Ian - OJPULSR

Rohan 84ET · Post by **Rohan 84ET** » Thu May 03, 2007 12:27 am

once again, sweet pulsar OJPulsar . . . .

but i have to say for the record, Mazda are bloody awesome. respect 2 the Rotary.

haha, just cos they have whooped Holden/Ford's ass over the years, and i am sure they will continue to. i would drive a Cosmo any day.

ojpulsr · Post by **ojpulsr** » Thu May 03, 2007 8:07 pm

rotaryengines are ok!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I like mine well done.

Post by **Ash** » Thu May 03, 2007 8:45 pm

i'm a Nissan dude through and through but you can't argue with the rotary engine! so efficient! the amount of power they can screw out of such a small capacity engine is unreal. there's a reason why there are so many rotary drag cars

. and then i could start on the Toyota 2JZ GTE's, hell yeah!

but Nissan are the kings!

p.s, oj dude, your rims are awsome! very unique. nice et in general! many Kudo's

Rohan 84ET · Post by **Rohan 84ET** » Thu May 03, 2007 10:49 pm

TOYOTA 2JZ-GTE FTW!!!!

Callumgw · Post by **Callumgw** » Fri May 04, 2007 7:12 am

Ahh, there's a long running arguement over the true capacity of rotory engines. It comes down to how capacity is defined, which is set out more for recipricating engines than rotating ones. Thats is swept volume by the number of cylinders. But rotories don't have cylinders, instead there is rotors, but each rotor is three sided. Mazda consider each rotor to be two pistons (not three!) calculate the swept volume of each multiply by two and then by the number of rotors. Others argue that each side is a piston which would make Mazdas calculation only 2/3 of the real value so a 1.3lt should be a 1.95. When considered in this way the power per litre isn't that good, but the power per engine weight (kilogram) is still great.

In my mind the second method is more correct and it highlights why all the other manufacturers never followed up rotory designs......

C

Post by **The Renegade** » Fri May 04, 2007 7:53 am

Yeah, there was always ppl asking me about this when I had mine.....
I reckon it should be considered as 3 pistons per rotor. My reasoning: each rotor completes the Intake/Compress/Burn&Expand/Exhale cycle 3 times (one per rotor face) per revolution.

Ben Hewitson · Post by **Ben Hewitson** » Fri May 04, 2007 8:12 am

this is definately a discussion for another thread/forum, but a wankel can also be defined as a 2 stroke motor. thus it has 6 firing events per cycle till it all repeats again. i was under the impression that no matter what engine you have the capacity was how much air/fuel (volume) could be sucked in per firing sequence. thus a 4 cylinder engine will suck in say 1.5L of air and fuel from the time that #1 fires BTDC till it comes around to fire #1 again. then again it would explain the rotary's inherent fuel consumption if it was classed as a 6 cylinder 2 stroke. would also account for the noise.

Callumgw · Post by **Callumgw** » Fri May 04, 2007 8:15 am

oops, seems we've hijack again...

BennyET · Post by **BennyET** » Fri May 04, 2007 8:21 am

http://www.rx7.com/techarticles_displacement.html
explains it perfectly

LonerET · Post by **LonerET** » Fri May 04, 2007 9:36 am

yeah sorry about that ian....keep up the good work!!

i love those wheels!

josh.

ojpulsr · Post by **ojpulsr** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:22 am

took her for a spin around the block and gave it a wash, first time in a while...

BennyET · Post by **BennyET** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:37 am

holy shit thats nice

TBON12 · Post by **TBON12** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:25 am

So are you in SA, or NSW with SA plates?

BTW Very nice car

Kimmo · Post by **Kimmo** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:57 am

Damn, those are some bling rims, man.

Nice paint, too.

Gonna give it some rear door handles and a filler flap anytime soon?

nz_n12turbo · Post by **nz_n12turbo** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:46 am

i think hes going for the light weight look

lol