20B Rotary

[themadscientist]

All I'm saying is, the crank centerline on a rotary looks interestingly close to an FA20.





One wonders how hard it would be. Cant's be harder than a 2JZ.

[86 South Africa]

Originally Posted by TEDDER1

Wait are you making fun of something I said or agreeing? lol

As much as I still like rotaries, theyre just not practical.

BUT, IF I hit the lottery, I would get an N/A 4 rotor PP, and put it in an SLC kit car.


Again if money was of abundance.

Totally off topic... but I'm reading this thread, and got to this post and have gone off into my (billionaire) daydream where I am hooning around in one of these - hot babes waving from the side of the track, smoke pouring off the tyres......

[Ross]

Should be no harder then any other swap.

[TylerLieberman]

Originally Posted by ZDan

20B rotary puts out about 50% more torque vs. 2.0 liter piston engine.

I'd hope so, since it effectively has the same displacement of a 4.0L piston engine.

[toast]

Originally Posted by TylerLieberman

I'd hope so, since it effectively has the same displacement of a 4.0L piston engine.

That is incorrect.

In a four cylinder 2.0l piston engine each crankshaft rotation will see 1.0l worth of power (one combustion stroke per cylinder ever two rotations). In a 1.3l rotary each eccentric shaft rotation will see all 1.3l worth of power. If you are going to rate the rotary on the same scale (volume vs shaft rotation) it would be equivalent to a 2.6l engine.

[toast]

Sorry, didn't see that you were talking about a three rotor. Yes, for a 20B it is 4.0l.

[TylerLieberman]

Originally Posted by toast

That is incorrect.

In a four cylinder 2.0l piston engine each crankshaft rotation will see 1.0l worth of power (one combustion stroke per cylinder ever two rotations). In a 1.3l rotary each eccentric shaft rotation will see all 1.3l worth of power. If you are going to rate the rotary on the same scale (volume vs shaft rotation) it would be equivalent to a 2.6l engine.

Originally Posted by toast

Sorry, didn't see that you were talking about a three rotor. Yes, for a 20B it is 4.0l.

Lol ooooooooooooo I was smiling reading that first post, because I was getting ready to pwned your ass, then I saw your second comment and got a little bummed out.

[Hyper4mance2k]

Originally Posted by TylerLieberman

I'd hope so, since it effectively has the same displacement of a 4.0L piston engine.

OMG That is not true. Learn something from a book instead of from a hella stance meet or reddit.

A 10A displaces 1 liter; a 12A displaces 1.2 liters; a 13B displaces exactly 1.3 liters, no more, no less; a 20B displaces 2 liters.

The only difference is that a rotary displaces its full displacement per revolution. For example s 5.0 V8 only fires 4 cylinders per revolution, so it's only displacing 2.5 liters per revolution. Does that mean we say it's effectively a 2.5 liter? No! That would be madness.

And to stop the other madness some one is bound to spout off: rotaries are not 2 strokes. They have 4 complete combustion strokes every 3 revolutions of the engine. The only similarity is, like 2 strokes, they displace their full displacement per revolution. So, that 250cc 2-stoke dirt bike, isn't "effectively" a 500cc because it displaces it's full displacement per revolution. Saying that would be... wait for it... MADNESS! Also, rotaries inject some oil to keep the apex seals lubricated. Just the same way oil is used to keep control rings and cylinder walls lubed in a 4 stroke, or premixed in a two stroke...

Originally Posted by toast

That is incorrect.

In a four cylinder 2.0l piston engine each crankshaft rotation will see 1.0l worth of power (one combustion stroke per cylinder ever two rotations). In a 1.3l rotary each eccentric shaft rotation will see all 1.3l worth of power. If you are going to rate the rotary on the same scale (volume vs shaft rotation) it would be equivalent to a 2.6l engine.

NOOOOOOOOoooooo!

/endrant

[toast]

Settle down Beavis.

The statement that was made was that a 20b has the effective displacement of a 4.0 liter piston engine. Using your own words you agree with this. If you are going to compare any type of 4 cycle motor you look at the volume of air pumped through for a given amount of time. That makes the statement perfectly correct.

If you ever raced a rotary in, hell, any class of motorsports they always double the displacement of the rotary for classification.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Hyper4mance2k]

Originally Posted by toast

Settle down Beavis.

The statement that was made was that a 20b has the effective displacement of a 4.0 liter piston engine. Using your own words you agree with this. If you are going to compare any type of 4 cycle motor you look at the volume of air pumped through for a given amount of time. That makes the statement perfectly correct.

If you ever raced a rotary in, hell, any class of motorsports they always double the displacement of the rotary for classification.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

No. Displacement doesn't have anything to do with "a given amount of time." If you drink a two liter bottle of Pepsi, then fill it up with again and drink another two liters, is the bottle now a 4 liter bottle? No. It's still a 2 liter bottle of Pepsi. This is 8th grade science class, man. There is no such thing as "effective" displacement. It's a made up term.

I have raced rotaries for over 15 years. Almost no one doubles displacement anymore. That was done in the 80's because Rotaries were just faster than everything. Not because of displacement...

Sorry if I come off like an a$$h0l3, but for almost 20 years I've been repeating myself. It really is basic science. Time dies not change displacement, and effective displacement is simply a made up term used by people who don't understand the engine. Try googling effective displacement. Nothing comes up...

[toast]

If you're going to create any kind of equivalent between motors static displacement means nothing. A 2 liter with a turbo is still a 2 liter but unlikely to be put in the same class as a normally aspirated motor.

Again, settle down with the internet bravado. I haven't raced rotaries since the early 90's, but you're saying if I showed up with my 85 GSL SE with a 3 rotor I could compete in the 2l and under class? That would be fun.

I don't need to ask a science teacher anything, I run an atom smasher when I'm not arguing with know it alls on the interweb.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Hyper4mance2k]

Originally Posted by toast

If you're going to create any kind of equivalent between motors static displacement means nothing. A 2 liter with a turbo is still a 2 liter but unlikely to be put in the same class as a normally aspirated motor.

Again, settle down with the internet bravado. I haven't raced rotaries since the early 90's, but you're saying if I showed up with my 85 GSL SE with a 3 rotor I could compete in the 2l and under class? That would be fun.

I don't need to ask a science teacher anything, I run an atom smasher when I'm not arguing with know it alls on the interweb.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

That's cool, where do you work? My old roommate is a theoretical physicist.

[toast]

Brookhaven National Lab. I'm the operations specialist for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Hyper4mance2k]

Originally Posted by toast

Brookhaven National Lab. I'm the operations specialist for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I almost thought you were bullshitting me, because I've never heard anyone "in the biz" call it anything but a particle accelerator. I lived in Palmdale for 5 years, so I know a bunch of literal rocket scientists. LOL You think I'm a know it all, my friends are a million times worse. Damn rocket scientists.