SimonR32

YYYYYYYYYYYYESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!! So Gary has now stated that it is not a 2 stroke and not a 4 stroke... But more like a 2 stroke, which means its neither... You can have a apple and a orange, the you can have a pear. The pear is more like a apple than a orange, BUT ITS NOT A APPLE ITS A PEAR!!!

MAXIMUM VOLUME, not total volume... come on already turn the cylinder to the point where you can get the most volume, record that volume and then times by the number of cylinders

capacity is maximum volume not air ingested into the engine...

I dissagree, it's not the how much it pumps but the maximum volume able to be held... "a. The ability to receive, hold, or absorb. b. Abbr. c. A measure of this ability; volume."

Also should note that I'm North of the River in Balga (not the dodgy part so you won't get killed haha)

Hey guys, After a bit of help if possible. I need the radiator support replaced in my R32 Gts-t as it has been pushed in by a previous accident. I’m looking for someone to replace the front section with another one I have from a half cut. The front end is totally stripped so all I really need in someone to remove the old support and replace with the one from the half cut. Obviously the car is not mobile so I would prefer if someone could come and do a cashy at my place but if I’m forced to I will get the car towed to a workshop and get it done there (just 2 tows is going to hurt the el cheapo budget I have planned). So ideally I’m looking for someone reliable with their own tools/welder that can bring it all to my house for a cash job, rip off the bent rad support and replace with the one I have sitting at home and do a decent job at a reasonable price. Anyone keen or know someone who might be?!? I can be contacted on my mobile 0422426866 or PM on here Cheers Simon

actually one rotation of the crank is 2.6L, two rotations of the crank is a full cycle and 5.2L in a full combustion cycle of a rotor it actually takes in 3.9L for the 3 sides x 2 rotors that are full combusted, plus 2 extra sides on each rotor 1.3L by 2 remaining in the engine... so why don't we now call it a 6.5L by your reasoning think about your second comment... your thinking about it the wrong way... capacity is max amount of air a single cylinder or rotor can hold times by the amount there are, not the whole engine at one given time

capacity (Volume) of a single rotor in a 13B at it's maximum is only ever 1.3L, times that by 2 and you get 2.6L... , you can never actually have 1.95L air by volume at any time in a single rotor like sydneykid suggests

sorry, my bad... i explained it incorrectly, maximum capacity of a indiviual bank times by the number of banks a full cycle using you theory of a 2.6L RB is actually 5.2L

simon likes this! except for the 3.9L, it has a capacity of 2.6L... yes it uses 3.9L in complete combustion of all the rotors but it only every has the capacity (volume) of 2.6L

In my view if it counts for anything: Engine RPM is the output revolutions of the of a complete engine. I don't believe you can base it on ignition (a rotor will actually use it's ignition twice during a single side of the rotor combustion cycle) Capacity is the ability of a engine to hold a maximum volume of air at any given time. This definition works well for both a rotor and a piston engine and makes a 13B a 2.6L capacity!!! It's not a 4-stoke, it's not a 2-stroke it's a rotarty...

actually it's air volume

Gary, We are going nowhere so I'll just leave it at that! But I'll ask you a question along a different line... Why when you are refering to a combustion cycle in terms of RPM and combustion strokes of just one face of the rotor but suddenly when your talking about capacity you switch to talking about all 3 sides of the rotor... A full combustion cycle would therefore be when all 3 sides of the rotor had completed their stokes, hense a even lower "RPM" (1000rpm) to fully claim that it's a 3.9L

It's ENGINE RPM!!! Not rotor RPM, you measure horsepower, torque and RPM at the flywheel, not at the piston or rotor!!! Dictionary check "An internal combustion engine cycle completed in two strokes of the piston." "denoting an internal combustion engine whose power cycle is completed in one up-and-down movement of the piston." "designating or having to do with an internal-combustion engine in which a complete fuel cycle in a cylinder requires only two piston strokes" "A two-stroke engine provides power on every other stroke of the piston. It is the most common and affordable type of engine." I can keep going, but I don't have the time... And you fail to see the difference in potential energy... Try breaking it down into a single rotor engine vs a single piston 4-stroke engine to make it nice and simple for you, when the single piston engine finishes its combustion cycle it has no more potential energy stored, when a single rotor completes a combustion cycle it has two more combustion cycles in progress, hence still having potential energy!!! I totally agree with you they should not be classed as a 1.3L 4-stoke engine because they are not... But they are not a 3.9L 2-stroke with 3000rpm on tap!!!

Ok Gary, Firstly engine RPM is exactly that, the amount of revs per minute the engine is outputting... Not the piston strokes or rotor cycles, you can't say that a rotor's rpm is what is takes for one rotation of the rotor, otherwise you would have to judge a piston engine on piston speed and then the RPM of a 2-stroke would only be half the speed of a 4-stroke!!! But they are not, the engine RPM is based on crank speed. It's not a 2-stroke, its not a 4-stroke... It's a rotary!!! Granted it's got more in common to a 2-stroke engine, but it's not because it does not have pistons... therefore it doesn't have a piston stroke. I'm sorry but your a little wrong with your displacement comparison as well. You can not compare them as they are not the same, a piston engine does not carry potenial energy of more than one combustion cycle in a single cylnder, but a rotary engine carrys not only one combustion process but the potential energy of 2 other combustion processes. It can't be compared to a 1.3L piston engine as much as it can't be compared with a 3.9L. It's a 1.3L engine per combustion process with 2.6L of potential energy in reserve, a piston engine is a 1.3L per combustion process with no potential energy in reserve!!! Cheers Simon

you will need bronze valve guides head machined to clear the cam titanium retainers upgraded valve springs new shims and/or buckets

so your saying i should have charged you 10k for my rb30e

sounds pretty much like a os giken rb30 set up

your a idiot!

exactly... you may have won in the n/a shitter but we had more fun in the turbo and got the beetchezzz

Are the rules for targa tasmania/targa west the same?!? Would the "exhaust irregularity" of the Quinn car be grounds for disqualification in Targa Tasmania in 2009 (which he won)?

lol @ 2.2l evo i can just see them going "prove it" quinns car was very loud compared with the other 35

No, it isnt RPM on the right hand side... its tractive effort/torque and RPM is just a multiple of the road speed so if you want rpm you just have to find the right ratio you have 2 lines on the graphs, power (with a scale on the left) and torque/tractive effort (with a scale on the right) RPM/speed is on the bottom axis totally wrong its a scale of the right of tractive effort/torque for the other curve on the graph... same as power scale on the right it has nothing to do with rpm!!!

on the first graph it has road speed not rpm.... on the second graph whatever it was has been chopped off at the bottom

ROFL