BLKTOPTRVL

Isn't the RENISIS a different engine that breathes exclusively through the rotor housings and not through the side housings? Doesn't this essentially make this a new design (perhaps with other modifications). I think it miight be best to wait and see.

artguy

new design nothing....the bigger the port the less the backpressure....tis how it works...and it is also why the thing revs out to 10k

im not waiting for jack...that car is butt *** ugly.

as i said in the rx8 thread...Id get a used m3 before i got one of the new renesis machines.

better yet...Ill keep my third gen...which is a classic and will always be. the rx8 will go away in a few years...bad ideas always do.

third gens forever! haha


j

Tanabe

what's even funnier is that it's true

Qball

whatever.

right click save this... and its an auto

http://www.racingflix.com/downloadvideo.asp?v=154

poss

iTrader: (5)

i've raced that guy. I beat him the first time, he beat me the second. kevin is one of the few cool supra guys that I know.

m477

Well, for the the S2000 to be even comparable at all to a RX-7, you have to compare a 10 year old RX-7 to a brand new s2000. If you compare a 2002 stook to a 2002 FD, the stook would get DESTROYED -- the '99 RS ran a 12.9 in the 1/4.

NuBiRaCeR

GOD!!! yeSS!!! the rx8 is u-g-l-y !!! I'd pick the FCs over it. people are trying to be too futuristic. The rx-7s will always be superior. The thing that i dont understand is that why is the US brining in rotary engines again now!!?? with this gay looking car. They should just bring out the rx-7 again with similar bodydesign from the efini versions.

maxcooper

That is true in a sense, but the all sideport RENESIS (even the exhaust ports are in the side housings) seems to have a much better low end than you would get with a huge port on a 13B with peripheral exhaust ports (like all 13Bs Mazda has sold in the past). Now, it isn't a huge amount of torque (160 lb-ft), but the shape of the curve is very flat from pretty low RPMs all the way to redline.

-Max

artguy

that supra was quick top end...holy ****...however id rather have the viper ...did you see that viper jump out on him. you could drive that viper on the streets of orange county but that supra??? hahah...LAG SUCKS!

j

Apexi

Now that you mention it, I've noticed the same thing too. I actually know of couple Supra buddies who ended up selling their cars for that exact same reason; passing on the grenade. I guess it's all a matter of time when it comes to playing around with boost.

vudoodoodoo

I have an FD and my friend has an MKIV Supra and we get along just fine.

fritzfry

I don't know the numbers, but the performance comparison between the 2 cars makes me think of the F-16 Falcon and the F-14 Tomcat...different strengths but both can fight. Aesthetics will come down to personal preference..both are good looking but the 7 is like Alyssa Milano or Anna Kournikova (looks, not performance) and the Supra is like, i dunno, the wrestler formerly known as Chyna?? hehehe..just havin' fun...

Snook

iTrader: (12)

supras are cool but I have a ******* race car

Leprechaun

I want to get a Supra TT for a daily driver. :-D

ZeroBanger

actually....

All those are good points (except the butt *** ugly comment) except the main reason it revs to 10K is the lighter rotors.

David

RedX7

I'd have to say out of the top imports in the 90's (RX-7's, Supras, 300ZX's, and 3000GT's) The FD is the best looking, with or without a bodykit. The Supra can easily look badass with a bodykit, but stock is just too plain. The Z is too plainly styled, even with a kit. The 3000GT is too much of nothing. In terms of performance, the FD and Supra are in a world of their own.

MAZDASPEEDFD

iTrader: (1)

I actually think that the 3000gt's look as good as the 7. There's so many of them out there that you just don't get the same reaction as when you see a car that looks equally good, but less common, like the 7. The Z's front is nice, the tail lights give them the '80's sports car look though. You have to give Supra's credit; everyone here has got to admit that before you got your FD, you were gawking whenever you saw a Supra...

artguy

zero....the lighter rotors are what they had to do to enable it to rev to 10k...they needed it to rev that high to take advantage of the large ports.

Ill say it again...if that car had a v6 in it instead of a rotary...odds are none of you would even look at it. god knows i wouldnt. the only good things about that car imho is the "theory" of sportscar design...however the part of the equation they messed up on is LOOKS...and TORQUE.

in my mind...those are two of the few parts of the equation for me to buy a new car. its gotta be bad ***. the rx8 just isnt bad ***. its sorta cool..sorta boring looking...sort of a good idea...sort of not. thats not the way to make a great car...you cant have any sort ofs....the fd didnt have any sort ofs.

j


j

BLKTOPTRVL

No, I don't think I'll admit that I never liked styling of the supra. When I did turn my head, I was just amazed at how bad that rear light assembly looked.

As I recall, the only cars that I have ever gawked at were:

64 1/2 Mustang 2+2 Fastback
Ferarri 308
Ferrari 355
Ferrari Dino
Mazda RX7 [1st gen, 2nd gen (convertible only), 3rd gen)
74 Trans-Am W/Screaming Chicken (What can I say, I was a kid then)
Ford Barchetta (sp?) It was a beautiful show car spoiled by the reality of the Merc Capri.
84 Ford Mustang GT
86 Ford Mustang SVO
62 Chevy Corvette Roadster
Alpha Romeo GTV6.25
84 Merkur XR4Ti


Hmmm - There are a lot of Fords here and I have only owned one Ford Vehicle in my life. But back in the eighties, these were the hot cars. The Merkur and the Alhpa I liked mostly because they were rare. I've always hated having a car that appears to be at every other intersection.

rpm_pwr

The rx-8 torque curve is actually quite flat, and since nobody knows the final drive ratio yet how can you say it wont have stronger bottom end acceleration than an FD? It certainly has a flatter torque curve.

You cant compare peripheral exhaust 13b with MSPRE engines. The latter has ZERO overlap yet nearly 50% more exhaust flow. The former has bucket loads of overlap and hence suffers quite badly from porting because overlap is increased even further resulting in poor combustion.

Backpressure? WTF? Bigger porting = more overlap. The Renesis has 30% bigger intake ports yet NO OVERLAP. So although it has lower intake charge velocity, that is compensated by a lack of exhaust dilution that the Peripheral exhaust rotaries suffer from.

LOL me. You're not going to use 300HP in daily traffic, it doesnt matter what car. Who cares what number the tacho is pointing to? It's important becuase a good torque spread in the upper RPM means a short diff ratio = more RW Torque = more acceleration.

Talking about Torque without quoting final drive ratios is totally meaningless. We've been over this SO many times.

Now there's something we both agree on.

-pete


Hardly a ski-slope is it? Multply those numbers by the TBA diff ratio and I'll tell you which will have the better bottom end. I love my FD but if I could bolt my TT's to a renesis motor I would.

artguy

great points you have...and seem to prove me wrong on a lot of areas.

however..look at that chart....notice where peak power is.

notice that most driving happens around 2-5k on a daily basis....now compare that to what the power levels are on that chart. there aint JACK **** in the normal driving ranges....peak power at 8500????? WTF??? the results of the big ports as i said....you wont enjoy it til you get a speeding ticket.

i do agree that it pulls nice and smooth...and nice and long...but i just dont like waiting for it.

waiting for power sucks...and that is what you are going to do in that car. I call that boring. 160lbs of torque is boring too.

i prefer response over no response any day of the week.

and finally...since you CANT bolt on your twins...LMAO...the rx8 at stock levels looks uninspiring performance wise.

does that dyno chart not look somewhat like a slower version non seq fd's chart a bit? nice and smooth power...definitely smoother and cleaner...i forgot...it is missing the torque....zzzzz



j

poss

iTrader: (5)

you sound like a mustang/f-body guy

you drive a 1.3L, you should be used to limited low end torque.

artguy

I also run the m2 ballbearing twins so that i can get as much of that back as possible

...did a streetport a while back and it scooted my pwer band up as is to be expected...didnt like the low end loss so went with the garrett bb set to balance it out.

i hate mustangs.


the fd is the car for me.


j

btytc

Bought mine like a half a year ago and still have
mine hands more under a hood than on a steering wheel but I absolutly love it .
It's like a
"petite cute Japanese girl versus Big fat mama"
Well,but that's just my biased opinion since I,m in love
w/my baby 7

rpm_pwr

It all depends on what you want from a car. If I wanted all my power in a small area down low (2-5k) I sure as hell wouldnt be driving a rotary - think small block chev. If it really matters to you so much why did you get one? and didn't you go NonSeq? Talk about killing bottom end! Most people who drive rx-7 appreciate having a very wide torque spread that is rock solid from 2000rpm to 6000rpm, so the realise that if you want to get the best out of it you have to push it further than most engines.

If the rx-8 runs a short enough rear end ratio and it could run up to 5.1:1 without having worse speed spread than an FD, then the rx-8 will be pushing more torque AT THE WHEELS than a stock FD through the entire rev range. Add to the fact that with shorter gearing you accelerate through the engine RPM faster anyway.

I wish there was a sticky on every board explaining torque and power...

OK, you're not going to wait for the rx-8 to start pulling. It has 90% of torque from3000rpm to 8000rpm. Since RWTorque = acceleration that means you only gain an extra 10% more torque at 7500rpm than you do at 3000rpm. Compare that with an FD that jumps in RW Torque by nearly 40% from 3000rpm to 5000rpm and a non-seq that jumps by 50-100% from 3000 to 5000rpm.

In short, you have to "wait" in an FD for the acceleration a lot more than you would in an rx-8, and that doesn't include turbo lag.


ABSOLUTELY NOT. Show me a non-seq torque curve that doesnt look like a snake that's just swallowed a mouse. They have NOTHING until the turbos can spool (3500rpm for most) and we both know that non of the non-seq guys can spool even at that speed in 1st and second.

Flywheel torque MEANS NOTHING ON IT's OWN. An rx-8 pushing through a 5.1:1 (this ratio would give it the same speeds in each gear as the FD) would have MORE TORQUE AT THE WHEELS THAN A STOCK FD.

Now I don't claim to know what the rx-8 rear end ratio is but I hope it is AT LEAST 5.1:1 just so people can understand the importance of a wide HIGH torque curve as a means of making power.

All I'm asking is for you to keep an open mind. You can't feel flywheel torque. If the production torque curve looks like the one I posted and they keep the rear-end ratio high enough you WILL be surprised.

-pete