

| Subject: | Re: Wankels |
| From: | Robert A. Alexander |
| Date: | Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:56:21 -0400 |
Michael - Since I got a ride in a '94 RX7 twin turbo on I-95, in Florida, which pulled solid from 50 to 165mph, without a whimper, I've been totally impressed with the Wankel!!! Jeez, the only limit to RPM is the amount of air one can inject into its intake!!! The HP/TORQUE figures on the Mazda rotary vs the VW water-cooled show no apparent problems, but, as I put it to Ari, I just could not find a graph of figures on both engines. The feeling on the list seems to indicate that the torque curve of the rotary is much sharper than the VW. Hell, I don't know! I can't help but think about about Chevrolet's 302 V-8 and their 307 V-8. The 302 was nothing more than a 327 with a 283 crankshaft & the 307 was nothing more than a 283 with a 327 crankshaft. The stock 283 was a FAR better performer than the 307. The 302 wasted both. I tried all three in my old '66 Malibu wagon back in the mid-70's. Published figures of HP/TORQUE and the ideas that spring forth remind me of audio-nuts who will argue over whether one amplifier has 0.001% distortion VS another amplifier which has 0.0005% distortion! Whose ear could possibly discern the difference??? My real aim is to install a 4.2L Jaguar I-6, 4-spd manual, and an XKE rear end into my '85GL! I'm looking for something to remind me of the 50's Chris-Craft runabout we had when I was a kid. British running gear in a German vehicle? Let the purists eat their guts! BOB - WA4RRN '85GL http://www.impeachment.org
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »