size ratio, and theyre too expensive in terms of performance/dollar, and by design when you turbo them they have a peakier output than a piston engine.

I want a broad powerband, a bargain, and reliability. Rotaries are not the best way to get that!

Anyway, this piston vs rotary **** is nonsense. Again, all it serves is to line the pockets of a few businesses. If you do, however, want to compare them, a rotary is more expensive to buy, modify, and operate&mantain, and (which is partially related to the expense) it has to injest more fuel/air to make the same power a piston engine can.

I think in all OBJECTIVE dimensions, the arguements settled.

Again, if it makes you happy, fine. Just dont come in with antagonism you and a lot of people commonly called 'rotards' and expect me to take it lightly. And dont say bullshit and expect nobody to call you on it if they know better!

GtoRx7

iTrader: (5)

Well, they may be expensive for you to build, for me I know I can build a 13B turbo for alot less money invested than a 4 clyinder, but that is due to experience. I built what you are wanting to build 4 years ago, and I've personally wanted a challenge, due to the length of time I have been tweaking cars. Change is good to me, but the rotary is always my choice. So N/A was a challenge, and larger enjoyment, plus it will out last almost ANY turbo engine, including a 2.3T. But that isnt your main goal. Our goals are different for sure. Anyone can slap a turbo on a 13b or 4 cly and make respectable numbers, its not hard at all to do. To be honest you simply rub me the wrong way, and I enjoy messing with ya, dont hold it against me, hahaha. I need sleep now.

Nihilanthic

Experience can't effect part prices! Who you know can, though. Anyway, I also dont consider a "Challenge" to be spending money. There is NO way in hell a 13b will have cheaper parts than a 2.3T. 2.3Ts are shat on by everyone who don't know what they can do, and cheap parts are part of the attraction to them. They're the bargains of the turbo 4 world - the fact that they can make great numbers, not just good numbers, is gravy.

Rotaries cost more by virtue of lower demand (they ARE rare and not common, if not obscure) and because they need more fuel/air for the same power level as almost any piston engine. You need to manage and move more air and fuel - bigger injectors, richer tunes, etc, and you need a better turbo and IC if youre going with a boosted application becuase you cant just blow 30 psi into any old rotary with any old turbo. Thats also a contributer to why Turbo Rotaries dont get those huge plateaus of power a turbo piston engine can get - knocking is their achilles heel so you have to give it lots of cold air at lower pressure ratios. Porting and bigger more expensive, newer, efficient turbos is $$$. That, and the crowd the rotary shops and suppliers cater to is willing to spend more than the 2.3 crowd. If rotaries are fast/furious, turbofords are Mad Max.

Where I can just run 30 psi with a holset on a shitty head in a 2.3T, a rotary would run at lower psi in the efficiency range and go with porting. Not that I couldnt just as easily get an Esslinger street head for a 2.3T myself. If you want to talk about management, Ill ignore the "duh" retort of Megasquirt that a rotary itself could utilize, and inform you an EEC tuner, or a Tweeker could get the stock engine management working very well in high power ranges. You can also do MAF conversions... but regardless, Im going MS.

The challenge to me is learning, then applying. Learning **** and making the best choice instead of throwing money at it, and doing work yourself. Tuning the Megasquirt. Oh, and competing with it having had to spend less money on the engine and having more to put on other components, like brakes tires and suspension. Finding out for MYSELF how to tune an engine, for MYSELF how to read a compressor map, MYSELF all the math and physics behind it, and MYSELF what will take me the farthest for my money.

I got brains in droves but not a lot of money. 21 yo college kids dont typically have much, and if they spend a lot of money it tends to come from daddy warbucks. If I want something, I have to do it myself, with what I have. I started out looking for the best chassis to mate with the best engine for performance for dollar, and I found out v8 rx-7s are more or less the king of that. The 2.3Ts so obscure that I woudlnt know unless my friend told me about them.

