Hell Froze Over

[get_nick]

Quoted post[/post]]
i forgot to update this. now that ive seen the engine it was a D15A2. I talked them into just doing a V8 swap (havent decided on the specs yet, right now its a 42 MPG commuter) into that CRX and then buying an 88-91 and then doing a turbo B-Swap. They discovered getting a D16A1 was kinda difficult and getting it to work right would be even harder.

this is basically an issue of brains and economices vs. originality and creativity. i read this whole post and was just left wondering, "why." maybe i'm more traditional and like to go the path more taken, but if they want an NA monster, why not just stick with B series, or K series. I know people like to be original, but not everybody is a science geek/guru like bisi. The V8 guys would just be wasting a lot of money when they could get the same results if not better with a different motor. just my .02.

 

[jimboburgess]

true, if it works why not do it. why be original, fast is fast

 

[d.b.cooper]

Straying a little off topic...But isnt there some controversy..

Quoted post[/post]]

Quoted post[/post]]
250 all motor from an 87 CRX?? No. Thats 156.25 hp/liter, I dont know of ANY all motor applications with that kind of output.

Edit: In the car world, 16000rpm bikes maybe.

rx-7's do

Touche, maybe I need to edit my post to exclude rotary motors

...that there are other schools of thought about how to measure the displacement of a Rotary? since there are 3 power impulses per revolution per wankel, as opposed to every other rotation, in essence isnt it more like double the cc's of the actual rating?

 

[K2e2vin]

That's what alot of engineers argue, but Mazda still rates it by the "two-stroke" method.

 

[phunky.buddha]

Me being one of the engineers, I definitely argue that a Wankel should be rated at twice what Mazda claims they displace. They do have twice as many combustion events per crankshaft rotation as a 4 stroke piston engine.