jimlab

I'm being evasive? You won't tell me why you want to know something I've posted dozens of times on this forum, and you say I'm the one being evasive? OK, whatever.

ZeroBanger

I want to know because I have never seen or heard what you think a stock FD will do. I know you are not fond of the rotary, but thats all I know. If you dont want to answer, thats cool.

PS. I'm not saying you haven't said in other posts, I just have not seen them and I was curious.

thanks.

jimlab

Average? 13.9-14.1 @ 100-101 mph. Factory freak with Kevin Wyum driving? 13.4-13.5 @ 102-103 mph.

ZeroBanger

not exactly. I dont care about average, and I dont want factory freak to be included.

10 PSI, 255 HP, 217 torque the way it was meant from the factory. The best time. I can infer from this post that you would think it would not hit 13.4-13.5 and would be better than 13.9, but I want to hear from you what you think. Thanks.

jimlab

I think an excellent driver could probably get a 13.7-13.8 out of a stock FD (10 psi, 255 horsepower) with practice, on the stock tires. Of course that depends on the track conditions, climate, elevation, amount of fuel in the tank, weight of the driver... what's the point?

ZeroBanger

I dont disagree with that statement. R & T got 13.7 from a stock FD. I also dont disagree that the 13.3 that Kevin got is unusual. While I think 13.5 is possible from a stock car, I think you need to be a damn good driver with good conditions.

Now, having said that, what do you think the absolute best time a US SPEC rx-8 can get on the 1/4. I mean the best driver, even breaking the car in two is acceptable. what do you think?

Kaotic Dan

Your argument is crap Zerobanger. If the 13-brew came n/a it would have different porting and compression then it does now, and only then would it be a somewhat fair comparison. But since the 13-brew DID NOT and WILL NOT ever come this way, your argument is invalid and just speculation. So this leaves us with one choice... We compare the 13-BREW as it came stock to the Renesis as it came stock.

So lets just compare this logically shall we.

-The Renesis-
gets better fuel mileage
is "probably" going to show better long term reliability
less Complexity
cleaner Emmissions
-
less horespower
less torque
much less tuning potential
higher cost per hp gained
less aftermarket support (for now)

-13BREW-
worse Fuel Mileage
"probably" worse reliability
more complex
higher emmissions
-
more horsepower
more torque
more tuning potential
lower cost per hp gain
more aftermarket support (for now)

So which motor is superior depends on what type of car owner you are.
The Renesis is a superior motor for your needs if -
- your looking for a reliable daily driver
- Good fuel economy is a priority for you
- You are environmentally minded

The Renesis is a superior motor for your needs if
- Your looking more for a toy / weekend warrior / race car
- power is more important than fuel economy
- you have a passion for modifying your car
- you like the kick in the *** a nice fat turbo will give you

My 2cents

ZeroBanger

dude you are smoking crack. You are comparing an engine with turbos to one that doesnt have them. N/A to N/A the renesis is better in every catagory. Compare a 91 N/A to it, its pretty much the same engine as the 93, with a few minor changes and higher compression.

Kaotic Dan

Why can't you see that your the only person on this board who gives a flying **** how the Renesis would compare to the 13brew N/A, since noone in thier right mind would ever take the turbo's off of one. seriously who the hell cares.

As they come from the factory in the car... you can not say the renesis is a better set-up for 90% of us.

ZeroBanger

I dont disagree with you I like my FD with its turbos also, its a great set up. I'm saying that your comparision is flawed. I never said the renesis is a better setup, I'm simply saying the engine is greatly improved over the 13B. thats all.

Kaotic Dan

Its greatly improved in ways that most of us enthusiasts don't care about, at the cost of the things that we do. For example, better reliability by not having turbo's at the cost of less power and less ability to make greater power. And good power without turbo's by raising the compression and thereby limiting the ammount of boost you can run safely if you turbo it. Not only that, but since they changed the design (rotors and housings) for this setup, its not going to be easy or cheap to lower the compression since there are no lower CR rotors to just swap in.

Basically what it comes down to is this, the Renesis is NOT a better motor if your an enthusiast like most of us.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the RX-8 and I think it's going to be good PR for the rotary engine.

Thats all I was trying to say.

jimlab

Stepping on your toes, is he?

Isn't that what you love to do best... compare the FD to cars that don't have turbos, like the Z06 or the Cobra Mustang? If it's not fair in this case, how is it fair when you do it? Ah, I see... in those instances you were trying to prove the FD was better, therefore it was fair. In this case, you're trying to prove the RX-8 is better, therefore it's not fair. What wonderfully flexible logic you have...

ZeroBanger

no , once again you mis-understood. Im saying when comparing the progress of the engine you cant compare one with turbos to one without.

now lets get back to my previous question. You already established that you think 13.7 is the best ET a bone stock, non factory freak FD can get. And that is with a great driver. In otherwords you think 13.7 is the potential. No problem.

Now my next question you chose not to answer. Lets talk about the best time for a stock Rx-8. Judge ITO as you probably know ran a 14.3. He believed its capable of a 14.2. Yes, he broke his first gear to get that time, but it still shows you what the us spec rx8 is capable of. For this comparison I will take 14.3 as the best time for the rx-8, fair?

Now look at the rx-8 it weighs 3050 + 150 lbs driver. So lets say 3200 lbs. The fd is 2800 + 150 lbs driver so lets say 2950. for a 250 lb weight difference. If we put the rx8 engine in the FD we would have to acount for the 90 lb weight difference. That is the difference in the weight of the engine itself, the fact that there is no IC and no turbo. So now we have a 340 lbs weight difference.

With the Rx-8 engine and transmission in the FD and you can assume 3/10 better ET. So that would put the renesis FD at a 14.0. Lets look at gearing, keeping the 4.44 gears the renesis FD I would have to say thats another 10th, but just for simplicty sake lets leave the 4.44's out of this and keep it at 14.0. that makes for a 3/10th difference. Now consider that Canzoomers ECU Fuel mod that puts back what the Renesis lost due to the last minute tuning, this is 25 rwhp. Canzoomer has dyno results to back this up. this brings the car back to Japan spec.

25 rwhp would bring the Renesis FD car to roughly the same 1/4 mile time as the FD with its 13Brew and twin turbos..

My work here is done, thanks for playing.

Flybye

I think Jim was trying to say that the FD has a more usable power band as opposed to having to rev the ****** just to get anywhere......like how I felt when I test drove the 8.

Come on....you got both cars. Tell me there haven't been a few times when you haven't said to yourself "Damn it I wish I had some BOOST!"

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

WOAH. Guys...seriously, chill out.

I asked a simple question, came back, and 2 pages later, WWIII is about to break out.

So you guys have a difference of opinion. Can't we leave it at that? Now I feel all bad for even asking...

I dunno bout everyone else, but as I watched this ping-pong match unfold, I sure learned a lot, and I'd hope we can leave it as just that: a learning experience, not a grudge match.

On that note, while it's not "real world," I do see ZeroBanger's point...comparing a turbocharged platform to a N/A isn't exactly gonna give you the best or truest comparison of the *engine's* capabilities...

Oh and JimLab, thanks for the great writeup/reply...made a lot of sense

But yea...thanks everyone for the replies. Just try and tone it down, cuz this is actually good stuff (minus the personal attacks and name calling)

ZeroBanger

Again, no question the FD is faster and has more power. But the gearing on the Rx-8 is very good. Infact, under 2600 RPM the rx8 has more useable power.

Its also easier to keep the rx8 in its power band. But I agree the RX-7 is much easier to launch and is better in a straight line, no argument there.

With the rx-8 If you want to cruise around at 5000, 6000 RPM and floor the gas you can do it and stay in your power band. When you try that with the rx-7 in sequential mode it doesnt worok right. I find I have to drop back below 3000 to get the second turbo to kick in again. I know a single turbo would not have this issue.

jimlab

You silly bastard. Who's being evasive? I'm not being evasive...

Of course you were being evasive, and for the very reason I suspected... a plot you'd cooked up to show that the Renesis was as good as the 13B-REW that hinged on my answer to your question.

Thanks for playing... now that's funny.

ZeroBanger

LOL, I'm glad you have a sense of humor.

jimlab

Of course the distinction that you probably missed was that what I find funny is how utterly predictable you are...

ForceFed

Ugh, not this dead horse....

Jim, just for the record my bone stock FD ran 3 consecutive 13.5@105mph passes at Lebanon Valley Speedway in Lebanon, NY, right on the border of upstate NY and Mass. This was on stock rubber, no funny gas and about 3/8's tank of fuel. The best ET of the day was a 13.51@105.4mph. This was achieved by going around the burnout box, dry scrubbing the tires, taching 4500-4700 and slipping the clutch for approx the first 50 feet or so and then releasing the clutch all the way. This resulted in 1.88 60' times (yes it ispossible), which was the key to the low ET. The 1-2 shift was done with a psuedo-powershift and the rest of the gear changes were done by lifting the throttle 75% between shifts. That was the key to the trap speed

Although i only got to make 3 passes that day due an extreme turnout, it's likely that if i was able to play with tire pressures a little i might have *squeezed* a 13.4 out of the car. Pure speculation on my part no doubt though. Regardless, i just figured that i would let you know that there are other "factory freaks" out there besides Kevin's.

Darril

Flybye

Ahhh so you had turbo control issues.

You chickened out on the diagnosis aspect and went single

All I can say is.....

I've never had a need to cruise around as you said in 5000 or 6000rpm just to get some usable power. And when I WAS going to race someone, downshifting, putting it near 5000-6000 rpm, I've never had a problem where the 2nd turbo wouldn't come on line. I wouldn't even have a hickup at transition. Straight through up to 13.5psi

Sure, I've had turbo control issues, but I did the hose job myself and everything was hunky dory. I also adjusted the prespooler flap to a point where it felt comfortable at transition.

ZeroBanger

you mis understood. I cruise around at 3000 RPM in the rx8, no problem at all as 90 pct of the torque is available at that point. What I was saying if you want to stay near PEAK power in the rx8 its very easy. The FD doesnt respond as well. this has something to do with the ecu and sequential mode.

jimlab

I'm aware of that, I was just using his car and his driving as a specific example.

ZeroBanger

Jim,

I am predictable, I know that. I also knew that you were avoiding my question because you figured I would do something like this. No problem with me. I still made my point.

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Now THIS is what I'm talkin about...
<------ frantically taking notes haha
That's some good stuff man. Keep it comin...