Streeter
-
Posts
216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
100%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Media Demo
Store
Posts posted by Streeter
-
-
How could anyone in their right mind fag up an R32 GT-R like that? (the typemoon one). Oh I see, a GT-R bandwagon-jumping anime freak owns 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.
-
This same argument has been going on for the 40 odd years the rotor has been in production. laymen such as myself could be swayed by either argument. However Neither argument addresses the original question. "why do rotors suck"
The question wasnt "are rotors good for any particular application in the world of internal combustion".
The same question could be asked of any particular design of motor. They all have their strengths and weakness's. Trouble is, it wasnt. So why do rotors suck?
A. They do sound like arse, Depending on cofiguration they emit either the "wank wank" sound or they make a noise akin to a model airplane on rhoids.
B. They are not fuel efficient. If as claimed by the pro rotor team they are 1.3 or 2.6 litres or whatever the fuel efficiency is even worse than I was led to believe.
C. there is a question mark over their reliability
D. Pound for pound they do appear to lack torque to any degree. Even a briggs and Stratton can be made to look good if its propelling something light enough.
E. The rotor Fanboiz Are the rudest bunch of chuntz to ever grace these boards. Plain and steadfast arguments have been proffered by the piston brigade only to be met by personal attacks from the egg beater crowd. Some of them have offerred damn fine arguments in favor of the rotor but let their credibility fly out the window With their personal remarks.
Bring it on rotor heads but dont sully a damn good debate by attacking the man rather than the argument.
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
-
Finally the ONLY TRUE way to look at a Wankel Rotary is to view it in its own cycle! (and not comparing it to something that it is NOT!) this is only over 1080 degree's of crank shaft rotation, where ALL of the working faces can be accounted for (just as when you do a compression test to see if the poor little donk is healthy or not) For it is only when the entire engine has complete one full cycle of work can it thus be rated, be that as functional or in its true capacity sense. You will then see that the humble 13B is indeed 654cc x 3 working faces x number of rotors ! = 3924cc.
Equivalence capacity to time scale (revolutions) for 13B engine, has one power pulse per 360 degree's per rotor
1308cc 360degree's (2 stroke)
2616cc 720 degree's (4 stroke)
3924cc 1080 degree's (Wankel Rotary)
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?
-
Where's the spark plugs on a diesel? And they come 2 and 4 stroke.
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?
I do however appreciate the arguments from both sides and applaud the knowledge some of you guys are sharing as a lot of it is new to me and i love to learn! Great reading so keep it coming! haha.FWIW I do agree with Gary. Also I am keen for a response to this little beauty...
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)?
-
I'm sorry I don't understand, piston engines have crankshafts, rotaries have eccentric shafts so there is nothing common there. Why are you trying to make something that is inherently different somehow the same when the fact is they aren't.
Cheers
Gary
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?
-
if piston and rotary engines are so different and comparing them is stupid, why are they allowed to compete against each other in motorsport? shouldnt they have their own catagory?
i think it is perfectly valid to compare rotaries to piston engines. the both do the same job (granted in different ways) and therefor should be compared. its like comparing a boat to a plane, one will get you there quicker and one will get you there in more comfort, they both still get you there in the end.
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.
-
Obviously there are other reasons why you don't see such engines used in motorsport...
The point is that how the ignition affects the drive shaft is what's important. In the case of a rotor the rotor itself ingites 3 times per revolution but the eccentric shaft is only rotated by one of these ignitions for it's revolution. The exact same effect as a two-stroke. This is what mazda seem to have based their definition of a 1.3ltr high revving engine on. I somewhat agree with their definition because the driveline is what affects how the power is output, the fact that the rotor spins three times slower can either be viewed as being similar to having more pistons or as mazda would like to see it, the same "pistons" on their next cycle.
You're right though, comparisons to piston engines don't really mean anything... unless you're trying to figure out what category rotarys should be lumped into for motorsport.
I just find it weird that ppl get so upset with mazda calling it a 1.3 litre. In my opinion if someone told me it was a 3.9 litre and was that size, I would be MORE impressed. And making that much power at 3000rpm?? how good is that! glad you can see my point about definitions and terminology. A rotor is a rotor, piston engine is a piston engine. Trying to compare them like that is stupid.
Only ppl to get shitty with the size classifications are either retards (cause what difference does it make?? call the thing a 50 litre engine, still performs exactly the same!) or ppl getting spanked by them on the track and crying about it being unfair LOL
-
Yes a 4 stroke would, but not a 2 stroke. Also remember the two stroke would also be significantly lighter and smaller than a 4 stroke, maybe even weighing less than a 13B.
and thats why you see those 3.9 litre 2 strokes in sports cars!! what was I thinking
I don't know about you, by my tacho reads ignition pulses, it doesn't actually count the crankshaft revolutions. Tacho's are very simple devices, for a 2 stroke they count how many combuston events per minute and divide it by the number of combustion chambers and that = rpm. Very simple, now do it for a rotary engine and you end up at 3,000 rpm. It's not that hard to understand.Cheers
Gary
Actually thats how the tacho works but not what its supposed to be measuring. Sort of like saying that the speed of your tail shaft is what you should be caring about not actually how fast you are going. It's not that hard to understand.
