jimlab

I'm sorry, but you're so ignorant that you're not even worth arguing with.

Crash Test Joey

iTrader: (1)

I'm gonna have to agree with Jim on this one. I'm dying laughing here.

The biggest problem I have with all the rotary fanatics as that they constantly compare SOMEONE ELSE'S CAR to a random piston engined car. Hell, Piston engine cars have set every record in every classs of the sport. There may be a jet-powered land speed record or something, but SO WHAT, because none of you were driving, and it's STILL not a rotary. SO WHAT if there's a FEW rotary powered cars running 9's? I personally know of FOUR 9 second piston engine cars that are driven on the street and that's just the guys I KNOW in my town. I can point to another dozen or so who I just haven't talked to yet. There are ZERO rotary powered cars running 9's, 10's or even 11's at the tracks local to me. ZERO.

I don't care what those other cars do. Tell me what YOUR CAR runs and line up next to MY CAR. Hell, it's just an N/A junkyard motor running 12's. I have less than $7000 invested in my car, including the cost of the car itself. Show me a 12 second rotary powered car without nitrous that YOU DRIVE. Put your money where your mouth is.

digitalsolo

iTrader: (2)

You do realize that is about 1' too big in all directions to fit in that car, right?

digitalsolo

iTrader: (2)

Also, on a few other notes in this thread....

To the guy who said that a 5.2L V8 can't hit 600 HP? WTF are you smoking?

Let's see some numbers to back up this superior rotary bit? It's not weight, don't try that ****, have you seen the control mechanisms for a rotary? LOL, yeah, light...

As far as turbine "powered" vehicles. Most of them do not DRIVE the wheels, they just push thrust out the back, point and shoot, no control. I've watched the quickest motorcycle pass on earth with the bike powering itself (driving the wheel) because my Uncle was the one riding the bike. Displacement/HP? His bike is 1400cc and makes 1200-1500 HP depending on nitro mix and elevation. Top fuel dragsters make 8-10K HP with 500 CI engines... any rotaries doing that? No? **** off.

If you want to have a logical debate, great, but try it with facts. I've sat around and talked with rotary guys (I'm a rotary fan myself, just didn't suit my needs), and both engines have merits. For road racing, and airplanes, rotaries are spectacular. With some real development, they may even be made to be reliable at high power levels (30K miles is not reliable). Bottom line, if you hate either engine, you're ignorant of it's benefits.

Edit: Oh, and another one, let's throw the 2jz and RB26Dett in here... wanna talk about power per liter? They're pushed above 1000 HP in both of those, and I've seen 2.6L Skylines in the 8 second 1/4 zone, same with 3.8L Turbo GNs (in the 7's now). You can't win this argument, don't bother.

Sandman

you could always put a sr20det engine in your fc.

usmcjsy

iTrader: (1)

Digitasolo: Whats Siguel Racing running in the 1/4 with a 2 liter rotary..? Also is there any 500CI rotarys? Jimlab: I think the best part of you ran down the crack of you mommas *** and ended up a brown stain on the mattress, I think you've been cheated. Your the only dumb *** here. V8s do have there place and ya piston engines are more reliable blah blah. Piston engines also have had the benifit of being developed over and over by every car company in the world plus they have been in development longer. The 13B is what it is however its 1300cc. Pistons have their place as do rotarys. Pistons=Camaro, Mustang and pretty much every other car thats not a Mazda RX, Cosmo Repu and so on.
Dont worry about my intel Jimlab. Just know I am a Marine protecting your sorry ***!

usmcjsy

iTrader: (1)

Oh ya Jimlab I see you sell your stuff through the RX-7 Store. Well I was looking at buying a AEM wideband O2 from them. Jason was kind and quick to answer all Emails on the products they sell. However if they have vendors like you, I will have to look elsewhere on where to buy that and other products for my RX7. I dont see Geoff at MazdaTrix, or Rocky over at Rotary Performance, or Brian at BNR coming in here and getting into stupid pissing contests over this stuff. If you were not a vendor things would be different. However you try to come on here and bully people into thinking you are right because you have over 8000 posts. Your posts dont mean squat. I could come on here and post jiberish 8000 times and my tally of posts would be 8000. Anyway I will never do business at the RX-7 store now because of you Jimlab. To have sombody sell parts for a RX-7 but have its vendors try and rip the rotary to shreds on the forum just seems ignorant to me. For 90+% of us the RX7 is the rotary. Now to run off at the mouth and potentially offend your potential clientel is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Thats like McDonalds calling its customers fat asses, and saying people who eat DBL 1/4 pounders are stupid and un healthy and lazy and so on.

usmcjsy

iTrader: (1)

jiberish

usmcjsy

iTrader: (1)

jiberish.

usmcjsy

iTrader: (1)

jiberish..

usmcjsy

iTrader: (1)

More Jiberish

usmcjsy

iTrader: (1)

See I just got 4 more posts from writting Jiberish. I just dont have the time to do it another 7200 times to get to your level of posts Jimbo.
Over and Out!

Evil Aviator

You may as well refer to a comic book, lol.

The truth is that displacement is based on the displaced portion of the engine (hence the name), not the displacer. For example, the 13B only has two displaced portions, one in each housing. Add them together and you get 1.3L. The frequency of the rotor passing through the displaced portion has absolutely no bearing on displacement.

If you want to think of it in piston engine terms, then imagine a 2-cylinder 6-piston engine in which the pistons take turns passing through the cylinders. Its rated displacement would still be based on the displacement of the 2 cylinders, not the 6 pistons. As an additional example, if you convert a 4-stroke 5.0L piston engine into a 2-stroke, it is still 5.0L, despite the fact that the engine fires twice as much per revolution.

The 1.3L displacement is its actual displacement. Some racing bodies use a multiplier for the sake of competition fairness, and some countries use a multiplier in order to compare the airflow rate to a 4-stroke piston engines for tax purposes.

You may have misinterpreted Jimlab's responses, so I will try to convert them to English:

In English: This is with respect to flow rate per output shaft revolution, not actual displacement.

In English: Power/Displacement is engineering trivia with no practical application. Better practical yardsticks include BSFC, MPG, BHP/Wt, etc. Racing organizations do not classify open-engine classes based on actual displacement, as this would give rotary and 2-stroke engines an unfair advantage against the more popular 4-stroke engines. Sometimes turbocharged engines also receive a "displacement" penalty, even though a centrifugal turbocharger has no positive displacement. Not everybody in the world is an engineer - get used to it.

You are in luck... the mathematical displacement formula for 4-stroke piston engines does in fact have a 1/2 multiplier for this very reason, while the 2-stroke and rotary engine formulas do not. However, due to the commutative property of multiplication, you can multiply the rotary displacement by 2 in order to use its statistics in the more popular 4-stroke piston engine equation.

BTW, this has nothing to do with "efficiency", but I won't go into that.

usmcjsy

iTrader: (1)

Very good Evil, good explanation of the arguments with excellent tact! I am not a engineer I am just a rotary fan trying to build my car to be as fast and reliable as possible with the $$ I have. I also have a Tacoma with a piston engine so I am not a piston hater, I would not dream of putting the rotary in it as the pistons belong there. Well to each his own. However if the V8 RX7s are so great how come they dont tend to sell or bring in the same $$ when I see then for sale..? Also please sombody referance me to the fastest piston engine RX7. I just wanna see what if anything else I need to buy to stay ahead of the "Engineers" in here LOL. Also my deepest apologies to all on this thread it appears there are some as passionate about the piston RX7 as I am about the rotary RX7.

Evil Aviator

A piston engine would be better for torque, which is more important in a truck.

Major conversions usually reduce the value of cars. My 1Gen RX-7 had about $6K in it, and I sold it for $2K, with hardly any miles on the go-fast goodies. I have over $30K in my 2Gen RX-7, and I doubt I could even get half that much were I to sell it.

