DRD-00F

yeah it's pretty simple Jez, even I gave it a go and got an output! the only internal engine you can't do that for would be a Brayton cycle, cause it doesn't have 'combustion chambers', it's a free flowing force of air, which is rated in **.*L/Min aka, thrust.

Rotary engine is still an engine.

I'm not bending rules or views to see why it could be a 1.3L. I'm not saying it cannot be this or that. I'm simply using the same methods used to calculate literage on every other engine to see what it comes out at.

That's not what you said. You said it was unfair. It's very relevant. It's a buyers market, and people are comparing every aspect of every car they might choose. Are they not? Lets head over to car sales and see how people are advertising their cars: 2007 PORSCHE 911 997 MY07 TURBO AWD 2dr 4 seats COUPE 6cyl 3.6L Semi-Automatic 9,000 kms 2009 AUDI A5 8T MY09 S-TRONIC QUATTRO 2dr 4 seats COUPE 4cyl 2.0L Sequential Manual Auto-Dual Clutch 10 kms 2007 BMW 325i E93 MY08 STEPTRONIC 2dr 4 seats CONVERTIBLE 6cyl 2.5L Semi-Automatic 32,600 kms 2009 TOYOTA PRIUS ZVW30R I-TECH 5dr 5 seats LIFTBACK 4cyl 1.8L Constantly Variable 1,399 kms 2008 MERCEDES B200 W245 MY08 TURBO 5dr 5 seats HATCHBACK 4cyl 2.0L Constantly Variable 23,000 kms Oh well f**k my arse! They all seem to have the literage stated! That's interesting seeing how it's irrelevant. And how stupid of them to not add their quarter mile times and winton lap times... tisk tisk tisk... Now let's check out some RX7s, cause they look cool, I might buy one of those... 2000 MAZDA RX-7 FD 2dr 2 seats COUPE 2cyl 1.3L Manual 30,117 kms 2000 MAZDA RX-7 FD Spirit R Type B 2dr 4 seats COUPE 2cyl 1.3L Manual 50,000 kms 2000 MAZDA RX-7 FD 2dr 2 seats COUPE 2cyl 1.3L Manual 71,600 kms Oh well shit, even the rotary people are stating literage! If only they knew that it was irrelevant and they will sell their car much faster if they stated how many chicks it could pull... I spose if I wanted to compare these cars in my choice of buying one, I couldn't... well that sucks. I wish every car was advertised with a drag time or engine power, then I could compare, but alas, both of those have too many variables and are often different between each car. Wether YOU want to face it or not, the comparison is already there, in black and white. It's not irrelevant, it's not the best way to do it either but that's how the general public do it. You're asking every person in the world to completely understand an engine before buying it as the information stated is unfair in comparison to other cars they might be purchashing. That's the reason we have stats, that's the reason we have foot notes, that's the reason we have blurbs, or reviews, or previews, so you don't have to know absolutely everything about it to make a decision. Well what if the information in that blurb/review was innaccurate? You would want everyone to suck it up and just to have KNOWN what was going on before even reading the blurb/review. That's a bit mean innit? Also, it seems carsales.com is stupid for not adding a rotary option...

So, outside of motorsport, without these formulas, the comparison is unfair?

No, those selling piston engines aren't deceiving anyone, cause the benchmarks for 1.3L or 2.0L or 5.7L are already set, and real world equivalancies have been made and are set IN STONE, just like you said. Mazda had NO CHOICE but to sell this against 4 stroke engines, as there was no other existing engine for cars. So the comparison is already there, wether mazda like it or not, and then they started going on about how good the fuel consumption is... compared to...? 4 stroke engines! Completely ignore the fact that it directly states the Datsun 240ZX or Porsche 924, both of which have 4 stroke piston engines... that's cool I know the world of marketing quite well, which is why I don't agree with what they've done. They've caused problems all across the board, with CAMS, different racing classes, officials and now this 35 page thread on a Skyline forum. Fact is, if you want to stay out of trouble in marketing, you use the most basic and obvious information, and cater for the lowest common denominator. You on the other hand seem to think it's fine that they sell a car with an engine that 95% of the population hasn't heard of, and just ASSUME that people know all the tricks about the engine.

Here's a joke for everyone to lighten the mood : A man walks into a pub. There are three blokes at the bar talking racing, and being partial to such things, he decides to have a chat. Bloke 1 races bikes, bloke 2 race piston cars and bloke 3 races rotary cars. They get to talking about what they race and the man asks each of them a simple question: "What's your engines displacement?" First bloke says "1000cc" Second bloke says "2.6L" Third bloke says "Define displacement..." lol. Don't shoot me.

What if you have NO knowledge of a rotary (believe it or not birds, this is most of the world)? What if Mazda DID already compare this engine/car combo with existing piston engined cars? It's, at best, tricky, underhanded advertising, and at worst, a lie. SHOES SHOES SHOES! BUY TWO, GET ONE FREE! Would you expect to walk out of the store with 3 shoes, or 3 pairs? Mazda aren't stupid, they knew exactly what they were doing, and I for one, don't agree with those tactics. Yes it does, but I said don't get me started on exhausts!

That's not even a question...

So it's varied by the rpm. Great. What does that prove? PPS: real world comparisons won't be anything great, as a 6 cylinder will fire 3 times in 360 degrees while an 8 cylinder will fire 4 times, and a 13B will fire twice (? twin rotor and all, could be wrong).

Pretend you have Playdo. A maluable medium. Then you squish it through 2 different pipes, shapes etc. Yes, it will still come out as playdo, and as much as you put in, the same amount will come out, but it will be completely different in every other aspect. Playdo is combustion. PS: "pattern of sound" is frequency, like I said. While yes it is important, it's not really going to prove anything except for similar combustion times.

Audio as a characteristic is defined by the space it takes up and the objects that interfer with it. This is why you use a certain literage for a subwoofer, paired with a decent, solid wood that won't reverberate too much. When you have an engine like a rotary, trying to compare it in audio only to that of a piston car, there are way too many differentiating variables to make a clear account. The combustion chambers are a different size/shape/material, the combustion itself is of a different size, the walls of the combustion chambers are a different size/shape/MOVING in one of them... From an audio point of view, this is probably as good as comparing a subwoofer to a drum. Everything except for 2 things are different. The type of sound they are trying to make, and the frequencies it can create. I can guarentee that the only thing simliar that you are hearing is the frequency. Don't even get me started on exhausts.

Moot point GT-R32, sound has VERY little to do with any of this (I just might know a thing or two about sound). The 1980 Mazda RX-7 GS Just one look is all if takes to appreciate the exceptional value of the Mazda RX-7 versus Datsun 280ZX or Porsche 924. As remarkable as the Mazda RX-7 is on its own merits, it looks all the better when compared with the competition. Because the sleek, aerodynamic RX-7 is virtually everything you could want in a refined sports car—at an almost unbelievable price. It can reach 0-50 in 6.3 seconds. Its inherently compact rotary engine is placed behind the front axle, for ideal weight distribution and superb handling. In auto racing, a specially prepared RX-7 won its class at the Daytona 24-hour race. Another RX-7 set a world speed record at Bonneville. The smoothness of the rotary engine makes the RX-7 a quiet sports car. All this performance from a car that can attain excellent gas mileage on the open road. 17 EST.mpg 28 EST.** hwy mpg But the front mid-engine RX-7 offers infinitely more than performance. It also provides extraordinary comfort. So if you know what you want in a sports car, and you don’t want to pay a king’s ransom to get it, take a look at the RX-7 GS or S Model. The beautifully-styled, high-mileage, high-performance sports cars from Mazda. You’re also going to like the looks of RX-7 GS standard features. AM/FM stereo radio with power antenna • Side-window demisters Cut-pile carpeting Tinted glass • 5-speed • Tachometer • Styled steel wheels • Steel-belted radial tires Front and rear stabilizer bars • Ventilated front disc and finned rear drum brakes with power assist • Electric remote hatch release. 3-speed automatic transmission, air conditioning, aluminum wheels and sun roof available as options. $8295 * *Manufacturer’s suggested retail price for GS Model shown. S Model $7495. Slightly higher in California. Actual prices established by dealers. Taxes, license, freight, optional equipment, and any other dealer charges are extra. (Wide alloy wheels shown $275-$295.) All prices subject to change without notice. **EPA estimates for comparison purposes for GS Model with 5-spd. Trans. The mileage you get may vary depending on how fast you drive, the weather, and trip length. The actual highway mileage will probably be less. California, 16 estimated mpg, 27 estimated highway mpg. Mazda’s rotary engine licensed by NSU-WANKEL MAZDA (logo) The more you look, the more you like. Found this kinda funny quite inherent of the advertising we've been discussing from Mazda...

I've made a few posts to try and come to a conclusion, but everything I said was basically repeated, and has been repeated about 5 times since, so there's not much point in me posting much anymore. Plus, I'm more a student in this then a teacher I've learnt enough to make my mind up on the subject, and as such, I can't debate it because I now see all sides as being correct in their own way. Any literage anyone now says to me about the 13B will have a reply of 'Well that depends...', no matter what is said. To be honest, I do believe one way more then the other, but my compassion for fairness gets the best of me and I could argue either point now.

