jase-r34

Lol smart ass! Well you know what I meant!

Yep, Josh is correct 100%.

No I wouldnt because a rotor has 3 combustion surfaces and there are 2 rotors. Therefore is it 6 x 654 = 3.9L.

Are we talking about tomorrow morning? If so I'll be on my bike, not in the car. But still keen as!

+1 out for sunday. Saturday is much much better for me

I learnt to measure an engine's capacity by calculating the amount of swept volume in one combustion chamber, and multiplying it by the amount of chambers. Never heard anything about the crankshaft mentioned in that regard.

Yes..... That's why.

I think you need to go back and re-read Gary's posts.

mmmmm those are some nice boobies! It was about time someone got this thread back on track!

Lol true that ^^

I don't understand your personal insults as I never said anything along the lines of a rotary being a fuel guzzling monster. I just quoted figures from a government website like you did. Period. You can say it, but you'd be lying. I am not. Like I said, believe what you want. I don't drive it like a baby, I just don't thrash the shit out of it. Figures for it will be useless as my car is no longer running the factory ecu. So I'm not sure what it is you are looking for there. Shit hey 13L/km. That's awesome. LOL sorry couldn't help myself, with all the insults being thrown at me n all.

Hi mate, I haven't done a p/s pulley on an RB but if they are like everything else out there then there will just be a bolt (or possibly more) holding it to the pump. Sorry I can't be of more help.

I clearly stated COMBINED fuel consumption in my above post if you could read. Apparently you can't. I would have stated city/highway/combined but the figures were unavailable for the rotary. It's a government website, just like you used. More personal insults? Keep em coming keyboard warrior! Oh and I DO get 10-11 L/100km. Last I checked doing 500km and putting 50 litres of fuel in the car is 10L/100km. Maybe your calculator says different to my apparently terrible maths? I'm not a one eyed skyline fan thanks, I actually prefer my bike to my car, and it's a honda. I love all kinds of cars including the later model RX-7's. I don't even have a problem with the rotary engine either, just the god damned awful noise it makes. But that is personal opinion. So they came with nearly 340kw then? Sweet.

Again with the insults? Say what you want I really don't care. We were comparing the fuel economy of rotaries vs piston engines were we not? They are both new cars. The power and torque figures are there so you can see how much fuel the rotary uses to make its 170kw vs the R35 making 360. And yeah, my 11 year old 200ish rwkw R34 will still use less fuel than them both. I consistently get 10-11L/100km average when I fill up. If I drive harder of course it goes up, but as mad082 said, all the figures we have both quoted for all those cars are done using a granny driver getting the most out of every drop of fuel possible. Consumption figures from here But again, bikes FTW! oh and they have piston engines too!

+1 hahaha

Ok, a very quick search and I found - Nissan R35 GT-R 3.8L 6cyl (T), Auto 6 speed Coupe, 4 seats, 4WD Combined Fuel Consumption 12.4l/100km 360 kW @ 6400 rpm 580 N-m torque Mazda RX-8 1.3L Rotary, Man 6 speed Sedan, 4 seats, 2WD Combined Fuel consumption 12.9l/100km 170 kW @ 8,200 rpm 211 Nm @ 5,500 rpm Mazda RX-8 1.3L Rotary, Auto 6 speed Sedan, 4 seats, 2WD Combined Fuel Consumption 12.1l/100km 158 kW @ 7,500 rpm 211 Nm @ 5,500 rpm This paints a slightly different picture yeah?

You are no doubt right about the grip and performance of the 09 wrx over a 12 year old R33, but jeez..... the new rex is ugly as sin. The now 20 year old R32 is a better looking car.

Where's the spark plugs on a diesel? And they come 2 and 4 stroke. 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...

Hey guys, anyone wanting to come for a cruise tommorow morning? I'm takin the bike out nice n early!

R34 in my opinion is the best looking of the three by a long way. That's not to say that the 32 and 33 aren't great looking cars, because they are! I just think the 34 screams tuff. It is always a personal opinion though!

Granted, some of those categories are going to be governed to some extent by what the fans want, but do you really think that is the case for F1? I don't. If that was the case then bernie and max would have been gone long ago I honestly think it comes down to what works better and gives the best results. Or am I wrong??

Quick question about rotaries vs piston engines.... I have a few years of experience working on and around many piston engines, but next to none with rotaries. I understand how they work, I just haven't spent the time actually hands on. So basically my dislike of rotaries is mainly due to the horrible noise they make lol. Anyway, the question is - Think of the worlds elite motorsport categories. Formula 1, A1GP, Nascar, Top fuel drag racing, the list continues.... All of these categories use piston engines. If the rotary is (as it seems to be some people's opinion) a better race engine, why is it not used in any of these race categories? This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be a smartass!

Yes! or.... a giggalo! lol

This has been a great read! Gary, I am in total agreement with you on all points. Especially the 2 stroke fact. I have tried to argue that point to many a rotor mad nutcase lol, but I just don't have the way with words that you do! All in all though, even if rotors were as good in every way as a piston engine (which they definitely are not) I would still never like/own one as I HATE the noise they make. What a shame the series 6 RX7 has the old wankel in it. Such a sexy car.

Saw the same R35 driving on Steve Irwin way this afternoon at about 3:45. Also a grey R33 on the same road about 5 o'clock.