2ND generation rx-7 --- v-8 conversion kit.

the only thing i cabn add is that while the new rx-8 will make some 200 sumthin HP its lb ft of torque will only be like 138. that is my one and only arguemnet agains t rotaries NO TORQUE. wtf can i do with all that hp if i cant grip anything. other wise they are friign wierd and badass. and v eniges have their own right in being cool. this stupid argument will go on for ever.

-GTi-VR6_A3

its true that rotary engines lack torque... but torque is a function of horsepower. low torque at low rpm's is just crappy, but in a racing situation low rpm's arent used... so it's not an issue.. however low torque at high rpm's can be compensated with gearing. 150lb-ft@9000rpm with a 5:1 differential will have the about same turning power as 300lb-ft@4500rpm with a 2.5:1 differential... the 9000rpm engine will move through the rpm's faster, but will probbably have a powerband about double the range of the other one... maybe 4000-9000 as opposed to 2000-4500.... if both cars have the same HP, then the lighter one will cross the finish line first. this applies to all engines, not just rotary VS piston... but its also how those hondas can be fast with no torque.

but low end torque is just so much more fun for daily driving.... so like i said, it all depends on your goal.

one more thing..... formula 1 cars have 3L of displacement. they rev to 18000ish rpm's. they seem to do alright. world rally cars have 2L of displacement. they do ok too.

getting air in and out of the engine is what makes its power... 3 basic ways to increase it... displacement, rpms, and volumetric efficiency (boost). to go fast you need a lot of one of those, have a lot of 2, and you're guaranteed for tons of power... have a lot of all 3, and you're in for one hell of a ride.

welli got owned in general even though i know most of that i could never have worded it like that hahahah good show and welcome to AF...

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
the only thing i cabn add is that while the new rx-8 will make some 200 sumthin HP its lb ft of torque will only be like 138. that is my one and only arguemnet agains t rotaries NO TORQUE. wtf can i do with all that hp if i cant grip anything. other wise they are friign wierd and badass. and v eniges have their own right in being cool. this stupid argument will go on for ever.

-GTi-VR6_A3

um... ok... have u ever driven an RX-7??? even tho it lacks torque... it can outperform many other cars in its class... mazda is known for their handling... until u drive one urself, please dont come to a conclusion that rotaries cant grip... cuz they can. The new RX-8 will be beast.

opinion: placing a v8 in an fd is full of stupidity... ud mess up the weight, the front would be more heavier than the back and ur killing the name (RX)...

Originally posted by BluStori


um... ok... have u ever driven an RX-7??? even tho it lacks torque... it can outperform many other cars in its class... mazda is known for their handling... until u drive one urself, please dont come to a conclusion that rotaries cant grip... cuz they can. The new RX-8 will be beast.

opinion: placing a v8 in an fd is full of stupidity... ud mess up the weight, the front would be more heavier than the back and ur killing the name (RX)...

another rx-zealot.... ive had way to many of these arguments. as for handling i didnt say jack shit about their handling i know its good ive ridden and a few and they are cool cars. im just saying that I would like a car with a lb ft of torque in the area of its hp.

-GTi-VR6_A3

"I would like a car with....."

thats exactly what i'm talking about....there is no best... different cars are better for different people... most people cant understand that... rotary engines are better for me, but i dont expect everyone to see it my way... and i certainly dont think everyone should have one, at least not yet.....

Originally posted by BluStori


um... ok... have u ever driven an RX-7??? even tho it lacks torque... it can outperform many other cars in its class... mazda is known for their handling... until u drive one urself, please dont come to a conclusion that rotaries cant grip... cuz they can. The new RX-8 will be beast.

opinion: placing a v8 in an fd is full of stupidity... ud mess up the weight, the front would be more heavier than the back and ur killing the name (RX)...

I HAVE driven an RX7. Many of them, in fact. And didn't you read the thread u pto this point? The V8 does NOT upset the balance, becasue the car remains front/mid engine. Weight is added pretty much evenly front to rear, and not that much weight to boot (about 150 lbs in the typical install, spread front to back, with the battery moved rearward means the balance is identical if not better than stock!

What's stupid is holding on to this myth that the cars get ruined.

Originally posted by FunkLord
theres some pretty pathetic and ignorant responses here.... a v8 has its advantages... so does a rotary... the worlds fastest rx-7's are all rotary powered. a 20B engine has the potential for 4-digit HP on the stock engine block. a v8 will have more low end torque, and in the 450-500hp range, will be more streetable. but when you get up to the higher hp ranges, both of them throw streetability out the window... probbably a supercharged v8 would have the best streetability with the highest HP... but superchargers arent cheap.

Sure, the pwrlds fastest RX7s are rotary powered. THey are HUGE dollar cars, too. The guys doing the V8 (and turbo V6) swaps are making very fast cars on extremely limited budgets, which is the point. Get the speed and reliability of an understressed enigne in a light car, for low dollar amounts. My complete conversion cost me less than $2000. Considering I was working at a $7/hr job at the time, there was no way to build the same power and reliability into a rotary for my budget, and the car wasn't worth ANYTHING as a dead RX7.

And 400-500 hp is more than enough in a street car of this weight, so why spend more on a race engine of either type?

Ignorant? I've been building rotaries for a long time, as well as non-rotary cars. I've swapped rotaries into nother sports cars. Been racing for a couple decades. I've read the Carrol Smith series on "Engineer to Win" to build national championship winning sports racers. You want to say my responses are ignorant becasue, out of all teh rotary cars I've had, I KNOW that it's cheaper to get a lot of streetable power from a lightweight V8, and so chose to go that route with this particular car?

even if you make a v8 rx-7 as light as a stock t2... you can still make the rotary rx-7 lighter.

