My buddy owns a 92' RS. I just finished a complete drivetrain swap in my 1991 Mazda RX-7, and part of that swap was going from a N/A motor to a full out turbocharged and streeported beast. After that, i've got my old N/A engine sitting in my garage, and he wants it in HIS car to replace his old, worn out (180k+ miles) 3.1. After all, it only has 98,000 miles on it.

So, any reccomendations on where to begin this project? Or would we be the first people to have a Rotary powered Camaro on our hands?

 

Yup you'd have the first rotary camaro i know of, i'd also nominate you for having one of THE slowest camaros around short of some ******* missing half his plug wires and original plugs on a 190,000 mile LG4 car.

 

Did the compression check out on the old engine? I ask, as my sister's 94 has less mileage and required a rebuilt engine and 2 rebuilt turbos. From what I understand, the 100k mile mark is often the point of a rebuild. It wouldn't make sense to expend effort and money to swap from one tired engine to only install another.

 

I'm a huge fan of weird engine swaps but I think its a really horrible idea.... you'd go through all this trouble (and money) just to have a slow unreliable car.

Some people swear by rotaries but every time I go to the track I never see one make a clean pass (unless its a stock slow one) They always backfire, sputter, break-up, and barely make it down the track while waking up the entire neighborhood only to run a 13.5 in a completely gutted race car with wheelie bars.

 

I know someone who has put a 350 in an RX-7, but to put a wenkel motor in a camaro would be a pretty bad idea. It would be unique, no doubt, but once the newness of it wore off, you'd be left with a slow, unreliable camaro - which is probably what you are trying to escape.

 

>Some people swear by rotaries but every time I go to the track I >never see one make a clean pass (unless its a stock slow one) >They always backfire, sputter, break-up, and barely make it >down the track while waking up the entire neighborhood only to >run a 13.5 in a completely gutted race car with wheelie bars.

absolutely true! that's exactly what I was thinking while I was reading this thread

 

I would think a 20B would be acceptable, those engine make like 300lb/ft of torque from 200o rpm to redline

 

Please dont give him any reasons/hints to do this. Please.

Im sorry but unique and cool have some fine lines. But I guess some of you guys like the iron dukes, lol, i guess they are rare... COOL!

 

i could see you putting a rebuilt, ported, turbo rotory in there.

but the 100k+ worn one?


if he wants to do somthing fun and wierd with it like that, tell him to stick the same engine you got in there... wont be as fast because the car weighs more, but still difrent.



as for what i would do with the lil worn rotory....

tube frame gokart anyone? lol...

 

i ran 12.2 @117 in my 87 Turbo 2...and yes it backfired when i downshifted because of the backpressure of the turbo.... and it wasn't completely consistent because it was a hard car to launch with the power it had...on street tires, being light and a harsh clutch...but was always in the 12's whether high or low....and i am thinking about getting another...i had less problems with that then i do with my third gen....most rotaries do not run right because they are not tuned right....

 

hmmmmm

try taking some weight off a chevy car and strap on a turbo

the times these imports are acheiving with a turbo would never be able to be reached NA

 

what do you classify as unreliable?
n/a motors that generally get about 200k+ miles on them WITHOUT TOUCHING THE MOTOR ITSELF?

guess that is unreliable

or maybe the 196k miles I have put on my car with beating the crap out of it ALL THE TIME.
you know 8k rpm shifts on a 7k rpms redline
dumping the clutch at 6 grand
racing it around on the back roads all the time

guess that would be unreliable

motors should last 300k or more on a regular basis without even looking at the motor for it to be reliable I guess

as far as going turbocharged if done right can last you 140k or so
unless you don't know ho to tune it which still isn't unreliable
so either one of two things here
you either don't know what you are talking about
or everyone you know that has had a rx7 doesn't know what they are doing

as far as slow and such

in a thirdgen I agree it wouldn't be that fast



88IROC350TPI
a rotary motor with ANY exhuast work will more often then not backfire on the shift
something to do with running rich and the way the exhuast port it set up
as far as the sputtering/breaking up goes who knows
but I will say one thing any modded turbo car running more then just a basic i/e prolly shouldn't be running the stock comptuer being it SUCKS for heavy mods and lots of boost
my friends did the same thing
found out the computer wasn't giving him enough fuel
swapped it out with a haltech and everything has been fine since then

and 13.5 on a gutted race car with wheelie bars isn't that great being the stock thirdgen ran 13.8 or so with a good driver stock
and I know of quite a few (some personally) that are running mid 12's if not a little lower in one car
mid to high 11's in another car or even a little better
in full street trim, stereo system, and whatever else in the car

so not trying to knock ya but it doesn't sound like they are doing things right

but also around here I can say the same thing with old school domestics
trailered in open exhuast really rumpy not streetable idle
pull it off the trailer put some racing gas in
run a 13.5
all depends on what you do and how you do it

 

what do you classify as unreliable?
n/a motors that generally get about 200k+ miles on them WITHOUT TOUCHING THE MOTOR ITSELF?

guess that is unreliable

or maybe the 196k miles I have put on my car with beating the crap out of it ALL THE TIME.
you know 8k rpm shifts on a 7k rpms redline
dumping the clutch at 6 grand
racing it around on the back roads all the time

guess that would be unreliable
I hardly ever go to redline with my chevy and I have yet to do any kind of any rpm clutch dump ever for fear of parts breakage, yet I never hesitated to do any of those things with my 16 year old, 130k mazda that I also used for a 100 mile round trip i did every weekend.

 

sorry just not fond of those who preach something they know nothing about

 

my thoughts on 1stgen RX7s.

i test drove a RX7 one time.


i didnt fit in it.





how the hell am i suppost to be able to let the clutch out? my knee would hit the wheel.... and if it didnt i still couldnt put my hands on the wheel near the bottom...

im just going to stick to triumph spitfires.... they may not be rotory cool, but they're still fun to drive tiny sh!tboxes..

 

i love american muscle, but i also have respect for innovation. When a company puts a truely unique engine out there that can rev to 8,000 without problem and get over 100horses per liter STOCK that show's me someone knows what they're doing.

Think about this, the mid eighties rx-7 was a 1.2 or 1.3 liter and came with 135hp for the N/A,
now imagine if the then new 87 trans am 350 tpi with 5.7 liters came out with the relative 590hp WITH the same smoothness and reliability and a 7,000 redline what would you have thought???

 

to further that general idea..


the new R1 makes 180hp out of 998cc

so if that one liter bike makes 180hp, if we could get our cars that efficent a 350 would be 1026 NA horsepower.





:lala:

now im leaving the thread before someone calls me a r!cer for talking about hp/liter........

(theres nothing wrong with a hyper efficent motor... esp if its BIG. )

 

I always enjoy these debates about hp per liter, but I will stand my belief that no matter how much hp per liter you have, the most hp per engine is still more important, lol.

 

for the most part agree with the 1st gen
hard to really get comfortable in those
either hit the wheel or dash
or too far away

second gen was ok
can get about as close as I want and still don't hit the dash
haven't tried thirdgen yet

 

thinik we all agree with you there

just kinda nice to hear about other company doing something like that

but that doesn't mean the motor is faster or anything
generally just mroe efficient

 

Being efficient is nice, but I'de still take a 400 hp 5.7 liter 350 over a 200 hp 1.8 liter engine any day. I didn't even mention the torque differences either, because that is just plain not even fair. BTW, did anyone know that the LS6 engine makes the most effecient torque amount of almost any production engine on earth?

 

hehe, yea...

well all we need is to take the efficency devices used on the smaller engines and apply them to our larger engines and you get aLOT more power....


imagine if we had variable valve timing, or even just 2 cam profiles...

you could have a car that idled and cruised better then a stocker, and then it would flip over at high RPM and pull till the valvetrain couldnt move anyfaster....

make a mechanicaly closing valve (ala ducati) and you could rev until the bottom end flys apart...... imagine a 20k RPM redline 400SBC that could flow that much air...


have 2 intake ports... like SHOs have... nice long runners for low end, and then at a specific RPM, swap over to shorter runners..






they all have great ideas.... if they ever apply them to a engine with a decient displacement, look out.

 

the next generation sbc, aka the ls7 i believe it will be called will be a 3 valve design with a horizontally mounted pushrod to control the second intake valve. It will have 2 intake valves and one big *** exhaust valve and is rumered to have 500 hp is stock trim. Pretty nice is you ask me.

 

I'm gonna say its a bad idea but not because of any reasons given above. The thing that made the rotary engine so great was its weight characteristics. When put in a RX7 you have an almost perfect weight distribution and an overall low weight. This made the RX7 one of the best handling cars of its time (FC and FD).

Considering that the 3rd gen Camaro is a heavy car, a rotary engine just does not match. On top of that, with todays aluminum engines, engine weights have gone way down. Have you ever heard of people swapping LS1's into FD RX7's? Everyone said it would throw the weight distribution way off, but they were wrong. I dont know if this is fact, but I heard the LS1 was only 50-60 pounds heavier than the stock turbo rotary. After you think about that, the LS1 (or any aluminum SBC/BB engine) starts to become a much better choice for a heavy Camaro. Do you see where I am comming from?

As for the rotary being unreliable or weak, I dont agree. The fact is, the rotary is a very complex engine. Hard to understand, mod, tune, and work on. In Japan where people specialize in the rotary (and I dont just mean some cert, people who actually KNOW the motor) its not uncommon for rotary motors to put out 400-700hp on boost. But you wont see that in the USA because nobody knows how to do it. Much like how a Japanese Tech would scratch his head when trying to tune a Holley Carb, USA Tech's scratch their head when trying to tune a rotary. Just because you dont see it does not mean its impossible.

But all in all, I dont think you would be happy with the end result. If you are looking for a good rotory swap project, try a newer Miata, or if you're crazy use a different make car like a Nissan 240, a Toyota Supra, or even an old school Datsun 510.

 

oh, or you could swap it into a 93 mazda mx-3. I'll sell you mine, hey you gotta have a daily driver...88hp baby!

 

I remember some guy putting a stock LS1 in a 3rd gen rx7 and pulling 11's in it. This just goes to show you how superior a sbc would have been in such a light car over a crappy rotary engine.

 

Hi Guys

Been away from the boards for a while (over at Fl-thirdgen.org).

One thing about the above statement:
The rotary engine consists of a crank with a triangle rotor on it, which at all three points of contact with the bore creates a chamber.
This means, no pistons, no rods, etc. a full rebuild consists of replacing the water and oil seals. The block also splits vertically into several sections, what is so complex about that!!.

Take care, be good...
Sara Lou

 

i agree with the whole weight/power thing. but if u turbo'd the rotary it would be a nice swap. Better idea find a power plant from a grand national and swap it in there, turbo'd 6 makes some nice power.

 

A friend of mine in autoshop had an 88 RX-7 With Turbo, perf exhaust, everything. That thing STINKS! couldnt pass emissions to save its life without cheating, and it was freakin annoyin sounding. Semi fast and damn high redline, but ive driven a 94 LT1 6 speed that could smoke it. Ive driven both, the LT1 wins... But the one upside i see to Rotary is that he blew the engine redlining too high, and it still runs, lol... It wont really go above 25mph, but hey, he can race little kids on go carts! Its just wierd that it still runs....

 

I've ridden in a 94 FD with the 13B turbo motor, and upgraded turbo (dont know what model he wouldnt tell me). Those cars are unreal. He told me he was running mid 12's at the track, but we were doing freeway runs when I got my ride. The car could hit 140mph with no problem. I'm sure it would beat a stock Z06 on the freeway (yes I've ridden in one of those too on a freeway run). But I still dont think it would be a good swap for a 3rd gen Camaro. His 13B definately had power but he had a very very hard time tuning the car correctly (someone else had to do it) and the powerband was very peaky. When I said the rotary was complex, I meant more in the sense of getting it to go fast and not blow up than the actual build of the motor. The build is simple, but tuning is not easy at all.

Anyway, if you are seriously considering using a rotary motor in a 3rd Gen, I recommend you use the 20B tripple rotor (equiv of a 3.0ltr 6) since you'll need as much torque as possible to get the heavy Camaro going. Personally I think its a waste of money (you could probably do a 500hp aluminum big block for the same price). But if thats what you want to do, then by all means do it.

 

But all in all, I dont think you would be happy with the end result. If you are looking for a good rotory swap project, try a newer Miata, or if you're crazy use a different make car like a Nissan 240, a Toyota Supra, or even an old school Datsun 510. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have to agree. The beauty of a rotary to a swapper is it ability to put out respectable power in a small package. The 3rd Gen's engine compartment is rather large and makes you wonder what the point is in putting in such a small motor. You'd make much more effective use of it in a vehicle that offers a better power to weight ratio. I like CrazyHawiian's choices but the list goes on. Think about a Triumph TR7 with it's Chevelle-like four link rear end or Datsun 2000 roadster.....a Corvair screamer Gen 1 Camaro look alike...a early Vega Gen 2 Camaro look alike.

 

I own both.

I would suggest againts the rotary in the camaro... not enough torque for the car... I love the rotary engine. I've had fewer problems with all five RX-7s we've owned than my third gen.

However, i would never put a 350 or any kind of piston motor in an RX-7

The rotary engine is rare and belongs in a 7. A piston motor belongs anywhere BUT a rotary's home.

 

RX-7 Rotary has over 70 Vaccum hoses... if ones is not plugged in then you can forget about the turbo idea... have fun with that swap

 

I had an 85 RX-7, last year of the first style... damn that was a slow car. I mean, Ford Tempo slow! It had 36,000 miles... so it wasn't worn or anything lol

Cool idea, but I'd stick to Photoshopping it.

 

racing around on back roads? you never do that do you

 

"I had an 85 RX-7, last year of the first style... damn that was a slow car. I mean, Ford Tempo slow! It had 36,000 miles... so it wasn't worn or anything lol"

Interesting...

Three questions

I assume it was a GS or a GSL?

Second, was it an automatic?

Third, did you know how to drive an RX-7?

They're special cars, if you dont know how to maintain them and drive them they're not nearly as rewarding

 

GSL, automatic... and yes it was maintained

It was also bought from a collector (one of those guys that somehow has way too much $ and a warehouse of cars)

The only mods I did were a Pacesetter exhaust and wider tires.

 

find a old triumph spitfire, a old MG, a mazda miata, a fiero, or some other equally tiny car, and a turbo rotory swap sounds like a cool idea...

but i still think a big heavy car with a rotory is a bad idea

 

you are QUITE wrong with torque efficiency

WAY off on that

 

why is the SBC so much better?
b/c a motor that internally hasn't really changed much since oh 70's or so, only has 1.3L and yet still was able to hold it's own


the rotary engine is not a crappy motor unless you get it in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they are doing

and with the way you talk I wouldn't trust you to touch my car even to change the oil

 

depends on what year and whether turbo or not

sounds like you are talking 93-95 rx7 there
and don't forget over 40 feet of vaccume lines

but for a 1/2 gen there aren't that many lines
but I agree with most anyone here though
the rotary isn't the greatest choice for what he wants

 

a first gen rx7 with the carb under mostly stock is not going to be the fastest car anyway
maybe at best I would guess a 16.9 or so roughly

 

WRONG!!


hasnt changed internally much since the late 50s.

 

hey I will be honest
my history gets a little shady when you start getting 60's and back

main differences that I can recall as far as changes

port size and port timing (like cam timing and valve size changes)
a minor change in combustion chamber
and seal material changes

other then that most of it has been the same as far as the motor goes

 

No I am not.

 

Like I said, LS1, and an LS1 is a small block chevy, which was first put into production in 1997. Relatively new if you ask me. It takes quite a bit to get an rx7 into the 11's, and there is no way to do it without a power adder. A STOCK LS1 PUT INTO A THIRD GEN RX7 RUNS 11'S WITH NO WORK. That alone say's something. rotary is crap.

 

Also, the gen 1 sbc hadn't been significantly changed sinced the 50's, and for a damn good reason too. IT DIDNT NEED IT. Don't fix what aint broken. I seem to recall the new RX8 being a HUGE disapointment. Mazda is now even offering to buy back customer cars because of their false claims of power output. Gee, imagine that, mazda inflated the actual power of the rotary????