Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:56:21 -0400
Reply-To:     "Robert A. Alexander" <satcong@VOL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         "Robert A. Alexander" <satcong@VOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Wankels
Comments: To: Michael Harrnacker <harrnack@IN-TCH.COM>
Comments: cc: vanagon@VANAGON.COM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

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