Yup. You heard it right. Received this from Maurice and just made sure it could be posted. This is the first pic. Sorry, no raw data, but I am sure he wll provide it eventually.

Looks perty now, dont it?

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

is that with no other mods? stock intake/cat/catback?

will airflow mods add more power?

just a dumb question, why does it show dyno run 1 and dyno run 2 done at the same time? didn't you have to un-install the unit between runs?

That is a stock car with the stage 1 only. Maurice reported that a test car with Borla had more power, but there is no dyno plot from that yet. I am sure there will be tos more posted in the next couple of days as things get a little calmer for him.

Just like everyone had said... over 5k the thing is quicker. Now the plot proves it.

That is a significant bump... and one worth getting, IMHO! Ok, I need the car first, but that mod is mighty tempting.

It'll be cool to hear the reviews when people start getting them installed. :D

Originally posted by zerobanger
just a dumb question, why does it show dyno run 1 and dyno run 2 done at the same time? didn't you have to un-install the unit between runs?

I think you can safely ignore the time stamp of the files. Obviously two runs can't be done at exactly the same minute/second! ;) At a guess, it's very likely that the lower power run is with the ECU mod disabled, then the higher power run is with the ECU mod enabled (The latest version of the kit, the one being shipped, includes a toggle switch to enable/disable it without having to uninstall). Everything else on Maurice's car is stock.

Regards,
Gordon

wow...thats some good power..

That's sweet. It looks like the car should really take off after 5k RPMs.

It is also nice to see that the dyno plot is much smoother after 7k RPMs. Nice job Maurice!

Nice. How about RPM instead of MPH please?

Vince

Maurice and stage 1 elfs great work .wowwwwwww.

I am going to be a happy little vegemite if the Australian cars show same levels of performance gains .( BONZA )

Maurice i have set up all the testing crew and equipment needed to test the stage 1 kit for the Australian cars .

All i need is the actual STAGE 1 KIT.

Cheers
MICHAEL

Looks like a great gain, but I'm a little dissapointed that the stock car dyno'd so low. With the 238hp advertised crank hp, we should be up in the 190 range (or at least close to it) with a stock car. I was hoping to be around 205rwhp after the stage1 mod so we could finally have the power we originally expected.

Nevertheless, the improvement looks great and I'll definitely be purchasing the kit. PLEASE someone send me the orderform or price list or something. I sent canzoomer an email over a week ago and haven't received a response.

Originally posted by mp5
Looks like a great gain, but I'm a little dissapointed that the stock car dyno'd so low. With the 238hp advertised crank hp, we should be up in the 190 range (or at least close to it) with a stock car. Remember that this mod is giving us back the power we should have had to begin with. The reflash to meet catalytic requirements seems to be what has hobbled the car.

Originally posted by compaddict
How about RPM instead of MPH please?It's a third-gear pull, which gives 1000rpm/10mph, near as dammit. Simply multiply the X-axis units by 100 for RPM. :)

Originally posted by mp5
Looks like a great gain, but I'm a little dissapointed that the stock car dyno'd so low.

Another guess, but IF those numbers are uncorrected, it's not as bad as it seems. Canzoomer's location is over 3000' above sea level, so it's easily down 10% on power from a sea level car, just from the lower density air. Corrected numbers (Dynojet correction factors account for altitude and temperature, IIRC) would probably add 15 hp to each of the runs.

Regards,
Gordon

Originally posted by eccles
It's a third-gear pull, which gives 1000rpm/10mph, near as dammit. Simply multiply the X-axis units by 100 for RPM. :)
Good point! The power increase is very impressive.

Vince

Gordon,
Even though it is a bit disturbing I think that Canzoomer's numbers are correct. If you remember back in August when Mazda announced the revised Hp, a lot of people still felt that 238 was overly optimistic and didn't correspond well with the dyno runs that had been done.

A lot of us took Mazda's word on the Hp and blamed the low numbers on the ECU going into safe mode. Well Maurice has found a way around the safe mode and his numbers are still low. :(

On the upside, his Stage I fuel controller is making sizable gains and it gets us much closer to the car that we thought we had purchased.

I've also noticed that cars seem to dyno very differently at times. My first time on a dyno with the stock car gave me 189. I'll be getting some more runs in when I get my stage 1 to also see if the greddy exhaust is doing anything.

But I need mah stage 1!

Well, dyno numbers are sketchy at best. Depends on the dyno itself, conditions, dyno operator, etc. The only thing to put stock in is something like Maurice's numbers here... because they're done on the same dyno, the same day by the same operator. Just compare the "before" and "after"... don't try to compare his dyno results to another done somewhere else.

As for the low stock numbers, it's possible altitude played a factor there if uncorrected like Gordon said.

Also, like Speed said, the factory numbers still felt optimistic. Here's my take on that:

Mazda dynos = overestimate
BMW dynos = underestimate

Ah! And the interest peaks again! Great stuff. Thanks for posting Genom!

You know after looking at the dyno plot a few more times I am very impressed. Maurice has done a very good job smoothing out the fuel at the transitions as well as making a lot more HP. I sense many, many hours of tuning.

Very nice work!

Vince

Wow that looks very good I cant wait until stage 2.

You can see the intake manifold control valves open too. Kind of neat, I thought. I guess they actually do something after all ;) .

700 orders!!!! Back to assembly!

700 orders??? Go ELF GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The hardest part (and most thankless) is tuning everything that isn't WFO.
If Maurice put as much work into that then we have ourselves a real bargain.

Vince

Originally posted by RX-8 friend
You can see the intake manifold control valves open too. Kind of neat, I thought. I guess they actually do something after all ;) .


Yeah, according to your plot, they kill power!:mad:
When the VFAD opens, there is an immediate loss of power on your plot.
WTF?!?

On Gordon's point regarding altitude, I wonder how well will the custom A/F map created by Canzoomer will work for a sea level car (assuming the map was built at 3000' above sea level). I suspect a different map might be required for best results. Any comments?

Originally posted by Z88M
On Gordon's point regarding altitude, I wonder how well will the custom A/F map created by Canzoomer will work for a sea level car (assuming the map was built at 3000' above sea level). I suspect a different map might be required for best results. Any comments?

Won't be necessary.
The BARO sensor will correct for altitude.
You will make even more power at sea level.

Wasnt he talking about the first set at 3750? Their tune shows a little boost right after that.


Originally posted by Maniac
Yeah, according to your plot, they kill power!:mad:
When the VFAD opens, there is an immediate loss of power on your plot.
WTF?!?

THAT is what I have been waiting for!

Over 24 horses at 8600 rpm is a GOOD result.....(and should be even more, closer to sea level).....but the REAL difference is that '5K Push'....in the next 600 revs you gain 20+ horsepower!

You all know how quickly the engine can zing up from 4K to 6K, you can imagine what it feels like when another 20 ponies all join in, over just a 600 rev range! It's quite a rush!

The peak horsepower is nice, but that mid-boost is AWESOME!
It is WAY more useful than peak horsepower in day to day traffic, I find it is right where I need it for a fast downshift pass, or a short quick on-ramp blast. A better 'pilot' would probably use more of the rev range than I do, and I hope that someone with 'more better' literary skills installs a 'Zoomer Mod soon, because I am as bad at describing how it feels on the road, as I am at driving!

S

Originally posted by Speed Racer

A lot of us took Mazda's word on the Hp and blamed the low numbers on the ECU going into safe mode. Well Maurice has found a way around the safe mode and his numbers are still low. :(

[/B]

Is this run with the safe mode disabled? I'll admit I haven't had a chance to look through all the posts, but last I recall he still hadn't gotten around this issue.

CZ
Got your email and ordering soon. Thank you for all of the hard work and patience with those of us who had such a hard time waiting.

FM

Originally posted by family_man
Is this run with the safe mode disabled? I'll admit I haven't had a chance to look through all the posts, but last I recall he still hadn't gotten around this issue.

Maurice has found that the ECU freaks out if there is a large difference in speed between the front and rear wheels. Which is what happens when you dyno a car and the ECU intervenes with its safe mode.

One way around this is to trick the ECU into thinking that all four wheels are spinning at the same speed. Maurice accomplished this by taking one of the signals from a rear wheel and sent it back to the ECU for all four wheels. He says that it works great.

There are some many events happening at various Rev levels, it's hard to say which one may be causing those dips. You have only the primary intake ports open up to 3250, then the secondary intake ports open. At 5500 the variable fresh air duct opens. At 6250 the tertiary intake ports open, followed by the VDI at 7500. That's 4 events that introduce turbulence into the intake system momentarily, resulting in a brief loss of mass air flow and thus a brief reduction in power. Add to that the very brief moments of over rich fuel from the secondary and "Second Primary" (tertiary) injectors coming on line. I haven't found any documentation on the timing of the fuel events, but it seems logical that they would coincide with the secondary and tertiary intake port openings. All of these complex intake events are why the car has such a wonderfully gradual power rise. That very broad power band is why we have so much fun in the twisties. Lucky us, mazda rotaries have had variable intake timing for 20 years, while honda and nissan are just figuring it out, and not getting the same silent, relatively smooth results. The renesis is much better than the old 6P 13B's in the 2G 7's. If your gronding isn't flawless in a 7, it's a very noticeable stumble at 5K.

Could the max HP been higher had the mph had gone up higher?

Originally posted by skagen
Could the max HP been higher had the mph had gone up higher? The horizontal mph line is actually RPM's..

Can we see a stock / CZ Torque graph? That jump at 5500 looks awesome! Like a vtec jump, don't you think?

All this talk about altitude... has me kinda wonderin' just whats gonna happen up here at 7200'. I'm guessing probably just a little less power increase, but all in all probably worth the money!
Thanks for the graph! I guess the wait time is going to take a little longer than I thought... 700 units ordered already?
WOW!:)
-doccable

<-----kickin' myself in the ass for not ordering before Jan. 1st.

This would be where the dealer takes all my money. BAD GAMBLE.

Just a few comments.

First, the blue line is stock (stage 0). The red line is stage 1. The graph is of HP. HP is torque times RPM. As there is no gear change in these pulls, the graph is easy to convert to torque. MPH was used as dyno operators have trouble getting RPM from rotary engines. I keep telling everyone to use a spark wire inductive pickoff, and to select 4 cylinder, but they never listen. In this case, I wasn't there either. Oh well.

The engine was taken to 9500 RPM. You will note that power was starting to drop so the answer is no, it would not have gone higher if the speed was allowed to increase even more.

The car goes into "limp mode" after 15-20 sec. The runs took less than that. ABS was "fooled", and DSC was off.

Yes, the HP drops when the intake switches, but that is because the tuned runners are only approximations. Note that it increases steadily afterwards. It would probably not without the change.

