jimlab

I don't care if you put me on ignore permanently, because it's not worth my time to have a conversation with you. You are incapable of learning from what you read, as far as I can tell, even when it would benefit you to do so.

You want me to find an engine that the Renesis can compete with in stock form and a 13+ year old NA 13B is your recommendation?!? Jesus H. Christ. The chart was intended to answer the question "why not swap a Renesis into an FD" once and for all by proving that the Renesis is not superior to the 13B-REW from a power production standpoint.

Bottom line, the fact that you'd even repeat something like the information below should be warning enough to anyone else that they shouldn't pay much attention to your posts. You know just enough about cars to be dangerous.

ZeroBanger

Jim,

since you want to compare a forced induction 13 year old engine to a n/a renesis and think thats a fair comparison, I think its fair to compare a n/a 13B to a renesis. Since that is not fair to you, why not compare a stock 13B from a 91 without any turbos to a 93 RX-7's with the twin turbos. your #'s are skewed to make the renesis' look bad. The fact is the renesis is a superior engine to the FD's engine. You cant compare the fact that the FD has turbo's and say its a better engine.

Thanks for your reply, its pretty much what I expected.

MazdaRx7Racer4Life

I think, in a way, that jim is right, when an engine is NA, it comes pretty much maxed out (not completely) to what it can reach, and on its own terms can not just pull 80whp out of nowhere, on the other hand, a turbo engine, like the 13b-rew, might come with only 280hp to the flywheel, but it has immense tuning capabilties in whihc not much is required (much being chnaging of turbos or addition of something it doesn't already have) to squeeze 80whp out of it. If the renesis were made with turbos it would MOST LIKELY be at about 270-290bhp but its tuning capabilities would be greater. point is, that turbo engines come restricted and tuned for daily driving and longest lasting settings, but na engines come with almost 100% of their power already shown. This is just my opinion, Im not trying to mess with anyone elses thoughts.

ZeroBanger

the stage I ECU from canzoomer adds 25 HP to the wheels, dyno proven.
the stage II adds 55 HP to the wheels.

K & N 's intake adds 9 HP to the wheels,
A full exhaust adds 20-30 hp to the wheels.

the knightsport SC gives the renesis 280 HP @ 4-5 psi to the wheels.

there are alot of things we dont know as development is moving forward now, but bottom line, if you compare the two n/a to n/a the renesis is better in every way. thats all I'm trying to say.

jimlab

SKEWED to make the Renesis LOOK BAD? Where in the hell do you come up with this ****??!?

They're stock dyno numbers for an average FD and an average RX-8. How can they be "skewed"? The Renesis is NOT superior to the 13B-REW in power production. Yes, the 13B-REW is turbocharged. THAT'S NOT THE ******* POINT. The point is that people have been posting since the Renesis was just a rumor that it'd be great to swap one into an FD (and you were probably one of them). Most of them thought the similiarity in peak power output meant the Renesis was a superior engine, especially since it was going to be lighter, and (gasp!) have a 9,000 rpm redline... Rev higher? MUST be better!

Guess what? They were WRONG. The numbers don't lie. Deal with it on your own time.

Your reading comprehension is absolutely appalling. I said from a power production standpoint. Do you know what those words mean?

But while we're on the subject, just exactly how is the Renesis superior to the 13B-REW? It's a little lighter, sure. So what. Does it get better gas mileage? Not from what I've read. Make more power? No. Does it have all the same weaknesses of the rotary design? Yes, it just doesn't have a turbocharger system to amplify them. It may last longer than a 13B-REW, but only because of the naturally aspirated design. I don't call that superior, I call that smart... going back to what worked in the past and didn't result in the warranty nightmare the 13B-REW generated.

And your posts are what I'd expect from someone with an IQ of 75...

ZeroBanger

take the turbos off the FD and compare the acceleration to a FD with a stock renesis. No comparision.

the actual engine of the renesis makes more HP and torque.

Yes, the rx8 gets better gas mileage. i get 2 MPH better in the city on the rx7. On a 95 mile stretch of highway 2 weekends ago I got 30.2 MPG. On a 220 mile stretch I got 25.3 under some varied conditions (about 40 miles had snow, the rest was fine, just up and down hill).

SO yes, I know putting a renesis in the FD will make the FD slower, im not stupid, the FD has forced induction.

MazdaRx7Racer4Life

If you got a 13b-REW and were to put it as an na engine in any car, you would FIRST modify it so that it would get its peak HP, simply by porting it in the right places (renesis ports) in REALITY, the 13b-rew has the SAME capabilities as the The Renesis, but they are two different roads to performance takewn. When you speak of POTENTIAL (which I think is where superiority of engines come in) then I believe the turbo path is the correct one, therefore the 13b-rew would be considered superior.

ZeroBanger

we are talking stock, sure you can port the 13B, but we are talking as it came from the factory, engine to engine.

you can turbo the renesis too, thats not the point.

jimlab

Who gives a ****? That's not a real world scenario.

kyle@insight

I was begining to wonder after reading the thread title how this thread turned into 2 pages instead of it being dropped after "use the search" or "bellhousing is different". Now I know why it's two pages.

Carry on you two

jimlab

Especially considering ZeroBanger's self-chosen disassociation from reality and his use of almost any argument, no matter how illogical, to support his opinions... sounds a lot like YZF-R1 on one of his religion rants.

jimlab

Maybe we can get SpoolinRX in here to give his opinion on how "ricey" the RX-8 6-speed is to liven the discussion up a bit...

ZeroBanger

Jim,

I was just saying the n/a to n/a the renesis is superior. Now that we both agree on that I have a question for you. What do you think the best 1/4 mile time for a bone stock properly running FD is? Lets say with a pro driver with perfect driving conditions. In otherwords, what do you think the 1/4 mile time will be. all stock including tires.

MazdaRx7Racer4Life

n/a to n/a? I don't think (correct me if Im wrong) That there is an N/A 13b-REW. Its a turbo engine, designed for fored induction and mellowed down to its factory standards. It has the potential to (stock) increase its horsepower dramatically. If it were an N/A Im sure the difference would be only 30-40hp maybe a 235 or so engine, but its stock potential or capability to improve upon itself stock would be limited, as is that of the renesis, a stock n/a renesis is great, but its stock capabilities are limited.

ZeroBanger

No, this question was for Jim Lab and Jim Lab alone. A bone stock FD with the best driver driven to its potential. what 1/4 mile and trap. Thats my question and its for Jim Lab.

thanks.

MazdaRx7Racer4Life

Hmm.........If your question was for Jimlab alone how come yo posted it in this public forum, since it IS a pblic forum, I will continue to back up my opinion. If your right your right, but don't try to shut me up because I was disproving your theory. Thats just plain immature, I think I have a irght to back up this theory, answer tht question and do whatever.

jimlab

Where are you going with this?

ZeroBanger

You mis-under stood. You can say what you want, but I am asking Jimlab this question for a reason. It doesn't seem to matter because he obviously is not interested in answering it.

ZeroBanger

Jim,

I just want to know where you stand on the issue. You dont have to answer.

jimlab

What "issue"?

Wargasm

I looked at a dyno of a stock RX-8 vs a 1986 N/A with a few mods (exhaust, street port)....

The RX-8 made about 5-10 more lbs-ft of torque from 2000-8000. Not a big improvement considering it's got a higher compression ratio, new design, and about 17 years more R&D.

Brian

ZeroBanger

the question I asked. Its ok, like I said you dont have to answer. No biggy.

ZeroBanger

again, you are comparing a street ported motor to a stock motor. Compare stock vs stock. Torque is not that different, 140 or so VS 160, but compare Horsepower. thanks.

jimlab

Why are you being evasive, and what does the quarter mile performance of a stock FD have to do with anything? Why don't you come right out and state why you want to know.

ZeroBanger

You are the one being evasive. I wanted your opinion on the subject. You obviously dont have one. No problem.

thanks.