friend got an rx-7. *sigh*

[changedman]

http://shawnkubik.home.comcast.net/rx7/index.htm


i'm jealous

hes going to pull out the rotary and put in a LS1

 

[JCell]

rx-7 r so nice, i want one!!!

 

[spacemonkey]

RX = Rotory experimental

LS1

point of a short wheel base car is for handling and good response to turning. Not drag racing. I say keep the 13B and enjoy a car that doesnt have tracktion problems and has low yaw intertia becasue fo the engine.

 

[Roywhitep5]

crusty!

 

[Pretzellogic]

I can understand taking a beat fc and stuffing a small-block in it for kicks, but doing that to a fairly well-preserved fd is blasphmey.

 

[mazpro]

seems to be great condition, exept for the rusted rotors....

 

[Pretzellogic]

seems to be great condition, exept for the rusted rotors....

Surface rust. Will come off when he applies the brakes.

 

[JCell]

yeah, that's just water, probably from the sprickers, it'll come off once he uses the car

 

[Shane5425]

nice... i would keep the rotary in that car though.. the older ones are cool when you pu the v8 in them.. but not them, they are sooo sexy, the twin turbos are awesome..

 

[JCell]

i wouldn't put an ls1 in it either, the rx-7 may not be the fastest thing around, but being so lite has othe benefits

 

[Shane5425]

the ls1 setup is lighter than the fd .. so thats not what i am talkin about.. the rotary is just so sexy with 2 turbos..

<address> How much will the car weigh? </address> <address> Answer) The aluminum GM LS1 and LS6 engines are extremely light power plants. With the complete removal of the 13B and the sequential turbo assembly, the project car's final weight is less than the total gross vehicle weight of a stock Mazda RX7. The final weight of the car is listed below. The car weighed 2,831lbs with a full Touring interior, sunroof, complete Bose sound system including the "Sound Wave," and a 1/4 tank of gas. </address>

 

[JCell]

wow, no way!!! (wow)

 

[Shane5425]

<address> LF: 746 RF: 677 Total Front: 1,423lbs</address>​

<address> LR: 675 RR: 733 Total Rear: 1,408lbs</address>​

 

[spacemonkey]

Its not the lightness...its the compact design. The rotory engine allows it to be mounted futher back and lower to the ground then most engine. If you seen how a F1 car is built that is a huge part of a good handling car....low center of gravity and good weight ditribution. The 13B isnt a all aluminum engine and thus the weight.

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=mazdaSpeedDrivingEngineRenesis

and I would like to see a pushrod V8 have a broad power band like a rotary engine. 9000 rpm readline is like a Ferrari 360 GTC...which has peak power at 8570 rpm. A Rotary engine has peak power at 8500 rpm and with certain flashes can be raised to 9000 rpm...now that is a broad powerband. Also I would like to see that V8 have such a smooth power band and the willingness to rev as good as a rotary engine. You know GM actually patented the engine for its Corvette in the 60s?

i wouldn't put an ls1 in it either, the rx-7 may not be the fastest thing around, but being so lite has othe benefits

Some videos:

Form japan 9 sec on street tires RX-7 with 650 hp (stillway RX-7)

http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=StillwayFD3S

From here in the US a 20B RX-7 with T78 dual BB turbo

http://home.comcast.net/~redrx7/RedRx7Start2.wmv

The actual reason behind a Rotary engine wasnt for drag racing. IT was designed to replace piston engines in planes. The engine itsself is more reliable then piston engine when kepted within the power ranges its designed for. Thats the reason why it was a engine concieved for airplanes...but then came the age of turbine engines. Because a piston engine may stop when over heated but a rotary engine keep going and is less prone to detonation.

Wankel engines have several major advantages over reciprocating piston designs, in addition to having higher output for similar displacement and physical size. Wankel engines are considerably simpler and contain far fewer moving parts; for instance, because valving is accomplished by simple ports cut into the walls of the rotor housing, they have no valves or complex valve trains; in addition, since the rotor is geared directly to the output shaft, there is no need for connecting rods, a conventional crankshaft, crankshaft balance weights, etc. The elimination of these parts not only makes a Wankel engine much lighter (typically half that of a conventional engine with equivalent power), but it also completely eliminates the reciprocating mass of a piston engine with its internal strain and inherent vibration due to repetitious acceleration and deceleration, producing not only a smoother flow of power but also the ability to produce more power by running at higher rpm. In addition to the enhanced reliability due to the elimination of this reciprocating strain on internal parts, the construction of the engine, with an iron rotor within a housing made of aluminum which has greater thermal expansion, ensures that even when grossly overheated the Wankel engine will not seize, as an overheated piston engine is likely to do; this has substantial benefit for aircraft use.

The simplicity of design and smaller size of the Wankel engine also allow for a savings in construction costs, compared to piston engines of comparable power output.

As another advantage, the shape of the Wankel combustion chamber and the turbulence induced by the moving rotor prevent localized hot spots from forming, thereby allowing the use of fuel of very low octane number without preignition or detonation, a particular advantage for Hydrogen cars. This feature also led to a great deal of interest in the Soviet Union, where high octane gasoline was rare.

http://www.answers.com/topic/wankel-engine

of corse their are disadvantage too. I say if he wants a real rX-7 and a ture race car then keep the rotary and experience a ferrari like powerband for the quarter of the cost. From a engineering and physic standpoint the Rotary is much more efficent becuase energy is not lost in the acceleration and deceleration of the piston. But on the economic and efficeny side is that it uses alot of gas which was not good for a engine that reached its popularity in the 70/80 with the gas crisis...thus all manufatuers pretty much abandoned the project. But it was still used in road race cars.

lightweight flywheel and a turbo on this car is sex to me because I love revs and I love turbos.

my favorite engines are the ones that come to life around 8000 rpm, BMW M6, Ferrari 360 modena, Levin with 4age, Ariel atom with Type R, F1 cars, Go-Karts, Motorcylces and etc. its all about exploting revs.

 

[Captain KRM P5]

keep the rotary and leave the LS1 for the F body boys

 

[Shane5425]

keep the rotary and leave the LS1 for the F body boys

well said... well said...

 

[spacemonkey]

I also have video of the scoot 4 rotor...26B. Thing was amazing in that it almost sounded like a motorcycle. Rumor has it that they have plans for a 6 rotor.

 

[Shane5425]

I also have video of the scoot 4 rotor...26B. Thing was amazing in that it almost sounded like a motorcycle. Rumor has it that they have plans for a 6 rotor.

just take 2 20b motors, smash them together...



that would be sic though.. a 6 rotor race car... that thing would be awesome... but wouldn't it bieng that big and long , the time it takes to rev up would be slow?? ..

 

[spacemonkey]

PRetty much except the E-shaft would probally be a hefty $$$

I was looking at the engine bay and I dont know what they did but their is still alot of room.

Wouldnt really know most likely it would be NA...remember that the 787B was a crazy performer at teh lemans. Obviously it will be well over 1000 hp if they did.

 

[Signal 2]

Its not the lightness...its the compact design. The rotory engine allows it to be mounted futher back and lower to the ground then most engine.....low center of gravity and good weight ditribution.

Agreed, sort of. I'm not sure, but guessing that anyone who installs the LS1/LS2 might have to deal with some 'bumpsteer'. But I'm pretty certain that it can effectively be dealt with. And judging from this picture, I don't think that weight 'placement' is really a big issue. The LS1 seems to be compact enough. They even retained the ABS system.
http://members.tripod.com/~grannys/hagen40.jpg

...and I would like to see a pushrod V8 have a broad power band like a rotary engine....A Rotary engine has peak power at 8500 rpm and with certain flashes can be raised to 9000 rpm...now that is a broad powerband. Also I would like to see that V8 have such a smooth power band and the willingness to rev as good as a rotary engine.

Mmmm, I think the V8 has a broader powerband than a rotary. That's the primary reason that MAZDA went with a sequential twin-turbo setup with the FD, to increase low-end torque. Without it (and the turbos), it's powerband is similar to any other small displacement 4 cyl. (as in the S2k engine). And IIRC, the 13b REW redlines at 8000 and Renesis at 9k. I'm not sure, but think that peak power arrives earlier on both, at least on anything near a stock engine.
IMHO, it's just short of amazing what GM has been able to do with their "pushrod" 5.7 and now 6.2 (ZO6). 400 hp and 500 hp respectively and still getting what...16-18 mpg around town. All this with the time tested and relatively bullet-proof design originating in the late 50's 327 ci. V8. Personally I think it's fun to read some of the magazine articles...R & T , C & D etc. Some of them seem almost snobbish if the engine doesn't have 4 or more valves per cylinder and made outside Germany. But they can't ignore the numbers.
I'm a fan of the rotary too (see sig)... but you don't have to "exploit" the revs if you've got the torque. Shelby and Ford proved that 40+ years ago with the AC Cobra and GT40. Chevrolet and Dodge are reminding us still, with the C5-R and Viper.
Just my .02 (thumb)