looks like the front end got melted down.

 

would a 4 rotor fit on an fd

 

read the very first post of this thread........

 

i meant a 26b like on the 787B

 

If you have the money to buy one, you have the money to make it fit.

ANYTHING can fit ANYWHERE.

 

yIKES!!!! profile is simmular to 1965-66 Chevy Corvair......Carter

 

Ok.. so this 4 rotor 12A....
Has it been running yet??
Is there a website where you can follow their project??

//Magnus

 

What are you talking about? So I drive a 66 corvair, so what.

And so i want to put a 3 rotor in it.

Whats your point?

 

my car is in their shop getting fixed... currently the 4 rotor is waiting for a body to put it in. they're looking for a FD3S chassis. the owner already has a 3 rotor FD.. and his mechanic is now finishing up placing a 13rew twin turbo in a 85 RX7.

 

so how easy or hard is it to make one I saw this site like a year ago that this guy built a 3 rotor real cheap with 2 13b's so can we do this

 

The only thing I see about the 4 rotor is the Intake ports, bot rotors in the middle aren't seen the same amount of air as the rotors in each end.

 

For a 4 rotor car you do not want to use the 12a engine because of the ammount of bearings. The 747B used the 13b I believe to achive its racing sucess. I am currently trying to get my college to fund a group to build a 4 rotor race car.

Here are some links that i ahve in that folder. They are in no specific order. If anyone has any links on 3 sparks per chamber, or the intakes the 747b or other people have used in high rpm applications it would be appreciated. The NA 4 rotor can achieve 700hp reliably and 500lb of tourque. The need to add a turbo charger might cause unreliability, problems with compresion and the eccentric shaft. The power band might be undrivable also. It would be interesting to see how it worls out.

these guys are puttin a 4rotor in 3rd gen
http://www.4rotor.com/

747B
http://www.2751engineering.com/787.html

when this site is up its a jewel
http://cp_www.tripod.com/rotary/pg03.htm

If you are going to build a 4rotor for racing try to get there support
http://www.mazdamotorsports.com/weba...0001&langId=-1

Any 4rotor engineers or people taht have experiance please drop me a line. I still have some questions on the ECU along with other areas I mentioned earlier.

 

Dont want to be picky in here but I believe what you mean is 787B, or is there really a 747B.

It is interesting that you mentioned amount of bearings on the the 12A. However, if you look at both engines, 12A vs 13b, the 12A has more advantage over the 13B in design. The 12A uses the same width rotor bearings as the 13B, however the 12A has a thinner rotor. That means that 12 rotor holds the shaft more firmer than the the 13B. Since the 12A has a thinner rotor, its apex seal is shorter. This means that the tensil strength is stronger compared to a 13B apex seal. To top that, 12A apex seals comes 3mm standard, as opposed to 2mm for the 13B. Also, the side seals for the 12A is more beefier than the 13B. Now, if you want to build a 4 rotor, the 12A would be much shorter compared to a 13B. This means if shaft strenght is an issue, the shorter the shaft the stronger it should be, taking into account the same shalf design for both 12A and 13B.

And if you want to turbocharge a 4 rotor, drivability is just a function of how you properly much your turbo to your engine.

Now that you see the advantage of the 12A vs 13B, no wonder you still see lots of first gen running on the freeways with some of them more than 20 years old still running on original motors.

 

the 787b was really cool to look at. we were playing spot the stock parts....



mike

 

the power they are looking for is, 400-500 na and 600-800 w/ the turbo

 

i wish that there were r2 21a engines available to make a 4 rotor outa them
i would like to see it realy bad 1046cc per chamber times 4 waaaaaaaaahooooooooooooooooo

 

rx720bt

You pointed out that the 12A is shorter than the 13B. I imagine that a 12A rotor produces less power than a 13B rotor with all other things being equal by virtue of the fact that it has less displacement. Does anybody know what the difference is? From a hp to weight standpoint I would think it would be better to have a lower number of chambers (3 v 4) with larger rotors. Fewer chambers would reduce the weight of the non energy producing parts(plates ect).

 

If I understood you correctly, this is an interesting question: Which is better a 2.0 13B 3 rotor or a 2.0 12x 4 rotor?

I would probably say, given both has the same displacement, the 4 rotor weight may be negligeable for the comparison (at least the mazda design). I guess what this boils down is that the closer the "phase" the more power you will get. If the power turns out to be equal, for sure the 4 rotor will accelarate faster. The 3 rotor is 120 degree phase. Means it fires three times per crank shaft revolution. The 4 rotor is 90 degree phase. Means it fires 4 times per crank shalf revolution. For this compariston, 13B 3 rotor and 12x 4 rotor, both engine displace 2.0 per revolution.