We talked to Jim Downing when we were in Atlanta. He had about 4 or 5 26b blocks laying around. He said the cost was about 100k each. Since just about every part is custom made. I don't even want to know what a 4 rotor e-shaft would cost.

 

The r26b engine weights in at 396lbs. That's an excellent contender for a FD swap.

I can't believe someone would consider putting a heaving 3 or 4 rotor in the worlds most perfectly sports car. Those morons are throwing Japan's finest engineering feat out the window.

See how stupid that sounds if you turn it around?

 

I'm pulling my boat anchor ls1 out and putting a Formula One Cosworth 3.5 liter v8 in. It makes 750hp. I got it for a steal on ebay. It is going to total own all the 26b fd's that are about to hit the street.

 

It may weight a bit more than a ls1 but puts out double the hp which more than makes up for it. I personally have seen a carbed v8 fc in person and was not hardly imressed. My friend walked it down with his 300 hp mx-6 several times from both launches and rolling starts.

SO what if a r26b is a race built rotary, the point is the displacement, not who/why ti was made or how practical ti is. A rotary with the same displacement would still kill a v8 np. Whoever said a r26b had 5.2Lwas smoking. Its the equivilent of 2, 13b's 2.6L, lets not start the whole 2 cycle, 3 cycle debate please.

 

And who said v8 RX-7s were reliable??!?!

weeeak!!!


but honestly that sucks, glad to hear he wasnt hurt

 

thats by far the dumbest argument EVER


rb26 is a fairly heavy engine and its a i6, very long......how the **** is it excellent when a 3rotor is ruining the worlds perfect sports car

you sir are a moron lol

 

I think he was being sarcastic

 

A carb'd V8 is FAR from a modern LS1 based SBC.

 

and seems like a good chunk of those carbed fc's are 5.0s i think

he shoulda made mounts out of chopped up center housings, thatd be the real kick in the nuts

 

 

Acctually the rotary engine is less efficient at turning air/fuel into power than most piston engines. Even though through more advanced design it is able to flow the air of a 2.6L piston engine 2.0L turbo engines regularly produce much more power than the TII engines on the same and even smaller turbos.

BSFC is also considered higher for a turbo rotary.

The rotary is an awesome motor, but cannot match the low end output and drivability of a larger displaement engine.

The saying "There is no replacment for displacement" will always hold true, the bigger the motor, the more air it moves, period.

 

Yep, however I wasn't aware that they were available in anything but an aging LeMans relic.

Or 5.2 liters, if you rate displacement based on two rotations of the eccentric shaft just like a 4-stroke piston engine.

On a strict diet of high octane race fuel, averaging about 2 mpg.

The mind boggles...

If you don't think a naturally aspirated V8 can top 700 horsepower, you're dumber than I think you are, and at this point, that's saying a lot.

 

I wish there was a way to warn someone before they say stupid things, im going to the suggestions forum.....

 

I think you meant lower...

 

BklynRX7,

i think you're still blind even w/ real facts brought down to the table.

anywho, more power to the v8 Rx-7's!!

flame on rotards!

 

Don't flame the rotards...

BklynRX7, I do have to correct you on something.. 4 rotor engines are just pipe dream for most fd owners... As AcademyTim said earlier, Jim has more 4 rotor engines then Mazda themselves.. I believe over 10 engines.. each costing over 100K. And no, they do not make 700HP.. I think it was around 400-500HP max... even with 3 rotor turbo charged, there are many issues to consider before making 800+ RWHP.

As I mentioned before, I love rotaries, but I also see great benefit of LS1/V8 engined FD's. I would love to have 3 fd's with 13b, 20b, and LS1.. some day..

 

Well put. I too have a vast amount of knowledge about the rotary. I can build them, tune them, etc. I love the rotary, but have desided to try something different. So do not try and school me as I am doing the swap now. I'll buy another FD to tinker with. And, I will still be around to help others with their rotaries.

Tell me this, what collector value would my car have had in twenty years with a GT40r turbo kit, Autronic ECU, and all the other aftermarket stuff?

If you want a collector FD, you have to keep it in 100% stock form. How many are in that form anymore?

It's just a car guys. Do what you want with it and enjoy it.

 

Rednecks in there barns. Hey I live in West Virginia and the Ls1 is a piece of work. Heck you Mr. Non-redneck couldnt even get an LS1 out of a Camaro to work on it. Things are different now and the Ls-1 is an awsome motor. Not genuine but still potent. And can we also remember that ford owns Mazda so its like we're driving "that American Piece of crap low engineered car anyways". Oh and BTW rednecks dont have barns wes got garages bitch.

 

particleeffect is joking, mang.

 

How could anyone here call me blind? You are completely ignoring my arguements and repeating the same bs rehtoric over and over, what are you republican?

My whole point is that the whole rotary vs V8 arguement makes absolutely no sense. Once you take into account that a motor has more than 4x the displacement than another motor, its completely irrelivant whether it has pistons or rotors. Noone here can deny that when given side by side a rotary engine and a piston engine of the same displacement the rotary will always ALWAYS yeild more power. Whether it be the 13b vs a 1.3l I4 or a hypothetical 6 rotor T39b, vs some race built 3.9L v8. Rotaries are more effieient at producing power.

yes I admit dropping in a v8 is a more economical and available option than a 20b or r26 but that doesnt mean that its better, its just easier to aquire a piston motor of that size than it is to aquire a larger displacement rotary engine.

 

i know so was i just dont like the term redneck wes got feelings to ya know oh yeah 56k sucks saw the vid and i want that car. even if it is wrecked and sorry about the loss

 

No, it won't. Not unless you ignore the fact (as you continue to do) that a rotary's displacement is based on only one rotation of the eccentric shaft while a 4-stroke engine's displacement is based on two rotations. Double the displacement of the rotary like most governing bodies in racing do and then it comes down to BSFC. Brake specific fuel consumption. Look it up.

Rotary engines are grossly inefficient at turning fuel into power. The reason rotary EGTs are so high is because they dump fuel into the exhaust while it's still burning. You can't make any power by burning fuel in the exhaust.

You know, it's pretty sad when someone who claims to love rotary engines doesn't even know enough about them to know when he's wrong...

 

yes IT IS relevant.

1. long-term vs. short-term

2. more power

3. simplification

4. sure, rotaries are efficient in making power, but is it "efficient" in the wallet if i have to constantly worry that my motor can **** itself to death? how about temperature efficiency? you should count that too. you have to look past through a different term "efficieny" besides power, my friend.

5. i don't like producing more than enough pollution, hence me hating the damm overlap these motors have. which also leads to higher temps, if it's not yet obvious to you. ever wonder why these cars have an oil cooler 'stock'??

6. yup, it is easier to acquire an LS1 (or any LS motor for the matter) than a 3 or 4 rotor. but why in the hell would i want a rotary that will only get 5 mpg down the line, and resources which are almost unatainable for a mere human? it's not very "efficient" if i have to spend ridiculous amount of money to maintain a damm 4 rotor. do you consider that as "economical"? that's just stupid.

7. a peace of mind that i can get 25+ mpg (assuming that is tuned), reliability that piston motors have shown since the beginning of its time, and a potential that i can have gobful of power without being in 'panic' mode every time i drive it.

look past through the lines and drop the pride. that's the only way you'll learn.


btw, i am a democrat.

 

it's just that an FD is hands down the sexiest car ever, very fun to drive and most of it's rotary counterpart is complemented by it's curb weight and aerodynamics

why would we not want to put a LS1 in it, make it a street legal RACE CAR that carries the stock characteristics minus the troublesome problems and constant investment in making the rotary work?

I just got mine and i'll ride out the rotary till it gives, but LS1 is the way to go

 

Rotary's dump fuel into the exhaust? With what magic injectors??? I am guessing what you are "trying" to refer to with your classic FUD spin, is exhaust gas dilution.

Which occurs because of the small amount of overlap between the exhaust and intake ports are open to the same chamber at the same time as the eccentric shaft rotates through the combustion cycle.

This of course was completely elimitanted with the Rensis Rotary engine, but you failed to mention that fact.

As far as rotary's being grossly inefficient, I'd argue that as well.

Comparing the BSFC of a stock LS1 and a N/A 13b

Stock LS1 0.57 BSFC
N/A 13b 0.47 - 0.65 BSFC (.65 is at peak power/full rich)

(units are in lb/hp-hr)

LS1 numbers are from several google searches.
N/A 13b numbers are from Tracy Cook, homebuilt pilot/engineer who has been running a rotary in his homebuilt airplane for well over 4 years.

No power in burning fuel in the exhaust eh?? Guess when they lit up the afterburners on a F-18 its to get the chicks wet....