Re: Normally aspirated and 840Nm of torque?! MY GOD!

Discussion in '1991 Mazda 787B' started by antp, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. Next time an F1 engine runs for 24hrs solid post it on this site.
     
  2. Normally aspirated and 840Nm of torque?! MY GOD!

    That is alot of torque!
    for a normally aspirated 2.6l engine! where did they hide the turbo... ?? <IMG SRC="http://www.supercarforums.com/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">)

    this car would have flat horsepower from 6500rpm-9000rpm because 840Nm @ 6500rpm makes around 700hp! 840Nm at 9000rpm would be about 1050hp!!!

    anyone here have any criticisms of rotaries? lmao<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. thats nothing, Formula 1 3 liter V10 make 850hp normally aspirated on 98 RON octane gasoline, 900hp in qualifying trim in the case of the BMW



    Pistons!!!
     
  4. hey . . . there will be no bashing f1! there was a bmw f1 engine used in the late '80s that was only a 1.5 litre. . .it created over 1200 horsepower. . . name me one other car that can match that hp per litre and i will be in your debt forever. <!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Well, it's called a funny car.... you know those V-8's that they don't dyno cause they'd BREAK the dyno. What else, not much of a gear box, just idle, reverse, FLY. I forget what kind of HP they're estimate at puting out, but I think it's around 10k or so, correct me if I'm wrong though.
     
  6. granted. . . some funny cars may have higher hp per litre. . . i dont think of them as cars exactly. . . but . . .i guess they are. . .anyway, my point was that to make fun of f1 cars and thier amazing eficiency (something you just can't say about a drag racer, no matter how hard you want to twist it)is just not too smart of a comment. . . (and lets see a funny car take an f1 through the corners of a track like monaco :p)<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 2002wrx</i>
    <b>hey . . . there will be no bashing f1! there was a bmw f1 engine used in the late '80s that was only a 1.5 litre. . .it created over 1200 horsepower. . . name me one other car that can match that hp per litre and i will be in your debt forever. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    I think that it was actually closer to 1300 hp and honda and ferrari had motors just like them.<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. Hey, all you asked for was BHP/liter
     
  9. The difference between the Honda and BMW motors is turbo. No other NA engine has this kind of effieciency. And funny cars are not only supercharged, but they run off of Nitromethane. That's kind of unfair, especially when you get 16 gal/mi.
     
  10. the reason this engine makes so much power is because rotary engines are the most effecient engines in delivering horsepower, there is no valve train, just mix as much fuel and air as you possibly can, thats why this thing has a peripheral port. Rotaries are tho worlds best designed engines, simple! and if you want to know what a peripheral port is it is pretty simple, you seal up the original fuel ports in the engine, then on the opposite sige of the block cut a hole the size of an exhuast pipe (same size/shape as the exhaust manifold), now you got yourself a fuel intake!
     
  11. i wouldn't go as far as to say the best engine ever. . . they have problems with wear on some seals . . . . . sure, they may be good in races, when the seals are replaced every time, but in normal driving the rotary is a tad too exotic. . .<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. how much in Nm is 448 lb ft? Because that's how much this engine actually outputs.

    Anyway, I doubt it is really normally aspirated, wankel engine does have good revving characteristic, but not necessarily a good torque kind of design. And as a Group C car, to optimize for fuel economy for the Group C formula, they are usually turbo charged, which is also a common setup for a wankel engine from Mazda.<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. yeah i am almost totally possitive that its turbo. . . (making the arguements about it being more amazing then the f1 engines totally false :p:p:p)<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. "i wouldn't go as far as to say the best engine ever. . . they have problems with wear on some seals . . . . . sure, they may be good in races, when the seals are replaced every time, but in normal driving the rotary is a tad too exotic. . ."

    And yet RX-7s still famous or infamous japanese sports cars and the new RX-8 boasts a what? A rotary. I think those count as normal drivers right?

    "Anyway, I doubt it is really normally aspirated, wankel engine does have good revving characteristic, but not necessarily a good torque kind of design. And as a Group C car, to optimize for fuel economy for the Group C formula, they are usually turbo charged, which is also a common setup for a wankel engine from Mazda. "

    Can I assume you've heard the car? It sounds nothing like the other turbo-charged racers, not only because it's a rotary, but because it's pure motor. If you can find me proof it's turbocharged, I'll conceed that a F1 motor makes more power per liter.

    "yeah i am almost totally possitive that its turbo. . . (making the arguements about it being more amazing then the f1 engines totally false :p:p:p)"

    Read above.
     
  15. As it seems that this might be N/A afterall, so far can't find anything specific on the car online due to all the damn GT3 site around, but if worked on the theory that a rotary car intheory have actually double the listed displacement, than this car works out to be around 5.2 liter, which makes a lot more sense.....

    But no it is not 840nm of torque. 448 ft.lb works out to be around 668nm.....<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. psycholis, you obviously have no solid evidence either. you claim to know what it sounds like, if thats all you have, then im not taking your word for it. . anyway, about the rotary . . . sure, people love it as a sports car, but im telling you, i know from work i have seen done, and helped out with using my own hands. . . the rotarys waer down alll sorts of parts. <!-- Signature -->
     
  17. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from RacingManiac</i>
    <b>how much in Nm is 448 lb ft? Because that's how much this engine actually outputs.