Good examples of modified cars being sold at a loss:
http://www.improvedtouring.com/Classifieds/index2.cfm

I doubt that very many people have spent a lot of money on an RX-7 V8 conversion because there are hardly any racing classes for such a beast, it wouldn't be a very good show car because of the controversy, and no RX-7 body, fame, or drive train is suitable for high torque loads without extensive modification. Jimlab is the only person I know who is nutty enough to spend so much time and money on a project with little to no reward or purpose.

projekt

holy dead thread batman!

and displacement doesn't mean physical displacement aviator, sorry.

granted, it works for turbo engines (variable displacement) when you need to meet gov't regulations.

Evil Aviator

I'm not going to turn this thread into a displacement course of instruction or debate, and I have already stated things as they exist in the world. I encourage you to contact SAE and/or enroll in a mechanical engineering degree program if you would like to further discuss this subject. Meanwhile, the rest of us will discuss RX-7 engine swaps if you don't mind.

razorback

"Both will be 727s. And both of those engines are extremely poor choices for an RX-7. You'll find that small block Fords are a fairly easy fit, small block Chevys go without too much trouble and Chryslers are a little too large and heavy for the Mazda. If you go all out and put a current LS1 Chevy in it you'll find that you have a car the weighs as much as the Corvette the engine came in, has much smaller brakes and tires (with no room for larger), a differntial that can't take the torque of the Chevy and suspension that's not near a current Corvette. If you really want something that will run, just go get a Corvette and forget the RX. "

i asked a mopar board what transmissions will bolt up to the 318 or 383 and thats the response i got.

GDJ

If I were to put a piston engine in a RX7, it would probably be a LS1 or GN motor. These are great, powerful, reliable, light, efficient powerplants. What's not to like.

And to add to the Rotary vs. Piston debate...

If Rotary engines are so great, why is Mazda the only one developing them. AND why does MAZDA spend more TIME and MONEY developing their piston engines than they do with the Renesis?

Also don't give us that "rotary engines haven't been around for very long" crap...Mazda sold mainstream cars with rotary engines in the 60's. They have been developed plenty.

I'm not bashing the Rotary by any means. After all the rotary has HUGE potential. With only 3 moving parts, it has huge potential for reliability, longevity, and power. The smooth opperation makes it more practical and more compact than comprable piston engines. But right now they are behind the piston engines. They are still being developed. I think a certain company is using rotary engines in their flying car prototype. It will be interesting to see what happens.

owen is fat

wow, what total B.S. and amazingly misinformed they are. not to mention they miss the point where a LS1FD costs at least HALF of what a comparable Vette would cost. lol, so many idiots online, I almost cant take this anymore!
aaaaaaaaaaaRghhhhhhhh!

jimlab

Actually, 3 major moving parts. You're forgetting the dozens of small (and delicate) springs and seals it relies on to seal in the combustion process. Not that it finishes the combustion process before dumping the still burning fuel out into the exhaust... very efficient.

As far as power, almost any engine would benefit from forced induction. Take away the hair dryer and the rotary engine is just an underpowered gas waster, but at least it's a lot more reliable.

And ensures that in order to increase displacement, that you have to drastically increase the package size of the engine... instead of just stroking and boring the existing block and getting more displacement in the same package size. Very practical.

projekt

but jim, that's what makes them smell so nice

Maestro

Let me introduce you to this.......

Its a 2.6l Rotary made from factory 13B parts its Non-Turbo and makes 600hp. Its road registered and has run two seasons with not a single problem.

Now how does your so oh so wonderful V8 compare now......... ?

jimlab

640+ horsepower on pump gas, naturally aspirated, built to handle 1,000+. Want to compare torque curves? 560+ lb-ft. of torque, and over 400 lb-ft. from 2,000 to 8,000 rpm. In fact, it makes about 340 lb-ft. at idle.

Now **** off.

razorback

how it went from asking what transmisions bolt up to a dodge motor to buy a vette kinda confuses me.