The peak HP is nice, but not useful (as commented above). What is desireable is "area under the curve". It is the real indicator of useful output.
I would like to compare this "area under the curve" to the 3rd gen RX-7, because even though the HP of the two cars is quite different (typical stock 3rd gens put down 230 or so rear wheel HP), the 3rd gen falls off rapidly after 7500 RPM. This may expain why Canzoomer's car is so close to a stock 3rd gen in performance even though the HP is lower. I just have to find a good dyno of a stock 3rd gen.

Here is a comparison with a 3rd gen 7.

Vince

Torque = (HP x 5252)/RPM
This should give you the curve. Also it is important to realize that the delta change is what is significant in this case since too many variables influence the Dyno results

Hey.. a question.. that really needs to be validated since I am using the calculation posted above and I am not an engineer by any means. I did some very barbaric estimates and found that the torque on this dyno sheet is less than 159 @5500 like mazda is claiming. Can someone comment on this?

Thankx!

The numbers you are seeing are to the wheels on the dyno and Mazda quotes flywheel. With the numbers you are showing, the torque would actually be much higher than 159 stated.

So according to RX8 friend the car still goes into safemode, but it now takes 20 sec, is this something thats incorporated in the stage 1 unit or is this something he did separately while recording dyno runs, nevertheless, very nice mod for all of us to enjoy, but I'm waiting for the stage 2!

Can I assume that the stage 2 mod will have another 20 WHP, for a total of 212 dynoed WHP without mods and another 20 WHP with intake, exhaust and random tech cat? I'm thinking 222 WHP, what is the drivetrain % loss, My former, 03 EXV6 accord was a 22% loss, for a front driver, I'd imagine the RX8 is at least 10% more. So can we be talking around 317 crank H.P. with the stage 2, or am I way off base with these figures?

Originally posted by JimW
Can I assume that the stage 2 mod will have another 20 WHP, ... and another 20 WHP with intake, exhaust and random tech cat? I think assuming 20whp from additonal mods beyond Stage2 is speculation at this point. I have not seen anything solid from anybody, especially given the difficulties with the RX-8's temperamental nature when trying to dyno it. Canzoomer, did comment on feeling additional power using his Stage 1 Mod combined with the Borla exhaust on another test car. How much exactly is still left to be seen. I'm not jumping on any intakes and exhausts quite yet.

Thanks brothervoodoo, that's a smart bet, but like most of us, I have a lot of anxiety with this car, although I did see a claimed 10 WHP for the Borla exhaust and 10 WHP for the K&N Typhoon intake, but we all know a lot of the times, that's not the case.

Yeah, I'm with you on that sentiment. Also, when you necessarily add multiple mods doesn't mean the horsepower adds up correspondently. I'm way leery of intakes because the RX-8 ECU will sense extra air or whatever and then probably adjust... Or as CZ and RX-friend noted maybe a mod does increase HP in the upper band but makes less at lower RPM's where the majority of your driving takes place.. not a very useful mod IMO.

Originally posted by JimW
My former, 03 EXV6 accord was a 22% loss, for a front driver, I'd imagine the RX8 is at least 10% more.

Wow. No. That is WAY off.
Your Accord was probably loosing closer to 17% - 20% to the front drive.
The RX-8 will loose less as the rear drive platform is more efficient. Most likely in the 15% - 17% range.
If I lost 30% to a drivetrain, I'd get a different car.
Even the WRX doesn't loose that much and it is 4-wheel drive.

Originally posted by zerobanger
just a dumb question, why does it show dyno run 1 and dyno run 2 done at the same time? didn't you have to un-install the unit between runs?
Time is when the files were transferred to my laptop.
As all the run files ( 5 of them) were dumped at once from the dyno computer ( took about 5 seconds) it shows the same time.

Originally posted by compaddict
Nice. How about RPM instead of MPH please?

Vince

Instead of connecting an rpm hookup to the car ( requires tapping into wires and Iwas paying $80 an hour in the shop where the Dynojet is) we simply measured speeds at set rpm points, and calibrated the Dynojet mph readings to the rpm settings.

So, ignore the "mph " and think "rpm" and all is good.

Originally posted by mp5
Looks like a great gain, but I'm a little dissapointed that the stock car dyno'd so low. With the 238hp advertised crank hp, we should be up in the 190 range (or at least close to it) with a stock car. I was hoping to be around 205rwhp after the stage1 mod so we could finally have the power we originally expected.

Nevertheless, the improvement looks great and I'll definitely be purchasing the kit. PLEASE someone send me the orderform or price list or something. I sent canzoomer an email over a week ago and haven't received a response.

We are at about 3,000 foot altitude here ( 1,000 meters) so the power is lower than at sea level.
General adjustment figure used for thsi altitude is 6.5%, so if you want to see the equivalents adjust for sea level multiply these figures by 1.0695
In other words stock run at about 180hp, and with the Stage1 computer turned on about 206hp at the wheels.

Originally posted by Maniac
Yeah, according to your plot, they kill power!:mad:
When the VFAD opens, there is an immediate loss of power on your plot.
WTF?!?

Yup. Makes sense. You have a nice column of air, moving down a tube.
Now you pop open a valve, changing the tube. Lots of turbulence until the new air column is established and gets momentum back, then it picks right up again.

Both GTech plots and other dyno runs show the same effect.

Originally posted by family_man
Is this run with the safe mode disabled? I'll admit I haven't had a chance to look through all the posts, but last I recall he still hadn't gotten around this issue.

No safe mode, no check engine lights, no power loss.
Did these the old fashioned way.
Actually rx-friend thought of this one:

Unbolt the rear wheel speed sensors, but leave them connected.
Tie them back with zip ties. Easy. Takes 5 minutes with a socket wrench.

Now the car sees speed sensors in circuit.
Just no speed at any of the wheels, because they are not picking up the pulses as the wheels with the notches that cause the pulses are not near to the sensor inductor any more.

Works just fine.

Originally posted by JimW
So according to RX8 friend the car still goes into safemode, but it now takes 20 sec, is this something thats incorporated in the stage 1 unit or is this something he did separately while recording dyno runs, nevertheless, very nice mod for all of us to enjoy, but I'm waiting for the stage 2!

It creates an event after about 20 to 30 seconds.

As that is far longer than a dyno run, or a quarter mile or anything else, and only happens in situations where you have effectively infinite wheel spin, it is not reproducible execpt under some particular artificial conditions. For example, put the car on a dyno, run it at 5,000rpm sustained in 3rd gear, and after a half minute it goes "funny".

I managed to do this twice while doing long calibration runs.

On actual runs it never happened as they take only about 5 seconds.

Originally posted by JimW
Can I assume that the stage 2 mod will have another 20 WHP, for a total of 212 dynoed WHP without mods and another 20 WHP with intake, exhaust and random tech cat? I'm thinking 222 WHP, what is the drivetrain % loss, My former, 03 EXV6 accord was a 22% loss, for a front driver, I'd imagine the RX8 is at least 10% more. So can we be talking around 317 crank H.P. with the stage 2, or am I way off base with these figures?

Best we got on a dyno was about 50hp over stock, at the rear wheels. That is to say about 220 whp. This is with a very aggressive fuel map, 94 octane gas, and 5 degrees of ignition advance.

If one were to assume 15% driveline loss, and 6.5% loss for doing the runs at 3,000 foot altitude, the calculation is:
For driveline loss: 1/.85 x 220 =259
For altitude compensation: 1/.935 x 259 = 277

If we assume 20% driveline loss:
For driveline loss: 1/.80 x 220 =275
For altitude compensation: 1/.935 x 275 = 294

Personally I fell the 15% is closest to the truth.

Just a thought on drivetrain loss. The carbon fiber driveshaft helps reduce this number among other things. I think the number will be indeed only a 15% loss. I would be very suprised if it was high.

Based on trap speeds I have seen, my personal experience with my RX8, and automotive knowledge I have gained over the years working with cars, I personally feel this is indeed only a 220-225hp car. I suspected that before I bought mine so it was not a factor for me as I knew the power could be regained.

As mentioned earlier, the important part of these dynos is not the numbers, but the difference in the curves between the two pulls. The actual numbers will vary for everyone, but the curves should look relatively the same.

CZ, I would like to say good work and hopefully I can give you some numbers back soon enough near sea level. I have not yet, but have decided to purchase one of your ECU's in the next couple of weeks. I like what I see.

My personal experience with ecu tuning involves my 97 Eclipse Turbo which has seen a S-AFC, DFI Gen VI standalone, and now a Greddy E-Manage. I love the E-Manage and could not imagine not having the ability to tune myself, but I can appreciate the amount of work and effort it takes to get any good fuel management well tuned, especially when you have a very busy day job and a life you try to live around it.

I am more than happy to pay you for those hours you logged so I do not have to myself as I can not justify the time and cost it would incur for me to do so with only the basic mods I intend for the engine. With my Eclipse and the amount of work that went into it, that level is tuning is both justified and necessary.

With the current backorder now, what type of realistic shipping time would I be looking at if I bought it this month? 2-3 weeks considering you are actually already now shipping?

I am going to dyno my car between every mod I do to justify its existence.

Originally posted by murix
J\
I am going to dyno my car between every mod I do to justify its existence.

Amen! And thank you for doing that... IMHO, the butt dyno just don't cut it. :)

If you do dyno all your mods, that will be a tremendous help to this whole RX-8 community.

Same here. I havent gotten a dyno run done with the greddy exhaust yet, but as soon as I get my stage1, I will be doing a couple dyno runs without it installed yet to compare just exhaust vs stock since I did a baseline run before doing anything.

Cant wait! I CANT WAIT I TELL YOU!

Sorry. Very enthusiastic is all :D

Even with DSC off, and ABS fooled, the car senses the "wrong" forces on the suspension (we think), and the EPS gets upset!

This car is just so smart!

You can see why it's protected so well those unfortunate enough to have been in an accident so far!
This has nothing to do with any modifications (stage 1 or 2). As you can see Stage 1 and 2 use a "piggyback" system to modify the fuel map only in stage 1, and the fuel and timing etc. in stage 2. This does not effect the safety systems (except perhaps making them come into effect earlier due to increased power and therefore earlier driver over-reach ;) .

Stage 2 will add a significantly larger amount of power, as timing and exhaust with appropriate fuel modification will be done. This tuning setup has not been settled yet, just explored to see what might be available. If you look at the 3rd gen curve several messages above, you will see how "lumpy" it is due to the sequential turbos and subsequent switching and resonances. Compare to the RX-8 curve, which is much smoother (except just where the intake manifold is modified by the stock system). Imagine this same curve (smooth) except much higher - perhaps an additional 30-50 HP. Stage 1 is pretty much "stock", at least "how it was intended", so you can mess with other components without getting into dangerous territory. You may end up with more or less HP depending on what you do with intakes and exhausts and how they interact with the current fuel map, but you probably will not damage the engine. Stage 2 -requires- specific intake and exhaust parts as it takes the car far enough into the extreme that specific tuning is necessary. If you want to "mix and match", you will be on your own, re proper fuel maps, just like the 3rd gen RX-7 owners are when they modify. This is likely to be resolved by tuning shops with proper tuning hardware in the future.

Something many people learn the hard way - the more power you tune into a car, the harder it is to keep reliable and the harder it is to drive smoothly. I own a 3rd gen RX-7 - I learned the hard way ;) . I expected it, but anyway, it's life and engineering. Oh, and no, I haven't blown my engine....yet.

Any idea what stage 1 does to 0-60 times? I realize the 8 isn't a drag car, but seems these gains could shave half a second off the 60 sprint, or am I being optimistic.

Based on Canzoomer's 13.78 GTech-timed quarter mile run, I would hazard a guess that it'll make this car run 0-60 MPH in the 5.4 second range or less.

:D

Just a quick question....i know the addition of a high temp temp cat will help lower emmisions, but does any one know if a stage 2 + High temp cat will actualy pass emmisions in most states? It would be great if the CZ stage 2 could be turned into a street mod!

Well, I'm glad I was wrong on the drivetrain loss. Great H.P. #s and the way it is gained, it seems stage 1 should be enough but stage 2 is tempting.

Originally posted by Floyd
Just a quick question....i know the addition of a high temp temp cat will help lower emmisions, but does any one know if a stage 2 + High temp cat will actualy pass emmisions in most states? It would be great if the CZ stage 2 could be turned into a street mod!

I've been wondering the same thing. Although my state (Arkansas) doesn't do emissions testing, I would like to keep the car "emmisions legal" if at all possible.
What does a good hi temp cat normally run ($) anyway?

Originally posted by Omicron
Based on Canzoomer's 13.78 GTech-timed quarter mile run, I would hazard a guess that it'll make this car run 0-60 MPH in the 5.4 second range or less.

:D

Ah ... speed ... sweet, sweet speed.
What's that dear... oh I'm drooling again, sorry.

Originally posted by family_man
I've been wondering the same thing. Although my state (Arkansas) doesn't do emissions testing, I would like to keep the car "emmisions legal" if at all possible.
What does a good hi temp cat normally run ($) anyway?
Not a chance in hell.

See the new EPA2 emissions standards.

They allow about half as much CO and nitrates as the old EPA 48 state regs.

The URL is somewhere on this forum. I posted links to all the regs a couple of months back.

Do a search using Canzoomer and EPA and you should find it.

Originally posted by family_man
I've been wondering the same thing. Although my state (Arkansas) doesn't do emissions testing, I would like to keep the car "emmisions legal" if at all possible.
What does a good hi temp cat normally run ($) anyway?

We are providing the midpipe with a Random Tech cat for $624, and with a Magnaflow 18" (3" internal diameter) resonator for $774. All 3" pipe diameter components.

If you bolt it to a Borla or Greddy cat-back you will have to get their front flange changed as the original is 2.5"


Steel, bolt-on, high temperature powder finish. Real high temp, not that "sort of high temp" milky silver. Ugly black or olive colours only.

With the resonator it is close to the noise level for the original cat. esonator. About 4dB louder.

Hey Maurice, for those people who are interested in getting a Stage 1 and possibly Stage 2 later, what parts/components do you recommend. The reason I am asking is because I would like to get an intake/exhaust but dont want to throw these components away at a later point or buy new ones because I wont get the most out of Stage 2. I currently have the Borla exhaust and am interested in getting an intake shortly but I dont want to shoot myself in the foot later.

Thankx!

Originally posted by davefzr
Hey Maurice, for those people who are interested in getting a Stage 1 and possibly Stage 2 later, what parts/components do you recommend. The reason I am asking is because I would like to get an intake/exhaust but dont want to throw these components away at a later point or buy new ones because I wont get the most out of Stage 2. I currently have the Borla exhaust and am interested in getting an intake shortly but I dont want to shoot myself in the foot later.

Thankx!
The Borla is nice. Greddy makes a nice cat-back as well.

Midpipe is essential with Stage2, high temperature cat recommended. Of course you then have to be concerned with emissions legality.

I am dubious about intakes really making much difference..

In general do the exhaust, do the intake if you feel like it, and seriously, if you want faster acceleration think about 17" wheels!

I know, this is sacriligious, but the RX-8 is geared quite tall. 18" look cool, but how often do you really think you are going to go 250kmh (155mph) ?

Drop to 17's and you gain about 5% on final gear ratio. That will do a lot more for your acceleration than any pulleys, or most other bolt-ons!

If you pick decent wheels this also drops the weight per wheel 3 to 6 lbs. each, and that helps handling a fair bit.

Maurice... what was the 0-60 on the 13.78 quarter time you ran?

Just curious...

(Good points about the wheels too... but will it look like a "Monster Truck" with shorter wheel/tire combo? :) )

Originally posted by racerdave
Maurice... what was the 0-60 on the 13.78 quarter time you ran?

Just curious...

(Good points about the wheels too... but will it look like a "Monster Truck" with shorter wheel/tire combo? :) )

Sorry, i do not recall.

I do not think it looks bad.
I (and a few others I know of) are running 17" wheels for winter, with our winter tires, and it looks just fine.

