Gee ... I guess that's why the Porsche GT2 is such a terrible sports car and that's why Audi is THE dominant force in ALMS racing .... 'cuz turbos suck SOOOOO bad.

Look, assclown, if you have to dilute this thread with your trolling .... you could at least back it up with some relevant data.

 

What is applicable for a full on race car doesn't convert to a great road going street car.

Those race cars never have to run in traffic and most importantly only have to be reliable for the duration of one race. Street cars have to last for years...

 

The Porsche GT2 IS a street car. And I can name half a dozen other street cars that run high horsepower, reliable turbocharged applications ....

Here, lemme help you .... open mouth, insert foot.

 

Hey jackass...

No turbocharged car can match the throttle response of a normally asperated one.

Turbocharging is an excuse for not designing the engine right in the first place.

It's a hack.

 

Not to Flame but are you saying that the RB26DETT is a poorly made engine because they turbo charged it. by the way the RB is a skyline motor.

 

it depends on the turbo design, there are turbos (like the ones YOU mentioned for disesel applications) that will build 35psi at 2k rpms....

 

I would think detonation in a Turbo Diesel is much less of an issue, since THAT's how a Diesel works, just it tries to raise the compression as the Power stroke approaches, and then the compression or the "Glow" Plug will ignite the car, when cold, but once warmed up diesel no longer needs a ignition device... (Disclaimer to not get flamed) Unless I'm way off here....

 

turbocharging is an excuse for poorly designing an engine??? ROFL i dont think so. Its meant to squeeze more power out of a smaller powerplant, keeping weight down and maximizing the power/weight ratio. Plus when you purposely build motors for forced induction, they own everything on the road. Not to mention they are MORE managable in traffic, because the torque is only there when u want it to be.

-Zach

 

ok, maybe a turbocharged car can't match the throttle response of a NA car, but an NA car putting down the same HP as a turbocharged car cant match the weight of the turbo motor!!!!!

the turbo is a light weight way to increase HP instead of increasing the size (and therefore weight) of your engine. please ask yourself why porsche didnt use a V10 on the GT2, or why mazda didnt use a W16 in the rx7.... weight... its all abought weight! how would the GT2 handle with the viper motor behind the seat? the answer seems obvious to me dont talk **** about turbocharged cars untill you hop out of your Mustang GT and actually drive one

 

exactly my point rotormotor! Take a 500hp n/a motor in a car, and then take a 500hp turbo motor in the same car. The split second better throttle response of the n/a wont matter because the turbocharged car will be pushing less weight around. Not to forget, turbo cars have MASSIVE torque (talking pistons here ) through the entire rev range, so the turbo car will definitely murder the n/a car on a track.

Edit: Just to cover porsche's *** from being flamed about the Carrera GT using a V-10, should he even know/pick up on that, its for homolgation reasons for a LeMans racecar

 

i was just trying to use a made up example... i had no idea that the carera uses a V10.... however it is still not as fast as as the GT2, or 911turbo so i think my point still stands. i wonder what the weight differences are between the gt2 and the carrera GT?

anyway, im glad most of us are on the same page.... FI engine = less weight

 

The Carrera GT weighs about the same as a GT2.

Anyway I drove an RX-8 today and while the motor is nice it definitely does not have the low-end power that the FD produces with its turbos. It's nice and smooth and perfectly happy to operate at high revs but I don't see how you could get much more power out of the thing while staying normally aspirated.

If you want to make an FD that is about the same quickness as stock but with a vastly different powerband and a lot less complexity then I guess a Renesis swap would be a decent idea but otherwise I would skip it.

 

In Sport Compact Car, it was reported that there is an RX-8 drag car producing around 1400hp with a turbo rotary, it never says it will use a Renesis. For that kind of power I would think they would need a P-Port and probably 3-rotors.

The Renesis is basically a non-turbo, streetported, 13B with higher compression rotors and higher redline. I doubt that it has tons of potential.

 

rotor motor, the carrera uses the same f-6 that all the 911 models use....the Carrera GT im talking about is their new $500,000 supercar, which uses a v-10. Its the fastest production porsche to date. But anyway thats way off topic and im also glad everyone agrees that FI is the way to go.


EDIT: Also, IIRC, doesnt lemans and other racing sanctioning bodies put restrictions on turbocharged cars?? I also remember reading about the Group B racing back in the late 80's that when calculating maximum engine capacity, FI cars had a penalty of 1.5 or something...which is why Porsches 959's engine was a 2.85L, the biggest a FI engine could be, but also the most powerful in that class BECAUSE of FI! So if the grandest racing sanctions in the world put restrictions on FI cars...isnt that recognizing their superiority and making an attempt at leveling the playing field???

 

The car they are referring to has a 3 rotor in it.
"The Renesis is basically a non-turbo, streetported, 13B with higher compression rotors and higher redline. I doubt that it has tons of potential."

