Yes, I'm aware that they are have more of a characteristic of being high revving engines instead of high torque. I didn't know about the 26,000 RPMs, that is amazing. I thought CART (or something like that) went to the highest known revs at about 15,000 RPM.

Ah yes, NSU was the name. I couldn't think of it for the life of me. I could think of was that it started with N. What was the model name? Ro80? Nu80? Something like that. Its funny you mention that story, cause my classic car book recounts the same tale. Supposedly they were well liked by their owns despite this (made possible by NSU's overly generous waranty support).

Novaboy:

Yes, that would be the 3rd generation Mazda RX-7 probably, which was a 2 rotor twin turbo making about the performance numbers you mentioned.

Turbocharging any engine will greatly improve the torque numbers and characteristic, especially at the low end of the rpm scale.

In reply to:

---

especially at the low end of the rpm scale.

---

nope not a 3rd gen they suck...look good, handel great, sucky turbo system...and the single exhaust kills torque....those figueres were of a 91 turbo ii with a down pipe, no cat, intake, and bigger injectors.

I'm referring to when the turbos kick in. Also, 2500 RPM *is* considered low end of the RPM scale for high revving smaller engines found in most import performance cars, and especially in rotory engines, which are of a high revving characteristic rather than low-end torque. Remember, even if the turbo has a lot of lag, the torque (and power) made will be much greater, and lower in the RPG scale (particularly torque), than the power made in the same small, high revving engine minus a turbo. Yes, having a twin turbo will help spool up times, as the first turbo is much smaller and therefore lighter, and will kick in some boost much sooner than a large one. Also, remember stock anything sucks, including turbos, so a good aftermarket single turbo might use lightweight materials to make it spool faster and kick in sooner, and make more power than the big second turbo in a factory twin turbo config, AND have a better torque curve throughout the rev band.

Novaboy:

That was a just a wild guess. I assumed it was a modified car cause the performance numbers were slightly higher than the stock 3rd gen RX-7, which are rated by "flywheel dyno" while the numbers you quoted are probably the dyno of (or estimates of) the power made at the rear wheels. I think its safe to say when I talk about a car I like, I'm referring to common mods done to that car to make it closer to a certain ideal, rather than the conservative specs of the manufacturer (even in a factory turbo car).

Gavin

Lifeofagony

Your'e right, regarding that 13b RX7, 26000 rpm is amazing. Bear in mind that this car was supercharged rather than turbocharged, and as a result suffered from next to no "lag". Its torque curve was like a tabletop!
The unreliability associated with wankel type motors, is usually related to the "apex seals" of the engine.

"What was that NSU model name? Ro80? Nu80?"
Yeah, something like that:)

I also agree that a well sorted, good aftermarket single turbo using state of the art technology, will make it spool up faster and kick in sooner, making more power than the factory twin sequential config.
With the correct AR ratio, you will achieve a comparable torque curve at low revs whilst attaining far superior torque and hp characteristics in the upper reaches of the rev range.

I have previously owned a twin rotor, sequential turbo 95 RX7. Although it was an awesomely competent sportscar, I will always remember it for the continuous repair/maintainance/service bills for bugs mostly associated with the complicated turbo system.
I eventually replaced the standard sequential setup with a single hybrid T04,which stopped all the "flat spotting" and "spiking" caused by the "terrible twins".

the only thing that sux about turbocharging a rotary is that even though the engine can rev high you can overlap the turbo....which is bad. my friend can only rev to 7,000. i dont fully understand this cus i would thing that the waistgate would keep the turbo from over boosting...but i have herd of this elsewhere.....anyone got the answer?

Can't say I've heard of that. Like I said before, I'm by no means an expert, but I guess it would have to do with what Flatchanger was saying before... I would assume your friend is still running with the factory sequential turbos?

I've just read howstuffworks.com's whole artical on rotary engines, i now understand the basis on how they work. seems pretty kewl, neva new anyfin bout em be4 now, i jus saw the mazda rx8 ad on tv so i thought id check it out

Rx8 has 240 horses with the 6 speed, i can imagine what it would be like if they released a turbo verision of the car.

i thought you died?

me too........ (By the way the OFFICIAL NUMBERS are 238hp...ha ha, I'm just being an ass)

anyway, my dad is like all geeked out about the new RX8. He thinks it rules all. I think it's pretty damn cool and fly looking. But not quite as sweet as so many others claim it to be. Don't get me wrong it IS cool.

It's styled great (I think it's a touch better looking than the new 350Z), the short throw shifter is nice, the engine was named engine of the year I belive (although I'm not sure how I feel about rotaries still). I love the interior too (ESPECIALLY the way they include the the rotary logo in like everything.... plus the gauges kick ass).

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT for about the same ammount of cash, I can get myself a new Mach 1 WHICH WOULD OWN THAT RX8. word. I don't know I guess it all depends on you. I really do like the RX8, but I'm not sure if I like it enough to get it for 30,000 bucks.

feel the same way except i cant find any new model car i'd ever pay stcker price for its about bang for your buck i could build a car my way to do whatever i needed it to for the price of these modern day wonders

Take the mach 1 and RX-8 on a nice road course and see who does what

-Ben

man half the cars on the fucking road would own that rx-8.

looks and handling aside, it's a piss poor attempt. it should have been 375 horsepower. i'm fucking serious. they should have come out of their jdm slumber blastin like yosemite same and been ready to be king of the hill while the other manufacturers scramble to catch up. instead they come out blastin like bob dole. far below the subaru power numbers, way under the 'seat of the pants rating' radar treatment where the lancer evo really shined. and far below anything worth a piss in the midrange-high end market (slk's, m3's, infinity 350z's, the cobra, the cadillac cts for christsake).

anyway, thus ends my rant against the piss poor efforts of a company who could have owned the world with a little more worked version of what it is currently trying to force feed us in britney spears videos and x-men movies.

jason