Or could have been talking about the 20B...

If they were rating the rotary as a 3.9L on the basis of that number being the sum of all the displacement of the combustion chambers, then they must be referring to a single rotor engine, something they never produced. A 13B rotary, if it were indeed feasible to rate the engine that way, would be a 7.8L. (1.3L * 3 chambers/rotor * 2 rotors).

I believe they were referring to the 20B as 3.9L because it follows the same rating convention of the 13B, being 1.3L per rotor.

I agree with this! When you rate the displacement of a piston engine against a rotary, the number of revolutions should be specified, in terms of displacement/rev.

 

F1 cars also weigh next to nothing, and:

HP = (torque * RPM)/5252

So when the engine spins upwards of 15,000rpm, who needs 400 ft lbs+ of torque. The "high end power" is a result of high engine speed and moderate torque.

 

So wait, youre admitting an engine that makes no torque and spins real fast in a lightweight car is the basis for the fastest race cars in the world?

Holy ****, thats what an RX-7 is, and it just happens to be one of the best production road race cars ever.

Who would've ever thought that ****, wow.

Lets go put a bunch of different truck/economy engines in it now and ruin the balance of a well tuned chassis.

Incase you didn't notice, the NASA unlimited RWD class was won, by a rotary powered FD, not an LS1 powered FD.

 

Any more updates? To bad this thread turned into a bitch fest of who's better sr20 vs. 13b blah blah blah. Common people grow up.