GT-R32

Sweet.

Precisely, great post. A rotary is all about how it turns that movement into power, a relative motion. It therefore pumps 654cc x2 per shaft revolution (and fires accordingly), equivalent to a 1308cc 2 stroke or a 2616cc 4 stroke piston.

http://hioctaneracing.com.au/news_RB30.html

Labour came to significantly more than what I said as they simply had to do more work. Tap the head and all sorts of shit. I was really happy with the job, in particularly the time it took and the communication throughout. The turbos killed off the MAP sensor in my HKS boost controller, so I need a new one now. So the car won't boost more than stock and made 225awkw @ 11psi. Glenn was hoping to see 300 but remains to be seen yet. More cash here I come, LOL.

We aren't close to anything. However I would hope that by now everyone in this thread has got their head around how a (Mazda) Wankel operates and how it turns its combustion into power in a car. They can then make their own assessment of whatever people have said.

I give up. You win Gary. I underestimated your ability to sustain an argument. I wasn't seeking this, only seeking whole and relative truth, to increase understanding of operation out there. I don't agree with you as time relative and combustion is missing. But you made some valid points with regard to displacement and operation and that's good.

The more he is proven incorrect with his assumptions, the harder he clutches onto them and the wilder they get. It's a reflection of the man and little to do with fact. I would leave it mate.

Gary, you have completely ignored my post, #502. It was quite an amusing explanation of how your "3.9L 2 stroke 6 cyclinder" thing is so incredibly wrong. Instead you claim you are the winner, LOL. It also has a request of you too. BTW everyone, we all need to ignore NM according to Gary (yet he mentions it?), as they are measured at the output shaft which is entirely irrelevant to everything. Instead we look at rotor cycles to draw relatives. EDIT: Phil Irving loves talking about various things relative to crank degrees, something Gary ignores or doesn't understand with his 3.9L 2 stroke calls (which are wrong), eg: EDIT2: There are plenty of FWD rotaries. EDIT3: Comments re gearbox etc requirements are LAUGHABLE. Same as oil coolers (check out a Mazda RX7 Series 3's oil cooler). The RX8 runs a Mazda MX5 derived gearbox! Any counter 'arguments' set out by Gary remit vital information and contain the assumption, by him, that he is correct. It's borderlline childish, but really reflects self concept. I'm still waiting for my reply to post #502.

LOL cute. Your attempt at discrediting by ignoring everything I previously typed is weak. Rightio then, how did they get to x1.8? Care to explain? I'm sure people would love to hear it from you. Hahaha! Listen to the straight 6 two stroke: Now listen to the 20B, both are comparable revs: Sounds similar, don't they? That's because of the way they fire. Something which it appears you don't understand. Now listen to the 13B which you think sounds like the 1st video: So do I. It's not the passing on knowledge (I'll ignore the knowledge that's wrong). It's the failure to accept some relatives or even how they are derived, let alone understanding Mazda and Dr Wankel's reasoning for rating the engine the way they do. I agree that the 13B is a 3.9L engine, but a Wankel cycle engine. It's nothing like a 3.9L 6 cylinder 2 stroke as you imply. This demonstrates that further than counting combustion surfaces @ 654cc x 6 and realising the rotor revolutions, you don't understand how the engine operates.

Oh, my apologies, as an eligibility officer, scrutineer, club member and licence holder you hold so much clout in the big decisions!!!! These decisions are made with consultation of those with an understanding of relatives, the genuine engineering facts. Maybe just a few notches up the food chain LOL!! FIA use 1.79 and CAMS use 1.8 due to rotary engine inefficiencies (google them). Exclude those and you end up with x2 as I said above. We've discussed this before. Remitting vital information is not cause of you to proclaim me as wrong on the assumption that you are always right. It looks weak. I used 4 stroke 4cyl as there are two chambers of combustion on the power stroke for every 360 degree revolution. Why else does a 20B give a resonance similar to that of a 4-stroke inline 6 cylinder? I'm really sorry you can't understand this. Sound, supports my arguments. The fact is, you are too limited, be it with regard to attitude and/or mental ability, to relate this on a time scale relative. Self proclamation of you being correct is very far from actual facts and is nothing more than a reflection of the individual in question.

In fact, the numbers derived by CAMS and FIA come from a much greater understanding of the engine's operation and output than yourself. It's blatently arrogant to assume you somehow know more, when you have demonstrated your understanding of the technical relatives when measured by time are lacking. All of the required information is in the chart I have provided. This demonstrates the operation of the 13B Wankel is comparable to a 4 stroke 2.6L 4-cyl. And you know what? It's not that complicated.

The engine still fires for a full 9,000RPM worth of 1308cc air/fuel mixture and sounds as such, despite rotary-piston speed. What a clever thing to be able to do that.

I was quoted $1200/1300 by ESP and they currently have my car so final cost is unknown for labour, but I assume it would be pretty damn close as they've done plenty. No idea what killed the turbo at this stage. Just started making noise until it finally died. Will keep you posted in this thread.

Precisely, the engine fires for 9,000RPM output and the sound of it is in accordance with this fact. He totally ignores the crank/e-shaft, how often the engines actually fires and subsequently revs. This leads to a failed conclusion as critical information is ignored and conclusions made are technically incorrect.

Yep, the first production Wankel rotary in the world, NSU Spyder was rated at 498cc for its single rotor engine. Gary is slowly coming around. While still carrying the same attitude, his posts contain slightly different comments and information than they did at the start of the thread. EDIT: They aren't a 3.9L piston equivalent 260RS. Not by any stretch. That's where Gary's banging on is misleading for the general public.

I know exactly what you meant. But it all needs to be in perspective. See the following for a RX8: It compares to a 1.3 litre two stroke. 360 degree crank rotation completes cycles. It compares to a 2.6 litre four stroke. 720 degree crank rotation completes cycles. <-- learn more about the engine in your car if you don't get this! It compares to a 3.9 litre six stroke. 1080 degree crank rotation completes cycles. Look at this and think about how it fires: The bar at the bottom sums it up. The rotary-pistons might only 'rotate' at 3000RPM for the 9000RPM where the BHP is measured, but the rotor fires 3 times per revolution (3x 3000 of 654cc x2) and once per crank revolution (9000 x 654cc x2). Hence the noise - where it reflects 9000RPM of 654c x2 volume of combustion per revolution despite rotor speed (and as I have been saying is like discussing piston speed!).

You said combustion chamber, originally. That's place where the 'surfaces' pass through for their power pulse. I do agree that all sides should be counted in displacement. LOL Cam.

That would leave you with 1308cc for a 13B. 2x 654cc combustion chambers. And funnily enough it's what Mazda use, LOL. Using this will give the rotary an advantage, which is Gary's beef. To equalise the Wankel to a 4 stroke in a simple, theoretical sense, you need to double this as the Wankel makes power from both chambers for every revolution (360 degrees) of the (crank) shaft, where a 4 stroke will not (720 degrees). This is the relative time scale to output that some people really battle with. FYI, this doesn't take into account rotary efficiencies as CAMS and FIA do a x1.79.

100%.

Mate, sorry. You never converted me. RICE has been beating this drum far longer than you have (since the early 1990s), I have known the man for nearly 10 years now. Indeed he has done it with great technical merit using concepts you fail to understand (revolutions and relatives to time). Eventually, he made this post: http://www.ausrotary.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=158905 Gary, the silly thing is we agree on the 3.9L full (Wankel) cycle. Your failing is somehow thinking that the shaft revolutions are irrelevant and call the engine a 2 stroke. They simple aren't on any technical level.

LOL You're not. As has been proven. LOL It pumps 1308cc. Proven. LOL Again demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about. But you are still here arguing. It's cute. Do you still believe all that Gary? It appears you do, but only sort of?

When you measure capacity, how do you know a piston is at TDC? How do you know it's at BDC? Shaft degrees. Shaft rotation. How can you continue to dispute that? And that is how you measure displacement. How can you miss such an obvious point and imply I am wrong? How does sound support your argument? The sound comment was to show you that they don't waste a stroke. Something which is (also) drastically confusing you. Your question makes no sense. Unlike you, I have no hang-ups about Mazda's rating. Instead, I am merely dealing with technical facts of this engine. You have changed your tune several times and continue to now - such as "the rotary is a 3.9L 2 stroke", "rotary is a 6.8L V8 equivalent", "the rotary is not a 2 stroke" - all this serves is to bring the argument around in circles and hide that you either don't know what you are talking about, or don't want to admit you were wrong in the first place. The air/fuel volume of a 13B is 1308cc for each shaft revolution (proven 100% relevant above), with both rotary-pistons having completed a power pulse. Answer me this, do you dispute this point? You can't, it's a fact. Mazda chose to rate the engine on this basis. If you had read some older texts you would realise that the term 'rotary piston' is in fact reference to the rotor and the name is used interchangably. The Mazda R100 came out in Australia with stickers on the promo vehicles that said "Rotary Piston Engine" or words to that effect. Try not to laugh at things you don't understand. Crankshaft, e-shaft, or shaft. You knew what I meant. Whatever leads to the output shaft, you know, the thing you ignore and assume engine manufacturers do also, yet magically calculate displacement without it?

What? Are you sure? I mean a 13B enhales 1.3L of air per crank rotation and once both rotary pistons have completed a power stroke. See what I did there.

Hilarious post Birds. I'd rather let the groupies' posts reflect on them as individuals. But what you said was funny as. Gary will not be able to understand your points. For some peculiar reason he thinks engines aren't rated using shaft degrees - yet he rates them according to exactly that. A 13B inhales as much air as a 1308cc two stroke, with its two 'rotary pistons', it has no empty strokes unlike a 4 stroke. Indeed, one could then argue why Mazda should increase their rating, just because there are no wasted strokes that a 4-stroke has? This is different to full displacement rated by Otto cycles, as it merely looks at volume of air/fuel inhaled for the each of the two rotary piston power strokes. Of course, a 4 stroke needs twice the 1308cc real surface/volume-ratio measure in the combustion chambers to be an 'equal'. Mazda chose to rate the engine on this basis. Which, of course, compliments its packaging advantages. It creates enough air and exhaust heat to easily spool up big frame turbos. Not sure how any of this leads to 'Mazda lies'?

You clearly have a good idea of how the Wankel operates and the ability to relate it to its piston cousins, with no agenda or hang-ups about it (a critical point). But sometimes no matter how the evidence is laid out to someone, they cannot, or do not have the ability to, accept it. The greatest loss of all is the misinformation spreading.