Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Dream Cars?

Rotary engines are kind of an anomally, I think the rule makers had alot of problems trying to level the playing feild. Rotary engines generally make twice the power per displacement but also use more fuel doing so. The '91 cars were at an ADVANTAGE as they were allowed to run 375 lbs lighter than Porsche, Jag and Mercedes which is a considerable amount on a race car. You are partially correct re the engine size if you are using a Jag as comparison but Porsche used only a 3.2L four stroke vs Mazdas 2.6 Rotary. Cheers.

I should add that the Jags were N/A engines.

Mazda's 2.6 was also NA, but classed as a 7.8L NA. The reason Mazda had to use the variable length intake was because of that classing. In order to get their power output up to competitive levels they had to achieve unheard of volumetric efficiencies, and without forced induction. The only way to get enough air into the engine at full scream was to cut huge intake holes into the side of the block. But at lower revs these ports would stall.

So the runners would extend at pit speeds to allow the inertia of the air flow to keep the ports from stalling, but in the higher RPM range the long runners would become a restriction so they would pull back.

Classed as a 7.8L Mazda needed to be making nearly 800 HP to be competitive. They got 750 out of this little 2.6L naturally aspirated block.

Long live the 787B!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9675TKafw3g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1BWv7iPFUg

EDIT, PS: I'm a total rotor head, and have owned four different RX-7s, but am down to two now. One coupe, and one convertible. The convertible is getting a new engine installed (this is a more expensive project than my home theater), but I have the block.

Many races are won in the boardroom when they draw up the rules. The ACO, as they are doing now, alter the rules in favour of one or another type of engine construction to either promote a different technology or bring in new competitors, not necessarily fair to the stallwarts of the sport. This is why there has been Audis winning year after year, because many manufacturers simply don't build deisel engines that the ACO has made the flavour of the month. I'd like to get back to the late 90s type competition where we saw BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Toyota, Nissan, McLaren and Ferrari going at it. That was some great racing as were the great battles between the Porsche 917s and the Ferrari 512s decades ago.

I don't know if I've posted this video before, but this is my dream vehicle. The van that I currently have is getting old and I hit my head on the roof every time I enter or exit it because I have grown since I purchased it. At around $100,000 Canadian it's a steep price for independence, but independence doesn't have a price tag.

$100,000 and NO AFTERBURNERS Cam??

The afterburners kick in when my arm spasms and I pin the gas lever foreword uncontrollably. Actually, that's a scary thought

I don't know that I'd call it my dream car, but the Saab 9-X Air has a certain cool factor.

Those screens are certainly uncommon.

12 Hours of Sebring today, and I get to watch it (happy dance!). Yes, on the TV, but I just got my Speed channel yesterday. Good timing, by accident. Still fiddling with the cable box, but today I'll just let it tape how it tapes, for 12 hours. Of my favorite racing series. So excited!

Crap!! my free trial on Speed Channel just ended recently...it's not being picked up by any of the other networks is it?

Not as far as I know. Of course, they interrupted the race to do 2 hrs of Nascar preview and qualifying--WTF? (knew it was coming, but it still bugs me a bit.)