Viking War Hammer

iTrader: (8)

Brokeback Mounting, Heath Ledger DEAD.

slo

iTrader: (1)

I didn't say it would be easy I said I think its possible, a PP 4 rotor non turbo can make about 600 WHP, this was done buy a guy In New Zealand in his street legal car.

I don't know what the limit for an LSX based Non turbo is, but I would imagine it to be close to 600 WHP. At which point approximately doubling the HP with turbo's on pump would seem possible.

For a motor that expensive the aluminum side housings would be a must, at which point I think the weight between the two motors would be close, with the 4 rotor heavier but not by much.

Gorilla RE

iTrader: (1)

It's easy to compare apples to oranges isn't it?..... If I had a 6.59L (402cu in) rotary (like hinson) I sure as hell could make 1300hp on pump. But the fact is we are already making more power per cubic inch than just about any v8 out there. Don't get me wrong a 500-700cu inch top fuel engine making 8,000 hp is more than an impressive accomplishment. But the weed-eater sized 1.3L rotary is not far behind in the power per cubic inch scale....especially when you consider the R&D time the rotary has had compared to the piston. I don't get why everyone wants to argue v8 vs. rotary vs. inline 6 vs. inline 4 vs. flat 4 vs. flat 6 vs. v6 vs. whatever the hell engine you want, when nothing is relevant...
I love making power, I love going fast and I love engines of all types! It's just that making this little 1.3L bear keg make power and run above and beyond the norm is waaay more intriguing to me...plus it takes more talent!
-J

crispeed

You're deffinately on the right track on both accounts. Sometimes I forget you have inside information available to you. !

slo

iTrader: (1)

He's going to come back and say that a 1.3 liter 13B is really a 2.6L for the purpose of comparison to a piston engine, which I do agree with.

Gorilla RE

iTrader: (1)

That's fine I could argue that point till I'm blue in the face (as many have) but the fact is ignorance is well ignorant
-J

crispeed

Hard work always pays off eventually and there's no arguing with the results. Just the tip of the iceberg to come.

slo

iTrader: (1)

You'd be arguing against a number of automotive engineering bodies, who use this logic to classify rotary engines, as evident by the fact that the renisis received an engine of the year award in the 2.5 to 3 liter class. http://www.gizmag.com/go/1983/

In any case to make a 6.5 liter rotary based you your logic would take 10 13B rotors, I'm sure it would make 1300 HP, but how exactly would you fit than in a car and it would weigh what over 2000 pounds.

crispeed

The e-experts will alwyas argue because they have no clue what it takes to be at that level on both sides and can only dream about it. You have to excuse their ignorance because their knowledge is limited to what they have read on different forums and often quote what they have been told may it be correct or not.

crispeed

I've seen more crazy **** done before.!

Gorilla RE

iTrader: (1)

This is me not responding to ignorance ......oops I responded
-J

Gorilla RE

iTrader: (1)

Viking War Hammer

iTrader: (8)

174 mph in a 2500 lb car

1,100 HP ?

phoenix7

AS of yet I don't see the rotary matching 2000HP but we're getting closer:

https://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php...9&postcount=22
https://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php...7&postcount=76
https://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php...&postcount=161

No matter how you slice it, we're catching up.

SHUN THE NONBELIEVERS! SHUUUUUUUUUN!

https://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php...6&postcount=80
Come on, ARGUE with Judge ITO, I triple dog DARE YOU! It would be fun to watch.


https://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php...2&postcount=92
https://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php...&postcount=139

If you're patient enough to have read the WHOLE NRS ceramic seal thread then you'll understand what kind of "leaps" the rotary community is making and it's only a matter of time before the 13B is out of juice. After that it's on to 3 rotors.

RoTaRyBoYz

1664BHP on a SIDE PORT 4rotor... Imagine Semi-pp or full PP with a master tune fully dialed in with the right turbo(s)...
13b's are over 1000WHP so its only a matter of time till someone see's 1500-1600WHP on a 3rotor.

That 2000hp is Flywheel HP seeing thats its on a engine dyno..so the rotarys aint that far behind in HP, its keeping it together is the problem we have right now

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uO1782B6RZw

razorback

not at all. ill just ask for comparable results when i get my car finished and to the track.

and ive been on both sides of the rotary vs v8 debate. guess which one won?

razorback

yeah, the 1700hp PP engine idles well too and has low end torque too im sure right? when does it start making actual useable power? 4k rpm? 5k rpm?

razorback

yep, thats me.

The Driver

iTrader: (4)

Your clearly missing the point. It's like stating a 1000hp minivan is better then base model ferrari. The fact I'm getting at is the natural laws of design and function. Sure you can make anything fast but a completely different form designed for speed will eventually overcome it's opposition.

If you really thought about it you'd realize the power gain of a rotary is far greater by adding displacement (rotors) simply for the fact they are much larger then adding pistons. Second they don't require anywhere near the boost a piston engine makes (Assuming they have the same turbo) because they are not limited by revolutions of the cams and cam shaft. They have no valve train just strait out the back dump which is amazing power as any enthusiast/builder will tell you is an excellent equation for power.

Combine that with the fact that it not only can intake faster and exhume exhaust gases faster with out limitation (Only limit is Rpm) but also the fact it has 3 strokes to one on a piston. The power result and power curve is a lot more effective.

Third rotaries are more efficient since the laws of inertia work in their favor since they cycle in a complete 360 degree (rather 720 due to the fact there's actually 2 separate spin cycles) motion while using that power in a triangular shape so the power being generated will never be thrown off since the inertia is being equally displaced through out the engine.

Overall the design of the rotary is far more superior then the piston. 4 moving parts compared to a piston engine which has 41 moving parts? (Also thats a 4 cylinder not even an 8) Lets lastly not forget size here. A 2600cc 4 rotor has the capability of reaching the 2000hp mark. If they can get a 13B to 1000rwhp with the whole Turbo per rotor equation there's no doubt they can hit the 2000hp mark in a 26B. As far as rotors blowing it's all about the materials used, if you have a large enough budget to afford cermix the opposition is in for a much harder time.

Crispeed also mentions the point of "evolution" ~ This definitely true since we have heard rumors of the 16X going into production. The 13B is far from perfect and the 16X is that much closer with all Aluminum housings and direct port fuel injection and maybe even cermix can you honestly tell me a V8 compare on that level? What will happen when these change to 3 and 4 rotors? How will the V8 competition adapt to that? They are barely keeping up with 13B's as it is. Last time I check the 2 rotors just broke into the 6's.


As far as what I think of power and efficiency ~ That would be the MyT engine which if you look is not to far off in design to the rotor. As for the piston engine thats a little much.

In extreme situations especially high level racing Achems Razr really seems to prevail.

Uncle Hungry

iTrader: (2)

Imo rotaries have a long way to go to touch v8s. In reality even the top dog 13b's aren't making as much as the 2.0 4cyl guys. In the current state of evolution I believe you're better off comparing a 20b to a v8.Also to address the post above mine I was under the impression that a rotary was way less thermally efficient than a piston motor due primarilly to the shape of the combustion chamber, BSFC is way worse and it take's more air to make the same power on a rotary as it does on a piston motor. I think the whole "way less moving parts" thing is irrelevant if those moving parts don't typically limit engine life or the ability to make power. The best solution I have seen thus far was the coates rotary drivetrain for a small block.

RoTaRyBoYz

Theres a BIG Difference between Flywheel HP and Rear wheel HP... That 2000hp looks like Flywheel HP to me

RoTaRyBoYz

4cyl guys have years of development under their belts with heaps of tricked out parts. Sporty ran 6.96 and 196MPH x 2 with STOCK PARTS, no tricked out rotors or housings (coming soon) for the rotary guys.
Comparing V8's to rotarys is just retarded IMO, it only makes for good bragging rights after we spank that boat anchor

razorback

how many rotary engines have you taken apart? i stopped reading after the "4 moving parts"

could you name some of the 41 moving parts on a 4 cylinder, im curious as to what they all are.

Uncle Hungry

iTrader: (2)

I think this is a poor arguement because Brent Rau also ran a 6 in a 4cyl 4g63. If you want to compare these engines by specific output in a top state of tune the 13b is a much better comparison to a 4cyl than a v8 at this point.

phoenix7

I don't follow your logic. More moving parts = more strain on the valvetrain, pistons, cylinders, etc., etc. Especially when you involved 60+ lbs. of boost. Not only does the motor have to put up with the initial power , but it then needs to reverse it's movement and restart it for the exhaust to be expelled.






VS.