I don't understand why people go through this trouble to modify an RX7 to a LS1!!! If you want power then stick a 3 or 4 rotor in it, just as good if not better!
@BigBlackMamba101 depends on what you want to do, most people do this mod cause they are interested in making their car quick in a straight line, rather than quick on a road course. The LS1 is an excellent VERY reliable engine to use in a drag car.
@Naptownstreetsquid, that's not entirely true, in drag racing the Rotaries are the Kings of drag and they really run the best times. Although its true they are reliable but when it comes to dragging it becomes a non reliable engine, this is the LS1 or any other engine used for drag. It you want a drag car you want Rotary, you don't want to pitch up at a gun fight with a knife. Nothing really beats a Rotary on a 1/4 mile.
@BigBlackMamba101 Well im talking daily driven car, not an all out drag car. Boxperformance has a 7 sec corvette that they drove on the street for thousands of miles. An Ls1 with a cam will idle in traffic on 100 degree days, run on pump gas every day, have very little issues if any at all, but put some slicks on it your in the 11's in that light rx7, and on a little juice possibly 10's and you can drive it to work the next morning. Thats my point
@darkeyce02 is your car 300+ rwhp, 300+ rw ft lbs, 27 hw.mpg, and still super reliable and streetable? you can tune all you like but those numbers are not coming out of the stock engine.
@darkeyce02 well i just looked it up and the rx8 is rated at 22 mpg on the highway with a 60,000 mile powertrain warranty. the corvette (ls3 is similar to ls1) gets 4 mpg better and has a 100,000 mile warranty. i have never heard of a rotary hitting 150,000 miles without a rebuild but most lsX's last much longer than that. if you want to talk about modified performance look up the most powerful rotary engine and the most powerful ls1 and i think you will be surprised. (600 vs 1200 hp range)
@onquarter you must not watch much vids, thers rotary's with more than that,ive seen a few rotary's around here than are stock but have over 150k on the original engine, maintenaince helps. a lot...ill take a TT triple rotor 20b over a ls motor, its unique, thats why i said my first comment. its much easier to stick together a ls than scavenge the parts for a fast rotary
@onquarter damn you are biased.... you need to brush up on your research skills. as the most powerful 2rotors are in the 900-1100hp range, and 3 and 4 rotors are well past 1400hp.
@onquarter And my current daily driven FD has 86k miles on the chassis and stock motor. pushing 15psi on the stock twins, with basic bolt-ons and a PowerFC got me 346hp/320tq and with a few tuning sessions, i am able to get 32mpg on the highway and around the low 20s for the city, with mixed driving its about 28mpg.
yes, 300+hp/300+tq 20ish city/30ish hwy out of a stock motor.
GUYS, SHUT THE FUCK UP. SERIOUSLY. Nobody gives a shit about your opinion when you don't even own a high performance car. It is true, APEX seals break. At the same time, GM makes a really shitty top engine (I have worked on too many fucking cars, don't even try to argue this.). Engine life is relative to the quality of the build . Every engine has its faults, which is exactly why there is so many fucking types of them. Get a life & stop arguing about what this man should have done. It's his car.
one reason to switch out the rotary wankel engine is because rotory engines won't last nearly as long as piston engines, and they require much more maintenance too. With a LS1 motor, less maintenance is required, less mods require to get power, and much more reliable than the wankel
@bluice619 That's another thing rotary fans always seem to forget, that a hopped up rotary motor won't last longer than 10k miles without some ridiculous internal upgrades. A stock ls1 block will take 8psi forced induction and make 550rwhp with minimal maintenance, such as changing the blower belt (in the case of a s/c anyway) or installing an oil catch can.
Will the rear end or clutch last long? Probably not, but that motor will never break. You can't say that about your average wankel design.
@cyberslick18 I won't go as far as saying the LS1 will never break, but it certainly will last much longer and able to take more abuse than a rotory engine.
@cyberslick18 um... there are not internal upgrades for the rotary... other then milling down the rotors to fit bigger stronger seals... you do nothing but upgrade the turbo system to single and upgrade the fuel system to make 550whp... and that cost less then most S/C... sorry to tell you there are plenty of broken ls1... 600whp daily driven FD that runs 9 second 1/4 mile will last 150k... maybe if it has a complete idiot tuning it wont last 10k...
@bluice619 any modified car will require the same amount of maintenance... a stock rotary only requires feeding it oil every now and then... because it burns oil by design
@Tj1056 a stock 3rd gen RX7 requires a complete engine rebuilt between 50k - 100k miles.... do you know of any piston engines that require a rebuilt under 100k? The major things you'll need on a piston engine is may be a timing belt if it's not a timing chain setup or may be a valve cover or head gasket.
@bluice619 no it does not you idiot... 150k at the least and between 200k-300k on how you drive it... remember its a race car engine... there are so many things that can go wrong on v8 engines dude... a turbocharged v8 will go through piston rings as fast as a rotary goes through apex seals...
@Tj1056 Im not gonna argue 'cause wasting my time on misinformed people isn't something that i like to do. Try owning a twin turbo RX7 and live with it for a few years then come back and talk.
@bluice619, Well, not entirely true, I can agree that rotary engines do need there love and caring and the maintenance is a bit less on LS1 if you are a lazy person all though a rotary can last you just as long as any engine if you maintain it well,,,,,"not for lazy people" however, its not good to see a LS1 in a RX7 as it looses its creditability of being a "sports car" and the brand name that come with it RX7.
@BigBlackMamba101 All im saying is that rotary requires more maintenance and attention than other engines... and you seem to agree with that point. Now, it's up to the car's owner to do what they want with their car. I feel that it's nice to see someone think outside the box for once. If the owner is more comfortable with an LS1, then why not use it. May be he's gonna use it as a drift car, so alll that torque will come in handy.
Why? Isn't the reason of getting a rx-7 becuase its light and has a high revving rotary??? I really dont get why someone would do this to well in a way a "rare" car. Not many cars use rotary's these days, plus there pretty sick!
whats wrong with u guys ??? its a RX-7 and not a VX-7... get a american muscle car and not a beautiful japanese sportscar with that awesome Rotary Sound....
the number of cylinders in that engine for the total displacement. for a rotary they take the largest displacement of 1 side of 1 rotor and multiply it by 6 for the total displacement of the engine. like i said if you can prove me wrong i will admit im wrong and apologize, but from every article i've read it says total displacement is 1.3L and total would indicate all 6 sides of the rotors
ok like i said (for the pull your motor thing) i said THE NEXT TIME YOUR ENGINE NEED WORK DONE TO IT!!! then if you say per rotation on the eccentric shaft the engine displaces how ever much you think, then do they say the displacement of of a reciprocating engine (idk why you keep calling it a piston engine because that's not the right name) per revolution of the crankshaft when only half of the pistons (at most) are at BDC? no they take the reading of 1 cylinder at BDC then multiply it by
@YOURprivateWAR1 You are trying to apply piston engine displacement calculation to a rotary. Rotaries work differently, their displacement is calculated differently. Piston engine displacement is calculated by taking the total MAXIMUM displacement of all combustion chambers and adding them together. a 2.6 liter 4 cylinder would ahve four ~650cc combustion chambers.
@li7in6 You're right but let me try explaining a different way. It takes 2 turns of the crank in a piston motor for all the cylinders to complete a combustion cycle. A rotary motor has a combustion cycle every turn of the crank(e-shaft). So to compare apples to apples you take two turns of the e-shaft just like a piston motor(650cc x 2revs x 2rotors =2.6 liters). Saying it's a 1.3L motor isn't wrong, you just can't compare it to a piston motor like that.
@YOURprivateWAR1 If you take the maximum displacement of a 13b rotary (654cc*6 combustion chambers) you get 3.9 liters. This doesn't work however if you want to compare to a piston engine as a rotary will take 50% more rotations to achieve this displacement due to its design and theoretically will produce ~50% less power than a comparable 3.9 liter piston engine. That is why you have to go by displacement per revolution when comparing which brings the 13b to 2.6 liters.
the total combustion size for EACH ROTOR is 654cc for the 13B. not for each combustion chamber.... go ahead, CC 13B rotor faces with the bathtub at it LARGEST size, at the start of any of the 4 cycles.
because in most countries outside the US, the 13B is considered a 2stroke engine, they double displacement for 4stroke, and you get 2.6 liters.
the 20B 3rotor's perceived displacement would be 3.9.
@rotor13 Please do some research for yourself then come back and have a debate with the big buys. I'm tired of trying to educate people that don't have a clue on youtube.
@li7in6 ive done my research. what big boys are you talking about?
the ones that claim that they know shit, and then to discredit other people by going with the blanket statement that you hope no one responds back, by mentioning "youtube" as an insult?
i challenge your own "tiredness" to educate someone once more
@rotor13 I've educated people like you countless times. I couldn't be fucked to do it again. Do some research, If you do you'd know that a 13b and its derivatives (20b, RB26) utilize a rotor comprised of THREE separate 654cc combustion chambers totaling 1962cc possible displacement PER ROTOR. Not 654cc per rotor as you incorrectly stated. Do some reading them come back and debate when you have a solid grasp of the subject at hand.
@li7in6 you didnt "learn" from reading Wikipedia with its very flaccid sources did you? because everything ive read over the years, especially from race engineers and builders that i have learned from do not coincide with the sources ive followed from wiki. In fact, the ONLY place i've found that you almost directly quoted verbtim, is from wikipedia. Im not trying to discredit you, im simply wondering where your facts come from. knowledge is nothing without experience and i have years of it
@rotor13 It's not rocket science, it's not a matter of opinion. Because the subject is misunderstood doesn't make the truth dubious or elusive. I'm glad you've read the wiki page, but i suggest you look a little deeper. I've been in the FC/FD modding community in California for close to 15 years now. I've built rotaries, spoken to well respected builders and tuners (Dave Lemon, Rob Golden, Alex Shen), and read countless books in addition to perusing a ME degree. Please do some reading.
@YOURprivateWAR1 I've already explained several times why and how displacement is, isn't, and should be calculated on a rotary. If you want to compare an engine to a rotary an RB26 is a much more accurate competitor than a 1.3 liter GSXR-1300 Hayabusa motor because revolution for revolution a rotary will displace twice as much as the Haybusa motor and approximately the same as the RB26 and thus produces power and consumes fuel more comparable to the RB26 than the GSXR-1300.
@li7in6 I sort of agree. But a rotary has a large and relatively inefficient combustion chamber. i think this a big part of why it uses so much fuel. you're right about the problems in comparing displacement. Piston motors are more efficient at slower rpms, and make more grunt obviously, but as engine spped increases the simple mechanical advantage of the non-reciprocating motor is far superior.
the eccentric shaft rotates 3 times the speed of the rotor, yes. the total displacement for 1 rotor is 654CC making 1 side of 1 rotor 218CC making the total displacement 1.3L they wouldnt say its total displacement is 1.3L if it really displaced 3.9L you were mistaught on rotary engines, go on how stuff works.com and it says the total displacement of 1 rotor is 1.3L and when they say 1 revolution it means of the rotor not of the eccentric shaft. you will not beat me on rotary engines.
@YOURprivateWAR1 Find me ONE credible source that lists a 13b's combustion chamber displacement as 218cc. Just ONE.
A rotary engine's rotational speed is measured by rotations of the eccentric shaft (as this outputs to the transmission), NOT the rotations of the rotors.
Also, I f you think its even remotely realistic for me to pull my motor, disassemble, and fill with water just to educate one idiot on the internet that doesn't want to do his own research. You are crazy.
@YOURprivateWAR1 You either are a failure at google or your reading comprehension is terrible. A rotary displaces 654cc PER COMBUSTION CHAMBER NOT PER ROTOR. There are THREE combustion chambers per rotor. Simple math says 654cc*6=3924cc. It's simple math, its a simple concept. I cannot believe there is someone as dense as you that cannot grasp these SIMPLE concepts.
@YOURprivateWAR1 1.3L is the advertised displacement, partly for marketing reasons (calling it a 1.3 liter makes it have a very high specific output which is good marketing) there was never an industry standard for measuring rotary displacement so rotary proponents (those trying to sell the thing) calculated the displacement in a way that would make it appear superior. Calling a 13b a 1.3L completely ignores 4 of its 6 combustion chambers.
@YOURprivateWAR1 2.6L is the actual comparable displacement to a piston engine because a 13b and a 2.6 liter piston engine both displace the same amount per rotation due to the rotaries 1/3rd eccentric/rotor relationship and the fact that each cylinder on a piston engine has a dead rotation in its 4 stroke cycle. Both a 13b and a 2.6 liter 4 cylinder engine will displace the same amount per rotation and thus they are directly comparable in power output, efficiency, etc.
@YOURprivateWAR1 3.9L is the MAXIMUM displacement of a 13b counting all of its possible combustion chambers. There are SIX separate chambers displacing 654cc at some point in their 'stroke'. This totals 3924cc. You cannot compare a 13b to a 3.9 liter piston engine because a rotary has to rotate 3 times to displace its full 3.9 liters whereas a 3.9 liter piston engine would only have to rotate two times to displace its full 3.9 liters. Thus they are not directly comparable.
@YOURprivateWAR1 Thus a 13b rotary is comparable to a 2.6L piston engine and thus should technically be called a 2.6 liter because its displacement per revolution is equivalent to a 2.6 liter 4 cylinder. Please do some research and stop making a fool of yourself.
@li7in6 *Mazda Wankel Engine on wikipedia says 654CC per rotor, not per side of a rotor. i cant post links otherwise id post more on here. next time you need work done to your RX7 that you supposedly own, take a 2 liter soda bottle filled with water and try pouring as much as you can into the housing after blocking off the intake and auxillary ports.then dump it out, rotate the engine to the next side of the rotor and do it again, then again, then 4th, 5th, and 6th time. you will still
@YOURprivateWAR1 While you are farting around on wikipedia look up "Wankel Engine" then look down under "Disadvantages". Read the fifth paragraph down in the disadvantages section that starts with "For comparison purposes between a Wankel Rotary engine and a piston engine"
Come back and try to tell me you know a damn thing about rotaries. I'd love to see it.
@li7in6 have just under half of the bottle still filled with water. if not video tape it prove me wrong, and send it to mazda also and ask why they list it as a 1.3L
displacement from all pistons when they are at BDC because that is the displacement. what your saying is that a one side of a rotor displaces 1.3L, so this would mean a 2.0L four banger displace 2.0L per piston... no a 13B's displacement is the totalof the 3 sides of both rotors.
@YOURprivateWAR1 If you were to count total dispalcement of a 13b you would come up with 3.9L. Each rotor has three separate 654cc combustion chambers and two total rotors which adds up to 3924cc. There is a reason a 13b is not comparable to a 3.9L piston engine just as there is a reason a 13b is not comparable to a 1.3L piston engine. The reason is displacement per revolution, one revolution of a rotary is one revolution of its eccentric shaft which equates to 1/3rd a rotation of each rotor.
@li7in6 look up this video on here and tell me you HONESTLY THINK this is 3.9L or displacement, because obviously you've never seen the inside of an actual rotary engine - Rotary Rotational Demonstration - you need to learn more about a car you own
@YOURprivateWAR1 I don't 'think' a 13b's maximum displacement is 3.9 liters. I know it is because I know the displacement of each combustion chamber (654cc) and I know how many combustion chambers there are (six) and I passed the 3rd grade so I know that 654cc*6=3924cc or 3.9 liters. Please complete 3rd grade math, then please do some research for yourself. I'm really getting sick of trying to educate you.
@YOURprivateWAR1 and i'd like for you to complete ANY english class and read the listed displacement of a rotory engine which lists it as 1.3L they wouldnt list a 1.3L as a 3.9L because the engineers who make these arent fucking retards, such as yourself. i'd stick with your chevy and sell your RX7 cuz you really dont know shit about cars man.
@YOURprivateWAR1 Clearly you haven't done any research yet. I know why Mazda calls it a 1.3L. You don't. I know that it is comparable to a 2.6 liter piston engine and why. You don't. I know the maximum displacement of a 13b. You don't. You read its listed displacement on your gran turismo or something and now you think you are an expert. Why are you unwilling to do research on it? A 10 second google search will tell you EXACTLY what I've been telling you. Instead you'd rather argue and be wrong.
yes and per revolution means all 3 sides of both rotors firing. because all 4 strokes are completed in 1 revolution of the rotor for all sides of that rotor. also if the 13B was a 2.6L why whould they list that engine as a 1.3L engine? they list the total displacement of the engine not the displacement of just 1 rotor of a rotary engine. when they list displacement of a V engine do they list the displacement of just 1 bank (or just 1 piston for that fact) of that engine? no they list all the
@YOURprivateWAR1 No, one "revolution" on a rotary is one revolution of the ECCENTRIC SHAFT as this is the output to the transmission. The Eccentric shaft rotates at three times the speed of the rotors and thus one "revolution" of the eccentric shaft only sees two 654cc combustion chambers (1/3d of a rotation of a rotor), thus 1.3 liters displaced on a 13b per revolution. Calling a 13b a 1.3L engine is good for marketing when you are selling a high specific output 1.3L. when in reality it's 2.6L
And lets not forget the most obvious and important fact...you own an rx7 for its engine. you buy an rx7 for its engine. that chassis was designed for a rotary. the sound of that "badass muscle car" is actually the sound of no economy and a lazy mans way to justify making no improvement over a correctly built and tuned rotary which will outlast that shitty ls engine...
plus swaps like this just show that people like this have no brains anyways BECAUSE they did this swap...fucking retarded hicks.
i LOVE the rotarys,but they sound terrible.just saying.now the LS1,is bad ass.and sounds bad ass.but hey,it can only rev to like 6-7k not 1000000000000. xD
God I hate that single exhaust, but otherwise great car and excellent choice of motor. Fuck the wankel fan fags. Apparently they don't know that torque actually moves the fucking car, not 300 horsepower at 900,000 rpm
@Tj1056 Go find me a street driven (and legal) rx7 with a stock block rotary engine pulling a 6 second quarter mile. You can't, because they don't exist. Are you so willfully ignorant that you'd compare a street car to a purpose built drag racing car?
Jr dragsters can pull 6 second quarter miles with less than 350 horsepower, but it means absolutely nothing compared to what I was talking about. God I hate youtube.
@Tj1056 I never said there was one. You did, however, attack my statement (about street cars) by making a comparison to (purpose built drag racers). My ignorance is bliss? Please, you don't even know how to have a proper argument.
Go google "logical fallacies", and when you've brushed up a bit, come back, and I'd be happy to engage you on the topic of LSx series motors vs Wankel motors for performance street cars. Until then, knock it off, you are just making yourself look stupid.
@cyberslick18 and I never said the 6 second rotary was street legal...you never said anything about street legal cars... you where just talking shit about the rotary dick face retard
@cyberslick18 find me an actual Jr Dragster that pulls a 6 second quarter mile..... and one that makes 350hp..... i dare you. you are talking straight shit outta your ass
@cyberslick18 you are the kind of guy that liked when in tokio drift they took out the SR20 from the silvia an put it on the mustang chasis... so american
@Viju6906 You should die for being a moron. At least this car is being driven, and not stuck in a garage in pieces because the rotary shit out a seal for the 5th time.
@Viju6906 sorry but your really illiterate for saying that.I love my JDM. but i rather swap my RX7 with a LS1. i cant stand the vacumcleaner sound that rx-7 makes. id prefer a honda with a rattled muffler hitting vtec.
@YOURprivateWAR1 the LS swap in the FD RX7 actually retain's the car's 50/50 balance. a fully dressed LS1 weighs only a few pounds more than a fully dressed twin-turbo 13b-REW.
some guys end up losing weight doing the LS swap. it all depends on how much stuff you end up tossing during the course of the swap.
@impreziv the LShas more weight in front/on top of the front wheels throwing off the weight distribution. plus RX means rotory experiment/ rotory engine. and this guy is not an import guy he's an american "muscle" guy. if i could i'd put baby powder in my hand and slap every person who did this swap
@YOURprivateWAR1 i dont care what "RX" stands for, but you know what LS stands for? it stands for, Lick my Sweaty balls. i'm really sick of you Rotary guys and your "Holier than thou" attitude. does it ever occur to you guys that we simply don't give a shit about your worthless little engines? and some people are willing to give up 2% weight balance for 200% more power and fuel econo?
but you know what? it thrills me to death when it offends you that we are in your precious little RX7 ;)
@impreziv ok first of all i dont think its "Holier than thou" all im saying is that your ruining a good JAPANESE cay bu putting in an AMERICAN engine. and secondly that "worthless little engine" can beat an LS1 with the money you spent on the swap alone (and in case you didnt know a rotory engine a 1.3L so Lick these Seaty balls bitch)
@YOURprivateWAR1 How is it ruined? The LS1 is more powerful, more torquey, more reliable, more durable, and gets better gas mileage. The money spent on an LS swap is recouped because you don't end up having to replace the rotary every year or two. An LS will make great power for the life of the car. You don't have to worry about a POS rotary popping because it didn't like the fuel you ran through it.
@YOURprivateWAR1 1.3L is the true displacement of a 13b engine. the only reason some racing organizations double the displacement of rotaries, is because 4-stroke piston engines should actually have their displacements cut in half.
displacement is the measurement of the number of cylinders that fire every revolution. when we made the jump from 2, to 4-stroke we never cut the displacement in half for marketing. 2-stroke fires all cyls per rev, 4-stroke fires half its cyls per rev.
@impreziv The "true" displacement of a rotary is easily up for debate. A 13b has six 654cc combustion chambers totaling 3.9 liters. A 13b displaces 1.3 liters per revolution, the same as a 2.6 liter piston engine with a conventional firing order. 1.3 liters is the displacement of just two if its six total combustion chambers. 2.6 liters is the most accurate displacement of a 13b to compare to a piston engine in terms of specific output and specific fuel consumption.
@li7in6 nooooo a 13b is a 1.3L engine (all sides of both rotor combine) that's how it got its name. it breathes like a 2.6liter because or the design of the engine, no valves or camshafts. if you street port a 13b it brethes even better because a street port its like a valve job on anyother engine.
@YOURprivateWAR1 No, a 13b displaces 3.9 liters total displacement if you count all six of its combustion chambers. There are three combustion chambers per rotor displacing 654cc each. There are two rotors per 13b. That totals 3.9 liters for the entire engine. A 20b has nine 654cc combustion chambers for a maximum combined displacement of ~5.9 liters.
@YOURprivateWAR1 A 13b "breaths" like a 2.6 liter because it displaces the same amount per revolution as a 2.6 liter engine. Every two rotations of the eccentric shaft uses four of the six 654cc combustion chambers totaling 2.6 liters. A 2.6 liter piston engine will only displace its full 2.6 liters after two revolutions as well. Both engines will displace 1.3 liters after one revolution. Buy this standard if a 13b is 1.3 liters then so is an RB26DETT.
@li7in6 a 2 rotor Wankel fires only 2 of its combustion chambers per rotation. it displaces exactly 1.3L. a 4-stroke piston engine fires only half of its cylinders per rotation. in true form, we should be quoting the displacement of piston engines 50% less than we do, but for marketing reasons, we chose not to, when we started making engines 4-stroke instead of 2-stroke.
rotaries don't perform like a 2.6 piston engine, a 2.6 piston engine is truely 1.3L itself, if we use an equal count
@impreziv It's really just semantics here. Either way they mean the same thing. A 13b is directly comparable to a 2.6 liter piston engine. piston engine displacement is calculated by their maximum diplacement across all combustion chambers. For instance a RB26 has six ~433cc combustion chambers for a total of 2.6 liters. Using this standard on a rotary (six 654cc combustion chambers for a total of 3.9 liters) doesn't work. Which is why we must resort to displacement per revolution.
@li7in6 why does it seem correct to you to use one standard for a Rotary, and another standard for piston engines, and then say that the difference between the outcomes is attributed to an advantage for Rotary engines?
the absolute correct way to calculate displacement is to count the number of combustions per revolution. rotaries use this, piston engines dont
if we count both engines by the same standard, a 2.6L piston engine would be 1.3L. and removes any apparent advantage from the Rotary.
@impreziv You have to use different displacement calculation standards simply because rotary and piston engine's function differently. There is no "absolute correct way" to calculate displacement. There is a widely accepted way, for piston engine's this is to calculate based on the maximum displacement of all cylinders. To compare a rotary on equal footing you must calculate its displacement differently. This is where displacement per revolution comes in.
@impreziv 13b's displace 1.3 liters per revolution. The same as a 2.6 liter piston engine. How is this comparison favorable to the rotary? The 13b makes power and consumes fuel at a rate roughly approximate to a 2.6 liter piton engine. Where are you getting an "advantage" for the rotary from out of this? To claim a 13b is actually comparable to a 1.3 liter piston engine gives it a ridiculous advantage in terms of power produced and specific output and comparing in this way is just outright wrong
@li7in6 yeah that's for both rotors firing once on each side. 2 rotors, 360 degrees of rotation is 1.3L each rotor is only 0.65L the advantage or rotary engines are they BREATHE like a 2.6L because they have NO VALVES!!!!!! so it its comparable to a 1.3L because it is...... so you comparing it with a 2.6L reciprocating engine it outright wrong.
@YOURprivateWAR1 You misunderstand the fundamental principals behind the rotary. I suggest you look on a site like howstuffworks to get a better understanding. Each rotor has THREE separate 654cc combustion chambers (each side of the 'triangle'). On a two rotor 13b this means there are SIX separate 654cc combustion chambers totaling 3.9 liters of total displacement. a 13b will displace 2.6 liters every two revolutions just like a 2.6 liter piston engine will. This has nothing to do with valves.
@li7in6 i know how a rotary engine works. and there are 2 ways of measuring a roary engine, the way you discribe is measuring each chamber when its at it maximum size, they way im describing it is when you measure the chambers while the rotor is stationary. mazda measures is the way im discribing it, with the rotors stationary. when you measure it my way the total size of the engine is 1.3L hense the 13B name. and you didnt make sense for a little there, if the total size is that of a 3.9L
@li7in6 how does it only displace 2.6L? the rotary engine is capable of BREATING like a 2.6L even tho its only a 1.3 and that is mainly because of the valveless design.
@YOURprivateWAR1 Once again, I suggest you research the workings of the rotary before you respond as there is not enough room here for me to elaborate completely for you to understand. It is simple mathematics, a 13b has SIX 654cc combustion chambers. Each rotor rotates at 1/3rd the speed of the eccentric shaft. This means that every revolution of the eccentric shaft sees ONE 654cc combustion chamber complete its power stroke PER ROTOR. This is 1.3 liters PER REVOLUTION of the 13b.
@YOURprivateWAR1 (cont.) This means a 13b will displace the same amount PER REVOLUTION as a 2.6 liter four cylinder piston engine. A 2.6 liter piston engine displaces 1.3 liters through its power stroke per revolution due to its 4 stroke cycle in each cylinder. Now the most effective way to compare a piston engine to a rotary is in terms of dispalcement per revolution as this is what is directly responsible for power produced. As such a 13b is directly comparable to a 2.6 liter piston engine.
@YOURprivateWAR1 The fact that a rotary doesn't have valves has nothing to do with its displacement or its specific output, the rotary uses the rotor housing and the size face of the rotor to valve the air into and out of the combustion chamber whereas a piston engine uses a poppet valve actuated typically by a camshaft. This means absolutely nothing when comparing displacement between the two engine types.
@li7in6 1 - i know how a rotary engine works and how a reciprocating engine works (i graduate UTI march 25th) and like i said there are 2 different ways of measuring the displacement of a rotary, i explained them both. and they way i say it should be measured the 13B is a 1.3L that breathes like a 2.6 and mazda agrees with me because they have that engine listed as a 1.3L and it breathes like a 2.6L honestly idk how many times i have to say that. and i didnt say that since the rotary has no
@li7in6 valves make a difference to the displacement it once again it helps the engine breath better making perform equal to that of a larger displacement reciprocating engine. and in a rotary engine they are called ports not valves fyi. and yes every street vehicle is currently using camshafts to open up valves on reciprocating engines, F1 cars are using solenoids hense their 18K rev limiter
@YOURprivateWAR1 please look up the definition for "displacement". Then explain to me how valves, or the lack of, have any effect on the displacement of an engine/container/volume. The subject of what an engine"breathes like" is moot. there are rotary ports that will get outflowed by a modern 4/5 valve head. Likewise there are rotary ports that will outflow a low performance 2 valve head. This is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF COMPARATIVE DISPLACEMENT.
@YOURprivateWAR1 I've explained to you several times and given you the numbers so you can do the math yourself. A 13b has a maximum displacement of 3.9 liters (654cc x6=3924cc). The rotors of a 13b rotate at ONE THIRD the speed of the eccentric shaft. that means for every revolution the 13b displaces 1.3 liters (654cc x2=1308cc). A piston engine puts HALF its total displacement through a power stroke every OTHER rotation. Meaning a 2.6 liter piston engine will displace 1.3 liters PER ROTATION.
@li7in6 wow, so you own an RX7 and still think the combustion chamber is over a half liter???? dude your a lost cause............... they dont list the displacement of 1 piston, so why would they list the displacement of 1 side of 1 rotor in the owners manual? if an RX7 is a 3.9L they'd list it as such. but honestly your a moron im done with you have fun with your non-existant 3.9L rotary man.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@YOURprivateWAR1 Each face of a 13b rotor creates a 654cc combustion chamber durring its rotation. Please do the math, ((654cc * 3 rotor faces)* 2 rotors)=3924cc. You simply do not understand the inner workings of a rotary. You are ignorant, you are too lazy to do your own research. You are a willful idiot. You cannot take a rotaries maximum displacement(3.9L) as a comparison to a piston engines maximum displacement because of its 1/3rd speed relationship between rotor and eccentric shaft.
