Honda one of the best engine builders in the world !
bellky,
Apr 17, 12:40pm
Actually there's an argument (a correct one) that 13B cubic capacity is 3924cc and 12A is 3438cc.
mals69,
Apr 17, 12:41pm
Hardly big block territory
mals69,
Apr 17, 12:47pm
Original point was not if its punching above its weight but who is King .
foxdonut,
Apr 17, 12:50pm
No, but the same capacity in a v8 can easily make over 350 horse all motor tune, if you people could just look past the fact that there ate other card and engines in the world outside of holden when doing your comparisons.
a.woodrow,
Apr 17, 12:51pm
Let's hear the argument (seeing as the thread is hijacked anyway)
Would your rotary be faster than a 5l holden ! bet it would be
mals69,
Apr 17, 12:54pm
Physics is the truth and like the truth you cannot argue against it, hence why you little back pedaling punks so easy to knock back - you are trying to approach someone with a gatling gun
a.woodrow,
Apr 17, 12:58pm
But as we have established with the example of my ford, displacement doesn't guarantee a faster vehicle. Sorry scotty you lose this one
mals69,
Apr 17, 12:59pm
Why you blowing about a 5L holden tractor motor, check ya fairmont firewall think you be sniffing to many fumes
mals69,
Apr 17, 1:00pm
Cause of the bloody weight of it , yeah friggin tractor engine big cubes too but even your fairmont will take it, performance orientated FFS
a.woodrow,
Apr 17, 1:01pm
because it is an example of a larger displacement engine that couldn't pull the skin of a rice pudding. tearing a great big hole in your "physics" scotty.
mals69,
Apr 17, 1:05pm
Nother friggn dentist - all things being even with weight, fuel, air input etc . bloody old fairmont worse example anyone could put forward .
a.woodrow,
Apr 17, 1:05pm
It's nothing to do with weight, you could put it in anything, it's still a poor performing engine.
foxdonut,
Apr 17, 1:06pm
Thats not an example of anything other than a engine built to a specification.
More displacement will always equal more power, or more accurately more opportunity for power.
a.woodrow,
Apr 17, 1:07pm
nope, like I said, its a good example of a big, relatively gutless engine that could be bested by something much smaller. sorry scotty your argument is falling apart. Maybe you should just admit now that small engines can be just as powerful as big ones - it's all in the design
a.woodrow,
Apr 17, 1:09pm
Yes - more *opportunity* for power, not what he was arguing though.
foxdonut,
Apr 17, 1:16pm
No, he's saying more displacement = more power.
You're saying RX7 vs Falcon.
mals69,
Apr 17, 1:17pm
Go back through the thread Wilson and you will actually see where I said the best potential for power, Big cubes (light motor) in a light vehicle is the winning formula - extreme drag-rail. I've got a small motored vehicle that is the equivalent of 650HP per Ton, I'm not silly enough to ever say it will ever have the potential to take down a worked 8 down the 1/4 , the container for the explosion severely limits its potential . the fox gets it !
a.woodrow,
Apr 17, 1:21pm
No, I actually compared my 4.0l ford to a 2.0l jappa. point being that more displacement = more power isn't always right
mals69,
Apr 17, 1:22pm
He says its black you say its white your boring game
extrayda,
Apr 17, 1:24pm
cubes PLUS technology = more power.Doesn't matter what the motor is.Why do you think there are triple rotors (and quads I think!).Motor design is still the same, so what are they gaining! More capacity = more power.Same with the V8's and even 4's get stroked (there would obviously be a balance somewhere of stoke vs revs though). No offence if you have a 1,2,3,5,6,10,12 cylinder motor same applies :-)
a.woodrow,
Apr 17, 1:25pm
Yeah it has become boring so I won't bother repeating myself again, stick around though scotty you have been entertaining!
foxdonut,
Apr 17, 1:31pm
No.
You're comparing your car to another car. Your car may be a heap of shit, built cheap and running a 4 litre motor designed by accountants, marketing and sales people, to a limited budget, but that doesn't mean it bucks the trend in reality.
The single most powerful 2 litre engine I can think of off the top of my head for a road car built en mass is that Honda unit from the S2000, which for ages held some loopy, pointless record of most power per litre output or some shit like that.
Today, a V8 holds that record, using more than twice the capacity.
Same for anything. If you want top end or acceleration, more litres = more fast - and this can be seen in cars all round the world as a comparison.
bellky,
Apr 17, 1:33pm
Argument here: http://www.ausrotary.com/viewtopic.php!f=16&t=33795&start=140 but you probly need to be logged in so in short: Displacement is measured on the full cylce of the engine. A 2 stroke takes one revolution (360 degs) and is rated on all cylinder faces, a 4 stroke takes two revs (720 degs) rated on all cylinder faces, and a Wankel takes three revs (1080 degs) rated on all rotor faces. A Wankel 13B has a single rotor face displacement of 654cc and 2 cylinders and three faces on each rotor, so that equals 654x2x3=3924cc of completed cycle. If it was a 2 stroke it would be 1308cc, if it was a 4 stroke it would be 2616cc, but to complete its cycle it needs another revolution and is 3924cc.
mals69,
Apr 17, 1:41pm
Sounds like a whole lot of wankel - better not educate some of you tools to much and put up the price of V8's even more, Fox and a limited few others in here know where its at !
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.