honestly i wasn't trying to change the subject, I had just realised that I got pulled into this argument by what sounds like a 16 yo and I was trying to end the argument without either of us looking like an ***, but you persist.



funny cars and such are backed by manufacutors, manufacturors aren't going to run a motor that is propietry to another make, ANNND mazda doesn't do much drag racing, hence you don't see many rotaries.



Ibel is running a 6.9's in his 3 rotor tho, beating supras which make good "power" your version of the word.



300 hp rotary power will move an object faster than 300 hp in a v8. Due to less internal friction and because it's inertia works for itself, not againsts it'self like a v8.



rotaries make more horsepower per litre period. There for they are more effecient and make better power. Also the design makes it much more "stackable" with very little negative side effect, making it more effecient at increasing displacement.



By your argument you could say that a 4 cylinder isn't as good at making power as a v8. Well obviously it isn't, your argument has nothing to do with rotary vs piston it is all about displacement.



Rotaries are more effecient at making power, even chevy was going to dump the v8 in the 60's and go to a 4 rotor until some of the emmisions laws started to choke the rotary. Do your research.

 

yes, I know that a rotary is MUCH more efficient at making power. but as of now, there is not a rotary that exists that can make the same power as a v8.



now, if mazda, or someone, decided to come out and make a 5.7l rotary, it would dominate every other engine on the market.



my argument is, with the current engines availiable, rotary vs. piston, the piston engines have more capability for power



there are 800ci + v8s but we do not have a rotary availiable that is that massive, I do agree with you that a rotary is better, I always will think that, but untill we get a rotary bigger than what is currently availiable, there are pistons making more power.

 

and this will be my last post in this thread, since you keep trying to change it from what makes more raw power to what is faster per displacement, there is no point in arguing, both of us are right for what we are arguing, but still fail to get on the same subject.

 

so you assume because you haven't seen it, it isn't possible. I don't see your logic at all.



oh well

 

Most undriveable peripheral ports use OLD SCHOOL carb technology.



Jesus Padilla can drive his car on the street because he is running an aftermarket ECU and throttle body injection, tuned, so that the engine can take full advantage of its large-*** port. Peripheral Ports bog because a carb is an on-off switch. You either get all or none of a certain amount of fuel/air at a certain rpm. This might not be so great, for something that because of its retarded overlap might not exactly benefit from a huge amount of fuel being dumped in at low rpm. The aftermarket ECU, obviously, with the throttle body injection, obviously, can be tuned so that the right amount of fuel and air can be shot into the engine and than burned at a more precice time allowing the ******* car to have



TORQUE



at low rpm...



from a peripheral port...



damn right!

 

hurley 6 rotor? just crazy **** man

 

Sorry but this is complete bollox. 300bhp is 300bhp. In any case a v8 with 300bhp will be far less stressed and will have much wider torque and power bands than a rotary, putting it at an advantage. Rotaries have a lower rotational inertia, but how do you come to the comclusion that it "works for itself"?



They would want to seeing that a rotor combusts 3 times per cycle whereas a piston only combust once every 2 cycles.



Rotaries are not efficient. Give a rotary 1 gallon of petrol and it will go around 20 miles. Give almost any other car of the same weight 1 gallon of fuel and 9 times out of 10 it will go further. High hp/litre does not equal efficiency.



Mark

 

Fuel efficient, no. Space efficient, most definitely yes.

 

Damn Straight ...

 

Are you kidding me? Compare a rotary power band and torque to a v8. v8 peaks torque at 2500-3000 rpm then falls from there, peak hp at 4000 rpm and falls from there. A rotary making 300 hp most likley will be making it around 6000 rpm but at at 4500 rpm will be making @270. And the torque while it might be a little lower will be a great amount flatter than the the peaky v8. Therefore putting the rotary at a huge advantage everytime.





Yes and some racing rules put the rotary in as a 2.6 litre due to the piston engine ineffeciency. But still it has great power/ displacement.



The discussion was about power effeciency. Fuel never entered the equation, but if it were to, I'm going to say that not many v8's are that much more fuel effecient than a rotary making similair power. Of course you can't base your opinion on someone with a turbo rotary that tunes to 11:1 because they will obviously be less effecient that someone tuning a n/a v8.



And the difference I'm talking about in rotational inertia any type of ROTARY motor means that it moves in one constant direction, you don't have the start/stop of reciporical engines, which makes for smoother torque and greater stability.