Ahahahaha, now you guys know how us ITR guys felt when we found out that the S2000 had 600 extra rpm to play with than us .

Oh yeah, you guys also took away the ITR's distinction of having the highest specific output on a US legal engine .

[Edited by Type R 1090 on 05-06-2001 at 01:03 AM]

 

Hey Andrew, we'll still have the distinction of the "highest redline for a production piston engine". Sound good enough?

 

I'm thinking of getting the Amuse ECU that bumps the redline limit to 9,500 just to make myself feel better...hehe. J/K.

Andrew

 

Truly it is good enough Jay, but it sure would be nice to see a big 10 before the red...10 is just a nice, even, rounded, beautiful number...haha.

Andrew

 

So how does it feel?

 

It's all good. Part of one big, high revving family .

 

I don't brag about it anyways.

 

gee guys it's all relative....my old MB5 honda 50 has a 10,500 rpm redline..it has piston[s] but it's a... gasp...two stroke!!..btw didn't all the late RX7's have turbos???the one i drove was laaaag city...VTEC notwithstanding i like the s2k's connected feeling way better.

 

Man, isn't the rotary engine engineering at its most distilled? I mean if you want rotational motion, why don't you start with rotational motion? There are only three moving parts in the motor, the two rotors and the crankshaft. No valves, no cams, no timing chains. Think of all the parasitic losses that you don't have. Not to mention the fact that it produces power strokes more along the lines of a 2 stroke rather than a 4 stroke, hence the reason the new naturally aspirated RENESIS can push 250+hp out of only 1.3l of displacement. In short, I can hardly wait until the rotary hits North American shores again. A great engine that has never been given the respect that it deserves.

The F20C is, of course, amazing too, but in a different way.

 

Beg to differ; the rotary is very respected, it just
doesn't work very well for current needs. The main problem is that it isn't particularly fuel-efficient or emissions friendly. But the power/weight rocks, as does the rev capability. Hmmm, sort of like a two stroke.

There was a time, oh, about 30 years ago, when many experts (like Stirling Moss) thought that F1 cars would by now be powered by wankels by drivers lying prone head first (!), which sounds even less comfortable than the current arrangement of driving in a bath tub.

And rotaries also seem to have uninspiring torque, as befitting the power/size/rev nature. There's no substitute for displacement for those that need torque. So rotary development has languished because its tradeoffs are in directions that are opposed to most current needs.

-dB