4 rotor N/A RX-7 smoking American muscle... (2.6 liter beating a car with a engine twice its size lol) but thats on the firs run, the cuda beat the rx-7, but the cuda had slicks and the RX didn't

RX7 .n/a 4 rotor.580 hp drag car. AND YES ,ITS - Video

in all fairness though, Mazda only used 4-rotor engines in Le Mans Prototype class race cars.

__________________
2001 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SuperSport

Eh.. mopar can't get it done like chevy or ford.

__________________
2002 Ford Mustang GT
4.6L V8 - 5 speed manual
Kenne Bell Supercharged

"Eh.. mopar can't get it done like chevy or ford."
true but a supercharged HEMI cuda could have done it .... that car probably missed a gear and thats why the rice won the first lap but not the second... lol

um.. rice?, you call a 580hp RX-7 with no visual mods rice? We call civics and **** rice because, to us, rice meens Race Inspired Cosmetic Enhancements.

to me RICE means a piece of **** jap car that beats another car only cause the other car missed a gear while shifting...

Rotary chicken the 7th edition....

please explain how a Rx7ICE on All motor makes 500+hp? what fuel is he running?. Is it a 13Bull$hit?

make a lot of hp.NO..make a lot of noise. Plains make more noise but they fly

I love how the Chevy slam the rat $HIT-7 at the end....

it a 2.6x3=7.8 liter

The rotor have three side/size. the three chamber must complete its burn cycle to rotate the crank once.

time Board did not show time...(un-focus).

Tell him i race him with my MAMA MOTORSPORT Lesabre.

SNOTBOX

13B rotary engine dies after 5 minutes of >9k RPM.- Video

The campany/Mazada install Motor oil injector so the car burn oil into the air, So proof IMPORT is global warming, and it farts too.

IMPORTS ARE JUNK....DON`T GO INTO DEBT BUYING THEM.

fire rice.

here is the heart beat of America inside the Chinese cookie.
ls1 in rx7- Video

I sense quite a bit of uncalled for bias. Besides, the R26B is a race built motor that was never officially sold to the public so it comes race spec if you can manage to get one.

__________________
2001 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SuperSport

I will like to make a fair comparison.

the 95 rx-7 mpg is 15city and 22hi-way non turbo.

the 95 buick 3800 (3.8) mpg is 17city and 25 hi-way non s/c.

the 95 toyota corolla 1.8 mpg is 26city and 35 hi-way 132hp.

If a rx7 truly pose a 1.3 liter, why does it burn almost the same amount of air/fuel has the 3.8?. and no way close to the Toyota 1.8 liter.

here is my reason. The 13b 1.3 so-call liter has two rotor. each rotor has three sides. the two rotor, rotate around in its bore and rotate the crankshaft/intermittent shaft. In order for the rotor to rotate the crankshaft once. All three sides of the the rotor must be consume with air and fuel. this air and fuel must burn three time in order to rotate the crankshaft ONCE.

so in order to rotate the crankshaft once. The 1.3 liter rotatory engine will require three times the two rotors cubic inch air/fuel volume . Which leave us with the formula 1.3 (two rotor chamber cubic inch) x 3 (rotor sides) = 3.9 liter
Mazda feel 1.3 liter will sell the car to the CHEAP AMERICAN`T, but the never question of fuel consumption for such a small engine never hit the buyer...HYPE sells.

The 3.8 and other engine perform 4 stroke (except 2 stroke) to rotate the crankshaft once. Only at one point in this four stroke, power is created.


An engine is a air pump. the amount of air and fuel you put in it will equate to the amount of power .

For one thing, nobody ever said fuel economy was based on displacement alone, in fact the two are mutually exclusive. For example I have a 2.4L I4 in my Topaz and I'm lucky if that thing gets 20mpg, where as in my 3.8 Monte Carlo I regularily see low 20's and I have a heavy foot. Also, how many other 1.3L engines do you see pushing out 200+hp, or in other words the same power output as a stock GM 3.8? That power has to come from somewhere, it sure isn't in the air. Also the style of the combustion chamber and how it functions plays a huge part in fuel economy as well. For example a piston engine on the intake stroke is tuned to swirl the air/fuel mixture as it enters into the combustion chamber, allowing for a better mix and thus a cleaner burn. A wankle on the other hand given how it functions isn't able to get that swirling effect and thus requires more fuel to make up for it, a natural inefficiency of the engine itself. Every engine has it's faults, but people who buy rotary-powered cars don't exactly buy them for their economy in the first place so in the end it doesn't even matter.

__________________
2001 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SuperSport

No 1.3 liter CAN NOT make 200hp on gasoline, unless force induction is apply.

If you use the formula above 1.3x3 = 3.9 liter.

Also remember a piston engine has MORE work to do, than a rotary engine. A piston have to turn and move camshaft,lifters,push rod,rocker arm,compress valve spring, spring oil pump and other. The 1.3=3.9 liter has less moving parts so it will make 200hp, Due to reduce drag from other internal parts. the stock 3.8 from 1989 made 165 hp at the flex plate and only dyno 125 hp at the wheel. the 40hp lose is due to drive line drag. I believe the rx7 see the same 40hp lose on drive line. On the dyno a stock non turbo rx7 make around 160-155.

If the rx7 had to performance the same work has a piston engine. its Hp rating would drop to 125-130hp.

So yes. the rx7 does reserve more power than a piston engine, because of it re-duce limited internal work. But the rx7 show no proof of a 1.3 liter base on power output.

Fuel is burn at 14.7 air (O2)molecule to 1 gasoline (HC)molecule. Air fuel ratio is 14.7:1. all engine must run on this formula if it plan on passing EPA and federal clean air law.

So base on the fuel consumption. it is safe to say,Two engine of the SAME or SIMILAR displacement will burn the SAME or SIMILAR amount of fuel.
The hp on the same or similar can be different. the amount of power lose or gain is solely relies on its design.

For EXAMPLE: the 1989 yrs 3800 n/a engine makes 165hp at the flex plate and 135 at the tires.
The 2000 yrs 3800 n/a engine make 200hp at the flex plate and 160-165 at the tires.
Gm was able to make extra hp by using reduce drag on all moving parts, which will cause increase hp on the engine . the fuel cure on these two motor remain almost the same, but the 2000 yrs 3800 made more Hp.


Chevrolet Sprint - 3-cyl., 1.0 liter - MPG: 46 city / 50 highway
Honda Civic - 4-cyl., 1.5 liter - MPG: 40 city / 45 highway
Geo Metro - XFi 3-cyl., 1.0 liter - MPG: 53 city / 58 highway

Suzuki Swift - 4-cyl., 1.3 liter - MPG: 37 city / 44 highway
Ford Aspire - 4-cyl., 1.3 liter - MPG: 36 city / 43 highway.....
THE RX7 fuel consumption does not meet the fuel requirement for a TRUE 1.3 engine with a 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio, three power stroke is require to rotate the crank shaft once.all three chamber of the rotor will require mixture to burn to complete its power.

My point here is a 1.3 rotary is equal to a 3.9 liter fuel consumption and power output. the 1.3 liter is DUMB IMPORT BUYING HYPE.

Displacement measurements are how much of the air and fuel mixture the engine movies within one cycle, or one rotation of the crank shaft. The geometry of the Wankle rotary is such that the crank shaft revolves three times for every one revolution of the rotor. Each rotor displaces 654cc for each side, or each cycle of the crank, and since the stock RX-8 of today employs a 2-rotor Renesis engine, that equates to 1308cc, or 1.3L for each crank cycle. This engine in the RX8 produces 237hp.

I will agree that it all depends on how you do your displacement classification, but the official classification for the RX8 is 1.3L.

__________________
2001 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SuperSport

THIS IS NOT TRUE..MUST BE PROOFED. the rotor, rotate around the crankshaft. The rotor is the controlling power/movement so the crankshaft can not exceed the rotor speed. The reason a rx7 is able to REV to 9,000-12,000 rpm so quick, is because three power stroke is happening in one revolution. this is also why the car makes more noise than piston engine.

654cc x 6= 3924cc

what does renesis stand for?. another selling hype?

Since HowStuffWorks is popular right now I will quote directly from them "
The heart of a rotary engine is the rotor. This is roughly the equivalent of the pistons in a piston engine. The rotor is mounted on a large circular lobe on the output shaft. This lobe is offset from the centerline of the shaft and acts like the crank handle on a winch, giving the rotor the leverage it needs to turn the output shaft. As the rotor orbits inside the housing, it pushes the lobe around in tight circles, turning three times for every one revolution of the rotor. "
If you want further proof, you can read the entire article at HowStuffWorks "Rotary Engine Power" as the output shaft does indeed rotate three times for every one rotation of the rotor. THIS is why the engines can rev to 9,000-12,000 as those revolutions of the output shaft, not the rotors. In reality at 9,000 rpm the rotors are only making 3,000 rpm.



654cc per compression cycle x 2 rotors = 1308cc. Displacement is not total displacement of the rotor, just the displacement of the mixture during one combustion cycle which is only one side of the rotor at a time. As for Renesis that is just the name given to the updated version of the 13B twin rotor engine, not a gimmick, just a distinction.

__________________
2001 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SuperSport