Streeter

yeah I know the guys that run that and they are really straight down the line. I think you would need to sus out all the costs of hiring the car and what happens if you put it in the wall etc. but have had a few ppl come over and done the 'buy a car and send it back' thing... a lot of complications and costs and stuffing around. Bonus with using these guys should be costs saved and a heap less organising as far as the drifting goes. Not sure on the tour costs but hanging out with a bunch of clowns that know where the good places are etc makes sure you are making the most of the trip. If you do decide to come over it gives me a good excuse to get away from work and go driving with a fellow aussie at a track day so make sure to let me know if you do end up doing it.

I must admit being into cars for so long and seeing so many nice cars with a set of horrible rims and ghey cartoon characters on it has got the inner snobby real car tuner in me grinding my teeth. Do not like. the name for them here used to be bakasha which was just stupid cars then changed to itasha (shortened from atama itai, headache/brain damage) loosely translating to retarded cars. And the name seems to have stuck LOL

theres this guy in Japan, been around for years now and has the lowest commission out of any agent... jeez cant think of his name now??

Problem with foreigners in Japan is that they get paid good money for teaching english so expect good money for packing boxes. Ive offered 1000yen an hour for packing which is realistically pretty bloody good money but because they can get 3000yen an hour for private lessons teaching english it seems really bad. So I have to stick with Japanese uni students etc. If he is bored and wants to come to Osaka to pack boxes for 1000yen an hour let me know Would be only part time. The point of my post is that ppl think exporting is easy money, when infact out of the countless jobs Ive had its probably one of the most difficult and stressful.

Hrrrm A. totally subjective. RB26s can sound ok but personally I HATE the sound of stock rb20 with an exhaust. So this point is pretty much irrelevant. B. doesnt matter on the size its performance Vs Economy. For a daily commuter they arent as good as a piston engine. For a performance engine they can be tuned so a high output engines cruising economy is quite ok compared with other performance engines. C.true, although keep the engine happy with temps, iginition, fuel and they are arguably better than most. So not really a good point to bring up about them sucking. Although admittedly I gave up on them cause I was sick of having something off and having an engine shit itself. D.Torque and power are just an equation. Rotors have plenty of torque. Look at a stock 20B or 13B turbo. LOADS of torque very early on and good power, the cosmo is very heavy car! E.Feeling you there a bit but has nothing to do with the engine. Anyway I was finding the talk on displacement was more interesting than if the rotary is a good or bad engine. I think most are happy with the slight topic change. More random tit shots are also welcome.

be careful to assume others have no experience with them. Ive built a fair few and mucked around with them for 6 years. Sydney kid has built a couple of race cars (possibly including engines) aswell. Not everyone is an 18 year old noob to rotaries here.

^^apologies. The internet does take away alot from a conversation. Maybe it was just from my perspective. constant referrences to degrees and assuming no one else knew what you were talking about is what made me jump to that conclusion.

Fix the link in your sig mr thermodynamics degree man. you obviously have experience and knowledge on the subject but the arrogance makes it hard not to hate on you LOL

I think everyone understands this, the difference in opinion is if you count combustion FACES as displacement. Mazda didnt and the rotary has been recognised as a 1.3 litre for many years. Its the swept volume of a combustion chamber, which is one side as only one side of a rotor makes up the combustion chamber at one time. One complete 'cycle' should be one side of the rotor, not all three. AND The engine is the rotor housing, not the rotor itself. <- this is what we are knit picking about and it comes down to your interpretation of terminology. Sydney kid says its misleading and lying. I agree its a little misleading but I think you are going too far to say its lying about capacity.

So you count all sides of the rotor and say that each one completed is one cycle? Wouldnt it be just as correct (arguable more so) to say a cycle is intake, compression, power, exhaust? this is 654cc per housing, regardless of what other stages of the process other parts of the engine are in. Seems you are muddying the water by changing what is defined as a cycle? To complete 3 sides full cycle the rotor has made more than one complete rotation, seems a bit of a funny way to count displacement to me.

^^and for those not understanding, usually displacement means combustion needs to occur there. They are different to a piston engine. Counting the sides of the rotor and rotor housings that arent involved in the combustion is just as bad as counting the crank case of a 2 stroke. 2 strokes use the bottom side of the piston to compress the air in the crank case and make the engine run... isnt this exactly what is happening in the inlet section of a rotor housing? we should count this as displacement then!? Again, they are different, arguing about how we should count displacement Vs a piston engine is just arguing about terminology and what qualifies as displacement. Saying its 3.9 litres is just as 'incorrect' as saying its 1.3 litres. In my opinion 1.3 litre 2 stroke seems to fit the bill alot better than a 3.9 litre 3000rpm engine... but call it and count it how ever you like, still goes the same. while we are at it, some terminology... http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/engine_displacement so you have to count three cycles of a rotor compared to one of a piston? I guess you could use that as an argument of why the rotor is good?

again comparing something that is different, but ok Ill bite. Glow plug anyone? also I dont see much combustion happening on the inlet and exhaust sections of the rotor housing? two posts up champ. Its the way most motorsport categories DO calculate and try and compare displacement which means we should double the claimed displacement of 2 strokes (and also add the crank case volume) aswell cause they are all lying?

Also one other thing (after a few beers) a 2 stroke engine uses the crank case to compress its inlet charge, should we count that as extra capacity? it doesnt have a spark plug in there (just like the inlet and exhaust chambers of a rotor housing)?

read over that a couple of times and maybe you will see the point Im trying to make. But Ill add my 2 cents of terminology argument anyway... 3.9 litres pfft. as for eccentric shaft/crank shaft rotations vs displacement thats exactly what most motorsport categories use and class the 13b as a 2.6 litre dont they? a combustion chamber needs sparkplugs doesnt it? so if they are missing from 2 sides of the rotor, counting them as displacement is just as incorrect as not including them isnt it?

The size, centre of gravity and power make them a pretty good performance engine. And same as turbos etc it makes it difficult to put them in a class where its totally fair with restrictors etc as there will always be ppl saying that how its figured out isnt right. Just look at ANY class where they are allowed and you will find ppl like Sydney kid whinging about how the size/class is calculated. And thats the reason in most motorsport categories they ARENT allowed, pretty much the same as turbo/supercharging cause its too hard to make a level playing field where everyone is happy.