FOAF has recently (two weeks ago) bought himself an RX7 - fairly recent
curvy sort, but with some mileage on it.  Anyway, the obvious has
happened - it died on the road and came home on a low-loader, suffering
from sick rotor seals.

1)   I thought they'd stopped doing that years ago ?  Do they last a
reasonable time now, or are they still dodgy with any mileage on them ?
How much can you expect ?

2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now it's
years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I recall
it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?


Thanks for any advice you can share on current Mazda Wankels.

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
news:d46sa1lrios5btvv6ufphn2sscubbh9kgt@4ax.com...

> FOAF has recently (two weeks ago) bought himself an RX7 - fairly recent
> curvy sort, but with some mileage on it.  Anyway, the obvious has
> happened - it died on the road and came home on a low-loader, suffering
> from sick rotor seals.
>
> 1)   I thought they'd stopped doing that years ago ?  Do they last a
> reasonable time now, or are they still dodgy with any mileage on them ?
> How much can you expect ?
>
> 2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now it's
> years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I recall
> it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?
>
>
> Thanks for any advice you can share on current Mazda Wankels.
> I would have thought you could find out loads of stuff on a New Zealand or

Aussie website . Shedloads of the things are imported over there from Japan.
steve the grease

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
news:d46sa1lrios5btvv6ufphn2sscubbh9kgt@4ax.com...

> FOAF has recently (two weeks ago) bought himself an RX7 - fairly recent
> curvy sort, but with some mileage on it.  Anyway, the obvious has
> happened - it died on the road and came home on a low-loader, suffering
> from sick rotor seals.
>
> 1)   I thought they'd stopped doing that years ago ?  Do they last a
> reasonable time now, or are they still dodgy with any mileage on them ?
> How much can you expect ?
>
> 2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now it's
> years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I recall
> it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?
>
>
> Thanks for any advice you can share on current Mazda Wankels.
> I would have thought you could find out loads of stuff on a New Zealand or

Aussie website . Shedloads of the things are imported over there from Japan.
steve the grease

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
news:d46sa1lrios5btvv6ufphn2sscubbh9kgt@4ax.com...

[ re the Mazda RX7 engine ]

>
> 2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now
it's
> years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I
recall
> it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?
>


Dead simple, so is a Masseratti (sp?) V12, in principle!

"Any fool can replace the seals, how long they will last is another
matter" - the words of an ex Mazda mechanic who used to rebuild (on
average) an RX engine each week back in the 70's [1], I can't see that
things will have changed that much considering the simplicity of the
rotary engine...

[1] RX3 engine

:::Jerry:::: (me@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were 
saying :


> "Any fool can replace the seals, how long they will last is another
> matter" - the words of an ex Mazda mechanic who used to rebuild (on
> average) an RX engine each week back in the 70's [1], I can't see that
> things will have changed that much considering the simplicity of the
> rotary engine...


Apart from the subtle detail that the seals have all been completely 
redesigned and reengineered in materials that weren't available in the 
'70s...

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
news:d46sa1lrios5btvv6ufphn2sscubbh9kgt@4ax.com...

[ re the Mazda RX7 engine ]

>
> 2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now
it's
> years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I
recall
> it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?
>


Dead simple, so is a Masseratti (sp?) V12, in principle!

"Any fool can replace the seals, how long they will last is another
matter" - the words of an ex Mazda mechanic who used to rebuild (on
average) an RX engine each week back in the 70's [1], I can't see that
things will have changed that much considering the simplicity of the
rotary engine...

[1] RX3 engine

:::Jerry:::: (me@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were 
saying :


> "Any fool can replace the seals, how long they will last is another
> matter" - the words of an ex Mazda mechanic who used to rebuild (on
> average) an RX engine each week back in the 70's [1], I can't see that
> things will have changed that much considering the simplicity of the
> rotary engine...


Apart from the subtle detail that the seals have all been completely 
redesigned and reengineered in materials that weren't available in the 
'70s...

"Adrian"  wrote in message
news:Xns967558BB6F850adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.244.170...

> :::Jerry:::: (me@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were
> saying :
>
> > "Any fool can replace the seals, how long they will last is
another
> > matter" - the words of an ex Mazda mechanic who used to rebuild
(on
> > average) an RX engine each week back in the 70's [1], I can't see
that
> > things will have changed that much considering the simplicity of
the
> > rotary engine...
>
> Apart from the subtle detail that the seals have all been completely
> redesigned and reengineered in materials that weren't available in
the
> '70s...


Your point being? An incorrectly installed seal is still an
incorrectly installed seal, the tolerances are still the same.

In article , 
dingbat@codesmiths.com says...

> FOAF has recently (two weeks ago) bought himself an RX7 - fairly recent
> curvy sort, but with some mileage on it.  Anyway, the obvious has
> happened - it died on the road and came home on a low-loader, suffering
> from sick rotor seals.
> 
> 1)   I thought they'd stopped doing that years ago ?  Do they last a
> reasonable time now, or are they still dodgy with any mileage on them ?
> How much can you expect ?
> 
> 2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now it's
> years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I recall
> it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any advice you can share on current Mazda Wankels.
> 
> 

Because of the mechanical simplicity, when pretty much anything internal 
(like rotor tips etc) need doing. It is close to full rebuild time, and 
that is supposed to be about every 60k miles.

£3k sounds like the sort of money I've heard bandied about for a basic 
standard rebuild.

The RX8 Renesis motor is supposedly longer lasting, but as most makers 
plan for people to change their car every 3 years when they buy new, 60k 
miles is outside the normal ownership period of the first, and maybe 
even the second owner.
-- 
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

"Adrian"  wrote in message
news:Xns967558BB6F850adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.244.170...

> :::Jerry:::: (me@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were
> saying :
>
> > "Any fool can replace the seals, how long they will last is
another
> > matter" - the words of an ex Mazda mechanic who used to rebuild
(on
> > average) an RX engine each week back in the 70's [1], I can't see
that
> > things will have changed that much considering the simplicity of
the
> > rotary engine...
>
> Apart from the subtle detail that the seals have all been completely
> redesigned and reengineered in materials that weren't available in
the
> '70s...


Your point being? An incorrectly installed seal is still an
incorrectly installed seal, the tolerances are still the same.

In article , 
dingbat@codesmiths.com says...

> FOAF has recently (two weeks ago) bought himself an RX7 - fairly recent
> curvy sort, but with some mileage on it.  Anyway, the obvious has
> happened - it died on the road and came home on a low-loader, suffering
> from sick rotor seals.
> 
> 1)   I thought they'd stopped doing that years ago ?  Do they last a
> reasonable time now, or are they still dodgy with any mileage on them ?
> How much can you expect ?
> 
> 2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now it's
> years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I recall
> it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any advice you can share on current Mazda Wankels.
> 
> 

Because of the mechanical simplicity, when pretty much anything internal 
(like rotor tips etc) need doing. It is close to full rebuild time, and 
that is supposed to be about every 60k miles.

£3k sounds like the sort of money I've heard bandied about for a basic 
standard rebuild.

The RX8 Renesis motor is supposedly longer lasting, but as most makers 
plan for people to change their car every 3 years when they buy new, 60k 
miles is outside the normal ownership period of the first, and maybe 
even the second owner.
-- 
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

Andy Dingley wrote:

> FOAF has recently (two weeks ago) bought himself an RX7 - fairly recent
> curvy sort, but with some mileage on it.  Anyway, the obvious has
> happened - it died on the road and came home on a low-loader, suffering
> from sick rotor seals.
> 
> 1)   I thought they'd stopped doing that years ago ?  Do they last a
> reasonable time now, or are they still dodgy with any mileage on them ?
> How much can you expect ?
> 
> 2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now it's
> years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I recall
> it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?


You know, I have the oddest sense of deja vu here...

I bet that RX7 is nice and black.

Richard

-- 
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;)

Andy Dingley wrote:

> FOAF has recently (two weeks ago) bought himself an RX7 - fairly recent
> curvy sort, but with some mileage on it.  Anyway, the obvious has
> happened - it died on the road and came home on a low-loader, suffering
> from sick rotor seals.
> 
> 1)   I thought they'd stopped doing that years ago ?  Do they last a
> reasonable time now, or are they still dodgy with any mileage on them ?
> How much can you expect ?
> 
> 2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now it's
> years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I recall
> it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?


You know, I have the oddest sense of deja vu here...

I bet that RX7 is nice and black.

Richard

-- 
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:41:39 +0100, RichardK 
wrote:


>I bet that RX7 is nice and black.


Your psychic gothpowers are clearly working just fine.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:41:39 +0100, RichardK 
wrote:


>I bet that RX7 is nice and black.


Your psychic gothpowers are clearly working just fine.

In article , 
Adrian says...

> :::Jerry:::: (me@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were 
> saying :
> 
> > "Any fool can replace the seals, how long they will last is another
> > matter" - the words of an ex Mazda mechanic who used to rebuild (on
> > average) an RX engine each week back in the 70's [1], I can't see that
> > things will have changed that much considering the simplicity of the
> > rotary engine...
> 
> Apart from the subtle detail that the seals have all been completely 
> redesigned and reengineered in materials that weren't available in the 
> '70s...
> 

Or the 80's either. Used to work in a scrappies for a while and RX7's 
always had dicked engines.

-- 
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : 


> Or the 80's either. Used to work in a scrappies for a while and RX7's 
> always had dicked engines.


Sure, but at least they were lasting 50k instead of 15k by then...

In article , 
Adrian says...

> :::Jerry:::: (me@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were 
> saying :
> 
> > "Any fool can replace the seals, how long they will last is another
> > matter" - the words of an ex Mazda mechanic who used to rebuild (on
> > average) an RX engine each week back in the 70's [1], I can't see that
> > things will have changed that much considering the simplicity of the
> > rotary engine...
> 
> Apart from the subtle detail that the seals have all been completely 
> redesigned and reengineered in materials that weren't available in the 
> '70s...
> 

Or the 80's either. Used to work in a scrappies for a while and RX7's 
always had dicked engines.

-- 
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : 


> Or the 80's either. Used to work in a scrappies for a while and RX7's 
> always had dicked engines.


Sure, but at least they were lasting 50k instead of 15k by then...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:17:17 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>Dead simple, so is a Masseratti (sp?) V12, in principle!


Not at all. A Wankel rotary has few components, fewer rotating
components, and simple motions for the ones that are moving. The
all-machined nature of the rotors also means that they're in good
balance straight from the factory, compared to a typical con rod.

A simple re-assembly is simpler than a piston engine, just because of
the fewer parts. A real rebuild and blueprinting though is even easier,
because there's a lot less work to do. Almost no balance work,
combustion chambers that aren't touchable by mortal man, trivial port
designs and even the bottom end is simple to assemble.

Putting the seals in is monkey work. Carefully trained conscientuous
monkey, but there's only one useful way to put them in. Get it wrong and
the engine won't die in 50k instead of 60k, it'll do it in 50.

The real difference over the years though has been a materials science
question for the seal materials. That's why any RX-3 that is still
around (and not rusted out) now runs as well as a new RX-7  -- AIUI, the
design has barely changed and new seals are retrofittable, with massive
improvements in reliability to modern levels.


For another thing, I think all recent Maseratis have been V6s or V8s.
They haven't made a V12 since the mid-60s. Now a high-performance
long-crankcase design of those days is a real bitch to work on: design
and casting technology just wasn't up to it. So the crankcases is either
heavyweight (R-R), tiny (Jaguar) or bendy (Italians). Building the
bottom end of one of those engines properly requires either optics or a
co-ordinate measurer, just to check that the thing is still straight as
you build the fastener tensions up.



>"Any fool can replace the seals, how long they will last is another
>matter" - the words of an ex Mazda mechanic who used to rebuild (on
>average) an RX engine each week back in the 70's [1], 


So, how long were his lasting ?   For someone working on Wankels in the
'70s when _none_ of them lasted, then that's hardly the best slogan to
use.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:17:17 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>Dead simple, so is a Masseratti (sp?) V12, in principle!


Not at all. A Wankel rotary has few components, fewer rotating
components, and simple motions for the ones that are moving. The
all-machined nature of the rotors also means that they're in good
balance straight from the factory, compared to a typical con rod.

A simple re-assembly is simpler than a piston engine, just because of
the fewer parts. A real rebuild and blueprinting though is even easier,
because there's a lot less work to do. Almost no balance work,
combustion chambers that aren't touchable by mortal man, trivial port
designs and even the bottom end is simple to assemble.

Putting the seals in is monkey work. Carefully trained conscientuous
monkey, but there's only one useful way to put them in. Get it wrong and
the engine won't die in 50k instead of 60k, it'll do it in 50.

The real difference over the years though has been a materials science
question for the seal materials. That's why any RX-3 that is still
around (and not rusted out) now runs as well as a new RX-7  -- AIUI, the
design has barely changed and new seals are retrofittable, with massive
improvements in reliability to modern levels.


For another thing, I think all recent Maseratis have been V6s or V8s.
They haven't made a V12 since the mid-60s. Now a high-performance
long-crankcase design of those days is a real bitch to work on: design
and casting technology just wasn't up to it. So the crankcases is either
heavyweight (R-R), tiny (Jaguar) or bendy (Italians). Building the
bottom end of one of those engines properly requires either optics or a
co-ordinate measurer, just to check that the thing is still straight as
you build the fastener tensions up.



>"Any fool can replace the seals, how long they will last is another
>matter" - the words of an ex Mazda mechanic who used to rebuild (on
>average) an RX engine each week back in the 70's [1], 


So, how long were his lasting ?   For someone working on Wankels in the
'70s when _none_ of them lasted, then that's hardly the best slogan to
use.

In article , 
Adrian says...

> Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying : 
> 
> > Or the 80's either. Used to work in a scrappies for a while and RX7's 
> > always had dicked engines.
> 
> Sure, but at least they were lasting 50k instead of 15k by then...
> 

Ah. True.

-- 
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

In article , 
Adrian says...

> Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying : 
> 
> > Or the 80's either. Used to work in a scrappies for a while and RX7's 
> > always had dicked engines.
> 
> Sure, but at least they were lasting 50k instead of 15k by then...
> 

Ah. True.

-- 
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

In article ,
   Andy Dingley  wrote:

> Not at all. A Wankel rotary has few components, fewer rotating
> components, and simple motions for the ones that are moving. The
> all-machined nature of the rotors also means that they're in good
> balance straight from the factory, compared to a typical con rod.

> A simple re-assembly is simpler than a piston engine, just because of
> the fewer parts. A real rebuild and blueprinting though is even easier,
> because there's a lot less work to do. Almost no balance work,
> combustion chambers that aren't touchable by mortal man, trivial port
> designs and even the bottom end is simple to assemble.

> Putting the seals in is monkey work. Carefully trained conscientuous
> monkey, but there's only one useful way to put them in. Get it wrong and
> the engine won't die in 50k instead of 60k, it'll do it in 50.


Why then 3000 quid for a re-con? I'd expect a decent re-con on a BMW 6 for
that? Assuming no installation?

-- 
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
   Andy Dingley  wrote:

> Not at all. A Wankel rotary has few components, fewer rotating
> components, and simple motions for the ones that are moving. The
> all-machined nature of the rotors also means that they're in good
> balance straight from the factory, compared to a typical con rod.

> A simple re-assembly is simpler than a piston engine, just because of
> the fewer parts. A real rebuild and blueprinting though is even easier,
> because there's a lot less work to do. Almost no balance work,
> combustion chambers that aren't touchable by mortal man, trivial port
> designs and even the bottom end is simple to assemble.

> Putting the seals in is monkey work. Carefully trained conscientuous
> monkey, but there's only one useful way to put them in. Get it wrong and
> the engine won't die in 50k instead of 60k, it'll do it in 50.


Why then 3000 quid for a re-con? I'd expect a decent re-con on a BMW 6 for
that? Assuming no installation?

-- 
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
news:0mkta1533shkbfsvhuhe844milve9b92p6@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:17:17 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
> wrote:
>
> >Dead simple, so is a Masseratti (sp?) V12, in principle!
>
> Not at all. <snip>


Yes, very much so, what makes it complicated are the extras and the
tolerances required, it's just the same with a Wankel rotary - the
number of parts is neither here nor there.

One of the major improvements that Mazda incorporated onto the later
RX engines was electronic ignition, gone were the days of regular
dwell and timing setting of the two distributors and the errors that
crept in...

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
news:0mkta1533shkbfsvhuhe844milve9b92p6@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:17:17 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
> wrote:
>
> >Dead simple, so is a Masseratti (sp?) V12, in principle!
>
> Not at all. <snip>


Yes, very much so, what makes it complicated are the extras and the
tolerances required, it's just the same with a Wankel rotary - the
number of parts is neither here nor there.

One of the major improvements that Mazda incorporated onto the later
RX engines was electronic ignition, gone were the days of regular
dwell and timing setting of the two distributors and the errors that
crept in...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:58:54 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>Yes, very much so, what makes it complicated are the extras and the
>tolerances required, 


_What_ extras and tolerances ?  It's no more critical than (as an
example) piston/cylinder fit. 

Have you actually rebuilt one ?  I admit I've only done the one, but I
bet it's one more than you have.


>One of the major improvements that Mazda incorporated onto the later
>RX engines was electronic ignition, 


So what ?  A good idea, but hardly changing the engine longevity, is it?

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:58:54 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>Yes, very much so, what makes it complicated are the extras and the
>tolerances required, 


_What_ extras and tolerances ?  It's no more critical than (as an
example) piston/cylinder fit. 

Have you actually rebuilt one ?  I admit I've only done the one, but I
bet it's one more than you have.


>One of the major improvements that Mazda incorporated onto the later
>RX engines was electronic ignition, 


So what ?  A good idea, but hardly changing the engine longevity, is it?

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message 
news:d46sa1lrios5btvv6ufphn2sscubbh9kgt@4ax.com...

> FOAF has recently (two weeks ago) bought himself an RX7 - fairly recent
> curvy sort, but with some mileage on it.  Anyway, the obvious has
> happened - it died on the road and came home on a low-loader, suffering
> from sick rotor seals.
>
> 1)   I thought they'd stopped doing that years ago ?  Do they last a
> reasonable time now, or are they still dodgy with any mileage on them ?
> How much can you expect ?
>
> 2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now it's
> years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I recall
> it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?
>
>
> Thanks for any advice you can share on current Mazda Wankels.
>


Get yourself onto a Mazda RX forum, they'll be able to sort you out.

From what I've heard though, apparently the rebuild is actually quite 
simple - but the reason why it costs so much is because not many people have 
experience of rebuilding these engines as they're relatively rare.
They're supposed to be rebuilt every 60K miles (or KM ?) you don't say how 
many miles the car had, how many miles the engine had done since the last 
rebuild (if).

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message 
news:d46sa1lrios5btvv6ufphn2sscubbh9kgt@4ax.com...

> FOAF has recently (two weeks ago) bought himself an RX7 - fairly recent
> curvy sort, but with some mileage on it.  Anyway, the obvious has
> happened - it died on the road and came home on a low-loader, suffering
> from sick rotor seals.
>
> 1)   I thought they'd stopped doing that years ago ?  Do they last a
> reasonable time now, or are they still dodgy with any mileage on them ?
> How much can you expect ?
>
> 2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now it's
> years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I recall
> it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?
>
>
> Thanks for any advice you can share on current Mazda Wankels.
>


Get yourself onto a Mazda RX forum, they'll be able to sort you out.

From what I've heard though, apparently the rebuild is actually quite 
simple - but the reason why it costs so much is because not many people have 
experience of rebuilding these engines as they're relatively rare.
They're supposed to be rebuilt every 60K miles (or KM ?) you don't say how 
many miles the car had, how many miles the engine had done since the last 
rebuild (if).

Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:


> The RX8 Renesis motor is supposedly longer lasting, but as most
> makers plan for people to change their car every 3 years when they
> buy new, 60k miles is outside the normal ownership period of the
> first, and maybe even the second owner.


The Renesis may well be longer lasting as the main difference between a
late model RX-7 and the RX8 is the lack of a few turbos on the latter.

-- 
Timo Geusch
'93 Subaru Legacy GT

Andy Dingley wrote:


> FOAF has recently (two weeks ago) bought himself an RX7 - fairly
> recent curvy sort, but with some mileage on it.  Anyway, the obvious
> has happened - it died on the road and came home on a low-loader,
> suffering from sick rotor seals.


Bought cheap on fleabay, has he? One never, ever buys a rotary without
having a compression test done to show up a duff engine, because they
don't feel worn right up to the point where they go bang.
 

> 1)   I thought they'd stopped doing that years ago ?  Do they last a
> reasonable time now, or are they still dodgy with any mileage on them
> ?  How much can you expect ?


Around 60k seems to be the norm. The late model, curvy (non-Porsche 944
shaped) twin-turbo seems to last for anything between 30k and 100k,
depending on the modifications and how heavy the PO's right foot was.
 

> 2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now it's
> years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I recall
> it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?


Open up the bonnet and go find the engine, that's why it's around that
kind of money...

The twin turbo has an insane amount of plumbing under the bonnet due to
all the ancilliaries, emission gear and all the vaccuum tubing for the
sequential turbos.

Actually the last time I enquired I was quoted closer to 4k for a full,
proper rebuild from someone who knows exactly what he's doing. That
included removal and installation of the engine, by the way.

Have a look over at http://mazdarotaryclub.com/ for more help.

-- 
Timo Geusch
'93 Subaru Legacy GT

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


> Why then 3000 quid for a re-con? I'd expect a decent re-con on a BMW
> 6 for that? Assuming no installation?


Sir is comparing apples with oranges here. If we're talking about a
3rd-gen twin-turbo RX7 here then you should compare it to its peers -
and on most other Japanese supercars, 3k doesn't even buy you the parts
you tend to need.

That said, the quotes I'm familiar with are in the region of 3k-4k
including installation, plus the engines are rebuilt, not recon engines
that are built in rather larger numbers.

Welcome to the world of slightly insane Japanese grey imports.

-- 
Timo Geusch
'93 Subaru Legacy GT

Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:


> The RX8 Renesis motor is supposedly longer lasting, but as most
> makers plan for people to change their car every 3 years when they
> buy new, 60k miles is outside the normal ownership period of the
> first, and maybe even the second owner.


The Renesis may well be longer lasting as the main difference between a
late model RX-7 and the RX8 is the lack of a few turbos on the latter.

-- 
Timo Geusch
'93 Subaru Legacy GT

Andy Dingley wrote:


> FOAF has recently (two weeks ago) bought himself an RX7 - fairly
> recent curvy sort, but with some mileage on it.  Anyway, the obvious
> has happened - it died on the road and came home on a low-loader,
> suffering from sick rotor seals.


Bought cheap on fleabay, has he? One never, ever buys a rotary without
having a compression test done to show up a duff engine, because they
don't feel worn right up to the point where they go bang.
 

> 1)   I thought they'd stopped doing that years ago ?  Do they last a
> reasonable time now, or are they still dodgy with any mileage on them
> ?  How much can you expect ?


Around 60k seems to be the norm. The late model, curvy (non-Porsche 944
shaped) twin-turbo seems to last for anything between 30k and 100k,
depending on the modifications and how heavy the PO's right foot was.
 

> 2)   He's getting engine rebuild costs quoted of 3 grand !   Now it's
> years since I had one of these in bits (my one and only), but I recall
> it being dead easy and a quick job.  Does this sound reasonable ?


Open up the bonnet and go find the engine, that's why it's around that
kind of money...

The twin turbo has an insane amount of plumbing under the bonnet due to
all the ancilliaries, emission gear and all the vaccuum tubing for the
sequential turbos.

Actually the last time I enquired I was quoted closer to 4k for a full,
proper rebuild from someone who knows exactly what he's doing. That
included removal and installation of the engine, by the way.

Have a look over at http://mazdarotaryclub.com/ for more help.

-- 
Timo Geusch
'93 Subaru Legacy GT

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


> Why then 3000 quid for a re-con? I'd expect a decent re-con on a BMW
> 6 for that? Assuming no installation?


Sir is comparing apples with oranges here. If we're talking about a
3rd-gen twin-turbo RX7 here then you should compare it to its peers -
and on most other Japanese supercars, 3k doesn't even buy you the parts
you tend to need.

That said, the quotes I'm familiar with are in the region of 3k-4k
including installation, plus the engines are rebuilt, not recon engines
that are built in rather larger numbers.

Welcome to the world of slightly insane Japanese grey imports.

-- 
Timo Geusch
'93 Subaru Legacy GT

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
news:kdaua1l4tr6odcjpnhe7ic35kunbq9sdbq@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:58:54 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, very much so, what makes it complicated are the extras and the
> >tolerances required,
>
> _What_ extras and tolerances ?  It's no more critical than (as an
> example) piston/cylinder fit.
>
> Have you actually rebuilt one ?  I admit I've only done the one, but
I
> bet it's one more than you have.


Sorry but I don't believe that you have even set eyes on one before,
you seem totally clueless about even basic issues - BTW, I did my
apprentership in a garage that had only just given up the Mazda
dealership, in fact I think I might still have the engine test cradle
they built - subsequently converted for another function (until it was
later thrown out)...


>
> >One of the major improvements that Mazda incorporated onto the
later
> >RX engines was electronic ignition,
>
> So what ?  A good idea, but hardly changing the engine longevity, is

it?

If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the correct
ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such a
stupid frigging question...

FSS you have one distributor doing one thing with one half of the
engine and a second doing something different to the other half !

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
news:kdaua1l4tr6odcjpnhe7ic35kunbq9sdbq@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:58:54 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, very much so, what makes it complicated are the extras and the
> >tolerances required,
>
> _What_ extras and tolerances ?  It's no more critical than (as an
> example) piston/cylinder fit.
>
> Have you actually rebuilt one ?  I admit I've only done the one, but
I
> bet it's one more than you have.


Sorry but I don't believe that you have even set eyes on one before,
you seem totally clueless about even basic issues - BTW, I did my
apprentership in a garage that had only just given up the Mazda
dealership, in fact I think I might still have the engine test cradle
they built - subsequently converted for another function (until it was
later thrown out)...


>
> >One of the major improvements that Mazda incorporated onto the
later
> >RX engines was electronic ignition,
>
> So what ?  A good idea, but hardly changing the engine longevity, is

it?

If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the correct
ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such a
stupid frigging question...

FSS you have one distributor doing one thing with one half of the
engine and a second doing something different to the other half !

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:40:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the correct
>ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such a
>stupid frigging question...


Cylinders?
-- 

Ian

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:40:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the correct
>ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such a
>stupid frigging question...


Cylinders?
-- 

Ian

"Ian Dalziel"  wrote in message
news:fcmua191u63tgrmhimh3n3mgkht405qbnc@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:40:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
> wrote:
>
> >If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the correct
> >ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such a
> >stupid frigging question...
>
> Cylinders?


Ok, 'combustion spaces'.

"Ian Dalziel"  wrote in message
news:fcmua191u63tgrmhimh3n3mgkht405qbnc@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:40:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
> wrote:
>
> >If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the correct
> >ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such a
> >stupid frigging question...
>
> Cylinders?


Ok, 'combustion spaces'.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Timo Geusch"
 saying something like:


>That said, the quotes I'm familiar with are in the region of 3k-4k
>including installation, plus the engines are rebuilt, not recon engines
>that are built in rather larger numbers.
>
>Welcome to the world of slightly insane Japanese grey imports.


<waves>

I'll be getting acquainted sometime soon with the mad world of whizzy
bits in the RX lump I have. Rather, its successor - I plan to rebuild a
13b lump to higher output than standard and then slot that in to replace
the 12a engine I currently have.

That was the plan, until I found that seal kits alone were around the
750 pound mark. Bugger that.
-- 

Dave  AARRGHH!
SE6a

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Timo Geusch"
 saying something like:


>That said, the quotes I'm familiar with are in the region of 3k-4k
>including installation, plus the engines are rebuilt, not recon engines
>that are built in rather larger numbers.
>
>Welcome to the world of slightly insane Japanese grey imports.


<waves>

I'll be getting acquainted sometime soon with the mad world of whizzy
bits in the RX lump I have. Rather, its successor - I plan to rebuild a
13b lump to higher output than standard and then slot that in to replace
the 12a engine I currently have.

That was the plan, until I found that seal kits alone were around the
750 pound mark. Bugger that.
-- 

Dave  AARRGHH!
SE6a

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:21:05 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>
>"Ian Dalziel"  wrote in message
>news:fcmua191u63tgrmhimh3n3mgkht405qbnc@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:40:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the correct
>> >ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such a
>> >stupid frigging question...
>>
>> Cylinders?
>
>Ok, 'combustion spaces'.
>

Try saying "swept volume."  It's the difference between the maximum
and minimum volume in the combustion chamber.  In a rotary, you could
argue that there are three pistons working the same combustion chamber
and so the swept volume (i.e. cc) is one third of the equivalent
piston engine.  IIRC, the Inland Revenue knocked that one on the head
25 years or more ago.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:21:05 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>
>"Ian Dalziel"  wrote in message
>news:fcmua191u63tgrmhimh3n3mgkht405qbnc@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:40:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the correct
>> >ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such a
>> >stupid frigging question...
>>
>> Cylinders?
>
>Ok, 'combustion spaces'.
>

Try saying "swept volume."  It's the difference between the maximum
and minimum volume in the combustion chamber.  In a rotary, you could
argue that there are three pistons working the same combustion chamber
and so the swept volume (i.e. cc) is one third of the equivalent
piston engine.  IIRC, the Inland Revenue knocked that one on the head
25 years or more ago.

In article , tnews@unix-
consult.com says...

> Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
> 
> > The RX8 Renesis motor is supposedly longer lasting, but as most
> > makers plan for people to change their car every 3 years when they
> > buy new, 60k miles is outside the normal ownership period of the
> > first, and maybe even the second owner.
> 
> The Renesis may well be longer lasting as the main difference between a
> late model RX-7 and the RX8 is the lack of a few turbos on the latter.
> 
> 

Well, didn't they reshaped the ports to help with rotor tip wear which 
meant they work well with turbos? Rather than the turbos being the 
issue? There were lots of NA RX7's and RX3's and they all needed the 
same sorted of maintenance schedules.
-- 
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

In article , tnews@unix-
consult.com says...

> Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
> 
> > The RX8 Renesis motor is supposedly longer lasting, but as most
> > makers plan for people to change their car every 3 years when they
> > buy new, 60k miles is outside the normal ownership period of the
> > first, and maybe even the second owner.
> 
> The Renesis may well be longer lasting as the main difference between a
> late model RX-7 and the RX8 is the lack of a few turbos on the latter.
> 
> 

Well, didn't they reshaped the ports to help with rotor tip wear which 
meant they work well with turbos? Rather than the turbos being the 
issue? There were lots of NA RX7's and RX3's and they all needed the 
same sorted of maintenance schedules.
-- 
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

In article ,
   Timo Geusch  wrote:

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> > Why then 3000 quid for a re-con? I'd expect a decent re-con on a BMW
> > 6 for that? Assuming no installation?

> Sir is comparing apples with oranges here. If we're talking about a
> 3rd-gen twin-turbo RX7 here then you should compare it to its peers -
> and on most other Japanese supercars, 3k doesn't even buy you the parts
> you tend to need.


But surely turbos are separate from the main engine?


> That said, the quotes I'm familiar with are in the region of 3k-4k
> including installation, plus the engines are rebuilt, not recon engines
> that are built in rather larger numbers.

> Welcome to the world of slightly insane Japanese grey imports.


I'm not familiar with rotary engines. What parts require replacement at
overhaul time? In the same way as the basics would be a rebore and new
pistons and a crank grind and new bearings on a conventional unit - as a
minimum?

-- 
*Money isnt everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
   Timo Geusch  wrote:

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> > Why then 3000 quid for a re-con? I'd expect a decent re-con on a BMW
> > 6 for that? Assuming no installation?

> Sir is comparing apples with oranges here. If we're talking about a
> 3rd-gen twin-turbo RX7 here then you should compare it to its peers -
> and on most other Japanese supercars, 3k doesn't even buy you the parts
> you tend to need.


But surely turbos are separate from the main engine?


> That said, the quotes I'm familiar with are in the region of 3k-4k
> including installation, plus the engines are rebuilt, not recon engines
> that are built in rather larger numbers.

> Welcome to the world of slightly insane Japanese grey imports.


I'm not familiar with rotary engines. What parts require replacement at
overhaul time? In the same way as the basics would be a rebore and new
pistons and a crank grind and new bearings on a conventional unit - as a
minimum?

-- 
*Money isnt everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dean Dark"  wrote in message
news:latua1dra5suh6cclsi7uni8k8a0kcbsbf@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:21:05 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ian Dalziel"  wrote in message
> >news:fcmua191u63tgrmhimh3n3mgkht405qbnc@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:40:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the
correct
> >> >ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such
a
> >> >stupid frigging question...
> >>
> >> Cylinders?
> >
> >Ok, 'combustion spaces'.
> >
> Try saying "swept volume."  <snip>


Are you talking about rotary or reciprocating engines, seeing that
both have a 'swept volume'?...

"Dean Dark"  wrote in message
news:latua1dra5suh6cclsi7uni8k8a0kcbsbf@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:21:05 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ian Dalziel"  wrote in message
> >news:fcmua191u63tgrmhimh3n3mgkht405qbnc@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:40:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the
correct
> >> >ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such
a
> >> >stupid frigging question...
> >>
> >> Cylinders?
> >
> >Ok, 'combustion spaces'.
> >
> Try saying "swept volume."  <snip>


Are you talking about rotary or reciprocating engines, seeing that
both have a 'swept volume'?...

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:04:39 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>> >> >If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the
>correct
>> >> >ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such
>a
>> >> >stupid frigging question...
>> >>
>> >> Cylinders?
>> >
>> >Ok, 'combustion spaces'.
>> >
>> Try saying "swept volume."  <snip>
>
>Are you talking about rotary or reciprocating engines, seeing that
>both have a 'swept volume'?...


Precisely.  I was just bringing up the old argument about whether or
not to multiply a rotary's swept volume by three to determine its
capacity.

In message , Dean Dark 
 writes


>Try saying "swept volume."  It's the difference between the maximum
>and minimum volume in the combustion chamber.  In a rotary, you could
>argue that there are three pistons working the same combustion chamber
>and so the swept volume (i.e. cc) is one third of the equivalent
>piston engine.  IIRC, the Inland Revenue knocked that one on the head
>25 years or more ago.


Yup, and the reduced road tax for small engines doesn't apply to 
rotaries. Shame really, the irony of getting cheap tax for running an 
"environmentally friendly" RX-7 would be delicious.

-- 
Steve Walker

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:04:39 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>> >> >If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the
>correct
>> >> >ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such
>a
>> >> >stupid frigging question...
>> >>
>> >> Cylinders?
>> >
>> >Ok, 'combustion spaces'.
>> >
>> Try saying "swept volume."  <snip>
>
>Are you talking about rotary or reciprocating engines, seeing that
>both have a 'swept volume'?...


Precisely.  I was just bringing up the old argument about whether or
not to multiply a rotary's swept volume by three to determine its
capacity.

In message , Dean Dark 
 writes


>Try saying "swept volume."  It's the difference between the maximum
>and minimum volume in the combustion chamber.  In a rotary, you could
>argue that there are three pistons working the same combustion chamber
>and so the swept volume (i.e. cc) is one third of the equivalent
>piston engine.  IIRC, the Inland Revenue knocked that one on the head
>25 years or more ago.


Yup, and the reduced road tax for small engines doesn't apply to 
rotaries. Shame really, the irony of getting cheap tax for running an 
"environmentally friendly" RX-7 would be delicious.

-- 
Steve Walker

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:40:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>BTW, I did my apprentership in a garage 


You can't even spell the word.


>> So what ?  A good idea, but hardly changing the engine longevity, is
>it?
>
>If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the correct
>ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such a
>stupid frigging question...


OK, dwell is important, and it's particularly awkward for an engine with
separated ignition systems. Dwell variation between them gives rise to
timing jitter and dwell is always more significant on an all-mechanical
system, rather than even one with a simple amplifier

But why does that improve _reliability_ in a Wankel ?

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:40:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>BTW, I did my apprentership in a garage 


You can't even spell the word.


>> So what ?  A good idea, but hardly changing the engine longevity, is
>it?
>
>If you knew the slightest thing about the importance of the correct
>ignition timing on all cylinders you would not need to ask such a
>stupid frigging question...


OK, dwell is important, and it's particularly awkward for an engine with
separated ignition systems. Dwell variation between them gives rise to
timing jitter and dwell is always more significant on an all-mechanical
system, rather than even one with a simple amplifier

But why does that improve _reliability_ in a Wankel ?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


> In article ,
>    Timo Geusch  wrote:
> > Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> 
> > > Why then 3000 quid for a re-con? I'd expect a decent re-con on a
> > > BMW 6 for that? Assuming no installation?
> 
> > Sir is comparing apples with oranges here. If we're talking about a
> > 3rd-gen twin-turbo RX7 here then you should compare it to its peers
> > - and on most other Japanese supercars, 3k doesn't even buy you the
> > parts you tend to need.
> 
> But surely turbos are separate from the main engine?


Yes, but my point was that you can't really compare this type car with
a run-of-the mill Beemer.
 

> > That said, the quotes I'm familiar with are in the region of 3k-4k
> > including installation, plus the engines are rebuilt, not recon
> > engines that are built in rather larger numbers.
> 
> > Welcome to the world of slightly insane Japanese grey imports.
> 
> I'm not familiar with rotary engines. What parts require replacement
> at overhaul time? In the same way as the basics would be a rebore and
> new pistons and a crank grind and new bearings on a conventional unit
> - as a minimum?


If you're lucky and the rotors aren't damaged in any way, you're
looking at seals (lots of), potentially rotor housings if the surfaces
are damaged, plus some machining of the sideplates if necessary.

Plus of course the tip seals, which aren't exactly cheap and can cost
up to a grand, depending on the spec you want.

-- 
Timo Geusch
'93 Subaru Legacy GT

Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:


> In article , tnews@unix-
> consult.com says...
> > Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
> > 
> > > The RX8 Renesis motor is supposedly longer lasting, but as most
> > > makers plan for people to change their car every 3 years when they
> > > buy new, 60k miles is outside the normal ownership period of the
> > > first, and maybe even the second owner.
> > 
> > The Renesis may well be longer lasting as the main difference
> > between a late model RX-7 and the RX8 is the lack of a few turbos
> > on the latter.
> > 
>  
> Well, didn't they reshaped the ports to help with rotor tip wear
> which meant they work well with turbos? Rather than the turbos being
> the issue? There were lots of NA RX7's and RX3's and they all needed
> the same sorted of maintenance schedules.


Sorry, I should have been clearer - the turbos are harder on the engine
and do shorten its life, especially if some kack-handed "tuning" has
been involved.

The older NA RX-7s did last longer than the turbo'd ones for exactly
that reason, and that was before Mazda squeezed between 250-280PS out
of essentially the same engine.


-- 
Timo Geusch
'93 Subaru Legacy GT

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


> In article ,
>    Timo Geusch  wrote:
> > Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> 
> > > Why then 3000 quid for a re-con? I'd expect a decent re-con on a
> > > BMW 6 for that? Assuming no installation?
> 
> > Sir is comparing apples with oranges here. If we're talking about a
> > 3rd-gen twin-turbo RX7 here then you should compare it to its peers
> > - and on most other Japanese supercars, 3k doesn't even buy you the
> > parts you tend to need.
> 
> But surely turbos are separate from the main engine?


Yes, but my point was that you can't really compare this type car with
a run-of-the mill Beemer.
 

> > That said, the quotes I'm familiar with are in the region of 3k-4k
> > including installation, plus the engines are rebuilt, not recon
> > engines that are built in rather larger numbers.
> 
> > Welcome to the world of slightly insane Japanese grey imports.
> 
> I'm not familiar with rotary engines. What parts require replacement
> at overhaul time? In the same way as the basics would be a rebore and
> new pistons and a crank grind and new bearings on a conventional unit
> - as a minimum?


If you're lucky and the rotors aren't damaged in any way, you're
looking at seals (lots of), potentially rotor housings if the surfaces
are damaged, plus some machining of the sideplates if necessary.

Plus of course the tip seals, which aren't exactly cheap and can cost
up to a grand, depending on the spec you want.

-- 
Timo Geusch
'93 Subaru Legacy GT

Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:


> In article , tnews@unix-
> consult.com says...
> > Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
> > 
> > > The RX8 Renesis motor is supposedly longer lasting, but as most
> > > makers plan for people to change their car every 3 years when they
> > > buy new, 60k miles is outside the normal ownership period of the
> > > first, and maybe even the second owner.
> > 
> > The Renesis may well be longer lasting as the main difference
> > between a late model RX-7 and the RX8 is the lack of a few turbos
> > on the latter.
> > 
>  
> Well, didn't they reshaped the ports to help with rotor tip wear
> which meant they work well with turbos? Rather than the turbos being
> the issue? There were lots of NA RX7's and RX3's and they all needed
> the same sorted of maintenance schedules.


Sorry, I should have been clearer - the turbos are harder on the engine
and do shorten its life, especially if some kack-handed "tuning" has
been involved.

The older NA RX-7s did last longer than the turbo'd ones for exactly
that reason, and that was before Mazda squeezed between 250-280PS out
of essentially the same engine.


-- 
Timo Geusch
'93 Subaru Legacy GT

In article ,
   Timo Geusch  wrote:

> > I'm not familiar with rotary engines. What parts require replacement
> > at overhaul time? In the same way as the basics would be a rebore and
> > new pistons and a crank grind and new bearings on a conventional unit
> > - as a minimum?

> If you're lucky and the rotors aren't damaged in any way, you're
> looking at seals (lots of), potentially rotor housings if the surfaces
> are damaged, plus some machining of the sideplates if necessary.

> Plus of course the tip seals, which aren't exactly cheap and can cost
> up to a grand, depending on the spec you want.


Ouch.

-- 
*How can I miss you if you won't go away?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
   Timo Geusch  wrote:

> > I'm not familiar with rotary engines. What parts require replacement
> > at overhaul time? In the same way as the basics would be a rebore and
> > new pistons and a crank grind and new bearings on a conventional unit
> > - as a minimum?

> If you're lucky and the rotors aren't damaged in any way, you're
> looking at seals (lots of), potentially rotor housings if the surfaces
> are damaged, plus some machining of the sideplates if necessary.

> Plus of course the tip seals, which aren't exactly cheap and can cost
> up to a grand, depending on the spec you want.


Ouch.

-- 
*How can I miss you if you won't go away?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:40:24 +0100, "Timo Geusch"
 wrote:


>Plus of course the tip seals, which aren't exactly cheap and can cost
>up to a grand, depending on the spec you want.


FMR !

So how much (roughly) is the raw cost of a "seals, gaskets and
consumables" package for a minimal rebuild ?

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:40:24 +0100, "Timo Geusch"
 wrote:


>Plus of course the tip seals, which aren't exactly cheap and can cost
>up to a grand, depending on the spec you want.


FMR !

So how much (roughly) is the raw cost of a "seals, gaskets and
consumables" package for a minimal rebuild ?

Andy Dingley wrote:


> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:40:24 +0100, "Timo Geusch"
>  wrote:
> 
> > Plus of course the tip seals, which aren't exactly cheap and can
> > cost up to a grand, depending on the spec you want.
> 
> FMR !
> 
> So how much (roughly) is the raw cost of a "seals, gaskets and
> consumables" package for a minimal rebuild ?


Not sure about the gaskets, but a basic set of rotor tips is
considerably cheaper - I'd still budget something around 750quid for
the parts at least, and that's only if it doesn't need anything else.

Oh, and unless you fancy disconnecting and correctly reconnecting an
insane number of vaccuum tubes I'd farm out the job...

-- 
Timo Geusch
'93 Subaru Legacy GT

Andy Dingley wrote:


> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:40:24 +0100, "Timo Geusch"
>  wrote:
> 
> > Plus of course the tip seals, which aren't exactly cheap and can
> > cost up to a grand, depending on the spec you want.
> 
> FMR !
> 
> So how much (roughly) is the raw cost of a "seals, gaskets and
> consumables" package for a minimal rebuild ?


Not sure about the gaskets, but a basic set of rotor tips is
considerably cheaper - I'd still budget something around 750quid for
the parts at least, and that's only if it doesn't need anything else.

Oh, and unless you fancy disconnecting and correctly reconnecting an
insane number of vaccuum tubes I'd farm out the job...

-- 
Timo Geusch
'93 Subaru Legacy GT

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
news:s4f1b117l78fhhlfgul907hohkq6d0vggf@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:40:24 +0100, "Timo Geusch"
>  wrote:
>
> >Plus of course the tip seals, which aren't exactly cheap and can
cost
> >up to a grand, depending on the spec you want.
>
> FMR !
>
> So how much (roughly) is the raw cost of a "seals, gaskets and
> consumables" package for a minimal rebuild ?


Only a fool would even consider a minimal rebuild....

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
news:s4f1b117l78fhhlfgul907hohkq6d0vggf@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:40:24 +0100, "Timo Geusch"
>  wrote:
>
> >Plus of course the tip seals, which aren't exactly cheap and can
cost
> >up to a grand, depending on the spec you want.
>
> FMR !
>
> So how much (roughly) is the raw cost of a "seals, gaskets and
> consumables" package for a minimal rebuild ?


Only a fool would even consider a minimal rebuild....

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:35:01 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>Only a fool would even consider a minimal rebuild....


The purpose is to give a baseline of the costs.

This "3k rebuild" figure sounds expensive to me. Now if that's an
ultimate rebuild but a workable one can be done for 1k, then that's
quite a different picture to if the simplest possible rebuild costs 2k5
anyway.


But then you just post to provoke arguments, not to communicate, don't
you.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:35:01 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
wrote:


>Only a fool would even consider a minimal rebuild....


The purpose is to give a baseline of the costs.

This "3k rebuild" figure sounds expensive to me. Now if that's an
ultimate rebuild but a workable one can be done for 1k, then that's
quite a different picture to if the simplest possible rebuild costs 2k5
anyway.


But then you just post to provoke arguments, not to communicate, don't
you.

In article , tnews@unix-
consult.com says...

> Sorry, I should have been clearer - the turbos are harder on the engine
> and do shorten its life, especially if some kack-handed "tuning" has
> been involved.
> 

Fair enough. But in many cases, the life shorting is down to people not 
knowing about the proper way to shut down a turbo car properly, 
particularly an older one, and as you say, "tuning".
-- 
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

In article , tnews@unix-
consult.com says...

> Sorry, I should have been clearer - the turbos are harder on the engine
> and do shorten its life, especially if some kack-handed "tuning" has
> been involved.
> 

Fair enough. But in many cases, the life shorting is down to people not 
knowing about the proper way to shut down a turbo car properly, 
particularly an older one, and as you say, "tuning".
-- 
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
news:j0o2b1hkkrb6s1ao9bltmi25kcr1mv3dsu@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:35:01 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
> wrote:
>
> >Only a fool would even consider a minimal rebuild....
>
> The purpose is to give a baseline of the costs.
>
> This "3k rebuild" figure sounds expensive to me. Now if that's an
> ultimate rebuild but a workable one can be done for 1k, then that's
> quite a different picture to if the simplest possible rebuild costs
2k5
> anyway.
>


So what you really need to know is the cost of parts @ the MRR price,
plus the average time a rebuild takes in the hands of someone who
knows what they are doing, you can then decide if the quote have is
expensive or not (bearing in mind that labour costs will be different
depending were you are located).


>
> But then you just post to provoke arguments, not to communicate,
don't
> you.
>


No, as I said, only a fool would consider a minimal rebuild. You could
spend 1k on a rebuild and then find the whole lot goes 'bang' again
due to something you cheap-skated on, result is that you end up
spending 3k anyway on top of the 1k you wasted...

"Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
news:j0o2b1hkkrb6s1ao9bltmi25kcr1mv3dsu@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:35:01 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
> wrote:
>
> >Only a fool would even consider a minimal rebuild....
>
> The purpose is to give a baseline of the costs.
>
> This "3k rebuild" figure sounds expensive to me. Now if that's an
> ultimate rebuild but a workable one can be done for 1k, then that's
> quite a different picture to if the simplest possible rebuild costs
2k5
> anyway.
>


So what you really need to know is the cost of parts @ the MRR price,
plus the average time a rebuild takes in the hands of someone who
knows what they are doing, you can then decide if the quote have is
expensive or not (bearing in mind that labour costs will be different
depending were you are located).


>
> But then you just post to provoke arguments, not to communicate,
don't
> you.
>


No, as I said, only a fool would consider a minimal rebuild. You could
spend 1k on a rebuild and then find the whole lot goes 'bang' again
due to something you cheap-skated on, result is that you end up
spending 3k anyway on top of the 1k you wasted...

In article , Sleeker GT Phwoar
<URL:mailto:carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:


> Fair enough. But in many cases, the life shorting is down to people not 
> knowing about the proper way to shut down a turbo car properly, 
> particularly an older one, and as you say, "tuning".


I thought I knew about cars until I had a turbo CA20 engine. Shutting down
procedure was not detailed ANYWHERE in the car's documentation, or in Haynes
manuals covering the Nissan Bluebird which also uses that engine. So why? Do
the manufacturers think it will be ignored, or are they looking forward to
the replacement charges?

-- 
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd         :  Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk   :  http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

In article , Sleeker GT Phwoar
<URL:mailto:carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:


> Fair enough. But in many cases, the life shorting is down to people not 
> knowing about the proper way to shut down a turbo car properly, 
> particularly an older one, and as you say, "tuning".


I thought I knew about cars until I had a turbo CA20 engine. Shutting down
procedure was not detailed ANYWHERE in the car's documentation, or in Haynes
manuals covering the Nissan Bluebird which also uses that engine. So why? Do
the manufacturers think it will be ignored, or are they looking forward to
the replacement charges?

-- 
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd         :  Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk   :  http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:07:33 +0100, "Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)"
 wrote:


>In article , Sleeker GT Phwoar
><URL:mailto:carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>
>> Fair enough. But in many cases, the life shorting is down to people not 
>> knowing about the proper way to shut down a turbo car properly, 
>> particularly an older one, and as you say, "tuning".
>
>I thought I knew about cars until I had a turbo CA20 engine. Shutting down
>procedure was not detailed ANYWHERE in the car's documentation, or in Haynes
>manuals covering the Nissan Bluebird which also uses that engine. So why? Do
>the manufacturers think it will be ignored, or are they looking forward to
>the replacement charges?


Nissan never turbocharged the EFI CA20E or carb CA20-S, any CA20ET or
CA20DET you have had has been put together by someone else.  The only
CA series engines with turbos made by Nissan are the CA18ET and
CA18DET.

There is no shut down procedure for normal UK driving.  My 200SX
owners manual says "let it idle a few minutes before shutdown if the
vehicle has been driven at high speed continuously"  IE Don't come
screaming into the pits at a  track day or do a long Autobahn run at
100+ and just switch off in the service area.  Normal 90ish UK M-way
isn't really high speed.  Start up is more important, let engine idle
for 30 seconds when cold before moving off slowly at first - allows
oil to circulate and thin a bit so it's actually getting to the
bearings and not just spewing out the pressure relief valve.  Don't
use high revs from cold or immediately after starting - again lack of
oil flow.  Change the oil when we say not sometime when you feel like
it!

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:07:33 +0100, "Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)"
 wrote:


>In article , Sleeker GT Phwoar
><URL:mailto:carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>
>> Fair enough. But in many cases, the life shorting is down to people not 
>> knowing about the proper way to shut down a turbo car properly, 
>> particularly an older one, and as you say, "tuning".
>
>I thought I knew about cars until I had a turbo CA20 engine. Shutting down
>procedure was not detailed ANYWHERE in the car's documentation, or in Haynes
>manuals covering the Nissan Bluebird which also uses that engine. So why? Do
>the manufacturers think it will be ignored, or are they looking forward to
>the replacement charges?


Nissan never turbocharged the EFI CA20E or carb CA20-S, any CA20ET or
CA20DET you have had has been put together by someone else.  The only
CA series engines with turbos made by Nissan are the CA18ET and
CA18DET.

There is no shut down procedure for normal UK driving.  My 200SX
owners manual says "let it idle a few minutes before shutdown if the
vehicle has been driven at high speed continuously"  IE Don't come
screaming into the pits at a  track day or do a long Autobahn run at
100+ and just switch off in the service area.  Normal 90ish UK M-way
isn't really high speed.  Start up is more important, let engine idle
for 30 seconds when cold before moving off slowly at first - allows
oil to circulate and thin a bit so it's actually getting to the
bearings and not just spewing out the pressure relief valve.  Don't
use high revs from cold or immediately after starting - again lack of
oil flow.  Change the oil when we say not sometime when you feel like
it!

:::Jerry::::  wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:29:24 +0100:

> 
> "Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
> news:j0o2b1hkkrb6s1ao9bltmi25kcr1mv3dsu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:35:01 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Only a fool would even consider a minimal rebuild....
>>
>> The purpose is to give a baseline of the costs.
>>
>> This "3k rebuild" figure sounds expensive to me. Now if that's an
>> ultimate rebuild but a workable one can be done for 1k, then that's
>> quite a different picture to if the simplest possible rebuild costs
> 2k5
>> anyway.
>>
> 
> So what you really need to know is the cost of parts @ the MRR price,
> plus the average time a rebuild takes in the hands of someone who
> knows what they are doing, you can then decide if the quote have is
> expensive or not (bearing in mind that labour costs will be different
> depending were you are located).


Kind of you to tell him what it is he needs to know, but not actually
tell him what he needs to know.

-- 
David Taylor

:::Jerry::::  wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:29:24 +0100:

> 
> "Andy Dingley"  wrote in message
> news:j0o2b1hkkrb6s1ao9bltmi25kcr1mv3dsu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:35:01 +0100, ":::Jerry::::" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Only a fool would even consider a minimal rebuild....
>>
>> The purpose is to give a baseline of the costs.
>>
>> This "3k rebuild" figure sounds expensive to me. Now if that's an
>> ultimate rebuild but a workable one can be done for 1k, then that's
>> quite a different picture to if the simplest possible rebuild costs
> 2k5
>> anyway.
>>
> 
> So what you really need to know is the cost of parts @ the MRR price,
> plus the average time a rebuild takes in the hands of someone who
> knows what they are doing, you can then decide if the quote have is
> expensive or not (bearing in mind that labour costs will be different
> depending were you are located).


Kind of you to tell him what it is he needs to know, but not actually
tell him what he needs to know.

-- 
David Taylor

In article , Peter Hill
<URL:mailto:peter.usenet1@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:


> 
> Nissan never turbocharged the EFI CA20E or carb CA20-S, any CA20ET or
> CA20DET you have had has been put together by someone else.  The only
> CA series engines with turbos made by Nissan are the CA18ET and
> CA18DET.


Then once again I'm a pillock. :-) It is a CA18ET as fitted to the SS1.


> There is no shut down procedure for normal UK driving.  My 200SX
> owners manual says "let it idle a few minutes before shutdown if the
> vehicle has been driven at high speed continuously"  IE Don't come
> screaming into the pits at a  track day or do a long Autobahn run at
> 100+ and just switch off in the service area.  Normal 90ish UK M-way
> isn't really high speed.  Start up is more important, let engine idle
> for 30 seconds when cold before moving off slowly at first - allows
> oil to circulate and thin a bit so it's actually getting to the
> bearings and not just spewing out the pressure relief valve.  Don't
> use high revs from cold or immediately after starting - again lack of
> oil flow.  Change the oil when we say not sometime when you feel like
> it!


Thanks for that.  I tend to give it up to 30 seconds or so regardless, a bit
more after a long run. I must admit, I was always told to drive away on a
cold engine rather than let it idle, but that may be the difference of the
turbo.

-- 
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd         :  Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk   :  http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

In article , Peter Hill
<URL:mailto:peter.usenet1@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:


> 
> Nissan never turbocharged the EFI CA20E or carb CA20-S, any CA20ET or
> CA20DET you have had has been put together by someone else.  The only
> CA series engines with turbos made by Nissan are the CA18ET and
> CA18DET.


Then once again I'm a pillock. :-) It is a CA18ET as fitted to the SS1.


> There is no shut down procedure for normal UK driving.  My 200SX
> owners manual says "let it idle a few minutes before shutdown if the
> vehicle has been driven at high speed continuously"  IE Don't come
> screaming into the pits at a  track day or do a long Autobahn run at
> 100+ and just switch off in the service area.  Normal 90ish UK M-way
> isn't really high speed.  Start up is more important, let engine idle
> for 30 seconds when cold before moving off slowly at first - allows
> oil to circulate and thin a bit so it's actually getting to the
> bearings and not just spewing out the pressure relief valve.  Don't
> use high revs from cold or immediately after starting - again lack of
> oil flow.  Change the oil when we say not sometime when you feel like
> it!


Thanks for that.  I tend to give it up to 30 seconds or so regardless, a bit
more after a long run. I must admit, I was always told to drive away on a
cold engine rather than let it idle, but that may be the difference of the
turbo.

-- 
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd         :  Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk   :  http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk