infinitebass

Smiley or not, that was completely uncalled for, and in my opinion, makes anything you say worthless. Hey, at least I can spell Renesis. Normally I would not respond to someone who says anything like that, but all you are is a troll, and you will be exposed as such.

And think what you will, but argue with one of the best tuners in the country:

http://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthrea...threadid=94255

Scroll down and you'll see Ultimate Lurker mention the Dynapack's average 10hp higher. Did I mention he was featured in an article in Time Magazine? Argue with him if you don't believe me.

You are right, higher RPM's == higher wear. But less weight equals less wear. You seem to keep leaving that out.

And you still fail to provide with a reason to think you know more than the Mazda Engineers do about building and designing engines. You dismiss the speculation about the ECU causing the dyno problems as speculation, but all your claims as well, so what gives?

Blake

BTW, you seem to put all these dealerships and their techs in such high regards...are these the same ones that most people will tell you to avoid taking any other car with a rotary in it to? Last I checked, most dealerships new crap about the cars they sell...

RICE RACING

I am not the one coming up with excuses for an engine that is sold for something that it is clearly not !



You and others like you need to take the "emotion" out of your feelings, NO ONE like the rotary more than me !

Call me a Troll ....pffft, do a search you idiot ! No one loves the rotary more than me (I'm sure some come close)

I am telling you and other excuse makers that there are NO REASONS for the lack of power !

And if you want dynapack information, come to this farking hemisphere this is where they are made ! My car is living proof of what these dynos read when they are set with a 1:1 drive line factor. So based on your info how much bhp am I making if I dynoed 470rwhp on a dynapack ?

I will be waiting patiently for your expert analysis LOL. I suppose I can forward it to dynapack NZ manager or better yet I can call him to seek clarification for you after he sent me out company literature for their latest 110000 dollar unit, or better yet I will ask the other many dynapack operators in Australia what they know ?

This is worth much more than ANY pissy magazine article your care to quote

RICE RACING

My engine made NO MORE than 566bhp and it dynoed 472rwhp (exactly) That = 1.2 multiplier. As I stated.

I can give you names and phone numbers of at leat 4 other shops that use this dyno system on various other applications and they all agree to the same factors for similar RWD road cars.

I am here to get through the BS and endless excuses that plague this new car.

Again I state, its a crying shame that a Honda 2lt can dyno far higher and use less fuel, damn shame, I hope Mazda rectify the situation !

RICE RACING

dont worry about it

S2000 200+ rwhp (dynojet proven) 240bhp engine

RX8 185 rwhp (dynojet proven) "claimed" 247bhp engine

You do the math

peejay

I highly doubt that. The "most reliable" are the 1st-gens which all easily will go up to and beyond 200k with no problems. (Miles.)

A couple other points to add...

The RX-8's GVWR is 3800lb, which is what the door sticker says. This is the maximum that the vehicle is rated to weigh, *including* passengers, fuel, luggage, etc. The car does not weigh 3800lb, it is probably 2800lb and can carry four passengers and luggage (totaling 1000lb). The sticker should also say where this load can be placed.

Also, S2000s are not reliable. They have a nasty tendency to seize when they are run hard, usually #4 piston sticks in the bore. But they (like I suspect, the RX-8) are practically never driven hard, just putt-putted around by doofuses who had a lot of money burning a hole in their pockets and needed something unique to drive.

edit - drag racing and dyno testing qualify as "putt putting" in my book... you need to go to a circuit and *use* that engine for long periods of time to really have any fun.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

you guys need to look at the biright side, they still got 40 more hp, over the s5 na, which is not a bad jump.

oh and pj is right, the 1st gen gsl-se's will run happily for 210,000 miles, or 20 years whichever comes first, AND when you tear it apart theres negligable wear on anything

mike

Kenku

Well, here's my input, not like anyone asked for it.

Regarding the horsepower, I don't honestly think there's any reason why it *shouldn't* be unable to make its claimed power. I mean, the development engines were putting out on the order of 280ish HP at the shaft, so it sort of seems to me that there's an artificial cap on the output somewhere for some reason.

Now, that leaves the fact that it *is* putting out less power than it's supposed to, apparently. Well... I guess we'll have to wait and see. Mazda will probably reply about it eventually...

Long term durability, who the hell knows? We'll have to wait and see for that too, unless someone wants to get a Renesis and leave it on an engine dyno for a few months?

infinitebass

I apologize RICE RACING, I misread what you posted. I thought you were talking about RWHP. In which case, the Dynapack does dyno higher than a dynojet, when comparing RWHP. So yes, your correction factor is correct. But, it is also known that percentages are not a good way to measure engine power and drivetrain loss because it does not always scale linearly with HP. I.E. a car making more HP does not necessarily have as high a percentage loss as a car making twice as much. You should know that, Mr. Dyno expert.

Also, where did I quote a magazine article? I DIDN'T! Learn to read, then learn to spell. I mentioned that Ultimate Lurker from the S2ki board is one of the best tuners in the country, and was featured in an article in times. No where did I quote the article, because it dealt with hacking ECU's, not tuning.

Also, you still haven't given anything other than speculation either. You cannot prove that the engines won't gain more power as they are broken in, nor can you prove that they won't be reliable. Merely speculation from yourself.

BTW, most S2000's dyno between 195-205 on a dynojet. So if the Renesis is dynoing 185, thats only 15-20 hp lower than it should be, and I wouldn't be surprised if a fully broken in (3k miles+) RX-8 makes up most of that.

Please, provide us some proof that it won't improve and that there is nothing programmed in the ECU to detune it during break in.

And you accuse everyone else of being emotional? Look at you! I say you're talking out your *** and you go off on a rampage and make quite a few inflamed vulgar posts. Now who's getting emotional?

Blake

wwilliam54

yuh, I think it be more reliable engine wise simply from teh 2 oil coolers and the better oil injection system, but realy as long as it better than fd's it no prob

yuh s2k's love breaking piston clips

infinitebass

The #4 cylinder problem is not that common on the S2000. It would be virtually non-existant if we had the same recall that Honda Europe did.

Blake

peejay

Chew on this...

1st-gen 12A... peak torque 105lb-ft at 4000rpm, peak HP 100 at 6000rpm

1st-gen 13B... peak torque 133lb-ft at 2750rpm(!), peak HP 135 @ 6000rpm

Relatively low-revving engines, you see. Lower HP levels mean the thermal stresses on everything are much lower. And you can't begin to talk about the RX-8's oil injection until you've seen how much a 1st-gen can use. Lke 1 quart in as low as 250 miles, yummy, and the GSL-SE put it all right at the rotor housing as well. 12A like the other carby cars just drooled it down into the carb throats/intake manifold but it got where it needed to go alright... again, 200k miles is easily achievable, even under abusive conditions like changing the oil every 20k miles whether it needs it or not. (Which is VERY COMMON in the USA) 300k miles seems to be more limited to the chassis coming apart from rust than any engine issues.

wwilliam54

i know
I own a '82 gs with 207,000

i would love to see mazda use taller/wider rotor with more displacement and torque at lower revs
but oh well

HWO

Infinitebass - it is a %, its not a Hp drive line loss, its is a reading discrepency between true engine HP and the specific Dyno type.

Unless you bolt and engine dyno to your hub, you are merely guessing at what HP loss a particular car experiences

peejay

I think that, ideally, they will make the rotors smaller and wider, there are many advantages to this - lower rubbing speeds for a given RPM, higher thermal efficiency due to less surface/volume (this is a guesstimate since the math is *atrocious*)... downsides are that the port windows would necessarily have to get smaller so less HP, and the e-shaft and the tension bolts would be that much longer. of course we can fix that with 20B-style triple main bearings and bolting the engine together from both ends, but that adds complexity costs and assembly costs.

shinjuku

So Pete i'm trying to understand what you are saying here....

Are you saying:

The gas pressure will cause a load on the seal, acting at right angles to the chamber surface, as will the mass of the seal (due to a change in velocity in a perpendicular sense to the surface).

However that the load caused by the gas pressure is very large compared to that caused by the mass of the seal?

Combining this load (acting at right angles to the surface)with the very high velocity of the seal , due to the elevated RPMs, (in a parallel direction to the surface?) is what will cause the increased friction and hence wear???? or have I got it wrong ?

DMRH

OK, just read through that thread & its all very interesting. Some mis-truths but nothing deliberate.

I don't doubt that the 13B-MSP engine is good for 184kw (247hp) as described by Mazda. However the reason as to why the power appears to be lower than expected will come out over time. The electrically controlled throttle body not giving 100% sounds credible.

When I researched into the engine for a technical story, I found Mazda quoting just 380cc from all 3 injectors on each rotor. This was such a shock to me that I assumed it to be a mis-print & didn't mention it in the story. By comparison, the FD RX-7 runs a 550cc (pri) & 850cc (Sec) per rotor. Thats 1400cc worth of fuel per rotor. Max out the duty cycle on FD injectors & a well modified FD engine is good for well over 224kW (300hp)

Perhaps more investigation is required as 380cc worth of injector flow just can't be correct.

Now the reason why Mazda did 2-oil injectors per rotor was to increase lube the corner seals as they are now under greater stress thanks to the hot exhaust ports on the side.

The reason why rotor housings lift the chrome at the top & bottom is due to the direction of force of the apex seal changing through the major axis (its point of highest speed)

As for the RPM issue. The apex seal is half the hieght of the previous 13B-REW & is thus lighter. I think the higher RPM coupled to less inertia will equal out somewhat.

One post mentioned the 13B-MSP is not that much more than the series-5 N/A engine. Well, the series-5 (89-91) 13B "atmo" was rated at 119kW (160hp). Personally, I think a 65kW gain is quite possible.

If you use the tried & trusted premise that a 13B engine is good for 246kW (330hp) in PP form then 184kW is entirely possible as long as they get the set up correct.

This will prove interesting.........

peejay

380cc/min of injector flow wouldn't even be enough to produce the HP levels that are actually being achieved. Two 440cc/min injectors max out around 250hp, that is 880cc/min total per rotor, maybe the injectors actually are 380cc/min each? much more believable, that would give them 1140cc/min per rotor which is a nice safety margin above 100% duty cycle for 250hp.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

the 380cc must either be a misprint or thats all just for 1.
there are SIX injectors on the high power model
380x6 = 2280
460x4 = 1840

mike

wakeech

sorry to take you apart peejay, but any design with less port area will not happen. also, having a greater displacement with a smaller e-shaft stroke is really REALLY counter productive. longer block is not really conducive to better performace (with high revs). there are lots of problems with this, like volumetric efficiency (not just the ports)... it's certainly not ideal.

dragula53

blah blah.

I don't think there is a constant for dyno/rwhp/bhp

you can't just multiply it by 1.2 or 1.34 or 3.1415926535

I've heard that parasitic drivetrain loss stays reasonably constant depending on the car. so if you lose 30 hp due to parasitic loss at 200 hp, if you increase the hp to 300, you still lose somewhere in the neighborhood of 30.

my uneducated .02

rxseven

NO

dragula53

I've seen this elsewhere, but here's the most convenient source that I could find..

"Lee Bender of C&L Performance and Paul Svinicki of Paul's High Performance are both well versed in evaluating Mustangs on the dyno, and they both agreed that extrapolating drivertrain horsepower loss via percentages is flawed._ Lee believes that the stick Mustangs experience roughly a 35hp loss through the drivetrain, whether they make 200 hp or 400 hp._ He did explain that ultra-high-powered vehicles - typically race cars - can be and exception to this rule, but that's a topic for another time."

(courtesy of http://www.superstang.com/horsepower.htm)

I've also seen this same thing stated related to miatas on miata forums, etc.

Anyhow.

Just didn't wanna come out of left field for no reason.

moo

Snrub

iTrader: (1)

My thought: If the Renesis doesn't perform as claimed, why is the 247hp RX-8 substantially quicker than the higher torque same weight 200hp S5 TII?

KiyoKix

Do we have anyone here who did testing on a RENESIS engine with the Mazda engineers? Proly...no wait...HELL NO. So we really have no right at all to say they lied (or even imply). I would think they the people who are dumb enough to dyno a car THAT NEW are out of their minds.

On another note...if you were Mazda and you were re-releasing an important product into the line wouldn't you put a safeguard on it to make sure it's broken in right. They WON'T I repeat...WON'T give the chance for people to break the car quickly like the FD and risk dumbass people giving the rotary a bad name again. It's pretty much common sense the car is gonna limit what you can do until the engine is fully broken in. A car that weighs 1300kg and only puts 185rwhp is NOT gonna give you 0-60 in 5.9 and a quarter time to match. Think about that next time you say they lied. How is it that factory demo car that everyone reviews has the power but the others don't...hmmmmm I wonder.

Think before you speak (lash out at someone else who obviously knows more than you about the product) out harshly on something. We should all just be happy the rotary has returned to the states again, go to the dyno later on when it's time. Be patient

rxseven

Hmm.. I read the article you provided in the link. It doesn't really support the constant hp loss opinion. Guys think about what you are saying for a second. if you have a 200 HP car and loose 20 Hp in the drivetrain, you loose 10% power, ie, the set-up is 90% efficient. So if the loss was constant and you now had 1000 HP, your drivetrain just became 98% efficient. You have now violated a few engineering principles.