@YOURprivateWAR1 Now that we've established that a 13b rotary will displace 1.3 liters PER ROTATION, and a 2.6 liter piston engine will displace 1.3 liters PER ROTATION. We can clearly see that a 13b is equivalent to a 2.6 liter piston engine in terms of displacement. Both engines displace the same volume every rotation and thus theoretically will produce similar amounts of power. Now that you know this, you know that a 13b is for all comparative purposes a 2.6 liter engine.
@YOURprivateWAR1 Calling the 13b 1.3 liters then comparing it to a piston engine is ignorant. In displacement comparison a 13b is equivalent to a 2.6 liter piston engine. Consider this, how much displacement does a 2.6 liter piston engine put through a power stroke in one revolution? How about a "1.3 liter" rotary?
I'll give you a hint. They displace the same in one revolution.
@YOURprivateWAR1 Also, to make power with a rotary you ahve to go single turbo, that means you have to remove the air pump. Removing the air pump violates federal law regarding removing emissions equipment and makes the car illegal according to many state laws aswell. Additionally making more than about 450-500hp on a rotary means you have to use race gas. An LS will make 600+hp all day on pump gas. Calling a 13b a 1.3 liter then trying to compare it to a piston engine based on this is idiocy.
@li7in6 ok breaking fedral law.... your putting an engine in a car that it didnt originally come in as an option is breaking frederaly law too. and how is saying the liter size comparing it to a recipricating engin?
@YOURprivateWAR1 It is not illegal to swap motors. Hot rod and honda guys do it all the time. The federal law specifically relates to the removal of emissions equipment. Which is exactly what you have to do to fit a single turbo on a rotary to make power.
@li7in6 if you alter emissions in anyway (i.e. engine swaps of any sort) its illegal. and then to put a LS1 in an RX7 you still gotta take of the air pump so your breaking the law there too
@YOURprivateWAR1 That's not how it works. An LS1 is a completely different engine from the 13b. When you swap an LS1 into an FD you retain the LS1's emissions equipment, NOT the 13b's emissions equipment. It's ok to remove the air pump because you are removing the engine that requires the air pump and replacing it with a completely different engine that has its own emissions controls. This is why LS swaps are legal because you are swapping in the LS specific emissions equipment as well.
@li7in6 if you read the fine print putting an engine that didnt originally come in that vehicle is illegal, but most cops don't/won't waste their time cuz cops are dumb but still i'd rather see an rx7 wrapped around a tree than see an LS1 in it, and i think your ruining a perfectly good car by doing that. that's all the more ill say on the matter.
@YOURprivateWAR1 Once again it's not illegal. Putting an engine in a car that is newer than the car is not illegal in the slightest. After the swap you must take the car to be inspected at your states department of motor vehicles to get an authorization placard showing it was inspected and it is installed will all the necessary emissions controls for the equipped engine and that the car is safe for road use. Once you get that placard you are as legal as buying a car off a dealers lot.
@YOURprivateWAR1 You're personal opinion is of no consequence. Subjectively you might not like it but objectively the car is much more reliable, much more efficient, and much faster. As I've pointed out, to get a 13b past even mildly modded LS power levels you must remove the air pump which renders the car illegal for street use and you must run race fuel. You can make an LS with 600+hp on pump gas and still be perfectly legal. Your taste is out of sync with those wanting more performance.
@YOURprivateWAR1 If you want a rotary RX-7 fine, buy one and keep the 13b in it. But you'll never be able to make more than ~380-400hp without making the car illegal and you'll never make more than 500hp without using race fuel. AND you'll go through engines one after the other.
@YOURprivateWAR1 haha, theres no way a built 13b could beat a built LS3 for the same amount of money. i can build a 560whp normally-aspirated LS3 for less than $5000. theres no way on this planet that you can even get 500whp on a 13b for that money.
@YOURprivateWAR1 The LS1 weighs within 50lbs of the 13b. it does not change the weight balance of the car. A 20b is much heavier than an LS1 and ruins the weight balance of the car and requires moving the steering rack which ruins the handling of the car. But let me guess. You're perfectly fine with a 20b swap...
@li7in6 actually no im not fine with a 20b swap because those are race engines that you will have to rebuild every year or two. if you beef up a 13b to 400whp it will last plenty long as long as you dont beat the shit out of it every where you go.
@YOURprivateWAR1 you obviously know VERY LITTLE about any engines at all kid.. the 20b isn't a "race engine", its an engine that came with the Mazda Cosmo, a 2dr luxury coupe. mazda never used the 20b engine for any competitive purposes. and you don't "beat the shit out of it everywhere you go", it makes way more torque than a 13b.
@impreziv very true i forgot about that car. and way to twist my words, i said a 400whp 13b will last plenty long if you dont beat the shit out of it.. that statement had nothing to do with a 20B. and yeah i have no idea about engines, its not like im going to school to become a mechanic or anything.
@YOURprivateWAR1 20b's are not race engines. They are just as much production engines as the 13b. The 20b came in the Eunos Cosmo, a luxury car made by Mazda. Its a mass production engine.
@prisonbreak7760 If you were in the know, the LS1 (and most of the new gen small blocks) is a monster. Light weight, makes reliable power, and grea mpg's on this tiny car. The rotary is a fussy little engine, that doesn't come turbo anymore for a reason. This first ??? rotary guys ask one another "So what motor are you on?"
@prisonbreak7760 If you were in the know, the LS1 (and most of the new gen small blocks) is a monster. Light weight, makes reliable power, and great mpg's on this tiny car. The rotary is a fussy little engine, that doesn't come turbo anymore for a reason. This first ??? rotary guys ask one another "So what motor are you on?"
Dollar per dollar, mod for mod, LS1s are proven to be the best motors for any RWD platform, no wonder even people from the import scene want to use them. Sure, you can build a 13b, 20b, RB26DETT, 2JZ-GTE, 4G63T, K20A/K24A, 4.6L/5.4L Ford modular, 6.1L Dodge/Chrysler Hemi, or whatever you want and swap it in, but you would get much less performance overall per dollar spent. The LSx swap trend in high performance RWD cars is continually growing, compared to other more expensive/inferior swaps.
@zzzurd agreed. i cant think of another engine that can make 550whp normally-aspirated, weigh less than 420lb, and be built from the ground-up for less than $5000
@zzzurd I'm an LS fan. But I will say its cheaper because GM likes to flood the market with parts. Thats why in four wheeling Jeeps are so popular. Theirs so many of them parts are cheap, and the aftermarket is huge.
why the helll wouldn't u want another engine than a rotary?! their a nightmare to work on since their like mini jet engines. LS1 would go in my FD any day
this is amazing but shit keep the ls1's where they need to be, or at least in the same class. why not just make the rx7 engine better.
0078air1 2 months ago
Hmm. A cammed LS1 with straight pipes. And here I thought my cammed V6 with open headers sounded good. This is great.
americansmark 3 months ago
sounds like a pick up truck LOL
takis659 6 months ago
@takis659 sounds like it will beat a z06 and maby kepp up with a zr1
berrycolumbus 6 months ago
@berrycolumbus why does it sound like that for??u took out exhaust??
takis659 6 months ago
haha no powersteering. thats funny. nice build though
unitedfree 6 months ago
I don't understand why people go through this trouble to modify an RX7 to a LS1!!! If you want power then stick a 3 or 4 rotor in it, just as good if not better!
BigBlackMamba101 6 months ago
@BigBlackMamba101 depends on what you want to do, most people do this mod cause they are interested in making their car quick in a straight line, rather than quick on a road course. The LS1 is an excellent VERY reliable engine to use in a drag car.
Naptownstreetsquid 2 months ago
@Naptownstreetsquid, that's not entirely true, in drag racing the Rotaries are the Kings of drag and they really run the best times. Although its true they are reliable but when it comes to dragging it becomes a non reliable engine, this is the LS1 or any other engine used for drag. It you want a drag car you want Rotary, you don't want to pitch up at a gun fight with a knife. Nothing really beats a Rotary on a 1/4 mile.
BigBlackMamba101 2 months ago
@Naptownstreetsquid WAYNE DYSON RX3 COUPE 20B TURBO 7.6secs
Have a look at this your self and see what I mean.
BigBlackMamba101 2 months ago
@BigBlackMamba101 Well im talking daily driven car, not an all out drag car. Boxperformance has a 7 sec corvette that they drove on the street for thousands of miles. An Ls1 with a cam will idle in traffic on 100 degree days, run on pump gas every day, have very little issues if any at all, but put some slicks on it your in the 11's in that light rx7, and on a little juice possibly 10's and you can drive it to work the next morning. Thats my point
Naptownstreetsquid 2 months ago
engine swaps are for quitters, not tuners
darkeyce02 7 months ago
@darkeyce02 is your car 300+ rwhp, 300+ rw ft lbs, 27 hw.mpg, and still super reliable and streetable? you can tune all you like but those numbers are not coming out of the stock engine.
onquarter 7 months ago
@onquarter those are easy numbers for a rotory lol easy numbers for my car as well
darkeyce02 7 months ago
@darkeyce02 well i just looked it up and the rx8 is rated at 22 mpg on the highway with a 60,000 mile powertrain warranty. the corvette (ls3 is similar to ls1) gets 4 mpg better and has a 100,000 mile warranty. i have never heard of a rotary hitting 150,000 miles without a rebuild but most lsX's last much longer than that. if you want to talk about modified performance look up the most powerful rotary engine and the most powerful ls1 and i think you will be surprised. (600 vs 1200 hp range)
onquarter 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onquarter you must not watch much vids, thers rotary's with more than that,ive seen a few rotary's around here than are stock but have over 150k on the original engine, maintenaince helps. a lot...ill take a TT triple rotor 20b over a ls motor, its unique, thats why i said my first comment. its much easier to stick together a ls than scavenge the parts for a fast rotary
darkeyce02 7 months ago
@onquarter damn you are biased.... you need to brush up on your research skills. as the most powerful 2rotors are in the 900-1100hp range, and 3 and 4 rotors are well past 1400hp.
wanna talk semantics? lets go
rotor13 7 months ago
@onquarter Plus, just because YOU've never heard or seen a rotary hit 150k miles, doesnt mean its never been done...
i've owned MANY rotaries with mileage in the 230k range on the original motor still putting out power within 10% of factory numbers.
even a few FD's i've owned have had over 170k miles, before they were stripped to make drag chassis out of.
its not all about whats better. sometimes its about what people like.
rotor13 7 months ago
@onquarter And my current daily driven FD has 86k miles on the chassis and stock motor. pushing 15psi on the stock twins, with basic bolt-ons and a PowerFC got me 346hp/320tq and with a few tuning sessions, i am able to get 32mpg on the highway and around the low 20s for the city, with mixed driving its about 28mpg.
yes, 300+hp/300+tq 20ish city/30ish hwy out of a stock motor.
rotor13 7 months ago
GUYS, SHUT THE FUCK UP. SERIOUSLY. Nobody gives a shit about your opinion when you don't even own a high performance car. It is true, APEX seals break. At the same time, GM makes a really shitty top engine (I have worked on too many fucking cars, don't even try to argue this.). Engine life is relative to the quality of the build . Every engine has its faults, which is exactly why there is so many fucking types of them. Get a life & stop arguing about what this man should have done. It's his car.
ShepperdW 7 months ago 20
@ShepperdW are you saying that the lsX engines are shitty?
onquarter 7 months ago
@onquarter Depends on how it's built. Some yes, some no. Same with rotary.
ShepperdW 7 months ago
@ShepperdW ...Preach!! Tell it brotha... lol
rxtony05 6 months ago
one reason to switch out the rotary wankel engine is because rotory engines won't last nearly as long as piston engines, and they require much more maintenance too. With a LS1 motor, less maintenance is required, less mods require to get power, and much more reliable than the wankel
bluice619 8 months ago
@bluice619 That's another thing rotary fans always seem to forget, that a hopped up rotary motor won't last longer than 10k miles without some ridiculous internal upgrades. A stock ls1 block will take 8psi forced induction and make 550rwhp with minimal maintenance, such as changing the blower belt (in the case of a s/c anyway) or installing an oil catch can.
Will the rear end or clutch last long? Probably not, but that motor will never break. You can't say that about your average wankel design.
cyberslick18 8 months ago
@cyberslick18 I won't go as far as saying the LS1 will never break, but it certainly will last much longer and able to take more abuse than a rotory engine.
bluice619 8 months ago
@cyberslick18 um... there are not internal upgrades for the rotary... other then milling down the rotors to fit bigger stronger seals... you do nothing but upgrade the turbo system to single and upgrade the fuel system to make 550whp... and that cost less then most S/C... sorry to tell you there are plenty of broken ls1... 600whp daily driven FD that runs 9 second 1/4 mile will last 150k... maybe if it has a complete idiot tuning it wont last 10k...
Tj1056 8 months ago
@cyberslick18 your ignorance really shows.
rotor13 7 months ago
@bluice619 any modified car will require the same amount of maintenance... a stock rotary only requires feeding it oil every now and then... because it burns oil by design
Tj1056 8 months ago
@Tj1056 a stock 3rd gen RX7 requires a complete engine rebuilt between 50k - 100k miles.... do you know of any piston engines that require a rebuilt under 100k? The major things you'll need on a piston engine is may be a timing belt if it's not a timing chain setup or may be a valve cover or head gasket.
bluice619 8 months ago
@bluice619 no it does not you idiot... 150k at the least and between 200k-300k on how you drive it... remember its a race car engine... there are so many things that can go wrong on v8 engines dude... a turbocharged v8 will go through piston rings as fast as a rotary goes through apex seals...
Tj1056 8 months ago
@Tj1056 N/A i feel Apex seals last just as long as piston rings, but considering rx-7 are turbo reliant.... hurts the reliability quite a bit.
Texarmageddon 7 months ago
@Texarmageddon mmmhm... thats why I say a Turbo v8 will go through rings just as fast
Tj1056 7 months ago
@bluice619 and please try not to argue that...
Tj1056 8 months ago
@Tj1056 Im not gonna argue 'cause wasting my time on misinformed people isn't something that i like to do. Try owning a twin turbo RX7 and live with it for a few years then come back and talk.
bluice619 8 months ago
@bluice619 i do...
Tj1056 8 months ago
@bluice619, Well, not entirely true, I can agree that rotary engines do need there love and caring and the maintenance is a bit less on LS1 if you are a lazy person all though a rotary can last you just as long as any engine if you maintain it well,,,,,"not for lazy people" however, its not good to see a LS1 in a RX7 as it looses its creditability of being a "sports car" and the brand name that come with it RX7.
BigBlackMamba101 6 months ago
@BigBlackMamba101 All im saying is that rotary requires more maintenance and attention than other engines... and you seem to agree with that point. Now, it's up to the car's owner to do what they want with their car. I feel that it's nice to see someone think outside the box for once. If the owner is more comfortable with an LS1, then why not use it. May be he's gonna use it as a drift car, so alll that torque will come in handy.
bluice619 6 months ago
Why? Isn't the reason of getting a rx-7 becuase its light and has a high revving rotary??? I really dont get why someone would do this to well in a way a "rare" car. Not many cars use rotary's these days, plus there pretty sick!
suprakilzz26 8 months ago
i love hearing a cammed v8 running a fart can lol, sick car though
allenman1234 8 months ago
whats wrong with u guys ??? its a RX-7 and not a VX-7... get a american muscle car and not a beautiful japanese sportscar with that awesome Rotary Sound....
BetA666 9 months ago
@BetA666 i agree with you 100%, but you know how people are. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion...ya kno?
CoNTaGiSs 9 months ago
win!
123ct456 9 months ago
When you take the rotary out of an RX-7, it's no longer an RX-7.
omanuder 9 months ago 38
@omanuder ur rite its now a really AWSOME RX7
dillonclapp101 9 months ago
@omanuder when you put a LS1 in it, it becomes a whole different monster
steveb213 8 months ago
@omanuder No matter what engine is in it its still an RX-7. You rotary guys get so mad because a v8 can produce more hp and get better fuel economy
wsimpson86 7 months ago
@omanuder That's the best part! It's no longer a mazda but still has the good looks. Now you can flog it like a camaro
jaymieandrew855 7 months ago
this isnt james stewart!!!
nuhhhhhhh 10 months ago
siiicckkk
95300whptalon 10 months ago
Rotary greatest feeling and sound ever, not so reliable. The V8 belongs in a vette, very reliable. Sounds nice.
1dirty7 10 months ago
the number of cylinders in that engine for the total displacement. for a rotary they take the largest displacement of 1 side of 1 rotor and multiply it by 6 for the total displacement of the engine. like i said if you can prove me wrong i will admit im wrong and apologize, but from every article i've read it says total displacement is 1.3L and total would indicate all 6 sides of the rotors
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
ok like i said (for the pull your motor thing) i said THE NEXT TIME YOUR ENGINE NEED WORK DONE TO IT!!! then if you say per rotation on the eccentric shaft the engine displaces how ever much you think, then do they say the displacement of of a reciprocating engine (idk why you keep calling it a piston engine because that's not the right name) per revolution of the crankshaft when only half of the pistons (at most) are at BDC? no they take the reading of 1 cylinder at BDC then multiply it by
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 You are trying to apply piston engine displacement calculation to a rotary. Rotaries work differently, their displacement is calculated differently. Piston engine displacement is calculated by taking the total MAXIMUM displacement of all combustion chambers and adding them together. a 2.6 liter 4 cylinder would ahve four ~650cc combustion chambers.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 You're right but let me try explaining a different way. It takes 2 turns of the crank in a piston motor for all the cylinders to complete a combustion cycle. A rotary motor has a combustion cycle every turn of the crank(e-shaft). So to compare apples to apples you take two turns of the e-shaft just like a piston motor(650cc x 2revs x 2rotors =2.6 liters). Saying it's a 1.3L motor isn't wrong, you just can't compare it to a piston motor like that.
MyOpinionMatterss 10 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 If you take the maximum displacement of a 13b rotary (654cc*6 combustion chambers) you get 3.9 liters. This doesn't work however if you want to compare to a piston engine as a rotary will take 50% more rotations to achieve this displacement due to its design and theoretically will produce ~50% less power than a comparable 3.9 liter piston engine. That is why you have to go by displacement per revolution when comparing which brings the 13b to 2.6 liters.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 wow you are really misinformed....
the total combustion size for EACH ROTOR is 654cc for the 13B. not for each combustion chamber.... go ahead, CC 13B rotor faces with the bathtub at it LARGEST size, at the start of any of the 4 cycles.
because in most countries outside the US, the 13B is considered a 2stroke engine, they double displacement for 4stroke, and you get 2.6 liters.
the 20B 3rotor's perceived displacement would be 3.9.
and the 4rotor is at 4.4 and 5.2 liters
rotor13 7 months ago
@rotor13 Please do some research for yourself then come back and have a debate with the big buys. I'm tired of trying to educate people that don't have a clue on youtube.
li7in6 7 months ago
@li7in6 ive done my research. what big boys are you talking about?
the ones that claim that they know shit, and then to discredit other people by going with the blanket statement that you hope no one responds back, by mentioning "youtube" as an insult?
i challenge your own "tiredness" to educate someone once more
rotor13 7 months ago
@rotor13 I've educated people like you countless times. I couldn't be fucked to do it again. Do some research, If you do you'd know that a 13b and its derivatives (20b, RB26) utilize a rotor comprised of THREE separate 654cc combustion chambers totaling 1962cc possible displacement PER ROTOR. Not 654cc per rotor as you incorrectly stated. Do some reading them come back and debate when you have a solid grasp of the subject at hand.
li7in6 7 months ago
@li7in6 you didnt "learn" from reading Wikipedia with its very flaccid sources did you? because everything ive read over the years, especially from race engineers and builders that i have learned from do not coincide with the sources ive followed from wiki. In fact, the ONLY place i've found that you almost directly quoted verbtim, is from wikipedia. Im not trying to discredit you, im simply wondering where your facts come from. knowledge is nothing without experience and i have years of it
rotor13 7 months ago
@rotor13 It's not rocket science, it's not a matter of opinion. Because the subject is misunderstood doesn't make the truth dubious or elusive. I'm glad you've read the wiki page, but i suggest you look a little deeper. I've been in the FC/FD modding community in California for close to 15 years now. I've built rotaries, spoken to well respected builders and tuners (Dave Lemon, Rob Golden, Alex Shen), and read countless books in addition to perusing a ME degree. Please do some reading.
