Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

My R32 GTR makes 300awkW with 160k kms on it. It's been like that for well over 5 years and since 112,000kms, at the least (as far back as I can trace it). The engines are durable if looked after. Just like rotaries are durable if there's no detonation around and they are looked after. :)

I'm not saying any can't surpass that infact a majority probably do. it would take me forever to find the article. something along the lines of an oil pump that has to be upgraded. something internal to do with oil??

sorry that's very vague.

it just said if you buy basically your car (specifically). with 100,000 expect to rebuild it. surely someone on here knows what i'm talking about.

Actually the r32 gtr was the first car i recall wanting when on my p's but i got something else that i crashed a whole bunch of times anyway so it's better i didn't get it.

it has one of the VERY few 4wd systems i like.

Wow I cant believe this thread is still alive.... it's full of personal attacks.

I just read Page 51 - interesting.

I think, if my memory serves me correct, I posted here back in the pages before 20.

In the last page there has been some good comments on both the rotor and piston engines. both have their strengths and weaknesses. I suppose I'm allowed to comment (haha) because I was lucky enough to own both RB26 and 13B.

I personally enjoy the RX setup. This is, I am pleased with the performance of the car versus it's weight. More so, the suspension on my RX-8 is setup so well for QLD roads. The useable power was well matched to the average daily driver.

I enjoyed the GT-R but there was too much power for the road - even as stock standard. The package was good, but the RX-8 was still better, though it sure had me hooked as a driver.

Engine wise for both, like others have said, as long as your maintain the engine accordingly, they are BOTH FKING GREAT ENGINES! Yes sure the 13B needs a little more attention and knowledge to keep it turning around happily, but thats not a downside to the engines capability.

The only thing I have found to SUCK in rotors is the lack of torque, which I believe will be increased in the next installment, 16X.

For the engineers out there, Moments = Force x eccentric distance. This is somewhat the basics of piston engine, which makes work "easier". Whereas rotaries, hmmm... hard to explain. Where I'm getting to, rotors have such a unique way of operating and in my opinion, makes it that much more special to drive. -im not a mech eng (a different type of eng).

So for all the haters out there, try and think of the amount of work that went into creating both these mechanical marvels - could you do it? If you think your need education to comment, think again, this is an open forum. The only thing you need to comment here is a bit of self control and some discretion. Personal attacks is not answering this AGE old thread, but rather filling up the gap in your day for typing it (trollllllller). lol

For the record, I would again buy a GT-R or an RX as they have proven to be cars that:

1. Look good

2. Go fast

3. Can turn

4. have the X-Factor.

-No more fighting boys and girls - my balls are the biggest in the world, end of story.

I fail to see how people can call rotor's unreliable and then compare them with a GTR lol

As i have said previously, i have seen more broken oil pumps and spun bearings on RB26's than i have broken apex seals :laugh:

Messiah - what sort of mods did you compare on both cars? and what was your desired result you were hoping for? hp figure? 1/4 mile et?

I wouldnt say that the risk is any higher on a rotor than an RB26. A mate fo mine owns BLOJOE and he absolutely rapes that engine every time he takes it out. Lino and the guys at Maztech have seen the way Joe drives and are absolutely astounded that the engine is still alive!

I guess it all comes down to maintenance

Sorry mate, i forgot to come back and look at this thread again.

Both cars were dead stock, which i think is the best basis for comparison, as in theory you can get any car to perform in any way with enough money.

As for desired result, i had none. Both cars appealed to me in different ways, i thought i'd give them both a spin and see which one i enjoyed most and felt i could get the most enjoyment out of long term (so daily duties and sporadic tracking). Dont care much about times or power, instead it was about enjoyment.

As far as the comments i made about modding go.

For piston engines i was thinking boost-->headwork-->forgies--> increased disp --> engine swap as a progression

for rotaries, i believe the equivalent is boost-->porting-->upgrading seals etc--> adding a rotor (going a 20b).

As going beyond say a bridge port really ups the stakes (as usually its accompanied by big turbo's, high boost, increased fuel usage and speeding tickets) I perceive it as "riskier/more costly" but not necessarily in terms of risk of catastrophic mechanical failure, but instead the increased maintenance required. Whilst all engines should be properly maintained. rotories do require that extra bit of tlc

Why do people comment on: the length of this thread, the arguments that went on in it, how stupid it all is, how it's still going on...

Then go and put forth their own opinion on the topic...

And all the while not realise they've just dug it up from weeks/months ago?

http://www.superlap.com.au/2009/?page_id=20

got any other results because this is what comes up on their website

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.

My R32 GTR makes 300awkW with 160k kms on it. It's been like that for well over 5 years and since 112,000kms, at the least (as far back as I can trace it). The engines are durable if looked after. Just like rotaries are durable if there's no detonation around and they are looked after. :)

Mate what's your fuel consumption like per 100km?

Wow I cant believe this thread is still alive.... it's full of personal attacks.

I just read Page 51 - interesting.

I think, if my memory serves me correct, I posted here back in the pages before 20.

In the last page there has been some good comments on both the rotor and piston engines. both have their strengths and weaknesses. I suppose I'm allowed to comment (haha) because I was lucky enough to own both RB26 and 13B.

I personally enjoy the RX setup. This is, I am pleased with the performance of the car versus it's weight. More so, the suspension on my RX-8 is setup so well for QLD roads. The useable power was well matched to the average daily driver.

I enjoyed the GT-R but there was too much power for the road - even as stock standard. The package was good, but the RX-8 was still better, though it sure had me hooked as a driver.

Engine wise for both, like others have said, as long as your maintain the engine accordingly, they are BOTH FKING GREAT ENGINES! Yes sure the 13B needs a little more attention and knowledge to keep it turning around happily, but thats not a downside to the engines capability.

The only thing I have found to SUCK in rotors is the lack of torque, which I believe will be increased in the next installment, 16X.

For the engineers out there, Moments = Force x eccentric distance. This is somewhat the basics of piston engine, which makes work "easier". Whereas rotaries, hmmm... hard to explain. Where I'm getting to, rotors have such a unique way of operating and in my opinion, makes it that much more special to drive. -im not a mech eng (a different type of eng).

So for all the haters out there, try and think of the amount of work that went into creating both these mechanical marvels - could you do it? If you think your need education to comment, think again, this is an open forum. The only thing you need to comment here is a bit of self control and some discretion. Personal attacks is not answering this AGE old thread, but rather filling up the gap in your day for typing it (trollllllller). lol

For the record, I would again buy a GT-R or an RX as they have proven to be cars that:

1. Look good

2. Go fast

3. Can turn

4. have the X-Factor.

-No more fighting boys and girls - my balls are the biggest in the world, end of story.

I think the RX8 has done pretty well considering the competition and for the performance in that it's only an NA. The turbocharged and supercharged versions however hasn't quite lived up to the high expectations that the RX7 TT left behind.

The way I see the RX7/turbocharged rotaries is that it is more suited to racing applications than street (high performance=shorter life span).

That's just the way it is.

Mate what's your fuel consumption like per 100km?

Depends on circumstances and average km/h. Typically around 15L/100km. My FD was around 17L/100km under the same conditions.

This is 90% of my driving which is city.

RX7s have always been thirsty buggers for as long as I can remember.

I wouldn't mind 300kw and 15l/100km!

With stock cams and proper tuning etc fuel consumption shouldn't increase.

I've had 300rwkW rotaries (street ported, mind) and they were not much worse than my FD due to tuning.

I've got an FC and a 32 GTR. Both make reasonable power, both run Power FC's and both get between 12 and 15 litres per 100km. I don't believe rotaries are any worse on fuel than piston engines if you're on the freeway etc. Once you load them up, be it around town or whatever, they do use more fuel, but not massive amounts more.

I've got an FC and a 32 GTR. Both make reasonable power, both run Power FC's and both get between 12 and 15 litres per 100km. I don't believe rotaries are any worse on fuel than piston engines if you're on the freeway etc. Once you load them up, be it around town or whatever, they do use more fuel, but not massive amounts more.

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.

LOL similar to a 200SX? My FD got nowhere near as much (within 10%) out of the same amount of fuel as either of my GTRs around town... From a car that's 200kg lighter. My stock 12As maybe close, but definitely not the FD. Except perhaps on the highway where you can get down around 10L/100km. And don't get me started on any of my bridge ports in cars that are nearly only half the weight of my R32 GTR (and one was injected!).

Oh and fact is the FD passed official emissions testing of the day too. Try get an untuned one over now.

rotors sound crazy go hard make power but end of the day are not as reliable as a piston motor i dont care what all the rotor heads say they use oil

blow seals chew fuel and the list goes on. but i still like them just wouldnt own one

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...