GT-R32

Maybe a different one? It was turning right in towards Civic pool and I was driving the other direction. LOL close to a spotted.

LOL 4 door blue R32? Constitution Ave I think it was Thursday lunch I thought I saw you? Gave a wave but I don't think you saw. Gave a wave to a black S3 R33 GTR and didn't receieve also just prior. Felt like a bit of a douche waving and getting no love!

Thanks mate. Appreciated.

I searched and couldn't find! Will this knob fit my 1989 GTR? http://www.rhdjapan.com/jdm-low/Nissan-OEM...32-BCNR33-52161

LOL pity the bloke that bought your car!

His agreement with this concept of displacement and subsequent rating is correct. His understanding further than this is limited. What bothers me is that it has mislead others. If you say that the engine is that size you need to clarify to those being informed of this new position (to those reading) that it is a 3.9L WANKEL cycle. Nothing at all to do with a 2 stroke as Gary believes. Remitting vital information (or believing otherwise) such as the relatives is misleading: 1.3L 2 stroke reciprocating piston engine equivalent. 2.6L 4 stroke reciprocating piston engine equivalent. 3.9L Wankel. Or, you can see the logic in Mazda and Dr Wankel calling it a 1.3L. After all, it's like nothing else so they are free to class it as they will, that is the size of the combustion chamber, so you can see the logic if you aren't clouded by thinking it's some kind of conspiracy.

Yeah and I agree with that. But merely quoting "the rotary only rotates at 3000RPM" lacks the time equaliser and is misleading, akin to quoting piston speed.

They are inefficient, particularly at low revs. The 'copious amounts' really aren't that massive when compared to a RB26 or similar. They use basically the same amount of fuel. If you consider their full displacement to be 3.9L, you need to understand that they don't get near using 3.9L in anyway similar to a piston engine. At all. And certainly very far removed from a 3.9L 2 stroke, LOL!!

Mate, there is no 'logic'. There is fact and there is not. What is your definition of large? It is a totally subject term! The same size as a 2.6L piston engines in a similar fashion? For a 13B? Yes, exactly. Albeit (only) slightly better due to heat. RB26 single turbos can be basically applied to 13Bs. Think T04Z, T51R (extreme) or GT35R! Many people are still ignoring relatives and time equilisers and only ending up confused (yet arguing based on it LOL).

I'll ignore the fact that there are mistakes and say yes, but that is but part of the story. A part which conveniently sets out to discredit the rotary (which is already incredibly flawed anyway). Everything is relevant to time, everything. The position above totally ignores the time equalising crank/e-shaft and the notion of relative. This is as smart as quoting torque and not power. Or assuming house prices rise indefinitely because they are high now. Assuming your car is full of petrol so it doesn't need any more again. That not being hungry now means you are okay forever. Ignoring the arguments of displacement and capacity, the above position ignores time and relatives and doesn't get close to describing how the engine works at a critical point - output. Therefore any conclusions drawn from it are flawed. It is you who needs to read the thread and understand it.

I don't think he even understands the concepts being discussed. Trolling is about all there is to it.

Yeah grain of salt. Hilarious attempt at adding credibility or clout to his post with hearsay, it almost sounds as if Gary wrote that... And he hasn't appeared in the thread himself since the torque accident, LOL.

Birds, he referred to Gary as if he had made his point like an engineer - given some of the most basic mistakes made in many of his posts discredits that bloke´s conclusion entirely. He had made his decision prior to writing in this thread. Torque is changed at the wheels with gearing. So yes it`s kind of irrelevant and I agree people talk as if it`s some form of defining point. Average power is what matters over all else. When people talk of torque (which given something doesnt even have to be moving to get a torque rating, talk is all toque good for!) they mean average power and for some frustrating reason people use the word torque as if it`s something really clever to say. A side point... Given torque and revs calculate work done and what counts - power and speed potential, if a car is making 500hp at 6500RPM as plenty of 13B turbos do, then it is making bags of torque!

LOL!! You are a Gary fan boi! An engineer, any engineer, let alone one worth his salt, understands the concept of torque. Which is but one of Gary´s fatal mistakes in his ´arguments`.

Bit of an update. I've taken the car elsewhere and the speculation was that if the plate was bent badly it would shudder more than it does, that or the scopot has been stuff on installation, or the throw out is incorrect or incorrectly installed. He suggested a drive it for a while and see how it goes before I take it back to them. The clutch is 100% better now, sometimes showing no issues. Before it really had to be forced into gear and the car would creep - sometimes it's a hard to get in (and you can hear it 'wind' down but still spin as it carries a little), but other times it's 100% with no issues. I have noticed that the throw out bearing has begun to whine a little more noticeably, is this something to do with what's happening?

The car and its engine bay appear standard - most of those are in effect replacement items - and it has RAWS compliance. Hope that helps.

This is a good link: http://www.answers.com/topic/engine-displacement All cylinders swept volume, BDC to TDC.

Points taken. However they are related to my spatial thinking comment. Gary did admit his doubling was incorrect and it was a mistake (not a typo). I can accept that. I can accept his mistakes with regard to the 3.9L per shaft revolution too (see his post above) - as long as he can. I just get frustrated as everything really needs to be kept in perspective with this engine and measured in both relatives and absolutes, but spoken in technical truth. Otherwise it becomes a distortion of fact - arguably just as Mazda have done by calling their engine a '1.3L Rotary' - then it becomes a pot, kettle, black scenario for those calling the 13B a 3.9L 2 stroke. A bit like Michael Moore's films actually, LOL.

They aren't. Mazda call it a 1.3L rotary. They don't use the term Wankel. I call the 13B a 3.9L Wankel and count all of the engine as you do when you compression test them. But I am capable of discussion of relatives I don't just 'ignore it'. You ignore it. Right. I am starting to realise you don't understand some concepts so I accept that. You just do a good job of arguing endlessly and pretending you know all - even dropping credibility indicators LOL. See the next point. What, so now you don't understand how torque works? You're starting to demonstrate your limitations here Gary. Humour me on why you think I tripled it. Or perhaps have a quiet think of what a different diff ratio does to a car and get back to me. No, the RENESIS won the 2.5 - 3L catagory. No matter how often you change what I said you cannot change that fact. It's quite clear he is limited in some areas mate. I mean the mistakes are he thinks double 3.9L is 6.8L, thinks it fires 3.9L worth of air/fuel for each shaft revolution, accordingly calls it a 2 stroke and finally, doesn't understand the concept of torque (something doesn't have to move for it to be measured, mind). It's becoming quite clear that spatial thinking is not Gary's specialty. It's just covered up with a very black and white attitude that gives some readers the impression he is correct as he is so sure of himself. Also riding a well deserved reputation of credibility on SAU, which are on areas unrelated and of different understanding. I see another possibility. For instance, when GM was threatened by Japanese car makers, it responded in the 1980s by clinging even harder to its own ideals and beliefs that had 'worked' in the past. Certain individuals, when counter and further information is presented behave in much the same way, they tightly hold onto preconceived ideas, pushing them even harder, no matter their value or worth, in the face of new and further evidence or change. This becomes a reflection of the individual's or group's self concept. Given the subject of credibility has appeared so often I get the feeling this may apply.

Open them both at once. Start this video at 11 seconds: Start this video at 33 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBz9wsLT3DA Then very slowly think about why the firing patterns give off a similar resonance. No, I'm not arguing engine note. You're not the kind of individual that changes his mind in light of new evidence. We get that. All I do is demonstrate various relatives which give the reader an understanding of the engine. You push an agenda that is technically incorrect (3.9L 2 stroke). They are capacity/displacement RELATIVES. Something you clearly don't understand as you mix them up and then argue accordingly. This is where you are hypocritical. You call it a 2 stroke when the engine's process is viewed as a 1.3L then call it a 3.9L? Get your hand off it. It's a 3.9L Wankel (okay, Mazda call it a rotary) which has nothing to do with a 2 stroke. You can use relatives if done correctly using an equaliser (something you fail to understand), but you cannot call it s 2 stroke, it's not. Stop trying to put it into that box for convenience's sake. You're right. It is ridiculous to view it in that way as you discount that the other parts of the engine is doing. So don't call it a 2 stroke. You're mixing up terminology again. 4 stroke / 2 cycles? I think you mean 2 crank rotations or 720 degrees. Not cycles. Crank rotations. Don't mix things up it makes you look silly. I'm not the one selectively applying arguments. I have the open mind and ability to speak in relatives. You on the other hand made a decision pre-thread and argue on that basis. I follow each of the 4 separate processes within this engine, each of the 4 parts happening in its own distinct section of the housing. I'll look it up for you: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine4.htm (this one even has colours for you to see the separate 'strokes') http://www.animatedengines.com/wankel.shtml http://www.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm/printable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistonless_rotary_engine See all of the above refer to it as a following the 4 stroke combustion cycle. There are many, many more but that is a very quick search. They also measure displacement correctly and note the 787B has a 7.8L displacement. What? No it's not, repeating yourself doesn't mean you are correct. You're not being subtle. Cute for you to act as if you are that clever. But now, you're just wrong again. See above. Same applies to you mate. You can't call it a 2 stroke on the basis of how it works when counted as 1.3L. I can discuss relatives, you can't as you ignore it because you think it's irrelevant.

Yeah rotaries sound rubbish, all of them! Oh, wait up:

1080 degrees as there are 6 pulses to measure. We all know that. I see what you did there. Nice points with your combustion chamber comments Birds

Incorrect. That would be: 2 stroke 2 litre = 2L 4 stroke 2 litre = 1L 6 stroke 2 litre = 0.67L

Exactly. So calling to a 2 stroke just because it is a design which allows the 4 distinct parts of the Otto cycle occur in different parts of the engine is incorrect. And there is only 1 place where combustion occurs per rotor, just because it conveniently performs 4 separate cycle functions in other areas means shit. It can all be brought to relative using the shaft anyway. Further my post above, Gary suggest rotaries need a big gearbox because they are a 3.9L as they are now (not true). Well imagine if they were geared 1:1 - if it were possible? This actually demonstrates using Gary's method of rating that they are a high torque (not low as Gary suggests) low revving engine. But they simply aren't, it's not fact and it ignores where torque and power are measured (the output shaft).

Your classifications of four and two stroke are incorrect. Each rotor face performs the Otto cycle in four distinct sections, that's all that matters and you will find just about technical texts agree with me. It's a 4 stroke/cycle engine. By your logic a multi cylinder 4 stroke engine is 2 stroke because of where each piston is up to in the Otto cycle. LOL! It's flat out wrong Gary. What? That a stroke isn't 'wasted' because intake and compression occurs in other parts of the engine? Honestly. There are 4 distinct things happening here. It's a 4 cycle/stroke. Do some more reading and come back. Relevant? Of course it's relevant. It's a FACT. WTF are you on about? At least you are discussing relatives although it appears you are confused. The 1.3L 2 stroke equivalent would be a 2 cylinder each of 654cc capacity. The 2.6L 4 stroke equivalent would be a 4 cylinder each of 654cc capacity. I'm talking equivalents which is particularly difficult for you to understand, we end up going around in circles. I call it a 3.9L Wankel. That's the only correct way to rate the engine, which is the equivalent to the various piston engines as I have already explained dozens of times, which is in accordance to many other bodies that rate the engine... For some reason you are insistent on arguing this point? The engine is NOT and will never be correctly classified as a 3.9L 2 stroke. You can pretend it's geared 1:1 rotor to output. But it's not. Stop trying to put it into that box. Let's all say that the RX8 has the following engine to make Gary happy: 3.9L 6 chamber(/cylinder) 3,000RPM rev limited engine making peak power of 170kW @ 2733RPM and max torque of 633NM @ 1833RPM. But you know what? That isn't true. It's NOT FACT. When the International Engine of the Year was awarded to the RENESIS for the 2.5-3L catagory it was done so with the RENESIS being rated at 2.6L. Why? Because I think those engineers have some idea of relative.