Rotary engine?

ckblum · 06-27-2009, 09:38 PM

Has anyone ever swapped a rotary engine in? I can't find any info on it, I've seen it done in a Ranger once though. Just wondering how much work it would be.

This ad is not displayed to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Yotatech!

Hayes · 06-27-2009, 09:47 PM

Not worth it. They are very temperamental engines, and they are not efficient at all. In an RX7 / RX8 a 1.3L engine only gets 12 mpg. My 2.4L get's 15-17 in a truck that's lifted with 33" tires.

ckblum · 06-27-2009, 09:54 PM

Yea but how much power does the rotary make compared to the 22re? I love the 22re but I also like how the rotary is small and puts out lots of power. I just wanna see if anyone has done it and how simple it was. I might be building a short course truck so MPG isn't really an issue just power to weight ratio.

ozziesironmanoffroad · 06-27-2009, 09:56 PM

but look at the power that little engine produces in the rx8. those little things damn near fly. true though that they are very temperamental. theres also something about how when u change the oil, you have to fill it, then run it until its warm, or it wont start back up and be fubard.... or something like that. i love that they can run those high RPMs that not even big block chevies can run with no fear of destroying the motor.
but look at the car its in... lighter than fiberglass. that motor in a toyota truck is like putting 40s on a stock IFS... it will work, but it will SUCK.

ckblum · 06-27-2009, 10:08 PM

An RX7 weighs around 2500lb. A single cab short box 2wd Toyota, gutted down, no box just fiberglass bedsides and fenders w/cage shouldn't be a whole lot more. I dunno just a thought, it would have to be within the rules still so I don't even know if a Rotary is legal, I know they are banned in a few other motorsports organizations.

RobD · 06-28-2009, 12:21 AM

Inefficient, poor fuel economy, low torque numbers...and no adapaters to hook it up to your drivetrain.

Not worth it.

ckblum · 06-28-2009, 12:25 AM

Alright, well maybe I'll look into a 3.4 swap. What kinda economy are people typically getting? I plan to run 31-32" tires max.

ozziesironmanoffroad · 06-28-2009, 06:30 AM

id look into a 3.4 swap, like you said. economy anywhere from 10mpg to like 24mpg. maybe a little more. i dont have one, so i cant say for sure. a buddys taco, lifted (bro), 4" blocks, 35s, he gets on it all the time (lead foot) gets around 9-10mpg. i dont know everyones situation, so i generalized lol.

**waskillywabbit** · 06-28-2009, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobD

Inefficient, poor fuel economy, low torque numbers...and no adapaters to hook it up to your drivetrain.

Not worth it.

Yep, pointless.

RobD · 06-28-2009, 07:40 AM

Highway, running 33" All Terrains, I get around 24 mpg on my 3.4 swapped 91.

It works out to around 300 miles per tank. Mixed city and highway, it's a little lower, but still better than my old 3.0.

85excab · 06-28-2009, 08:54 AM

if u want light weight powerful and still yota, go with a 2rz/3rz.

Hayes · 06-28-2009, 09:00 AM

Got with a 3.4 or even a Chevy 350. The rotary (Code named Wankel) is rediculous. A piston uses 3 piston rings, a rotary uses 8 apex seals. If the engine detonates once, it's time for a rebuild.

As it was said earlier, they make decent horsepower but no torque. Get yourself a good reciprocating engine and make it more powerful. Use a 3.4 with a supercharger, URD 7th injector kit and be done with it.

ckblum · 06-28-2009, 10:10 AM

Is the 7m-ge a heavy engine? I found a few on craigslist for a decent price. How hard is it to fit in?

Windsor · 06-28-2009, 10:46 AM

12mpg is a heavily modded turbo model at the track, perhaps. I get 20mpg (highway) with my old carb rotary engine, ferexample.

But yes, there are many reasons to not do it -- low torque, no 4x4 drivetrains (REPU was 2wd only), no adapter plates, yadda yadda.

ckblum · 06-28-2009, 11:47 AM

I was just thinking it would be cool to throw it into a little 2wd single cab short box and have a super light short course truck.

Adam F · 06-28-2009, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobD

Highway, running 33" All Terrains, I get around 24 mpg on my 3.4 swapped 91.

It works out to around 300 miles per tank. Mixed city and highway, it's a little lower, but still better than my old 3.0.

24mpg? Most I can squeeze out of 97 is 20.

But your math doesnt add up. 300 miles to a tank, 17 gallons in a tank. 300 divided by 17 = 17.6. Even if you diddnt use ALL 17 gallons, something like 15.5 (usually what I fill up to at 300 miles) 300 divided by 15.5 = 19.3 If you really got 24mpg you would be putting in only 12.5 gallons when you fill up after driving 300 miles.

jackwolf · 06-29-2009, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ckblum

I was just thinking it would be cool to throw it into a little 2wd single cab short box and have a super light short course truck.

X2

The wankel engine was banned from competition in some series because it had an unfair advantage over the 4 cylinder engines. They rev up to 10,000 rpm and can be tuned to produce a flat torque curve. Once they make peak torque, they stay there.

No wonder they were banned. Mazda won it's 24 Hours of Le Mans class ten years in a row with the wankel. People even use them for aviation home builds.

Have you ever seen the viral video of a gsxr 1100 engine in a smart car? That's the sort of fun you could have on the track with a wankel engine in a stripped down, street tuned yota with some gummy tires. It has a serious backbone.

The pay off is not as good if you installed one in a runner unless you jump on the highway and stay there.
Or if you do a lot of roll on acceleration at highway speeds, those things rev quick.

Or if you do fire road hill climbs.
Or if you do rally style time trials.
Or...

well the list just goes on

and on
and on
and on
and
the beats don't stop until the break of dawn.
Every girl I know, she want to get with...

Oh

never mind.

Windsor · 06-29-2009, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackwolf

X2

The wankel engine was banned from competition in some series because it had an unfair advantage over the 4 cylinder engines. They rev up to 10,000 rpm and can be tuned to produce a flat torque curve. Once they make peak torque, they stay there.

No wonder they were banned. Mazda won it's 24 Hours of Le Mans class ten years in a row with the wankel. People even use them for aviation home builds.

Have you ever seen the viral video of a gsxr 1100 engine in a smart car? That's the sort of fun you could have on the track with a wankel engine in a stripped down, street tuned yota with some gummy tires. It has a serious backbone.

The pay off is not as good if you installed one in a runner unless you jump on the highway and stay there.
Or if you do a lot of roll on acceleration at highway speeds, those things rev quick.

Or if you do fire road hill climbs.
Or if you do rally style time trials.
Or...

well the list just goes on

and on
and on
and on
and
the beats don't stop until the break of dawn.
Every girl I know, she want to get with...

Oh

never mind.

A whole lot of errors here.

Mazda won one La Mans race with the rotary engine -- 1991. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_787B

Tuning a flat torque curve and achieving 10000rpm at the same time is the holy grail of engine building -- every engine does one or the other, never both (some V8s and V12s come close, tho).

The rotary engine does not make a flat torque curve without adding a blower and that's a square-peg-round-hole effort, at best.

Revving quick is simply a matter of reducing rotating mass. Sure, you get a headstart with the rotary engine (all you need to do is swap out the flywheel).

RobD · 06-29-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam F

24mpg? Most I can squeeze out of 97 is 20.

But your math doesnt add up. 300 miles to a tank, 17 gallons in a tank. 300 divided by 17 = 17.6. Even if you diddnt use ALL 17 gallons, something like 15.5 (usually what I fill up to at 300 miles) 300 divided by 15.5 = 19.3 If you really got 24mpg you would be putting in only 12.5 gallons when you fill up after driving 300 miles.

I might have been a little off, but...here is the math:

Last highway trip I took, I got 505 kms on 54 liters of fuel (Canadian, eh). The mileage is confirmed by both GPS and Google. That translates to 10.7 liters per 100 kms. This is where my math was a little off: that works out to 26.4 miles per Imperial gallon, which I forgot is larger than that little gallon you Americans use. It's actually 22 miles per US gallon.

Yesterday I filled up 56 liters at a distance of 479 kms, mixed city and highway. That works out to 20 miles per US gallon.

Aside from running Mobil1, the main thing that I attribute this to is getting rid of the mechanical fan and replacing it with an electric. I noticed a 10-15% increase in fuel economy after I did that mod.

So, in essence, you're right...I wasn't quite making 24 mpg (US), but I was kicking butt in Imperial gallons.

jackwolf · 06-29-2009, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windsor

a whole lot of errors here.

Mazda won one la mans race with the rotary engine -- 1991. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mazda_787b

tuning a flat torque curve and achieving 10000rpm at the same time is the holy grail of engine building -- every engine does one or the other, never both (some v8s and v12s come close, tho).

The rotary engine does not make a flat torque curve without adding a blower and that's a square-peg-round-hole effort, at best.

Revving quick is simply a matter of reducing rotating mass. Sure, you get a headstart with the rotary engine (all you need to do is swap out the flywheel).

A whole lot of errors here.

I'll admit, I did take certain liberties. I am no fan of the wankel engine myself but it seemed to be getting bashed, so I don't mind playing the devils advocate from time to time. But there are no errors here. At most, only a single administrative oversight brought on by the witching hour and firewater.

All right, I'll admit it. One error.

Mazda won one La Mans race with the rotary engine -- 1991. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_787B

That first year, RX-7s placed first and second at the 24 Hours of Daytona, and claimed the GTU series championship. The car continued winning, claiming the GTU championship seven years in a row. The RX-7 took the GTO championship ten years in a row from 1982. The RX-7 has won more IMSA races than any other car model.

...and there it is.

The Mazda RX-7 has won more IMSA races in its class than any other model of automobile, with its one hundredth victory on September 2, 1990. Following that, the RX-7 won its class in the IMSA 24 Hours of Daytona race ten years in a row, starting in 1982. The RX7 won the IMSA Grand Touring Under Two Liter (GTU) championship each year from 1980 through 1987, inclusive.

...and there it is again from another angle. Both from wikipedia this time around; one for the rx7 the other for the wankel.

It was Daytona but at least I did bother to put CLASS in my original post even though I did not bother to look anything up, I'm just too lazy when it comes to posting in the public domain since I really don't care about my street cred, or do I? hmmm.

Tuning a flat torque curve and achieving 10000rpm at the same time is the holy grail of engine building -- every engine does one or the other, never both (some V8s and V12s come close, tho).

I never said at the same time, I only implied it. Some engines CAN only do one or the other. With this engine you can TUNE for one or the other or, to a certain extend, both. So, like some v8 and some v12s, you can play both sides against each other on the road to mecca. I do love naturally aspirated, silky smooth v12s, tho.

The rotary engine does not make a flat torque curve without adding a blower and that's a square-peg-round-hole effort, at best.

Agreed, nothing sexier than naturally aspirated, but it CAN be done.

Revving quick is simply a matter of reducing rotating mass. Sure, you get a headstart with the rotary engine (all you need to do is swap out the flywheel).

On a small yota truck, street tuned with gummy tires and an off the shelf rx something or the other wankel. You are going to have one hell of a good time with minimal cost. I would like to track it against other big ticket rides. It can be done for around 10k USD easy and that will give +60k USD 4 cylinder rides a run for the money. To have more fun you would have to look into a radical sportscar they rev halfway to heaven. In the meantime, I think a high revving 10k trainer would be a blast.

Windsor · 06-29-2009, 09:30 PM

Um, you're grossly exxagerating and have not provided any references.

Some details off of the top of my head...

GTO would be Mazda's 13B engine, which they did not have in production RX-7s in 1982 (12A only until 1983, the 13B came back in the RX-7 in 1984).

GTU is "2.5Liter and less", btw. Of note, the Mazda 12A engine qualifies, but the 13B does not -- due to the "2x" rule applied to rotary engines by nearly all racing sanctions.

A 10000rpm rotary engine won't be "cheap" by any means. A rotary engine is at best $2500 (no crate rotary engines from Mazda, sorry). If you want the bearings staked so that it'll sustain 8000+ rpms, you immediately add another $2000 to the rebuild bill. IIRC, a CSD crate LS2 will run about that same price. If you don't believe me, check out the Mazda engine rebuild prices at mazdatrix.com.

In short, if you want a REPU (Rotary Engine PickUp), just buy a REPU: http://motors.shop.ebay.com/items/?_...pu&_sacat=6001

I've owned more 1982-1985 RX-7s than I can count, I still have two today. I also have enough engine bits'n'pieces to make five functional engines (guessing), including the rare 12AT (turbo).

jackwolf · 06-29-2009, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ckblum

Has anyone ever swapped a rotary engine in? I can't find any info on it, I've seen it done in a Ranger once though. Just wondering how much work it would be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ckblum

I was just thinking it would be cool to throw it into a little 2wd single cab short box and have a super light short course truck.

I agree.

I also think that people tend to work with what they have. I am assuming, that he has both at his disposal and is wondering how big a nut he is going to crack to make it happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windsor

Um, you're grossly exxagerating and have not provided any references.

Nah, I just cut and pasted what I needed and then mentioned the source. What I did not do was provide a link to the source. rx7 wiki and wankel wiki.

rx7 - look in motorsport section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RX7

wankel - look in the applications section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine

A 10000rpm rotary engine won't be "cheap" by any means.

I am assuming that he already has access to both the power plant and the platform, from savage deals. So, I am thinking rx7 in which case he has access to the 9k area of the tach. You are absolutely correct about staking the bearings. But I don't think that will be necessary if it stays street legal. If the project impresses, a track session should be done and if track days become a regular habit, then the bearings should be staked.

However, I think it will just be a glorified grocery getter and occasional forays into the upper limits of the tach should be ok.

But this is not my thread, it's ckblums.
This is not my area of expertise, it's yours.
This is not my what if?
My what if is a small toyota truck powered by two matched wankel engines in the bed. Powerboat style.

Or one up front and one in the back.

Or a matching set of gsxr 1100 engines in the bed.

Or a small jet turbine spining a generator that powers an electric motor attached to each wheel.

Or a small plane made out of corrugated plastic and tyvek.

Or one of those mechanical arm things from iron man, I'll take two.

And the list goes on
and on
and on
and on
and the beats...

81 yota 4x4 · 07-13-2009, 07:01 PM

i think that those rotary engines were a great idea and i wish the car manufactures expanded on the idea some more. its cool how the can rev so high and all but i wouldn't think to put one in a yota. in my opinion the best motors for a toyota are the 20r,22r and the chevy 4.3.

904_runner · 07-13-2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozziesironmanoffroad

id look into a 3.4 swap, like you said. economy anywhere from 10mpg to like 24mpg. maybe a little more. i dont have one, so i cant say for sure. a buddys taco, lifted (bro), 4" blocks, 35s, he gets on it all the time (lead foot) gets around 9-10mpg. i dont know everyones situation, so i generalized lol.

9-10 mpg?

Something must not be right.

I have a 3.4L in my 4runner (heaver) lifted, running 35s and drive it like its stolen, and im getting 17-19mpg...

Just wondering whats going on.

spanish-road · 07-17-2009, 03:35 PM

Do a Pratt & Whitney PT6A-114A turboprop engine swap it will have hella high horsepower and sound mean.

06-27-2009, 09:47 PM	#2 (permalink)
Hayes Registered User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Aurora, CO Posts: 1,884	Not worth it. They are very temperamental engines, and they are not efficient at all. In an RX7 / RX8 a 1.3L engine only gets 12 mpg. My 2.4L get's 15-17 in a truck that's lifted with 33" tires. __________________ Obama is an acronym. OBAMA = One Big Ass Mistake, America

06-27-2009, 09:56 PM	#4 (permalink)
ozziesironmanoffroad Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Spring Valley, CA Posts: 5,677	but look at the power that little engine produces in the rx8. those little things damn near fly. true though that they are very temperamental. theres also something about how when u change the oil, you have to fill it, then run it until its warm, or it wont start back up and be fubard.... or something like that. i love that they can run those high RPMs that not even big block chevies can run with no fear of destroying the motor. but look at the car its in... lighter than fiberglass. that motor in a toyota truck is like putting 40s on a stock IFS... it will work, but it will SUCK. __________________ The 22r series engines are made from the fires of hell, and will fight tooth and nail to not be sent back. 1988 Toyota P/U 4x4 22re, 1200 miles on the rebuild engine builder .268 cam pioneer CD deck 31x10.50x15 BFG A/T BAJA 100W lights on prerunner bumper KC Daylighters 100W rancho rs5000 MUD IS A VALID PAINT JOB! If not living life to the fullest, why live it? my trucks official buildup thread

06-28-2009, 12:21 AM	#6 (permalink)
RobD Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Calgary, AB Posts: 1,727	Inefficient, poor fuel economy, low torque numbers...and no adapaters to hook it up to your drivetrain. Not worth it. __________________ 1991 4Runner, 3.4 5VZFE swap, OME shocks/springs, 33" BFG All Terrain T/A KOs, Pioneer head unit, Infinity speakers, XM Satellite radio

06-28-2009, 06:30 AM	#8 (permalink)
ozziesironmanoffroad Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Spring Valley, CA Posts: 5,677	id look into a 3.4 swap, like you said. economy anywhere from 10mpg to like 24mpg. maybe a little more. i dont have one, so i cant say for sure. a buddys taco, lifted (bro), 4" blocks, 35s, he gets on it all the time (lead foot) gets around 9-10mpg. i dont know everyones situation, so i generalized lol. __________________ The 22r series engines are made from the fires of hell, and will fight tooth and nail to not be sent back. 1988 Toyota P/U 4x4 22re, 1200 miles on the rebuild engine builder .268 cam pioneer CD deck 31x10.50x15 BFG A/T BAJA 100W lights on prerunner bumper KC Daylighters 100W rancho rs5000 MUD IS A VALID PAINT JOB! If not living life to the fullest, why live it? my trucks official buildup thread

06-28-2009, 07:40 AM	#10 (permalink)
RobD Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Calgary, AB Posts: 1,727	Highway, running 33" All Terrains, I get around 24 mpg on my 3.4 swapped 91. It works out to around 300 miles per tank. Mixed city and highway, it's a little lower, but still better than my old 3.0. __________________ 1991 4Runner, 3.4 5VZFE swap, OME shocks/springs, 33" BFG All Terrain T/A KOs, Pioneer head unit, Infinity speakers, XM Satellite radio

06-27-2009, 09:54 PM	#3 (permalink)
ckblum Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 56	Yea but how much power does the rotary make compared to the 22re? I love the 22re but I also like how the rotary is small and puts out lots of power. I just wanna see if anyone has done it and how simple it was. I might be building a short course truck so MPG isn't really an issue just power to weight ratio.

06-27-2009, 10:08 PM	#5 (permalink)
ckblum Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 56	An RX7 weighs around 2500lb. A single cab short box 2wd Toyota, gutted down, no box just fiberglass bedsides and fenders w/cage shouldn't be a whole lot more. I dunno just a thought, it would have to be within the rules still so I don't even know if a Rotary is legal, I know they are banned in a few other motorsports organizations.

06-28-2009, 12:25 AM	#7 (permalink)
ckblum Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 56	Alright, well maybe I'll look into a 3.4 swap. What kinda economy are people typically getting? I plan to run 31-32" tires max.

06-28-2009, 08:54 AM	#11 (permalink)
85excab Registered User Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Grand Junction, Co Posts: 458	if u want light weight powerful and still yota, go with a 2rz/3rz. __________________ i drive by brail. Rock Solid Motorsports http://www.rocksolidmotorsports.net/ http://www.lunatic4x4.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=45

06-28-2009, 09:00 AM	#12 (permalink)
Hayes Registered User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Aurora, CO Posts: 1,884	Got with a 3.4 or even a Chevy 350. The rotary (Code named Wankel) is rediculous. A piston uses 3 piston rings, a rotary uses 8 apex seals. If the engine detonates once, it's time for a rebuild. As it was said earlier, they make decent horsepower but no torque. Get yourself a good reciprocating engine and make it more powerful. Use a 3.4 with a supercharger, URD 7th injector kit and be done with it. __________________ Obama is an acronym. OBAMA = One Big Ass Mistake, America

06-28-2009, 10:10 AM	#13 (permalink)
ckblum Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 56	Is the 7m-ge a heavy engine? I found a few on craigslist for a decent price. How hard is it to fit in?

06-28-2009, 10:46 AM	#14 (permalink)
Windsor Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: DFW, Texas! Posts: 794	12mpg is a heavily modded turbo model at the track, perhaps. I get 20mpg (highway) with my old carb rotary engine, ferexample. But yes, there are many reasons to not do it -- low torque, no 4x4 drivetrains (REPU was 2wd only), no adapter plates, yadda yadda. __________________ '87 T4R Deluxe, mall crawler every non-SR5 option installed (sans AT), as well as: * Cruise Control (dealer installed) * Michelin LTX A/T2 31s on 1st-gen alloy rims * SmittyBilt granny step bar * SR5 Instrument Cluster

06-28-2009, 11:47 AM	#15 (permalink)
ckblum Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 56	I was just thinking it would be cool to throw it into a little 2wd single cab short box and have a super light short course truck.

06-29-2009, 09:30 PM	#21 (permalink)
Windsor Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: DFW, Texas! Posts: 794	Um, you're grossly exxagerating and have not provided any references. Some details off of the top of my head... GTO would be Mazda's 13B engine, which they did not have in production RX-7s in 1982 (12A only until 1983, the 13B came back in the RX-7 in 1984). GTU is "2.5Liter and less", btw. Of note, the Mazda 12A engine qualifies, but the 13B does not -- due to the "2x" rule applied to rotary engines by nearly all racing sanctions. A 10000rpm rotary engine won't be "cheap" by any means. A rotary engine is at best $2500 (no crate rotary engines from Mazda, sorry). If you want the bearings staked so that it'll sustain 8000+ rpms, you immediately add another $2000 to the rebuild bill. IIRC, a CSD crate LS2 will run about that same price. If you don't believe me, check out the Mazda engine rebuild prices at mazdatrix.com. In short, if you want a REPU (Rotary Engine PickUp), just buy a REPU: http://motors.shop.ebay.com/items/?_...pu&_sacat=6001 I've owned more 1982-1985 RX-7s than I can count, I still have two today. I also have enough engine bits'n'pieces to make five functional engines (guessing), including the rare 12AT (turbo). __________________ '87 T4R Deluxe, mall crawler every non-SR5 option installed (sans AT), as well as: * Cruise Control (dealer installed) * Michelin LTX A/T2 31s on 1st-gen alloy rims * SmittyBilt granny step bar * SR5 Instrument Cluster

07-13-2009, 07:01 PM	#23 (permalink)
81 yota 4x4 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: washington state Posts: 58	i think that those rotary engines were a great idea and i wish the car manufactures expanded on the idea some more. its cool how the can rev so high and all but i wouldn't think to put one in a yota. in my opinion the best motors for a toyota are the 20r,22r and the chevy 4.3.

07-17-2009, 03:35 PM	#25 (permalink)
spanish-road Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Fairbanks Ak Posts: 1,099	Do a Pratt & Whitney PT6A-114A turboprop engine swap it will have hella high horsepower and sound mean. __________________ What I don't get is why pay someone to work on your vehicle? 1991 toyota pickup extcab- 22re 31x10.5x15 bone stock except for the RV cam and tires.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search