not a bad race the 4 rotor motor is a beast, it redlines at like 10K rpm where the Large displacement blown V8 redlines at around 8K, the big v8 will still have it beet in the top end though. I bet if that camaro weighed about 400 lbs lighter; to put it in the ball park of the weight of that rx7 the out come would have been different. but hey I like the fact that its made of metal and not fiberglass, more protection :P
@darthjader. Alot has changed in the design in the rotary engine with improvements to the housings, rotors and apex seals. A looked after engine will get 20 - 30k miles on a rebuild and cost around a grand in parts to rebuild. You only have to watch one race to see why so many people dont like them :)
@sssarsss I'm an import guy, but that's exactly what I saw too....the Mazda did win...but just barely...the Chevelle (? couldn't quite tell in that vid) was definitely reeling him in.
im quite sure you cant buy these 26b's of the shelf. the driver had built this himself, but correct me if im wrong. cause i would love to buy one of these engine's, if i could afford it. hahaha
i luv imports and old school american muscle the real ones not chevys with 350 cuz its one of the smallest v8s im talking about 396ss 454 502 or those big ass hemis but the biggest diffrent with the cars are that muscle cars are srteet legals. and if you know a lil history of american cars you know that their cut half of their power.
well considering that thats a blown v8 of at least 350ci that little N/A 2600cc motor did a hell of a job. theres turbo 4 rotors putting out 1600hp look up queen street rotary
As far as I know, after looking into it, the 26b can cost over 100k to build after all the man-hours are added in. Unless you plan on doing it all yourself, of course.
@crxmad yeah, but they have to be rebuilt about as often as your average Civic needs an oil change. Rotary's are cool...but they're not all you fanbois crack them up to be...
@darthjader08 good job you can talk complete bullshit... It does not make you look smart making up crap... a stock rx7 n/a will last easy 300k... stock turbo rx7 will last 150k-200k easy... 500hp turbo rx7 will last 100k+ miles... this is not a car to drive daily so those 100k miles will last a very long time...
@Tj1056 Not talking shit, anyone who knows anything about Rotaries knows I'm right. Oh, and try 50,000k for a stock Rx-7. Sounds to me like you're a shameless fanboi.
@darthjader08 LOL.... wow maybe a stock seal rx7 will last 50k with a shit load of modifications and pushing big boost... a shameless fanboi? I drive a v8 piston engine also btw so go blow yourself...
@Tj1056 Well, in my experience rally racing, the 2nd Gen (prior to the FD chassis) RX-7's are one of the best rear wheel drive rally cars a guy can race with, and the compact engine only adds to that performance thanks to reduced weight and size. But one thing that's consistent with them (new engine or old) is the owners of those RX-7's are CONSTANTLY replacing the rotors, as much as twice a year...I'm no mechanic, but if I were I know I wouldn't want to be rebuilding my engine so often.
@darthjader08 they do not replace rotors, they replace seals and gaskets... sounds like they have bad tunes, I know piston engine race cars go through piston rings all the time. my turbo rotary has had new seals 80k miles ago and it still has the same compression and power as it did the day they where installed. btw there are seals that are guaranteed not to break in your engine and do no damage to your rotors or housing, which means they will last just as long as any piston engine
@Tj1056 I've heard lots of talk of replacing the rotors, not just seals, these guys are real grease monkeys who love their Rotaries, pretty sure they know wtf they're doing. Not all of them are tuned, most of them race in Group-N classes, meaning fully stock specifications. 80,000 miles ago??? Shit, I put 375,000km on my EF chassis Civic, raced in fwd classes, quite successful, tuned power up 40%, constantly redlined in harsh conditions for extended periods, stock seals, still stock compression
@darthjader08 the only reason you need to replace a rotor is because it was damaged by the engine not running properly... yes 80k miles because thats all the miles I have put on it so far... my car is running double to power it came stock from the factory... there is a big difference between N/A and F/I engine life... a N/A rotary will last a good 300k miles on the old 80s stock seals...
@Tj1056 pretty sure when Mazda makes a brand new rotary motor (new or old model), it's running the way it's supposed to, and yet, under rally racing conditions, some guys I knew were replacing the rotor @ 50,000 - 80,000km. Explain that.
@darthjader08 1. they are bad builders, 2. Bad tune, and 3. purchasing of weak seals ( example. steel apex seals are strong but still break easy and tear up the engine ) Just ask around these days and you will find out people build easy 250k+ mile turbo rotaries running 350whp boosting everyday all the way to 8k rpm... and now if you go with Performance Tested Seals your rotary will last as long as any piston engine unless your oil/fuel pump goes out or other stuff...
@Tj1056 So, you're telling me that Mazda sucks at building their own engines? I wouldn't want to use an engine that it's own designers and builders can't build right....even if the engine puts out great peaky power for it's dimensions and weight due to its inherent design.
@darthjader08 Where did I say "Mazda sucks at building their own engines" ... there engines are fine... any LHD fd rx7 is going to be 17-19 years old... and the second gens are over 20 years old... they are perfectly fine when stock... but when you go and mod 'any' old engine its going to break easy dude... technology has moved on and the rotor seals have become stronger...
@Tj1056 also, as I said, in most cases they were brand new motors straight from the dealer, and they were completely stock rotary engines, with stock seals, so unless you're saying Mazda can't build their own engines....all 3 of your points are invalid. Look, I like rotary engines, I just hate all the fanbois out there who like them for their advantages (one rotary casing doing all 3 of the combustion phases at any given moment, resulting in a lot of power from a compact engine), but...cont'd.
@darthjader08 you said they are racing rally so they are not stock... you said they constantly rebuilding them and if they are using stock seals then they of course are going to be constanly blowing them... pushing more power then what any part is made for it is going to break... so stop trolling the rotary like you know...
@Tj1056 Since when does "rally racing with the car" in any way mean that the engine is modified????? There's Group N, there's TSD regional, etc. etc. I'd say a good 50% (if not more) of the cars used for rally racing have completely stock engines. I suppose I have to spell it out for you: 1) Old engine is toast in their RX-7 2) purchase stock crate motor direct from Mazda 3) install either yourself or by mechanic 4) engine is completely stock. 5)50,000km later they have to replace rotor...simple
@darthjader08 so they where racing rally back in the 80s and 90s to buy brand new 13b from the mazda factory? a old 2nd gen will only blow up before 100k miles is improper tune/very poor maintainence... btw 50,000km = 31,068miles... so maybe you are telling the true but they cannot maintain there car or your just coming up with horse shit this whole time...
@Tj1056 and the 2000's.....I haven't raced for a few years, between my career (stunt driving) and my side job, I don't really get time to race anymore, so don't know if they still are. You honestly believe it's not possible to get a brand new 13b nowadays? Perhaps not in the states...but most certainly here, just costs a bit & takes a few months to wait. blah blah blah, sounds like more fanboi talk to me. Yes, you must be exactly right it MUST be crappy maintenance, because...cont'd...
@Tj1056 ...cont'd...there's no possible way a hobbyist rally racer could possibly know how to change their oil, coolant, and air filter....give me a fucking break. The ONLY conditions that are any different from someone who has an RX-7 as a normal every day driver is that they are constantly redlined (except on transit stages) for 600km straight in hot, dry, dusty conditions on bumpy logging roads. Congrats displaying your ability to use an online converter....I do it off the top of my head.
@Tj1056 I'd say it's pretty clear which of us is trolling, I'm talking about both the positives and negatives of Rotary engines, meanwhile you're blabbing on and on about the fantasmical, blessed by god, magical rotary engine....hmmm.....pretty sure it's pretty damn clear.
@Tj1056 ...cont'd...but fail to acknowledge the inherent design flaws (overheating, having to rebuild the engine frequently, poor fuel economy, inferior longevity...although they are much cheaper and easier to rebuild).
@darthjader08 please do not compare fuel economy with todays engines... look at theLT1... its power and fuel economy is around what the 13b is... the lt1 also weights 3x or more as the 13b, it makes something like about a adverage of 250whp... overheating/rebuilding frequently from improper maintainence... I can keep saying this all day the facts are not going to change...
@Tj1056 Yes, because the LT1 is such a wonderful eng*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHhaaaaaa* sorry, couldn't maintain a straight face while saying that... You're right, the facts aren't going to change, so why are you trying to argue with me if you admit I'm right? Fact: Rotaries perform all 3 combustion tasks at once FACT: because of the previous fact they put out good power in a compact design FACT: Rotaries are plagued by overheating FACT: Rotaries have to have rotors replaced with alarming frequency
@Tj1056 two more....FACT: terrible fuel economy compared to engine size FACT: powerband is ideal for racing (not much low end torque, but great peaky power).
@Tj1056 for today's standards? I seem to recall the Civic Si with its 1.6 was putting out just slightly less power than a 1.3 rotary, and was getting more than double the fuel economy. Face facts Fanboi, you don't get something for nothing you have to make some big sacrifices to reap the benefits of a Rotary.
@darthjader08 todays 1.3l rotary (renesis) puts out almost double the power from the 1.6l civic... and gets over 20mpg city... that civic is still in the class of a 80s rx7 anyways...
@Tj1056 Pretty sure 125hp is less than 15% more power than 110hp.... and 23mpg is BARELY more than half 45mpg....just saying....oh, and what a surprise, both engines had almost the exact same powerband...Any way, I'm not going to waste my day off bantering with some fanboi troll who I briefly thought was a legit car buff...but turned out to be nothing more than just a fucking fanboi who can't accept that there are disadvantages to the Rotary engine.
@darthjader08 your a moron the new rotary is 240hp... get your facts straight before you start babbling bullshit... now please enter trollface everytime you comment on a rotary video...
@Tj1056 Dear Trollfaced moron, we were absolutely NOT discussing the new rotary, we were discussing the 1980's RX-7 which had 123hp. If we're discussing the new Renesis engine it actually puts out 232hp, which is FAR LESS than 2x that of the 1.6 L Civic engine which puts out 180, and if you really want to get into an irrelevant debate here, then let's take a look at the facts shall we? since the Rotary does all three phases of combustion at once, we have to compensate to be more accurate..cont'd
@darthjader08 wtf? you where the one to bring up a civic... so are you talking about a 80s civic that puts out 91hp? it does all three phases of combustion at once but you have to look at the gears in the engine... they spin 3 times to the e shafts 1 rotation... so you cannot pull that 1.3x3 = 3.9 bullshit... the first gen 1985 its still a 1.3l making 135hp to correct you... and a 1985 honda civic 1.6l makes 128hp... civic is still slower in a straight line and around a track...
@Tj1056 And you were the one to try claiming the 80's RX-7's got great fuel economy, so I brought up the Civic which had a similar power band and virtually the exact same performance yet got nearly double the fuel economy. DURR. The D16A6 produced 110hp. Yes, Yes I can pull that x3 "bullshit" because one rotor is more or less the equivalent to 3 pistons in an engine, meaning compared to a 4 cylinder, it's 3x the displacement going by the basic design of the engine. S'funny, MSN Autos ...cont'd
@darthjader08 LOLOLOLOLOL... do you even understand the bullshit you even wrote just now? 91hp and it made something like 30 highway... the rx7 made 135hp and had 20+ highway... economy car vs sports car... if you buy a sports car looking for fuel economy you are a stupid douche
@Tj1056 Wrong again, D16A6: 110hp, 45mpg if you kept it to 3000rpm, I know, I owned one, and turned it into a Regional rally championship 2x winner. 2nd Gen RX-7 123hp, 23mpg. If the EF chassis Civic is such an economy car, then howcome it's one of the most commonly used (& successful) Auto-x cars? Most people who buy a versatile performance passenger car want good fuel economy to boot (why do you think the Mini Cooper-S is so popular?)
@Tj1056 ...cont'd...seems to think the first gen RX-7 produced 123hp...I'll believe them before I believe some noob, trollfaced, flame festing, fanboi. The D16A6 produced 110hp, not 128hp numbnuts. As for performance, well I'd say the RX-7's 7.9 sec. is pretty comparable to the Si's 8.2 sec. 0-60, in Auto-x & Rally, the EF chassis is pretty much the first & second gen RX-7's FWD nemesis, meaning performance is virtually the same, nice try though.
@darthjader08 13b RE-EGI 135hp from the factory... look it up... the even smaller 1.2l made 100hp... still more then that 1.6l civic at 91hp... LOL you really think the civic was the rx7 nemesis... the performance of the civic falls way behind from the rx7... even the 13b and 12a has a way higher power band and rev limiter...
@Tj1056 ...cont'd...as is standard when comparing rotary engines to piston engines....and guess what...1.3x3 = 3.9.....232hp is pretty sad if you consider that. Guess how much the 2.0L Mugen Si puts out? that's right 256hp, so....the Civic puts out more power, gets better fuel economy, doesn't overheat, has far better longevity, etc. etc. at a smaller displacement than the 1.3 L Renesis is comparable to. Don't fuck with me kid, you have no fucking clue (p.s. I would rather race with a rotary)
@darthjader08 LOL you comparing a mugan civic that has full bolts on... renesis makes 300hp with just exhaust and intake... renesis does not overheat, like I have said technology has become better so since the first gen and second gen n/a lasted 150k-200k to even 300k miles the renesis is just as reliable as the civic... it may only make 23 highway but it is still faster then the civic... more power = more fuel smaller engine + more power = lot of fuel consumption...
