Results 1 to 14 of 14

4 rotor rx7

This is a discussion on 4 rotor rx7 within the Multimedia Section forums, part of the Off - Topic / Discussion forums category; A rx7 with a n/a 2.8L rotary engine. I remember reading about this in a fd forum a couple years ...

  1. #1
    Member Speed Psychosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Age
    28
    Posts
    499

    Red
    98 T/A M6 w/lid and LM1

    4 rotor rx7

    A rx7 with a n/a 2.8L rotary engine. I remember reading about this in a fd forum a couple years ago and it doesn't even have nitrous in it. Just a racing port. I'm not gonna lie, i wish i had one of these under the hood.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...OJO-rQK945HOAg

  2. #2
    Senior Member KyleLs1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada eh
    Posts
    3,534

    NBM
    99 TA

    fast... but unreliable i'm sure.
    rotary engines are shit, and there is a reason that they are only used in the RXx cars. I have several friends who owned Rx7s at some point... every one of them blew up, one of them ended up with an LT1 6spd swap and never had another problem with the car.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Age
    39
    Posts
    53

    Black
    1994 Firebird Formula

    Were your buddys cars turbo? The turbo cars ended up being unreliable because rotorys hate heat. Add a bigger intercooler and radiator and they last just as long as a piston engine if not more.

    The NA rotarys are farily reliable, the biggest problem they have is they carbon up if you take them for short trips and the apex seals will basically be glued open so you lose compression(like your rings going out). The 20B that was in the cosmo was a badass motor and runs strong as shit and that was a 3 rotor. A four rotor would BE BADASS,as this video demonstrates. NA rotaries love nitrous too.

    All in all, I'd probably have gone the small block route too, as the 3 and 4 rotor engines are expensive and kinda rare. Shit, I'm going up to WI in a few weeks and I might bring back a 88 SE my dad still has and do a LS1 in it.

  4. #4
    Senior Member KyleLs1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada eh
    Posts
    3,534

    NBM
    99 TA

    Quote Originally Posted by firechikin View Post
    Were your buddys cars turbo? The turbo cars ended up being unreliable because rotorys hate heat. Add a bigger intercooler and radiator and they last just as long as a piston engine if not more.
    One was turbo the rest were NA. The turbo car got the LT1 swap, the others were either scrapped for parts and one even got a nice trip out to a field with some gas and a match

    I personally LOVE the styling of the FD's and would absolutely love to have one with an LS Swap, but the rotary's lack of torque alone is enough to keep me away from one.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Age
    39
    Posts
    53

    Black
    1994 Firebird Formula

    Yeah, your not going to mash the pedal and break the tires loose in fourth or anything, but they are pretty fun to drive non the less, very nice handling and even the NA ones can put down some decent power numbers for being a light car. IMO a rotary is one of the best sounding engines out there, right up there with a SBC and followed by a boxer.

  6. #6
    Member Speed Psychosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Age
    28
    Posts
    499

    Red
    98 T/A M6 w/lid and LM1

    yeah roaries are by far the best engine ever. somewhat unreliable, but thats cuz there hasnt been much research put into them. mazda can't outdo every other company combined. now if ferrari had rights, that would be different. its much lighter and easier to make it go to higher rpm.

    the rx8 does seem to be reliable tho. they use to have short trip problems but a free mazda upgrade fixes that. plus, im over 6ft tall and fit easily and comfortably in the rear. but my friend has one (yellow, looks awesome) and gets much worse gas than me lol, especially on the highway.

    on expense tho, a 4 rotor costs about $50k installed lol.

    also, yes 2 rotor engines aren't torquey, but neither are 4 cylinders. and 3+ rotor engines have same torque as horsepower, or higher.

  7. #7
    Senior Member KyleLs1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada eh
    Posts
    3,534

    NBM
    99 TA

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Psychosis View Post
    on expense tho, a 4 rotor costs about $50k installed lol.
    lmao you could make just about ANY car run faster than that rx7 for 50 thousand dollars

  8. #8
    Junior Member KLEEMANN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Age
    51
    Posts
    36

    Firemist Red
    '05 AMG SLK55

    Quote Originally Posted by KyleLs1 View Post
    One was turbo the rest were NA. The turbo car got the LT1 swap, the others were either scrapped for parts and one even got a nice trip out to a field with some gas and a match

    I personally LOVE the styling of the FD's and would absolutely love to have one with an LS Swap, but the rotary's lack of torque alone is enough to keep me away from one.
    They have plenty of torque (and are reliable as one poster mentioned if properly tuned when making engine mods & replacing the stock radiator with a larger one). Here, read up (I think 590 rwtq is adequate in a 2700 lbs car - it goes sideways at 120 mph....in FOURTH gear ironically enough).

    It's funny how people only look at the torque a car produces, but don't account for its light weight....HINT: a light car needs much less torque to get "work" done when it weighs significantly less.

    Ls1 Rx-7

  9. #9
    Senior Member KyleLs1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada eh
    Posts
    3,534

    NBM
    99 TA

    Quote Originally Posted by KLEEMANN View Post
    They have plenty of torque (and are reliable as one poster mentioned if properly tuned when making engine mods & replacing the stock radiator with a larger one). Here, read up (I think 590 rwtq is adequate in a 2700 lbs car - it goes sideways at 120 mph....in FOURTH gear ironically enough).

    It's funny how people only look at the torque a car produces, but don't account for its light weight....HINT: a light car needs much less torque to get "work" done when it weighs significantly less.

    Ls1 Rx-7
    i was referring to a fairly stock one as having no torque (which they do not) sure you can build a torquy one if you want, but that was not what i was referring to.

    I just prefer a car that can cruise along decently without having to rev the piss out of it just so it will get out of its own way.

    I dont race my car alot, nor do i drive it overly hard on the street. I can shift at 2-2.5k rpm and still move along at a nice pace. Rarely do i ever rev it over 4k unless i am messing around but that is just my driving style.

    I was not bashing RX7s, Like i said before... i like the FDs but I don't personally like the rotary engine.

  10. #10
    Junior Member KLEEMANN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Age
    51
    Posts
    36

    Firemist Red
    '05 AMG SLK55

    Quote Originally Posted by KyleLs1 View Post
    i was referring to a fairly stock one as having no torque (which they do not) sure you can build a torquy one if you want, but that was not what i was referring to.

    I just prefer a car that can cruise along decently without having to rev the piss out of it just so it will get out of its own way.

    I dont race my car alot, nor do i drive it overly hard on the street. I can shift at 2-2.5k rpm and still move along at a nice pace. Rarely do i ever rev it over 4k unless i am messing around but that is just my driving style.

    I was not bashing RX7s, Like i said before... i like the FDs but I don't personally like the rotary engine.
    The current Renesis motors are torqueless turds. The non Renesis motors found in all RX-7 had plenty of torque (and arguably one of the smoothest/linear power deliverys of any engine produced). RX-7s are all light, so the torque needed to move them was negligable (especially FDs with twin sequential turbochargers....the first turbo always on spool during low revs to provide adequate low end grunt & the 2nd engaging at 4,500 rpms for major thrust).

    Another point to consider....(let's not consider the Renesis because we are in vehement agreement on that crappy rotary variant), RX-7s were purpose built sports cars with engines produced to "live" on a track where RPMs are always high. Serious/dedicated sports cars typically produce power & torque upstairs (technolgies have improved to offer more available torque down low in many more of today's cars, but that is a more recent phenom....the exceptions are typically big displacement powerplants). Examples: Ferraris, Porsche powerplants, Lotus's (ie Toyota engines), etc, etc.

    I do agree with you though - different strokes for different folks. I have both powerplants & like/appreciate them both for what they are. They are just different & you adjust your driving & derive pleasure from them differently (my RX-7 likes to scream up stairs, the SLK with a blown V8 pushes you down low with a low but loud authority). Have a good weekend Kyle.

  11. #11
    Senior Member KyleLs1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada eh
    Posts
    3,534

    NBM
    99 TA

    Quote Originally Posted by KLEEMANN View Post
    The current Renesis motors are torqueless turds. The non Renesis motors found in all RX-7 had plenty of torque (and arguably one of the smoothest/linear power deliverys of any engine produced). RX-7s are all light, so the torque needed to move them was negligable (especially FDs with twin sequential turbochargers....the first turbo always on spool during low revs to provide adequate low end grunt & the 2nd engaging at 4,500 rpms for major thrust).

    Another point to consider....(let's not consider the Renesis because we are in vehement agreement on that crappy rotary variant), RX-7s were purpose built sports cars with engines produced to "live" on a track where RPMs are always high. Serious/dedicated sports cars typically produce power & torque upstairs (technolgies have improved to offer more available torque down low in many more of today's cars, but that is a more recent phenom....the exceptions are typically big displacement powerplants). Examples: Ferraris, Porsche powerplants, Lotus's (ie Toyota engines), etc, etc.

    I do agree with you though - different strokes for different folks. I have both powerplants & like/appreciate them both for what they are. They are just different & you adjust your driving & derive pleasure from them differently (my RX-7 likes to scream up stairs, the SLK with a blown V8 pushes you down low with a low but loud authority). Have a good weekend Kyle.
    definitely agree with you, take care man.

  12. #12
    Member Speed Psychosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Age
    28
    Posts
    499

    Red
    98 T/A M6 w/lid and LM1

    I'm not a big fan of 2 rotor engines. They are low in torque. But i would never put an ls1 in one. Takes away the soul of the car. Plus, the T/A is a very similar car, but i think the t/a is better looking.

  13. #13
    Senior Member INMY01TA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The great red state of MD.
    Posts
    5,755

    Black
    2001 Trans Am (sold)

    Rotary=junk. Period.

  14. #14
    Junior Member KLEEMANN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Age
    51
    Posts
    36

    Firemist Red
    '05 AMG SLK55

    Quote Originally Posted by INMY01TA View Post
    Rotary=junk. Period.
    Ignorance. Period.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. rotor direction
    By dklowrider in forum Suspension and Handling
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 10:02 PM
  2. MSD cap and rotor LT-1
    By Teknik_SS in forum LT1
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-01-2009, 11:39 AM
  3. Rotor on a LT1
    By camarostripes96 in forum LT1
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-27-2007, 05:03 PM
  4. 04 gto rr brk/rotor problems?
    By plasterman182 in forum General Help
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-21-2006, 06:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •