Rx-8 Engine Into A Rx-7
08-23-2003, 07:47 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 296
once the dust clears and people had a chance to drive them around rx-7 owners will still be sitting high. The numbers for the renesis are not what they say they are. The handling of a rx-7 will still mop the floor of most factory cars including the RX-8. AS far as turbos goes it not going to happen
the intake and exhaust ports are inches away from each other as peripheral ports and cooling on that scale can not be done, But supercharging maybe. The higher rpms of the rx-8 still do not make up for the RX-7 turbo system.
So if you want to make you car slower and spend to much money on a project that is more of "yea look what i did to my rx-7 isn`t it neatO" to upgrading intercooler and exhaust system with proper boost controlling to get better HP AND TORQUE.
Keep that fuel effiecnt piece of **** engine away from you true sports car
the intake and exhaust ports are inches away from each other as peripheral ports and cooling on that scale can not be done, But supercharging maybe. The higher rpms of the rx-8 still do not make up for the RX-7 turbo system.
So if you want to make you car slower and spend to much money on a project that is more of "yea look what i did to my rx-7 isn`t it neatO" to upgrading intercooler and exhaust system with proper boost controlling to get better HP AND TORQUE.
Keep that fuel effiecnt piece of **** engine away from you true sports car
08-23-2003, 09:23 AM
#2
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NJ
Posts: 17,839
i would not call it a piece of ****
you are just being ignorant. it is a great engine with full exhaust and intake, i am SURE you will get 210-220 rwhp with it
it is fast car that should be reliable. look at all the n/a's still alive to this day. they may not run 100% but they do run after 15 years
you are just being ignorant. it is a great engine with full exhaust and intake, i am SURE you will get 210-220 rwhp with it
it is fast car that should be reliable. look at all the n/a's still alive to this day. they may not run 100% but they do run after 15 years
08-23-2003, 09:46 AM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 296
Maybe I went to far...
I would like to think of it as more of a downgraded as far as performance wise.
I think mazda engineers were trying to more of a boarder band of customers with the car.
--4-seater
--not alot of horses, (lower insurance)
--automatic options is strongly pushed
I don`t fault them for trying to design an engine that is more affordable for the consumer. It runs cleaner. unfortunately they really could not make a power car. World emission standards are putting the clamp down on every one, ask Farrari.
I also think that they are eventually going to make a bigger push to mainstream the engine so you`ll see a whole series of vehicles with next generation (after renesis engine) like mini vans, trucks, the weight saves of the rotary is hands down best bang for you buck.
I think its a good try ,and I think that you ask anyone here were they would like a twin turbo sports car(rx-7) or RSX(sorta eco, sorta sporty like the RX8). I think the answer is RX-7.
The RX8 is all around in Japan. They are sorta small but long. and they have a deep wheel well.
I would like to think of it as more of a downgraded as far as performance wise.
I think mazda engineers were trying to more of a boarder band of customers with the car.
--4-seater
--not alot of horses, (lower insurance)
--automatic options is strongly pushed
I don`t fault them for trying to design an engine that is more affordable for the consumer. It runs cleaner. unfortunately they really could not make a power car. World emission standards are putting the clamp down on every one, ask Farrari.
I also think that they are eventually going to make a bigger push to mainstream the engine so you`ll see a whole series of vehicles with next generation (after renesis engine) like mini vans, trucks, the weight saves of the rotary is hands down best bang for you buck.
I think its a good try ,and I think that you ask anyone here were they would like a twin turbo sports car(rx-7) or RSX(sorta eco, sorta sporty like the RX8). I think the answer is RX-7.
The RX8 is all around in Japan. They are sorta small but long. and they have a deep wheel well.
08-23-2003, 10:06 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 126
I think everyone is underestimating the new renesis motor.
Everyone is using convensional ideas of how to make it more powerful but you never know what mazda has planned...I dont think mazda would have spent all that money developing the engine without having a plan of making it more powerful in the future because then its a waste of money into development.
Everyone is using convensional ideas of how to make it more powerful but you never know what mazda has planned...I dont think mazda would have spent all that money developing the engine without having a plan of making it more powerful in the future because then its a waste of money into development.
08-23-2003, 10:22 AM
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 296
There is more to you words then you know.
When I was rebuilding engines racers would always say they they needed more low end torque. 12A where cute little engines but they and the 13B(series) only had two rotors.
But three rotors really never had that problem. Torque demands on the 13/12 engine suffered since they only fires (basically) 90 degree on a cycle < the math of the epitrochoid rotation is complicated unless you know DIFFY Q or have a math program> So anyways with three rotors you have sparks at 60 degrees giving you closer power intervals.
So why not put three spark plugs like they have on the 787b?
The 787b was N/A for one and the small third spark plug was a intro spark to help with better and more rapid flame travel.
Adding boost to a system is unwise in cunsumer application due to detonation.
The three rotor is a great design but factor in cost and weight gains the extra cooling and that cost the 13b was just a better for the third gen.
anyways it had the smaller turbo so it not that big of a deal.
A three rotor at 1.4L to 1.6L would be perfect for racing
you are still within most class restriction and you have good low end torque.
When I was rebuilding engines racers would always say they they needed more low end torque. 12A where cute little engines but they and the 13B(series) only had two rotors.
But three rotors really never had that problem. Torque demands on the 13/12 engine suffered since they only fires (basically) 90 degree on a cycle < the math of the epitrochoid rotation is complicated unless you know DIFFY Q or have a math program> So anyways with three rotors you have sparks at 60 degrees giving you closer power intervals.
So why not put three spark plugs like they have on the 787b?
The 787b was N/A for one and the small third spark plug was a intro spark to help with better and more rapid flame travel.
Adding boost to a system is unwise in cunsumer application due to detonation.
The three rotor is a great design but factor in cost and weight gains the extra cooling and that cost the 13b was just a better for the third gen.
anyways it had the smaller turbo so it not that big of a deal.
A three rotor at 1.4L to 1.6L would be perfect for racing
you are still within most class restriction and you have good low end torque.