7.06 at 193mph in a 1.3 litre

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3bd_1303754290

Content warning in the side bars. (possible NSFW)

This is one fast little car!!!!

I assume it is rotary ? What is the car its self?

Looks like a Toyota Starlet.

http://www.toyoland.com/cars/starlet.html

Can't see it, but i'm going to assume it's an old light Toyota, powered by a wankel, in Puerto Rico.

impressive. looks like a bit of a handful too.

killer.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Can't see it, but i'm going to assume it's an old light Toyota, powered by a wankel, in Puerto Rico.

I will second that guess.

Yep! Those guys are nuts! The tiny little wheelbase means they are squirrely the entire way down the strip and through the traps. 193mph sideways!

Yup a Starlet with a rotary. Someone ran a 6.83 @ 201 in a rotary powered Starlet a couple months ago. Scared the s**t out of the driver so now they're taking everything out and putting them into a first-gen RX-7.

turboHLS30 wrote: Yup a Starlet with a rotary. Someone ran a 6.83 @ 201 in a rotary powered Starlet a couple months ago. Scared the s**t out of the driver so now they're taking everything out and putting them into a first-gen RX-7.

That guy ORIGINALLY had a first gen that he wrecked and put everything into the Starlet and is now going back.

What sort of power figure is that rotary making? It's hard to imagine that sort of ET from a wankel.

I'm going to start an argument, but...

It's 2.6 liters

It's also 3.9 litres.

I have heard it all before, but now you've said that explain your logic.

http://www.mazdarotary.net/technical.htm

I think I saw that car run in January.

JamesMcD wrote: I'm going to start an argument, but... It's 2.6 liters

I may have missed it but ?

John Brown wrote:

turboHLS30 wrote: Yup a Starlet with a rotary. Someone ran a 6.83 @ 201 in a rotary powered Starlet a couple months ago. Scared the s**t out of the driver so now they're taking everything out and putting them into a first-gen RX-7.

That guy ORIGINALLY had a first gen that he wrecked and put everything into the Starlet and is now going back.

Yea I think it was a brown first gen that wrecked back in '06. That thing was super pretty.

kreb wrote: What sort of power figure is that rotary making? It's hard to imagine that sort of ET from a wankel.

Actually, it's quite easy. There really isn't anything in a rotary to break, so they jack the boost to ludicrous-speed level (like 50psi +) and slap it in a 1500Lb or less drag car. VERY popular in Puerto Rico and Florida.

Javelin wrote:

kreb wrote: What sort of power figure is that rotary making? It's hard to imagine that sort of ET from a wankel.

Actually, it's quite easy. There really isn't anything in a rotary to break, so they jack the boost to ludicrous-speed level (like 50psi +) and slap it in a 1500Lb or less drag car. VERY popular in Puerto Rico and Florida.

They are far less boost tolerant than you may suspect. The actual housings flex, the apex seals break, etc... It is impressive how fast some of these guys go.

aussiesmg wrote: I have heard it all before, but now you've said that explain your logic. http://www.mazdarotary.net/technical.htm

edit case will be made below

Someone should make a 40B just cause. I mean, they've made the 26B possible. That's a LONG ecentric shaft though.

Technically it would be a straight 6

turboHLS30 wrote: Technically it would be a straight 6

Nope.

I want a to build something stupidly crazy like a 12 rotor Wankel. I'm not sure that's possible without e-shaft flex and bolt stretch making things work for about 30 seconds before it needs rebuilding.

aussiesmg wrote: I have heard it all before, but now you've said that explain your logic. http://www.mazdarotary.net/technical.htm

I think it's since the volume is available more than in a regular four stroke. It's by no means definitive. From another forum:

anotherforum wrote: 2.6 is correct - depending on which equivalency formula you use. Mazda uses the swept displacement of one chamber per rotor (650cc), to get 1.3 litres for a two rotor engine. However, the number of ignition events per crank revolution is similar to 2 chambers per rotor per revolution, so the non-Mazda standard is to call the 13B 2 rotor engine a 2.6 litre displacement. Note, for the Wards Engine of the Year awards, the 13B was categorized in the 2 - 3 litre category, and for racing purposes the FIA and other organizing/sanctioning bodies consider the 13B a 2.6 litre engine.

Here's the important point though. What matters about engines is their weight, their size, and their power per fuel intake. Nothing else is really important.

Take LS3 vs Ferrari whatever. The LS certainly makes more power per weight, but the Ferrari makes more power per liter displacement. You could rate it power per RPM if you wanted, because HP is sort of easy to make if you can spin it faster. Better yet, power per weight, because that's what actually matters to the car. Then again, a flat type engine can fit under a much lower hood, which could be important for frontal area.

Basically, using displacement to compare different types of engines is not very fair. It just doesn't make as much sense as some other ways.

Derick Freese wrote: I want a to build something stupidly crazy like a 12 rotor Wankel. I'm not sure that's possible without e-shaft flex and bolt stretch making things work for about 30 seconds before it needs rebuilding.

I know I have seen "Stackable" rotary engines somewhere. Maybe the Moeller sky car thing.