Red Rx-7 FD
-
i agree needs more motor.
-
AcesHigh wrote:
Actually, it sort of does. It means your engine design is inherently well balanced (as a result of thought out engineering). The problem with rotaries is they don't like to sit. Unlike piston engines, they do like to be revved, instead of being babied.
Or that your internal parts are smaller/lighter so you don't need to fork out big bucks on as high quality materials as an engine with larger/heavier internals.How high your engine revs does not directly reflect how well built your engine is.
-
94NDTA wrote:
Or that your internal parts are smaller/lighter so you don't need to fork out big bucks on as high quality materials as an engine with larger/heavier internals.How high your engine revs does not directly reflect how well built your engine is.
ok look a rotary has 80% less moving parts than a conventional 4 cylinder which might not have anything to do with this argument, but since it has less parts, it is easier to balance wich makes it balanced more evenly than your v-8.quote from my automotive engines teacher. Also like any other motor they have problems and things brake or just get worn out. It isnt just from beating on it like you seem to make it sound.....oh and tell me how often have you seen a rotor get scored? so heavier components, yes, but mor expensive, no. oh ya it only takes two people to lift a rotary.... how many people does it take to lift yours?
-
AcesHigh wrote:
That must be why F1 and Indy engines all rev to 10k and beyond...And why RE-Amemia engines can rev to 13-15k..... I'm not claiming to be a rotary specialist, but it seems that people like to give them such a bad shake when it comes to reliability when they very little knowledge/appreciation of the genius masterpiece that is a rotary. If every motor company made a rotary, I guarantee that they'd be more reliable than they currently are. When only one manufacturer makes a rotary (and for only one car in their line-up at a time) there is really nothing to push the technology forward at the rate that piston motors are progressing.
-
AcesHigh wrote:
That must be why F1 and Indy engines all rev to 10k and beyond...
If you are trying to argue with me, this isn't helping your arguement. There is nothing saying an engine with heavier components can't rev high, it just takes more technology and money to do so. -
94NDTA wrote:
If you are trying to argue with me, this isn't helping your arguement. There is nothing saying an engine with heavier components can't rev high, it just takes more technology and money to do so.Ok then, name an engine with heavier components that is being used in motorsports that is high revving (above 10K). Maybe there is one, but I'm not aware of it. The reason they go with light components is two fold: 1 they want to rev high and 2 they want to reach high RPM's faster.
-
kswissondubs wrote:
ok look a rotary has 80% less moving parts than a conventional 4 cylinder which might not have anything to do with this argument, but since it has less parts, it is easier to balance wich makes it balanced more evenly than your v-8.quote from my automotive engines teacher. Also like any other motor they have problems and things brake or just get worn out. It isnt just from beating on it like you seem to make it sound.....oh and tell me how often have you seen a rotor get scored? so heavier components, yes, but mor expensive, no. oh ya it only takes two people to lift a rotary.... how many people does it take to lift yours?
You just agreed with me. Lighter components (or less moving components, I.E. Less mass being moved) will be able to rev higher than a larger (more moving mass) engine with parts manufactured at the same quality level.All I said, is how high your engine revs does not reflect how well built your engine is. There are are different factors other than how high it revs that determine that!
It's a simple fact. It's not that in depth.
Also, his engine was DESINGED to spin that high. If it FAILS to do so, to me that isn't as hihg of quality as I would have expected. If my car failed when it spun to 6,000 rpms, I would be dissapointed too. The technology in that car simply isn't far enough along yet to have it be as reliable as a piston engine.
Also, what does lifting it out of the car have to do with anything?
-
DJ wrote:
Lets just clear the air, I have had the motor replaced once and the tranny replaced once also. The motor was replaced cuz of a faulty "side seal" it’s the seal that goes between the coolant chamber and the combustion chamber, it’s just like a head gasket. Marty (the rotary mechanic at Lunde) pushed to have the engine replaced cuz he just wanted to see a new motor in the car. Same deal with the tranny it didn’t necessarily need to be replaced but it was, cuz on the tranny the bearing on the output shaft in the tranny housing went out. That’s and ez fix, but he wanted to see the car get a new tranny, and it all was covered under warranty so why not, right?.I question your statement on why the engine and tranny were replaced....I was the one who ordered both of them for your car and I know the history of your visit at the dealership
POWERD BY
-
tjamz wrote:
Ok then, name an engine with heavier components that is being used in motorsports that is high revving (above 10K). Maybe there is one, but I'm not aware of it. The reason they go with light components is two fold: 1 they want to rev high and 2 they want to reach high RPM's faster.
I when I said heavier, I meant heavier than a piston made out of the same material only smaller.Such as 4 pistons from a 2.0L I4 would be lighter than 8 pistons from a 6.0L V8, simply because it is larger, even if they were made out of the same material.
-
How can you compare the two? They are two totally different animals.
...by the way wasnt a corevette(i thought) built with a four rotor but scrapped because it was too powerful for the average joe?
-
92BlackTT wrote:
How can you compare the two? They are two totally different animals....by the way wasnt a corevette(i thought) built with a four rotor but scrapped because it was too powerful for the average joe?
Never heard of it.Also, I wasn't the one originally doing the comparing, I'm the one that said there are more factors.
Thanks for siding with me.
EDIT: found it. It was a 585 cubic inch engine making 420 hp....I don't think they scrapped it because it was too powerfull though...
-
94NDTA wrote:
Never heard of it.Also, I wasn't the one originally doing the comparing, I'm the one that said there are more factors.
Thanks for siding with me.
I wasnt aiming that at you particularly, just the whole agrument in general. Its just like arguing over a v8 or a I4 nobody will win because they are built for different reasons to withstand differenty types of abuse ect.
I cant remember where I heard the four rotor thing..im probably wrong.
edit: I was right for once?
-
92BlackTT wrote:
I wasnt aiming that at you particularly, just the whole agrument in general. Its just like arguing over a v8 or a I4 nobody will win because they are built for different reasons to withstand differenty types of abuse ect.I cant remember where I heard the four rotor thing..im probably wrong.
I found it, you were right, but they didn't make it because the sales were too good on the current vette. They were selling more vettes than they could make. -
neat-o
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login