250 bhp for 1300 cc ?!

Discussion in '2002 Mazda RX-8' started by liran, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. 250 bhp for 1300 cc engine ?!
    how did they do it ?
    maybe with a lot of turbochared?
  2. Re: 250 bhp for 1300 cc ?!

    Well the Hp is quite high, but you have to remember the revs this lil engine can pump out man!! 10K rpm?....
    Most cylinder driven cars can't even come near to this range, and of they do, the engine has to replaced after every what?...500miles? (hence F1/Indy Car engines).

    You just gotta remember that when you have a small displacement naturally aspirated engine, you need really high revs to get good HP. Although this is cool, torque does suffer a bit. Cylinder engines that work great with HP and torque usually have to be large displacements engines like the Corvette 5.7L, but then it operated @ a lower rpm and can get some powere pretty quickly.

    And btw, the new 1.3L renesis is not turbocharged..totally naturall aspirated =)

    DA PUN<!-- Signature -->
  3. Re: 250 bhp for 1300 cc ?!

    this is a perfect example that displacement is not reliant on power.
    The renesis engine doesn't even need a turbo here, yet it produces over 250hp. I'd say thats one amazing feat. Much props to the people at mazda!<!-- Signature -->
  4. #4 mazdub929, Aug 10, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: 250 bhp for 1300 cc ?!

    It is a rotary engine, nothing like any other engine available right now. If you want more information, a great web site is http://www.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm
    That will give even the worst newbie a great idea of how rotary engines work.

    Technically, the inventor of the rotary engine, Felix Wankel, said that the displacement should be doubled when comparing the rotary engine with engines with pistons, so the 13B rotary engines are 2600cc, but Mazda chose to measure it as 1300cc for marketing purposes. 192hp per liter sounds much better than 96hp/l. Still, 250hp for a nominally aspirated reliable 2.6L engine is great.
    An even better motor is the 26a, go to www.3rotor.com
    They even made four rotor (the 13B found in RX-7 has two rotors) so you can only imagine the output of a four rotor engine.
    You can obtain insane amounts of horsepower through raised compression ratio/proper ignition/higher octane fuel combination. That's a great way to get extra power out of an engine, raise the compression ratio. You see high output engines typically have higher compression ratios (9:1 or more) and that is where you use premium fuel.

    <!-- Signature -->
  5. Re: 250 bhp for 1300 cc ?!

    I disagree with the high-revving comment. The RX-7 has a very good power curve even at lower RPMs, and it has potential for an insanely great power curve. The reason why it is high revving is because it's a rotary engine. You can rev it all you want, it spins freely. The high revs do help though.
    You can get high-revs out of any large or small displacement engine if done correctly. You see six liter engines with 12,000RPM redlines because they use exotic materials and lighweight components and they have well designed bore/stroke. You can do the same with an 8 liter V8 engine if you truly wanted to.

    Mazda did not create the rotary engine. It is of German design.<!-- Signature -->
  6. Re: 250 bhp for 1300 cc ?!

    is it really?? i never knew, and which comany, or was it just a person???
  7. Re: 250 bhp for 1300 cc ?!

    Yep..Germans created the Rotary =) Cept they didn't get it right and ran outta funding so the Japs picked it up =)
    The company who made these engines is the same as the inventor I think..Wankels?

    Hehehe..true..but to me..avg rev and torque is nothing in the RX-7 TTRenesis when I usually drive shit like Corvettes, Porsches, etc =P

    DA PUN<!-- Signature -->
  8. Re: 250 bhp for 1300 cc ?!

    ooh..sorry..forgot to mention this..but I think the highest rev achieved on a Rotary in a lab with 54,000rpms!! before it blew!! =P
    Amazing eh?
    Pretty much jet engine speed =P

    DA PUN<!-- Signature -->
  9. Re: 250 bhp for 1300 cc ?!

    Porsche can kill this crap just by one finger.
  10. Re: 250 bhp for 1300 cc ?!

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SRB The Punisher</i>
    <b>ooh..sorry..forgot to mention this..but I think the highest rev achieved on a Rotary in a lab with 54,000rpms!! before it blew!! =P
    Amazing eh?
    Pretty much jet engine speed =P

    DA PUN</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    dunno about jet engine speeds, but i know the turbos on the efini's spun around 150,000 rpms. granted, its not an engine and it therefore has much less mass, but its still pretty impressive.<!-- Signature -->
  11. Re: 250 bhp for 1300 cc ?!

    Lol..yep =)
    But then a turbo is designed differently =P
    It doesn't produce power =P it amplifies..

    and btw..whoever said the Porsche would kick ass..I agree..but you have to compare displacement =P
    Porsche 911 TT = 3.2L (I think) TT =P
    Mazda RX-8 = 1.3L =P no TURBO!! =P

    I'm also guessing price tag would be totally off buy like 40,000rpm.

    DA PUN
    <!-- Signature -->
  12. Re: 250 bhp for 1300 cc ?!

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from IvanKaramazov</i>
    <b>Porsche can kill this crap just by one finger.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE --> Stop smoking your rock you crackfiend and get with the program. It was proven for 4 YEARS STRAIGHT ON THE TRACK, that Mazda are the better and more reliable production car than Porsche will be. Till I see Porsche win 4 years of 12hr Production races IN A ROW then I will say you dream well boy!! Besides, this car wasn't built as a 911 eater, but Mazda are sick of bitchslapping them across the track so they made it less powerful and more for the general sports driver, not the racer. 1 other reason that's been put up is simple, it's cheaper to insure!! C yas!! Mafs!!<!-- Signature -->

Share This Page