li7in6 7 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 I've already explained several times why and how displacement is, isn't, and should be calculated on a rotary. If you want to compare an engine to a rotary an RB26 is a much more accurate competitor than a 1.3 liter GSXR-1300 Hayabusa motor because revolution for revolution a rotary will displace twice as much as the Haybusa motor and approximately the same as the RB26 and thus produces power and consumes fuel more comparable to the RB26 than the GSXR-1300.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 I sort of agree. But a rotary has a large and relatively inefficient combustion chamber. i think this a big part of why it uses so much fuel. you're right about the problems in comparing displacement. Piston motors are more efficient at slower rpms, and make more grunt obviously, but as engine spped increases the simple mechanical advantage of the non-reciprocating motor is far superior.
karsown 10 months ago
the eccentric shaft rotates 3 times the speed of the rotor, yes. the total displacement for 1 rotor is 654CC making 1 side of 1 rotor 218CC making the total displacement 1.3L they wouldnt say its total displacement is 1.3L if it really displaced 3.9L you were mistaught on rotary engines, go on how stuff works.com and it says the total displacement of 1 rotor is 1.3L and when they say 1 revolution it means of the rotor not of the eccentric shaft. you will not beat me on rotary engines.
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 i mean isnt 1.3L, its .65L per revolution of a rotor
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 Find me ONE credible source that lists a 13b's combustion chamber displacement as 218cc. Just ONE.
A rotary engine's rotational speed is measured by rotations of the eccentric shaft (as this outputs to the transmission), NOT the rotations of the rotors.
Also, I f you think its even remotely realistic for me to pull my motor, disassemble, and fill with water just to educate one idiot on the internet that doesn't want to do his own research. You are crazy.
li7in6 11 months ago
13B displacement search on google proves me right, each rotor displaces 654CC for a total of 1308CC displacement or 1.3L, educate yourself bitch
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 You either are a failure at google or your reading comprehension is terrible. A rotary displaces 654cc PER COMBUSTION CHAMBER NOT PER ROTOR. There are THREE combustion chambers per rotor. Simple math says 654cc*6=3924cc. It's simple math, its a simple concept. I cannot believe there is someone as dense as you that cannot grasp these SIMPLE concepts.
li7in6 11 months ago
ok if you know why they call it a 1.3L then why do you keep calling 3.9L
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 1.3L is the advertised displacement, partly for marketing reasons (calling it a 1.3 liter makes it have a very high specific output which is good marketing) there was never an industry standard for measuring rotary displacement so rotary proponents (those trying to sell the thing) calculated the displacement in a way that would make it appear superior. Calling a 13b a 1.3L completely ignores 4 of its 6 combustion chambers.
li7in6 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 2.6L is the actual comparable displacement to a piston engine because a 13b and a 2.6 liter piston engine both displace the same amount per rotation due to the rotaries 1/3rd eccentric/rotor relationship and the fact that each cylinder on a piston engine has a dead rotation in its 4 stroke cycle. Both a 13b and a 2.6 liter 4 cylinder engine will displace the same amount per rotation and thus they are directly comparable in power output, efficiency, etc.
li7in6 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 3.9L is the MAXIMUM displacement of a 13b counting all of its possible combustion chambers. There are SIX separate chambers displacing 654cc at some point in their 'stroke'. This totals 3924cc. You cannot compare a 13b to a 3.9 liter piston engine because a rotary has to rotate 3 times to displace its full 3.9 liters whereas a 3.9 liter piston engine would only have to rotate two times to displace its full 3.9 liters. Thus they are not directly comparable.
li7in6 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 Thus a 13b rotary is comparable to a 2.6L piston engine and thus should technically be called a 2.6 liter because its displacement per revolution is equivalent to a 2.6 liter 4 cylinder. Please do some research and stop making a fool of yourself.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 *Mazda Wankel Engine on wikipedia says 654CC per rotor, not per side of a rotor. i cant post links otherwise id post more on here. next time you need work done to your RX7 that you supposedly own, take a 2 liter soda bottle filled with water and try pouring as much as you can into the housing after blocking off the intake and auxillary ports.then dump it out, rotate the engine to the next side of the rotor and do it again, then again, then 4th, 5th, and 6th time. you will still
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 While you are farting around on wikipedia look up "Wankel Engine" then look down under "Disadvantages". Read the fifth paragraph down in the disadvantages section that starts with "For comparison purposes between a Wankel Rotary engine and a piston engine"
Come back and try to tell me you know a damn thing about rotaries. I'd love to see it.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 have just under half of the bottle still filled with water. if not video tape it prove me wrong, and send it to mazda also and ask why they list it as a 1.3L
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
displacement from all pistons when they are at BDC because that is the displacement. what your saying is that a one side of a rotor displaces 1.3L, so this would mean a 2.0L four banger displace 2.0L per piston... no a 13B's displacement is the totalof the 3 sides of both rotors.
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 If you were to count total dispalcement of a 13b you would come up with 3.9L. Each rotor has three separate 654cc combustion chambers and two total rotors which adds up to 3924cc. There is a reason a 13b is not comparable to a 3.9L piston engine just as there is a reason a 13b is not comparable to a 1.3L piston engine. The reason is displacement per revolution, one revolution of a rotary is one revolution of its eccentric shaft which equates to 1/3rd a rotation of each rotor.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 look up this video on here and tell me you HONESTLY THINK this is 3.9L or displacement, because obviously you've never seen the inside of an actual rotary engine - Rotary Rotational Demonstration - you need to learn more about a car you own
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 I don't 'think' a 13b's maximum displacement is 3.9 liters. I know it is because I know the displacement of each combustion chamber (654cc) and I know how many combustion chambers there are (six) and I passed the 3rd grade so I know that 654cc*6=3924cc or 3.9 liters. Please complete 3rd grade math, then please do some research for yourself. I'm really getting sick of trying to educate you.
li7in6 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 and i'd like for you to complete ANY english class and read the listed displacement of a rotory engine which lists it as 1.3L they wouldnt list a 1.3L as a 3.9L because the engineers who make these arent fucking retards, such as yourself. i'd stick with your chevy and sell your RX7 cuz you really dont know shit about cars man.
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 Clearly you haven't done any research yet. I know why Mazda calls it a 1.3L. You don't. I know that it is comparable to a 2.6 liter piston engine and why. You don't. I know the maximum displacement of a 13b. You don't. You read its listed displacement on your gran turismo or something and now you think you are an expert. Why are you unwilling to do research on it? A 10 second google search will tell you EXACTLY what I've been telling you. Instead you'd rather argue and be wrong.
li7in6 11 months ago
yes and per revolution means all 3 sides of both rotors firing. because all 4 strokes are completed in 1 revolution of the rotor for all sides of that rotor. also if the 13B was a 2.6L why whould they list that engine as a 1.3L engine? they list the total displacement of the engine not the displacement of just 1 rotor of a rotary engine. when they list displacement of a V engine do they list the displacement of just 1 bank (or just 1 piston for that fact) of that engine? no they list all the
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 No, one "revolution" on a rotary is one revolution of the ECCENTRIC SHAFT as this is the output to the transmission. The Eccentric shaft rotates at three times the speed of the rotors and thus one "revolution" of the eccentric shaft only sees two 654cc combustion chambers (1/3d of a rotation of a rotor), thus 1.3 liters displaced on a 13b per revolution. Calling a 13b a 1.3L engine is good for marketing when you are selling a high specific output 1.3L. when in reality it's 2.6L
li7in6 11 months ago
And lets not forget the most obvious and important fact...you own an rx7 for its engine. you buy an rx7 for its engine. that chassis was designed for a rotary. the sound of that "badass muscle car" is actually the sound of no economy and a lazy mans way to justify making no improvement over a correctly built and tuned rotary which will outlast that shitty ls engine...
plus swaps like this just show that people like this have no brains anyways BECAUSE they did this swap...fucking retarded hicks.
DriftArmyRotorz 11 months ago
i LOVE the rotarys,but they sound terrible.just saying.now the LS1,is bad ass.and sounds bad ass.but hey,it can only rev to like 6-7k not 1000000000000. xD
rockerdude29 11 months ago
God I hate that single exhaust, but otherwise great car and excellent choice of motor. Fuck the wankel fan fags. Apparently they don't know that torque actually moves the fucking car, not 300 horsepower at 900,000 rpm
cyberslick18 1 year ago 7
@cyberslick18 lmao good one
2young1stunna4 11 months ago
@cyberslick18 and doesn't make you mad that these low torque engines are doing 6 second 1/4 miles with less then 1000hp?
Tj1056 8 months ago
@Tj1056 Go find me a street driven (and legal) rx7 with a stock block rotary engine pulling a 6 second quarter mile. You can't, because they don't exist. Are you so willfully ignorant that you'd compare a street car to a purpose built drag racing car?
Jr dragsters can pull 6 second quarter miles with less than 350 horsepower, but it means absolutely nothing compared to what I was talking about. God I hate youtube.
cyberslick18 8 months ago
@cyberslick18 go find me a street driven ls1 that can pull 6 seconds?
Tj1056 8 months ago
@Tj1056 I never said there was one. You did, however, attack my statement (about street cars) by making a comparison to (purpose built drag racers). My ignorance is bliss? Please, you don't even know how to have a proper argument.
Go google "logical fallacies", and when you've brushed up a bit, come back, and I'd be happy to engage you on the topic of LSx series motors vs Wankel motors for performance street cars. Until then, knock it off, you are just making yourself look stupid.
cyberslick18 8 months ago
@cyberslick18 and I never said the 6 second rotary was street legal...you never said anything about street legal cars... you where just talking shit about the rotary dick face retard
Tj1056 8 months ago
@cyberslick18 your ignorance is bliss
Tj1056 8 months ago
@cyberslick18 find me an actual Jr Dragster that pulls a 6 second quarter mile..... and one that makes 350hp..... i dare you. you are talking straight shit outta your ass
rotor13 7 months ago
@cyberslick18 you are the kind of guy that liked when in tokio drift they took out the SR20 from the silvia an put it on the mustang chasis... so american
juankrlox 8 months ago
@juankrlox pay attention..... it was an RB26
rotor13 7 months ago
Beasty. I rock a NA Miata 16B rotary for track days, but would love to have that instead.
americansmark 1 year ago
you shud go die for replacing a rotary with an LS1
Viju6906 1 year ago
@Viju6906 You need to go die for commenting on this video.Take some rotards & ricers with you.
turbomoore 1 year ago
@Viju6906 You should die for being a moron. At least this car is being driven, and not stuck in a garage in pieces because the rotary shit out a seal for the 5th time.
JustinStrife 1 year ago
@Viju6906 sorry but your really illiterate for saying that.I love my JDM. but i rather swap my RX7 with a LS1. i cant stand the vacumcleaner sound that rx-7 makes. id prefer a honda with a rattled muffler hitting vtec.
RobertMoua 1 year ago
no replacement for displacement
shootnmove 1 year ago
RX7 does not mean LS1.
Subsw00fers 1 year ago
Why does it sound soo nasty?
SSM3ddY13ST 1 year ago
piece of shiiit
BIHxJDMxSUPRA 1 year ago
@BIHxJDMxSUPRA Lol what you got a MK3 supra bitch?
aaronp1994 1 year ago
oh, i didnt read the title carefully enough and i thought it was an ls7 rx7, lol
TheRiseagainstfan 1 year ago
Does the power steering need to get removed in LS1 retrofits?
ppbbs88 1 year ago
IT doesnt sound right to me...
DanielSonWSP 1 year ago
good job you ruined a perfectly good car and threw off the 50/50 weight distribution! i hope you crash :D
YOURprivateWAR1 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 the LS swap in the FD RX7 actually retain's the car's 50/50 balance. a fully dressed LS1 weighs only a few pounds more than a fully dressed twin-turbo 13b-REW.
some guys end up losing weight doing the LS swap. it all depends on how much stuff you end up tossing during the course of the swap.
impreziv 1 year ago
@impreziv the LShas more weight in front/on top of the front wheels throwing off the weight distribution. plus RX means rotory experiment/ rotory engine. and this guy is not an import guy he's an american "muscle" guy. if i could i'd put baby powder in my hand and slap every person who did this swap
YOURprivateWAR1 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 i dont care what "RX" stands for, but you know what LS stands for? it stands for, Lick my Sweaty balls. i'm really sick of you Rotary guys and your "Holier than thou" attitude. does it ever occur to you guys that we simply don't give a shit about your worthless little engines? and some people are willing to give up 2% weight balance for 200% more power and fuel econo?
but you know what? it thrills me to death when it offends you that we are in your precious little RX7 ;)
impreziv 1 year ago 2
@impreziv ok first of all i dont think its "Holier than thou" all im saying is that your ruining a good JAPANESE cay bu putting in an AMERICAN engine. and secondly that "worthless little engine" can beat an LS1 with the money you spent on the swap alone (and in case you didnt know a rotory engine a 1.3L so Lick these Seaty balls bitch)
YOURprivateWAR1 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 How is it ruined? The LS1 is more powerful, more torquey, more reliable, more durable, and gets better gas mileage. The money spent on an LS swap is recouped because you don't end up having to replace the rotary every year or two. An LS will make great power for the life of the car. You don't have to worry about a POS rotary popping because it didn't like the fuel you ran through it.
li7in6 1 year ago
@li7in6 13B's are just as reliable as anyother car now day, more torquey cuz you have triple the liters so no shit
YOURprivateWAR1 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 1.3L is the true displacement of a 13b engine. the only reason some racing organizations double the displacement of rotaries, is because 4-stroke piston engines should actually have their displacements cut in half.
displacement is the measurement of the number of cylinders that fire every revolution. when we made the jump from 2, to 4-stroke we never cut the displacement in half for marketing. 2-stroke fires all cyls per rev, 4-stroke fires half its cyls per rev.
impreziv 1 year ago
@impreziv The "true" displacement of a rotary is easily up for debate. A 13b has six 654cc combustion chambers totaling 3.9 liters. A 13b displaces 1.3 liters per revolution, the same as a 2.6 liter piston engine with a conventional firing order. 1.3 liters is the displacement of just two if its six total combustion chambers. 2.6 liters is the most accurate displacement of a 13b to compare to a piston engine in terms of specific output and specific fuel consumption.
li7in6 1 year ago
@li7in6 nooooo a 13b is a 1.3L engine (all sides of both rotor combine) that's how it got its name. it breathes like a 2.6liter because or the design of the engine, no valves or camshafts. if you street port a 13b it brethes even better because a street port its like a valve job on anyother engine.
YOURprivateWAR1 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 No, a 13b displaces 3.9 liters total displacement if you count all six of its combustion chambers. There are three combustion chambers per rotor displacing 654cc each. There are two rotors per 13b. That totals 3.9 liters for the entire engine. A 20b has nine 654cc combustion chambers for a maximum combined displacement of ~5.9 liters.
li7in6 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 A 13b "breaths" like a 2.6 liter because it displaces the same amount per revolution as a 2.6 liter engine. Every two rotations of the eccentric shaft uses four of the six 654cc combustion chambers totaling 2.6 liters. A 2.6 liter piston engine will only displace its full 2.6 liters after two revolutions as well. Both engines will displace 1.3 liters after one revolution. Buy this standard if a 13b is 1.3 liters then so is an RB26DETT.
li7in6 1 year ago
@li7in6 a 2 rotor Wankel fires only 2 of its combustion chambers per rotation. it displaces exactly 1.3L. a 4-stroke piston engine fires only half of its cylinders per rotation. in true form, we should be quoting the displacement of piston engines 50% less than we do, but for marketing reasons, we chose not to, when we started making engines 4-stroke instead of 2-stroke.
rotaries don't perform like a 2.6 piston engine, a 2.6 piston engine is truely 1.3L itself, if we use an equal count
impreziv 1 year ago
@impreziv It's really just semantics here. Either way they mean the same thing. A 13b is directly comparable to a 2.6 liter piston engine. piston engine displacement is calculated by their maximum diplacement across all combustion chambers. For instance a RB26 has six ~433cc combustion chambers for a total of 2.6 liters. Using this standard on a rotary (six 654cc combustion chambers for a total of 3.9 liters) doesn't work. Which is why we must resort to displacement per revolution.
li7in6 1 year ago
@li7in6 why does it seem correct to you to use one standard for a Rotary, and another standard for piston engines, and then say that the difference between the outcomes is attributed to an advantage for Rotary engines?
the absolute correct way to calculate displacement is to count the number of combustions per revolution. rotaries use this, piston engines dont
if we count both engines by the same standard, a 2.6L piston engine would be 1.3L. and removes any apparent advantage from the Rotary.
impreziv 1 year ago
@impreziv You have to use different displacement calculation standards simply because rotary and piston engine's function differently. There is no "absolute correct way" to calculate displacement. There is a widely accepted way, for piston engine's this is to calculate based on the maximum displacement of all cylinders. To compare a rotary on equal footing you must calculate its displacement differently. This is where displacement per revolution comes in.
li7in6 1 year ago
@impreziv 13b's displace 1.3 liters per revolution. The same as a 2.6 liter piston engine. How is this comparison favorable to the rotary? The 13b makes power and consumes fuel at a rate roughly approximate to a 2.6 liter piton engine. Where are you getting an "advantage" for the rotary from out of this? To claim a 13b is actually comparable to a 1.3 liter piston engine gives it a ridiculous advantage in terms of power produced and specific output and comparing in this way is just outright wrong
li7in6 1 year ago
@li7in6 yeah that's for both rotors firing once on each side. 2 rotors, 360 degrees of rotation is 1.3L each rotor is only 0.65L the advantage or rotary engines are they BREATHE like a 2.6L because they have NO VALVES!!!!!! so it its comparable to a 1.3L because it is...... so you comparing it with a 2.6L reciprocating engine it outright wrong.
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 You misunderstand the fundamental principals behind the rotary. I suggest you look on a site like howstuffworks to get a better understanding. Each rotor has THREE separate 654cc combustion chambers (each side of the 'triangle'). On a two rotor 13b this means there are SIX separate 654cc combustion chambers totaling 3.9 liters of total displacement. a 13b will displace 2.6 liters every two revolutions just like a 2.6 liter piston engine will. This has nothing to do with valves.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 i know how a rotary engine works. and there are 2 ways of measuring a roary engine, the way you discribe is measuring each chamber when its at it maximum size, they way im describing it is when you measure the chambers while the rotor is stationary. mazda measures is the way im discribing it, with the rotors stationary. when you measure it my way the total size of the engine is 1.3L hense the 13B name. and you didnt make sense for a little there, if the total size is that of a 3.9L
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@li7in6 how does it only displace 2.6L? the rotary engine is capable of BREATING like a 2.6L even tho its only a 1.3 and that is mainly because of the valveless design.
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 Once again, I suggest you research the workings of the rotary before you respond as there is not enough room here for me to elaborate completely for you to understand. It is simple mathematics, a 13b has SIX 654cc combustion chambers. Each rotor rotates at 1/3rd the speed of the eccentric shaft. This means that every revolution of the eccentric shaft sees ONE 654cc combustion chamber complete its power stroke PER ROTOR. This is 1.3 liters PER REVOLUTION of the 13b.
li7in6 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 (cont.) This means a 13b will displace the same amount PER REVOLUTION as a 2.6 liter four cylinder piston engine. A 2.6 liter piston engine displaces 1.3 liters through its power stroke per revolution due to its 4 stroke cycle in each cylinder. Now the most effective way to compare a piston engine to a rotary is in terms of dispalcement per revolution as this is what is directly responsible for power produced. As such a 13b is directly comparable to a 2.6 liter piston engine.
li7in6 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 The fact that a rotary doesn't have valves has nothing to do with its displacement or its specific output, the rotary uses the rotor housing and the size face of the rotor to valve the air into and out of the combustion chamber whereas a piston engine uses a poppet valve actuated typically by a camshaft. This means absolutely nothing when comparing displacement between the two engine types.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 1 - i know how a rotary engine works and how a reciprocating engine works (i graduate UTI march 25th) and like i said there are 2 different ways of measuring the displacement of a rotary, i explained them both. and they way i say it should be measured the 13B is a 1.3L that breathes like a 2.6 and mazda agrees with me because they have that engine listed as a 1.3L and it breathes like a 2.6L honestly idk how many times i have to say that. and i didnt say that since the rotary has no
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@li7in6 valves make a difference to the displacement it once again it helps the engine breath better making perform equal to that of a larger displacement reciprocating engine. and in a rotary engine they are called ports not valves fyi. and yes every street vehicle is currently using camshafts to open up valves on reciprocating engines, F1 cars are using solenoids hense their 18K rev limiter
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 please look up the definition for "displacement". Then explain to me how valves, or the lack of, have any effect on the displacement of an engine/container/volume. The subject of what an engine"breathes like" is moot. there are rotary ports that will get outflowed by a modern 4/5 valve head. Likewise there are rotary ports that will outflow a low performance 2 valve head. This is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF COMPARATIVE DISPLACEMENT.
li7in6 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 I've explained to you several times and given you the numbers so you can do the math yourself. A 13b has a maximum displacement of 3.9 liters (654cc x6=3924cc). The rotors of a 13b rotate at ONE THIRD the speed of the eccentric shaft. that means for every revolution the 13b displaces 1.3 liters (654cc x2=1308cc). A piston engine puts HALF its total displacement through a power stroke every OTHER rotation. Meaning a 2.6 liter piston engine will displace 1.3 liters PER ROTATION.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 so what kind of car do you drive? (i have a point to make with this)
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 I drive a '89 FC and a Silverado.
li7in6 11 months ago
@li7in6 wow, so you own an RX7 and still think the combustion chamber is over a half liter???? dude your a lost cause............... they dont list the displacement of 1 piston, so why would they list the displacement of 1 side of 1 rotor in the owners manual? if an RX7 is a 3.9L they'd list it as such. but honestly your a moron im done with you have fun with your non-existant 3.9L rotary man.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
YOURprivateWAR1 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 Each face of a 13b rotor creates a 654cc combustion chamber durring its rotation. Please do the math, ((654cc * 3 rotor faces)* 2 rotors)=3924cc. You simply do not understand the inner workings of a rotary. You are ignorant, you are too lazy to do your own research. You are a willful idiot. You cannot take a rotaries maximum displacement(3.9L) as a comparison to a piston engines maximum displacement because of its 1/3rd speed relationship between rotor and eccentric shaft.
li7in6 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 Now that we've established that a 13b rotary will displace 1.3 liters PER ROTATION, and a 2.6 liter piston engine will displace 1.3 liters PER ROTATION. We can clearly see that a 13b is equivalent to a 2.6 liter piston engine in terms of displacement. Both engines displace the same volume every rotation and thus theoretically will produce similar amounts of power. Now that you know this, you know that a 13b is for all comparative purposes a 2.6 liter engine.
li7in6 11 months ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 Calling the 13b 1.3 liters then comparing it to a piston engine is ignorant. In displacement comparison a 13b is equivalent to a 2.6 liter piston engine. Consider this, how much displacement does a 2.6 liter piston engine put through a power stroke in one revolution? How about a "1.3 liter" rotary?
I'll give you a hint. They displace the same in one revolution.
li7in6 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 Also, to make power with a rotary you ahve to go single turbo, that means you have to remove the air pump. Removing the air pump violates federal law regarding removing emissions equipment and makes the car illegal according to many state laws aswell. Additionally making more than about 450-500hp on a rotary means you have to use race gas. An LS will make 600+hp all day on pump gas. Calling a 13b a 1.3 liter then trying to compare it to a piston engine based on this is idiocy.
li7in6 1 year ago
@li7in6 ok breaking fedral law.... your putting an engine in a car that it didnt originally come in as an option is breaking frederaly law too. and how is saying the liter size comparing it to a recipricating engin?
YOURprivateWAR1 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 It is not illegal to swap motors. Hot rod and honda guys do it all the time. The federal law specifically relates to the removal of emissions equipment. Which is exactly what you have to do to fit a single turbo on a rotary to make power.
li7in6 1 year ago
@li7in6 if you alter emissions in anyway (i.e. engine swaps of any sort) its illegal. and then to put a LS1 in an RX7 you still gotta take of the air pump so your breaking the law there too
YOURprivateWAR1 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 That's not how it works. An LS1 is a completely different engine from the 13b. When you swap an LS1 into an FD you retain the LS1's emissions equipment, NOT the 13b's emissions equipment. It's ok to remove the air pump because you are removing the engine that requires the air pump and replacing it with a completely different engine that has its own emissions controls. This is why LS swaps are legal because you are swapping in the LS specific emissions equipment as well.
li7in6 1 year ago
@li7in6 if you read the fine print putting an engine that didnt originally come in that vehicle is illegal, but most cops don't/won't waste their time cuz cops are dumb but still i'd rather see an rx7 wrapped around a tree than see an LS1 in it, and i think your ruining a perfectly good car by doing that. that's all the more ill say on the matter.
YOURprivateWAR1 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 Once again it's not illegal. Putting an engine in a car that is newer than the car is not illegal in the slightest. After the swap you must take the car to be inspected at your states department of motor vehicles to get an authorization placard showing it was inspected and it is installed will all the necessary emissions controls for the equipped engine and that the car is safe for road use. Once you get that placard you are as legal as buying a car off a dealers lot.
li7in6 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 You're personal opinion is of no consequence. Subjectively you might not like it but objectively the car is much more reliable, much more efficient, and much faster. As I've pointed out, to get a 13b past even mildly modded LS power levels you must remove the air pump which renders the car illegal for street use and you must run race fuel. You can make an LS with 600+hp on pump gas and still be perfectly legal. Your taste is out of sync with those wanting more performance.
li7in6 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 If you want a rotary RX-7 fine, buy one and keep the 13b in it. But you'll never be able to make more than ~380-400hp without making the car illegal and you'll never make more than 500hp without using race fuel. AND you'll go through engines one after the other.
li7in6 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 haha, theres no way a built 13b could beat a built LS3 for the same amount of money. i can build a 560whp normally-aspirated LS3 for less than $5000. theres no way on this planet that you can even get 500whp on a 13b for that money.
impreziv 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 The LS1 weighs within 50lbs of the 13b. it does not change the weight balance of the car. A 20b is much heavier than an LS1 and ruins the weight balance of the car and requires moving the steering rack which ruins the handling of the car. But let me guess. You're perfectly fine with a 20b swap...
li7in6 1 year ago
@li7in6 actually no im not fine with a 20b swap because those are race engines that you will have to rebuild every year or two. if you beef up a 13b to 400whp it will last plenty long as long as you dont beat the shit out of it every where you go.
YOURprivateWAR1 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 you obviously know VERY LITTLE about any engines at all kid.. the 20b isn't a "race engine", its an engine that came with the Mazda Cosmo, a 2dr luxury coupe. mazda never used the 20b engine for any competitive purposes. and you don't "beat the shit out of it everywhere you go", it makes way more torque than a 13b.
impreziv 1 year ago
@impreziv very true i forgot about that car. and way to twist my words, i said a 400whp 13b will last plenty long if you dont beat the shit out of it.. that statement had nothing to do with a 20B. and yeah i have no idea about engines, its not like im going to school to become a mechanic or anything.
YOURprivateWAR1 1 year ago
@YOURprivateWAR1 20b's are not race engines. They are just as much production engines as the 13b. The 20b came in the Eunos Cosmo, a luxury car made by Mazda. Its a mass production engine.
li7in6 1 year ago
Why would you pull out the rotary and pout that pos american v8
a rotary is what makes an rx7 what it is.
prisonbreak7760 1 year ago
@prisonbreak7760 If you were in the know, the LS1 (and most of the new gen small blocks) is a monster. Light weight, makes reliable power, and grea mpg's on this tiny car. The rotary is a fussy little engine, that doesn't come turbo anymore for a reason. This first ??? rotary guys ask one another "So what motor are you on?"
beauhawk17 1 year ago
@prisonbreak7760 If you were in the know, the LS1 (and most of the new gen small blocks) is a monster. Light weight, makes reliable power, and great mpg's on this tiny car. The rotary is a fussy little engine, that doesn't come turbo anymore for a reason. This first ??? rotary guys ask one another "So what motor are you on?"
beauhawk17 1 year ago
Dollar per dollar, mod for mod, LS1s are proven to be the best motors for any RWD platform, no wonder even people from the import scene want to use them. Sure, you can build a 13b, 20b, RB26DETT, 2JZ-GTE, 4G63T, K20A/K24A, 4.6L/5.4L Ford modular, 6.1L Dodge/Chrysler Hemi, or whatever you want and swap it in, but you would get much less performance overall per dollar spent. The LSx swap trend in high performance RWD cars is continually growing, compared to other more expensive/inferior swaps.
zzzurd 1 year ago
@zzzurd agreed. i cant think of another engine that can make 550whp normally-aspirated, weigh less than 420lb, and be built from the ground-up for less than $5000
impreziv 1 year ago
@impreziv naturally-aspirated dumb ass haha
YOURprivateWAR1 1 year ago
@zzzurd I'm an LS fan. But I will say its cheaper because GM likes to flood the market with parts. Thats why in four wheeling Jeeps are so popular. Theirs so many of them parts are cheap, and the aftermarket is huge.
brolyavocados439 1 year ago
Lame, should have spent the money on a 20b, not a fat American engine that'll turn your handling to shit.
Canmx120 1 year ago
why the helll wouldn't u want another engine than a rotary?! their a nightmare to work on since their like mini jet engines. LS1 would go in my FD any day
onlyfatties 1 year ago
why would anyone want rotary when you could have a v8?