got pulled on by a 93-96 rx7 - Page 2
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 41

This is a discussion on got pulled on by a 93-96 rx7 within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally Posted by Jared703 whoa, easy killer. Regardless of age, he was acting like he was mr. toughguy in his ...

  1. #16
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared703
    whoa, easy killer. Regardless of age, he was acting like he was mr. toughguy in his rx-7, trying to pace me, acting immature. No need to get upset here. I think the whole incident was pretty funny, and i can't imagine myself acting a whole lot different at that age. I'm pretty sure anyone here, if they witnessed this event would probably feel very similar.
    regardless of his actions, it is foolish to attribute them to his age because he 'looked' like he was 20 y/o. Stupid actions are stupid actions whether the person is 20 or 30
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    Registered User amukaoen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Posts
    1,429
    on a sidenote from all these comments about asshats..

    DTR rex i like your new avatar, looks like she is in extacy very hot..
    they call STi's STDs because everyone is getting them.

  4. #18
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Quote Originally Posted by amukaoen

    DTR rex i like your new avatar, looks like she is in extacy very hot..

    Kristin Kreuk > *
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  5. #19
    Registered User blarg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calmer than you are
    Posts
    10,366
    just look at it this way: after those 2 runs, he probably turned on his hazzards because his car broke down. He probably had to take it straight to the mechanic, walk home and drive his 89 Nisan Sentra for the next 2 weeks while the RX7 was in the shop.


    ...and 20 year olds SHOULD be blamed for EVERYTHING wrong with the world.
    ScoobyDMC #009 - making dirty jokes since before you were making dirty diapers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blarg
    go f*** yourself

  6. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1
    To the origional thread starter. nice death. I've only raced one STI in my FD but he had like 3 or 4 passengers in the car and was stock.(buddy of mine) needless to say i pulled him pretty bad from 40mph. The only time i ever see an STI's now is on a busy raods with no room to play. Nice cars though.

    And to the others: The rotary is actually not too bad until you add boost to the equation. And even though they aren't high mileage engines, the most common problem with these cars is user error or neglect.. Mine has been running great for the year i've had it with upgrades being the only reason for downtime.(knock on wood)lol.

    Anyway, good races!

  7. #21
    Registered User blarg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calmer than you are
    Posts
    10,366
    Quote Originally Posted by MBFD
    And to the others: The rotary is actually not too bad until you add boost to the equation. And even though they aren't high mileage engines, the most common problem with these cars is user error or neglect.. Mine has been running great for the year i've had it with upgrades being the only reason for downtime.(knock on wood)lol.
    this is very true. Rotary motors are really not any more or less reliable than any other motor. Its that crazy twin turbo system in FD's that make them unreliable. I remember looking under the hood and seeing all those vaccum lines and oil lines under there just to make the thing work...its just a very complicated system, and a lot can go wrong. Plenty of N/A rotaries still on the road that are MUCH older than the FD.
    ScoobyDMC #009 - making dirty jokes since before you were making dirty diapers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blarg
    go f*** yourself

  8. #22
    Registered User amukaoen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by MBFD
    And to the others: The rotary is actually not too bad until you add boost to the equation. And even though they aren't high mileage engines, the most common problem with these cars is user error or neglect.. Mine has been running great for the year i've had it with upgrades being the only reason for downtime.(knock on wood)lol.
    the rotary engine isnt too bad?! its insain..! natrually aspirated rotary engines last FOREVER.. because they only have to work 1/3 as hard as a normal engine. its not unusual at all to see rotarys hit 200K or 300K miles. I'd kill for a natrually aspirated four rotor engine in my car.. ahaha.

    I think the rotary engine is pure genius. It just makes sense, having the energy made in a circular motion then in a crude up and down motion. unfortunatly in the real world, it just makes too much emissions, not enough popularity and just not enough low end torque to make it. Hopefully one day it'll make a comeback.
    they call STi's STDs because everyone is getting them.

  9. #23
    Registered User blarg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calmer than you are
    Posts
    10,366
    Quote Originally Posted by amukaoen
    the rotary engine isnt too bad?! its insain..! natrually aspirated rotary engines last FOREVER.. because they only have to work 1/3 as hard as a normal engine. its not unusual at all to see rotarys hit 200K or 300K miles. I'd kill for a natrually aspirated four rotor engine in my car.. ahaha.

    I think the rotary engine is pure genius. It just makes sense, having the energy made in a circular motion then in a crude up and down motion. unfortunatly in the real world, it just makes too much emissions, not enough popularity and just not enough low end torque to make it. Hopefully one day it'll make a comeback.

    well it DOES have disadvantages. 1) its less efficient (uses more gas to produce the same performance) 2) the main bearing is the weakest link, its the part that ALL the movement of the goes through. 3) bad low end (pretty much true of ANY small displacement motor...torque really IS primarily a displacement-related thing).

    there is nothing CRUDE about piston engines. For a CRUDE design, it sure does have superior economy, efficiency, and torque. It may not be as elegant, but I wouldn't call it crude. Auto makers are not idiots. if the rotary design was really superior, they would be used more. I believe its even cheaper to produce than a piston motor, so really, there's nothing stopping them from doing it.

    I'm not knocking rotaries. or diesels for that matter. They just do different things, and for most applications they don't make sense.

    the RX8 has a rotary motor....and its a new re-design that's supposed to be the best in rotary thinking ever...and its really not a bad car.
    ScoobyDMC #009 - making dirty jokes since before you were making dirty diapers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blarg
    go f*** yourself

  10. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by blarg
    torque really IS primarily a displacement-related thing.


    hmmm....I've seen sub 2liter motors putting out 250ft/lbs tq with relatively little modification over stock.
    Why do I have to slow down for the WRX? Just because everyone says it's faster doesn't mean I Have to let it win, does it?

  11. #25
    Registered User Juice33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    543
    But where does the torque really kick in on the sub 2.0l block? You can have 250 ft-lbs and if it doesn't really pour on until like 4K-5K RPM then it really is not that impressive. For comparison my Cobra puts down around 430 rwtq at 1800 rpm. I really have no idea where the tourque comes on, from a smaller engine.
    Current Vehicle: 2006 Volvo S60 R Sonic Blue/Atacama
    SOLD:
    2006 Graphite Gray Evo IX
    2004 STi
    2003 SVT Cobra
    2003 SVT Lightning
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffbmx00 View Post
    my friend has a 5.0 too, they are slow, the only way to decently make them fast is to drop a v8 explorer engine in them.

  12. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by Juice33
    But where does the torque really kick in on the sub 2.0l block? You can have 250 ft-lbs and if it doesn't really pour on until like 4K-5K RPM then it really is not that impressive. For comparison my Cobra puts down around 430 rwtq at 1800 rpm. I really have no idea where the tourque comes on, from a smaller engine.
    about 200ft/lbs by 2k and 250ft/lbs at 3.5k
    Why do I have to slow down for the WRX? Just because everyone says it's faster doesn't mean I Have to let it win, does it?

  13. #27
    Registered User blarg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calmer than you are
    Posts
    10,366
    Quote Originally Posted by YZFWV
    hmmm....I've seen sub 2liter motors putting out 250ft/lbs tq with relatively little modification over stock.
    a 2.0L motor isn't that "Small"

    I was thinking more of the under 1.8l's...an RX7 motor is only 1.3L displacement.
    ScoobyDMC #009 - making dirty jokes since before you were making dirty diapers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blarg
    go f*** yourself

  14. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by blarg
    a 2.0L motor isn't that "Small"

    I was thinking more of the under 1.8l's...an RX7 motor is only 1.3L displacement.

    and I said sub 2.0. Sub, meaning less than, being the operative word here.

    VW's new twin charged 1.6 is going to make 170hp and I'm assuming about 170 ft/lbs tq...it'll probably have usable tq by 2k rpm. Ford's focus SVT was making 80% of it's tq by 1800 rpm according to their claims...I'm not sure what the engine size was though.
    Why do I have to slow down for the WRX? Just because everyone says it's faster doesn't mean I Have to let it win, does it?

  15. #29
    Registered User blarg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calmer than you are
    Posts
    10,366
    Quote Originally Posted by YZFWV
    and I said sub 2.0. Sub, meaning less than, being the operative word here.

    VW's new twin charged 1.6 is going to make 170hp and I'm assuming about 170 ft/lbs tq...it'll probably have usable tq by 2k rpm. Ford's focus SVT was making 80% of it's tq by 1800 rpm according to their claims...I'm not sure what the engine size was though.
    well in MY book, 170 ft/lbs is NOT a lot. I'm talking 300+ ft/lbs. After all, we're discussing motors that makes somewhere in the 300 HP range, so torque should be in the same ballpark...preferably MORE so you can actually use it on a daily basis rather than just on the dyno sheet and a drag strip.
    ScoobyDMC #009 - making dirty jokes since before you were making dirty diapers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blarg
    go f*** yourself

  16. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by blarg
    well in MY book, 170 ft/lbs is NOT a lot. I'm talking 300+ ft/lbs. After all, we're discussing motors that makes somewhere in the 300 HP range, so torque should be in the same ballpark...preferably MORE so you can actually use it on a daily basis rather than just on the dyno sheet and a drag strip.
    VW Golf GT
    Engine ... 1.4 liter, 4 cyl.
    Power ... 168 hp
    Torque ... 177 lb. -ft
    0-62 MPH ... 7.9 sec.
    Top Speed ... 136 mph
    MPG ... 30 (city); 48 (highway)

    But as far as high hp/tq, the new 2.0t's are putting out 250hp and 270ft/lbs with a $350 chip. They're turbo charged of course and it's a small turbo, but put a larger turbo on it and you're pushing 350hp/350ft/lbs that's fairly drivable. Of course it's not a V8, but then again it's not a honda putting down 200hp and 139ft/lbs tq with a 2.0n/a motor. But it goes to show that torque isn't primarily a displacement thing...
    Why do I have to slow down for the WRX? Just because everyone says it's faster doesn't mean I Have to let it win, does it?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •