Outer Limits 4x4 Board

ofr57 wrote:i rember back when australian short course was on a little blue soft top cut into a ute ran one .... turboed of course

but its gearing needed work ... not low enough it , had heaps of grunt though it took alittle for it to spool up but yeah didn't die

didn't do to good since would wheel spin alot

My Mate owns this now. Its been stretched and now has a Pintara rear diff housing in it with rear disc brakes. The boost has also been would up. A few months ago is broke a crawler transfer case, so its back to stock now, but it goes like stink on-road. WAY too much power for a zook tho.

ive been in the rota'd zook and ill let u no wit 5psi boost it pulls from xr6 turbo utes with cold air induction and boost in it! as for offroad its 2 crazy! THE THING IS INSANE

foxmotorsports_seirra wrote: ive been in the rota'd zook and ill let u no wit 5psi boost it pulls from xr6 turbo utes with cold air induction and boost in it! as for offroad its 2 crazy! THE THING IS INSANE

I raced him a few weeks ago in my XR6T ute (standard) and JUST started to reel him in. If it weren't for the ridiculous amounts of wheelspin coming from the butter cutters on the rear ( every gear up to 140 and still going ) he would have caned me

i thought it was off the road i guess not ,i'll have to get him to take me for a spin i would like to see for myself, any way who's going to city view sat night for logon night run

there used to be a car called a nsu and it had a twin roter rotery i only saw one in newcastle it used to beat gt falcons off the mark and to 100mph thats 160kph to you metric peaple

NSU Ro80 - they were also available with a piston motor I believe. It's a long time since I have seen one on the road, but yes, apparently they were a good thing.

Actually, how cool would a rotary DS Citroen be?... anyway... I digress

There is a fair point though here with high powered rotaries and Zooks. I reckon with maybe 50 kw and 100nm, my 1.0 with a welded rear diff and swampers has far more speed than the handling can keep up with.

Ultimately, you can only use as much power as the car can deploy (or brake)

I think there is a fine line between "fun" and "dangerous" both on and off road when it comes to power/weight.

I still say an efi series 4 13B would be plenty- you'd get all the advantages of a rotor (linear response and broad rev range) without a slug of boost stuffing it up.

Steve.

Its all great on the highway but I want to run it in a Lowrange truck with S3 and 4.8lux, prob run 33's or 34's and it will be auto.

Seems like the feel is that it wont be great at low revs but the numbers off redbook says the 13B can do most of the torque at 2500/3000rpm.

I say get the stall speed in the auto right and it will be fine.

Steve.

boner59 wrote:there used to be a car called a nsu and it had a twin roter rotery i only saw one in newcastle it used to beat gt falcons off the mark and to 100mph thats 160kph to you metric peaple

according to google it is not a rotary it's a wankel and it a triple rotar config at 995cc 115hp@5500 rpm 0 to 96 in 10.4 go figer

Hey All
I think the Rotary is a very underated engine for 4wding. After running with Seans pro mod Buggy this year we have made some changes to what was essentially a standard series 5 rx-7 turbo engine.
In its early days it was quite tempermental and a little snappy but had plenty of balls up high.

This year we have spent a lot of time rectifing these issues.The biggest improvement was to piss off the standard throttle body and manifold setup. We are now running a Webber manifold with a custom plenum and a lot smaller thriottle body.This has rectified the drivability down low and increased the usable torque 10 fold.
Yes the transfer has gearing in it 5.1:1 but after driving many offroad vehicles it would be one of the more controllable. This last year we have never had a situation where the engine couldn't push the car a few times we have had to back of as we thought something was going to brake driveline wise well before the engine ran out of grunt. The final drive ratio is only about 60:1 and turbo only pushes 4-5 psi.
My next Zook which hopefully will begin its build up soon for winch type of events will have High comp 13b (rx-4 r5 engine for those in the know) and a series 5 turbo and should be able to mix it with the big v8's and turbo'd 6's.

SAM

boner59 wrote:

boner59 wrote:there used to be a car called a nsu and it had a twin roter rotery i only saw one in newcastle it used to beat gt falcons off the mark and to 100mph thats 160kph to you metric peaple

according to google it is not a rotary it's a wankel and it a triple rotar config at 995cc 115hp@5500 rpm 0 to 96 in 10.4 go figer

How is a Wankel not a rotary? It's like saying it's not a diesel its a compression ignition motor. Wankel is the name of the inventor of the rotary engine.... just like diesel is the name of the inventor of the compression ignition engine.

What do we have to "go figure"? That was excellent performance in its day, the real problem was rotor seal wear, I think they weren't good for more than 60,000km.

I was not aware they were triple rotor though.

Steve.

I think the 20b was the 3 rotor wankel rotary. I drove a sierra ute bog stock with a 13b in it in the early 90's, felt like I was about to meet god at 130km, it was bouncing all over the place, excellerated well but just had that feel about it that something was about to go ping snap underneath.

rustyvit wrote:I think the 20b was the 3 rotor wankel rotary.

Only if it was built by Mazda. NSU, Mercedes and GM (and I am sure others) played with the Wankel design before Mazda took it on. It nearly bankrupted them, as the 1973 oil crisis hit just as they were trying to roll it out, and Rotaries are nothing if not thirsty.

Through the '70's Mazda put them in everything - 18 seater busses.... Holden kinsgwoods... you name it (google Mazda roadpacer")

Other than the FD RX7 (series 6, 7, 8), I still reckon the sweetest rotary was the original 10A cosmo. I knew a guy that had a mint one in his garage. Just stunning.

Steve.

10a 12a- single rota.
13B-twin rota
20B-Tripple rota.(cosmo) www.3rotor.com

we cant forget the suzuki RE-5 either... while ALOT smaller than a standard rota, would certainly make two wheels interesting..