I have read this thread since the day it was created. For about 2 weeks now, this discussion on rotaries was a very exciting thing for me, I bored my girlfriend about it, I discussed it with those at work and I talked about it with mates. The reason I was so interested in it is because at the start of it all, I had a VERY basic understanding of how it all worked. Now, thanks to everyones tuition, I am pretty confident that i understand it. Not just that infact, I would say that I can comprehend where each person is deriving their information from and how they deem it to be the most important way to class this engine. Personally, I disagree with probably about half of you, but I've taken what has been said, understood it, and made my own conclusions as how to come about the answers I was after. In the end, it's quite obvious that most people here would be concidered 'correct' in what they are saying. People are just looking at it from different angels. Much like a pyramid, from the side, it's a triangle, but from the top, it's a square. To be honest, I don't think this will ever be 100% settled unless some sort of almighty power comes down, cause at the moment, you can't even agree on the definitions of the terms that you're trying to prove. I'm going to keep reading, and I'm going to keep thinking that half of you are bringing up unnecessary information and moot points, but I'm going to enjoy it

My standard belt is coming up to or has passed 130 000kms. Pretty sure it's around that. Next time it's started for more then 30 seconds it will be driving to the mechs and will have the timeing belt replaced, among other things. To be honest, I remember looking at the timing belt ages ago and it looked like shit... although, that could have been the ac belt, as the bearing in the tensioner for that seized, twice, and minced the belt...

Where abouts are you located? Where abouts is Nagoya Motors located? Would it be a weekend/weekday? To be honest, it will take you a hell of a lot for you to say no to it now that it's already on its way. You would only say no if you had to, like if you turned the motor over and you heard a big end knock Got any pics of the engine bay?

"...one complete occurrence of the event which repeats" Shouldn't the side labeled (1) be back where it was for it to be a complete occurence which repeats?

Howdy fellas! Coming up to the newbie friendly Driver Training Day this weekend, I thought we could have some fun and regale about our first experiences on the track to try and coax some of the new comers out of the woodwork . What a lot of people don't realise is that once you're on a track, all the fun you can have in a car going fast is personified by wide lanes, smooth roads, no traffic and tonnes of safety! So, I was thinking we could share our experiences with the SAU world that has yet to take that first step! Things to include: When Where With who Any pre-setup involved Favourite memory of the day Things you learnt; about your car, yourself or the track How much fun you had!

oh alright, if everyone is going to pick flaws in his argument... What is your definition of 'one cycle'? It seems to change between each combustion medium. The first two are from combustion to combustion, incorporating all combustion chambers, then the third is just one combustion, incorporating one third of all combustion chambers. Why is this?

Wow, can't believe nobody spotted the Nur spec and the R35 out and about on Saturday night What a sight!

It's true. It's not like you got done for drifting or going 260kph... Did the officers actually see you driving? I would have just left it there and said it was getting some work done at the servo (if it had a garage) or just driven it into a parking spot and called a mate to come and pick it up... You only need a license to drive on public roads. Section 10 is your best bet. I've witnessed that do some pretty amazing things, expecially if driving is a large part of your job.

I've been told by an engineer (Morry Akbarian, first name on the engineers list) that you don't need a cover, and to be honest, I've been searching for YEARS for a shread of written evidence that says you need a cover over your pod. I have found absolutely nothing to date. I personally think it's an absolute load of bullshit. I've asked every police officer I've come in contact with about why they think it's illegal and I'm yet to get an answer that even sounds correct... It's for noise restrictions: The cover makes it worse, and it is in no way near 89Db. There is no official limit on 'induction noise' so the nearest limit will have to do. It's incase a backfire lights it on fire: I assumed he didn't mean from the exhaust, and that he was talking about how when a carburetted vehicle ignites the oiled filters that sit atop the intake. Quite a rare case, but far less rare then a filter being ignited by a direct injected engine... You just need one: Thanks officer McTonnesOfInfo What does it even have to be enclosed from? The engine bay? So if it's not in the engine bay then it doesn't need to be enclosed? Isn't it already enclosed in the engine bay? Another officer just said that it HAS to be enclosed, no matter where it was... ENCLOSED FROM WHAT?! I wish when a police officer was defecting you, he had to show you written evidence of what is wrong and why it's a defect... I hate this topic.

depends... on lots of things... under the rear tyre is a little notch that sticks up to keep the tyre in place, the sub might be too big and foul on it. it will sound like shit unless it's enclosed in a box, so you would have to make that fit the space What most people do is make a false floor, basically just make a box that fits in that area and raise the entire floor up as much as need be. It is quite a lot of work to do it right.

No one, we don't like you, take the hint! nah I kid. Contact 'Shell', just send her a PM about it, she'll have it sorted out for you in a jiffy