My last engine cost less to build than a cam and valvespring swap for an LS1. That's why: I'm cheap.
And if you're not swapping the cam, then what good is it? For that matter, you can lease a new Jetta for $200/month and it comes with these awesome rubber floor mats that keep the carpet from getting wet or dirty...
Knurled wrote: My last engine cost less to build than a cam and valvespring swap for an LS1. That's why: I'm cheap. And if you're not swapping the cam, then what good is it? For that matter, you can lease a new Jetta for $200/month and it comes with these awesome rubber floor mats that keep the carpet from getting wet or dirty...
Yeah I built my engine out of 4 other engines, I spent 200 dollars on gaskets and then sold parts off of the 4 engines I didn't need for the build to fund the gasket kit I purchased. I have a hole in my rotor, I am running 100% used seals and it still makes 90psi (which is eh) and is about to reach its 3rd birthday in a month.
I gave that engine a year... it has performed flawlessly. Now when that one goes out and I can afford some new seals should last at least 5 years with good housings :)
anyways back on topic, they do not make anymore wankel stuff since the renesis was released. I don't see them going backwards on technology.
In reply to fidelity101: Of course they aren't going backwards on technology. The issue is to what extent they'll support their repair and restoration clientele. There's a point at which the parts business ceases to be profitable, but I'd also expect a certain amount of loyalty to their classic enthusiasts. Older Mazdas are being looked upon as classics. I wonder how their attitude stacks up versus Nissan, Toyota and other Euro and American brands on this topic?
JtspellS wrote: I just don't understand the unfounded hate of rotary's.....
Welcome to GRM - where all things rotary or GM are hated, just because
z31maniac wrote: I said heavy based on it's weight compared to an LS1 that will make twice the power and get better mileage in the same car. I've driven an RX-7 and an RX-8, cool and all, I've just never understood the love fest for rotaries. Meh.
Go pick up a dressed LS1 and let me know how your hernia surgery goes. You can pull 300 hp out of a 13B without adding turbos to the mix so I'd say your comparison is a wee bit stretched.
In reply to DaveEstey:
Let them swap them and then we can get free rotary parts for our cars lol.
DaveEstey wrote:z31maniac wrote: I said heavy based on it's weight compared to an LS1 that will make twice the power and get better mileage in the same car. I've driven an RX-7 and an RX-8, cool and all, I've just never understood the love fest for rotaries. Meh.Go pick up a dressed LS1 and let me know how your hernia surgery goes. You can pull 300 hp out of a 13B without adding turbos to the mix so I'd say your comparison is a wee bit stretched.
Yep I agree completely, this is why you see so many naturaly aspirated 13b's being swapped into camaros, corvettes, GTO's, and some GM suv's and light trucks.
The question was power to weight. Your line of thinking would infer that every engine that doesn't get swapped in a vehicle that already had a V8 is without worth.
The Honda F20C must be junk - nobody swaps it into a truck. Motorcycle drivetrains are awful since we don't put them in Corvettes. 3.0-liter BMW 6's are junk too - and don't get me started on the F2T.
I don't have a problem with that thinking, as it means prices on plenty of great engines will tumble.
andrave wrote:DaveEstey wrote:Yep I agree completely, this is why you see so many naturaly aspirated 13b's being swapped into camaros, corvettes, GTO's, and some GM suv's and light trucks.z31maniac wrote: I said heavy based on it's weight compared to an LS1 that will make twice the power and get better mileage in the same car. I've driven an RX-7 and an RX-8, cool and all, I've just never understood the love fest for rotaries. Meh.Go pick up a dressed LS1 and let me know how your hernia surgery goes. You can pull 300 hp out of a 13B without adding turbos to the mix so I'd say your comparison is a wee bit stretched.
In reply to andrave:
You have never been to Puerto Rico have you? a 13B is like frank red hots
"they put that E36 M3 in everything!"
DaveEstey wrote:z31maniac wrote: I said heavy based on it's weight compared to an LS1 that will make twice the power and get better mileage in the same car. I've driven an RX-7 and an RX-8, cool and all, I've just never understood the love fest for rotaries. Meh.Go pick up a dressed LS1 and let me know how your hernia surgery goes. You can pull 300 hp out of a 13B without adding turbos to the mix so I'd say your comparison is a wee bit stretched.
Then let's make it a fair comparison.
Built LS1 vs Built 13B.
From my understanding an LS1 is around ~45lbs heavier than the 13B.
The thing that I like is that the engines adore being run hard.
The thing that keeps me away from aluminum block LS-anything (redundant) is all of the stories that start out with "I had my stock Corvette/CTS-V/GTO at a track day" and finish with a cylinder liner blown apart and No User Serviceable Parts Left Inside.
