RX7 love (pic thread)

been on a few rx7 forums for a while now, thought id share some pics with you guys that are inspiring me, and that are just plain sick






this one made me love wee a little

^its not just me, yay! lol

look what you can do! me ezza and ned was wondering about these

Very nice, the kit on the 2nd red one is sweet.

LOVE the first FC. clean oem styling works so well

find anything out about the roof?:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs544.ash1/31834_112392922136940_100000986992897_72191_955935_n.jpg

The grey FD is hard core car porn !! Where'd I put that kleenex ?? Back in 5

Got sooooo much love for the FC RX7

hell yeah^

not feeling the hover craft bodykit on that

Dont shout at me, but what engine size are RX-7's im still a noob with the rotary engine spec

Nice^

1.3l or 2.6l or 3.9l, description to follow, but the v5 it's down as 2.4l, lol

Explanation


Originally posted by skc
I have heard that when measuring engine capacities on rotary engines you double the actual engine size.

This is aparently due to the way the chambers work and in one spin there are two lots of combustion.

Can anyone confirm this.

skc

That's not the reason, but here’s another way of trying to explain it all.

In one complete spin of each rotor there are actually 3 lots of combustion, not 2, because each rotor has 3 faces, each of which does its own full cycle of “Suck, Squeeze, Bang, Blow” (well, it sounded more innocent when it was first used… Intake, Compression, Combustion and Exhaust if you prefer…). The tricky issue here is that “capacity” is just one way of measuring engine “size”. And it doesn’t even precisely relate to the actually physical size, weight or shape of the engine, let alone torque, power, mechanical efficiency, etc.

The point is that capacity or “swept volume” just refers to the volume covered in one stroke of each piston on a piston engine. Generally, that would be of interest to give a rough indication of how much fuel/air mixture an engine can intake. But it came into widespread use at a time when it was mostly used to compare 4-stroke piston engines with other 4-stroke piston engines. It’s not so useful when comparing with rotaries or two strokes, and don’t even bother trying to equate it with jet or rocket engines.

Unfortunately, it says nothing about how efficient that engine is at actually filling that volume, or under what circumstances. Each engine (2-stroke, 4-stroke, and rotary) has a mechanically different way of doing the job, has a different power and torque curve, and is designed to run at different rev ranges of the output shaft (crankshaft). So comparing capacity, even relating it to the same number of output shaft revs, is a fairly crude kind of measurement.

A rotary engine can be seen as the rough equivalent of a 4-stroke engine with 2 combustion chambers, but 6 “pistons”. So if you only look at the combustion chambers it’s a 1.3 litre, but if you look at the complete volume swept by each combustion face then it’s a 3.9 litre engine. Both perfectly valid ways of looking at it, if you’re looking at other rotaries, but neither very useful for direct comparisons with piston engines.

However, if you look for one second of time at a 4-stroke piston engine doing 6,000 rpm and a rotary also doing 6,000 rpm (i.e. 100 revs a second of the crankshaft for both) you’ll see that the volume swept by inlet strokes on the rotary is twice that of the piston engine. This is the reason for saying that our 1.3 litre engines are the rough equivalent of a 2.6 litre.

Really, there are a lot more interesting and useful ways to compare what engines are actually capable of, and what you might call their “character”, than just the nominal capacity.

[img]http://dstroyr.com/images/stories/easyblog_images/06.15.11/DSTROYR-110.jpg[/img

most of them are red !!

The best colour

Lol, I like White better

risky dizzle






more from the show

porn;