See, for examples:
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8888&perpage=15&pagenumber=12

or:
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8888&perpage=15&pagenumber=11

or:
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8888&perpage=15&pagenumber=10

Originally posted by canzoomer

I do not think it looks bad.
I (and a few others I know of) are running 17" wheels for winter, with our winter tires, and it looks just fine.

Oof! Gonna have to disagree on that one!

I think the RX-8 looks like it is on stilts on the STOCK wheels (with a stock ride height).
Going to a smaller rolling diameter makes the car look like one of those barrio jumpers.
Just as well make them spoked wheels with center knock-offs while you are at it!:p

But for the sake of performance, its hard to beat a good 15" wheel....

I have to agree. I'd have no problem living with the 17s as snows, but not as daily wheels... the 18s just look "right" on the 8, even though they are heavier.

I actually prefer the look of my 17" winter wheels to the stock 18s! The 6 lbs per wheel/tire weight advantage helps, but I think the 18s look too big. Wagon wheels, tractor wheels, call it what you like - I'm not keen on it, and sacrificing performance for the look doesn't impress me. Going to 19s is even worse!

(It's not like this stuff is new - in the late 1940s, MG equipped the TC with 19" wheels. When the TC was replaced with the TD, they dropped to 16" wheels, for a huge improvement in ride and handling! ;) )

Regards,
Gordon

You are using some light 17's wheel/tire combo if you can get 6lb avantage over the 18's that come with the vehicle (you mean 6 lbs at each corner correct?)

-Mr. Wigggles

Originally posted by canzoomer
Not a chance in hell.

See the new EPA2 emissions standards.

They allow about half as much CO and nitrates as the old EPA 48 state regs.

The URL is somewhere on this forum. I posted links to all the regs a couple of months back.

Do a search using Canzoomer and EPA and you should find it.

Emissions legal, or not, would your random tech cat with the resonator advertised on your site be too loud and noticeable on
the streets in your opinion?

FONZIE: Canzoomer stated in another post, that the Random Tech cat, Mid-pipe and Resonator that he is going to sell, is about 4 dbs louder than stock. I dont think it's going to be and attention getter with the noise.

Originally posted by MrWigggles
You are using some light 17's wheel/tire combo if you can get 6lb avantage over the 18's that come with the vehicle (you mean 6 lbs at each corner correct?)

Yup, 6 lbs at each corner. My wheels are the 17" Konig Holes, and bare those wheels weigh 17.x lbs each. I bet the Mazda 18" wheels are 22 lbs each - pretty porky!

Regards,
Gordon

Originally posted by JimW
FONZIE: Canzoomer stated in another post, that the Random Tech cat, Mid-pipe and Resonator that he is going to sell, is about 4 dbs louder than stock. I dont think it's going to be and attention getter with the noise.



Thanks. I did a search, but couldn't find anything on that.

Sorry Fonz, I can't remember where I saw the post, I guess Maurice will come out with that info soon enough. About the wheel size: I think we all know that the larger the wheel, the more rolling resistance it has,and therefore worse 60ft times, but when you move to a 17'' like some of you have, are you replacing it with a thicker tire, anotherwords keeping the diameter the same, if not, won't this confuse the computer? I like the look of the 18'' wheels, although I guess we could put 17s on and lower the car to minimize the gap!

Originally posted by MrWigggles
You are using some light 17's wheel/tire combo if you can get 6lb avantage over the 18's that come with the vehicle (you mean 6 lbs at each corner correct?)

-Mr. Wigggles
Stock wheels are 21 lbs each.
17" decent, not too expensive wheels are 17 or so.
Savings: 3-4 lbs.

17" tires are lighter than same model 18 by around 3 lbs each.

Total per corner: 6-7 lbs.

Originally posted by FONZIE
Emissions legal, or not, would your random tech cat with the resonator advertised on your site be too loud and noticeable on
the streets in your opinion?
Random Cat will block a bit less noise than stock.
If you buld mid-pipe with no resonator in it, more noise, add a cat-back, probably pretty loud..

I would say that the combo will be definiotely louder than stock, but not a nutsoid screamer.

Sounds Great Maurice, I'm excited about getting stage 2!

Originally posted by canzoomer
Stock wheels are 21 lbs each.
17" decent, not too expensive wheels are 17 or so.
Savings: 3-4 lbs.

17" tires are lighter than same model 18 by around 3 lbs each.

Total per corner: 6-7 lbs.

Are you sure about your numbers?

Typically higher profile tires with the same overall outer diameter are usually heavier*. For the RE040's that the RX-8 comes with this is defintely true (see attached). The 225/45-18 is 2 lbs lighter than the 225/50-17 tire. This is typically true of the S-03 line as well but there isn't a 225/50-17 for direct comparison.

As far as the weight of the wheel. Considering the RE040 weighs 26 pounds, the wheel would be 20 according to this persons measurement:

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6785&highlight=wheel+weight+stock

But even if he was a pound off and the wheels are really 21. That includes the tire pressure monitor and the balancing lead weights which together equal about a pound. That puts the wheel at 19 to no more than 20 lb with that removed.

To keep things apples-to-apples moving from a RE040 225/45-18 on stock wheels with pressure monitors to 225/50-17 on 17 lb wheels with pressure monitors, yields the following calculation:

20 + 26 + 1 = 47 lbs for stock
17 + 28 + 1 = 46 lbs for aftermarket.

1 lb will be negligible.

-Mr. Wigggles

*I am sure there is an exception to this rule and I'm sure with enough digging you guys are going to turn one up.

Originally posted by MrWigggles
Are you sure about your numbers?


VERY. I own Nokian WR all weather winter tires on my RX-8, along with some 17" aluminum wheels.
I weighed them!
The assumption you made is that I am running higher profile.
I am not. The Nokians are 225/45/17's

http://www.nokiantyres.com/nokian_wr_en.html

Yes, this lowers my car an inch.
It also changes the gear ratio 5% as I mentioned earlier.


Typically higher profile tires with the same overall outer diameter are usually heavier*. For the RE040's that the RX-8 comes with this is defintely true (see attached). The 225/45-18 is 2 lbs lighter than the 225/50-17 tire. This is typically true of the S-03 line as well but there isn't a 225/50-17 for direct comparison.

As far as the weight of the wheel. Considering the RE040 weighs 26 pounds, the wheel would be 20 according to this persons measurement:

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6785&highlight=wheel+weight+stock

I also weighed my stock wheels and tires.
The stock tires weigh 25 lbs ( 6800km of wear on them)
The Nokians weigh at 21 lbs ( brand new before mounting)


But even if he was a pound off and the wheels are really 21. That includes the tire pressure monitor and the balancing lead weights which together equal about a pound. That puts the wheel at 19 to no more than 20 lb with that removed.

The stock wheels weigh 21 lbs, WITH hub cap centres, NO weights.
My inexpensive alloy winter wheels weigh 4 lbs less at 17 lbs.



To keep things apples-to-apples moving from a RE040 225/45-18 on stock wheels with pressure monitors to 225/50-17 on 17 lb wheels with pressure monitors, yields the following calculation:

20 + 26 + 1 = 47 lbs for stock
17 + 28 + 1 = 46 lbs for aftermarket.

1 lb will be negligible.

-Mr. Wigggles

*I am sure there is an exception to this rule and I'm sure with enough digging you guys are going to turn one up.

Mine is a perfect example.
My winter wheels and tires weigh 8 lbs. less at each corner.
Actually a touch less, as my 17's required less weights than the stocktire/wheel combo, but we are only talking about a couple of ounces!

Originally posted by FONZIE
Emissions legal, or not, would your random tech cat with the resonator advertised on your site be too loud and noticeable on
the streets in your opinion?
That depends mostly on the cat-back exhaust.

With the Random and resonator the noise level would be very little difference from stock. Most of the muffling is done at the back.
If you run no cat, or no resonator, or both off, you can definitely tell the difference over stock.

Maurice, were you going to get the chance to dyno the car with the Borla on? I thought I remember you telling us that you may do it this week.

Thankx!

I too have the Borlasystem installed, and would like to see some graph results before I would order. The posts say your company has a car mith a Borla.
felix

Originally posted by kristopher_d
There are some many events happening at various Rev levels, it's hard to say which one may be causing those dips. You have only the primary intake ports open up to 3250, then the secondary intake ports open. At 5500 the variable fresh air duct opens. At 6250 the tertiary intake ports open, followed by the VDI at 7500. That's 4 events that introduce turbulence into the intake system momentarily, resulting in a brief loss of mass air flow and thus a brief reduction in power. Add to that the very brief moments of over rich fuel from the secondary and "Second Primary" (tertiary) injectors coming on line. I haven't found any documentation on the timing of the fuel events, but it seems logical that they would coincide with the secondary and tertiary intake port openings. All of these complex intake events are why the car has such a wonderfully gradual power rise. That very broad power band is why we have so much fun in the twisties. Lucky us, mazda rotaries have had variable intake timing for 20 years, while honda and nissan are just figuring it out, and not getting the same silent, relatively smooth results. The renesis is much better than the old 6P 13B's in the 2G 7's. If your gronding isn't flawless in a 7, it's a very noticeable stumble at 5K.

While I agree with all of this, the thing you need to remember is that all of these actuations are done with air from the air pump just as the actuators were done on the later 2nd gen RX-7. These open fairly slowly. During the time that these valves are opening, they exibit stages of being partially open which creates uneven and very turbulanet flow through those runners. If a runner is partially open due to a valve not at its peak point, there isn't enough air flowing through that runner to be very beneficial. The faster you can open these, the less power will fall off at the transition points. The maf sensor shouldn't really detect a stumble or an inconsistency if everything opens fast enough. The air just wouldn't have enough time to "back up" at all. I would rather actuate them electronically with very fast, strong servos.

The duct actuators on the Renesis are already electric.

The air pump only runs on start-up for the catalyst temp.

Only the short variable air duct, up front, is not an electric motor, but an electrically controlled vacuum servo, and it does take its time.

I am open to correction....

S

No Stealth, you are correct.
The ports are all electric.
An, as a further correction, the mix runs lean when these events occur, not rich as RotaryGod indicated.
This is what I am tuning with the E-Manage now.
I'm trying to introduce a slightly rich spike right as the ports open to counteract the lean dip that ensues when the air column suddenly accelerates.

Originally posted by Maniac
No Stealth, you are correct.
The ports are all electric.
An, as a further correction, the mix runs lean when these events occur, not rich as RotaryGod indicated.
This is what I am tuning with the E-Manage now.
I'm trying to introduce a slightly rich spike right as the ports open to counteract the lean dip that ensues when the air column suddenly accelerates.
Quite right. It is like on a motorcycle carbuerator.
If you open the throttle wide open really fast the engine bogs.
The cure was to use a pumper carb that if opened more quickly than a certain pre-set amount has a piston that injects an extra squirt of gas.

It is a bit tricky to tune for as the amount needed varies with rpm AND throttle opening. AND with how fast the rpm climbs.

In other words in 1st gear WOT your requirements are different than in 5th gear.

Originally posted by Maniac
No Stealth, you are correct.
The ports are all electric.
An, as a further correction, the mix runs lean when these events occur, not rich as RotaryGod indicated.
This is what I am tuning with the E-Manage now.
I'm trying to introduce a slightly rich spike right as the ports open to counteract the lean dip that ensues when the air column suddenly accelerates.

Electric heh? I apparently stand corrected.

Where did I ever say it ran rich at transition??? I didn't. I did say that there would be uneven and turbulent flow through the runners as they opened but I never specified a rich or lean condition.

Originally posted by rotarygod
Electric heh? I apparently stand corrected.

Where did I ever say it ran rich at transition??? I didn't. I did say that there would be uneven and turbulent flow through the runners as they opened but I never specified a rich or lean condition.

Yeah, sorry.
That was in a quote by "kristopher_d" that was inside your post I was quoting from. You didn't address that directly, so I assimilated it all.
Too much stuff floating around in my head to keep up with actual facts, let alone who stated them! :p

CZ, I may be staring too hard at the dyno chart or something, but you breifly mentioned that there is no increase in peak hp rpm's? I'm wondering why especially since the chart shows a basically steady increase in hp right up to the last dip at 86mph (is that 9500rpm?). You also briefly mentioned downloading 5 charts at the same time (took 5 seconds)? Do all of your runs show a definite brick wall there? And if so, why? Thanks. (I'm buying stage 1 or 2-complete, not sure which or when yet, but I am :))

Originally posted by Racer X-8
CZ, I may be staring too hard at the dyno chart or something, but you breifly mentioned that there is no increase in peak hp rpm's? I'm wondering why especially since the chart shows a basically steady increase in hp right up to the last dip at 86mph (is that 9500rpm?). You also briefly mentioned downloading 5 charts at the same time (took 5 seconds)? Do all of your runs show a definite brick wall there? And if so, why? Thanks. (I'm buying stage 1 or 2-complete, not sure which or when yet, but I am :))
The power drop off after 8500 is substantial.
I do not know with certainty, but I believe the two factors driving this are:
A) We are reaching the maximum air flow capacity. Dyno charts with aftermarket exhaust and intakes all show increases in the 8,000 and higher ranges, and next to nothing at lower rpm.

B) The stock ignition basically reaches it's limitations at those higher rpm's. At a certain point the coils do not charge fast enough to get full spark output, the circuit is not fast enough to maintain a clean signal, and power suffers.

Thing is, while one may work on mo repower in these higher regions, it is not going to show up as useful power for street use so we are not likely gaining much in the exercie of trying to improve this.

My $0.02 worth on the subject.

Do you guys plan on posting another dyno plot with the latest settings combined with the "L" flash?

Thankx a lot for your comments.

Is there a plot that StealthTL or somebody with aftermarked exhuast and Stage 1 could post to show how that improves the top end.

Originally posted by davefzr
Do you guys plan on posting another dyno plot with the latest settings combined with the "L" flash?

Thankx a lot for your comments.
There is yet another flash out this week.

I am going to the dealers to have it done Thursday, and after that we will data log, tune as needed, and so on.

I am planning some dyno sessions next week, as we are testing our maps for the new flash, plus ones for the various combinations of our midpipe, and with the Greddy SP2 cat-back.

So, about a week from now I should have some dyno runs to post.

Looking forward to that!

Just a curious idea... Could the CZ ECU mod by any chance change when the air ducts open? I mean, could we possibly achieve a "turbocharging" effect by just opening all valves roughly @ 5000 RPM's? The only problem I find with this idea would be that you would drastically lose power for roughly 500 RPM, but then have a huge flying curve of power. Also, I'm no engineer so I wouldn't even know if you could possibly change when the valves open.

Just an idea, maybe I'm not yet fully understanding the basics of this problems to comment on it yet...

If you did that I think you would have to stagger the valves like one at 4.8k, one at 5k, and one at 5.2k. I would have to look at the dyno charts for the real lag time after the port was opened. That should really decrease the loss of power. With your solution though at least you wouldn't have to worry about hitting the 2nd port in 6th gear on the highway.

what if you just simply left the valves constantly opened?

Sounds awesome. I didn't know they had come out with a new re-flash....? Does this one alter a/f maps like the "L" re-flash?

I'll be interested in seeing your dyno's, too, Canz, specifically because I have the SP2. :D

--Landon

Originally posted by canzoomer
There is yet another flash out this week.

I am going to the dealers to have it done Thursday, and after that we will data log, tune as needed, and so on.

I am planning some dyno sessions next week, as we are testing our maps for the new flash, plus ones for the various combinations of our midpipe, and with the Greddy SP2 cat-back.

So, about a week from now I should have some dyno runs to post.

Got the flash updates done last Thursday.

Turns out there is no "M" flash. This flash just included some regional updates, and a couple of minor fixes for small bugs.

No change to things that affect power or mileage.

Great news. So will you be shipping the Stage 1 units out on Monday as planned?

Originally posted by canzoomer
Got the flash updates done last Thursday.

Turns out there is no "M" flash. This flash just included some regional updates, and a couple of minor fixes for small bugs.

No change to things that affect power or mileage. What small bugs?

Originally posted by RunnedAround
what if you just simply left the valves constantly opened?

you would lose the resonance tuning effect that we have now. the result would probably lose power- not gain any.

and gas milage worse than a h2