MisRed

We can continue this debate until the Renesis is available? You mean the 240HP rotary with an anemic 163 foot pounds of torque! What a joke! Mazda will never understand... HP sells cars, torque wins races....
If you truely wanted a powerful, efficient, RELIABLE powerplant.. which would you really choose????

Hmm.. I have owned my Buick Grand National since 1997 so I guess that qualifies as a Buick chassis. Anything else?

Alpha-TII

well theres really no way to take this because you get... well can the rx7 handle the small block, because it can handle the rotary...well if you make the rotary the same horsepower as the chevy small block, you will still have the do the same chassis reinforcements...same horsepower but with torque...not like your gonna break transmissions and axles with a T2 drivetrain as long as you dont put slicks on it and dump the clutch at a high rpm...out of all seriousness a 300hp small block chevy 350 is some head work, cam, intake manifold, carb, exhaust with headers...basically something you can find in anyones back yard or at any junkyard....how are you going to get 300 hp out of a non turbo fc....? because you can buy a 300hp 350 for $250 and have it in the car for not much more money, custom driveshaft, trans from junkyard, and meineke exhaust....so for under 1,000 you have a 300hp FC with around 230Ibs of torque, ans torque is what you really want for a street car....low rpm power, then you dont have to stand on your car to make it move...i like rotaries but it is common sense that making an FC fast can be done cheaper with a v-8, i just like the way a turbo rotary drives, i like where it makes its power...so thats my excuse...

BlackSport0187

Hahaha......3000+ pounds for a stock '87 SE?!!! Yeah uh, sorry to break it to you, but that site is plain wrong. An SE, essentially a base model with a/c and a few other options, weighs in near to 2700lbs. Nice try though.

Isaac

BlackSport0187

I sure as hell wouldn't choose the Buick engine, let's face it, America sucks at building cars. They have improved their quality of work over the years, but they still are far behind the Japanese in terms of quality, reliablity, technology, ect.

Anemic? That's out of 1.3 liters! Can your precious Buick engine do that with such little displacement? Didn't think so.

Yes there is something else, don't tell people you own an RX-7, because you don't.

Isaac

Mizeru

iTrader: (2)

Good lord when is this going to end! 1.3 liters 1.3 liters 1.3 liters! Is that all you people can say? You are not comparing apples to apples. It's not like the RX-7 has a 1.3 liter piston engine and is putting out 160HP or 260Hp in the RX-8. It has a ROTARY engine. Yes the rotary is GREAT, but please stop using displacement to compare it to piston engines! Yes the rotary is a high-tech wonder, but it's not the end all be all of engines. Don't go blowing your horn just because you make XXXHP with ONLY 1.3L. Truth is it's cheaper and easier to make that same or more reliable HP and Torque with a V8, and that's the beauty of the V8 swap. It does not matter that V8 is 5.7L...it's CHEAP, POWERFUL, and RELIABLE. However the V8 is not the end all be all of engines either. It has it's faults: it's heavier and has more moving parts. Those faults don't outweigh the benifits for me though. That's why I have a V8 swap!

Rob XX 7

iTrader: (8)

Actually I tried to find a spec page somewhere with the actuall weight of either engine and couldnt find it. Maybe you could have some better luck with the specs of the weight of the engines for both cars, I couldnt. Maybe if you could find places that sell both motors and maybe know the shipping weight? I didnt LIE, I just couldnt find exact numbers, not like anyone lists the weight of a engine alone on a spec sheet. I CAN tell you that a typical Buick Grand National weighs about 3500 lbs or so, and that car is alot larger then a RX-7.

You say the renesis motor with its almighty 247hp, whats the torque? 159 ft lbs. WOW, thats inspiring.

Its great you love rotories so much, but have an open mind when someone is willing to take on the effort of a engine swap that will make the car perform much better then it is now.

BlackSport0187

No, 1.3 liters is not all we can say, but it seems to make you guys jealous.

Yes, I agree that comparing a V8 to a rotary is not a far comparison. I only used displacement in the comparison because you V8 guys like to use torque in the comparison. It's the same thng, apples to oranges.

Isaac

BlackSport0187

159 ft lbs is pretty good, that's what you gear heads don't get, it's not only about the torque. A rotary engine is all about the oh-so-smooth power delivery, power to weight ratio (of the car and the engine), and a redline-hungry nature.

A V8 swap adds a lot of power to an RX-7, but the car was designed AROUND the rotary engine. So, to change the power plant is to change the entire purpose of the car.

It's cool that you like V8s, but don't bash the rotary. They are two very different engine types, for two very different types of people.

I don't like V8 swaps, it fact they **** me off, but to each his own I guess.
Isaac

MisRed

The entertainment value here is great! I bring to the table an opinion and get a counter strike of excuses, excuses and more excuses.. I produced a real LINK that stated how much these cars weigh.. and now you want to challenge that! What is next? If I actually weighed the two engines, would you cry foul because my scales aren't calibrated??

I am stating that I don't think the Buick motor and transmission weighs much more (if any) than the rotary power plant. What really counts here is power to weight ratio, not how many HP are created per liter! It's silly of you to get wrapped in that argument any way because that is one thing you can not easily increase..

I sense a lot of jealousy here in the fact that someone has taken the godly, perfect from the factory, RX-7 and installed a motor that weighs about the same... V6 no less, that will whip the crap out of any 2nd gen currently rolling the streets. Yeah, that’s a broad statement and I am sure some retard will speak up and want to race his nitrosed, 1800#, aluminum interiored, trailer queen against my slow street car. Apples to apples you will be beaten by your own kind... minus your ticking time-bomb of a motor and I think that is the part that stings the most..

Once in a blue moon someone will take a Buick Grand National and rip the 3.8 turbo motor out of it to make room for it's new power plant... the 350 Chevy! This is usually accomplished by a redneck that only knows how to change jets in a carb rather than burn his own EEPROM for his new injectors on the SFI motor.. Hence a guy that can only tweak his car with a screwdriver instead of a laptop. Sure the purists get their panties in a wad it’s for a good cause.. the little V6 turbo is going to outperform the big V8.. so the engine swap wasn’t a good idea if you were looking for performance.

So the big question: Are you really upset b/c the rotary is actually a better, more efficient, reliable, more powerful motor and all these crazy RX-7 owners are swapping in inferior engines by using V8's and V6's? Honest answers only please.

MisRed

The motor was designed specifically around the RX-7? Come back down to earth with the rest of us...

I suppose the interior was designed around the map lights too..

Hey, another quick question.. what kind of motor does the Miata have? I am clueless here but wondered how they got a crankshaft to fit in that rotary motor

BlackSport0187

Hah, I find your arguements entertaining! Yes you did bring a link to the arguement, but the information contained in it was wrong. So, yeah I did challenge that. Thanks for that useless addition. If you think a 1987 RX-7 SE weighs as much as a RX-7 convertible (3000+ pounds) go right ahead. But don't pass if off as fact, that just serves to strengthen other people's stupidity about RX-7s.

The bottom line on the engine weight issue is that a 13B (Naturally aspirated) from a 1987 RX-7 SE weighs less than your Buick V6. Maybe not by much, but it does. You were talking out of your *** when you said the V6 weighed the same or less, we can at least agree on that.

Once again you are making things up! I didn't say the RX-7 was perfect from the factory, or that your bastard-swap didn't make your car faster than it used to be. This all started because I said you ruined a perfectly good chassis, and that is still left up to debate.

Just how a naturally aspirated rotary from the late eighties is a "ticking time bomb" is questionable. Turbo charged rotaries are known to be somewhat fragile, is that were you got confused? Where do you get your broad generalizations, let me guess, another one of your information-packed websites? Do me a favor and don't add another link. We don't need anymore wrong information.

I honestly think that the rotary is the only acceptable engine for an RX-7. The car was designed only for it, and so no other engine will do. If you wanna go fast with your domestic power, I say go right ahead. But do it in a domestic chassis. Leave the little Mazdas alone.

Isaac

BlackSport0187

Yep, the car was designed for the rotary alone. The Japanese don't do it like Americans, they don't create a single engine and shoe-horn it into twenty different cars.

The Miata has a four cylinder. It was not designed for the rotary. What's your point? You're begining to sound desperate.........

Isaac

Mizeru

iTrader: (2)

Yeah right! What do you call the new Nissan 3.5L V6 that's in the Altima, Maxima, 350Z, G35, G35 coupe, and I35???

eViLRotor

iTrader: (2)

Don't overestimate yourself. There are quite a few FC's that are as fast as you, just on this forum. And they are street driven. Thinking you're THE **** just makes you lose credibility.

But that is not really my point. I like your swap. I like your choice of engine. The GN engine is great, contrary to what was said earlier. It looks well done and not like many of the abortions that abound.

But really, why come to an RX-7 forum and argue about piston vs. rotary. Its nausiatingly usless. It solves nothing. People will never change their minds either way. Most of the people here love their cars because of the rotary and are willing to live with its shortcomings. Don't waste your time or ours.

MisRed

Finally we get somewhere.. Please provide some sort of proof that this statement is remotely true.

If you can not come up with anything to back that statement up, then I have to assume you have a personal hard on for this motor... brand loyalty, underdog syndrome or maybe you have stock in Mazda.

What about the RX-4, RX-5 and even the REPU - A pickup truck!
http://www.monito.com/wankel/repu.html

For anyone wanting to read some good info on the demise of the rotary, here is a nice article.
http://autozine.kyul.net/classic/gm.htm

Also for the record.. the only production vehicles to ever get 'shoehorned' a Buick V6 Turbo were:

1. Buick Regal - Dubbed Fastest production sedan of the '80's.. maybe currently so, not sure
2. 1989 Turbo Trans Am - Fastest production F-body ever sold. Only car to pace Indy500 with zero performance mods to make it fast enough for the pace duties.
3. Sorry no pickup trucks in this list.

Reason for the Buick V6's demise..
Was too powerful and enabled the Buick Regal of the day to open a can of whoop *** on GM's flagship vehicle - The Corvette. This complicated the food chain and left GM with a decision. Kill the GN or make the Corvette faster, which do you think was easier?

We can relate on some level. I don't care for V8's either!

Rob XX 7

iTrader: (8)

Actually they did put the Buick engine in the Typhoon and the Syclone, both of them trucks with the Syclone being a pickup.

Once again, I say im not argueing on this anymore, its getting nowhere. Isaac only questions other people instead of he himself offering facts, and you get a little too pissy doing it to be quite honest, lol.

BogusFile

Who cares how little your motor displaces. The fact is that there are motors that weigh the same and put out shitloads more HP. To focus so much time debating that it is blasphemous to swap a piston engine into a car that originally had a rotary is pathetic. I am not pushing for one thing or another. By all means do whatever the hell you want. Whats the point of getting all worked up over a chunk of metal. You guys are rediculous!

BogusFile

The typhoon and cyclone have 4.3's. And they kicked serious ***.

MisRed

The Sy/Ty's had Chevy 4.3 Turbo'ed motors in them. They are a completely different animal and have been known to genade with the slightest amount of detonation. These typically do not have the same performance value or aftermarket support as the Buick V6. Anyone who owns both can comfirm this.

peacekeeper

Most of you guys are just sick. period. You want to talk about weight. Here it is. All Engine, no accessories. Just engine and manifold.

3.0 Buick V6 350Lbs.
Chevy small block V8 350 575Lbs
Ford 5.0 V8 1989 & up 411Lbs
Mazda 13B Rotary 301Lbs.

Add 100Lbs to the rotary for everything that makes it work right and thats 401. add 40 maybe for those carbed V8s and you get the 5.0 mustang the closest to the rotary weight and the Buick weighing LESS. Which is more effeicient? You go with the 5.0 and you got awsome performance but the thin block and seal flanges and you blow it every 5 or 6 races. The buick will damn near last forever and the 350 you wont be able to screw with the mazda drivetrain because the drive train will go way before the engine will.

But if you want your besy bang for your buck, get a chevy V6 4.3L That weighs 425. Its a 350 block with the front pistons off. Alls I can say is ENDLESS potential. $800 in that engine and your pushing 515HP. Hope you can do that to a rotary with that little money.

I love the rotary don't get me wrong but its just not worth the effort is you are going to race it.

So why buy one? Have you taken a look at your car lately? It is arguably one of the most beautiful cars you will EVER see or have the pleasure of being seen in one. I didn't buy my RX-7 to go fast at first. I liked the way it looks. Now with a load of other engines to play with I can have my bite be worse than my bark if you know what I mean. I'm keeping the rotary in the third gen when I get it though. I love that car.

Take a chill pill guys,
peace.
Charles

BogusFile

515hp out of a 4.3 for 800 bucks? What gave you that wild Idea? You can't even come close to 500hp in a 350 with that money. Aside from that, the mazda rear diff is plenty strong enough to handle a 350 in most cases.
I would say that the rotary is more than worth the effort if you are going to "race" it. I personally think the rotary is better suited for race applications than street applications. Not to be a dick, but there are alot of things about your post that are bogus dude.

rx7freddie

this is how i look at it . rotarys are diffent . you can buy a 20,000 ford wit a piston motor or get a millon dollar car wit a piston motor there all crap nuttin beats a rotary i dont care if i get beat by a stang in my na convertible at least i know i have a ture work of art under my hood my motors cooler then a Ferraris dont get me wrong i like supras and ferraris . but i just think people should never put a v8 in a rx 7 . thats just wrong keep it real . my friend car was a rx 7 my 2nd car and so on .

rx7freddie

frist car i ment to say

BogusFile

Dude learn how to write

BlackSport0187

It's not that hard to find information to back up my statement, because it is true. I'm not sure about specific websites, but here are some books for you to check out:

Sports Car Color History: Mazda RX-7 by John Matras
RX-7: Mazda's Rotary Engine Sportscar by Brian Long

Do A little research on a car before you make design arguments about it.

Isaac