For a racecar that doesn't have to last more than 24hrs they're great. For everything else they're garbage. Why anyone would want one for a streetcar is beyond me.Originally Posted by alpine_xj
Also, before you bring up the argument;
787B != RX-8
For a racecar that doesn't have to last more than 24hrs they're great. For everything else they're garbage. Why anyone would want one for a streetcar is beyond me.Originally Posted by alpine_xj
Also, before you bring up the argument;
787B != RX-8
Plenty of people DD rotary cars with no problems at all. You know how to maintain one or you don't, it's that simple really.Originally Posted by Ran
btw, could someone tell me how to quote multiple posts?
Quote, copy, backpage, quote, copy, backpage, ect...Originally Posted by alpine_xj
Not sure how the 8's hold up but I've had more than one buddy with FC RX-7's that have been nothing but mechanical nightmares, even with proper maintenance.Originally Posted by alpine_xj
The rotary engine itself is pretty much fail in it's design. It makes the power of a boosted four cylinder, the torque of a Honda Fit, yet gets the fuel economy of a V-12. Why?
My uncle has an rx-8 and it hasn't had a single problem. The rotary by itself is a fail, but boosted rotary ftw. Unless you're getting into the 3 and 4 rotors which tend to make quite a bit of power by themselves.Originally Posted by Ran
I love the way a Turbo-II feels when properly tuned, but when you compare power-to-practicallity is just doesn't come out with sensible numbers. There are too many other options that make more power/torque and get better economy to really justify using the triangle. Just myOriginally Posted by alpine_xj
.
I think the main thing about rotaries is the feel of them. I must say that rx-8, while not being the most powerful rotary ever, was an absolute blast to drive. Give me that over a honda 4-cylinder any day.Originally Posted by Ran