GT-R32

A 4 stroke/cycle engine is classified by Otto cycle, for which the rotary engine clearly performs. This is technically undebatable. And here's where your logic falls down as hypocritical and technically incorrect. If you consider it to be a 2 stroke, you can't consider that separate faces of the rotary-piston to be separately rated, because they perform separate parts of the 4 Otto cycles at separate times. If you wish to count faces as cycles, you will clearly note that they perform these 4-functions separately. You either consider it to be a 2 stroke or you consider it to be a 3.9L. They contradict one another. I was talking equivalents, using where power and torque are measured as the relative. How difficult is that for you to understand? FACT: The 2-rotor 13B engine discussed fires air/fuel mixture 2 times per crank revolution. FACT: This is equivalent to 2.6L 4 stroke. FACT: This is equivalent to 1.3L 2 stroke. FACT: This is equivalent to 3.9L 6 stroke.

Static compression ratio has nothing to do with displacement or capacity.

I used the word 'equivalent' which makes my comments very clear. Absolutely nowhere is it accepted that a rotary is a 2 stroke/cycle. It isn't. It completes the 4 Otto cycles or four-stroke combustion cycles, just in a different way.

And so we end up with what I posted back about 5 pages ago. A 13B is equivalent to: 1.3L 2 stroke. 2.6L 4 stroke. 3.9L 6 stroke.

Just as if piston engines were only rated by their combustion chamber volume, which of course they are. So you can see NSU/Mazda/Dr Wankel's convenient logic with that one.

Decent post Gary, until you got to the 'Mazda lie' stuff again. Remember the engine is on licence from NSU and Dr Wankel. 1308cc comes from combustion chamber volume x2. That's pretty clear I thought.

Well said Spambot Jane.

People shouldn't take direct aim at Mazda for this. NSU rated their engines the same way, the rotary being under licence from them. I would expect it came back to Felix Wankel also. So, you don't know what x2 or x1.8 or x0.59 (this one is for you) means, or where it comes from? One can only assume this is because you don't understand the time relative derived by the shaft where horsepower and torque are measured. Is that correct?

PS: That's precisely what I was on about.

Still awaiting reply to post #657 Gary.

I understand. But the basis of the sound is combustion. Why do V8s sound similar? 4s? 6s? Sure, there are variables that can produce a different note for each, but by and large the combustion, how and when it occurs, produces noticeable similarities. You are talking fine difference I am talking basis of the pattern of sound.

Elaborate DRDOOF. You can't just say that and not explain yourself.

Jez you are basically explaining why a 20B gives of a resonance similar to an inline six cylinder. Gary, on the other hand, believes a 13B @ 9000RPM sounds like a 6 cylinder @ 3000RPM.

So you don't know why CAMS use a x1.8? Equivalent to x0.59 of your (3.9L for the 13B) rating. Weird for someone so interested in this and is self reportedly high up the food chain.

Now you're getting close to why CAMS run a x1.8 of Mazda's rating. Or perhaps it should be a x0.59 of 'your' rating instead?

How do CAMS get to their 1.8 multiplier of Mazda's rating?

Well done all. The time relative and relationship to piston counterparts is fully out there now. The whole unit is considered and understood. Now we are at that stage my question is: If you know how it works and can relate it accordingly, does it really matter how exactly it is rated? This is a better discussion than was had on AusRotary about this exact thing!

How many power pulses or 'power strokes' are there for the respective figures? 3.9L = 6 2.6L = 4 1.3L = 2

LOL Get your hand off it mate. RICE Racing is miles ahead of you. I posted the link from 2008 where he cut up a rotor to educate people on its cycle. He's been saying all this stuff since the early 1990s. The thing is he understand relative time scale, considering the engiune as a whole unit, which you do not. He gave up arguing as you merely assume you are correct.

Now we're getting somewhere. We are beginning to understand the relative time scale - how the combustion is applied and ends in power and subsqeuently how it all relates for this unique engine. This is the only correct way to understand the it, considering the whole unit. Well done fellas.

I recommend Glenn @ ESP. He performed a full turbo swap on my GTR, fitted some other parts and had some issues along the way (typically the case with old cars). However it was all still completed in just over a week including (some) dyno tuning and other fiddling (my EBC is f**ked). I just left him alone and he called me throughout the process as issues were encountered, although the outcome wasn't 100% due to no fault of his, there no promises broken and no excuses made. Additional advice was provided by him on other things on the car also. Exceptional service, great communication with no smooth talking BS, very reasonable hourly rate, always made time to discuss things he had done with me - unintiated - and answer subsequent questions. Most of all, a top notch job. Overall a great experience and highly recommended.

LOL, exactly.

I don't think it's Mazda, I think it started with Felix Wankel himself, given NSU did the same thing with their rotaries.

I'd just refer to the dangerous harmonics that come into play above certain RPM that doesn't happen with piston engines.

Where is power measured? Where is torque measured?