martyt

Bad luck there. Can I ask how all these cars can get started without a key? Alarm and immobiliser were on I'm guessing. Since you know who it is you should be able to get money out of him/teach him a lesson?

Mate, Fuel consumption was thrown up before and shot down like the BS excuse it is. Fact is the official government fuel consuption tests showed the FD that was sold in Australia used less fuel than the 5.0l v8 commodore. Under the same tests I think it was only a bit thirstier than the 200sx of the day. So one can Assume that the same year's skyline would not be much more efficient. According to anecdotal evidence (HPI magazine etc) the GTR would use the same as a v8 commodore.

A few more options VN Commodore, light, inconspicuous, fast with na mods toyota paseo, small, light, can get good power to weight Honda civic, small light, cheap, very good potential, cheap power ups old mini and then you can look for the more obscure j imports

Ahh 5 K Sasaki Pan Speed Racing Mazda RX-7 1:32.4540 +0:01.8670 6 Kinoshita Mitsuhiro Pro Staff R-Magic Mazda RX-7 1:33.5050 +0:02.9180 7 Mark Berry Advan/Hi Octane Racing Nissan Skyline R34 G 1:34.1090 +0:03.5220 8 David Loftus BSM Motorsport Nissan Skyline R32 G 1:35.8760 +0:05.2890 Damn those "Rotaries that suck" they didn't break down, run out of fuel, blow an oil leak or suffer any other failure the fanboys here keep moaning about.

Ahh love the fanboys more than ever. Remind me of the results of the last Superlap? Which placed higher? Was it a Skyline or an RX 7?

once again i will keep the insults going if you dont start to comprehend what the fuel consumption argument is about. The R35 uses more fuel in all aspects, city, highway, combined. compared to the rx7. You say it makes more power. Woah man thats some magical trick there, Larger displacement (currently being debated), Larger turbochargers, more boost, more fuel consumption. If the R35 made less power than an FD i would be extremelly dissapointed. but i digress, no one here belives those figures are trully representative of how a car is driven "spiritedly" The point, let me emphasise, is that the fuel consumption is not markedly worse than a V8, show me reputable figures for your car (conveniently not listed) and have a look at its consumtion against 4 cylinder turbo cars. Note a large difference in city driving but similar consumption in highway? and no one gives a $hit what km/L you get on your dreamer home calculator. This is the part where you look stupid. "but i do get 10L/100km" i can go and say i get 5L/100km on an rx7. the point you have forgotten is your not comparing apples and apples. drive your car like a baby? do the same for a rx7 and i guarantee the consumption will be less than 13L/km The fact is that both the skyline and rx7 could not meet the strict euro emmisions regime and consumed similar amount of fuel. MAIN POINT: no one goes "GTR's use insane amounts of fuel" or "a 6L V8 uses insane amounts of fuel" which is in the same league for stock cars. but you guys say it for rotary's.

so more lies from jase. his quote say 12.4L but look at the link etrol 98RON 12.4 18.3 9.1 12.4 is combined . CITY DRIVING IS 18.3.!!!! YES comapred to a rotary @13L Highway cruising in an R35......expect 9.1L /100KM ROFL 1) insults becos your a B.S. Talker who is trying to F##k the whole argument with made up nonsense bcos you are a one eyed skyline fan. 2) your car will not get 10-11L, are you a c..k smoker? a 2L inline 4 SR20DET will get 10L and you believe you can match that with 50% MORE cylinders + 25% more capacity? 3) the fuel consumption is calculated by running the engines in real time and under different loads. The loads are there to simulate the city driving and the highway drving. these are done to official standards QUOTE:Australian vehicle emission standards largely reflect international standards developed by the United Nations. These standards are adopted in Europe and many other countries around the world, and are known as the "Euro" standards. thats what the website says. Please provide proof of this"granny driver" . Because its all lab tested figures. And for the record. I'm not having a go at you or anyone else. It is just that figures dont lie. The 13B has similar fuel consumption to other engines. Fuel consumption is directly related to how much fuel your inctors can flow in any given minuite. and no one said you had to slam the pedal ALL the time, bad fuel consumption may be the reult of bad driving habits. The one point that is obvious is the fuel usage at low "revs" (real or fake or whatever is in dispute) is higher than a similar power out put piston engine. Just remember the race track / open road is not stop start traffic.

so bozodos, to sum up. your friends have modified rotary cars. they get the consumption of a modified car, whis is STILL less than a 32GTR. They complain about this fuel consumption. You say that all rotary's have the consumption of a modified car. regardless of if it is stock or not. Mate, you need to do some basic research. mybe find out what the fuel economy was on hardcore 240Z's back in the day. do you know the km/L on a full house 2JZ, what about drag GTR engines? stroked 2.2L SR20 with 1000cc injectors. We should just look at the stock car, which, while consumption is not low, it aint bad for a car that was a match for GTR in performance. who said rotaries were not mainstream? this may have more to do with expense design for the other manufacturers who need to catch up on 20 years of mazda developement. the market would probably be hard to capture for the newcomer. as far as i have come across, stock and mild modified rotaries seem to need no more maitenance then any other "sports" car. but if it is your experience, yeah fair enough but let ppl know your talkin about modded engines.

ok, Firstly to Jase. where did you get those figures from? mine are from official lab test by the government to test vehicle under the same conditions www.environment.gov.au/settlements/transport/fuelguide/ Secondly, what a douchebag you are. Why put the RX8 n/a power and torque fiqures? the FD has a 13B twin, which uses only slightly more fuel but makes almost double the power. even then you are comapring an engine design that is over 25 years newer. yes the rotary is pretty crap compared to the R35. why dont you compare the R35 against your 34. you got a hero R34 that makes what 200ish KW?? and you probably burn just as much as the R35 or more? Has nissan got a magical way to create power with less fuel? Almost everyone in this forum would agree that the figures i presented were roughly in the ballpark. i was giving comparisons. and to GT-R32; I was quoting official stats. all those cars were tested under the same conditions. thats what the test proved. But hey, don't let FACTS get in the way, just quote your own guestimates... I am not saying the rotary is high efficiency. By the stats you can tell that stop start really effects the fuel consumption, more so than anything bar modified turbo cars or V8s, which by comparing it to will show that the difference is minimal. Nothing to make thes B.S. statements like "insane fuel consumption" hold any water whatsoever. that was my point. it is most definately people assuming the 1.3L rotary is similar to 1.3 Inline 4. but then Mazda never ever hid the fact it was a rotary.

This is the sort of rubbish i keep reading in this post. The question was why do rotaries suck. 2 points were put forward. Fuel consumption, and, reliability. Lets look at the B.S comments such as above. "insane fuel consumption" etc. Do a quick search on the Commonwealth government database, yes the official one that has verified proven statistics on most cars under exact same test conditions. this is what we get: Vehicle Year / Model CityConsumption(L/100km) Highway Consumption(L/100km) Engine Size(Litres ) 1996 Mazda *RX-7 Man Coupe 2dr 13 7.6 1.3 1995 Nissan 300ZX Man. Coupe 2dr 12 7.6 3 1996 Mazda MX-6 Man Coupe 2dr 10.5 8 2.5 1996 Holden VS Commodore Executive Man Sedan 4dr 10.5 6.8 3.8 1996 Holden VS Commodore Executive Man Sedan 4dr 14 8.5 5 1996 Nissan 200SX Man Coupe 2dr 10 7 2 2002 Nissan S15 200SX Man coupe 2dr 10 7.2 2 1996 Subaru Impreza WRX 10.5 7 2 2003 Subaru Impreza WRX Man sedan 4dr 11 8 2 1996 BMW M3 Man Coupe 2dr 12 6.6 3.2 A few points. The fuel consuption will be less than almost any V8 motor, remember this list has the 96 5L for comparrison. newer 5.7L engines will use more than 13B. While "City" driving shows consumption of some 23% more than the equivalent model WRX or 200sx, highway driving is more or less the same. the 2003 model WRX uses more fuel for highway driving!! The same year 96 model mazda mx6 cant match the cruising efficiency of the 13B, infact its consuption almost matches the 5L V8. No stats are available for Skylines but you would have to be kidding to beleive they would be any less than the 2L turbo cars. In fact it would be similar to the 300ZX in consumption. And the 300ZX is marginal, if any, in fuel savings. So lets see.. a GTR would undoubtedely use MORE fuel than the RX7, and would be just as fast. Everthing else is slower and uses a little less fuel. to bring another car up to similar performance would increase consumption to roughly the same. So WTF is the argument about FUEL CONSUMPTION???? Now, point 2 why rotaries suck... maintenance. As I said before. The rotary engine will last as long as the warranty states it will if you do the maintenance that is outlined in the service book/owners manual. There seems to be a lot of "they are hard to service" or "keep breaking" or too many probs" sort of comments. It seems that many people have a very low intellectual capacity if you can not understand how to take your car to the dealer at the correct prescribed KM or month interval. By the same logic, ferrari's, porsches, f1 cars are all "cars that suck" because they are hard to maintain or require regular maintenance. Up until 2 years ago, F1 engines only had to last the race because team were allowed new engines every race and after every qualifying run. And another thing, I need to service my SR20DET every 5000km or six months, maybe sooner if i feel the oil has degraded, fluids low. I do this because i want it to last and want it to make its full potential. Im certain the stock rotary engine can live with that maintenance or maybe better. oh, and i know the debate did move to a bit off the topic, but i just wanted to add my 2 cents as to why i think they dont suck. please feel free to point out anything i missed or got incorrect. Have fun.

I actually have never owned a rotary engine, but I 100% with the above comments from birds. I think the main arguments against the rotary are really just anti-rotary gripes. Argument 1 : They are inefficient. Most people assume efficiency though use of fuel = petrol. But this is just wrong. everyone says " thats a lot of fuel to use for a 1.3 litre engine" assuming that its a cylinder engine. the 1.3 litre capacity means very different things in the 2 completely different engine types. Argument 2 : They are unreliable. What is actually unreliable about an engine that if you maintain as per the manufacturer's instructions, will last as long as the manufacturer's stipulated warranty?

Hi All, If you need a set of R33 GTST 5 stud Front hubs, I have a set here for sale. they are in very nice condition, $450. Got a spare batt for sale $60 left over from engine swap 430 cca I have a spare diff lying around. $300 nice and good nick. PM me if your keen

Got a spare batt for sale $60 left over from engine swap 430 cca PM me if your keen

Hi all, I have a spare diff lying around. $300 nice and good nick. PM me if your keen

PM me a price if you want to offload em