James H

Thanks im running Cusco coilovers not really sure which ones they are but retail was about $1500 although i never paid that, doubt they are TUv approved as in the UK they dont have to be.... yet

James H

Few more pics of the spoiler let me know if you think i should keep it on or not!?!

k3mo2992

car looks amazing, 6-speed ftw!

DBookatay

iTrader: (1)

Other than the front turn signal lights sticking out WAY to far this is a VERY nice build...I've wondered about RX8 swaps, heard alot of chatter, but this is the first one I've actually done...

Any thoughts of putting the cover back on the motor? I think they look super clean and pretty bad *** with them on...

Nick_d_TII

iTrader: (6)

+1

Probably not much faster than a regular 13b NA FC = SLOW.

Ride Hight is fine, spoiler is fine, car looks fine.

FC_fan

iTrader: (2)

isn't the renesis around 250hp at flywheel? probably closer to a 13bt I would think except faster through the entire rpm band no? spoiler looks great on the car now. Do get the better offset rims and it will be perfect in my eyes. this is probably my favorite FC of all I have seen. motor and tranny get +1000000.lol.

MannyRX

iTrader: (4)

Any updates on how the ports are operating???i dont know how much power the stock 13B on the FC's puts down but the renesis is rated at 238 and the majority of the dynos i have seen from stock RX8's say 180 whp tho a N/A renesis can see up to 225 with bolt ons and a COBB,its all in the power to weight ratio which is why i believe this would be a better swap in a first gen...what are your impressions regarding the difference in power? Nice 7 BTW!!!

lastphaseofthis

iTrader: (8)

i beleive the 180 is RWhp? and the 238 was flyhweel. a stock s5 n/a is 165 flywheel and usually 120-130 rwhp.

To OP, I like yo car.

Otaku

iTrader: (1)

I can't imagine the thing with an Esmerilracing kit thrown on it. If I ever total my rx8, I should do the same thing.

MannyRX

iTrader: (4)

Thats exactly what i was thinking...an esmeril kit on this would be nasty!!!, but what is the weight difference between an RX8 and a 2nd gen???

rotarygod

iTrader: (1)

With a Renesis that thing would run circles around a stock TII all day without even trying.

TheAbsence

iTrader: (19)

I, like many others in this thread, are curious about the wiring. Also was there any subframe modification, and were the engine and trans mounts custom made or are there now parts available? This is one of those dream swaps I would love to do in 5 years or so after people like you pioneer it and post the tech info.

Wow, once you get all those crappy plastic covers off the Renesis, it really is a rotary. That thing looks so basic, and I love the much smaller intake manifold setup than the FC models. You do need to put that air intake in front of the radiator though.

Nick_d_TII

iTrader: (6)

Bwah ha ha... Would it? You know this because you have a Renesis powered FC Base and you Raced a TII in circles? STFU with your 'Heresay.'

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=77031

I would like to see more videos of the cars/projects/swaps that members are posting.

I like to know the effects of modifications to the car and how it increases the performance and abilities of the car. I prefer to modify cars to improve the overall performance of the car opposed to creating frankenstien cars that are just basically the same car with the same performace just a different way of producing power or look...

I said it would be slow to get a 'rise' out of the OP and he'd give some details...

Good looking ride, and cool swap/install, but how does it perform compared to before you swapped the engine?

Th3_St33z

Bump for a clean FC, I wanna see a video of it running!

TheAbsence

iTrader: (19)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. A Renesis swap would have more power than a FC turbo 13B, 2000rpm more to play with, and a 6 speed transmission behind it. I'm not sure how the weights compare, but since the intake manifolds are so heavy on FC 13B's, and the Renesis has so much smaller of an intake manifold, I would think the Renesis might be even lighter. And didn't the Renesis use some aluminum parts as well?

So what makes you think that the Renesis wouldn't be quicker than a turbo FC? You can't really call someone on forming a conclusion based on extrapolation after looking at the statistics of each engine and making an educated opinion.

"Guns are capable of killing people."
"You know this because you have a gun and have killed a man before? STFU with your 'Heresay.' "

rotarygod

iTrader: (1)

I know a hell of alot more about rotaries than you do. Sorry to be blunt. You're a rotard. Congrats!

How much power did the TII make? 182 in '87-'88 and 200 in '89-'90. How much does a Renesis make? Ralistically it has been determined by several people that it makes about 225 hp at the crank. Shy of the 238 Mazda claim but still far more than a stock TII. See above numbers and remember back to grade school math which one is higher. How much power did a stock na make? 146 in 86-88 and 160 in 89-91. Last I checked 225 was higher than all of these numbers. What does a stock na dyno at? At the rear wheels it is anywhere from about 115-135 hp stock depending on car. With mods higher of course but that's not stock is it? With those numbers out of the way, please don't try to get into a torque argument with me. Torque does no work. It never has. It can't. Horesepower does.

Consider that an RX-8 which weighs about 300 lbs more than any RX-7 is still faster in a straight line, turning, etc than a stock TII. It can also stop faster. It is a superior car in every way. Once you start comparing aftermarket mods, the comparisons get skewed in the direction that you want it to. Now consider putting this same engine in an RX-7. It would be even faster due to less weight.

It's not too hard to see that a Renesis powered FC would easily be faster than any na FC that didn't have some large porting done to it and would be faster than any stock II. You'd have to add a free flowing exhaust, FCD, and boost controller to a TII to catch it. Sure it could do it with a stock turbo but again the car is no longer stock.

If you want to throw a link to numbers at me at least know the numbers you are comparing them to.

Digi7ech

iTrader: (1)

As of now, I think the TII would take it.

We still haven't heard about port actuation and that is the ONLY reason why it makes more power throughout the power band.
Depending on if they're all open or closed it will make no power up top or below high rpm.

Nick_d_TII

iTrader: (6)

Ohhhh... Nice one. You know more about rotaries, good for you, and you can count numbers. Your comment has Nothing to do with actual real world performance. YOU FAIL.

http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/rx8/history.html

RX8
"Track testing yielded a best 0-to-60-mph time of 6.6 seconds and a quarter-mile run of 15.1 seconds. Without much off-the-line torque, the RX isn't much of a stoplight king, but once underway it makes up ground quickly. Its quarter-mile speed of just over 92 mph puts the Mazda about 5 miles per hour behind the Nissan. The numbers don't lie, if you're looking to dust off local high schoolers, the RX-8 isn't the car to do it with."

86 Rx7
Car and Driver measured the first RX-7 Turbo scooting to 60 mph in just 6.5 seconds and completing the quarter-mile in 14.9 seconds with a 94-mph trap speed. This was a seriously quick car and the magazine appreciated that. "Sports car fans should be grateful to the good guys at Mazda as much for what they haven't done as for what they have," writer Tony Assenza concluded. "They could have turned the RX-7 into a precious, overweight gigolo. Instead, like good guys everywhere, they have kept the faith. The result is a fast and furious street fighter with the legs and lungs to stick it in the face of much of the expensive iron trolling the avenues."

It's close, but TII faster.

You may think you know more about rotaries, but it doesn't make you Right. Furthermore, everything works in theory, it's the real world testing that proves bitch *** theories WRONG.

The link provided above shows an average of 160-180 Rear Wheel hp of rx8s. Dyno numbers can be manipulated/corrected to make people(customers) feel happy.

TheAbsence, Get a clue, you must believe everything you read. Guns? Who said anything about guns? Ahh this says it all, go grab your guns and your bible, because Obama is going to take them from you, because he's a ****, Commie, Marxist. There's a tea party rally your missing out on. Get REAL, douche.

All I want to know is if/how much the Rene improved performance?

Have fun with your Renesis powered FC!

TheAbsence

iTrader: (19)

The RX-8 being slightly slower than a stock turbo FC may not have everything to do with the engine though. Power to weight, suspension setup, I dunno - theres just a lot more that goes into quarter mile times than just the engine. And as stated, the RX-8's engine makes more power. Although dynos can be manipulated as you stated, I don't think you would find a competent man in the automotive industry that will say that the Renesis makes less power than an FC turbo 13B.

And the guns reference was called a "metaphor." Here is a definition for you: "a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity." wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Your loosely coined "counter-argument" to me wasn't so much disproving or refuting any of my points, it was more just straight insults. Lets try to keep this constructive and not tear each other's heads off, as that would get us nowhere. And no, I don't believe everything I read, but some sources are more credible than you such as SAE.

turboIIrotary

iTrader: (9)

I must say you are an idiot. I raced my turbo II against my friends rx8 i had a fresh rebuilt motor with an exhaust and i lost multiple times. So let see taking a motor that beat a turboII and putting it into a rx7 chassis which is a lot lighter than a rx8's will definatly beat me everytime. You talk about real world performance but you take information out of a magazine?

MannyRX

iTrader: (4)

The Renesis doesnt get enough credit, and 15.1 in the 1/4 is whoever it was that was driving it that day's best time,ive heard of stock 8's runing 14.9's, this engine is capable of over 400WHP when boosted as well. There are definetly benefits from this swap in a FC and even more in a first gen. its reliable too, i have over 80K on my 04 RX8 and she still pulls strong and i have never babied it...im glad this engine is finally being somewhat accepted within the rotary comunity...everybody knows that the RX8 has always been like the neglected red headed step child of rotaries!!!

James H we need more info!!!!

beefhole

iTrader: (29)

"Torque does no work. It never has. It can't. Horesepower does."
Spoken like a true salesman... Horsepower SELLS cars. Torque wins races.
I'm going to keep an eye on this thread for more goodies like this.

Dltreezan

iTrader: (3)

my milkshake

ineedfc

iTrader: (3)

qouted for truth, i read that and was like wtf is this guy talking about.
hp is a calculated number based off torque.

as far as the renesis vs tii, i would imagine it would be a very close race considering the rx8 has alot more useless systems piggybacking on the motor, and is slightly heavier.

SoloII///M

iTrader: (13)

Since you asked... the wing is horrendous. So is the bodykit, but to each his own I suppose.

The easiest way to visualize the rate of acceleration of a car (not taking into account things like wheelpin) is by calculating the thrust (or force) delivered by the rear tires turning against the pavement. I've done this many times when trying to correllate measured acceleration data from one car to another and it has always been strongly correllated.

Thrust is simply calculated from the torque delivered to the rear axle (taking into account the multiplication factor of the overall gear ratio) divided by the radius through which that torque is delivered. You can calculate it across the whole RPM range and draw a curve. If you plot it as a function of vehicle speed, not RPM, you can see how one car with more horsepower and less torque (implying more max engine revs) can accelerate just as quickly as one with less horsepower and more torque (implying lower max engine revs). The second engine can take advantage of lower gearing and apply the same thrust for LONGER.

The statement that "torque doesn't do any work and never has" is completely 100% correct and directly from physics. Torque does not require that an object be MOVED for that torque to have been DELIVERED. Think of a breaker bar and socket on the rear axle nut of an RX-7. If you apply 100 ft-lbs of torque you won't turn that nut (so by definition no WORK is done), but the torque is applied. Horsepower is what does WORK which is defined as applying a force over a distance. Torque is not a force.

People get fired up about all this and it's silly. There are lots of ways to acheive the same goal.

I promise not to get fired up unless someone brings up the "horsepower per liter" argument like it's a meaningful figure of merit. So don't do that.