Where is Big Steve...!? he had an RX4 or 5 that flew!!! such a nice car, oh how i miss that..... :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkPeB1rAagU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYUqHpOq9c

Hi all, I saw a Suzuki RE-5 go for about $5000 on ebay
rare bike, I think it would be fun to ride!

i had a test ride on a suzuki RE.5 after riding BSA' 650 it scared the crap out of me also NORTON built a rotary race bike and a limeted amount of road bike in the 80s the race bike was faster then the 2stroke race bikes at the time but it kept breaking. it was a twin chamber rotary 588cc and was good for 233 kph

Don't know if its still the case but Norton were also supplying Rotaries for target drones - because of their high power to weight ratio.

But was a few years ago......

i thought target drone got $10phr and as much coke cola and mars bars as they could consume if there are giving out rotorys at target I'm getting a job there

In my limited observations of the drones at Target - I certainly didn't see any sign of hight power to weight ratios either.

And am reasonably certain shooting at them is frowned upon. Service might improve but.....

foolsp33d wrote:10a 12a- single rota.
13B-twin rota
20B-Tripple rota.(cosmo) www.3rotor.com

all 10a and 12a were TWO rotor engines.

10a= 1 litre displacment (approx)
12a= 1.2
13b= 1.3
20b= 2.0

ive been playin with these engines for 10 or so years and am having thoughts of a injected 6 port s4 engine into my drover. i have all the bits but im lazy and it probably wont happen.

i would like you to explain those figure to an engineer bigzuk
13b = more like 2.6ltr
rotor size x 2
it was explained to me that as it fire stroke fire stroke then exaust stroke you have to times it by 2 for the 2 fire strokes and that was by the engineer

bigzuk wrote:

foolsp33d wrote:10a 12a- single rota.
13B-twin rota
20B-Tripple rota.(cosmo) www.3rotor.com

all 10a and 12a were TWO rotor engines.

10a= 1 litre displacment (approx)
12a= 1.2
13b= 1.3
20b= 2.0

ive been playin with these engines for 10 or so years and am having thoughts of a injected 6 port s4 engine into my drover. i have all the bits but im lazy and it probably wont happen.

Thanks for clearing that up Bigzuk! was just venting my thoughts, wasnt entirely sure but.

Did find this to confirm your on the ball! lol

10A
982cc (1 litre)
2 x 60mm wide rotors
Carbureted

12A
1146cc (1.2 litres)
2 x 70mm wide rotors
Carbureted/EFI

13B
1308cc (1.3 litres)
2 x 80mm wide rotors
Carbureted/EFI

20B
1962cc (2.0 litres)
3 x 80mm wide rotors
EFI

Offroader-rama Perhaps this might help your understanding of why Rotaries are so often quoted as being twice the capacity they actually are......

Because of the way a rotary works, its actually performing the full four stroke cycle at the same time.

Its cycle is continuous - it can be drawing in charge, compressing, combusting and exhausting it using the three chambers formed by the moving rotor and housing, at the same time.

This "confused" registration authorities who make money by charging by the CC and so doubling its actual displacement brought it into the right power output class in their minds and so on.

Racing had the same problem - even though its not a 2 stroke it just made too much power for it capacity and so as it seemed to be making power like a 2 stroke its "capacity" was again doubled.

An interseting example of reality having to adjust for the rules.

I was saying the same thing in a shorten round about way
I know 13b has a 1.3ltr combustion chamber x 3 !! but tell that to an engineer or transport department etc... they argue till the cows come home etc...

the 1.3/2.6 argument has been goin on for years on the rotary forums.

its been like it for years and will be for years to come.

pretty much its a way to disadvantage the engine as it whoops anything of a similar size with ease in both power and torque.

mrRocky wrote:the 13b is a 1.3 ltr, is this correct

Yes thats correct, 2x 654cc rotors.

offroader-rama wrote:I know 13b has a 1.3ltr combustion chamber x 3 !!

Wheres the third one? 13B's are a twin rotor.

but each rotor has 3 combustion chambers

offroader-rama wrote: I know 13b has a 1.3ltr combustion chamber x 3 !!...

Not trying to stir the pot
But have you measured this your self say a bucket with 1.3ltrs of liguid and poured it all in? Dont get me wrong I mean no harm but I have seen a rotar in pieces and it didnt look like it would hold 1.3 ltrs in each section of the rotar.
and going by those calcs a 13B would be equivelent to 7.8 ltr,

Or did you mean: each rotar is 1.3ltrs in total?

Not trying to have a dig

what i was getting out, which i think you read between the lines danzo, is that a piston engine has one piston per pot which goes up, bang, goes done, comes back up and lets the exhaust out, then repeats the cycle, hence one combustion chamber and a four stroke engine so you times that combustion chamber by the amount of cylinders giving cc of engine.

now a rotory has three combustion chambers as it has three sides to a rotor and in any one cycle all three chambers has fired and let exaust out
now thats laymans understanding, the specifics of each rotors combustion chamber in cc I HAVE KNOW IDEA

BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS NO MATER HOW MUCH YOU ARGUE BETWEEN YOURSELFS ABOUT THE CC'S OF A ROTORY ENGINE AND PULL WHAT EVER FIGURES FROM GOOGLE AND CALL IT WANKLE CALL IT NASA MADE FOR ALL I CARE.
A 13B TO AN ENGINEER AND TRANSPORT IS 2.6LTR THROW A TURBO ON AND ITS 2.8LTR A 12A IS 2.4LTR ADD TURBO 2.6LTR AND THEY WONT BUDGE IF YOU CAN FIND ME ONE THAT WILL, HAVE HIM POST IT HERE AND HE WILL HAVE ENOUGH WORK TO LAST A LIFE TIME............