Sure, if you wanted, you could dump $10-15k into an engine that WILL live, but a rotary doesn't really need much other than a little attention paid to the oiling system, and fluid temps kept in check. And if you wanted to spend money, I know where you can commission a streetable 500ish HP nonturbo 3-rotor...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrxU6j1swI
z31maniac wrote: Then let's make it a fair comparison. Built LS1 vs Built 13B. From my understanding an LS1 is around ~45lbs heavier than the 13B.
13B: 260 lbs
LS1: 460 lbs
Not quite 45lbs (source http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/engineweights.html)
Really, did you just say that rotaries are more reliable than chevy V8's?
You've heard about the Renesis failure rate, right?
Don't get me wrong, I think rotaries are neat, I just don't think I'd extol longevity as one of their typical values.
(enter rotards who have a gazillion miles on theirs without any trouble ever)
Knurled wrote: The thing that I like is that the engines adore being run hard. The thing that keeps me away from aluminum block LS-anything (redundant) is all of the stories that start out with "I had my stock Corvette/CTS-V/GTO at a track day" and finish with a cylinder liner blown apart and No User Serviceable Parts Left Inside. Sure, if you wanted, you could dump $10-15k into an engine that WILL live, but a rotary doesn't really need much other than a little attention paid to the oiling system, and fluid temps kept in check. And if you wanted to spend money, I know where you can commission a streetable 500ish HP *nonturbo* 3-rotor... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrxU6j1swI
bgkast wrote:z31maniac wrote: Then let's make it a fair comparison. Built LS1 vs Built 13B. From my understanding an LS1 is around ~45lbs heavier than the 13B.13B: 260 lbs LS1: 460 lbs Not quite 45lbs (source http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/engineweights.html)
Apparently I was looking at FD TT engines, however, given the horrendously unreliable stuff posted on the Internet regarding engine weights and the number of guys that ditch rotaries for GM V8s..................we will just have to agree to disagree.
Oh yay! THIS argument again.
The rotary is so awesome that it got a Mazda banned at LeMans.
/discussion.
DaveEstey wrote: The question was power to weight. Your line of thinking would infer that every engine that doesn't get swapped in a vehicle that already had a V8 is without worth. The Honda F20C must be junk - nobody swaps it into a truck. Motorcycle drivetrains are awful since we don't put them in Corvettes. 3.0-liter BMW 6's are junk too - and don't get me started on the F2T. I don't have a problem with that thinking, as it means prices on plenty of great engines will tumble.
To be perfectly honest.... the F2T kindof is junk. It's incredibly strong, but it's still incredibly strong junk. It's an AWFUL motor that just happens to be built like a brick E36 M3house. If i put this kind of boost through pretty much any other 4 cylinder (ASSuming it would hold it), i'd be making another 200hp or so.
The thing is, you can't help but giggle like a madman when you ride in one @ 30psi. The fact that it's making only 350whp or less is secondary to the experience. (And of course, i'm leaving out the torque numbers.)
kreb wrote: In reply to fidelity101: Of course they aren't going backwards on technology. The issue is to what extent they'll support their repair and restoration clientele. There's a point at which the parts business ceases to be profitable, but I'd also expect a certain amount of loyalty to their classic enthusiasts. Older Mazdas are being looked upon as classics. I wonder how their attitude stacks up versus Nissan, Toyota and other Euro and American brands on this topic?
The problem with the Roatary is that it's not really that rare, so there's almsot no money in supporting them from Mazda.
OTOH, it also should be possible that someone buys the remaining good dies (whatever they are) so that they can provide restoration parts. Say make an agreement to remove corporate badges, and put on totally different serial numbers so that they are not considered original. I was going to say that casting isn't easy to do, but that's not really accurate. It's not easy, but it's not so hard that there are many companies casting lots of aftermarket parts out there.
So it's quite reasonable for an aftermarket company to be capable of casting and making replacement parts outside of Mazda. (or Lotus, or Ford, or Toyota, or whoever).
Don't get your panties in a bunch. What's going to happen in a few years is 3D printing technology is going to become cheaper, someone is going to copy the engine, correct it's flaws, and print out a perfected 13B in their living room.
Bababooey wrote: Don't get your panties in a bunch. What's going to happen in a few years is 3D printing technology is going to become cheaper, someone is going to copy the engine, correct it's flaws, and print out a perfected 13B in their living room.
Someone has already made titanium rotors.
Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: Really, did you just say that rotaries are more reliable than chevy V8's? You've heard about the Renesis failure rate, right?
Remember what I said about oiling? Mazda shortchanged the oiling and severely shortchanged the in-rotor oiling.
Plus, the engines love to be run hard. They really don't like putting around in grocery-getter work, and aside from a couple people, every RX-8 I've seen in the wild was piloted by a college-age girl. Nothing against college age girls, but it seems that the ones who get RX-8s get them because they're cute/it was Cyclops's car rather than for the performance aspect.
You'll need to log in to post.