    Anyway, I doubt it is really normally aspirated, wankel engine does have good revving characteristic, but not necessarily a good torque kind of design. And as a Group C car, to optimize for fuel economy for the Group C formula, they are usually turbo charged, which is also a common setup for a wankel engine from Mazda.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    448 lb ft is shade more than a viper or a 454.

    668Nm means the 700hp @ 9000 make much more sense.

    Wankels make much more specific torque but its usually only concentrated in one part of the rev range giving that really peaky feel when driving. Like a 4-valve head compared to a old OHV you only get the benefit of better flow in a narrower part of the power band.

    668Nm from an equivlent 5.2l is still pretty good considering some restriction to horsepower required by race regulations. I've heard of good N/A wankel making about 30% more torque than a good piston engine at same rpm. This is mostly because wankels have no valvetrain powerloss or valves to obstruct gas flow.<!-- Signature -->
     
  18. yah....I think it's NA...
    given the incredible job you can do to a RX-7's twin rotary...you can pretty much expect hellfire from a quad-rotary TT...if there is....

    you can't put Turbos in F1's engines...it'll either give minimal effect or it'll blow...it's designed to be the best of NA and is at it's peak of intake already....compress and BOOM!!!...
    rotary-engines have way more room for improvements....however....power is not everything....imagine you reached 300mph in 5sec...but need a braking distance of 400m...you'll crash and burn.....drivers rule...not dragsters...
     
  19. "psycholis, you obviously have no solid evidence either. you claim to know what it sounds like, if thats all you have, then im not taking your word for it. . anyway, about the rotary . . . sure, people love it as a sports car, but im telling you, i know from work i have seen done, and helped out with using my own hands. . . the rotarys waer down alll sorts of parts. "

    Okay, you're right. I haven't heard the engine nor do I know whether or not it's turbocharged. It might seem implausible to have that kind of power with a 2.6L true, but as stated, a 5.2L seems more reasonable, if you use FIA regulations. Please clarify when you say "all sorts of parts". From what I can remember, the wankel only has 3 moving parts, as compared to a conventional piston motors 40. Less parts to break, that's my logic.

    "you can't put Turbos in F1's engines...it'll either give minimal effect or it'll blow...it's designed to be the best of NA and is at it's peak of intake already....compress and BOOM!!!..."

    They can and they have. The 1.3L F1 motors, as mentioned before, were turbocharged V-6s that produced the 1300 horsepower. They don't use turbo motors in F1 anymore, but Carts do. That's the difference between the two classes.

    "rotary-engines have way more room for improvements....however....power is not everything....imagine you reached 300mph in 5sec...but need a braking distance of 400m...you'll crash and burn.....drivers rule...not dragsters... "

    Indeed, but what if you could hit 150 mph and brake in 100m? There's a comprimise I'd be willing to make. 150 is plenty for most closed courses.
     
  20. Simple folks- Rotors, fire twice per rev (for each rotor), unlike 4 stroke piston engines, which fire once every two revs.

    Also, the rotary engine is a very revvy engine, and high revs mean a lot of engine momentum. Also, as they have very few moving parts, momentum is easily sustained, and gives a similar feeling to torque.

    But 2002wrx is right, the rotary is a fairly unreliable engine - I did a lot of research into series two RX-7's a while ago, as I was looking to buy, but unreliability was a bit of an issue, so I decided to steer clear of rotaries.

    COnsidering it was mazda developing the engine used in the 787B, we can speculate that they had a considerably large budget to spend on engine tech. They would most likely be using components in their engines that would be completely unrealistic for a production car. ceramic seals, custom manufactured ports instead of modifying existing housings and the like.

    <!-- Signature -->
     
  21. You poor bastards that think that rotors are unreliable, I pity you. Seeing it run for 24hrs proves that they are reliable, and if you guys want FURTHER proof.....check out the Bathurst 12hr production car race where a S6 RX7 whipped the ass off Porsche 3yrs running there and then another year at Eastern Creek (both tracks in Australia.) If you treat the 12A/13B/20B like a #$%#wit of course it's going to blow on you in no time sweet. But a good well maintained S4 13B turbo rotor will easily get over 200,000kms per motor which is on par if not higher than most piston motors. Back to this question, yes the 26B is N/A and will always be the king of hp/litre. The only motors that can match or better the level of the 26B Naturally aspirated (250hp/litre) is a F1 car which can equal it, or a 250/500cc motorbike which has roughly 400hp/litre. Even Pro Stock 812ci NHRA cars only get 240hp/litre. In turbo form the only things that have the same power are the old 80s turbo F1 motors and the current Top Fuel and Top Bike motors today. C yas!! Mafs!!<!-- Signature -->
     
  22. OK, does anybody here, except me, know why? this car won LeMans in 1991, with the non-reliable engine, which was proved when it broked a lot of times before and after the race.

    Why?
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  23. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from kenmclaren</i>
    <b>OK, does anybody here, except me, know why? this car won LeMans in 1991, with the non-reliable engine, which was proved when it broked a lot of times before and after the race.

    Why?
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    lol you have asked that at least 6 times in this particular part of the forum. Maybe fine tuning, and finally getting it all togeether for just that one race. Maybe it was just a stroke of luck

    Are you making a statement out of this question or are you just that persistant to know the answer?!<!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page