By who?? That's the problem with this forum...... Bunch of ignorant kids.

-J

 

4 pages of glowing endorsements of how well this product works. no idea how monkman could arrive at that comment...

 

I just spoke to them. They have 5 and will have much more around years end. They can't build using old pumps or even slightly used because impellers are not easy to remove from pumps that have been in service and can get damaged. They're all hand built by the old man engine wiz and he tests clearances on each one, hence why they aren't going to sell impellers separately. Their current price is $245 but I saw a group buy on the 8 club that includes FD pumps as well.

Seal.

 

Here's yet another.

Yesterday while going down 2 straights at PIR (Portland OR) where I was holding 7500 RPM in 4th gear, water temps were 175f.

I don't attribute all of this to the Re-medy water pump, it's just part of the whole cooling package.

The fact that at high RPM's the pump is sending coolant through the rad rather than cavitating and thrashing certainly is a factor though.

I haven't yet done the skidpad test as gracer7-rx7 has, but during an autox in 90f+ weather, water temps never exceeded 210f.

 

I want to see flow comparisons. Something factual.

It would appear that flow is better up to a point, where even this pump will cause cavitation. This is coming from DaveW, Adam C, and a couple other very experienced FD owners on this Forum. Ironically enough, their posts and observations are at the beginning of this very thread.

Don't be asinine right off the bat. Reviews are great, but I want to know everything about this pump before I put it on my car. I autocross and track, so having better flow in the lower rpm range at the cost of power is pointless as I won't be IN the lower RPM range. This is of course based on the assumption of similar cavitation issues to the stock pump at high RPM.


My mistake for saying the word "worse"
But At the time this pump came out, they claimed more flow and better horsepower. Obviously one of those is false. I just want more details. Not arbitrary testing in uncontrolled environments.

 

I do too. But I don't see an easy way to do it.

You don't necessarily have to trade hp for flow depending on what efficiency does for the picture. I'm sure that with a detailed testing rig one could develop a power draw vs. rpm curve for each one, but like comparing dyno charts the big picture is what matters. We may never know.

Dave

 

i am interested in picking one of these up....but can someone clarify why you need to get a filler neck?

 

I respect DaveW and Adam_C but honestly this was designed by Rick Engman. He was racing rotories when most of us were under 3' tall. None of the people speculating at the beginning of the thread have the water pump or his racing development resume. Various people have tested it in the real world and posted their results (myself included under track/HPDE conditions).

Here is a fact for you. The stock waterpump cavitates at high RPM. Tested and proven on the race track for many years since the 70s. Mazda even says so and you can Google or search for the RPM where it starts. Mazda recommends underdriven pulleys on the WP to compensate for that for race use or extended high rpm scenarios.

Pick your poison - underdriven WP or the Rick Engman water pump for track and extended high RPM use.

This is a user forum and the experiences people listed are consistent across the population sample. Its unlikely you'll get anything more factual than that here.

 

My only question is this:

Does this water pump ever cause cavitation?

 

Please read this.....it is in english for YOUR convenience.
http://mazmart.com/ItemDetail.aspx?id=455

Maybe one of your problems is that you're basing your opinions off of the forum "all mightEEz" instead of folks like Engman.....Or god forbid your own research.
Everything will cavitate at a point. Have you ever seen an s6 FD water pump? Have you held it in your hand? Really inspected it?
Because if you have than you should have seen in the first 20 seconds that it is a BAD design. Forget your "cavitation test" because the fact is it's 50x better than what you have currently. Unless of course you're going to be reving to 19K RPMs..... then....you might want to worry about your cavitation (that you are currently experiencing now anyway).

-J

 

Dear Pointlessly Demeaning Ignoramus,

Have I been unpleasant to you?

I was asking when it begins to cavitate. I already know that anything will create cavitation eventually. That's just physics. I have done plenty of my own research, the point of a forum is to see what others think/say. I have read the thread, and I must have missed the link you supplied. Thanks for the English. Now get bent.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps I am being very inquisitive for a reason? I am currently in the middle of a personal debate between EWP and this pump. Seems to me that you need to go buy a ***** pump instead of compensating via the internet.

With the sincerest hope you grow up,
Nathan Monk

ps Why do you have such a personal interest in being ridiculous?


I have supplied a proper version of your own post:


Was that so hard? Heck, it would have saved you a few minutes of your time. I find it ironic that people like you go out of their way to be insulting. Just for your sake, I hope you realize that I got a laugh out of your post. The English comment was quite funny.



By the way, thank you for the link. I must have missed it within the thread. So now I have to decide if I want to go electric.

What is your opinion on the comparison? (Should I even ask this to you? Or are you going to tell me to do my own research to obtain your opinion? ) My reasoning for Electric is due to how often I autocross. I would like to be able to turn my car off after a run, but keep the coolant circulating. During our season, many of our events are during 100+ degree days, and I would like to do something besides shutting my car off immediately after a hard run.

Edit - I will concede the fact that I completely misstated my question in the previous post, so some ridicule is acceptable.

 

"People like me" huh?..... People like me get annoyed at ignorant questions on a forum that used to be so nice and informitive untill it was ruined by dumb *** kids. Forgive my sarcasum toward YOU, but I'm glad you got a laugh because I meant for it to be funny. Though I still think your question is not needed and pointless, if you wanted it to be answered so as to decide wheather to get an EWP or this one than you should have just asked that in the first place. There is no contest between the two, EWP hands down. Though there is a lot more money/parts needed to do, the EWP is the best most efficient way of moving water through the engine. FYI this is what I will be using on my FD in the next few weeks.

Believe me I have no need to compensate for ANY part of my life nor body via the inter-web I can promise you that bud. But thank you for the advice on the ***** pump.....I'll be sure to look into it while I try and "get bent"

You have a wonderful day mang.....And although I'm not one of the forum "all mightEEz" I hope my opinon on your question helped.

-J

 

umm back to my question...why do I need a new filler neck?

 

Just picked one of these up for $245. I figured I might as well buy it while it's in stock, and not over $400.


On a side note, I wonder if this would improve cooling when using a FMIC?

 

Get an electric water pump if you are paranoid!

Keep them straight "Jon.".

 

You got it Chuck

-J

 

I do appreciate the added comments about the EWP. It matches up with everything I have found thus far.

My reasoning for wanting specifics is to weigh the cost versus benefit. And this was my cheaper option in my mind. Now that I have thought about it more and more... I have decided the EWP route, just so I can continue running my coolant system with the engine off.

No hard feelings J.

 

Word....Good choice.
If you have questions when it comes time to install just pm me.

-J

 

let me know what u ll find on the electric water pump as i might be interested aswell. however, this re-medy looks pretty good and not overprised i think

And
No need for arguing for such small reasons guys

 

There is nothing to really "find out".... It's worked great for many many years before this thread came along. It IS the best most efficient way of moving water through the engine to cool it PERIOD.

-J

 

i wasnt asking for results. i was asking for the actual waterpump on which one to buy and which one to avoid
Thanks

 

Yes, would love to know as well

 

Dale --- thanks for sharing this great info. We all know that the rotary engine is known for thermodynamic issues and any thing to improve and gain the little is a big accomplishment. I wonder what kinda difference it would make on the FD as far as temperature wise more then Power wise????

 

In my following post I noticed something that may (or may not) add some light to the subject. Apparently, this pump pumps more at less than peak revs, and cavitates at very high RPM:

https://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php...8&postcount=22

-------------------------------
"If I look at the dyno graph carefully, the two curves cross over, and the blue (later) curve is higher only at the top (peak HP) and lower every where else. Assuming that the MazMart pump is the blue curve, that says to me that the MazMart pump is costing HP until it cavitates (less pumping, so less HP used) at the top end.

Am I missing something here?

And, in my next post: BTW, in general, more flow uses more HP to pump that additional flow, so this makes sense to me. The only way you can get less HP consumed by a centrifugal pump is to pump less volume.

For reference, when you use a vacuum cleaner, the motor/blower speed increases when you block the air flow. Same principle."
------------------------------

 

Why the discussion on the effect to HP? I don't see the particular relevance with regards to this product. This pump moves fluids more efficiently improving cooling. If that efficiency has a side effect of improving HP, it is incidental, not by design.


Dave - I don't understand your claim about it cavitating at high RPM. how do you come to that conclusion? On my car (and on others that have tested this in real world situations), I can see coolant temps stay cooler at sustained high RPM compared to the stock water pump on stock pulley. High coolant temps at high RPM (on track) are one of the easily identified symptoms of cavitation.

I also don't see any compression of the coolant hoses when the car was on the dyno - another sign of cavitation.

Here are a couple of quotes from rx8club:


Here is their quote from rx8club regarding the pump: