Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Picture of your car (2011)
- Thread starter r.j.s
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
A rotary engine has three faces so 1.3L is actually 3.9L. There's really not much advantage to a rotary in terms of power. They are definitely NOT more efficient--compared to piston engines, I think of them as making torque like a 1.3L, drinking fuel like a 3.9L, and making horsepower somewhere in between. They just tend to be smoother (no reciprocating motion) and rev higher (partially a function of smoothness). Mechanical engineering was my minor so maybe a real mechanical engineer could explain more.
^^^ I'd say it's equivalent to a 2.6L, as only two of the three faces undergo a combustion process at the same time (the other is evacuating gases).
(I'm not an engineer at all, tough
)
(I'm not an engineer at all, tough
)
You're close. The 1.3L rotary is actually closer to a 2.6L reciprocating engine in terms of displacement. See this article: http://www.rx7.com/techarticles_displacement.html
I have an odd affinity for rotary engines. There's just something really cool about the way they work, and it certainly helps that there was an RX7 sitting in my driveway for a good part of my childhood. If I remember correctly, our biggest issue with the engine was that it liked to eat oil.
EDIT: lewis82 beat me to the bunch by what... 4 hours? This is why you should refresh (really) old tabs before replying.
the older FD type engines did have serious issues with oil consumption.
though properly maintained they were pretty reliable cars.
hahahaha I'll agree with the "stick a RWD V8 in any car and it makes it better"
V8s to cars are like bacon is to food. Everything is better with bacon. I think the haters are usually just jealous. For pretty much every anti-V8 argument, there's a favorable counterargument for the V8.
Weight? aluminum OHV V8s can be fairly light. Turbos? But a V8 can do the same power/torque for less $$ and usually with similar gas mileage.. sound? Yea... uh.. yea.
V8s to cars are like bacon is to food. Everything is better with bacon. I think the haters are usually just jealous. For pretty much every anti-V8 argument, there's a favorable counterargument for the V8.
Weight? aluminum OHV V8s can be fairly light. Turbos? But a V8 can do the same power/torque for less $$ and usually with similar gas mileage.. sound? Yea... uh.. yea.
And BMW disagrees with you....
They had to put a V8 in the E46 to make it competitive with 6-cylinder Porsches. The E46 M3 is a fantastic car, I agree, but sometimes a couple extra cylinders can make all the difference.
And BMW disagrees with you....
Image
They had to put a V8 in the E46 to make it competitive with 6-cylinder Porsches. The E46 M3 is a fantastic car, I agree, but sometimes a couple extra cylinders can make all the difference.
The coveted E46 M3 GTR. I believe they only made 100 of them.
And BMW disagrees with you....
Image
They had to put a V8 in the E46 to make it competitive with 6-cylinder Porsches. The E46 M3 is a fantastic car, I agree, but sometimes a couple extra cylinders can make all the difference.
The final iteration of the E46 M3 ALMS race car -- which reappeared based on the homologation 6 cyl production after a few years hiatus -- ended up being faster than the original V8 M3 GTR. That's how much they improved over time developing the E46. But that's not what I say. It's what BMW told me when I chatted with them in the Team PTG paddock at Sebring a few years ago. At that time, the I6 M3 Sebring lap times were faster than the GTR lap times from earlier years...same track. Team PTG was responsible for racing the I6 variant of the E46 M3 race car in ALMS.
Now the E92 M3 race car is kicking everyone's ass in ALMS, including those with less (Porsche), the same (Corvette, Ferrari, Jaguar, Ford), and more (Aston-Martin) cylinders.
Last edited:
I believe it was 25, and only 10 road going cars went on sale (in Germany and Saudi Arabia). That's why Porsche cried foul and IMSA changed the homologation for the GT classes to 100 production cars & 1000 engines.
I believe the homologation requirement is much higher now (2500?).
Last edited:
There were rumours that the offered them for sale as a token gesture and never actually sold/delivered a single road car.
Sure, given enough development time, every race car will continuously get faster. In race series like that they are always hampered by power restrictions anyway, so much of the lap improvements are from chassis and suspension changes/tweaks. I was just showing that, in my opinion, dropping a V8 in an already awesome car can lead to great things.
And dropping a V8 in an already awesome car can just as easily lead to complete and total crap. The number of cylinders alone has little to do with it. It's about the whole package.
I had an uncle-in-law who dropped a Corvette engine into a Triumph TR6. Made the car faster in a straight line, but handling otherwise went completely out the window. I though it was a stupid waste of two cars.
The current M3 GTS may be one of the best packages BMW motorsport has ever put together. It has the potential to show Corvette-like dominance of Le Mans racing. The 1-2 at Sebring was a blast to watch.
HAHA, yes that would be an example of a BAD engine change. And I'm not saying that more cylinders always improves a car. With the E46, though, it was such a well sorted chassis, adding just a bit more power would hardly ruin it.
Sankersizzle said:
No it doesn't. They made a version with a V8, and it was better.
People forget that V8's weren't always a huge displacement. Do a small displacement all aluminum V8 (with or without the turbos) and it'll make anything better. The RX8 sucks because it's underpowered. You could get a V8 in without adding too much weight. Boxster? Yeah, small displacement aluminum V8? HELL YEAH.
Like I said, there isn't a car on earth that wouldn't be better with a RWD V8 from the factory. No car on earth. Yugo? Metro? V8! I'll allow AWD in some rare cases....like say...new Fiesta...Supercharged V8 + unkillable AWD system? I'd buy that and drive it for the rest of my life.
A V8 would destroy the Boxster. Not for weight reasons but for shape reasons. The flat 6 fits where it is and makes the packaging work. A flat 8 would be fine but not something as tall as a V anything.
No. RaceTripper beat me to this, but the point remains all the same.
I'm okay with this. Porsche needs to fire all it's design people anyways. They've only designed two things from scratch and they're both pants ********ly ugly. My argument stands. Formula one is using 4 cylinder cars now. They used to use V8's, and they were better. Life is too short to drive anything with less than 300 horsepower.
Formula 1 is still using V8s, and have been since mid last decade when they switched from V10s. There is a planned FIA rule change to switch to 1.6L turbo 4 cyls. in 2013, but that is still very open to change.
Porsche is still the most successful sports car racing company on the planet, so they must be doing things right. I don't think there is any sports race car that can be called ubiquitous, other than the Porsche 911 platform.
- Status