I hope you're ready to eat your words, because you will have to. First, it's nothing like a normal 13B, though it is the same -basic- design (rotary). You ought to do some reading before you make judgments like that. Just with changing the fuel delivery (and not meeting cat. longevity) we have it near stock 3rd gen speeds. With a high temp cat. and some other mods. we can surpass stock HP output of the 3rd gen. Even slightly modified 3rd gens. such as mine. All this NA!

You will see this on the street in a month or two. A lot of RX-8s are about to get faster. Yes, it's not easy. The ECU controls almost everything on the RX-8 and will go into "limp mode" when you just spin the tires for more than 3-4 sec. But when you don't it's deceptively fast.

Keep your mind open, grasshopper.

 

N/A cars have a limit on power. After reaching that limit the only way to produce more hp's is a turbocharger

If you want serious power then why not get a turbo designed car on the first place? with low compression and strong internals? And if you still want even more power then you can upgrade the turbo with a bigger one without changing all the parts you need to convert a N/A to turbo.

I used to own a Honda integra before and i spend more than 15K on it to built a powerfull N/A engine. After changeing all the internals + peripherals (High compression pistons,light conrods, stage 3 camshafts, valves,valve springs, retainers, ecu, throttle,headers,exhaust,inlet manifolds, head gusket etc etc) i decided that i needed more power and the only way was forced induction but unfortunately i had to spend twice as much on the stage i was. I had to build the engine from the beginning so i sold it and bought myself a turbo car with great potential(my FD). Also N/A cars don't give you the kick on the seat feeling like a turbo car. Also about V8's with massive torque and weight = wheel spin so on the track or the drag strip they have no chance against a turbo car.

End of story.

 

That's flat out bullshit.

The fastest 0-60mph car I've ever seen is turbo.

Tell me why one of the best engine builders in the world(Lingenfelter) made a twin turbo kit? I guess he's just stupid or GM made a terrible motor and he had to turbo it.

 

That's flat out bullshit.

The fastest 0-60mph car I've ever seen is turbo.

Tell me why one of the best engine builders in the world(Lingenfelter) made a twin turbo kit? I guess he's just stupid or GM made a terrible motor and he had to turbo it.

 

omg i cant believe this topic went from LS1 vs 13b vs renisis to a n/a vs turbo thread. no sh*t a turbo car will out perform a n/a car on the same engine platform. anyone who says any difference is should put down the bowl of rice they are using as an idol and be driving a civic!

 

yeah the Lingenfelter Vette is a perfect example. Why didnt he just Rip out that LS6 and put a HUGE v-12 in there? O wait....when you twin turbo that LS6 it makes 1200 STREETABLE horsepower! Not to mention the fastest street car in the world at 8.96 @156mph for a QUARTER MILE! And it keeps the z06's amazing handling characteristics because the weight was not dramatically altered.

 

Ok all you motor heads out there in rotary land. This is my two cents on the argument.

Turbo chargers are superior to N/A engines becasue they allow for more air to feed into the engine.

Cubic displacement is the only substitute for turbo chargers.

If you don't like your turbo chargers you are in the wrong section and reading about the wrong car.

If you want instantanious throttle responce go buy a Honda.

If you want a V8, go buy a corvette.

Third gens came with turbo chargers for a reason, they allow one of the smallest displacement engines (1.3 liters) to out perform almost everything else on the road. You can't name one small displacement (under 2 liters) car out there that can consistantly out perform a 3rd gen without either the use of a turbo charger or a super charger. They don't exist.

Thats my two cents on the matter.

 

Why don't V8 guys just stick to the cars that originally came with them. To me the rotary is all that keeps an RX an RX.

 

Turbos are for pushing an NA motor to the limits. Not to fix design flaws.

 

I don't think I'll be eating much of anything. The Renesis has side exhaust ports, which is more fuel efficient because when a rotary engine spins, the unburnt hydrocarbons stay towards the outside ring. On a 13B that unburnt waste is shot out of the exhaust, wasting fuel, but on a Renesis those hydrocarbons go through the cycle one or two more times to burn them properly.
Since it has side exhaust ports and better fuel economy, Mazda made the ports bigger, thus doing a form of a "streetport" which bumps up power dramastically. The exhaust manifold also doesnt have to be as restrictive aswell for fuel economy reasons, so theres more power there aswell.
Then Mazda added higher compression and lighter rotors for a few more ponies, then they setup the motor to take 9K safely. And as we all know, more revs= more horsepower as long as the motor can keep up.

So basically the Renesis is a streetport 13B with higher compression rotors and a higher redline which is more fuel efficient.

 

I think the only thing you guys are arguing over is semantics because one of you said "basically." When you think about it, the Wankel has a lot less stuff in it that you can actualy go about changing. Perhaps the order of magnitude of a change necessary to classify the difference as more than "basic" is indeed smaller than when comparing piston engines, perhaps not.