192 Hp Per Liter!!!!

SDROTARY

Member
192HP PER LITER!! CANT ARGUE WITH THAT. WHEN PEOPLE GET SO EXCITED ABOUT THE S2000 MAKING 120HP PER LITER(WHICH ISNT BAD AT ALL) AND PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE ROTARY WHICH IS KILLING IT. THE LATEST CLAIMS ARE 250 HP FROM A 1.3L N/A RENESIS ROTARY. 50/50 WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION, 18" WHEELS (16" STANDARD) 14.5 IN THE 1/4, 2900LBS FOR A FOUR DOOR,
2X A ARM FRONT SUSP(RX7) AND A REAR SET UP VERY SIMILAR TO THE PORSCHE 993, SUICIDE DOORS, HUGE BRAKES, AND GREAT STYLING, BALLPARKED AROUND $26,000(base) under $30,000(loaded) 6 speed trans.
lets do some figures to see where other cars would be if they had the same specific output per liter.

DODGE VIPER=1,536HP@8.0L
CHEVY CORVETTE=1,094@5.7L
HONDA S2000=384@2.0L
FORD MUSTANG=883@4.6L
HONDA CIVIC=326@1.7L

KEEP IN MIND THESE WOULD ALL BE ATAINED WITH NORMAL ASPIRATION, NO NOS, TURBO, OR SUPER.

AS FAR AS RELIABILITY ISSUES, THIS IS A N/A ROTARY WHICH HAS A MUCH BETTER TRACK RECORD WITH MANY GOING 150,000-300,000 MILES WITHOUT PROBLEMS, THE TURBO CAUSES EXHAUST GAS TO CREEP UP NEAR 2000F WHICH CAUSES RELIABILITY ISSUES

H...AD
O...NE
N...EVER
D...ID
A...GAIN
 
Last edited:
SDROTORY....

just a suggestion.....do NOT post in all capital letters....not only is it one of the rules of the board not to .... the reason it is....is because in webease...its the equivalant of you yelling at us all.... not to mention its not as easy to read.

:D
 
This may be true but!!!!!!!
The mazda rotary is not really a 1.3liter but a 2.6 liter.
The 2 rotor US version that is because each rotor is 1.3 liters
multply that be two and walla 2.6liters. This was a marketing strategy implemented buy mazda long ago.....Look our cars make s*** loads of hp and are fuel conserving out of a meager 1.3liters!!
uhhh humm 2.6 liter you mean:eek:
 
I've read in many places that each rotor is 0.654 litres. That would make the most sense. So the 13B is the 1.3L engine and the 20B 3 rotor is the 2.0L engine. :confused:
 
1.3L PER ROTOR

The 13b is not 1.3l per rotor. it is like the last post said .654l per rotor. which is 1308cc which is 1.3l with a little left over. i dont know who told you that, but they are wrong. that is why the 20b is 2.0l .654x3=1.962 or 2.0l or why the four rotor is a 2.6l rotary .654x4=2.616 or 2.6l any other rotary myths i can dispell?
 
No doubt the RX-8 is awesome, but I think the S2000 is still an awesome ride. It still achieves slightly quicker numbers than the RX-8 with a lttle less horse power and torque. The S2000 is also 180 lbs lighter.

The main thing I'd be curious about, being that I'm an auto enthusiast, is how well will RX-8 take to modifications. In other words, what will it gain if anything from performance mods. I'm sure if anyone on this board was to buy one, they'd be looking into performance mods for it after a few months of owning it. We all know that the S2000 doesn't gain a whole hell of a lot from bolt ons. And I'm not sure what Honda did to make the RSX gain what it does, but gaining what it does off just an intake or exhaust is pretty impressive.:)
 
RX-8 AND PERFORMANCE MODS

first off, wasnt trying to diss on the s2000, 120hp per liter is awesome from a factory piston engine, just using it as reference
The RX8 should take very well to mods seeing as it uses a 3 stage induction system which is the equivelent of a double v-tec
in v-tech it switches cam lobes to produce more valve lift and make more power. in the renesis rotary, it uses 3 throttle bodys that open independently, which increases the amount of air let in, just like valves, and producing more hp.
One more thing, i hope the S2000 can beat a 2900lb four door. the one the S2000 has to watch for is the 2004 renesis powered Miata 250hp and probably 2300lbs is going to do it.
 
I was told by some rotary buffs about this but I am not an expert on rotaries so I stand corrected:) . Thanks for the info I learn something new everyday.:D
 
About the post on teh RSX if anyoen decided to get one (please don't) think about this Honda is having problems with the K20A engine. 3 Different RSX Type S's have been brought back to the dealer here with Blown motors!!! and my friend Zack who works there has told me this is happening elsewhere too but not enough for a recall.......:rolleyes: Anyways...if you decided you want one wait a coupel years and let Honda get the bugs worked out....as far as the RX-8 looks nice and sounds like a dream come true but I still wish they woudl have just dropped the 20B in there instead of a NA rotary.
 
I bet you the s2000 won't be quicker than the 1995 Rx-7 twin turbo in 0-60/1.4mile/ and Topspeed.!!!!!
 
if you guys want to brush up on your rotary knowlage. the history chanel is doing a show tonight 3.19.02 on "THE HISTORY OF THE ROTARY"
at 10 pm eastern please check your local listing for show times thank you
 
C Rae...

thanks a lot!! I was actually cruising boards looking for rotary info because I am getting a 95 RX7 TT..... So, that worked out perfectly. Thanks for the info....
 
It depends on what yo mean by displacement. The physical displacement is in fact 654 cc. However, most competition organizations have a formula to calculate the effective or equivalant displacement of a rotary engine. The one in the 2001 SCCA Solo rules reads,

(Quote)

Rotary Enigines (Wankel)
These units will be classified on the basis of a piston displacement equivalent to twice the volume determined by the difference between the maximum and minimum capacity of the working chamber, times the number of rotors."

(end quote)
This would be (654 cc x 2 = 1308cc for one rotor)x 2 for the two rotors to give you an equivalent piston displacement of 2616 cc. This is the number that you would carry over to calculate how much your car should weigh.

Or a case could be made that the 250 hp renesis engine's specific output is 250/2.616 liters = 95.6 HP/liter.

Now, wasn't that fun?
:)
 
Damn......This is turning out to be a very interesting post. About the RSX thing, I'm not suprised if that turns out to be true. First year production vehicles almost always have a few bugs that need to be worked out. If was to get another car, it wouldn't be for another year or so anyway. Thanks for the heads up.;)
 
It's great to see rotorheads here like myself!

dolphin said:
It depends on what yo mean by displacement. The physical displacement is in fact 654 cc. However, most competition organizations have a formula to calculate the effective or equivalant displacement of a rotary engine. The one in the 2001 SCCA Solo rules reads,

(Quote)

Rotary Enigines (Wankel)
These units will be classified on the basis of a piston displacement equivalent to twice the volume determined by the difference between the maximum and minimum capacity of the working chamber, times the number of rotors."

(end quote)

yah, well we all have our theories. They're just leveling the playing field. Try that on for size...heh :p
 

Attachments

  • renesis.webp
    renesis.webp
    12.1 KB · Views: 1,135
Yeah I thought everyone heard, supposedaly the RSX S runs such high compression that when people miss a shift and the revs fly through the roof that even on test drives they blow gasgets and pistons and all kindaza crazy stuff. I mean, if your a very experienced driver it shouldn't be a problem. but if your a young punk like me and so many other kids that go out test driveing you never know....

RX-8! :D
 
Mazdaspeedgirl said:
It's great to see rotorheads here like myself!



yah, well we all have our theories. They're just leveling the playing field. Try that on for size...heh :p


hey! dont forget ME, Im a regular on the rx7 forum and am buyign a TII in the enxt few months.

god i love them:eek:

yes, the wankel is a great car, if you want to see the clip from the history channel you can find it on the rx7 forum and d/l it.
 
Back