|
|
06-20-2013, 08:05 AM
|
#21
|
Senior Member
Trailer: 1975 Trillium 13 ft (Fluffer-Nugget)
Posts: 363
|
Truck looks awesome!....The combo looks even better!
Gotta love those Mazdas!....Our stable included a 1990 Miata and 2003 Protege Wagon....Both so fun to drive!
Have a great summer camping with your new rig!
Cheers!
|
|
|
06-20-2013, 09:02 AM
|
#22
|
Senior Member
Name: Chris
Trailer: Scamp 16
New Hampshire
Posts: 166
|
I had an '03 Protege5 (wagon) as well. Loved that car. I put 100k on it and sold it to buy a Mazdaspeed6. Now that has 100k but I'll probably hold onto it until the camper is paid off.
|
|
|
06-20-2013, 02:45 PM
|
#23
|
Senior Member
Trailer: 1975 Trillium 13 ft (Fluffer-Nugget)
Posts: 363
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuyler1
I had an '03 Protege5 (wagon) as well. Loved that car. I put 100k on it and sold it to buy a Mazdaspeed6. Now that has 100k but I'll probably hold onto it until the camper is paid off.
|
We still have our wagon (90K and not a hiccup) but sadly no Miata....Two kids too many!....Post kids we will have another one....Such fun cars!
Our neighbour had a Mazdaspeed6...Such a hot looking car!...Great choice!
|
|
|
06-20-2013, 04:23 PM
|
#24
|
Member
Name: Shirley
Trailer: Casita patriot
Colorado
Posts: 92
|
You are going to turn some heads for sure! Very nice combo.
|
|
|
06-20-2013, 05:28 PM
|
#25
|
Senior Member
Name: george
Trailer: FunFinder
Missouri
Posts: 455
|
Thanks for the update. The combo looks awesome ! Regarding the nose of it being low, I would wait until you decide yes or no on a WD hitch, because obviously it will have it's own ballmount/head, so you will be able to dial in the height with that.
|
|
|
06-20-2013, 05:51 PM
|
#26
|
Senior Member
Name: Leonard
Trailer: not yet
California
Posts: 151
|
Just read thru your thread on RV-Open roads, too. There were some really good comments in that thread about what might fail, etc. But it also sounds like you did your homework and planned ahead. To me, towing attitude/awareness is a part of the equation that can't be overlooked. All too easy to buy a big truck and "forget there's even a trailer back there"...and get into trouble that way. If you're going small, like you are, taking it easy and paying close attention is worth a lot.
Looks like an applicable year Ford Courier would pull up to 1800 kg, and while that really doesn't translate 100%, it suggests that you are in the ballpark. Keep us informed! And 1 inch nose down looks perfect.
Now we just need pictures of this rig at beautiful campsites!
|
|
|
06-20-2013, 06:02 PM
|
#27
|
Senior Member
Name: Ted
Trailer: (Dark side)Crossroads Now
Glade Valley, North Carolina
Posts: 990
|
Great looking setup Chris. Should turn some heads for sure.
__________________
“I have tried to live my life so that my family would love me and my friends would respect me. The others can do whatever the Hell they please!” —John Wayne
|
|
|
06-20-2013, 06:29 PM
|
#28
|
Senior Member
Name: Frank
Trailer: 2012 ParkLiner #006
New York
Posts: 2,273
|
Nice looking rig ya got there Chris. I love the Mazda rotary powered truck especially. Nothing cookie cutter about that baby!
Good luck with it, and keep us posted please!
Frank
|
|
|
06-20-2013, 09:54 PM
|
#29
|
Senior Member
Name: Chris
Trailer: Scamp 16
New Hampshire
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeonardS
Looks like an applicable year Ford Courier would pull up to 1800 kg, and while that really doesn't translate 100%, it suggests that you are in the ballpark.
|
Where did you find the 1800kg (4000lb) tow capacity? I've been looking for hard evidence of what it was rated for. All the brochures mention are the 1400lb payload. The Courier is identical, or I should say a downgrade in comparison. Ford only offered drum brakes all around, it had a narrower track, and significantly less power. Of the mid-70's mini trucks, I'd say the REPU was the one to buy if you were looking to get performance....of course the buyers were looking for fuel economy instead.
Anyway, I've found a few testimonials from owners of similar vintage mini trucks that confirm these vehicles were built to be work horses. One REPU owner hauled his RX race car all over the south east (trailer, car, tires, spare parts, the works). Another Datsun owner provided details about hauling two horses around the northern mid-west. He made extensive use of full throttle and broke a few things in the process but not enough to give up on the truck.
Of course those stories were when the trucks were relatively new. My truck is pretty well sorted (if it isn't I'll find out very quickly) and the upgrade parts like air shocks, synthetic oils, and modern brake pads can only help.
|
|
|
06-21-2013, 01:10 AM
|
#30
|
Senior Member
Name: Leonard
Trailer: not yet
California
Posts: 151
|
I googled 1975 Ford Courier towing capacity. I just searched my internet history and can't find the exact site right now. Maybe I got the newer mid 2000's "Courier" sold overseas mixed up (?).
If I find the exact site again I post it.
|
|
|
06-21-2013, 08:50 AM
|
#31
|
Senior Member
Name: Chris
Trailer: Scamp 16
New Hampshire
Posts: 166
|
Yeah that's probably the aussi courier (essentially a ranger).
|
|
|
06-21-2013, 09:08 AM
|
#32
|
Senior Member
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
Posts: 8,520
|
One thing just occured to me when I was thinking about this combo.It should do just fine except for the abscence of engine braking. Slowing and stopping will be more dependent on the brakes as a result. Such is the nature of a Wankel.
|
|
|
06-21-2013, 09:11 AM
|
#33
|
Senior Member
Name: Chris
Trailer: Scamp 16
New Hampshire
Posts: 166
|
I was actually surprised at how well the engine braking worked when I took the truck up the Mt Washington auto road a few weeks ago. For the steep stuff I left it in 1st and had to actually give it a little gas. Once the road opened up a bit I shifted to 2nd and had to tap the brakes occasionally to scrub speed off. I think engine braking is fine, but it will just be more effective at a higher RPM compared to a piston engine.
|
|
|
06-21-2013, 10:46 AM
|
#34
|
Senior Member
Name: Chris
Trailer: Scamp 16
New Hampshire
Posts: 166
|
Back to the Courier towing capacity. I found this infomercial about the 1981 Chevy Luv. Somewhere in the middle it mentions the LUV has a towing capacity of 2,000 lbs and that is only available from Ford with the optional larger engine. Considering none of the 4 bangers that Chevy and Ford offered had the output of the rotary (both in torque and hp), I don't think power is an issue for 2,000 lbs.
See Why The Chevrolet LUV Was The Compact Truck Of Choice In 1981
I think I'll tip the scales at about 2,000 before adding water. Fully loaded I expect about 2,000 at the axle and 200-300 at the tongue. It's a little bit over what I can only assume is the tow rating, but as long as I have everything balanced it should be fine, especially with the shocks to handle ride height adjustment, slotted rotors, and the trailer brakes.
|
|
|
06-21-2013, 10:48 AM
|
#35
|
Senior Member
Trailer: No Trailer Yet
Posts: 5,112
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuyler1
.......... It's a little bit over what I can only assume is the tow rating, but as long as I have everything balanced it should be fine, especially with the shocks to handle ride height adjustment, slotted rotors, and the trailer brakes.
|
Just don't drive through Colorado.
|
|
|
06-21-2013, 10:56 AM
|
#36
|
Senior Member
Name: Chris
Trailer: Scamp 16
New Hampshire
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas G.
Just don't drive through Colorado.
|
Hah, yeah. No kidding. Nothing like high elevation to sap the power. No plans to make it that far west just yet. We will be heading up and down the east coast for now, mostly just New England.
I've had my eye on a supercharger kit for the rotary that would certainly resolve any performance issues at high elevation....but I'd probably have to make some upgrades to the cooling system at the same time to handle the extra power. But that's just a pipe dream at this stage.
|
|
|
06-21-2013, 02:25 PM
|
#37
|
Senior Member
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
Posts: 8,520
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuyler1
Based on the 1974 Road & Track article, the motor had...
110 hp @ 7,000 RPM
117 ft-lb @ 3,500 RPM
Rotaries are not knowing for having copious amounts of Torque and the RX-7 and RX-8 sports cars were tuned with high rpm in mind and despite having upwards of 250hp never had more than about 160 ft-lbs to go with it.
Anyway, those numbers above seem low by today's standards, but keep in mind the truck's curb weight is only 2,800 lbs. Also compare that to an early 70's Ford straight 6 that came standard in many full size pickups weighing more than this truck...
105 hp @ 4,400RPM
156 ft-lb @ 2,400RPM
Ok, so it would be nice to have a little extra torque but I'll see how things go. The truck has quite a bit of get-up-and-go right now with the free flowing exhaust. It revs at about 4,000 rpm at 70 mph on the highway and should be right at max torque at 60-65 mph. I can upgrade the carberator if I feel I need a little more power.
Another thing to consider is the torque curve. It has a low value but the curve is very different from a piston engine. The more you rev the rotary, the more power you get.
Rotary Engine power curve:
Typical Piston Engine Power Curve:
I'm not saying we should all be running rotary engines...but if it weren't for the gas mileage all the major manufacturers would have released a version in the 70's. Chevy actually built a prototype of the Corvette with a mid-mounted rotary engine. Can you imagine that? If you are gasping, you'll understand why GM tried to hide this from the public, but one of the prototypes still exists.
|
Below is an example of a 300CID I-6 Ford at work. My 1980 Econoline(300CID I-6/Manual trans) with a 3:00 gear could pull our 1958 Heilite trailer smoothly up to to speed in overdrive from 15MPH.
I admire your little truck,and think it will do fine with your Scamp,still...
There is no comparison.
|
|
|
06-21-2013, 04:08 PM
|
#38
|
Senior Member
Name: Chris
Trailer: Scamp 16
New Hampshire
Posts: 166
|
I was thinking more of the 240CID but now I can't find where I got those numbers from. Wikipedia shows higher numbers...but yeah the 300CID is no joke when it comes to torque. You can get that kind of power from a rotary...but I'm certain it won't be as reliable. Here's what tuner's have been able to accomplish with forced induction on 13B and 12A rotaries...
http://www.rx7club.com/attachments/1...-gen-dyno2-jpg
That's a lot of torque for a small motor...but apex seal longevity in some of those builds is measured in 1/4 mile increments.
Anyway, my original point was that the motor will rev high and continue to provide power. It starts off weak but the gears are low so I won't spend any time below 3,000 while driving around. I'm not trying to say the rotary will replace the full-size pickup work horses...I am saying they got a bad rap mainly due to fuel mileage.
|
|
|
06-21-2013, 04:24 PM
|
#39
|
Senior Member
Trailer: Boler (B1700RGH) 1979
Posts: 5,002
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd
... the abscence of engine braking...
Such is the nature of a Wankel.
|
Why would there be a lack of engine braking? Whether the piston and chamber are a cylinder in a cylinder, or a near-triangle in an epitrochoid, the engine still does the suck-squeeze-bang-blow cycle and closing the throttle valve still makes it into an air pump that resists being turned, thus engine braking. Big port timing overlap will hurt effectiveness, just like big valve overlap, and some Wankels may be bad in this regard, but they will still engine brake to some extent. Modern fuel injection systems that cut fuel above idle on closed throttle really help, but I realize that the Rotary Pickup won't have that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuyler1
I think engine braking is fine, but it will just be more effective at a higher RPM compared to a piston engine.
|
That makes sense.
Engine braking is a good thing, although in towing a properly equipped trailer only significant for descending grades.
__________________
1979 Boler B1700RGH, pulled by 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 2WD
Information is good. Lack of information is not so good, but misinformation is much worse. Check facts, and apply common sense liberally.
STATUS: No longer active in forum.
|
|
|
06-21-2013, 07:20 PM
|
#40
|
Senior Member
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
Posts: 8,520
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B-P
Why would there be a lack of engine braking? Whether the piston and chamber are a cylinder in a cylinder, or a near-triangle in an epitrochoid, the engine still does the suck-squeeze-bang-blow cycle and closing the throttle valve still makes it into an air pump that resists being turned, thus engine braking. Big port timing overlap will hurt effectiveness, just like big valve overlap, and some Wankels may be bad in this regard, but they will still engine brake to some extent. Modern fuel injection systems that cut fuel above idle on closed throttle really help, but I realize that the Rotary Pickup won't have that.
That makes sense.
Engine braking is a good thing, although in towing a properly equipped trailer only significant for descending grades.
|
Ah shucks, without trying to get all technical and stuff , I 'll just say that for some reason I observed the "hoop and stick" propulsion system as not being conducive to engine braking.
That is of course anecdotal, since I simply recall being shocked by it's abscence while test driving a new RX3, and found it to also be a trait of the later 70CID RX7.
Another(perhaps related) trait was the seemingly unlimited rev capability, especially with the addition of a turbocharger.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Upcoming Events |
No events scheduled in the next 465 days.
|
|