Like I keep repeating. Arguing about terminology is retarded, yet here I am... oh dear.
-
^^probably the same reason as the crap in this thread. The engines are different. Comparing them and trying to say it = XX cc is just retarded.
This means making an even playing field extremely difficult as you really cant compare them.
they were banned from Lemans cause they won, if they were so shit, no one would have kicked up a stink and they wouldnt have been knocked out. This is pretty standard for any piece of engineering that works. Would have thought someone as involved in motorsport as SyndeyKid would have clued onto that? maybe Im giving too much credit here?
Just to stir, wouldnt a 3.9 litre V6 at 3000 rpm have alot of trouble making the same power as a 13b? just some food for thought and more of wakeup call of comparing pistons and rotors on RPM and size as being pretty retarded.
-
they are different, arguing over what they equal is the same as arguing about terminology.
where do you count revs? *thought this was from the crank/eccentric shaft? the cams in a piston engine go half speed, why dont we count them as engine speed?
how do you classify displacement? *I always thought it was supposed to be combustion chamber, arguably a combustion chamber needs spark plugs, only one side of the rotor has plugs at any one time and that is what they run with. Misleading? maybe, but saying its 2 or 3 times the size is just as bad.
but basically comparing them by volumetric size or revs is retarded.
They arent popular cause they arent as fuel efficient as a piston motor, for a daily commuter that is the end of them.
For a sports engine they are a proven contender, very low centre of gravity, make good enough power no matter how you want to count the revs or size. And ultimately fast enough to cop the ban hammer at lemans. That has to say something about how good they can be?
one thing Ive read here a couple of times is the two plug deal... Vlad from Victoria ran 8seconds and always pulled the trailing plug leads off. So there goes that theory of needs the extra spark for power, thats simply incorrect.
My hate I have with them is that they are too fragile. Most piston motors can knock a little before they give up. Rotors seem to be missing and stuffed before you even know what happened, rebuilds are expensive and a pain in the arse. I enjoyed the time I had playing with them for 6 years and have a soft spot for them. But Ive had enough with maintenance and tinkering and just want to drive... so I swapped to piston motors.
-
hmmmm
speaking of having your own business....
wonder how hard it would be to be an exporter?
you know...those people who stay in Japan and send over all the car parts to Australia for "sh*tloads* of dollars (this may include cars, half cuts, parts off yahoo auctions etc etc)
what skill requirement is there, would having a japanese friend suffice (so they can help you with translation, lol)
more difficult than you could ever know, the stress, the hours, the scammers.
Ive been doing it for 5 years, Im 34 and own a smashed s13 and a 660cc van, rent a shoe box of a house and have no days off... sounding good? come join me I need help packing boxes.
-
I need a roof over my head too, so I guess in the end it doesnt really matter where the parts are coming from as long as the customer is happy with the price/service?
-
OI! leave us LBHs alone
but seriously elrodeo666, you dig Korean chicks?
Went there the other month. God damn, the ratio of hot chicks in that place is like some kind of weird science experiment where they were trying to breed the ugliest bitches in existance, the only ones that are half decent are guaranteed to have been under the knife... what makes it even worse is they are the cold stuck up snobs aswell. Its like Bizarro Japan, instead of cute overly kind (albiet often fake) you get hideous knarky bitches. PASS
-
meh, will always be dickheads on the road. Still like to see some more stats comparing drunk drivers or fights etc leading to death. I think Australia has done an awesome job of blowing deaths due to "hooning" WAY out of proportion.
-
Streeter; I managed to bring back packets and packets through carry on, no idea why they'd give a shit if its mailed?!?! The packets i brought back were the normal toppo packets, so like your orange box its not hard at all to realise whats inside.
Munkeyboy: Im going to the tokyomart tomorrow, ill look for you. I tried to call them but the girl who answered didnt speak much english, she said "no have, no have" but i doubt she knew what i was asking for
yeah carry on is different as I think they have the custom agents there to ask you what the food is etc. with mail its no food, no boxes that are for food (even if there is no food in there) and even no boxes with pictures of food even if its fanta!!! so really really tight.
-
Aus seems pretty tight when it comes to sending food there. I cant even use boxes with food written on them and have been knocked back when I went to use a fanta box cause it had pictures of oranges on it! WTF??
has anyone got away with mailing food to aus before? they dont seem to care if its processed or not, just seems to be a blanket no go.
Would be only part time.
For it is only when the entire engine has complete one full cycle of work can it thus be rated, be that as functional or in its true capacity sense. You will then see that the humble 13B is indeed 654cc x 3 working faces x number of rotors ! = 3924cc.
which means we should double the claimed displacement of 2 strokes (and also add the crank case volume) aswell cause they are all lying?
Touring Japan, Who To Go With
in Japan
Posted · Edited by 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.