Imports already in the 6s?!
09-02-02, 03:30 PM
#26
Bourbon King
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it seems a few posts have been deleted somehow. I'll go ahead and answer it again. The rotary engine does displace 1.3 and 2.0 liters but the rotary is more effecient than a piston engine. One cycle in a rotary engine is equal to 2 in a piston engine. An easy way to think of it is this. A 6 cylinder piston engine will fire 3 cylinders at a time. So in theory its only using half of its displacement at a time. A rotary would be like fireing all 6 cylinders at once. So a 1.3 liter rotary will flow as much fuel and air as a 2.6 liter piston engine. Thats why people think a 1.3 liter engine would be good with fuel economy but it isnt. Same goes with a 2.0 liter rotary. Its flowing as much as a 4.0 liter piston engine would on one cycle.
09-02-02, 04:07 PM
#27
iwishihad628rwhp
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm by no means a pro, and yes rotary's do flow roughly twice their displacement just inefficiently. You need lots of fuel to cool the chamber and the burn is not as thorough as a piston engine. There are quite a few 2.0 and 2.6 liter engines that have dynoed between 675rwhp- 785rwhp for the 2 liter and up to 1040rwhp for the 2.6 on C-16. The highest dyno I've heard of for a 13b was 660rwhp. Their must be inefficiencies there? Any more knowledgable people have any input.
09-02-02, 04:14 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Minnesota/ California
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the silver Probe was driven by Wayne Sanders of GB and it was a Cosworth 4 banger......I think he switched to a Focus as well.....There is also a VW Golf Tube frame car w/ Audi 5 cylinder 20v turbo quattro that ran a 6 too.....
my .02
my .02
09-03-02, 02:03 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Minnesota/ California
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7's only huh? okay, cool I learned something today 
I would love to see a rotary or 4 cylinder run a 6......
thanks for the update.....so has anyone ran a 6 in a 4 or rotary??
I would love to see a rotary or 4 cylinder run a 6......
thanks for the update.....so has anyone ran a 6 in a 4 or rotary??
09-03-02, 02:21 PM
#32
Wayne Saunders was and STILL IS the man!
The US was SOO far behing in 'sport compact racing' back in the day, not only were the cars from PR kicking our asses, but Ben had that silver probe in the sevens like a week after Sakura ran the first 7 for an import!
BTW, Wayne's focus is the AEBS focus that Ben Ma now ownes.
Wayne sold it to him because it had handling 'issues'
the AEBS guys crashed it twice and flipped it once.
wayne was rumored to be building a longer wheelbase/lower roof Focus sedan bodied car, but i have yet to see pics or hear any other news of it....
The US was SOO far behing in 'sport compact racing' back in the day, not only were the cars from PR kicking our asses, but Ben had that silver probe in the sevens like a week after Sakura ran the first 7 for an import!
BTW, Wayne's focus is the AEBS focus that Ben Ma now ownes.
Wayne sold it to him because it had handling 'issues'
the AEBS guys crashed it twice and flipped it once.
wayne was rumored to be building a longer wheelbase/lower roof Focus sedan bodied car, but i have yet to see pics or hear any other news of it....
Originally posted by fdracer
both wayne saunders' probe and focus only ran mid to high 7's.
both wayne saunders' probe and focus only ran mid to high 7's.
09-09-02, 03:34 AM
#34
Full Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nelson B.C. Canada
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its like saying a 250cc 2-stroke is actually a 500cc just because it fires twice as often as a four stroke. This is 1 reason why the rx-8 has highest specific output of any N/A production car engine ( 196 hp/litre ).
09-09-02, 11:21 AM
#35
Bourbon King
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by lowpro
anyone who thinks a 1.3L rotary is actually 2.6L dosn't know what theyre talking about.
anyone who thinks a 1.3L rotary is actually 2.6L dosn't know what theyre talking about.
Here newbie readup first before opening your mouth.
https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...6+liter+rotary
09-09-02, 11:22 AM
#36
Bourbon King
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by lowpro
Its like saying a 250cc 2-stroke is actually a 500cc just because it fires twice as often as a four stroke. This is 1 reason why the rx-8 has highest specific output of any N/A production car engine ( 196 hp/litre ).
Its like saying a 250cc 2-stroke is actually a 500cc just because it fires twice as often as a four stroke. This is 1 reason why the rx-8 has highest specific output of any N/A production car engine ( 196 hp/litre ).
09-09-02, 10:13 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: redmond wa
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by lowpro
anyone who thinks a 1.3L rotary is actually 2.6L dosn't know what theyre talking about.
anyone who thinks a 1.3L rotary is actually 2.6L dosn't know what theyre talking about.
Delta rotary already explained it, but I'll try to make it a little more comprehensive.
In a piston engine, there is one power (combustion) stroke per cylinder for every TWO rotations of the crankshaft. In a rotary, there is one power stroke for every ONE rotation of the eccentric shaft (equivalent to crankshaft). By definition, the 13B is 1.3 liters. By function, it is comparable to a 2.6 liter piston engine. Just think of it as a kind of gear reduction before the transmission (1:1 as opposed to .5:1)
Hope that helped.
09-16-02, 12:51 PM
#39
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Jasil
I'm by no means a pro, and yes rotary's do flow roughly twice their displacement just inefficiently. You need lots of fuel to cool the chamber and the burn is not as thorough as a piston engine. There are quite a few 2.0 and 2.6 liter engines that have dynoed between 675rwhp- 785rwhp for the 2 liter and up to 1040rwhp for the 2.6 on C-16. The highest dyno I've heard of for a 13b was 660rwhp. Their must be inefficiencies there? Any more knowledgable people have any input.
I'm by no means a pro, and yes rotary's do flow roughly twice their displacement just inefficiently. You need lots of fuel to cool the chamber and the burn is not as thorough as a piston engine. There are quite a few 2.0 and 2.6 liter engines that have dynoed between 675rwhp- 785rwhp for the 2 liter and up to 1040rwhp for the 2.6 on C-16. The highest dyno I've heard of for a 13b was 660rwhp. Their must be inefficiencies there? Any more knowledgable people have any input.
09-16-02, 12:56 PM
#40
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DELTA_Rotary
Well it seems a few posts have been deleted somehow. I'll go ahead and answer it again. The rotary engine does displace 1.3 and 2.0 liters but the rotary is more effecient than a piston engine. One cycle in a rotary engine is equal to 2 in a piston engine. An easy way to think of it is this. A 6 cylinder piston engine will fire 3 cylinders at a time. So in theory its only using half of its displacement at a time. A rotary would be like fireing all 6 cylinders at once. So a 1.3 liter rotary will flow as much fuel and air as a 2.6 liter piston engine. Thats why people think a 1.3 liter engine would be good with fuel economy but it isnt. Same goes with a 2.0 liter rotary. Its flowing as much as a 4.0 liter piston engine would on one cycle.
Well it seems a few posts have been deleted somehow. I'll go ahead and answer it again. The rotary engine does displace 1.3 and 2.0 liters but the rotary is more effecient than a piston engine. One cycle in a rotary engine is equal to 2 in a piston engine. An easy way to think of it is this. A 6 cylinder piston engine will fire 3 cylinders at a time. So in theory its only using half of its displacement at a time. A rotary would be like fireing all 6 cylinders at once. So a 1.3 liter rotary will flow as much fuel and air as a 2.6 liter piston engine. Thats why people think a 1.3 liter engine would be good with fuel economy but it isnt. Same goes with a 2.0 liter rotary. Its flowing as much as a 4.0 liter piston engine would on one cycle.
Can't wait to see the reactions from peopel of the RX-8 ( specialy the Mazdaspeed edition of the NA 13B-RENESIS )
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post