New GA all motor K series record

[Moseley]

P-port 13B's can make 300rwhp - and are only 1.3L.
One of my old GSL-SE's was standard port, and with just exhaust it made 156rwhp at 1.3L - so its not just Hondas that make hp/liter.

And they also fire twice as often as a 4 stroke, so if you want to compare apples to apples they should be considered a 2.6L

edit... I'm wrong. on a 2 rotor it fires 3 times per revolution on each rotor... so you have 2 full cycles, 2 66% completed cycles, and 2 33% completed cycles in 1 revolution = 4 cycles...

now look at a 4 stroke 4 banger, in 1 revolution you have 4 50% completed cycles = 2 cycles.

hehe

[David88vert]

And they also fire twice as often as a 4 stroke, so if you want to compare apples to apples they should be considered a 2.6L...

Incorrect. Mazda, and every racing organization classify them as 1.1 L for 12a's an 1.3L for 13b's. Don't you think that racing organizations would have declared them as 2.6L's if they were? It is 1.3L per revolution of the eccentric shaft (it's crank). That is why they are usually grouped in the 6 cyl class - 6 faces firing in one revolution. Displacement is 3√3radius·offset·depth, multiplied with the number of rotors (note that this only counts a single face of each rotor as the entire rotor's displacement).
Now, why would you compare them to a 4 stroke? 4 stroke motors need 2 revolutions of the crank to complete a cycle. Rotaries do not have to make multiple strokes for the 4 phases of a combustion engine - they do it in one efficient stroke.

[Vteckidd]

Incorrect. Mazda, and every racing organization classify them as 1.1 L for 12a's an 1.3L for 13b's. Don't you think that racing organizations would have declared them as 2.6L's if they were? It is 1.3L per revolution of the eccentric shaft (it's crank). That is why they are usually grouped in the 6 cyl class - 6 faces firing in one revolution. Displacement is 3√3radius·offset·depth, multiplied with the number of rotors (note that this only counts a single face of each rotor as the entire rotor's displacement).
Now, why would you compare them to a 4 stroke? 4 stroke motors need 2 revolutions of the crank to complete a cycle. Rotaries do not have to make multiple strokes for the 4 phases of a combustion engine - they do it in one efficient stroke.

Rotary and efficient should never be listed in the same sentence

Rotaries are never in the same category as a traditional 4 stroke engine whether its racing class or HP figures because they are the oddball, different then everything else. So its hard to group 4 stroke engines into THEIR categories and vice versa.

Let me clarify the statement, 4 STROKE motors, EXCLUDING rOTARIES

[David88vert]

Rotary and efficient should never be listed in the same sentence

Rotaries are never in the same category as a traditional 4 stroke engine whether its racing class or HP figures because they are the oddball, different then everything else. So its hard to group 4 stroke engines into THEIR categories and vice versa.

Let me clarify the statement, 4 STROKE motors, EXCLUDING rOTARIES

Actually, 4 strokes are the oddball - 2 strokes and rotaries are more similar than 4 strokes and 2 strokes.
Rotarys are very efficient at producing power - but not very efficient when it comes to utilizing fuel. They make V8s look like gas sippers. 4 cyls don't need an overkill of fuel to cool like rotarys - and that's a good thing.

[Moseley]

Incorrect. Mazda, and every racing organization classify them as 1.1 L for 12a's an 1.3L for 13b's. Don't you think that racing organizations would have declared them as 2.6L's if they were? It is 1.3L per revolution of the eccentric shaft (it's crank). That is why they are usually grouped in the 6 cyl class - 6 faces firing in one revolution. Displacement is 3√3radius·offset·depth, multiplied with the number of rotors (note that this only counts a single face of each rotor as the entire rotor's displacement).
Now, why would you compare them to a 4 stroke? 4 stroke motors need 2 revolutions of the crank to complete a cycle. Rotaries do not have to make multiple strokes for the 4 phases of a combustion engine - they do it in one efficient stroke.

Well even if it only displaces 1.3L per revolution it is also igniting 1.3L, compared to a 1.3L 4 stroke which ignites 650cc per revolution.

So technically a rotary, if compared to a piston engine displacement wise, should be compared to a 2 stroke.

I guess that is what I was getting at...

[David88vert]

Well even if it only displaces 1.3L per revolution it is also igniting 1.3L, compared to a 1.3L 4 stroke which ignites 650cc per revolution.

So technically a rotary, if compared to a piston engine displacement wise, should be compared to a 2 stroke.

I guess that is what I was getting at...

But it isn't a 2 stroke or a 4 stroke, so that is comparing apples to oranges. I understand what you are attempting to say, but the fact is that the rotary is just a completely different engine that doesn't fit into the same limitations. It also has it's own set of issues, due to design, that do not plague 4 stroke engines.
There is no such thing as fuel efficiency when you discuss a rotary. You simply determine if you make enough money to pay for the fuel that it will consume - then you go get a second job.
Bringing up the rotary was just to make a point in the hp/liter discussion. And that only came up due to 1civic thinking that 100hp/liter was some sort of performance figure. Last I checked, hp/liter does not directly translate into track times, either on the road course or the dragstrip.