@Tj1056 Yeah, uh, WRONG again. The Mugen Civic Type-R is ENTIRELY stock with NO BOLT-ON's what so fucking ever, it is commercially available, straight from the manufacturer in limited quantities. I have yet to see a modern stock RX-8 hit 100km/h in less than 5.4 sec. the Mugen Civic Type-R does it in 5.2. Haven't yet seen a track comparison between an RX-8 & Audi R8, but the Mugen Civic Type-R has proven to hang with an R8, getting pwned in the straights, but spanking the R8 in the corners.
@darthjader08 sorry but I have to correct you one more time... the civic came from the factory with factory upgraded bolt ons you dumb mother fucker... damn fool get your shit straight...
@Tj1056 BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAAA, the Mugen Type-R is a purpose built Civic, true, but it has no bolt-ons, whatsoever, it's from the factory, and the only changes they made were to improve engine performance (NO BOLT-ONS WHAT SO FUCKING EVER), increased exhaust flow (again no bolt ons), gave it better suspension, trimmed the fat (removed unnecessary weight from the Type-R platform), better gear ratios, and that's about it, It's a 100% stock car, straight from the factory, just like the RX-8.
@Tj1056 That's like saying the Neon SRT-4 (which has a turbo, unlike the Mugen Type-R's N/A engine) has bolt-ons, that's like saying the Cobalt SS has bolt ons, that's like saying the Charger (or Challenger) SRT-10 has bolt-ons, that's like saying the STi and EVO have bolt-ons, or the Mazda speed3 has bolt-ons ETC. ETC. FUCKING ETC.
@darthjader08 uhhh...none of those have bolt-ons, all of them are stock production vehicles. So yah, I understand, I understand you're a fucking idiot.
@sssarsss BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA srsly? Let's recap the past 10 yrs. shall we? World's four fastest street legal, commercially available cars (straight from the manufacturer): 3.2L Horizontally opposed 6 (twin turbo), 8.0L W16 (quad turbo), 4.0L V6 (single turbo), V12 (n/a). World's 2 quickest production cars: (20+ yrs. old): 2.0L I4 (twin turbo), 2.0L I5 (single turbo and supercharger). Nope, not a single V8 in any of those cars.
awesome!
amot011 1 month ago
not a bad race the 4 rotor motor is a beast, it redlines at like 10K rpm where the Large displacement blown V8 redlines at around 8K, the big v8 will still have it beet in the top end though. I bet if that camaro weighed about 400 lbs lighter; to put it in the ball park of the weight of that rx7 the out come would have been different. but hey I like the fact that its made of metal and not fiberglass, more protection :P
csgtfaught 4 months ago
yea leave it to the fucked up pos camaro to lose!
badazz209 6 months ago
wow this time the import is NA and the muscle car had a blower but the import wins!!!!!
cbeck611 8 months ago
Yep looks like it but it did not Rotary rock.Also love the V8 too.
kaiwana555 1 year ago
@darthjader. Alot has changed in the design in the rotary engine with improvements to the housings, rotors and apex seals. A looked after engine will get 20 - 30k miles on a rebuild and cost around a grand in parts to rebuild. You only have to watch one race to see why so many people dont like them :)
crxmad 1 year ago
4 rotor?
amitkalsi1 1 year ago
какой нах видеоответ!!дибилы не сравнивайте v8 с ротором!!!
Hitman666killler 2 years ago
haha 2.6lt N/A against blowen big block
turbdke30 2 years ago
You'll find that with rotaries, you double the displacement to get the piston engine equivalent as they are a much bigger 'air pump'
Thats why a little 13b can run a large turbo without being too laggy
toy200sx 2 years ago
matter of fact, looks like the import got beat
sssarsss 2 years ago
Ih you look at the timing board the import one lights up first indicating a win......not bad for a non turbo rotary
MESDUP 2 years ago
correct me if im wrong, the import got the shot, but was being reeled in rather quickly
sssarsss 2 years ago
@sssarsss I'm an import guy, but that's exactly what I saw too....the Mazda did win...but just barely...the Chevelle (? couldn't quite tell in that vid) was definitely reeling him in.
darthjader08 1 year ago
im quite sure you cant buy these 26b's of the shelf. the driver had built this himself, but correct me if im wrong. cause i would love to buy one of these engine's, if i could afford it. hahaha
punawhakareia 3 years ago
26 grand you can get one from PPRE in wanganui
WSRBOY 3 years ago
nice rx7
KaptainAmerika1 3 years ago
ROTOR OVER V8 ANYDAY
GODZ1LR 3 years ago
i luv imports and old school american muscle the real ones not chevys with 350 cuz its one of the smallest v8s im talking about 396ss 454 502 or those big ass hemis but the biggest diffrent with the cars are that muscle cars are srteet legals. and if you know a lil history of american cars you know that their cut half of their power.
danielkabuto 3 years ago
love seeing slowmestics getting worked!!!
djkwd 4 years ago
well considering that thats a blown v8 of at least 350ci that little N/A 2600cc motor did a hell of a job. theres turbo 4 rotors putting out 1600hp look up queen street rotary
aaron9696024 4 years ago 2
bulllllllllshit a v8 costs more than a import to go hard and that rota was a n/a 2.6ltr it probly had less spent than the 8
rx190e 4 years ago
As far as I know, after looking into it, the 26b can cost over 100k to build after all the man-hours are added in. Unless you plan on doing it all yourself, of course.
zebatov 4 years ago
lmao 100k thats a reasonible amount of money
karrot16 4 years ago
dude your from australia nobody gives a fuck about what you have to say because over their they dint have real cars hahahahahaha
danielkabuto 3 years ago
Apperently someone has never heard of the mazda 787.... some people
laxeric999 4 years ago
thats the problem with imports
to hang with American muscle, requires spending 5x as much money
bang for the buck, V8 all the way
sssarsss 4 years ago
I used to disagree with that.....untill I traded my 4g63 for an LSX....
sham691977 4 years ago
That is a complete and utter load of crap!!
Rotarys have the least number of moving parts out of any engine and can be rebuilt cheaper than a 4 cyl engine.!
I wonder why v8s are not always winning... hmmm???
crxmad 2 years ago
@crxmad yeah, but they have to be rebuilt about as often as your average Civic needs an oil change. Rotary's are cool...but they're not all you fanbois crack them up to be...
darthjader08 1 year ago
@darthjader08 dont complain... that 2.6l n/a beat the large block blown v8...
Tj1056 4 months ago
@darthjader08 good job you can talk complete bullshit... It does not make you look smart making up crap... a stock rx7 n/a will last easy 300k... stock turbo rx7 will last 150k-200k easy... 500hp turbo rx7 will last 100k+ miles... this is not a car to drive daily so those 100k miles will last a very long time...
Tj1056 4 months ago
@Tj1056 Not talking shit, anyone who knows anything about Rotaries knows I'm right. Oh, and try 50,000k for a stock Rx-7. Sounds to me like you're a shameless fanboi.
darthjader08 4 weeks ago
@darthjader08 LOL.... wow maybe a stock seal rx7 will last 50k with a shit load of modifications and pushing big boost... a shameless fanboi? I drive a v8 piston engine also btw so go blow yourself...
Tj1056 4 weeks ago
@Tj1056 Well, in my experience rally racing, the 2nd Gen (prior to the FD chassis) RX-7's are one of the best rear wheel drive rally cars a guy can race with, and the compact engine only adds to that performance thanks to reduced weight and size. But one thing that's consistent with them (new engine or old) is the owners of those RX-7's are CONSTANTLY replacing the rotors, as much as twice a year...I'm no mechanic, but if I were I know I wouldn't want to be rebuilding my engine so often.
darthjader08 4 weeks ago
@darthjader08 they do not replace rotors, they replace seals and gaskets... sounds like they have bad tunes, I know piston engine race cars go through piston rings all the time. my turbo rotary has had new seals 80k miles ago and it still has the same compression and power as it did the day they where installed. btw there are seals that are guaranteed not to break in your engine and do no damage to your rotors or housing, which means they will last just as long as any piston engine
Tj1056 4 weeks ago
@Tj1056 I've heard lots of talk of replacing the rotors, not just seals, these guys are real grease monkeys who love their Rotaries, pretty sure they know wtf they're doing. Not all of them are tuned, most of them race in Group-N classes, meaning fully stock specifications. 80,000 miles ago??? Shit, I put 375,000km on my EF chassis Civic, raced in fwd classes, quite successful, tuned power up 40%, constantly redlined in harsh conditions for extended periods, stock seals, still stock compression
darthjader08 4 weeks ago
@darthjader08 the only reason you need to replace a rotor is because it was damaged by the engine not running properly... yes 80k miles because thats all the miles I have put on it so far... my car is running double to power it came stock from the factory... there is a big difference between N/A and F/I engine life... a N/A rotary will last a good 300k miles on the old 80s stock seals...
Tj1056 4 weeks ago
@Tj1056 pretty sure when Mazda makes a brand new rotary motor (new or old model), it's running the way it's supposed to, and yet, under rally racing conditions, some guys I knew were replacing the rotor @ 50,000 - 80,000km. Explain that.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 1. they are bad builders, 2. Bad tune, and 3. purchasing of weak seals ( example. steel apex seals are strong but still break easy and tear up the engine ) Just ask around these days and you will find out people build easy 250k+ mile turbo rotaries running 350whp boosting everyday all the way to 8k rpm... and now if you go with Performance Tested Seals your rotary will last as long as any piston engine unless your oil/fuel pump goes out or other stuff...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 So, you're telling me that Mazda sucks at building their own engines? I wouldn't want to use an engine that it's own designers and builders can't build right....even if the engine puts out great peaky power for it's dimensions and weight due to its inherent design.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darthjader08 Where did I say "Mazda sucks at building their own engines" ... there engines are fine... any LHD fd rx7 is going to be 17-19 years old... and the second gens are over 20 years old... they are perfectly fine when stock... but when you go and mod 'any' old engine its going to break easy dude... technology has moved on and the rotor seals have become stronger...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 also, as I said, in most cases they were brand new motors straight from the dealer, and they were completely stock rotary engines, with stock seals, so unless you're saying Mazda can't build their own engines....all 3 of your points are invalid. Look, I like rotary engines, I just hate all the fanbois out there who like them for their advantages (one rotary casing doing all 3 of the combustion phases at any given moment, resulting in a lot of power from a compact engine), but...cont'd.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 you said they are racing rally so they are not stock... you said they constantly rebuilding them and if they are using stock seals then they of course are going to be constanly blowing them... pushing more power then what any part is made for it is going to break... so stop trolling the rotary like you know...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 Since when does "rally racing with the car" in any way mean that the engine is modified????? There's Group N, there's TSD regional, etc. etc. I'd say a good 50% (if not more) of the cars used for rally racing have completely stock engines. I suppose I have to spell it out for you: 1) Old engine is toast in their RX-7 2) purchase stock crate motor direct from Mazda 3) install either yourself or by mechanic 4) engine is completely stock. 5)50,000km later they have to replace rotor...simple
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 so they where racing rally back in the 80s and 90s to buy brand new 13b from the mazda factory? a old 2nd gen will only blow up before 100k miles is improper tune/very poor maintainence... btw 50,000km = 31,068miles... so maybe you are telling the true but they cannot maintain there car or your just coming up with horse shit this whole time...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 and the 2000's.....I haven't raced for a few years, between my career (stunt driving) and my side job, I don't really get time to race anymore, so don't know if they still are. You honestly believe it's not possible to get a brand new 13b nowadays? Perhaps not in the states...but most certainly here, just costs a bit & takes a few months to wait. blah blah blah, sounds like more fanboi talk to me. Yes, you must be exactly right it MUST be crappy maintenance, because...cont'd...
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 ...cont'd...there's no possible way a hobbyist rally racer could possibly know how to change their oil, coolant, and air filter....give me a fucking break. The ONLY conditions that are any different from someone who has an RX-7 as a normal every day driver is that they are constantly redlined (except on transit stages) for 600km straight in hot, dry, dusty conditions on bumpy logging roads. Congrats displaying your ability to use an online converter....I do it off the top of my head.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 I'd say it's pretty clear which of us is trolling, I'm talking about both the positives and negatives of Rotary engines, meanwhile you're blabbing on and on about the fantasmical, blessed by god, magical rotary engine....hmmm.....pretty sure it's pretty damn clear.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 ...cont'd...but fail to acknowledge the inherent design flaws (overheating, having to rebuild the engine frequently, poor fuel economy, inferior longevity...although they are much cheaper and easier to rebuild).
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 please do not compare fuel economy with todays engines... look at theLT1... its power and fuel economy is around what the 13b is... the lt1 also weights 3x or more as the 13b, it makes something like about a adverage of 250whp... overheating/rebuilding frequently from improper maintainence... I can keep saying this all day the facts are not going to change...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 Yes, because the LT1 is such a wonderful eng*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHhaaaaaa* sorry, couldn't maintain a straight face while saying that... You're right, the facts aren't going to change, so why are you trying to argue with me if you admit I'm right? Fact: Rotaries perform all 3 combustion tasks at once FACT: because of the previous fact they put out good power in a compact design FACT: Rotaries are plagued by overheating FACT: Rotaries have to have rotors replaced with alarming frequency
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 before there was a ls1 there was a lt1... do not act like such a douche...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 cool engine...but nothing great about it, I have respect for the LS6, bout it.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 two more....FACT: terrible fuel economy compared to engine size FACT: powerband is ideal for racing (not much low end torque, but great peaky power).
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 terrible fuel economy for todays standards... keep it up bro you just keep on sounding more and more retarded
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 for today's standards? I seem to recall the Civic Si with its 1.6 was putting out just slightly less power than a 1.3 rotary, and was getting more than double the fuel economy. Face facts Fanboi, you don't get something for nothing you have to make some big sacrifices to reap the benefits of a Rotary.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 todays 1.3l rotary (renesis) puts out almost double the power from the 1.6l civic... and gets over 20mpg city... that civic is still in the class of a 80s rx7 anyways...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 Pretty sure 125hp is less than 15% more power than 110hp.... and 23mpg is BARELY more than half 45mpg....just saying....oh, and what a surprise, both engines had almost the exact same powerband...Any way, I'm not going to waste my day off bantering with some fanboi troll who I briefly thought was a legit car buff...but turned out to be nothing more than just a fucking fanboi who can't accept that there are disadvantages to the Rotary engine.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 your a moron the new rotary is 240hp... get your facts straight before you start babbling bullshit... now please enter trollface everytime you comment on a rotary video...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 Dear Trollfaced moron, we were absolutely NOT discussing the new rotary, we were discussing the 1980's RX-7 which had 123hp. If we're discussing the new Renesis engine it actually puts out 232hp, which is FAR LESS than 2x that of the 1.6 L Civic engine which puts out 180, and if you really want to get into an irrelevant debate here, then let's take a look at the facts shall we? since the Rotary does all three phases of combustion at once, we have to compensate to be more accurate..cont'd
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 wtf? you where the one to bring up a civic... so are you talking about a 80s civic that puts out 91hp? it does all three phases of combustion at once but you have to look at the gears in the engine... they spin 3 times to the e shafts 1 rotation... so you cannot pull that 1.3x3 = 3.9 bullshit... the first gen 1985 its still a 1.3l making 135hp to correct you... and a 1985 honda civic 1.6l makes 128hp... civic is still slower in a straight line and around a track...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 And you were the one to try claiming the 80's RX-7's got great fuel economy, so I brought up the Civic which had a similar power band and virtually the exact same performance yet got nearly double the fuel economy. DURR. The D16A6 produced 110hp. Yes, Yes I can pull that x3 "bullshit" because one rotor is more or less the equivalent to 3 pistons in an engine, meaning compared to a 4 cylinder, it's 3x the displacement going by the basic design of the engine. S'funny, MSN Autos ...cont'd
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 LOLOLOLOLOL... do you even understand the bullshit you even wrote just now? 91hp and it made something like 30 highway... the rx7 made 135hp and had 20+ highway... economy car vs sports car... if you buy a sports car looking for fuel economy you are a stupid douche
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 Wrong again, D16A6: 110hp, 45mpg if you kept it to 3000rpm, I know, I owned one, and turned it into a Regional rally championship 2x winner. 2nd Gen RX-7 123hp, 23mpg. If the EF chassis Civic is such an economy car, then howcome it's one of the most commonly used (& successful) Auto-x cars? Most people who buy a versatile performance passenger car want good fuel economy to boot (why do you think the Mini Cooper-S is so popular?)
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 btw re read how I said the engine rotates and maybe you will figure it out...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 now I am done explaining it to you trollface... please understand and be on your way peacefully...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 You haven't explained shit, you've proclaimed complete bullshit, stop bothering me kid.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 ...cont'd...seems to think the first gen RX-7 produced 123hp...I'll believe them before I believe some noob, trollfaced, flame festing, fanboi. The D16A6 produced 110hp, not 128hp numbnuts. As for performance, well I'd say the RX-7's 7.9 sec. is pretty comparable to the Si's 8.2 sec. 0-60, in Auto-x & Rally, the EF chassis is pretty much the first & second gen RX-7's FWD nemesis, meaning performance is virtually the same, nice try though.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 I did, and MSN Autos disagrees with you....stop being so obsessed you pathetic flame festing fanboi.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darthjader08 13b RE-EGI 135hp from the factory... look it up... the even smaller 1.2l made 100hp... still more then that 1.6l civic at 91hp... LOL you really think the civic was the rx7 nemesis... the performance of the civic falls way behind from the rx7... even the 13b and 12a has a way higher power band and rev limiter...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 ...cont'd...as is standard when comparing rotary engines to piston engines....and guess what...1.3x3 = 3.9.....232hp is pretty sad if you consider that. Guess how much the 2.0L Mugen Si puts out? that's right 256hp, so....the Civic puts out more power, gets better fuel economy, doesn't overheat, has far better longevity, etc. etc. at a smaller displacement than the 1.3 L Renesis is comparable to. Don't fuck with me kid, you have no fucking clue (p.s. I would rather race with a rotary)
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 LOL you comparing a mugan civic that has full bolts on... renesis makes 300hp with just exhaust and intake... renesis does not overheat, like I have said technology has become better so since the first gen and second gen n/a lasted 150k-200k to even 300k miles the renesis is just as reliable as the civic... it may only make 23 highway but it is still faster then the civic... more power = more fuel smaller engine + more power = lot of fuel consumption...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 Yeah, uh, WRONG again. The Mugen Civic Type-R is ENTIRELY stock with NO BOLT-ON's what so fucking ever, it is commercially available, straight from the manufacturer in limited quantities. I have yet to see a modern stock RX-8 hit 100km/h in less than 5.4 sec. the Mugen Civic Type-R does it in 5.2. Haven't yet seen a track comparison between an RX-8 & Audi R8, but the Mugen Civic Type-R has proven to hang with an R8, getting pwned in the straights, but spanking the R8 in the corners.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 sorry but I have to correct you one more time... the civic came from the factory with factory upgraded bolt ons you dumb mother fucker... damn fool get your shit straight...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAAA, the Mugen Type-R is a purpose built Civic, true, but it has no bolt-ons, whatsoever, it's from the factory, and the only changes they made were to improve engine performance (NO BOLT-ONS WHAT SO FUCKING EVER), increased exhaust flow (again no bolt ons), gave it better suspension, trimmed the fat (removed unnecessary weight from the Type-R platform), better gear ratios, and that's about it, It's a 100% stock car, straight from the factory, just like the RX-8.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 That's like saying the Neon SRT-4 (which has a turbo, unlike the Mugen Type-R's N/A engine) has bolt-ons, that's like saying the Cobalt SS has bolt ons, that's like saying the Charger (or Challenger) SRT-10 has bolt-ons, that's like saying the STi and EVO have bolt-ons, or the Mazda speed3 has bolt-ons ETC. ETC. FUCKING ETC.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 glad you understand...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 uhhh...none of those have bolt-ons, all of them are stock production vehicles. So yah, I understand, I understand you're a fucking idiot.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 I would not recommend you drive a rotary because you would obviously break it like a dumb ass
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 I've probably driven a Rotary powered RX-7 to its limit in FAR MORE intense driving conditions than you.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
@darthjader08 I doubt you have ever been in a rx7...
Tj1056 3 weeks ago
@Tj1056 I've been in many.....I told you, I'm a hobbyist rally racer, and we swap cars quite frequently.
darthjader08 3 weeks ago
dumping tons of money ???
that import cost/worth is 3-4x that V8 !
what do you get when u cross a twin-turbo v8 with wheels.... the world's FASTEST car
sssarsss 4 years ago
And your point? Its only fast if the power is useable , if the driver can drive , and it all holds together.
crxmad 2 years ago
@sssarsss BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA srsly? Let's recap the past 10 yrs. shall we? World's four fastest street legal, commercially available cars (straight from the manufacturer): 3.2L Horizontally opposed 6 (twin turbo), 8.0L W16 (quad turbo), 4.0L V6 (single turbo), V12 (n/a). World's 2 quickest production cars: (20+ yrs. old): 2.0L I4 (twin turbo), 2.0L I5 (single turbo and supercharger). Nope, not a single V8 in any of those cars.
darthjader08 4 weeks ago
this guy done an amazin job herd it was two 13b's end on end and he made his own custom e-shaft
kuza24 4 years ago
=]
that must be the worst feeling. dumping tons of money and upgrades into your engine to be beaten by a NA. hehe. i gotta save up for my 26b!
diejondie 5 years ago
Sweetness. Muscle car gets pwned.
flyboy333 5 years ago
yup, and its NA too
MESDUP 5 years ago 2