If I were a RX-7 enthusiast, Id be complemented that of all the chassis out there the RX-7 is among the most sought after for swaps. Thats a testament to the chassis design. FCs with 5lugs and the 4pot brakes can be had for damn near nothing and with coilovers, wheels/tires and maybe a T-II Rear will spank the **** out of almost anything else out there. S13s have 4lugs and relatively **** brakes, the engine is mounted further forwards, in a smaller bay, and dont come iwth a LSD. Camaros and Mustangs arent anywhere close, and Corvette chassis are 1. much more expensive 2. still not as good in terms of steering feel, weight, and engine bay size as a FC.

So, thats why Im going to swap out a FC. You dont get a better chassis without spending a lot more money.

saltyslug

I will go by the displacement that is given by the makers of the engines. Chevy even built a few rotary engines and they would have replaced the piston pumper if it weren't for emmisions-gas prices in the 70's. chevy and ford and a few of the other big names in automobile history(even mercedes) even agreed on the displacement size of the engine. so get it through your head that a 1.1 liter rotary woudl be the same size as a geo engine. now lets take your 1.0 geo engine and my 12a (1.1 liter)rotary engine and line em up. hell I will let you even have the 1.3 engine if you want. then we can line em up and see who would win.

the whole thing is the rotary was built for performance PERIOD. it was not built for passing emmisions, not built for displacement, not built for a grocery getter, non of that. performance is what it was intended for, thats the reason I chose if for my foundation of a powerplant for my bug. now I know that they use them in all sorts of vehicles but performance vehicles seem to be the majority.

on a side note I raced my friend with his h22a prelude (2.2 liter honda engine). that is double the displacement of my rotary (12a). or the same size so YOU say. he is a very good driver pulling high 14 sec quater. I blew him away off the line and in every gear and was 5 car lengths ahead when I had to slow down.

now before you tell me I am lighter than him, I am running a bus box, gigantic heavy *** wheels (my rear wheels and tires weigh more than all 4 of his wheels and tires)and I am not tuned at all. this engine is about as good as a 2.2 engine can get.

so you can see from my point of view that a piston engine of the same size or even double the displacement is like going backwards. dollar for dollar the rotary will put out more power than a piston pumper.

whats funny is I just got a pt time job working for a local tuning shop where they put out high powered boosted corvettes and firebirds. I will have my hands full with boosted v8's here in the near future, I can't wait. like I have said I am all for swaps as long as it makes sense. but I do wish you good luck and I wanna see the pics when she is done.

Nihilanthic

Your inability to comprehend what I have to say does not make you right. You ignore a simple arguement and dont even attempt to refute it, because you cant. Mazda can call it whatever the hell it wants to, but when common sense, AND a pretty little picture say otherwise, how the hell do you think YOU can too?



Do you have ANY retort to that? Can you refute it at all? Each of the three sides of those rotors can suck in .65 liters of air. Mazda thinks that only one counts per each rotor, yet I distinctly see two other sides (per rotor...) that are moving air.

So, wtf are they, chopped liver? Also, even if a Rotary engine was somehow working faster, now SLOWER as they're widely known to (why theyre reliable N/A if theyre not ported out, you know, the rotor moves 1/3rd the e-shaft speed?) theyd still be moving twice the air mazda says they are.

Simply ignoring this and going "bla bla bla, Im gonna go by what mazda says it does becuase I dont want to believe you" doesnt make you look smart. It makes you look stupid, and rather pathetic, ignoring something thats proven to make yourself feel better about something that doesnt even really matter.

Also, even if it were what mazda said it was, HORSEPOWER PER LITER DOES NOT MATTEr. ITS POWER TO WEIGHT! You

That makes absolutely no ******* sense. Rotaries cost more than piston engines, when boosted need rebuilds more commonly, need more cfm air (And more fuel proportionate to the air, which is more proportionally to a piston engine) to make the same amount of fuel, and due to weakness to knocking they need cooler, bigger more efficient turbos (which costs more...) at lower boost ratios to get the same power.

