Ryan23

Ernie -
Actually, mine is still not running It COULD have been running, but I opted to remove the OEM wiring harness and replace it with a "painless" type chassis harness. "Painless" my *** .....It's coming along though. I've got two more Supras in that I have to finish up in the meantime. Oh well, spring is coming...lol

About your motors, It wasn't meant as a dig really. I was just curious as to where you were at. Joe had mentioned that the you had a ported one being built (to go with the new turbo) and that was the last I heard.

I'll *probably* be at MIR acting in more of a support capacity. There are a couple of "my" Supras that may need some help (assuming they actually go out to the track instead of just talking about it). I definately won't have my FD done by then though. I'll cheer you on, I'd like to see an FD whoop some ***. They whole engine arguement is pointless, really. Rotary Vs. Piston...blah...blah..Different strokes for different folks

Ryan

owen is fat

its RX7 guys like YOU that say **** thats NOT TRUE! aargh! why do so many rx7 guys think a V8 swap is automatically going to ruin the handling of an rx7?!?!?!?
WTF!!!!!!!!!!
I built my LS1FC for autox and hpde's and its been GREAT! I left my LS1 all stock for reliability... its my daily driver and its still a 12 second car!

its a shame your not even interested in checking an LS1rx7 out even just for the experience and to compare it relative to your own car. an LS1rx7 is not just muscle, its not a musclecar in my book because the rx7 chassis is so well designed for superbly crisp handling that the rx7 is in another class from the camaro and mustang scenes. you are WAY out of line if you think JUST doing an LS1 swap will change your rx7's handling characteristics... really, you are out of line... this is stupid for people to think such things in this day and age.

I think you are so passionate about your rotary and turbo that you are missing out. you are lacking the ability to step back and compare two ideas and see them each for what they are worth. I agree that a turbo rotary is an amazing motor, but I dont want one in my FC that I drive every day... I get 340 lb/ft of torque every day and I enjoy all six speeds of it.

bennettaru

Alright i'll keep my mouth shut from now on :P

LT1RX7

Come on Bobby, in all fairness you do have one of the top rotary guys as a close friend and have gotten some "discounted" parts and labor and some free "education" to keep your costs low.

Oh and it aint a 9 sec 13b yet

Wonder who that could be

eriksseven

iTrader: (6)

What?

Who said anything about being dis-interested in "checking an LS1rx7 out"?

I think it would be awesome to feel some burly V8 power and see someone's swapped hadi-work... I just don't want that.

I never said anything about an LS1 changing the Rx7's handling characteristics. I know the weight increase is what... 80-100lbs?

I see the two "ideas"; V8-7 and RX-7... I like RX-7's more.

'I think you are so passionate about your V8-7 that you are missing out. You are lacking the ability to step back and compare two ideas and see them for what they are worth. I agree that an LS1 is an amazing motor, but I don't want one in my FC that I drive everyday... I get 260 lb/ft of torque every day and I enjoy all 5 speeds of it...'

owen is fat

here lies the ONE major problem with your assessment-
I have driven a few LS1FC's and a few 13bFC's and have come to the conclusion that there are many more merits to the LS1 swap that make an LS1rx7 into a "better" rx7. not a lot of people have driven both setups. even less have driven many different cars with each setup. without the time behind the wheel of both setups, in their many different builds, you would lack the ability to truly compare them.

hehehheeeee, 260 lb/ft?
"you can argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're all yours"



you sure raise the rx7 up to a pedestal.... the strange thing is, my NY title and even Geico dont recognize "RX7" as a model from mazda, at least in the case of my 1987 rx7... how bizarre is that? so... my title says Mazda 686 and the DMV let me put V8 for engine description.

SpeedyWankel

I don't mean to push any buttons, but to correct the misinformed.

RX does NOT stand for "Rotary eXperimental" any more than than it does in the Lexus RX300 or EVO standing for "Eternal Volume Optics."

It's just a myth. I mean, if you think about it, calling your vahicles "experimental" is not exactly good marketing. ;-)

eriksseven

iTrader: (6)

Wait... You did see that my little blurb that I posted "raising the Rx7 up to a pedestal" was just a word-for-word copy of what you said about the LS1? (kinda mocking you )

That is bizarre about not listing the Rx7 as a model...

Back on topic; my most prominent experience with a high-performance V8, center's around a buddy with a 450whp '98 Mustang SVT...

We actually raced a while ago (granted my car's a lot faster now). It was like I wasn't moving, lol.

The sound, torque and power of a potent V8 are not shocking and revelatory to me.