No one ever argued that. What I said was that converting an N/A RX7 to V8 power STILL leaved the car lighter than the stock Turbo. If the stock Turbo isn't a bad handler at it's weight, then the V8 version will not be, either. Get it? I could have made MY car lighter, too, as I didn't do ANYthing to make it lighter. It STILL handled better than it did stock, and better than a stock Turbo (in fact, as was proven on the autocross track, it also was better than many modded turbos...)

The argument isn't that you can't make them lighter, it's that it's not ruining the car. Period.

the block itself it lighter. any weight reduction can be done to both versions. even at the same weight, the rotary one will have a lower center of gravity because of how the engine sits...

THe differnce in engine weights isn't that much, and the rotary sits comletely above teh corssmember, with the eccentric shaft (the crank in a V8 car) held considerably higher up. The difference in CG is barely any differnt, and certainly not enough to negatively affect the V8 car. Been there done that, not working from "theoretical speculation" like some RX7 purists do...

a n/a v8 wont be able to make as much power as a turbo 20b. but a turbo v8 would be able to... but again... turbocharging a v8 isnt cheap or easy. and in terms of gas mileage and reliability... i ask you this: would you swap a 1.6L honda engine into your car? probbably not.

A 450 hp turbo 20B wieghs more than a 450 hp/ NA V8, makes less torque, and is vastly more expensive. It isn't about the total ultimate potential, it's about whet you get per dollar. Dollar for dollar, you get more from the V8 swap than you do from a high powered rotary. I dont' spend more to get less in a computer, and I don't spend more to get less in a house. Why should I be required to in a car, just to satisfy someone's quasi-religious feelings about a unique engine?

theres plenty more to go into, but the fact remains that everything has its ups and downs. you have to evaluate your own goals and see what suits you best.

And this would be the perfect response, but it doiesn't seem to work this way. Those of us who have built V8 7s always have to be on the defensive from people who can't seem to let the religious furor go, and ALWAYS call us ignorant, rednecks, or even blashemers!

i drive a rotary powered rx-7. heres my reasons
-handling

I had that too. In fact, mine probably handles better than yours does, as I proved regularly on the autocross track. Here's a video of the start of an autocross run:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/rex1.MPG

[/b]-its different... most people dont even know what it is let alone how it works[/b]

I have to agree. I loved being able to rebuild the engines on my kitchen table if I had to... :) Like aI said, I've had a lot of rotary powered cars, and worked on many more. But I daresay my last car was vastly more unique than the legions of cheap, beat up secretary mobiles that the average 2nd gen RX7 is.

-power:weight

Of the engine? Or of the whole car? In stock form, it doesn't really have a lot of either. The stock '86 Sport I started with had 145 hp. With only the addition of 150 lbs overall, I had almost 400 hp. And since teh 185 hp '87 Turbo wighed more than my 400 hp '86 V8 car (with no provisions made to lighten it further) then I had better power to weight ratio even then.

-rotary's love turbos, and so do i.

Ahhh, rotaries do good with turbos like any engine. Unlike any engine, they can't handle detonation, so you have to be ULTRA careful not to let the rotary run hot or lean. One single ping can destroy an engine, while it takes a lOT of detonation to ruin a piston engine.

-in my opinion, a rotary engine has a superior design, it just lacks the overwhelming R&D that piston engines have

This might have flown as an excuse back in the day, but development of new tech happens so quickly anymore than somthing that's been around since the '60s can be developed as far as something that's been around since the turn of the century. Back then, learning didn't happen at a rapid rate, so decades of development back then can happen in a year or less now, because you get to build on everything that's gone before, and use computer power to accellerate that development. The rotary has too many limitations to be able to be used in widespread applications.


and that one day all cars will be rotary powered...it almost happened once already! as long as the internal combustion engine doesnt become obselete first...

Hydrogen wiil be the fuel of choice in the next 20 years, if less, due to all teh new developments of the last 5 years, and the new Presidential decree to get away from foreign oil dependency (billions of dollars have now been set aside for hydrogen ICE and fuel cell research and the construction of the hydrogen infrastructure.) This is something I'v ebeen keeping close tabs on for the last 5 years, and you would not believe what is happenning. Hydrogen fuel cell buses are already in use. Hydrogen ICE cars arte already in use. Refueling stations and storage systems are being put to use in more and more places, and the Oil companies are paying for a lot of that development, because they know the first one to set up a successful hydrogen infrastructure will rake in the profits.

Originally posted by FunkLord
its true that rotary engines lack torque... but torque is a function of horsepower.

Ummm. no. Horsepower is a calculated value from the measurement of torque. Torque is work. Horsepower is work over time. It's a function of torque x rpm. Period.


low torque at low rpm's is just crappy, but in a racing situation low rpm's arent used... so it's not an issue.. however low torque at high rpm's can be compensated with gearing. 150lb-ft@9000rpm with a 5:1 differential will have the about same turning power as 300lb-ft@4500rpm with a 2.5:1 differential... the 9000rpm engine will move through the rpm's faster, but will probbably have a powerband about double the range of the other one... maybe 4000-9000 as opposed to 2000-4500.... if both cars have the same HP, then the lighter one will cross the finish line first. this applies to all engines, not just rotary VS piston... but its also how those hondas can be fast with no torque.

but low end torque is just so much more fun for daily driving.... so like i said, it all depends on your goal.

Like your last sentence says, low end torque is more useable for daily driving. And a low, wide powerband is more suited to the average street car, as it does it's job better in moving the mass of the car, passengers, and cargo around. A high powerband can be fun, in the right venue. The street isn't really that venue.

wow mr chris v went at it and pwned for almost a page. good for him. finally some actual fact based arguing.

