I agree that high torque figures is very fuel consuming, but very low figures are very "unpleasant" to drive daily.
I agree that high torque figures is very fuel consuming, but very low figures are very "unpleasant" to drive daily.
it's nothing a supercharger can't fix.... IF the new Renesis can handle that.....
i think the mazdaspeed version that mazda was talking about a few months back was either gonna be s/c'd or t/c'd...
300/hp 3XX/lbs of tq
that enuff torque for ya?
what I wanna know is if mazda is gonna offer this engine as a crate engine too... it wouldn't be a bad idea to get a renesis and slap it into a miata..
mazda did it in japan....
if you had a centrifugal (spelling??) supercharger you wouldnt really notice a torque difference down low, i mean sure, at 9500rpm ur making well over 300ft/lbs, but down low, the supercharger isnt spooled. a centrifugal supercharger is pretty much the compressor half of the turbo, driven by the crankshaft. Personally i think this is quite dumb, having supercharger kits for 9000rpm engines because that compressor has to go from ~7500rpm at idle, way up to over 60,000rpm at 9000rpm back to idle in one blip of the throttle. Turbos make sence becuase they dont have that step-up ratio that the centrifugal compressors need to make decent boost. I think they should turbo the RX-8 just like the previous RX-7. That was an awesome setup.Originally posted by thich
it's nothing a supercharger can't fix.... IF the new Renesis can handle that.....
i think the mazdaspeed version that mazda was talking about a few months back was either gonna be s/c'd or t/c'd...
300/hp 3XX/lbs of tq
that enuff torque for ya?
Just my 0.02
Simon
The last generation rx-7 turbo was a warranty nightmare, sequential had to many hoses to break, and pop...
Superchargers don't work very well on the rotary, in order to feed the motor at low rpms the pulley sizes then overspeed the supercharger at higher rpm's, most of the supercharger kits for the 13b have been abandoned due to speed related failures..
Turbo is the way, but a large single is the way to go, the beauty about a larger turbo is that you can drive around in basically n/a mode with the turbo unspooled, my turbo car kicked the shit out of my non turbo car on gas mileage in normal driving, don't ask about on boost gas mileage though...:roll:..... Smaller turbo's spool so easily on rotary's, that you inadvertantly almost are driving in boost all the time, it makes for kick ass street driving, but is harder on the wallet and power falls off flat above 6500...
Chrisng's car just seems to be in boost permanently ... Its the stock series 5 turbo with garrett compressor wheel..My turbo is from an 8.8 litre Ford diesel heavy truck, you have to really want to go, to get it to spool, put your foot to the floor, and then about a second later the turbo spools and things start to happen, but that is with a stock port motor as well, port the crap out of a rotary and it will spool turbo's that are larger than the engine itself..Lag does suck some times...
I really don't think the renesis will be T-charged, the exhaust energy is reduced in the new design, and the compression ratio is to high, making the amount of boost on pump gas rather low, and thus the trade offs for a wee bit more power are to much..Maxt
Too loud for Aspen
Originally posted by Wildcat
more torque= more gas consumption= better daily driving mileage
pfft, my car has lots of torque for its size (160/160) and its not any worse on gas than any honda, in fact I bet its actually better in daily driving because you dont have to rev the hell out of it to get it going, or downshift when going up hills/parkade ramps.
Travel
EXACTLY!...one of the reasons i love Driving VW's over Japanese cars.Originally posted by Ben
pfft, my car has lots of torque for its size (160/160) and its not any worse on gas than any honda, in fact I bet its actually better in daily driving because you dont have to rev the hell out of it to get it going, or downshift when going up hills/parkade ramps.
"Car Manufacturers give us a well engineered basic car but leave it's real development to us."
turbo=import
supercharger=domestic
ben= niave (its not like hondas are bad on gas to begin with, MY car is bad on gas!)
I don't think it will will be "FE." Every RX model has a different chassis code.Originally posted by mad_psyentist
Ok, I'm answering my own posting cuz I had to figure this out. I think the F's stay for the Wankel Rotary series (FC, FD)... but the Renesis is used in the RX-8. But I can't find info anywhere on what the chassis code would be for the RX-8... unless that IS gonna be the chassis code. ??
-Rob, Wannabe Director
1987 Ford Mustang 2.3L Turbo
? Ya lost me.Originally posted by STI-Guy
I don't think it will will be "FE." Every RX model has a different chassis code.
Every car has a different chassis code. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to use them to distinguish the diff. generations. The FC and FD generations of the RX-7 have virtually nothing in common save name and base engine (and some other parts), but they both stuck to the F-series chassis codes. I'm wondering if the RX-8 was sticking to the F-series codes, or if Mazda's opening a new code for them.
"Well here's the problem. Some koot put an Acura engine in your Honda."
not trying to be an ass but ive seen alot of 944's go for 3k to 5k, and plus i personaly wouldnt own a 944 thats older than an 86 because the earlier ones had more electrical problems.Originally posted by JustinL
Justin
Have a look at www.canadatrader.com. Mine is in the lower end of the price range. The difference between the 85.5 and later vs. early production years is much more than the electrical, in fact i'd say the electrical is probably the part that was changed the least. Regardless it's a moot point, because mine is an 87.
I don't think you are trying to be an ass, but this type of msg should be saved for PM. (I apolagize for the offttopicness for the both of us)
Justin
Originally posted by Arthur
not trying to be an ass but ive seen alot of 944's go for 3k to 5k, and plus i personaly wouldnt own a 944 thats older than an 86 because the earlier ones had more electrical problems.
I meant the RX-1, RX-2, ect. I don't believe they were a part of the F-Series. So why would the 8 be?Originally posted by mad_psyentist
? Ya lost me.
Every car has a different chassis code. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to use them to distinguish the diff. generations. The FC and FD generations of the RX-7 have virtually nothing in common save name and base engine (and some other parts), but they both stuck to the F-series chassis codes. I'm wondering if the RX-8 was sticking to the F-series codes, or if Mazda's opening a new code for them.
-Rob, Wannabe Director
1987 Ford Mustang 2.3L Turbo