things you don't generally hear about cars

[speedvogel (imported)]

Hehe...Those Hondas sure do go...By the way...I really see no advantage, other than size and weight per HP, of rotary engines..They inherently use oil, have very low torque, and don't last as long as conventional piston engines...They also are as smooth as sewing machine motors...but you have to rev the begeezuz out of them to get anywhere...I'd install a modern version of the MX motor in that old 92 when time comes...Bout 160-170 HP...way more than needed to have fun in that little putt putt...dragonfly

Actually, the rotary engines are very good at producing torque at usable rpm ranges. The engines do require maintenance, at least in racing applications. However, I know of two installations in midgets where the cost of the engine was about $2500. At that time, a decent Chevy II cost almost $10,000. We rebuilt our Chevy about every 12-15 shows. The guys with the junkyard Mazdas were running their engines 20-25 shows. The engines will rev forever and that is one of their big weaknesses. They will continue to rev up until they literally explode. Biggest drawback is they are very heavy. They are mostly cast iron and weigh a whole bunch more than an Esslinger or similar Ford based racing engine.

Since I've rebuilt a few Mazda rotary engines, I do know their weaknesses and their strengths quite well. The early ones had feeble front drives. The later ones have steel apex seals which cause a lot of chamber wear. Old style rotors, with carbon apex seals, hard chromed chambers with eyebrow ports, case hardened stationary gears, late style front drives make a very good high performance engine.

Thanks for your input. You do make a valid suggestion and putting a late model 2.8 liter MX5 engine, especially with the 8 speed transmission would make a real Q-ship for the stop light grand prix.

Speed

[punkypink (imported)]

I agree with your assessment of Honda's Vee Tech engines...Honda came from motorcycle engines...Little motors that revved really high to extract the horsepower to compete...and incidentally get good MPG...But, these engines are inherently lacking in torque...You can't have it both ways...

Seems like we're in the era of the turbo charged four right now...Good power, especially torque, low down in the rev range and very good MPG...

So..maybe you can have it both ways...with a turbo...dragonfly

Honda's bhp per litre isn't even that impressive. Most people often say they've got amazing bhp per litre and that only Hondas can do it... but most people don't realise that Caterham's long been doing the same with Rover engines in their cars.... and that to a lesser extent, Lotus's been doing something similiar with the engines in their cars. If anything, a rover K-series can actually be made to achieve even more impressive bhp per litre figures without VTEC technology, and still be as reliable as any Honda engine... which only makes the feat even more impressive than what Honda can do.

I'm not mourning the killing off of Mazda's RX-8 and the engine, nor am I mourning the death of Honda's current gen VTEC engines.

[smoothie (imported)]

It does not matter which high performance car you choose

when the fun is so REWARDING!!!

Willow Springs Raceway(Ca) is the place to go!!!

here they teach you all about this thing called fun..

technique ,control an confidence to make it happen!!!!

The best part of it all is you can use your own ride!!!!! YES

so my Shelby GT 500 Super Snake Is elected!!!

While this vehicle may not be the best or fastest it still

is a lot of kick *** fun... it is an awesome thrill, to experience!!

( 700+ ponies can get your attention)

{I am sure she is capable of 200 MPH but, I've not had her there,

around 150/160...the speedo measures 200!!!......There has been a lot of suspension upgrades,

also, mini tubs were also added, roll bars,sub frame, etc...}

OOOH... I have run my Super Snake on the PIR track a few laps also!!

HAPPY MOTORING TO ALL

[DeaconBlues (imported)]

You know, when it comes to a car that you actually CAN afford and CAN drive everyday, I do believe that the Dodge Charger, or if you really have a lot of money the Dodge Viper, really does give you a pretty good deal for the money you spend.

True enough, the Bughattis and Farraris and Maserattis and a few others can blow the doors off a Dodge Charger SRT8, but for about ONE TENTH the money you pay for the european super car, you can actually own a car that will still give you a thrill, and you can actually afford to drive every day. You can own the Charger SRT8 for LESS than $40,000, and the gas lasts longer than 12.5 minutes even at full throttle.

http://autos.yahoo.com/2010_dodge_charger_srt8/

If "money is no object" when you look to buy a car, then go ahead and buy the Bughatti, but for me, I could not even afford the monthly insurance cost on something like that, and even if I could I would be scared to drive it anywhere it might get scratched.

[Paolo]

Ah, reminds me of the days when Ford introduced the 2.3L-turbo Thunderchicken to try and lure people away from the V-8. They made a few Mustangs and Fairmonts in the early 80's with the prototype motor, but those were a disaster and anemic to say the least. I know, I had one. A regular Fairmont, and a Turbo Mustang. (Not talking the short-lived Mustang SVO).

After blowing the turbocharger off of the original motor and the rods into the oil pan (literally), we decided to get creative and see if we could adapt the more modern Thunderchicken's electronics and turbo to the reconditioned block and head. Believe it or not, it worked. The rear end limited the car to a top speed of 137 MPH, [220 kph] however. I had to work this out mathematically with readings from the tachometer, as the speedometer only went to 85 mph.

It was a 4-speed stick, too - before overdrive became popular and 60 mph in 4th gear turned 3,000 RPM's. Off the line, though, it was a killer!

Ah, those were the days...

[punkypink (imported)]

You know, when it comes to a car that you actually CAN afford and CAN drive everyday, I do believe that the Dodge Charger, or if you really have a lot of money the Dodge Viper, really does give you a pretty good deal for the money you spend.

True enough, the Bughattis and Farraris and Maserattis and a few others can blow the doors off a Dodge Charger SRT8, but for about ONE TENTH the money you pay for the european super car, you can actually own a car that will still give you a thrill, and you can actually afford to drive every day. You can own the Charger SRT8 for LESS than $40,000, and the gas lasts longer than 12.5 minutes even at full throttle.

http://autos.yahoo.com/2010_dodge_charger_srt8/

If "money is no object" when you look to buy a car, then go ahead and buy the Bughatti, but for me, I could not even afford the monthly insurance cost on something like that, and even if I could I would be scared to drive it anywhere it might get scratched.

This does depend on where in the world you live too. Many European sportscars are bound to be more expensive stateside, just as many American sportscars are bound to be more expensive in Europe (not to mention if they were even officially available). The virture of "value-for-money" is not exclusive to American sportscars worldwide, just more in the USA itself.

Nissan's GT-R for example, would be cheaper, not to mention out-perform both in terms of raw speed AND handling ability, anywhere in Asia, as opposed to say a Viper or a 'Vette.

[DeaconBlues (imported)]

This does depend on where in the world you live too. Many European sportscars are bound to be more expensive stateside, just as many American sportscars are bound to be more expensive in Europe (not to mention if they were even officially available). The virture of "value-for-money" is not exclusive to American sportscars worldwide, just more in the USA itself.

Nissan's GT-R for example, would be cheaper, not to mention out-perform both in terms of raw speed AND handling ability, anywhere in Asia, as opposed to say a Viper or a 'Vette.

Good point there, I suppose a SRT8 Charger would cost a hell of a lot more over anywhere in the EEU or Asia, and it is not really built right for the European driving environment, so over there it would be not worth it.

Still, here in the U.S. it is a pretty good deal as far as the "bang for your buck" measure goes.

[butterflyjack (imported)]

I agree Deacon...Not to mention that the new Charger is really good looking too..Vast improvements...They have a new version of the Hemi v-8 called the 392...(that was the CID of a famous original Hemi)...Super cars..It's good to see Chrysler getting back on their feet...The new Grand Cherokee is neato too...

dragonfly

[Sweetpickle (imported)]

Nerdy comments:

One of the reasons for the lack of V-10, V-12 and V16 engines is that

for maximum smoothness the product of the number of cylinders and

the angle between the cylinder banks should be 720. So we have

90 degree V-8, 72 degree V-10, 60degree V-12 and 45 degree V-16.

Those bigger ones have such a sharp angle that it causes cooling and casting problems.

GM, and others, made Straight 8 motors up into the 60's.

In about 1975 GM decided they needed a V-6. To save time

and money they used a cut down V-8. The 90 deg angle meant

the motor was syncopated, fire-fire-fire-skip-fire-fire-fire-skip.

Typical GM screw the customer cars.

[fhunter]

Nerdy comments:

One of the reasons for the lack of V-10, V-12 and V16 engines is that

for maximum smoothness the product of the number of cylinders and

the angle between the cylinder banks should be 720. So we have

90 degree V-8, 72 degree V-10, 60degree V-12 and 45 degree V-16.

Those bigger ones have such a sharp angle that it causes cooling and casting problems.

GM, and others, made Straight 8 motors up into the 60's.

In about 1975 GM decided they needed a V-6. To save time

and money they used a cut down V-8. The 90 deg angle meant

the motor was syncopated, fire-fire-fire-skip-fire-fire-fire-skip.

Typical GM screw the customer cars.

In italy, in 1920-s it was solved by combining two V-12 in line. That was in an airplane engine, for the Schneider trophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_AS.6

As for the cars? I do not know how to fit something like this in a car.