V8PushrodMullet vs. Ninja Rotary Argument Settled.
11-19-05, 11:51 PM
#51
I ******* hate these stupid arguments. They happen every 5 ******* minutes on this board.
By the way, look up what the ******* R in RX-7 and see what the **** it stands for.
Christ I'm sick of this ****, I cannot stop to check a thread that always has the following pages bombarded by this ****.
/**** off
By the way, look up what the ******* R in RX-7 and see what the **** it stands for.
Christ I'm sick of this ****, I cannot stop to check a thread that always has the following pages bombarded by this ****.
/**** off
11-20-05, 12:31 AM
#52
There were no survivors
Do LT1s sit farther back in the bay than LS1s?
Btw, I've always hated the taste of pudding
jello maybe?
Btw, I've always hated the taste of pudding
jello maybe?
Last edited by EJayCe996; 11-20-05 at 12:36 AM.
11-20-05, 12:46 AM
#53
i'll blow YOUR valve off
Join Date: May 2004
Location: KC MF MO
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
about the suspention.. i'd heard it was worse than that.. and i THOUGHT the source was reliable..
But about using more gas than V8's.. I thought that was the whole deal?
let's see.. Maybe I'm speaking in terms of piston engines in general - not just V8's..
To compare to a V8, you'd have to have 8 chambers pull in air supposing each one is == to a piston... In which case you'd have to compare the gas from 2 2/3 (rotary) revolutions to the power from two (from a V8).. The only thing I can think of is that there are too many variables to make a fair comparison - you'd have to have carbs on both, plus you need to account for any potential loss from not having the "perfect" port on the rotary (which has yet to be discovered).. Same with the V8.. Both engines would have to be ported and polished equally as well. I've never had this argument before but it's quite confusing..
How can you say they don't use the heat like piston engines? It's still the ignition of the charge that propels the engine.. and even igniting it less efficiently it still beats the piston engine in my recollection as it doesn't have to stop between revolutions creating much more kinetic energy, while the rising mass has more potential energy to go back down.
BTW - this isn't really an argument. We haven't flamed each other yet lol
And doesn't the r stand for rotary?
But about using more gas than V8's.. I thought that was the whole deal?
let's see.. Maybe I'm speaking in terms of piston engines in general - not just V8's..
To compare to a V8, you'd have to have 8 chambers pull in air supposing each one is == to a piston... In which case you'd have to compare the gas from 2 2/3 (rotary) revolutions to the power from two (from a V8).. The only thing I can think of is that there are too many variables to make a fair comparison - you'd have to have carbs on both, plus you need to account for any potential loss from not having the "perfect" port on the rotary (which has yet to be discovered).. Same with the V8.. Both engines would have to be ported and polished equally as well. I've never had this argument before but it's quite confusing..
How can you say they don't use the heat like piston engines? It's still the ignition of the charge that propels the engine.. and even igniting it less efficiently it still beats the piston engine in my recollection as it doesn't have to stop between revolutions creating much more kinetic energy, while the rising mass has more potential energy to go back down.
BTW - this isn't really an argument. We haven't flamed each other yet lol
And doesn't the r stand for rotary?
11-20-05, 06:23 AM
#54
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, "RX" and other consonant pairs and triplets are just good, sporty sounding marketing. Its a good chassis, and while it was made with the rotary in mind (light weight to make up for the lack of torque and power... lets be honest with ourselves about what these engines put out in stock form here!) and good handling its still just as good of a chassis with another engine in it. Its been PROVEN, repeatedly. Im not going to address it again. Do a SEARCH, or better yet go google "Cognitivie Dissonance".
Anywho, the GEOMETRY of a rotary engine is to blame for the thermodynamic inefficiency. It has way too much relative surface area to be as efficient as a piston engine... it simply has heat move out and into the engine - its is why rotaries run so hot and need oil coolers!
Another quirk of that geometry is that it cant really have the gas thermally expand and cool before it has to exhaust it out (at least with peripherial ports... dunno about renesis, though it still has the relative surface area issue) so it spits out hot exhaust gas. Good for turbos, not good for making good power relative to the CFM you take in.
Not burning the whole fuel-air charge because of the bath-tub shaped combustion chamber is one of the primary reasons its not fuel efficient, the other being that it takes more cfm (and thus more fuel to keep the fuel ratio...) to make the same power as a piston engine, thus more air fuel, not all of it burned... etc.
Its simple physics. The rotors are too 'flat' along the axis of the e-shaft. Mazdas making a "16b" with wider rotors and more displacement and *gasp* efficiency went up along with displacement. Go read up on it.
Now, as far as going up and down vs spinning... uhhh... thats not an issue, whether or not the old mazda MARKETING DEPARTMENT wants you to think it is, but regardless its a proven, empirical, demonstrable-at-any-dyno FACT that rotaries have a higher BSFC than piston engines and need more cubic of feet per minute to make a pony than a piston engine. Go ask the turbo gurus about it if you want more proof.
As far as a rotary vs a piston engine, I'll repeat. a piston engine goes through its rated displacement in two revolutions. A rotary is 3 times what mazda says it is, but it takes 3 revolutions to get there. Obviously, saying a 13b is a 3.9 liter engine is bullshit - do any BMEP equations and it starts to fall apart. Do it by 2.6 liters, it makes sense, also if you look at it based on the fact that all of the equations are based on two revolutions, it makes sense.
Repeat after me: Because all the math and the standard is for two revolutions, thats what you should measure a rotary as - a 2.6 liter. PEDANTICALLY speaking, its a 3.9 liter engine that has a 1080° cycle, but because that cycle is 50% longer (its going 50% slower) its really a 2.6 liter engine when compared to the 720° piston engine. You *DO* know the rotor moves at 1/3rd the speed of the e-shaft, riiiight? And with two rotors thats one ignition event per 180° - just like a 4 cylinder engine.
The comparison of a 13b to a 2.6 liter 4banger is very valid, the tach signal is the same, and the displacement over time is exactly the same, though VE% generally is not. Youd need a somewhat aggressively cammed 2.6 liter to match a rotarys VE% curve.. which is pretty crappy at low rpms, but better as you rev it higher.
Now, to address the fuel thing.. BSFC, or brake specific fuel consumption, is how much fuel is needed to make one pony for a hour. All that other stuff really doesnt matter... whether its 1.3 liters, or 3.9, its still a matter of fuel per pony over time, and rotaries have issues with that because
1. it takes more CFM to make the same amount of power, because of thermodynamic inefficiency, sooo more fuel to go with the added air, and
2. it doesnt burn the entire fuel air carge as well.
So yeah. Its weird and quirky, but nobodys ever thought otherwise. Its inefficient, but real small and light, revs pretty high, and makes up for some of its inefficiency by being good with turbos, but at the cost of having to run it even richer for longevity or reallllly high octane gas.. or investing in some aftermarket knock sensor + spark retard thing.
As far as the guys who spew pop-culture ethnic vernacular and "JDM TYTE YO" bullshit and call v8s inefficient, well, tough ****. They're MORE efficient than a rotary, and its been proven, and is readily proveable. Its a matter of how much you really understand about engines. They take less cfm and fuel relative to that amount of air to make power, and if they knock you can just retard spark or add fuel... it wont require a rebuild unless you knock underboost on a hot day going up a hill and then you might have blown rings or a blown head gasket.
I love the RX-7. Its merely a simple fact that with my budget I can get a lot more for my money performance wise out of a v8 than with a turbo rotary, including total cost of ownership, and get a real strong 6 speed along with it, without adversely effecting weight balance or handling, and gaining a good N/A throttle response, low end torque and driveability to boot. Its hard to imagine anything that can touch a FC or FD with new bushes (DTSS or pillow *****), good tires and rims if you need bigger ones, some good coilovers, good pads (4pots on the FC of course) and a LSx/T-56 on the street, strip, road course, auto-x and your wallet. That is a HELL of an achievement in my book, no matter how you slice it! Less than 10K and you have something that gets 30 miles per gallon and 300+ whp (stock...) and you could probably do it for closer to 5-7K if you source your stuff right. Putting that down becuase of what kind of engine geometry it utilizes is everything bad about "rice" in a nutshell.
If I had money to blow, sure, Id go get a GT35R and a streetport put on/done to a FD and paint it CY-******-M. But, well, I dont. If anything it should be a matter of pride that the RX-7 is used as an alternative to kit-car chassis... which BTW use the same engines we put in RX-7s - because it is just that damn good. When you see a RX-7 as more than a rotary engine you'll appreciate it for the rest of what it is, besides a vehicle for a rotary engine to hum along in.
P.S. - if the 16b fixes the inefficiency issues, and mazda doesnt have to neuter it becuase of EPA bullshit about EGTs lowering cat converter lifespan (poor rx-8
) and its in a worthy successor to the FD for a good price, Id gladly keep it with a rotary engine. 3.2 liter high revving light weight and efficient where it ocunts, sign me up!
Anywho, the GEOMETRY of a rotary engine is to blame for the thermodynamic inefficiency. It has way too much relative surface area to be as efficient as a piston engine... it simply has heat move out and into the engine - its is why rotaries run so hot and need oil coolers!
Another quirk of that geometry is that it cant really have the gas thermally expand and cool before it has to exhaust it out (at least with peripherial ports... dunno about renesis, though it still has the relative surface area issue) so it spits out hot exhaust gas. Good for turbos, not good for making good power relative to the CFM you take in.
Not burning the whole fuel-air charge because of the bath-tub shaped combustion chamber is one of the primary reasons its not fuel efficient, the other being that it takes more cfm (and thus more fuel to keep the fuel ratio...) to make the same power as a piston engine, thus more air fuel, not all of it burned... etc.
Its simple physics. The rotors are too 'flat' along the axis of the e-shaft. Mazdas making a "16b" with wider rotors and more displacement and *gasp* efficiency went up along with displacement. Go read up on it.
Now, as far as going up and down vs spinning... uhhh... thats not an issue, whether or not the old mazda MARKETING DEPARTMENT wants you to think it is, but regardless its a proven, empirical, demonstrable-at-any-dyno FACT that rotaries have a higher BSFC than piston engines and need more cubic of feet per minute to make a pony than a piston engine. Go ask the turbo gurus about it if you want more proof.
As far as a rotary vs a piston engine, I'll repeat. a piston engine goes through its rated displacement in two revolutions. A rotary is 3 times what mazda says it is, but it takes 3 revolutions to get there. Obviously, saying a 13b is a 3.9 liter engine is bullshit - do any BMEP equations and it starts to fall apart. Do it by 2.6 liters, it makes sense, also if you look at it based on the fact that all of the equations are based on two revolutions, it makes sense.
Repeat after me: Because all the math and the standard is for two revolutions, thats what you should measure a rotary as - a 2.6 liter. PEDANTICALLY speaking, its a 3.9 liter engine that has a 1080° cycle, but because that cycle is 50% longer (its going 50% slower) its really a 2.6 liter engine when compared to the 720° piston engine. You *DO* know the rotor moves at 1/3rd the speed of the e-shaft, riiiight? And with two rotors thats one ignition event per 180° - just like a 4 cylinder engine.
The comparison of a 13b to a 2.6 liter 4banger is very valid, the tach signal is the same, and the displacement over time is exactly the same, though VE% generally is not. Youd need a somewhat aggressively cammed 2.6 liter to match a rotarys VE% curve.. which is pretty crappy at low rpms, but better as you rev it higher.
Now, to address the fuel thing.. BSFC, or brake specific fuel consumption, is how much fuel is needed to make one pony for a hour. All that other stuff really doesnt matter... whether its 1.3 liters, or 3.9, its still a matter of fuel per pony over time, and rotaries have issues with that because
1. it takes more CFM to make the same amount of power, because of thermodynamic inefficiency, sooo more fuel to go with the added air, and
2. it doesnt burn the entire fuel air carge as well.
So yeah. Its weird and quirky, but nobodys ever thought otherwise. Its inefficient, but real small and light, revs pretty high, and makes up for some of its inefficiency by being good with turbos, but at the cost of having to run it even richer for longevity or reallllly high octane gas.. or investing in some aftermarket knock sensor + spark retard thing.
As far as the guys who spew pop-culture ethnic vernacular and "JDM TYTE YO" bullshit and call v8s inefficient, well, tough ****. They're MORE efficient than a rotary, and its been proven, and is readily proveable. Its a matter of how much you really understand about engines. They take less cfm and fuel relative to that amount of air to make power, and if they knock you can just retard spark or add fuel... it wont require a rebuild unless you knock underboost on a hot day going up a hill and then you might have blown rings or a blown head gasket.
I love the RX-7. Its merely a simple fact that with my budget I can get a lot more for my money performance wise out of a v8 than with a turbo rotary, including total cost of ownership, and get a real strong 6 speed along with it, without adversely effecting weight balance or handling, and gaining a good N/A throttle response, low end torque and driveability to boot. Its hard to imagine anything that can touch a FC or FD with new bushes (DTSS or pillow *****), good tires and rims if you need bigger ones, some good coilovers, good pads (4pots on the FC of course) and a LSx/T-56 on the street, strip, road course, auto-x and your wallet. That is a HELL of an achievement in my book, no matter how you slice it! Less than 10K and you have something that gets 30 miles per gallon and 300+ whp (stock...) and you could probably do it for closer to 5-7K if you source your stuff right. Putting that down becuase of what kind of engine geometry it utilizes is everything bad about "rice" in a nutshell.
If I had money to blow, sure, Id go get a GT35R and a streetport put on/done to a FD and paint it CY-******-M. But, well, I dont. If anything it should be a matter of pride that the RX-7 is used as an alternative to kit-car chassis... which BTW use the same engines we put in RX-7s - because it is just that damn good. When you see a RX-7 as more than a rotary engine you'll appreciate it for the rest of what it is, besides a vehicle for a rotary engine to hum along in.
P.S. - if the 16b fixes the inefficiency issues, and mazda doesnt have to neuter it becuase of EPA bullshit about EGTs lowering cat converter lifespan (poor rx-8
) and its in a worthy successor to the FD for a good price, Id gladly keep it with a rotary engine. 3.2 liter high revving light weight and efficient where it ocunts, sign me up!
11-20-05, 10:07 AM
#56
The R in RX means rotary. It is marketing, but around the rotary, don't butcher it so you can say "Its the www.RX7club.com". Last I checked it was to stand for something, instead of purely marketing.
So quit using that as an argument, removing the engine doesn't make it an RX-7 anymore. Its just the chassis with a different engine. I say that because the R in RX-7 stands for rotary, something that Nith forgets. And I don't care what anyone does with their car, but I hate being told that my engine in my car is so incapable because its not a V8 or a 2.3t like you say.
And FYI: Don't you ever stop bitching or starting arguments? Aren't you the bench racer who doesn't even own the car? Or even have experience? So kindly **** off, not even the V8 or V6 swapping hot-rodders like you (I checked Jim Lab and Digital Solo constantly kick your *** at Torque Central). I think maybe you should go build a car instead of arguing why your ideas are better.
******* kids.
So quit using that as an argument, removing the engine doesn't make it an RX-7 anymore. Its just the chassis with a different engine. I say that because the R in RX-7 stands for rotary, something that Nith forgets. And I don't care what anyone does with their car, but I hate being told that my engine in my car is so incapable because its not a V8 or a 2.3t like you say.
And FYI: Don't you ever stop bitching or starting arguments? Aren't you the bench racer who doesn't even own the car? Or even have experience? So kindly **** off, not even the V8 or V6 swapping hot-rodders like you (I checked Jim Lab and Digital Solo constantly kick your *** at Torque Central). I think maybe you should go build a car instead of arguing why your ideas are better.
******* kids.
11-20-05, 10:16 AM
#57
Originally Posted by Jager
The R in RX means rotary. It is marketing, but around the rotary, don't butcher it so you can say "Its the www.RX7club.com". Last I checked it was to stand for something, instead of purely marketing.
So quit using that as an argument, removing the engine doesn't make it an RX-7 anymore. Its just the chassis with a different engine. I say that because the R in RX-7 stands for rotary
So quit using that as an argument, removing the engine doesn't make it an RX-7 anymore. Its just the chassis with a different engine. I say that because the R in RX-7 stands for rotary
11-20-05, 11:22 AM
#59
Temple of Cornd0g
Check some of the profiles - you'll find these teenagers do not own nor have ever owned a turbocharger, a rotary engine, a V8 engine, a RX7, and that they rent motorized transportation (pwrdby13b).
11-20-05, 11:50 AM
#60
Dusty hood, empty bay
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 973
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole "RX STANDS FOR ROTARY EXPERIMENT!!!!11" thing... Yeah I've seen that before. But most agree that it wasn't named solely for that.... I'm with the "The R doesn't stand for rotary" thing. And no I'm not against the rotary, I love mine. At least Nihilanthic stopped yelling and being sarcastic. If you want to argue with him at least try to do it without insulting or cussing. Looks more immature and devalues statements you try to make defending the rotary.
Fun video though. Crazy when the 20b was out there.
Fun video though. Crazy when the 20b was out there.
11-20-05, 12:40 PM
#61
I was cussing because I'm sick of reading this crap everyday. Plus I could care less what you think or have say, just because you beleive something is different, doesn't make it right (MaxDuo).
http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={C890B849-9286-4FCE-B3FD-54BDA00B343C}
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.ph...xperiment+myth
And yes I do know that it was ALSO a marketing ploy, but it is based off the original RX-85 when the rotary engine was coming into play, as the name Rotary Experimental (because at the time it was a first). They just kept it because they liked it in marketing and had a name to base it upon. Its where the term originates.
You can put a V8 or a 2.3t in any chassis, even the RX-7, its called hot-rodding. People have done things like that for years and I commend them on doing it. We're mostly all hot-rodders here, we just choose different engines to base it upon. In other words, if you have the means to do whatever you'd like to your car, then go ahead and do it
.
Anyways I'm done, quote what I say and bash what you will. I'm just going off what I've read and been taught. Hope everyone has fun with their projects.
http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={C890B849-9286-4FCE-B3FD-54BDA00B343C}
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.ph...xperiment+myth
And yes I do know that it was ALSO a marketing ploy, but it is based off the original RX-85 when the rotary engine was coming into play, as the name Rotary Experimental (because at the time it was a first). They just kept it because they liked it in marketing and had a name to base it upon. Its where the term originates.
You can put a V8 or a 2.3t in any chassis, even the RX-7, its called hot-rodding. People have done things like that for years and I commend them on doing it. We're mostly all hot-rodders here, we just choose different engines to base it upon. In other words, if you have the means to do whatever you'd like to your car, then go ahead and do it
.Anyways I'm done, quote what I say and bash what you will. I'm just going off what I've read and been taught. Hope everyone has fun with their projects.
Last edited by Jager; 11-20-05 at 12:42 PM.
11-20-05, 01:00 PM
#62
boost > *
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: buffalo, ny
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mark57
Check some of the profiles - you'll find these teenagers do not own nor have ever owned a turbocharger, a rotary engine, a V8 engine, a RX7, and that they rent motorized transportation (pwrdby13b).
thanks for pointing that out! hey Nihilanthic why don't u come back when u actually own a car worth talking about and then i might give u the time of day cause i'm sure u can talk about all of this from personal experience, right? 
11-20-05, 02:36 PM
#63
Dusty hood, empty bay
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 973
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like what someone said in some other thread in the past... Of why doesn't someone contact mazda. Is that acronym finder an official thing? Or is it a site like urban dictionary where someone can just post a definition of it?
Though I like what I saw in a quick search on something else... With how many times it's been questioned, seems like someone should just ask Mazda. Who knows if they know anymore though hahah. But I only looked at about 3 posts on the RX8 thread, dunno what was said there or if anyone brought up any sort of proof.... But here's what some others on here said in the past (and yes, I know forum users aren't the number one thing to trust on all matters, but unless someone had some official mazda posting on the rx8club, I'd think this as good as that):
Though I know his example of GT and GTR are bad onces since they do mean something.... oh well.
I don't know about Mazda's past.... But if that thing is true about them starting out with the rotary engine for their cars... Even if they didn't use the R with the intention of it meaning rotary, they moved away from it to avoid association.... So.... Eh, oh well.
LS1 powered RX7s are pretty cool, but I'll take a rotary anyday
Oh yes, and something I saw looking in another thread was someone's joke of: "Rotary eXplosion." Hah.......
Though I like what I saw in a quick search on something else... With how many times it's been questioned, seems like someone should just ask Mazda. Who knows if they know anymore though hahah. But I only looked at about 3 posts on the RX8 thread, dunno what was said there or if anyone brought up any sort of proof.... But here's what some others on here said in the past (and yes, I know forum users aren't the number one thing to trust on all matters, but unless someone had some official mazda posting on the rx8club, I'd think this as good as that):
It means no more than XR-7 (Ford) or NSX (Honda) does - it's just an alpanumeric name that sounded neat to the marketing guys.
Agreed.
NSX
RSX
RX7
GT
GTR
They just sound cool - companies find a cool combination of the letters G,T,R,N,S & X and create a car.
NSX
RSX
RX7
GT
GTR
They just sound cool - companies find a cool combination of the letters G,T,R,N,S & X and create a car.
And Jack Yamaguchi, quoting Mazda's marketing boys at the time, says its a meaningless alphanumeric.
Come with me children, on a short little journey:
Mazda started out in North America selling only rotary powered vehicles. They all had names that were prefixed with R. After the R-100, Mazda designated all rotary powered vehicles exported to the US market as RX-whatever. However, when Mazda started introducing piston engined variants of its rotary powered cars, they used designations like 808, 323, etc. In the 80's Mazda only produced one rotary vehicle, the RX-7. All its other cars were either numerically designated, or bore the MX designation. This tradition continues to this day.
It's just a cool sounding name. That's it, the end.
Mazda started out in North America selling only rotary powered vehicles. They all had names that were prefixed with R. After the R-100, Mazda designated all rotary powered vehicles exported to the US market as RX-whatever. However, when Mazda started introducing piston engined variants of its rotary powered cars, they used designations like 808, 323, etc. In the 80's Mazda only produced one rotary vehicle, the RX-7. All its other cars were either numerically designated, or bore the MX designation. This tradition continues to this day.
It's just a cool sounding name. That's it, the end.
LS1 powered RX7s are pretty cool, but I'll take a rotary anyday
Oh yes, and something I saw looking in another thread was someone's joke of: "Rotary eXplosion." Hah.......
11-20-05, 04:44 PM
#64
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by adictd2b00st
whoa whoa whoa wait a minute. your right! omg thanks for pointing that out! hey Nihilanthic why don't u come back when u actually own a car worth talking about and then i might give u the time of day cause i'm sure u can talk about all of this from personal experience, right?
thanks for pointing that out! hey Nihilanthic why don't u come back when u actually own a car worth talking about and then i might give u the time of day cause i'm sure u can talk about all of this from personal experience, right? 
11-20-05, 11:07 PM
#66
Originally Posted by MaxDuo
I like what someone said in some other thread in the past... Of why doesn't someone contact mazda. Is that acronym finder an official thing? Or is it a site like urban dictionary where someone can just post a definition of it?
Though I like what I saw in a quick search on something else... With how many times it's been questioned, seems like someone should just ask Mazda. Who knows if they know anymore though hahah. But I only looked at about 3 posts on the RX8 thread, dunno what was said there or if anyone brought up any sort of proof.... But here's what some others on here said in the past (and yes, I know forum users aren't the number one thing to trust on all matters, but unless someone had some official mazda posting on the rx8club, I'd think this as good as that):
Though I know his example of GT and GTR are bad onces since they do mean something.... oh well.
I don't know about Mazda's past.... But if that thing is true about them starting out with the rotary engine for their cars... Even if they didn't use the R with the intention of it meaning rotary, they moved away from it to avoid association.... So.... Eh, oh well.
LS1 powered RX7s are pretty cool, but I'll take a rotary anyday
Oh yes, and something I saw looking in another thread was someone's joke of: "Rotary eXplosion." Hah.......
Though I like what I saw in a quick search on something else... With how many times it's been questioned, seems like someone should just ask Mazda. Who knows if they know anymore though hahah. But I only looked at about 3 posts on the RX8 thread, dunno what was said there or if anyone brought up any sort of proof.... But here's what some others on here said in the past (and yes, I know forum users aren't the number one thing to trust on all matters, but unless someone had some official mazda posting on the rx8club, I'd think this as good as that):
Though I know his example of GT and GTR are bad onces since they do mean something.... oh well.
I don't know about Mazda's past.... But if that thing is true about them starting out with the rotary engine for their cars... Even if they didn't use the R with the intention of it meaning rotary, they moved away from it to avoid association.... So.... Eh, oh well.
LS1 powered RX7s are pretty cool, but I'll take a rotary anyday
Oh yes, and something I saw looking in another thread was someone's joke of: "Rotary eXplosion." Hah.......
Plus its what my mechanic told me a few years ago when I bought the car.
I also got the RX-85 thing from this Rotary Engine book I seem to have
. Where it still was experimental :o!. They just kept the name because of its origins.http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...237020-9555841
11-21-05, 11:12 AM
#68
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Santa Clarita,CA
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YA if you put a v8 in a 7 and have a rotary powered 7 the v8 might win but then it still wouldn't be fair, you would have to be racing a piston engine of similar displacment. YOu have to consider that are cars are only 1.3L and most V8 have a larger displacment than that. saying that puting a V8 in a seven and then racing a rotary powered 7 would be like puting a V10 or V12 in a V8 and expecting the V8 to have a chance.
The point of the video is that your typical race v8 lost to the typical race rx7. Now if the v8 car was to push the engine down and back closer to the firewall and lost some wheight then the v8 would have probably one, but thats not how most v8s are set up.
The point of the video is that your typical race v8 lost to the typical race rx7. Now if the v8 car was to push the engine down and back closer to the firewall and lost some wheight then the v8 would have probably one, but thats not how most v8s are set up.
11-21-05, 11:18 AM
#70
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Santa Clarita,CA
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know should have read more before I posted.
All I realy know is that I like my rotary engine. weather its better than another engine or not I don't know nor do I care. this is going to be one of those debates that goes on forever so enjoy
All I realy know is that I like my rotary engine. weather its better than another engine or not I don't know nor do I care. this is going to be one of those debates that goes on forever so enjoy
11-21-05, 11:23 PM
#71
Dusty hood, empty bay
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 973
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think the whole "It's 1.3 liters!" point doesn't need to be used in these situations.
Me? I think we should just go with it being 1.3 liters.... But when calling it that, no longer compare piston engines to it. It's too different to say "Well you have to match displacement!"
I know many want to say it's like a 2 stroke or whatever.... So it has to be multiplied by 2... And some say the rotors go 1/3 of the speed... Or want to use all 3 sides of the rotor... So it should be multiplied by 3 (edit: I said 9 at first, haha, oh man... 11.7L rotary!)... I just say let's go with what Mazda said.... But give up all things of saying: "Well you beat me, but I'm 1.3L!" Or "I'm 1.3L and beat you, WAHAHAHAH," etc etc....
This is a little off topic and different.... But would you think it fair to put a 2 liter n/a engine vs a 2 liter turbo engine? Because of matching the displacement?
Me? I think we should just go with it being 1.3 liters.... But when calling it that, no longer compare piston engines to it. It's too different to say "Well you have to match displacement!"
I know many want to say it's like a 2 stroke or whatever.... So it has to be multiplied by 2... And some say the rotors go 1/3 of the speed... Or want to use all 3 sides of the rotor... So it should be multiplied by 3 (edit: I said 9 at first, haha, oh man... 11.7L rotary!)... I just say let's go with what Mazda said.... But give up all things of saying: "Well you beat me, but I'm 1.3L!" Or "I'm 1.3L and beat you, WAHAHAHAH," etc etc....
This is a little off topic and different.... But would you think it fair to put a 2 liter n/a engine vs a 2 liter turbo engine? Because of matching the displacement?
