13B-REW to LS1 Perspective
 

The 13B-REW engine has a bad reputation which I consider to be unreasonable.
The engine itself is good, but Mazda grossly un-engineered three supportive support systems.
(1) The radiator was too small considering the power of the engine.
(2) The IC was also too small considering engine power.
(3) ECU programming was negligent as the cooling fans would not work unless the engine reached 221F and emergency /high speed fan usage (thermoswitch) was at 226F.
Combined this with poor mechanic training/service, and the poor reputation was formed.

Upgrade the radiator and IC, and put in a Apexi PFC with properly adjusted fans, and the engine is reliable. Consider that this engine was producing about 225 whp from 2.6L.

The LS1 (5.7L) family of engines produce between about 305 to 350 hp in 2001. The LS6 version made 385 to 405 hp. Theses were flywheel, not whp.

If the Chevy 5.7L engine had produced the same hp per liter as the stock 13B-REW, it would have produced 493whp. My friend's LS1 with reworked heads, headers, mild cam upgrade, FAST intake manifold and TB, with 4" cold intake; produces 444whp. Still 49hp short of equivalency.

Now consider the above upgraded 13B at about 15psi boost produces 350whp and was still reliable. To match power per liter, the LS1 would need to make 761whp.

Mine and many single turbo 13B-REW are easily making about 400 whp with stock or close to stock ports. Again the LS1 would have to make 877 whp to match power per liter.

Given this perception, our little engine is amazing! If the Chevys had produced equivalent power during the same time frame, I wonder how reliable they would have been.

Very good call Chuck. I am tired of people saying, "nice car, but I wish they were more reliable." It seems I have to go into a 30-minute explanation every time to backup my claims that they are reliable with little effort.

+1, If their is a 13b that has been drove hard and still ticking it's mine, and I'm still gradually tuning and upping the boost on it from time to time. It does get taken great care of maintenance wise though.

Although the IC and Radiator arent teh best I dont see them as real problems.

Mazda waiting for 108c for the fans to hit full speed, the AST, and the FPD are the 3 things I think that gave the FD such a bad name. Everyone always makes comments about how unreliable the rotary is, however, when I drive an fd engine failure is the last thing I am worried about. It is all the accessories on the engine that lead to engine failure that scares me. You would be blown away by how many fds I buy and customer fds that show up with leaking FPDs. Its shocking.

hp/l is a ludicrous argument. it seriously belongs with the honda fanbois, and i would expect better from a website 'above the standards of rx7club.' people often whine when v8 defenders bring gas mileage into the mix, but at least thats a useful measurement. sure gas mileage is back burner in a sports car, but hp/l affects absolutely nothing in the real world.
if anything, power/weight (of the engine) would be a much more appropriate scale.
as for actual power output, the perspective thing goes both ways. if you're talking big numbers (600+), it may very well be cheaper/easier with a rotary. in a daily driven street car, anything over ~350 in a car this light is pretty much useless considering wheelspin does not accelerate a car. while LS1's make an advertised 305-340 fwhp, the fact is they all put down over 300whp through stock manifolds/cats (custom exhaust/intake obviously- its a swap). a mild cam with headers can make 400whp and pass smog. stock LS1's can take a 150 shot without drama, if you're into that sorta thing. more power than anyone needs in a DD, however fun it may be. and who can argue with torque?
for a sports car that sees mainly street use, i see zero downside to an LS1 vs a rotary, other than initial cost, and rotary pride (not saying thats a bad thing!). the fact is, you gain an extra gear (gas mileage- sorry i went there), dont gain any weight (some lose weight), and have a car that will really move at any rpm in any gear.
if you're going big, rotary is prolly where its at. there are def some 13b's making huge power out there, relatively reliable, thanks to quality parts and a knowledgable tuner.

(i happen to be a v8 owner, but have zero disrespect towards rotaries. they definately have the potential, but just arent for everyone.)

My FC gets phenomenal MPG (30 to and from DGRR) with no emissions, full exhaust and intake with an FCD. So no, I am not making 400+hp, but it is more than the 18 year old stock suspension can handle right now.

I like LS1's and all, but consider the price of rebuilding. Pop a rotary and you might be out a housing, a rotor (or both) and a turbine wheel (maybe). Throw a rod in a V8 and tally up that bill.

Cost effective rebuilds is what keeps me rotary.

By your idea of reality, it is fair to have a 150lb boxer go against a 329lb boxer and say it is even-steven/ok?

The next time some guy beats you silly in his 1000CC+ super bike, let's hear you say it was an even match.

I think what he's getting at is that there's not really any such thing as 'fair' when talking about engines. In the end it doesn't matter whether a fight's fair or not, just who wins, honestly.
I agree, power/unit of displacement isn't really a useful argument. To me, it's a term that manufacturers and magazines use to pimp their products, and tell us what a wonderful feat of engineering our cars are. It doesn't have much use in the real world. No matter how you rationalize the hp/L argument, what matters is specific output. That, and whether or not you like the characteristics of the rotary, and if you're prepared to put up with the quirks or not.
I am. That's why my car's currently under rebuild. The hp/L argument does work though as a rationalization for a rebuild though.

its more like 2 runners, one is 200lbs and 5'8, the other is 6'2 but is lighter 180lbs. one has a longer stride, one has stronger leg musculature. when looking at leg speed one takes 3 strides to the other's 2 1/2. one dominates the 400m, the other prefers a 100m. there are a lot of differences but they are both runners.

today they race a 250m, most people probably care who finishes first. but maybe im more impressed at the competitor that finishes 4/100th second slow but find out he's blind.

hope that made some sense. lol

No was it suposed to?:confused:LOL

I think it all comes down to preference. If you want a unique engine that is a thrill to drive, revs high, and makes the inner child scream, the 13B is your engine. If you want an engine that makes little children cry because their big wheels don't match up and that puts down phenomenal power, get an LS#.

Agreed. One of the main problems with rotaries is all the shit that's strapped to them. I've never had a problem with my engine (granted it's an N/A FC), but rather all the 8 jillion things needed on the engine.

I'm going to have to disagree with that part of your post, and only that part since the rest is pretty much spot on.

Regardless of what people may try to argue, there's no replacement for displacement (at least Wankel rotary vs. piston). People argue that you can turbo a 13B and have it make just as much HP as an LS#. Sure... you can... you can also take the same turbo (or something comparable) and put it on the LS# and blow the 13B away.

Many of you are missing the point of the comparison, and you have let your emotions overide your reasoning capacity.

Yes a 400hp LS1 will outlast a 400hp rotary. The idea was what if they both made the same hp/L then how would they compare. We are talking about engine stress. Would a 877whp LS1 in a vette fair as well as for a dayly driver?

nitro RC engines make over 850hp/l. funny cars make 975hp/l. are they comparable to a production engine? how about each other? hp/l makes zero difference (performance wise) in the real world, unless of course displacement is fixed (sanctioned racing).
what matters is how much power makes its way to the wheels (peak and under the curve), and how much the car weighs (among other things).
seems to me that 'which will last longer' IS the reasonable argument, and 'which can make more hp/l' is driven by emotion.
we all know both engines can make tons of power. what matters to many is peace of mind. no one likes a blown engine, and FD owners are often driving around waiting for theirs to pop. sure there are reliable rotaries out there, but it really only comes with the right combination of parts and a good tuner. not everyone has access to a dyno, much less a knowledgable rotary tuner. LS1 owners can get mail order tunes for about any setup. twin turbo LS1 guys should probably be hitting the dyno..

btw- heres 1100hp on 93 octane with a 2 year 24k mile waranty (way expensive tho.. err)
http://www.corvettefever.com/feature...tte/index.html

Blah Blah Blah...Josh, we know you are diehard V8 guy and we have diehard rotorheads on here. HP/L may mean nothin in the real world, but it is a figure many in the engineering community love to spout off and is often linked to the engine perceived efficiency. For example, the ITR Honda engines are hailed for there engineering brilliance with excellent HP/L numbers....

BTW Josh, ultimate HP/L in my oppinion....Mid 80s Turbo F1 engines. 1500hp outta 1.5l engines designed to last and entire F1 race :D

im not a diehard v8 fan. i often stand up for v8s in rx7 forums because some people are grossly misinformed, but i totally understand the desire to keep a rotary in an rx7.
i'm only really bothered when people talk down to someone for doing a swap. thats just disrespectful (thankfully i havnt seen any of that on this site). the hp/l thing also annoys me, probably about as much as you guys hate hearing gas mileage argument.
not trying to start a fight, just offering the other side to a thread about perspective.