|
Ok, just a thought. The 8.4 could have the
same depth of the 9.1 provided the area of the depression was a bit
larger. Could pour water into the depression until its full and then do
the same for a 9.1 {:>) and compare. Yes, I don't know of any markings
on the counterweights that could be used to sort it out.
Well, I could believe 89-95 would have the same
counterweights as those rotors all supposedly weight the same 9.54 lbs
regardless of the compression (Humm a bit suspect there), but I would think the
heavier 10.4 lbs weights of the 86-88 would require heavier
counterweights.
Its a bitch when you don't get what you ordered and what's
more have little to go by to prove it one way or the other.
Me? I'm Waiting for new right-gear leg. After
replacing the clearly bent left gear which had my left wing tip 3" lower than
the right, I found that after replacing that gear leg, that the left wing is now
6" higher than the right one. Taking the right gear leg off and
using a straight edge, I found the lower axle area about 3" to the rear of where
it should be. Result of my hard landing back in Feb when I found out that
pulling the power all the way to idle made my 76x88 prop act like a very
effective airbrake. The excursion into the ditch when the brakeline blew
in June didn't help any I'm certain.
But, hope to get it all back together for Shady Bend in
October.
Ed A
Thanks Ed, but that wont work.
I only have 1 rear counter weight, and that came with the engine
sold to me by Adkins (the other engine came with a flywheel). Turns out
the rotors in that engine were 8.5:1 S4 turbo rotors when they were supposed
to be the S5 turbo rotors. So I have absolutely no faith in what kind of
counter weights he threw on there. There is one for sale on e-bay - but
that guy does not know what year it came from either. hmmm
To throw a wrench in the works, I was reading about the subject on the
RX-7 forum, and one guy claims that has weighed the counter weights and finds
that all engines from 86-95 have the same counter weights!! But I want
to believe it because it would be easy.
I know that Mazda has different part numbers but I suppose they could
still all be the same...
Sigh.....
And the worst part is that there was a pair of 9.7:1 rotors on e-bay a
while back and I flaked and forgot to put in a bit... they went for $120
for the pair, but new ones are $600 each - ouch!
I'm taking a good hard look at trying to repair the 9.4 rotors that
Ernest sent...
Thanks for all the great stats to help me identify the rotors. The
depth seems to match everything else I know about the rotors.
Except:
The depth of the chamber on the rotors from Atkins (10.2# with cast
depression) is only (about) 7 mm. Do you think that the 8.5
rotors might have the same depth as the 9.0 (or 9.1) rotors?
Dave
On 10/4/05, Ed
Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
wrote:
Dave, a though occurred to me. Since you do know
the weight of the rotors for each compression and year (see Mazdatirx chart
below), if any one had the counter weights for a know year, I imagine
there is a proportional ratio between rotor weight and counter weight.
In other words, the lightest rotors should take the lightest counter
weights. Heaviest rotors the heaviest counterweights. In fact if
you had two data points for two different compression rotors you could
probably come close to figuring out the third counter weight weight.
Just a though.
Ed A
| Engine |
Year |
Compression |
Weight (Grams) |
Weight (Pounds) |
| 12A |
76-82 |
9.4 |
4603 |
10.15 |
| 12A |
83-85 |
9.4 |
4353 |
9.60 |
| 13B |
74-78 |
9.2 |
5253 |
11.58 |
| 13B |
84-85 |
9.4 |
5253 |
11.58 |
| 13B N/T |
86-88 |
9.4 |
4553 |
10.04 |
| 13B Turbo |
86-88 |
8.5 |
4553 |
10.04 |
| 13B N/T |
89-92 |
9.7 |
4328 |
9.54 |
| 13B Turbo |
89-92 |
9.0 |
4328 |
9.54 |
| 13B T/T |
93-95 |
9.0 |
4328 |
9.54 |
--
Dave
Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html
|