Just sitting here and thinking about engine designs. I decided to compare a Renesis to "ancient tech" Chevy LS6 engine.

.................................................R enesis Specs...........................LS6 Specs
Dressed Weight (lbs).............................303............. ..........................458
Max Power (hp)............................238 @ 8,500 rpm....................405 @ 6,000 rpm
Power/Weight (hp/lbs)..........................0.78................ ......................0.88
Specific Power (hp/lbs/1000 rpm)...........0.094.............................. ......0.147
Max Torque...................................159 @ 5,500.........................400 @ 4,800
Torque/Weight (ft-lbs/lbs)......................0.52.................... ..................0.87
Specific Torque (ft-lbs/lbs/1000 rpm)........0.095................................. ...0.182

Please excuse my formatting. That aside the LS6 "ancient tech" engine stacks up quite well.

This thread has been edited to reflect the "new" 238 hp spec. Sheesh, we have gone from 260 to 250 to 247 and now 238. It is unknown if Mazda will fess up about torque levels.

I'm not quite sure I agree. RX-8 tops the LS8 in the hp/weight figure. The rest neither accounts for gearing nor for rev ranges, of which the RX8 has 50% more than the LS6.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The best piston comparison for the renesis would be the s2000 motor. If you're going to compare the LS6 to a rotary, compare it to the R26B.

R26B
Layout: 4-rotor, in-line
Displacement: 654 cc x 4-rotor
Compression ratio: 10:1
Induction system: Telescopic intake manifold system
Horsepower: 690 bhp @ 9000 rpm
Torque: 448 lb-ft @ 6500 rpm
Weight: 180 kgs. (397lbs)

I think what babylou really is saying is essentially a defense of what he sees as GM, or possibly U.S., engineering. While I don't like entering into nationalistic arguments, I'd have to argue against him anyway. GM's V8's are 'ancient tech' and have less inspiring numbers not because of faulty engineering, but because quite simply economics. Pushrod V8's are cheaper to make = higher profit for GM. There are also peripheral benefits such as cheaper maintenance due to widespread penetration of this particular V8, or in other words, it is traditional.

If you want to point to an example of quality GM engineering, then use the Corvette GTS LeMans race cars as an example.


Not quite sure why i went into this rant.

Sheesh, you guys sure can make some far reaching assumptions out of me posting some simple data. I just thought it was an interesting comparison and am backing neither nor am I making any kind of nationalistic or corporalistic (new word) comparison.

Keep in mind that the average Vette purchaser does not like to run at high engine speeds. If they did an LS6 can be made to run another 900 rpm in street trim for about $100 additional build cost by GM. This would up the power to weight to 1.01, which exceeds the Renesis.

FYI I am not even a power guy rather I am an "add lightness" guy.

yeah, your "Specific Power" metric really well illustrates the difference in the design philosophies: the wankel type is definitely a rev motor, whereas the LS6 has tons of force on tap at all times (as one would expect)...

if we looked at this dimentionally however, (despite the fact that the pushrod V8 is a really compact design) we'd REALLY see how the wankel comes through...

... but as m477 was saying, this is not the BEST comparison of the two technologies: i'd really like to see GM's pushrod V6 (that's in all of their mid-size sedans, like the Grand Prix, Alero, Malibu, etc etc etc...) compared with the wankel... the boys on the Autoweek forum seem to love it to death (i have NO idea why), so i'll see what i can scare up a bit later... i'm at work ;) :D!!

Originally posted by babylou
FYI I am not even a power guy rather I am an "add lightness" guy.
Amen to that :)

I was thinking that a comparison to a comparable power engine would be good. Here is a comparison with the "super high tech" Honda S2000 engine (F20C):

.................................................R enesis Specs...........................F20C Specs
Dressed Weight (lbs).............................303............. ..........................326
Max Power (hp)............................238 @ 8,500 rpm....................240 @ 8,300 rpm
Power/Weight (hp/lbs)..........................0.78................ ......................0.74
Specific Power (hp/lbs/1000 rpm)...........0.094.............................. ......0.089
Max Torque...................................159 @ 5,500.........................153 @ 7,500
Torque/Weight (ft-lbs/lbs)......................0.52.................... ..................0.47

It seems to me that the S2000 engine does not look as impressive as it used to or the Renesis looks a real sweet. Of course there are a few other metrics that I have not compared that the Renesis would be strong or weak in because I do not have the data. Things like cost, fuel efficiency, CG, size, durability, NVH, reliability, emmissions, etc.

This post was edited to reflect the once again new found (yeah right) power deficit.

Here's a question:
Do torque and horsepower grow exponentially or lineally relative to displacement/size? If it's exponentially, then the comparison doesn't make sense.

Also, the RENESIS gets better fuel economy than the F20C, even while pushing a heavier car.

Originally posted by vipeRX7
Here's a question:
Do torque and horsepower grow exponentially or lineally relative to displacement/size? If it's exponentially, then the comparison doesn't make sense.

neither... it's not something you can just project so easily: there are more factors to it than just displacement, althought if you're keeping the fundamental design the same, just a little longer stroke/wider bore, then it's linearish...

regardless, there are more than just two factors (hp and torque) to compare regarding engines: dimensional size and "dressed" mass are both also extremely important, i'd say more important than a displacement comparison.

Originally posted by babylou
It seems to me that the S2000 engine does not look as impressive as it used to or the Renesis looks a real sweet. Of course there are a few other metrics that I have not compared that the Renesis would be strong or weak in because I do not have the data. Things like cost, fuel efficiency, CG, size, durability, NVH, reliability, emmissions, etc.

:D the Boogdawg and i (i just jumped on his bandwagon) have been saying the same thing for months. :D

Another reason the pushrod V8s aren't going further up the rev range is because at higher RPMs they can experience valve float due to the inherent design of pushrods. A piston hitting a valve is a VERY bad thing!

It is possible to increase a Chevy LS1 V8's output without increasing its weight and size.

http://www.dougrippie.com

DRM C500 Stroker LS1
- 382 cubic inches (6.25-liter)
- Forged stroker crankshaft
- Ultra-light billet stroker rods
- Lightweight forged pistons
- Plasma-moly file fit rings
- Performance engine bearings
- Cylinders torque plate honed
- Line honed main bores
- Balanced rotating assembly
- Ported cylinder heads
- Larger high flow stainless valves
- Performance valve springs
- Titanium spring retainers
- Chrome moly pushrods
- DRM hydraulic roller camshaft
- K&N air filter + Modified air filter lid
- Tri-Flo exhaust system
- Custom ECU computer calibration

475 horsepower / 475 lb-ft of torque

Dressed Weight: 455 lb

Power to Weight ratio = 1.04 hp/lb
Torque to Weight ratio = 1.04 lb-ft/lb

I agree with Wakeech that the best way to compare different engines is through power/torque to weight/size ratios.

If 475hp is not enough for you, go for a C5-R engine. Please go to the "Best Piston Engine" thread for more info.

Does anyone has the spec's of a normally aspirated 20B 3-rotor engine?

Originally posted by Supercharger

Does anyone has the spec's of a normally aspirated 20B 3-rotor engine?
If you're trying to make a direct comparison, use the 26b data which I posted to compare to a V-8. A 3-rotor would be a better comparison for a 6-cylinder.

Originally posted by m477

If you're trying to make a direct comparison, use the 26b data which I posted to compare to a V-8. A 3-rotor would be a better comparison for a 6-cylinder.

heh heh, actually, the firing frequency of a bi-rotor means it's the best to compare with a 6 cylinder, and a 3 rotor actually fires similarly to a 9 cylinder... and yeah, the quad rotor is very close to a 12 cylinder.

so a 2.0L 3 rotor'd be very close to a 4.0L V8 in the amount it breathes per revolution, but we shouldn't limit ourselves to displacement alone: it will certainly be short on torque next to the ultimate American V8 the LS6, but could be made equal in power no matter the tune, by revs alone.
in any case, the major advantages in this case would still be the unbelievable compact and light package all that power comes in, more than the inherent simplicity which really takes newcomers to the engine.

Take a look at the next generation Chevy V8.
GM will launch the new engine in the Corvette C6 at Detroit Auto Show - Jan, 2004.

Racing Engine Comparison

_______________ Power _____ Weight ______ Size

Chevy Indy
3.5-liter V8 ______ 700 hp _____ 280 lb _____ Medium

Mazda R26B
2.6-liter 4-rotor ___ 700 hp _____ 397 lb _____ Large


The Chevy Indy V8 is capable of higher rpm and power. The IndyCar rules restrict engine rev to 10,300 rpm.

http://www.indyracing.com/indycar/news/story.php?story_id=543

http://www.indyracing.com/indycar/news/story.php?story_id=453

R26B 4-rotor

Originally posted by Supercharger
Racing Engine Comparison

_______________ Power _____ Weight ______ Size

Chevy Indy
3.5-liter V8 ______ 700 hp _____ 280 lb _____ Medium

Mazda R26B
2.6-liter 4-rotor ___ 700 hp _____ 397 lb _____ Large


The Chevy Indy V8 is capable of higher rpm and power. The IndyCar rules restrict engine rev to 10,300 rpm.

http://www.indyracing.com/indycar/news/story.php?story_id=543

http://www.indyracing.com/indycar/news/story.php?story_id=453


Just a reminder, but *in defense of the R26B* the Chevy engine is brand new. Remember that the R26B is 12 years old, so as far as current engines go, we don't know whether a new rotary engine would be superior. After all, how many piston engines 12 years older than the R26B compare with the rotary?
About redlines, I don't know whether Le Mans requires any limit on revs, but the R26B could probably go higher than it does. See the "only 9000 rpm redline" thread for more info about why the Renesis/R26B don't have higher redlines. Remember that wankel himself tested a rotary up to 25000 rpm!
Also, indy engines (as far as I know) would not be as reliable as the R26B. N/A rotaries are renowned for their reliability, especially in racing.
But you're right , at least from those statistics, that the Chevy engine is superior in the ways you mentioned. I just had to give some background to prevent a n00b from reading that and thinking that rotaries are hopelessly inferior :p :D

...remember too that the R26B was an engine designed and tuned to run for 24 consecutive hours around a pounding circuit, with tons of acceleration and deceleration, whereas an Indy track engine runs for what, 3 hours?? (i have no intrest in oval racing, and thus pay little attention to the length of the races)...
now, it's not easy to get a motor to run at those kinds of rpms for any amount of time, but the general cruising of the engine at the highest rpms for most of the race doesn't require the same KIND of tune that the R26B did, where driveability is certainly an issue throughout most of the track... the Indy engine would be optimized for running at max rpm constantly, with the volumetric efficiency peaking right at the highest rpms possible, almost regardless of the engine's behavior at lower rpm.

Even though this thread is basically dead I saw a few errors in my original numbers posted so I have corrected them. The Renesis weight increased from 273 lbs to 303 lbs (according to R&T special RX-8 edition). I also had the Renesis at 260 hp instead of 250 hp. The last error was I had the F20C at 250 hp instead of 240 hp.

Maybe the new F22C numbers will be available soon and we can see if it stacks up better against the Renesis.

Don't knock pushrods as "ancient" technology. The LS6 is seriously one of the most powerful engines for its size. When weight is considered it becomes even more of a masterpiece.

Everyone seems to believe DOHC is the "best" way to do an engine. However, make the LS6 a DOHC design and theres NO WAY it would even come close to fitting inside the hood of the Corvette.

Look at the Cadillac Northstar DOHC V8 side by side with the LS6 (I have) and the LS6 is much much smaller than the Northstar.

Rumor has is General Motors is capable of tuning the LS6 to reach 500hp. Remember, as of now the engine has no variable valve timing, which is what they're working on. When that happens the horsepower should jump significantly.

I used to naively believe that pushrods = old junk. After studying and dissecting several different motors in a lab, I've changed my position. Pushrods are cheaper, more compact, and really don't give up anything but revs and some smoothness to OHC designs.

The LS6 is one of the best motors in the world. No doubt about it.

Originally posted by Jerome81
Don't knock pushrods as "ancient" technology. The LS6 is seriously one of the most powerful engines for its size. When weight is considered it becomes even more of a masterpiece.

Rumor has is General Motors is capable of tuning the LS6 to reach 500hp. Remember, as of now the engine has no variable valve timing, which is what they're working on. When that happens the horsepower should jump significantly.

I used to naively believe that pushrods = old junk. After studying and dissecting several different motors in a lab, I've changed my position. Pushrods are cheaper, more compact, and really don't give up anything but revs and some smoothness to OHC designs.

The LS6 is one of the best motors in the world. No doubt about it.

Precisely why I put the word ancient in quotation marks.

Though I am an admirer of the LS6 engine I doubt GM can make 500 hp with the current displacement and still be production feasible (cost, durability, etc). I bet if 500 hp were easily achievable GM would go ahead and do it.

Also, VVT is only gonna give about 4-5% more power. However, there will also be incremental gains in power throughout the entire rev range, improved fuel efficiency and reduced emmissions due to VVT.

Pushrod V8 Racing Engine

1994 ILMOR 500I 3.4-liter V8

Max. rev: 10,500 rpm
Length: 22.1 in.
Width: 20 in.
Weight: 274 lb.

This compact V8 won the 1994 Indy 500 race.

http://www.ilmor.com

although i love the R26B at least as much as any other member your comparison is still a bit unfair.it is a very radical full race engine.(good power coming after 7500 even with variable length intakes and intake duration well beyond 400 degrees) a better comparison would be to a formula1 motor which actually puts beating on our favorite piece(800hp from 3liters of displacement)but as for an old tech ohv beating a rotary i dont think so.by the way the comparison of a dressed s2000 motor to the renesis is truly fascinating

Originally posted by babylou
I bet if 500 hp were easily achievable GM would go ahead and do it.

i seriously doubt they would go from 405hp to 500hp in one model. That doesnt mean they can't and many vette owners tune their cars with basic mods that bring them close to 475-480 hp.

The LS6 is a great engine, ultra reliable NA power. The 20B doesn't even come close to an LS6, power vs. weight vs. efficiency vs. size. Sorry fanboys :(

D-san

It would not be fair to compare the 4-rotor R26B against ultra-expensive 900hp Formula 1 car engines. IndyCar and Sportscar engines are relatively cheap.

A rotary racing engine cannot be fully stressed due to its inherent low stiffness. An engine support frame is required to transfer chassis loads, which increases weight and size. This is another rotary disadvantage.

A V-type piston racing engine (V6, V8, V10, V12) has high torsional stiffness and acts as a fully stressed member of the chassis. It is bolted directly to the tub and gearbox.

Originally posted by Supercharger
It would not be fair to compare the 4-rotor R26B against ultra-expensive 900hp Formula 1 car engines.

uh, not really... how can you compare an engine which has to run for tens of thousands of kilometers over 24 hours straight to a GP engine which is tuned to last somewhere in the range of 350-400kms, with (in current rules) a fresh engine for both qualifying and the race???

it would in fact be most fair to compare it to Judd enduro V10's, the newest Audi/Panoz Turbo V8's, or other long-run race engines, like in the Deutche Tourenwagon Masters... don't they only get like 2 or 3 engines for the whole year?? anyways, my point is the level of tune, not to mention the basic function of the engines is quite different between enduro sports cars and GP karts.

Originally posted by wakeech
...with (in current rules) a fresh engine for both qualifying and the race??? They run final qualification and the race on the same engine now.

---jps

ah, yes... but they're still allowed to tear it down and replace a faulty part (like a broken valve: BMW, in Austria, i think...??) with the stewards breathing down your neck, so yeah, they're definitely getting closer to the eventual "one engine per weekend" rule, or even one engine per multiple weekends (that'd be a nightmare to police).

Drysdale 990cc NA V8

Power: 220 hp
Weight: 115 lb
Power to Weight ratio: 1.9 hp/lb

This superbike V8 engine has a higher power to weight ratio than a NA rotary racing engine.

http://www.22000rpm.com/bike.html

awe it's soo small...look at how cute

It's amusing seeing everyone calling pushrods "ancient tech"... What would that make OHC models? "Prehistorical tech"? One thing that was not mentioned in this debate were the engine's fuel efficiency, which also takes gearing into consideration. An LS1 6MT F-body can get in excess of 30mpg on the highway on a long trip, and an LS6 can probably get mid-20s at least under the same conditions (not sure what the exact specs are). Now, for an engine that's more than four times the size of the Renesis and puts out half again the power and two and a half times the torque of that motor, its fuel efficiency, when compared to the 1.3L rotary, is impressive.
As far as the GM 3.8 OHV V6 that was mentioned earlier goes, that engine really was meant to be boosted. From the Buick GN of the past to the Grand Prix GTP of the present, the engine really only sees anything close to its full potential when being force fed air. Any comparisons made should be made using the L67 stats, and I think it would be interesting to compare it to a rotary that breathes an equal amount of air.

with all of this talk, it makes one wonder...what would a new "super rotary" (by this i mean 4 rotor or like, races-that-you-guys-are-talking-about competetive) be like?
________
IPAD ACCESSORIES (http://accesoriesipad.com/)

Originally posted by P00Man
with all of this talk, it makes one wonder...what would a new "super rotary" (by this i mean 4 rotor or like, races-that-you-guys-are-talking-about competetive) be like?

hahaha... like the R26B, but better... :D

Originally posted by babylou
I was thinking that a comparison to a comparable power engine would be good. Here is a comparison with the "super high tech" Honda S2000 engine (F20C):

.................................................R enesis Specs...........................F20C Specs
Dressed Weight (lbs).............................303............. ..........................326
Max Power (hp)............................250 @ 8,500 rpm....................240 @ 8,300 rpm
Power/Weight (hp/lbs)..........................0.83................ ......................0.74
Specific Power (hp/lbs/1000 rpm)...........0.097.............................. ......0.089
Max Torque...................................159 @ 5,500.........................153 @ 7,500
Torque/Weight (ft-lbs/lbs)......................0.52.................... ..................0.47

It seems to me that the S2000 engine does not look as impressive as it used to or the Renesis looks a real sweet. Of course there are a few other metrics that I have not compared that the Renesis would be strong or weak in because I do not have the data. Things like cost, fuel efficiency, CG, size, durability, NVH, reliability, emmissions, etc.

They're actually pretty close. Remember that F20C engine is 4 years old!! Mazda is just now catching up.

Originally posted by Jimmylove


They're actually pretty close. Remember that F20C engine is 4 years old!! Mazda is just now catching up.

:p the RENESIS concept is left overs from 1995... not to mention it's been in the R+D refinement process for something like 3 (??) years... not to mention that the F20C was the top of the heap, and with the RENESIS this good, i wouldn't say that Mazda's "catching up" now.

Originally posted by wakeech


:p the RENESIS concept is left overs from 1995... not to mention it's been in the R+D refinement process for something like 3 (??) years... not to mention that the F20C was the top of the heap, and with the RENESIS this good, i wouldn't say that Mazda's "catching up" now.

IMHO, the rotary still lags behind Honda in terms of overall efficiency (i.e. power, handling, braking, etc. taking into account fuel economy and emissions). See the attached thread where I posted some metrics that illuatrated this.

http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4446&perpage=15&pagenumber=3

The S2000 came out in 1999 and I'm not sure how long it was in R&D, but I do know Honda, like Mazda takes a pretty long time to bring a model to market (which is a good thing usually). I know they tend to be pretty tight-lipped about future models as well. I think the S2000 is the last VTEC model for Honda as they are transtioning their vehicles to I-VTEC, which is more efficient than the prior generation VTEC. There have also been recent rumors about the new S2000 (possibly called the S2200) being I-VTEC and being unveiled at either the Tokyo or Detroit auto shows.

Still, I hope Mazda makes significant strides in improving the rotary's efficiency as they and Honda seem to be the only major manufactures focused on lightweight (i.e. smallest displacement to produce a given level of power) in their sporty vehicles.

considering the clear disadvantage the rotary has had with research compared to the billions (probably) spent on piston engines, it's no surprise that they are more efficient/powerful.

Considering the same scenario, and the revolution in the rotary world that the Renesis is, if double the money was put into rotary design and research as is present, it would easily surpass most piston engines maybe as fast as in 2 rotary generations.

Since Mazda seems to have group of pathological liars running the joint I have been forced to redo the calcs for the Renesis. Again! 260 hp (Mazda claimed "goal") to 250 (I have a brochure stating this 250 as SAE net) to 247 and now 238 even though it really appears to be closer to 225.

No one has mentioned engine vibration. This is one of the things I miss the most about my first-gen. Smooth as butter. You really notice when you've been driving a rotary beast for a long time, then take a recipicator out for a spin and wonder what all the racket is about. Something to be said for 3 moving parts that just spin.

Originally posted by Keshav
No one has mentioned engine vibration. This is one of the things I miss the most about my first-gen. Smooth as butter. You really notice when you've been driving a rotary beast for a long time, then take a recipicator out for a spin and wonder what all the racket is about. Something to be said for 3 moving parts that just spin.

I like the racket! To each his own I guess. One of the major reasons I bought the WRX rather than waiting for the EVO and paying a little more was the boxer rumble. The STi was still a couple months away and there was a long list, I think they just now caught up with demand. It's tough to find anything this side of a good ole V8 with such a sweet exhaust note.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
I like the racket! To each his own I guess. One of the major reasons I bought the WRX rather than waiting for the EVO and paying a little more was the boxer rumble. The STi was still a couple months away and there was a long list, I think they just now caught up with demand. It's tough to find anything this side of a good ole V8 with such a sweet exhaust note.


There is also something to be said about 19.5 pounds of boost whistling like a missle. ;)

Originally posted by revhappy
There is also something to be said about 19.5 pounds of boost whistling like a missle. ;)

Can't argue there, nothing a little turbo upgrade can't take care of down the road though, or a trade in :p

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Can't argue there, nothing a little turbo upgrade can't take care of down the road though, or a trade in :p

Watch out Ike, we have a lot of ex-WRXers here in the local EVO club. :p

Go by a feakin Vette then......

Originally posted by revhappy
Watch out Ike, we have a lot of ex-WRXers here in the local EVO club. :p

All I know is when they come out with the stripped down model next year I'm staying far far away from Mitsubishi dealers, too much temptation.

Originally posted by Dugless
Go by a feakin Vette then......


Should we wave as we go by it?

Originally posted by IkeWRX
All I know is when they come out with the stripped down model next year I'm staying far far away from Mitsubishi dealers, too much temptation.

Have you done any mods to your WRX yet? There are some scary fast monsters out there!

Originally posted by revhappy
Have you done any mods to your WRX yet? There are some scary fast monsters out there!


A couple things, but I'm saving scary fast til at least spring :p

Originally posted by IkeWRX
A couple things, but I'm saving scary fast til at least spring :p

What have you done so far and what's in the cards?

Originally posted by DTECH-RX
Another reason the pushrod V8s aren't going further up the rev range is because at higher RPMs they can experience valve float due to the inherent design of pushrods. A piston hitting a valve is a VERY bad thing!

You do know NASCAR revs to 9k rpm right?

Originally posted by IkeWRX
I like the racket! To each his own I guess. One of the major reasons I bought the WRX rather than waiting for the EVO and paying a little more was the boxer rumble. The STi was still a couple months away and there was a long list, I think they just now caught up with demand. It's tough to find anything this side of a good ole V8 with such a sweet exhaust note.

Agreed. The exhaust note is fantastic. It's one of the best things about the boxer engine, IMHO. Even as balanced as our engines are, the rotary is still smoother and the exhaust note can be pretty darn good too. I think an STi at full-song is one of the sweetest sounds I've ever heard.

Engine vibration was my point, but I confused it by using an ambiguous word like "racket".

Originally posted by Hanzo
You do know NASCAR revs to 9k rpm right?

...and think of all the overhead cam engines (even at a lesser degree of tune) which run even more.

it's not that they can't run some specific speed, but that overhead cam engines are better at it.

Originally posted by Keshav
Agreed. The exhaust note is fantastic. It's one of the best things about the boxer engine, IMHO.

it is nothing in the face of the wankel ;)

Originally posted by wakeech

it is nothing in the face of the wankel ;)

They're both good, but different. Which is better is pretty subjective.

Here's a video done by John Felstead over at NASIOC. the mic is mounted near the exhaust for full effect. Worth the 75MB download.

STi Type RA @ Nurburgring (http://208.184.121.11/i-club/STi5TypeRARingFrontBumperSept2002.mpg)



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jotero/meets/nurburgring/DSC00487.JPG

Anyone got good wankle racket they can share? ;)

Originally posted by revhappy
What have you done so far and what's in the cards?

KYB AGX Struts, STi springs, 17" wheels and summer tires, Whiteline adjustable rear sway and endlinks, MBC, Uppipe, Prodrive shiftknob :p and various other cosmetic things (all already on the car or purchased)

Plans for the near future... Utec or Cobb reflash maybe... still contemplating my autox season and I don't think I want to be in SM so that means having two ECUs if I want a reflash so I may just stick with the MBC a little longer... stealthback exhaust from XSengineering, camber plates, strut braces, grounding kit.

Once the warranty goes bye bye and I know I want to keep it longterm, I'll finish it all off with an IHI turbo upgrade and an FMIC.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
KYB AGX Struts, STi springs, 17" wheels and summer tires, Whiteline adjustable rear sway and endlinks, MBC, Uppipe, Prodrive shiftknob :p and various other cosmetic things (all already on the car or purchased)

Plans for the near future... Utec or Cobb reflash maybe... still contemplating my autox season and I don't think I want to be in SM so that means having two ECUs if I want a reflash so I may just stick with the MBC a little longer... stealthback exhaust from XSengineering, camber plates, strut braces, grounding kit.

Once the warranty goes bye bye and I know I want to keep it longterm, I'll finish it all off with an IHI turbo upgrade and an FMIC.

What are you putting down to the wheels and what's your goal? Have some timeslips? LOL

Originally posted by Keshav
They're both good, but different. Which is better is pretty subjective.

Here's a video done by John Felstead over at NASIOC. the mic is mounted near the exhaust for full effect. Worth the 75MB download.

STi Type RA @ Nurburgring (http://208.184.121.11/i-club/STi5TypeRARingFrontBumperSept2002.mpg)



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jotero/meets/nurburgring/DSC00487.JPG

Anyone got good wankle racket they can share? ;)


I hope this is one long ass movie because damn it's taking forever to download...

Originally posted by revhappy
What are you putting down to the wheels and what's your goal? Have some timeslips? LOL

Hahaha, timeslips are such a ricer thing to ask, lol, I just wanted to say that. :D

2005 Corvette C6 Engine

The 6.0-liter Gen IV V8 LS2 will be the biggest base engine in Corvette’s 52-year history when it arrives, and develops 400 hp and 400 lb-ft of torque, with a 6500-rpm redline. It has an aluminum block with iron cylinder liners and alloy heads, and weighs 15.4 pounds less than the 5.7-liter Gen III in today’s car.

The bore is a bit wider at exactly four inches, the compression ratio is up from 10.1 to 10.9, the intake airflow has been improved 30 percent, there’s a new throttle body and a new (composite) intake manifold. Other engine changes include stiffer valve springs and a revised camshaft for more valve lift, as well as a new heavy-duty timing chain, 33 percent lighter exhaust manifold, external knock sensors, drilled main crank bearings, new oil pan and an upgraded water pump.

The new V8 has a higher power-to-weight ratio than the LS6.