Sports Compact Car

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Mar 26, 2003 | 09:53 PM

#11

Joe Flo

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002

Posts: 1,142

From: Houston Texas

Thanks guys....then I guess I did know

Thats what I figured. Before I fell in love with the sevens I had a thing for 455's in the 76 Trans Am and the 428 in the 69 Mustang Mach1. But....due to high prices and only getting 8 MPG I bought my FD. Thank God I did!!

Mar 26, 2003 | 10:59 PM

#12

christi

Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2002

Posts: 1,960

From: Gulf Breeze, FL; ATL, Ga; Bucyrus, Oh

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbovr6' date='Mar 26 2003, 08:03 PM

well displacement is the volume inside the cumbustion chamber. Honestly I grew up old school, so I can't explain it in liters. for example lets say you have a V8 chevy 350 engine. The volume of one combustion chamber with the piston bottomed out is roughly 43.75 cubic inches, multiply that by 8 and you get 350 cubic inches.

I'm with Joe Flo.. LOL ..

I even read this stuff and TRY my best to understand it, and it just won't compile through the mess in my brain

It sucks.

Mar 27, 2003 | 02:17 PM

#13

s13srmadness

Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2002

Posts: 418

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbovr6' date='Mar 26 2003, 06:03 PM

right. so you measure the piston engine's full displacement...

but when you do this to a rotary you only measure one "chamber" when ther are really two.

that is what i think dave coleman is saying in his article. the rotary is not a 2 stroke.

it's a 2.6 liter engine. why bother arguing against this?

if i were mazda i would have called it 1.3 liters too. also since there was no conventional way to measure the rotary's displacement mazda conviently decided on one. theie decision was based on bad logic and personal gain. that is all.