They do not make more power for your dollar. I repeat, even if they were magically the displacement mazda says they are, they still need more cfm of air to make a pony than a piston engine does. They still cost more. They're still obscure and marketed to a market segment that is simply willing to shell out more cash, period.

Until you can actually refute what Ive had to say (or read what Ive said before in a previous post so I dont have to repeat myself) shut up. Youd think I was trying to tell the pope there was no god... but no, Im talking about somtheing that can be proven or disproven, you just arent willing to accept it.

To REPEAT, AGAIN, I dont have any problems with rotaries, other than the REAL bang/buck defficiency compared to domestic v8s or a Lima. My problem is the people like YOU.

digitalsolo

iTrader: (2)

I work on a 1.49L engine that makes more HP then any 2 rotor ever built. To my knowledge it's faster then any rotary powered vehicle ever built as well. Want to compare slips?

saltyslug

sure lets see what you have. lets also see it in a car(not remote controlled either). also there have been 2 rotor engine able to produce close to 2000hp now lets see your dyno sheets, no dyno means you can throw any number out there.

digitalsolo

iTrader: (2)

Show me a 2000 HP 2 rotor please.



5.866 1/4 mile, 244 mph. ~1500 HP at 2000' DA. Quickest and fastest motorcycle on the planet. The other bike on our team is the second quickest and second fastest on the planet; 5.95 seconds, 239 mph.

The second quickest.



There is substantially more power on the table with more % nitro or boost, but we're traction limited currently, and keeping the MPH sane enough to stop on most track shutdowns means 250 mph range is the maximum if you want to be able to STOP.

Sit down, shut up.

edit: BTW, the quickest ET was recorded at close to 3000' DA, on a low 237 mph pass where it fell down up top. It has went 5.91 @ 211 mph chopping throttle at 1000 feet in ~1000' DA.

GtoRx7

iTrader: (5)

I'll throw a quick ex- for you to evaluate. Its not pure fact, but I've done it once before so you can tell me if its true.

13BT on ebay with tranny $900
Shipping $200
Sell the stock turbo on ebay - $300
Sell the ecu - $180
sell the stock wiring harness - $200
buy two 1600cc injectors $150
Buy the m.s computer flying lead $300
Buy a used t3/t4 $300
Buy a ebay stainless mani $80
buy a nice front mount on ebay $120
misc piping $30
Home made downpipe and exhaust $100
2 used FD fuel pumps $40

Grand total for $1,540 and has roughly 400hp, spools at 2,000rpms hitting powerband at 2,800rpms to 6,800 rpms running 16-17psi.
NO motor mounts to buy, no fabrication of a different tranny, no shifter alignment, I would put money on it that it is far cheaper. But prove me wrong.

digitalsolo

iTrader: (2)

A few errors here.

Who is paying 300 dollars for a stock TII turbo?
Who is selling a good T3/T4 for the SAME PRICE?
A nice front mount is more then 120 dollars.
A nice manifold (one that won't crack in 6 months) is substantially more then 80 dollars.
I want to see a quality exhaust system built for 100 bucks.
I want to see a good intercooler piping system for 30 bucks.
Where's the rest of your fuel system?

I think you MIGHT be able to do what you're talking about for 3000-3500 bucks. Stable and efficient wouldn't particularly apply to it though.

FWIW, I don't think that Nihil's setup would be stable or efficient for less then 3000-3500 bucks.

Beyond all that, before I bought all my toys, the main parts of my LS1 swap were under 2000 dollars. Including engine and transmission.

stilettoman

iTrader: (1)

I have to agree with most of what Nihilanthic is saying here.

In any case, the most common thing most people say when they look in my engine compartment is "This has more room than a Mustang!". This is a 1984 GSL with a Ford 302. My point here is that, whereas weight is important, overall physical size is not. You can stuff a big block Chevy, a Ford 429 or a hemi into a 1st gen RX-7, so the physical size just doesn't matter.

What matters is power to weight and specific fuel consumption. Several of the Jap 4 cylinder engines have more power potential than the rotary, with better fuel mileage and much better durability. Of course it is overall vehicle power to weight that matters, but we can assume here the chassis weight is not changed significantly, so engine weight is added directly to the total car weight.

There are those who are fascinated with the technology of the rotary, and the challenge of getting more out of it. If that is making you happy, keep doing it. I have been there, done that for 25 years, and now I have moved on.

With the advent of VTEC and similar valve control systems, the rotary just cannot compete. The current 6 port rotaries may well be the ultimate development of the rotary in terms of specific fuel consumption, and they still burn significantly more fuel than modern pistons at the same power.

Nihilanthic

digitalsolo...

http://www.turboford.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi <- check with them. Its been verified with street driving time, price sheets, dynos, and lots of other information about exactly what they're using (which cam, which head [what porting, if any, what valve sizes) what intake, what exhaust, what turbo [as well as trim, bla bla bla] and what computer and air meter (MAF, VAF, or MS).

Stock cam and stock heads with a holset I wont be making 400 whp - I'd need to port it and cam it, or just spring for an esslinger head and a good cam for that. But, the engine itself is very reliable, and the internals are very strong. 6800 rpms is safe with new rod bolts, the actual internals have been proven strong to 400whp+. The only thing one would have to do if they want to be super sure is just polish the rods to remove stress risers, but if youre pushing a lot of power or wanna dump nitrous, just get crower sportsmans.

Also, as far as reliability, its a strong motor, period. Unless I overheat it severely and keep ******* it, or knock for a ridiculously long time, it wont be a problem. I realize that severe knocking at high boost will blow something out, but Im not going to be a retard.

Im not knocking you for being a skeptic and speaking your mind, reminding me to be cautious is never something Id scoff at. I just checked that forum and asked around and its reliability has demonstrated itself time and time again. Failures of stock internals with new rod bolts is very rare.

Also, $2K for the drivetrain is a steal. BAH!

GTORX7 - assuming I could do what you said for $1,540, I'd still have less torque, less reliability and less fuel economy. Furthermore, a LOT of that is based on getting good deals. 2.3 stuff is ALWAYS cheap, unlike the occasional $2K LS1/AOD steal that digitalsolo gets. Im not exactly the best haggler on earth and I dont have lots of connections.

In the future Im not counting out playing with a rotary for fun, but for now I want something I am sure will be tough as a nail, long lasting, and will perform down the line - then I'll get experimental.

digitalsolo

iTrader: (2)

Nihil,

I know that others have done it, but I'm remaining a skeptic until I see you accomplish it. Lots of guys have put L67s in the 11's with turbos for 2500 bucks, but lots more have run 13's and had issues, and that's a damn near unbreakable motor too. Build it, and prove me wrong. I eat crow well, but not often. Not starting ****, just stating my position on the matter.

Oh, BTW, I said all the stuff for the swap was 2000, not the drivetrain. The drivetrain was 1000 bucks.

Nihilanthic

You are a total bastard getting those lowball prices

lol, anyway, sure. I dont buy into **** until I see a lot of support for it. Turboford's posters have to back up their **** or they get called on it, and they race their **** and street drive it a lot.

They also DO share problems if they do have them, like with off boost responce with big injectors on the stock EEC modified for high power under boost, blowing gaskets on certain essy aluminum heads that were more meant for drag racers than street driving for HPDE (and which Essy head has different coolant passages that will help with reliability on the street or HPDE) for example.

Ive checked the experiences of others and Ive got a good handle on the limits of the engine - and its well in excess of what Im looking to do. The only reason youd need to change internals in a 2.3 is... to build it for revs

LT1-10AE

I've got you all beat. When my rotary popped, I sold all the rotary specific parts to fund my V8 swap and wound up getting paid ~$1300 to do the swap due to the price difference.

BOOYAH!