real rx7 lol
- Thread starter JONBOY688
- Start date
Nice 302.
YOU SIR, ARE AN IDIOT.KpaBap said:
There are alot of reasons why someone would opt for a rotary powerplant over a traditional piston one. Weight and size are the main reasons. The reason why, is that a 1.3L rotary, by design is a 2.6 or a 3.9 (depending on how you look at it) stuffed into a 1.3L shell. Allowing for huge power from a small displacement engine. This allows the engine to be placed further back in the engine bay, and lower, providing a 50:50 weight distribution and a lower center of gravity. What does this mean? Well it's all physics. The inertia of the car will stay lower, keeping it planted to the ground mid corner, and allowing it to slingshot out of corners more effectively. The circular motion the rotors take, also allow for harder cornering again, due to inertia of motion the car takes through the corner. Much like how v-twins (ducatis and buells) can take corners at much higher speeds than I-4 bikes.
For more information on the displacement of rotary engines see http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=15316&highlight=efficiency
Basically, volumetric wise in depth and space it is a 1.3, in terms of reciprocating or rotating motion and work done per stroke, it is a 2.6, and in terms of geometry and engine architecture internally (3 surface areas of a triangular shaped rotor) it is a 3.9.
Reliability wise, NA rotaries are far more reliable than a piston engine. Why? Because of less moving parts. There are no connecting rods to throw, valves to bend, springs to replace, cams, cam lobes, etc etc etc. There are three, yes 3 moving parts. Two rotors, and an eccentric shaft (similar to a crankshaft.) NA rotaries have been known to go 200,000 miles plus, without a rebuild, and the current renesis is expected to far exceed that. The downside, to NA rotaries is that you really need to rev them in order to make power, but the rotary is natrually inclined to rev, as the rotors continue in one motion without stopping, and changing direction, thus the engine loves to rev with little to no wear. As compared with piston engines, high revving will significantly wear engine components.
The great thing about the new renesis is that the exhaust ports have been relocated from the peripheral to the side allowing for higher flow, and better emissions. The renesis makes a 238 bhp, while the 13B-REW made 255 bhp with a sequential twin turbo setup.
Rotaries don't "blow up" as you say. Well not usually. The reason why they've gotten such a bad rap in recent years is because of the FD's 13B-REW which needed constant rebuilds due to the twin turbos and heating issues, all of which were solved by the way in 1999 in the JDM FD's which we never received here in the states. The owners also improperly tuned these motors and ran them to their limits causing alot of overheated blown rotaries. I can see the same trend with the MSP....alot of blown motors...I wouldn't be surprised to see some idiot in a few years say "MSP's can't go very long without blowing their motors," when we all know that it's due to improper tuning.
The only downsides to rotaries are bad emissions (actually solved by the new architecture of the renesis), poor gas mileage (issue improved from the aforementioned resolution), and oil consumption. Oil consumption is in design of the rotary. It says in bold text in the owners manual that the engine WILL consume oil. This is because to keep the rotors spinning within the housing and to keep the eccentric shaft lubricated, oil is injected directly into the housing to lube these parts, where it is eventually burned. By the way, I burn about a quart of oil every 3,000 miles. Big deal, oil is what? 2, maybe 3 bucks a quart?
There, I think I've proved my point and hopefully someone will learn something from my post...
BTW Jonboy I think you meant the "road less traveled."
I can appreciate the work, and if you're gonna go the big block route, go all out. Tune that thing to the max, and kill some domestics with your "mini muscle car."I still wanna cut your balls off though.
Last edited:
well kpabap..in all fairness..you have no idea what your talking about.
haha, you saying that common sense is beyond some people is like michael jackson saying pedophilia turns him off...
Go back and review your own posts, and I think you'll be hard pressed to find ANY common sense in them. Now your just getting desperate to have the last laugh in this thread.
Grow up...what are you twelve?
Go back and review your own posts, and I think you'll be hard pressed to find ANY common sense in them. Now your just getting desperate to have the last laugh in this thread.
Grow up...what are you twelve?
(enguard)
who leaves neutral feedback for god's sake..jesus christ..there shouldn't even be neutral feedback..It's like why waste your time?
or maybe you forget the whole in 60k your FD explodes farceKpaBap said:
or hey, maybe there's no common sense in the fact that 100lbs is not such a huge difference as the rotary gearheads try to make it out to be, especially when it comes with an extra 100lb-ft or so of torque
WTF? How do you, in any way shape or form, put that statement into the context of a joke? Even if you said it in sarcasm (in which case you should have specified), you are still spreading misinformation, and talking down on rotaries in general...don't forget mr. '99 Miata LS, if it wasn't for rotaries, Mazda would have never made a name for itself, and there would be no miata...or protege for that matter...
KpaBap said:
or do you fail to see the similarities between the vtec argument and the "my rotors can spin so fast" argument, either way, power comes on late in the powerband due to the absence of torque
or the smoothness argument, well I guess that has some merit, but the same can be said for a V8, they're pretty smooth
I used to drive a 67 camaro SS...so don't assume that I don't understand large displacement engines. IMHO if you want to put such a large displacement engine in a normal rotary powered car, it would be only to surprise people. The whole allure of RX-7's is their handling prowess and alot of that is thanks to the rotary design.KpaBap said:
I think you fail to realize the point of a rotary. Any knucklehead can get in a car with a big V8 and put the pedal to the floor, but as RX owners know, very few cars are as confidence inspiring around a course as a car with a rotary.
If that's the way you look at it, go put the mustang 5.0 engine in your miata, because you obviously own the miata for the wrong reasons. That swap has been done before....research the monster miata shop in san diego. That makes much more sense if you just want a quarter mile burner.
HahahahahahahahaahahaKpaBap said:
You're a funny guy. You obviously haven't read my "essay" nor have you driven a rotary. A V8 is far from smooth.
BTW I've never seen anybody say "my rotors can spin so fast!!" If you want to compare that to someone compare it to some idiot that says "my pistons go up and down so fast!!!"
By the way, nobody really has to "wait until 10,000 RPM to make power." The torque curve starts to get hefty around 5,000 RPM and pulls hard all the way up. The engine revs very freely, so there's no real "waiting" to make power.
Either way you fail to appreciate the rotary because you're another one of those "I need alot of power, and straight line speed" people." Just accept the fact that you and Joe Dirt have alot in common and get on with life.
It's really beyond me that you own a miata or a Mazda for that matter.
Last edited:
