Renesis Rotors
10-22-2005, 06:55 PM
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by j9fd3s' post='514133' date='Apr 29 2004, 09:56 AM
no way its happening on california pump 91
were you talking about higher than 9:1, or renesis rotors? i've got a high compression engine in my fd... i'll see what i can safely extract from it, but i bet 400 shouldn't be a problem. and yes, on shitty california 91
10-24-2005, 04:39 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California
Posts: 22,465
Originally Posted by guitarjunkie28' post='771763' date='Oct 22 2005, 04:55 PM
were you talking about higher than 9:1, or renesis rotors? i've got a high compression engine in my fd... i'll see what i can safely extract from it, but i bet 400 shouldn't be a problem. and yes, on shitty california 91
good luck!
11-01-2005, 04:11 PM
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 426
my goal is more low end without the twins. i wanted more instant power when i mashed on the gas pedal--even before the turbo spooled. fuel economy too. i don't have much answers on how well it works yet, other to say it feels great and is getting 20+ mpg (tuning not quite dialed yet). when i actually do more testing, dyno, etc, i'll be able to form a little more intelligent and educated opinion, but for right now, all i can say is i like it.
goals are pretty conservative. ~350-400ish whp on 91 pump gas before the water injection. 450-475 whp on 110 octane.
it's at 10 psi right now and there's ~1600 miles on the motor so far. it's about dyno time. i'll get back to you with results.
goals are pretty conservative. ~350-400ish whp on 91 pump gas before the water injection. 450-475 whp on 110 octane.
it's at 10 psi right now and there's ~1600 miles on the motor so far. it's about dyno time. i'll get back to you with results.
11-01-2005, 04:12 PM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by RONIN FC' post='772356' date='Oct 24 2005, 03:17 PM
Just out of curiousity, what is your goal behind running high comp rotors?
Are you running 9.7 or the rens 10:1?
they started life as 9.7's, but i dished them and polished the faces. when i cc'd the chambers for balance, they came out to be 9.49:1 CR
11-02-2005, 01:41 PM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California
Posts: 22,465
Originally Posted by guitarjunkie28' post='774591' date='Nov 1 2005, 02:12 PM
they started life as 9.7's, but i dished them and polished the faces. when i cc'd the chambers for balance, they came out to be 9.49:1 CR
i bet the polishing helps, also 9.49 is better.
11-02-2005, 03:44 PM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 426
there was some debate on the polishing...
one argument would be that more heat gets reflected and turned into movement.
another would be the question of atomisation and the fuel sticking to the face of the rotor.
i dunno which is the more correct, but i'm in the process of finding out i guess.
one argument would be that more heat gets reflected and turned into movement.
another would be the question of atomisation and the fuel sticking to the face of the rotor.
i dunno which is the more correct, but i'm in the process of finding out i guess.
11-02-2005, 03:53 PM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California
Posts: 22,465
Originally Posted by guitarjunkie28' post='774910' date='Nov 2 2005, 01:44 PM
there was some debate on the polishing...
one argument would be that more heat gets reflected and turned into movement.
another would be the question of atomisation and the fuel sticking to the face of the rotor.
i dunno which is the more correct, but i'm in the process of finding out i guess.
i polished the faces of the rotors on my t2, cant say i noticed a difference, id like to think theres less chance of having a hotspot/stuck carbon and thus less chance of detonation.