And to be honest? I hate the way most straight-piped V8's sound... It sounds like someone puking and diarrhea'ing at the same time...

*flame-suit on*

Give me a turbo rotary all day

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

https://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php...03&postcount=3

Maybe not "eXperimental", but the Yamaguchi book has been noted as basically the "bible" for the RX-7.

eriksseven

iTrader: (6)

hahaha,

You're actually quite wrong. Does it suprise you that you have no idea what you're talking about?

The name Rx-7 means "Rotary Expirement Seven"... Why the name 'stuck' and became the Model name? I don't know, but I think it's cool.

Not everyone knows about the history of the Rx7, but I don't think that naming the car Rx-7 was poor marketing. The car was and is a great success...

(correct the misinformed... please )

eriksseven

iTrader: (6)

I'm looking at that book right now, trying to find the section that refers to the history of the name... I'm almost positive it's expirement? "Export" rings no bells... lol.

SpeedyWankel

Did you not read the post DIRECTLY above yours? Assuming that source is correctly quoting Yamaguchi's book, the name stands for "Rotary eXport."

I'm not gonna lie, I didn't know that. I do remember when the idea of "Rotary eXperimental" came around, and it definitely wasn't the early 70's. ;-)

I have no doubt that the "R" stood for rotary. Look at the R100, R130, RX-2...

Damn, why does it not surprise me that you would cling so tightly to your oh-so-clever "Rotary Experiment" name? Since that REALLY is what defines a car.

Puhlease... I love RX-7's, I really do, but I am not the one living in a fantasy world where Mazda is the sole company to make a good car.

I really wish you could see yourself. Everyone who owns any type of car likes to think that theirs is the best, even if there is no actual evidence of such. It's a basic psychological way to make yourself feel special. And to talk trash to someone based on this is about the same as a monkey throwing **** because he had the impulse to do so. You're reacting to me because you feel that your territory is being threatened and somehow I am trying to show the world that you are not special. It's really not your fault, but you need to recognize what's happening.

I'm not bashing the RX name. It's a great name. I like it just as much as "LS-1" ;-)

SPOautos

WOW, this thread is full os ****. Ok, let me clarify a few things....

1. Comparing a LS1's oil burning problem to a rotary consuming oil is 2 TOTALLY different things. A V8 is not supposed to consume oil like that, the LS1 does because of a parts defect. The rotary consumes oil because it has oil injection that injects oil into the combustion chamber to lubricate the housing. Its TOTALLY different, one is a screwed up error, the other is designed that way and its supposed to be that way.

2. The actualy displacement for a 5.0 liter IS 5.0 liters and the actual displacement for a 1.3L 13b is 1.3 liters. Displacement is measured by the actual measurements of the combustion changers and the amout of times it takes to cycle thru all of them is irrelevent. THATS why a 13b is listed as a 1.3 liter. The reason people COMPARE it to a 2.6L piston is because by design in takes in about the same amout of air as a 2.6 liter engine given the same amout of revolutions. For this reason most racing sanctions categorize it as a 2.6 liter to level the playing field. HOWEVER, it is a 1.3 liter displacement engine that happens to displace 2.6 liters of air in the amout of rpms that a piston engine takes to displace all of its size.

3. Who give a **** what everyone wants. Just pick what you like and go with it. If its a V8 then do it, if its a turbo 6cyl then do it, if its a rotary then do it. Either way its going to take money and about the same if you go piston or rotary. Your going to need about 550rwhp to do it consistantly. You can build the hell out of a LS1 with heads, cam, LS1edit (computer), larger tb will help, prob a larger maf, ect ect, 100shot, then possibally some pistons and rods...might as well do pistons and rods while you have the heads off anyway, tuning. Budget a engine for just in case, Ive seen pleanty of them blow and they arent cheap to rebuild. Also all the other stuff it takes to do the conversation, subframe, wire harness, radiator, transmission mounts, T56 , clutch, ect. Then with a rotary budget a street ported engine, single turbo setup for a GT42 kit, computer, fuel system, clutch, radiator, IC, ignition amp, tuning. They both are going to have the same suspension requirements and diff/axles requirement. Basically a T2 diff with upgraded axles would be fine.

I'm sure there is pleanty of other nit picky stuff that adds up but you got the idea. For rotary expect to spend about 15K for all of that plus the T2 diff, axles, and suspension. For a LS1 car its going to be about the same.

Stephen

Nihilanthic

1. the effect is roughly the same, except a LS1 can actually fix it :P

2. If it sucks in air at the same rate as what is considered a 2.6 liter engine, it is, infact, a 2.6 liter engine! It combusts .65 liters 4 times every 720° cycle.... and the rate that everyone goes by is 720°, as the equations were meant with piston engines in mind, because it takes two revolutions to go through all of the cylinders of a piston engine.

Rotaries need 1080 degrees to go through all of their combustion chambers, but they dont act like a 3.9 liter engine (even though they are if you go by that rate...) because a "2.6 liter engine" sucks in that much air per 720 degrees. If you want to go by 360 degrees, which mazda does, you have to put every other engine as measured by 360 degrees.

The math DOES make sense, but most people havent had it fully explained to them. Arguing its a 1.3 liter engine is only really worthwhile if you get off on power/displacement... because Id guarantee you that unless you doubled the values in your VE table if you told it the engine was 1.3 liters, you'd have a hard time tuning it with a standalone. It would only squirt out about half of the fuel needed for the A/R youre going for. Get it?

3. I have a lot of doubts it would cost 15K to get 550 whp out of a LSx or any v8. T-II rears go for like... $300? If you go for 440 + 110 shot you could probably do that including the cost of a FD roller chassis!

slpin

iTrader: (9)

18k for 750hp?
you know how to build motor my ***........
either you paid people to build it or you had to build it over 5 times

Nihilanthic

If its a 408 based off of a LS1 then it can get pricey. Also, what kind of build you do and if you change your mind can come back and bite you.

That said, if he was building it just N/A, then it starts to get pricey when you get the power levels THAT high.

owen is fat

I agree with you on this point. if you compare the 13b to other motors using HP per Fuel use as your values, the 13b is very similar to a motor MUCH larger than a 1.3L. even if you compare HP per engine weight, its very similar to a motor much larger than 1.3L. I guess some guys are happy to use numbers provided by Mazda instead of also looking into other ways to put the 13b into perspective, or to put it into relative comparisons using measurements other than displacement.

for me, it boils down to this: even if its "just" a 1.3L it still costs a shitload of money to make 400hp to the wheels in a way that you can use every day and romp on it without much worry... AND there is still a "little" transmission behind all of that power so you can be educated in finding the weak link.

with that said... running 9's is FAST! yikes!

Nihilanthic

Well, yeah. Thats the difference between someone who cant see past the (very clever!) marketing about power/liter, techno-****, etc, and look at it from a POV of power to weight, and be damned about the specific power output. Specific TORQUE is a better figure to compare engine vs engine imho... and the only reason to rev superhigh is if you cant really find low rear gears.

That said, 6500-7000 rpm redlines seem to match with 4.10s rather well, so Im done with my rev fetish for now

http://www.torquecentral.com/showthread.php?t=31933 <- link to a pretty worthwhile thread on this topic. Going for specific power and high revs are not cost effective means to the end of making power. Upping displacement can often be more reliable than upping revs, plus you dont have to spend as much on your rotating assembly.

Plus theres the theory of lower revs = less friction losses, and the smaller the rev range the more efficient you can be with a static cam or equivilant. (no VTEC or staged ports necessary!) If you want HP/liter, go with forced induction.

owen is fat

way back on page one... I meant to respond to htis...
for the thread starter this wont be a major problem as most of the driveling is being replaced with parts from the much beefier LS1T56. This specific guy just has to focus on the diff (stronger lsd, brace the diff housing) and much stronger halfshafts. The PowerPlantFrame, driveshaft, motor mounts, transmission and clutch will all be part of his LS1 swap so thats a no-brainer to use the beefiest parts around or to reinforce the PPF while he's doing the swap. I agree the FD isnt the best choice for drag racing beacause of the independent rear suspension, but its one hell of a fast car no matter how you race it... so it can be made to drag well if you want to spend the time/money on the project and you can see some quick times with the right setup.

I just got back from a tuning session for soloracers LS1FC and the Fbody guys doing the tuning were amazed with how well the rx7 chassis takes the beating dished out by his 382rWhp/380rWtq LS1.

Nihilanthic

FDNewbie - You ever see that video of a FC with the stock rear, and slicks, pull a 1.3 second 60' time and run a 9.42 on a race weight over 3000 lbs? I doubt a FD is signifigantly weaker.
If youre doing serious dragracing, get an auto - its better suited and easier on your rear end.

If youre doing track racing, you relaly wont be beating that hard on it, but more than likely your clutchpacks if its a FC need a rebuild, and if its a FD you might want to trade the torsen for a 1.5.