wpgrexx

i don't remember anyone claimin 20hp from a k&n, could someone that has dual exhaust post a dyno sheet to shut this guy up. are the hundreds of other people on this site with exhaust mods making this up. i doubt it.

AbecX

Exactly, not just exhaust. You put exhaust on a stock engine that doesnt have enough air coming in its pointless, all your going to do is loose backpressure making the scavenging effect of the engine go bye bye while loosing torque down low and gaining a little bit more hp up top.

AbecX

If you couldnt tell, I was being sarcastic.

Please do, and show me a base line dyno, then just add exhaust, hell FULL EXHAUST, and show me that you gained %28 in hp, it just aint gonna get posted.

wpgrexx

why are you here if you are such a hater

Shounen

Stock N/A RX-7 is approx 150 HP (86-88) and Approx 16.8 1/4.

Not a fast car by any means, and if you look around the forum people are always saying "these n/a's are so slow".

A fully bridgeported N/A with exhaust, intake and added fuel can do 14.01 easily. I doubt any N/A pulls 14.01 with just exhaust and intake, but they can easily get that 16.8 down to a 15.4-15.6 just from exhaust and intake and that is a decent gain in 1/4 mile time.

Although I think I speak for a lot of RX-7 guys when I say that I don't care about 1/4 mile times, only actual track times and auto-X times.

Stock vs Stock mustangs will beat an N/A, slap on an exhaust and intake and your hanging with the 15.4-15.8 mustangs. N/A

I prefer the Turbos which can do high 14->low 15 stock.

But comparing rotaries to Piston engines, not very easy.

AbecX

I'm not hating at all just trying to prove that some peoples claims or just totally off the wall, I wouldnt have bought this RX7 if I was a hater.

AbecX

Spoken like a guy that knows what he is talking about. The 3 rotor turboed engines are pretty cool, but there is no replacement for displacement.

wpgrexx

that is spoken like a true domestic owner. technology is our friend, try using it someday. if displacement was the most important thing why are f1 engines so small

Shounen

Rotaries work differently than piston engines.

You can't compare the two by saying "My 1.3 L rotary makes 142 HP stock" and then saying that "My 1.3 Piston engine makes 75 Hp stock".

That comparison won't work because a rotary and a piston engineering is so different.

I look at it like this, a 2 rotor has the same potential as a V6, and a 3 rotor as a V8. However, the way the rotary is designed you will get more HP gains from opening the air than on a piston engine. (signifiacantly more? I have never tested this).

However, to say "there is no replacement for displacement" is a very uneducated quote...

Porcshe has a 1.8 L 4 cylinder Turbo that makes around 340-350 HP.

Displacement is one way to get more HP. Adding Cylinders (or rotors) is another way to get more HP.

But nothing beats pure engineering. American Muscle cars get thier HP from their very well crafted engines by upping the displacement.

People like porsche refine the engineering to replace the need for displacement.

Refining the engineering on an N/A Rotary 2 rotor can make it keep up with stock V8's.

Displacement is not always better.

wpgrexx

thank u

AbecX

No one could give a rats *** if your putting out 50 hp per cylinder or per side of each apex. Thats 150hp, whoopty, thats not going to get you winning any races except for maybe at the track since the decreased displacement = less wieght.

wpgrexx

where do u get these numbers guy, and didn't u say earlier that the track is the most important place. be consistent, you are getting dumber and dumber

AbecX

I dont think anyone is saying otherwise.

Thats just stupid, who the hell is going to race a 1.3L Piston pusher?

No no no no. a 2 rotor has the potential to be the power of v6 when it has a turbo on the rotary, and the 3 rotor has the potential to be a v8 when on the turbo. Neither engine will ever match the torq levels which equates to slow launches.

[quote]to say "there is no replacement for displacement" is a very uneducated quote...
[quote]

There really isnt, compare a 514 460 based engine to a 1.3L Turbo Rotary engine. Who do you thinks going to win with the engine in the same car?

Nope, its the best way to get torque from which hp is derieved from.


True, and if you notice, most of the cars that are winning at the 1/4 miles are going to be american built. Thats just what I'm into, I've not once said the 50/50 weight is stupid or otherwise, but hp agasint hp, the rx7's just dont have it.

Shounen

The perfect example of engineering being important over displacement:

13 B 1989-1991 had 168 HP

the NEW 13B in the RX-8 is N/A and makes 280 HP.

That is over 100 HP gain simply by using lighter rotors, and some changes in the engineering design of the intake and exhaust porting.

You won't see any stock mustangs keeping up with the RX-8. (With the exception of the Cobra R).

AbecX

Your arguments are about good as Slick 50 w/ PTFE's claiming it makes engines last longer. You have none, so stop resorting to name calling etc. Road Racing is the only advantage a smaller engine has.

UniqueTII

Although I hate to side with the guy who is pissing everyone off, there really is no replacement for displacement. You say it's technology. The B16A has more technology than other 1.6 liters, so it puts out more power. Well, the B18C has the same technology and more displacement, so it has more power, and more importantly, more torque. Other people say that boost is the replacement for displacement...top fuel cars have boost and large displacement, and last I heard, 6000 horsepower is nothing to shake a stick at.

If displacement was no big deal, then why would a bunch of us, including myself, have a hard-on for the 20B?

AbecX

Or the 2003 cobra which puts out more power then the R. And why dont you see how much it costs to create that engine, then turn around and look how much it costs to make a v8 powered engine and see how much money you'll have left over after making a v8 w/ more power.

AbecX

You'll be shaking that stick if you stand to close to that engine

But to make the 6000hp, look and see what kind of engine they got to hold it, it aint no 1.3L. Back in the 80s they allowed turbo bb engines to race, needless to say, they dont allow them anymore


I'm pissing people off because I'm right.

wpgrexx

first you said the street means nothing the track means everything and that a rx will get smacked on the track, then you said maybe only on the track, so what is it.

Shounen

that is why I said Displacement is not always better.

It is a very good way to achieve more power, but it is not always the best solution.

Depends if you want a "6000 HP" dragster monster with a huge engine, or a 400 HP Three rotor for Auto-X and Road Racing.

I would never argue that displacement is a bad thing, but in the area of the Mustang, I would have to say that a little more engineering and a little less displacement could have been possible...while not necesarilly practical.

Either way we can all agree:

Turbo = More power
Displacement = More Power
Engineering refinement = More power

etc. etc. Some manufacturers prefer Engineering over displacement.

Believe me when I say I would much prefer going to a higher displacement 3 rotor than re-engineering the 2 rotor.

UniqueTII

Being right does not equal the necessity to be an ***. If you want people to see things your way, you have to just display the facts and let them tell the story...

Shounen

But that is a manufacturer choice. The rotary was completely re-engineered for the RX-8, while the engineering for a piston engine has been relatively refined already.

Mazda Prefered to refine the engineering, and I respect them for that.

Ford prefered to spend less money on the engineering aspect. I respect that too. But just like Intel and thier pentium chip, sooner or later they will have to re-engineer in order to get further.

Porsches aren't cheap for nothing. More money into engineering.

Displacement is the easy way out to make a car affordable.

But I still stand that displacement is not always better. There is a replacement...just costs more.

edit: although it is much nicer when Displacement, Turbo, and engineering is put together. =) = Porsche

Node

iTrader: (1)

AbecX, you're an idiot, stop talking.
Yes, I'm serious.

wpgrexx

i have been trying to tell him to shut up and listen to people here for 2 days, i guess no one here knows anything about rx7's though.

banzaitoyota

Thats it!
I have invited MR.AKIMOTA to set the mustang owner straight!!!