need answers.

i am planning to buy a rx7 with 500 miles on a rebuild. it is still on a break in period. i dont really know anything about rx7's at this point but i am willing to learn. the car has a clean title just came back from the body shop so no scrtaches or dents. we took the car for a test drive and it made a noise when we stepped on the gas but i kind assumed it was spool but im not shure. this car is mostly stock. what do you guys think i should do? o yeh the car was selling for around 14? n e one can find me a better deal that would be great.

ok, i also have a guestion about the RX-7 the 13b is a crazy engine but i wanna now how many liters it is i have herd its a 1.3L engine but im confused

13b has 1.3liters, says it right in the engine code idiot

lol yea it saids right in the engine code, he probably cant believe how small the displacement is.

13b has 1.3liters, says it right in the engine code idiot

Techniclly it isn't really 1.3liters.The math that Mazda uses to determine this is a little off.I went out of my way to dig up the proper calculations of the displacement.It is actually 2.6 liters,their way of calculating displacement in rotaries really doesn't make a lot of sense,Mazda uses a two stroke method.Considering displacement was the displacement of one rotary per chamber.The rotary has seperate intake,compression,exhaust,and power strokes.So that makes it a four stroke,So really the measurement is how much combustion volume gets sucked in two revolutions.Each chamber displaces 654cc,mazdas two stroke method is 1308cc,but it is really 2616cc.So the 1.3l is a two stroke measurement,which is incorrect,so it is double which equals 2.6.

and about the engine code comment,you didn't need to call someone an idiot,and yes I just made you look like an idiot,If your going to call someone an idiot,get your facts straight.Their was no need for that comment,he said he knew nothing about rotary cars,he most likely knew nothing about Mazda engine codes.

can someone plz help me. i need answers quick. o yeh and n e know n e shops in the bay area that is really good with rotary engines?

Techniclly it isn't really 1.3liters.The math that Mazda uses to determine this is a little off.I went out of my way to dig up the proper calculations of the displacement.It is actually 2.6 liters,their way of calculating displacement in rotaries really doesn't make a lot of sense,Mazda uses a two stroke method.Considering displacement was the displacement of one rotary per chamber.The rotary has seperate intake,compression,exhaust,and power strokes.So that makes it a four stroke,So really the measurement is how much combustion volume gets sucked in two revolutions.Each chamber displaces 654cc,mazdas two stroke method is 1308cc,but it is really 2616cc.So the 1.3l is a two stroke measurement,which is incorrect,so it is double which equals 2.6.

and about the engine code comment,you didn't need to call someone an idiot,and yes I just made you look like an idiot,If your going to call someone an idiot,get your facts straight.Their was no need for that comment,he said he knew nothing about rotary cars,he most likely knew nothing about Mazda engine codes.


all that shit you just typed was just copied from some fag in sport compact car. Its BS.

So, how does the rotary engine work!? I know air in and exhaust out, and the circular triangle thingy spins and turns the axis, but how does that triangle thing work!?

all that shit you just typed was just copied from some fag in sport compact car. Its BS.

That's why I said I dug it up,I agree with him fully.You obviously don't,so prove that statement wrong,I fully agree with him.

don't taunt teh dayna!!! she'll romp on u...

on second thought, i haven't seen a good ownage in a while...


but just my :2cents: a rotary isn't a 4 stroke, nor is it a 2 stroke, it's a 3 stroke!

will an rx7 with a stand alone fuel management system pass the new smog?

don't taunt teh dayna!!! she'll romp on u...

on second thought, i haven't seen a good ownage in a while...


but just my :2cents: a rotary isn't a 4 stroke, nor is it a 2 stroke, it's a 3 stroke!

I come to these forums to carry out mature car discussions.I enjoy learning about cars,I don't mind be proven wrong,nobody's perfect.Even if I was completly wrong in believing this,it wouldn't result in ownage,just correction. I await all theroies that will challenge this/will challenge this.If anybody agrees or disagrees,then state why.

As long as this discussion doesn't turn out into a flame war,and is carried out maturely.Then I say let the debates begin :)

I come to these forums to carry out mature car discussions.I enjoy learning about cars,I don't mind be proven wrong,nobody's perfect.Even if I was completly wrong in believing this,it wouldn't result in ownage,just correction. I await all theroies that will challenge this/will challenge this.If anybody agrees or disagrees,then state why.

As long as this discussion doesn't turn out into a flame war,and is carried out maturely.Then I say let the debates begin :)


Yet, you come here trying to invoke me.

I do not have the time to disprove this... For alot of reasons... 1st off 1.3 litre is correct for TRUE displacment. However, when calculating anciliary engine tuning parameters the 2.6 litre number is used.... DUE to the increased effieciency of the rotary reletive to a piston engine, doubling the displacement for these calculations puts you really close to where you need to be... (eg, fuel injector sizes, requirements, duty cycle etc)

My question to you is: In a 2 rotor engine, how many power pulses are there per rotation of the e-shaft?

answer that correctly and you'll understand why the 2-cycle displacement methodology is correct.

The way the displacement was calculated wasn't necessarily stupid regardless of how you look at it. When it was first developed for automotive use it was something new and different from anything else. They wanted to pass it off as a cheaper alternative to the conventional powerplant with greater efficiency. What better way to calculate your displacement as low as possible with the power of larger engines? Regardless of how you want to look at it this decision wasn't a mindless action.

13b has 1.3liters, says it right in the engine code idiot

I find name calling uncalled for

I am so sick of this argument. Whats worse is that it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Its a 1.3 litre engine. If it will make you feel better you can call it a 2.6 litre. There now let it go.

wunmagikalpinoy- a little more info please. What year RX-7 is it?? How many miles on the chassis?

You ask what you should do? I am not sure what your asking.

Hey jim, nice setup. Too bad we can't all afford motecs :( The bad thing is I personally know roger mandeville and I still use haltech.

When we were trying to decide who and where to tune my car. One option was to pull my engine and put it on Rogers engine dyno.

What I finally did was get the owner of Japtrix in West Palm (Roger) and we went over to Pettit Racing and used their chassis dyno. I had an awsome base map to start with. I was from a guy in Marrietta named Charlie he owns Mazdacare. Him and Matt (Hitman) spent hours on a dyno making this map for Charlies car.

We tweeked the maps for about 2 hours on the dyno. Cameron from Pettit looked at the maps and had me make some timing changes and that was it. I am racing it in Autocrosses and open track days and 1/4 mile with only 2 hours of tuning on it and its rock solid.

I have looked at the Haltec software and honestly after using the motec stuff theres no comparison. The wolf 3D 4.0 stuff looks pretty good I was impressed with that especially for the money.

it is a 93 twin turbo with 130000 miles on the chassis and 500 miles on the new engine. there had been like 2+ owners. stock turbos.

Yet, In a 2 rotor engine, how many power pulses are there per rotation of the e-shaft?


2.I guess it would be best to just drop it.You can measure it the conventional way,or the more specific way.Nonetheless,the Rotary still has four strokes,measure it whatever way you want.

the four elements necessary for an internal combustion engine to work: intake, compression, power, and exhaust. in a rotary engine this takes place 3 times per revolution of the ROTOR. the rotor is traveling at 1/3 the speed of the crankshaft (eccentric shaft), so 2 rotors, and 2 power strokes per revolution of the e-shaft - the same as a 4 cyl piston engine. but it's more like a 2 stroke because intake and compression happen on the same revolution, and likewise on the power and exhaust... it's a triple-two-stroke...


eeeek... sorry for the rant...

it is a 93 twin turbo with 130000 miles on the chassis and 500 miles on the new engine. there had been like 2+ owners. stock turbos.


I am still unsure of what your question was. I think you want to know if you should buy the car. The only thing I see wrong with what you just described is the stock twins with well over 130K miles on them. If the car had a rough abusive life (blown engine indicates it) I would plan on rebuilding the turbos. We did my dads with Majestic Trubo in Waco Texas and they charged $1000 to rebuild both of them. They even warranty their work. I have delt with thse guys and they are top notch.


http://www.majesticturbo.com

I find name calling uncalled for
to the person that is calling names.it is a fact that you could not give the guy an answer so it is my understanding that you dont know anything if you dont know the answer dont say anything dont act like a fool.look at smili :banghead:

I love RX7's and own one, if you don't know anything about them you may want to stay clear, expecially on a fresh rebuild, if it's not done right, it may crap out real fast! Seems too good to be true

Dave