-GTi-VR6_A3

here we go

Sure, the pwrlds fastest RX7s are rotary powered. THey are HUGE dollar cars, too. The guys doing the V8 (and turbo V6) swaps are making very fast cars on extremely limited budgets, which is the point. Get the speed and reliability of an understressed enigne in a light car, for low dollar amounts. My complete conversion cost me less than $2000. Considering I was working at a $7/hr job at the time, there was no way to build the same power and reliability into a rotary for my budget, and the car wasn't worth ANYTHING as a dead RX7.

so a v8 makes for a better budget-racer. no argument here.
i've said it once and i'll say it again.. it depends on what your personal goals are. with a $2000 budget i wouldnt come close to my goals. but my budget is a little more than $2000. a lot of my budget is for the suspension and other things. unfortunately, none of my friends are selling me their 400hp drag engine for a grand.


And 400-500 hp is more than enough in a street car of this weight, so why spend more on a race engine of either type?

if your goal is to make a pass faster than 11 seconds, then you need more than 500hp.

Ignorant? I've been building rotaries for a long time, as well as non-rotary cars. I've swapped rotaries into nother sports cars. Been racing for a couple decades. I've read the Carrol Smith series on "Engineer to Win" to build national championship winning sports racers. You want to say my responses are ignorant becasue, out of all teh rotary cars I've had, I KNOW that it's cheaper to get a lot of streetable power from a lightweight V8, and so chose to go that route with this particular car?

i didnt say your responses are ignorant. i said there have been some pathetic and ignorant responses on this thread. and i'm sure you'll agree.


It isn't about the total ultimate potential, it's about whet you get per dollar. Dollar for dollar,

not everyone is trying to go as fast as they can for as cheap as possible.

'86 Sport I started with had 145 hp. With only the addition of 150 lbs overall, I had almost 400 hp

you're comparing a stock engine to a modified engine...


In fact, mine probably handles better than yours does

maybe, what do you have in the way of suspension mods?


Ahhh, rotaries do good with turbos like any engine. Unlike any engine, they can't handle detonation, so you have to be ULTRA careful not to let the rotary run hot or lean. One single ping can destroy an engine, while it takes a lOT of detonation to ruin a piston engine.

the average rotary engine makes more gains from a turbo than the average piston engine. just use common sense while tuning.. its not that hard.

i'll finish replying later, i have to go to work

And this would be the perfect response, but it doiesn't seem to work this way. Those of us who have built V8 7s always have to be on the defensive from people who can't seem to let the religious furor go, and ALWAYS call us ignorant, rednecks, or even blashemers

i have nothing against a piston swap. i'm all for it. i may one day put a piston engine in my car. but right now, my goals dont call for that. to me it would be a waste of time and effort. rotary engines have advantages and disadvantages, and i dont expect that everyone would be better off with a rotary. its a different engine, and people have different things they are working towards. some people worship the rotary engine and get very defensive about it. i see nothing wrong with having such a love for the engine. it is afterall an amazing design. i think its great that they can appreciate it on another level. i do however, disagree with them bashing everyone who does a piston swap. i see it as one more rx7 saved from the scrap yard.

Ummm. no. Horsepower is a calculated value from the measurement of torque. Torque is work. Horsepower is work over time. It's a function of torque x rpm. Period.

torque is also a function of hp and rpm. it goes both ways. but the bottom line is having as much HP as possible for as long as possible. is what gets you over the finish line. what i said with the theoretical engines still stands. torque is a twisting force, not go-fast power. if gobs of low end torque is what wins races, then why don't we see a lof of diesel engines at the track?

A high powerband can be fun, in the right venue. The street isn't really that venue.

daily driving is not my venue. i wont be using my car to run errands and such. it will be used for racing. a streetported turbo rotary will have a huge powerband... starting from 3000-4500 (depending on the turbo) up to 8 or 9k depending on the size of the ports. even if i had low-end power, i wouldnt really need it for daily driving. being able to floor it from stoplight to stoplight or bumper to bumper without having to launch isnt realyl what i'm after. if i need power to pass someone, i can downshift. its not a big concern for me.

heres a video that makes a very good comparison of the rotary engine and piston engine. it should answer all your questions.

http://members.shaw.ca/funkotron/boing21.avi

Originally posted by FunkLord


torque is also a function of hp and rpm. it goes both ways. but the bottom line is having as much HP as possible for as long as possible. is what gets you over the finish line. what i said with the theoretical engines still stands. torque is a twisting force, not go-fast power. if gobs of low end torque is what wins races, then why don't we see a lof of diesel engines at the track?



Torque vs horsepower, a primer:
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

Basically, you are not correct. Torque is NOT a function of horspower. Torque is a real force. Horsepower is a measure of that force over time. And the diesel racer argument? A lame argument always brought up by people who simply don't understand torque and rpm.


hp = Torque X RPM / 5252


Now, what does all this mean in carland?
First of all, from a driver's perspective, torque, to use the vernacular, RULES :-). Any given car, in any given gear, will accelerate at a rate that *exactly* matches its torque curve (allowing for increased air and rolling resistance as speeds climb). Another way of saying this is that a car will accelerate hardest at its torque peak in any given gear, and will not accelerate as hard below that peak, or above it. Torque is the only thing that a driver feels, and horsepower is just sort of an esoteric measurement in that context. 300 foot pounds of torque will accelerate you just as hard at 2000 rpm as it would if you were making that torque at 4000 rpm in the same gear, yet, per the formula, the horsepower would be *double* at 4000 rpm. Therefore, horsepower isn't particularly meaningful from a driver's perspective, and the two numbers only get friendly at 5252 rpm, where horsepower and torque always come out the same.

In contrast to a torque curve (and the matching pushback into your seat), horsepower rises rapidly with rpm, especially when torque values are also climbing. Horsepower will continue to climb, however, until well past the torque peak, and will continue to rise as engine speed climbs, until the torque curve really begins to plummet, faster than engine rpm is rising. However, as I said, horsepower has nothing to do with what a driver *feels*.

You don't believe all this?

Fine. Take your non turbo car (turbo lag muddles the results) to its torque peak in first gear, and punch it. Notice the belt in the back? Now take it to the power peak, and punch it. Notice that the belt in the back is a bit weaker? Fine. Can we go on, now? :-)


The main reason you don't see too many diesels racing (though have you seen the European diesel truck road racing series???) is that you can't gear them up to take advantage of gearing. You run out of top speed. If you gear them low enough to get good top speed, you lose the torque multiplication that affects accelleration. Which is why trucks usually have so many gears. the powerband is so narrow that you have to spend more time shifting to keep it in a tiny LOW powerband. They'll pull buildings down, but becasue they don't rev well, they aren't very fast.

this
hp = Torque X RPM / 5252 (hp is a function of torque)
is a mathematical equation. it goes both ways.

torque = hp x 5252/rpm
this is a real equation, and in this equation torque is a function of HP.

i know how torque and hp and rpm's work. maybe im not very good at explaining it, but that doesnt matter since you know how it works too.

its true that rotary engines lack torque... but torque is a function of horsepower. low torque at low rpm's is just crappy, but in a racing situation low rpm's arent used... so it's not an issue.. however low torque at high rpm's can be compensated with gearing. 150lb-ft@9000rpm with a 5:1 differential will have the about same turning power as 300lb-ft@4500rpm with a 2.5:1 differential... the 9000rpm engine will move through the rpm's faster, but will probbably have a powerband about double the range of the other one... maybe 4000-9000 as opposed to 2000-4500.... if both cars have the same HP, then the lighter one will cross the finish line first. this applies to all engines, not just rotary VS piston... but its also how those hondas can be fast with no torque.

this was my main point, and i still see nothing to discredit it.

i just read over that link you sent... and basically it says exactly what i've been saying.
torque = feels better for the driver
hp = what gets you over the line 1st

The Only Thing You Really Need to Know
Repeat after me. "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*." :-)

compare the torque of a 2002 mustang gt to a 2002 honda s2000.

the mustang makes 302@4000 and the honda makes 153@7500. yet somehow the honda is faster. if you take 153@7500 and gear it down to 4000rpm, you get 287lb-ft. so the output to the wheels is a lot closer than it would appear. the honda still makes a little less hp (240 vs 260) and torque, but its also using half as many cylinders and less than half the displacement. overall the car is about 500lb lighter. so using that old saying "100lb or 10hp = 1/10) the honda should be about 0.3 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile.

Car-Stats.com Report for 2000 Honda S2000
Obtained from MT February, 2000
0-60: 5.2 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 13.8
1/4 Speed: 100

Car-Stats.com Report for 2001 Ford Mustang GT
Obtained from MT June, 2001
0-60: 5.4 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 14
1/4 Speed: 100

looks pretty close to me. looks like having twice as much torque didnt overcome the similarities in the HP. the mustang might *feel* faster, but the s2000 is faster.

do you guys have any good sites for kits. I have a 95 rx-7 with a perfect motor, but a wrecked body... Any suggestion? It's not easy finding a body. I figured a kit would look hot?

S2000s hit 60 in about 5.8 if you are a really good shifter.
Mustang GTs in 6.0.

I agree that putting a piston engine in an RX-7 is sacreligous. The rotary is a huge attraction to the RX-7 for me. It has so many advantages over reciprocating engines. It also sounds much better!!

I agree that putting a piston engine in an RX-7 is sacreligous. The rotary is a huge attraction to the RX-7 for me. It has so many advantages over reciprocating engines. It also sounds much better!!

Advantages in a 2800 lb car that mean that it has 143 hp and less torque, lower lifespan due to overwork, and a greater rebuilld dollar amount per hp? Side, tip, and apex seals that can't stand even a single instance of detonation? Horrible fuel mileage for it's displacement?

It's a great engine, but it's still just a car, not a religious shrine. And 143 hp isn't the best tool for that job. Oh, and make one make 300+ hp, and the reliability goes straight in the toilet.

Leave the rotary in seriously lightweight cars, like RX3s, R100s, and early RX7s (or Austin Sprites, triumph Spitfires, Fiat X1/9s, and some kit cars, like Lotus Super Seven replicas).

And after years of racing various rotary powered cars, and listening to built ons on the street day in and day out, I don't think the weedwhacker-on-steroids sound is all that pleasant.

First of all the FD3S didnt have 143 hp. It was 255hp. 215 ft/lbs of torque. Take a Mustang GT 260hp, 300 ft/lbs. the Mustang hits 60 in 6 seconds. the RX-7 in about 5. With less power, and a smaller powerband. Camaro Z28s get to 60 in a little over 5 seconds.

The rotary engine is not as cheaply built up as a V8. They also dont have the ability to make the same amounts of power. That doesnt mean that you should put a V8 into an RX-7. If you have the money to keep up a rotary its not a problem though.

How old are all of you Anti-Rotary bigots? I can imagine that an older adult would lean more towards the tried-and-true,classic V8.

im 20 years old, I like the "weedwhacker on steroids" sound, i like the feeling when your boost comes up, I like having an engine that is not the same as EVERY other damn car on the road.

I dont care if you want to put a 5.0 Mustang, LS6, L-88, even a Flat 4 Beetle engine in YOUR Rx-7. I would never put one in MINE. It doesnt mean YOU are right, it doesnt mean IM right. Its a matter of opinion and personal tastes.
:flipa: :flipa:

Originally posted by VR6Turbo
First of all the FD3S didnt have 143 hp. It was 255hp. 215 ft/lbs of torque. Take a Mustang GT 260hp, 300 ft/lbs. the Mustang hits 60 in 6 seconds. the RX-7 in about 5. With less power, and a smaller powerband. Camaro Z28s get to 60 in a little over 5 seconds.

First of all, the STOCK engine in my FC3S had 143 hp. If you're going to talk about a car like mine, know what you're talking about. It was a NON turbo 2nd gen RX7. 1986. 16 second quarter mile time, stock.

But to go on about the hp of the rotary being better due to the slightly quicker time stock of a vastly more expensive twin turbo FD3S (the 93-newer version) completely ignores that the RX7 has lighter weight and considerably shorter gearing. Simply putting the final drive gear ratio of the RX7 into the Mustang would make it quicker.

The rotary engine is not as cheaply built up as a V8. They also dont have the ability to make the same amounts of power. That doesnt mean that you should put a V8 into an RX-7. If you have the money to keep up a rotary its not a problem though.

Ok, so I should be able to afford a $2500-4500 stock rebuild on a car that was only worth $2000 in stock form? Why should someone have to be rich to own a $2000 car? Just so they can go around saying "I have a tiny little engine, and teenage boys that worship it will like me?"


How old are all of you Anti-Rotary bigots? I can imagine that an older adult would lean more towards the tried-and-true,classic V8.

im 20 years old, I like the "weedwhacker on steroids" sound, i like the feeling when your boost comes up, I like having an engine that is not the same as EVERY other damn car on the road.

I dont care if you want to put a 5.0 Mustang, LS6, L-88, even a Flat 4 Beetle engine in YOUR Rx-7. I would never put one in MINE. It doesnt mean YOU are right, it doesnt mean IM right. Its a matter of opinion and personal tastes.

First you say that I'm an anti rotary bigot, then say it isn't a matter of me being right or you being right. :rolleyes: I've owned quite a few rotaries (from RX2s and RX3s to RX7s, and put rotaries into cars that didn't have them, stock). Just because on one of my cars I wqanted to make it have huge power and torque to go along with the excellent chassis, and didn't want to have to spensd a huge cunk of change to do it, does NOT make me an Anti-rotary Bigot! I LOVE rotaries. I just don't think they are god's gift to teh automotive world. Cars are not religious shrines, especially in mass produced, stock form.

I've owned over a hundred different cars in the past 20 years. From rotary engine cars and tiny 4 cyl traditional sports cars, to 600+hp musclecars. My RX7 with the V8 was VASTLY more unique than the legions of stock 2nd gen RX7s out there. How DARE you say that merely having a rotary car makes your car unique! A one off custom is MORE unique, and got more respect from more people than a clapped out GXL would have!

You can find those conversions but theyre only in like Puerto Rico where the rotary engine was and still is very popular. I personally wouldnt waste my money on a conversion like that because of the possibilities that you have with the rotary engine but...

Its very nice that you have a FC3S, good job, I understand buddy. Calm down. You keep complaining about the power of the car, "....143 hp is not exactly the tool for the job."
I was just bringing up the VAST difference in performance between 2nd and 3rd gen.
I called you an Anti-Rotary Bigot because you seem to believe that the engines are better off in a junkyard rather than in an RX-7, replaced by some lo-tech V8 out of a 5.Slow. Everytime someone made a post talking about the rotary, you made this HUGE elaborate post, quoting EVERYTHING that they said, then telling them how wrong they were. If you were so ENORMOUSLY concerned with the cost, why didnt you just cut the floorboards out and make yourself a FLINTSTONES car!!!!
Yes, you probably did the right thing with your old a$$ blown engine 2nd gen.

"From what I can tell it seems like Chris V has a lot of pent up anger directed towards rotary engines. This could trail from his childhood past, maybe his father owned a rotary, and mistreated him with it, or maybe he just couldnt take the power at such a young age. Or Maybe he had a bad experience as a teenager when on prom night he and his date in his big Mustang 5 point slow pulled up next to an FC3, and got the living crap beat out of him. There are several contributing factors Im sure, but there is still only one reason for Chris V to not like Rotary Engines, he cant hang with the rest of them, cuz theyre already across the finish line baby!" these and more words from Dr. Phil when we return. :flipa:

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was great. You shouldnt bring those horrible memories back to him, it could trigger some kind of psychotic breakdown. Oh wait, by the looks of it, it already happened!!!

I want Chris V to go to "Those Annoying RE Haters' and to respond so that we dont have to keep coming here to continue this conversation. :frog: :monkeypis

Originally posted by VR6Turbo
Its very nice that you have a FC3S, good job, I understand buddy. Calm down. You keep complaining about the power of the car, "....143 hp is not exactly the tool for the job."
I was just bringing up the VAST difference in performance between 2nd and 3rd gen.

You made the ASSUMPTION that every RX7 is an FD3s, and that EVERY rotary is a TT 13B or 20B. The power of my car when I did the conversion was exactly Zero HP.

I called you an Anti-Rotary Bigot because you seem to believe that the engines are better off in a junkyard rather than in an RX-7, replaced by some lo-tech V8 out of a 5.Slow.

You seem to feel that I feel that way because you only read as far as seeing I put a V8 in my car, and no goddamn farther. You made a WRONG assumption and started insulting me. Then you want ME to "calm down". Sheesh. You COMPLETELY missed ALL the references to how many rotary cars I've owned and enjoyed.

And do we have to go into the whole Low Tech vs High Tech crap again? Until you actually HAVE any experience in car building, you don't have a clue. YOur narrowmindedness shows up in your rather BS nickname for a Mustang 302 (which is proven daily ion dragstrips and road race tracks around the country).
The Ford 302 is a thinwall desing that is extremely compacrt, not just for it's displacement, but for automotive enignes in general. It got that way by using more modern technology than the average OHC engine (hell, the first DOHC enignes were around in 1912, and even the US had a production DOCH, 4 valve per cyl, alloy engine by 1932! The thinwall pushrod V8 came from technology developed dacades later (about the same time Felix Wankel was developing the rotary from a design patented in 1908...)

Everytime someone made a post talking about the rotary, you made this HUGE elaborate post, quoting EVERYTHING that they said, then telling them how wrong they were.

Because, like you , they WERE wrong, and didn't bother to read completely. Maybe your short attention span is WHY you don't know squat...

Originally posted by MyGTR34
"From what I can tell it seems like Chris V has a lot of pent up anger directed towards rotary engines. This could trail from his childhood past, maybe his father owned a rotary, and mistreated him with it, or maybe he just couldnt take the power at such a young age. Or Maybe he had a bad experience as a teenager when on prom night he and his date in his big Mustang 5 point slow pulled up next to an FC3, and got the living crap beat out of him. There are several contributing factors Im sure, but there is still only one reason for Chris V to not like Rotary Engines, he cant hang with the rest of them, cuz theyre already across the finish line baby!" these and more words from Dr. Phil when we return. :flipa:


This of course is a PRIME example of someone thinking they are smart, but NOT FU(KING READING!

When I was in high school, I was racing both my 429 powered Torino GT AND my rotary powered RX3. That RX3 is STILL one of my favorite cars. '73, with a '78 12A, heavy street port, Racing Beat header and Holley carb kit, RX7 5 speed, 4.88 rear gears. Very quick, and very good handling. But not very streetable, with no useable power below 3000 rpm and a lightened aluminum flywheel.

Sorry, asshole. I love rotary cars. It just happens that ONE of them I owned got a built V8 when it died... Sorry you're too stupid to be able to handle that.

Whoa, BIG words from a BIG man. I hope I didnt hurt your feeliings big guy! We dont care to know what kind of car you drove in high school, or how it ran or what it had on it. And Im not stupid you big Jack A$$! YOU seem to have a problem with people who disagree with you. cuz all youve basically complained about in all of your replies is how youve owned at least a million cars by the sounds of it, and how youve raced and autocrossed and all kinds of other bull, and even working with all of those people, you still have a problem grasping the fact that there are people who disagreee with you. Am I dense? I think not. Are YOU dense? YES! In the words of Alowicious the great... "Those who complain for no reason, have nothing to complain about. Those who complain for a reason, must know the guy with nothing to complain about." :bandit:

No fella, I didnt think all RX-7s were FDs.
AGAIN, I was just bringing up the VAST difference in performance between 3rd and 2nd gen. I saw you pics in the earlier posts, and unless you got some extreme body kit, your car is a 2nd gen. That was obvious.
Your incessant slaying of any other person who has an opinion that differs than yours, makes you a bigot. Its not that hard to understand. You think that just because you have experience with different cars and such, that you are right and that everyone else can kiss your ass because you are the 'King Of All Car Knowledge'. We understand that you are a middle aged man with a superiority complex. That doesnt mean that you should come to the RX-7 forum and tell everyone how terrible rotary engines are, but how you still love rotary cars so much.
:rolleyes:

Your incessant slaying of any other person who has an opinion that differs than yours, makes you a bigot

Usually said by a person who's first post is an insult. :rolleyes: Since the ONLY people I'm "slaying" are being closed minded and making factually WRONG statements, not merely everyone who has a different opinion than me (how you get that, I don't know, but it's probably related to you lack of brainpower). :rolleyes:

You were insulting everyone who thinks different than you right off the bat, by saying anyone who replaces ANY rotary with a V8 is an idiot and an "anti-rotary bigot" Which is just retarded. But you're too dense to see that, aren't you? You couldn't factually refute anything I said (hell, you didn't even READ half of it), so all you could do was call me an anti rotary bigot, and think that I'M the one with the problem. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


AGAIN, I was just bringing up the VAST difference in performance between 3rd and 2nd gen. I saw you pics in the earlier posts, and unless you got some extreme body kit, your car is a 2nd gen

You responded to ME saying MY RX7 had a 143 hp engine by saying "it didn't have 143 hp. It had 255 hp." And you STILL won't acknowledge that. In effect, you were saying I was wrong about the 143 hp, and that since a stock Ford 5.0 in a late Mustang puts out 225, it's less than the stock engine in RX7s. As though ALL RX7s had 255 hp TT 13Bs. And as though ALL 302s has 225 hp. Since you KNEW my car was a 2nd gen, then your arguing about how much hp the 3rd gen has isirrelevant! And not germane to the discussion.


You think that just because you have experience with different cars and such, that you are right and that everyone else can kiss your ass because you are the 'King Of All Car Knowledge'. We understand that you are a middle aged man with a superiority complex. That doesnt mean that you should come to the RX-7 forum and tell everyone how terrible rotary engines are, but how you still love rotary cars so much.


And STILL you think I'm saying that rotary engines are terrible. Are you stupid? You just can't get it through your ignorant, closed minded head that I never said that!

