Forum Noob Here

[Factory Freak]

Welcome

[ruthless351]

JN210;220789 wrote:
Sweet, a camaro? V8 right?....do you have a mullet? lol, jk. Welcome to FS

And you wonder why people give you a rough time.........geez!

[Hammy]

welcome

[Jim]

Welcome to FS, dont' mind the v8 hataz lol

[DelSlow]

welcome.

[chevymann]

welcome to fs

[TurboGTU]

Welcome to the forums dude, let's see though pics.

[out there]

there's no replacement for displacement... unless you want efficient power

[bubba]

I thought u had to have a mullet to even be able to buy a camaro, lol.

J/k welcome to the site...

[JN210]

bubba;221012 wrote:
I thought u had to have a mullet to even be able to buy a camaro, lol.

J/k welcome to the site...

ruthless351;220809 wrote:
And you wonder why people give you a rough time.........geez!

I was kiddin, Im not the only one....

[Burthwick]

welcome

[NoReplacemnt4Displacemnt]

out there;220967 wrote:
there's no replacement for displacement... unless you want efficient power

thanks for the welcomes.

Efficient how?

[NoReplacemnt4Displacemnt]

Is anyone going to explain how they are more efficient?

[Jim]

I think he's refering to turbo cars...

[zbrown]

NoReplacemnt4Displacemnt;221306 wrote:
Is anyone going to explain how they are more efficient?

I think he is trying to state engines with OHC's, 4 valve heads, variable valve timming... ect to be more efficient than 2 valve pushrod engines..... but

we know simplicity FTW................ rotary >>> anything

[out there]

that is what i mean; i'll take 100+hp/L anyday (honda k20). for your 305 to be as efficient, it would need to make 700+hp. in fact, if we're talking rotaries... than you're looking at 1000+hp for the 305 (200hp/L with the n/a rx8). i don't think adding a turbocharger is a fair comparison (when discussing efficiency of design) because any engine can be boosted.

i would have replied sooner, except that my connection was down yesterday and part of wed (firewall/router/dns/dhcp server was down)

[Joel]

This post is deleted!

[Joel]

out there;221321 wrote:
that is what i mean; i'll take 100+hp/L anyday (honda k20). for your 305 to be as efficient, it would need to make 700+hp. in fact, if we're talking rotaries... than you're looking at 1000+hp for the 305 (200hp/L with the n/a rx8). i don't think adding a turbocharger is a fair comparison (when discussing efficiency of design) because any engine can be boosted.

i would have replied sooner, except that my connection was down yesterday and part of wed (firewall/router/dns/dhcp server was down)
ZOMGHONDAenjinsISeffiecientANDstuffz... If I could have a WS6 or a civic Si... Hmmmmm.... wouldnt be the Si.

For one, a 13b displaces 2.6 liters per revolution, so thats not true, and secondly there is No replacement for displacement period, you cannot argue that statement. we've been through this already.

[out there]

i'm not arguing against a hard and fast substitute for volume, i'm arguing that there are more efficient choices for power than always adhering to the mantra "bigger is better".

now, on to the argument that a wankel 13b is really a 2.6L design... i don't agree with it. there is (per rotor) only 654cc injected with fuel and ignited. it doesn't matter that this pocket of air is transported through two cavities, it's still only 654cc in use.

as to whether one would choose a ws6 over a civic si, that's like comparing tomatoes to strawberries. seriously, the differences are so vast, your only reasonable bases for comparison are in performance scenarios. even then, there are a myriad of variations to each test, some would favor the american muscle and some the japanese. ultimately, in the end, there is no objective "right" or "wrong" choice until a certain end needs to be achieved. as you made clear in your post, you would prefer the mullet-mobile over the rice-burner. others' may not see things in the same light, that's why the market is not dominated by american trash or japanese econoboxes.

yes, i made sure to apply stereo-types to both sides of the ocean, no complaining

[zbrown]

wrong, still displaces 2.6L per ecentric rev