Sorry that you are too stupid to deal with real knowledge. Get a clue, bozo.

Whoa, BIG words from a BIG man. I hope I didnt hurt your feeliings big guy! We dont care to know what kind of car you drove in high school, or how it ran or what it had on it

Sure you did, or you wouldn't have thought to make the comments you did, little boy. You made a mistake in assumption, them tried to make an insulting comment based on that assumption. But then again, you're obviously too stupid to make real observations. You think I'm against the rotary engine, and make up some story about how I must have been traumatized by one when younger. :rolleyes: I'm merely refuting that BS.

cuz all youve basically complained about in all of your replies is how youve owned at least a million cars by the sounds of it, and how youve raced and autocrossed and all kinds of other bull, and even working with all of those people,[quote]

?? Complained? You mean the sig? It's a joke! A way of stating that I've had a lot of cars, worked on a lot of cars, etc. SInce most people only onw a small amount...

Of course you wouldn't get it, you're a 'tard.


[quote]you still have a problem grasping the fact that there are people who disagreee with you.

Hello! There's disagereeing, and there's making factually incorrect statements! If the teacher tells you you're wrong when you say 4+7 is 29, he's not "disagreeing" with you. If your boss tells you you're wrong when you screw up a job, he's not just "disagreeing" with you. If I say you could fly, and tried to push you off a cliff, would you say I was right? Opinions can indeed BE wrong, when they are based on wrong information. If you say all horses have 6 legs, and I tell you you're wrong, it isn't just a "difference of opinion." What would you say if you went to the doctor for a heart attack and he said, "just rub grape jelley on your chest and you'll be fine!"

What if someone walked up to you and said it's his opinion you're a lazy theif? What if he said it's his opinion that, say, people like you should be killed, and brings out a gun? Would you say he's entitled to his opinion? He obviously disagrees with you. Is it ok for him to disagreee with you? What if instead, he though everyone else should think you should die, and posts it up everywhere in posters? Would his opinion of you be valid, simply because he disagrees with you?

Hey that was pretty good,but what exactly are we talking about here? Im simply disagreeing with... oh wait I disagreed with nothing! I simply was starting a joke, just like your signature. Im not disagreeing with you and how some cars are more powerful than others, If anything Im telling you that I dont agree with putting a V-8 into an RX-7. Sure you did, or you wouldn't have thought to make the comments you did, little boy. You made a mistake in assumption, them tried to make an insulting comment based on that assumption. But then again, you're obviously too stupid to make real observations. You think I'm against the rotary engine, and make up some story about how I must have been traumatized by one when younger. I'm merely refuting that BS.
And again, merely making another joke. I know that it may have offended you, and Im sure you knew that what you typed may have offended somebody who reads it that feels the same way we do, but you still replyed the way you did. No I dont think that I would like to have a doctor tell me to "Rub grape jelly on it and you'll be fine," But did you like it when your doctor told you its not your wifes fault, you actually DO need Viagra? Thats not disagreeing with you, thats merely the truth.:bandit:

Hey by the way, I wasnt trying to say that you complained about ownng that many cars, I WAS ONLY SAYING THAT THE ONLY REASON YOU HAD ALL OF THAT EXPERIENCE WAS BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE DOMESTIC LEMONS THAT YOU HAVE OWNED AND HAVE HAD TO REBUILD OVER AND OVER AGAIN. And one would hope that after rebuilding something that many times,you would at least know SOMETHING about that car.:flipa:

You continue to believe that I thouight that your car was a 3rd gen. NO FOR THE THIRD OF FOURTH TIME, -----I WAS JUST BRINGING UP THE VAST DIFFERENCE IN POWER-----You must have just skipped over that part EVERYTIME I wrote it. Ok-I will explain myself. I will use small words just for you.
1. FD3S -I would never put any other engine in it ever. I think that it is a part of the cars attraction, to me at least.
2. FC3S with blown engine -You apparently spend all of your money on beer, so you didnt have the money to put in a rotary. For the third or fourth time, YOU PROBABLY DID THE RIGHT THING WITH YOUR CAR.

I never said people who replaced rotaries with V8s were IDIOTS.

:monkeypis On you, your bullshit arguments, and your V8 FC.

come on guy's no need to be hostile, this is a non-flaming forum... REMEMBER THAT!
-Dave

I think that we all need to just step back and relax and have a normal forum, like all the others. :) Maybe we could continue the thread by talking about the v-8 engine swap in an RX-7 or something, which happens to be what this thread was started for. :alien2:

ain't that the truth my brotha.:huh:
-Dave

So, if RX's were originally made with V8's and Ford's and Chevy's were made with Rotary's would you guys be arguing to keep a V8 in the RX?

The way I look at it: RX 3rd gen is an awesome vehicle but the motor can get pricey. For me to make a better RX 3rd gen I'm putting in a V8. Just my opinion.

I haven't owned a 100 cars in 20 years but every car that I have owned, for the most part, I pulled out what I didn't like and replaced with something I liked better. Reality is, every one has there preference and I think it's great we can have a debate like this!!!

Can you guys really tell a 1% shift in weight? Better watch your fuel levels!!

v8 on a 3rd generation rx7 would be a monster especially with a 427 big block and with 2 greddy t88 turbo's, I wonder if anyone has done it before, I've only seen it in the single turbo form in race car's but how about two, too much lag I guess and with 200 shot nos it would remove that lag hehe so you basically have a 1000hp+ monster.
-dave

I believe it is blasphemy to put a V8 in an RX7 but to each their own. The handling of the car would be way worse. My RX3 had a 13B turbo from a second gen and I was getting 330RWHP with just a high flowed turbo. This engine originally only had 205Hp at the engine. It is not hard to make a 13B turbo get up and go.

yeah i know what you mean when i dynoed my engine(93 stock rx7 r1) I got 225rwhp and after that I got a pettit ecu, a k&n filter,apexi n1 exhaust,hks downpipe,I got Pettit race ported engine 3mm seals,Greddy Profec B, HKS turbo timer,Greddy blow off valve,and a intercooler, my rx7 dynoed in at 360rwhp so I guess it does make a big difference when you do some mod's to it and LET IT BREATH.these were the best bang for the buck mod's I got for it and I had spent nearly 2k to get this done including the oil change(synthetic racing oil), ngk racing brand new spark plug's,mgk wires, and the the new wiper's I bought when I got the car, there was a few problem's it had but It was fixed, no problem's with the engine though.After a month of owning it I had pted for a 75 shot nos"wet" system, I had it for 2 year's and it did well but I sold it later on, I sell my car's soon after they're not as challenging as before.
-Dave

Originally posted by phatdex
I believe it is blasphemy to put a V8 in an RX7 but to each their own. The handling of the car would be way worse.

funny seems as though everyone that has doen it says it handles the same or better

-GTi-VR6_A3

I personally havent seen an rx-7 rotary to v-8 conversion yet, but i have yet to see one. And i also personally thiink that the swap is kind of crazy, but its all in the eye of the beholder, so u guys do whatcha gotta do and hold your own. I really favor the rotary engine over a reciprocating engine, but thats only my opinion. :licker: :bloated:

How could it handle better with a heavier engine at the front that doesnt sit as low either?

read back farther in the thread and you will see

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by MyGTR34
.....I really favor the rotary engine over a reciprocating engine, but thats only my opinion... :licker: :bloated:
I do too, it might be the most expensive car you get, not buying it but yet maintaining it.. thst's the hard part with the fd rx7's they are reliable as heck but god know's that if one little thing break's it spread's like a cold :( and goes on to create more havoc, my opinion's are from personal experiences I had when owning the rx7, your's may entirely differ.
-Dave

Mine are also from personal experiences as well, believe me! but buying into an RX-7 is like buying into an old VW Bug or something, just ten times as expensive. You take the risk of losing something and having a hard time trying to find someone who can fix it. But to me the car seems worth the risk. Others may differ and thats okay. :bandit:

that is a good point. but if a v8 wopuld fit in a bug i would like to see it done. personally id like to have 2 bugs. one restored and one witha porsche engine in it...

-GTi-VR6_A3

THESE PEOPLE CAN HELP YOU (http://www.torquecentral.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=11)

Hey! I think I used to beat you up in middle school? Or someone that was just as much of a pansy.

While you are talking about balance and revs the v-8s will be driving right around you with superior horsepower and torque.

You must be an art major.

twit.


Originally posted by kcxox
I'm thinking of purchasing a parts rx-7 with a blown motor and buying a conversion kit with a v-6 or v-8 to replace it. Is this a realistic goal, and is so, where can i purchase a kit. i know they exist, i have friends who have them. thx, KC

ok

say you were to drop an all aluminuim motor with a composite intake and about 400 hp into a light weight car. the v8 only weighed a little more than an iron motor when you include the turbo(s), intercooler, piping and such that your are removing anyways. this iron motor was very expensive to maintain, made little power, and inefficient.

it SLIGHTLY altered the balance of the car in favor of better handling.
(most race cars are not 50/50 but more like 53/47 or 55/45 front to rear distribution)

is this a good idea?

you decide

Cbass, I really havn't read through this whole thread cause it's sooo long. I did see the part about your efi system for $400 though.
What system is that? where'd you get it? You got a link?
Thanks yo, Good luck with the car!

well the 3rd gen with 02 Ls-1 is the best car ive ever seen, and im going to hinsonsupercars to have it done. actually the 13b with all the turbo cmpnts is heavier than Ls-1, and less up keep!! sorry its just a better car with the Ls-1!!!!!!!!!!!!

Someone please lock this thread.
Ls1mazda you should look at the post dates before you post, since most of these people arn't posting here now and the last post was over a year ago.

Riiiiight...hmmm the rx-7.com car. Let me think...im sure they dumped allot more money into there car then i will ever be able. But i will race ANY of you othat think this is a bad idea. And i bet i can still kick your ass around corners. I bet i will be able to take a corner faster now. So dont talk carp about peoples car just because they do something different. And i love the rotary engine, but it doesnt do what i want it to do anymore. I wanna be able to kick a vipers/ corvette z06's ass...and i will. Oh, if any of you are in the louisville,ky area. post it up...cuz i need people to check how my tail lights look on the road. BIOTCHES

Hey man, i live in the st mathews area. My v8 240Z 383 stroker car will be ready in about 2 weeks. I would like to see how our cars compete. Give me a call at 502 472 0560 or email me at [email protected] and we can schedule something.

uh check the date of the thread next time you post, its 2 years old.

why you would want to swap a rotors for pistons is beyond me... there are some bad ass piston-powered engines out there... but c'mon now... rotarys have potential

apparently down under in australia there's a guy who owns a peripheral-ported 20b with about 1200hp... runs 7's in the 1/4 mile, as seen in a series of videos called "high octane"... or how about a 13b with over 700hp, stock body ... 9's !

the 7 has a perfect 50/50 balance and such linear power, why you would swap that for a rough, front-end heavy car that oversteers badly is beyond me... sure it may go in a straight line fast, but anybody can go fast in a straight line... its in the corners that my heart skips a beat...



just my $.02