MOTOR magazine here in OZ carried a small para saying that ALL pre-production rx-8's were down 22kW (nearly 40HP) and that we should disregard any straightline performance measures from laguna seca.

How do you not notice a car is missing 22kW?

-pete

got a link or a scan?

thats what sport compact car said

Originally posted by rpm_pwr
How do you not notice a car is missing 22kW?Unless you have a point of reference, it's impossible to tell. Without a "good" RX-8 to compare against, nobody can tell by the seat of their pants. It wasn't until SCC put one on a dyno that they discovered the shortfall.

No link sorry :(

I was thinking more of the engineers who were there. If I was involved in the rx-8 project, I would have a pretty good idea of what a "healthy" rx-8 feels like.

-pete

This is actually good news for those of you folks who might have been hoping for more power.

For those of us who are happy either way.. well... we're happy either way :)

The lack of Horse Power was attributed to the tertiary port being stuck shut. The big question mark is still there....how does a regular driver of RX8 know if the port is stuck ??? Is Mazda doing something about it like some kind of light/engine light/indicator on the instrument panel? Not all owners will have the luxury of doing the dyno every now and then to check the port!

Originally posted by Maximus
The lack of Horse Power was attributed to the tertiary port being stuck shut. The big question mark is still there....how does a regular driver of RX8 know if the port is stuck ??? Is Mazda doing something about it like some kind of light/engine light/indicator on the instrument panel? Not all owners will have the luxury of doing the dyno every now and then to check the port! I think you'll know because most reports (and this is indicative of the problem being true across the board) have mentioned the lack of high-end power... and that's odd because the RX-8 has all its power available top end.

So it's playing out well for those that would want more power. I wouldn't mind it of course, but I'm not dissapointed either.

Yes, if there is indeed a port problem, it would be a pleasant surprise to see 0-60 times well into the mid-high 5's.

Originally posted by evel333
Yes, if there is indeed a port problem, it would be a pleasant surprise to see 0-60 times well into the mid-high 5's. I think the sticking port wouldn't have happened until after the big media event. Mazda would have easily noticed if some or all cars were lacking horsepower.

Originally posted by Maximus
The big question mark is still there....how does a regular driver of RX8 know if the port is stuck ??? Not all owners will have the luxury of doing the dyno every now and then to check the port! Drive the thing for a while, and you'll soon develop a feel for its normal accelleration. Once you have tuned your "butt dyno" to the normal baseline, you'll know if you suddenly lose 40hp.

would it be possible to have the ports checked at the regular service intervals? Is it something that can be checked easily by the service people???

Originally posted by Maximus
The lack of Horse Power was attributed to the tertiary port being stuck shut.

wakeech !!!!!!!! Look what you've done !?
now Maximus is calling them tertiary port too !!!

Originally posted by Maximus
the tertiary port

:D right on.

Rememer when I said I couldn't feel the transition above 6000rpm? I could once. The reason I never brought it up before is this:

We were coming back from the lunch on highway 1, when we were testing the 8 on the road. We stopped by a field (image below) to take some pics. The road that went by the field was long and streight. So after we were done, we headed back to Laguna, and I made it a point to see if I could feel the transition. There was only one occasion where I though I could feel a surge, at above 6000 rpm. But I could not duplicate it again.

So, without the reproducability, I marked it down as a fluke, maybe a change in the road, or maybe I didn't have the throttle at the same spot.

http://images.rotarynews.com/images/LagunaSecaJan03/mvc02019.jpg

(I don't know why I included this pic.... maybe because I'm sick of looking at the same old ones over and over again.)

Originally posted by Smoker


wakeech !!!!!!!! Look what you've done !?
now Maximus is calling them tertiary port too !!!

Hey! :-)

Am I missing something ??

Well the good news then is that the performance times will drop. The bad news is that if they electronically activated we're all going to see VTEC controllers for the rx8 ;)

Personally, I still dont see how this happened. The ECU should have been hard coded to open the ports at a certain RPM. Why would it choose not to :confused:

rotarynews.com -> wouldnt it have felt pretty choked by redline then?

-pete

Originally posted by rpm_pwr
Personally, I still dont see how this happened. The ECU should have been hard coded to open the ports at a certain RPM. Why would it choose not to :confused: They may be electronically activated, but they're still mechanically operated. It's not a question of whether the ECU chose not to open them, it's that the mechanicals were unable to comply, due to being stuck or broken.

Originally posted by Maximus


Hey! :-)

Am I missing something ??


Well, before your last post, only Wakeech insisted on calling that 3rd Intake port "tertiary port". Everyone else including Mazda called the 3rd Intake port "auxiliary port".

I guess wakeech got a supporter now !

Originally posted by rpm_pwr

Personally, I still dont see how this happened. The ECU should have been hard coded to open the ports at a certain RPM. Why would it choose not to :confused:


-pete

bad machining?

Originally posted by Smoker



Well, before your last post, only Wakeech insisted on calling that 3rd Intake port "tertiary port". Everyone else including Mazda called the 3rd Intake port "auxiliary port".

I guess wakeech got a supporter now !

well "auxiliary" is a stupid name: it denotes that the port is of little importance, which it obviously isn't... this nomenclature also limits Mazda to using ONLY 3 ports, as you can't really have a "secondary auxilary" port without sounding like a total idiot... i want to see the days of 8 or even 10 port engines, and thus it is the "tertiary" (think like "thirdiary" :p) leaving them room to continue development in this area :p

Originally posted by zoom44


bad machining?

could just be down to bad lubing or poor assembly... could be any number of things, but still nothing to worry about: that's what quick and cheap recalls are for ;)

Originally posted by Smoker
Well, before your last post, only Wakeech insisted on calling that 3rd Intake port "tertiary port". Everyone else including Mazda called the 3rd Intake port "auxiliary port". I guess wakeech got a supporter now !

hehe...I am with you now.
I agree with Wakeech's philosophy of the possibility of having more ports in future :-)

Is there a possiblity of Mazda doing a grand conspiracy of having the ports stuck deliberately on all the pre-prod cars? If yes, please Mazda, stop messing with our feelings:-)

Originally posted by wakeech


well "auxiliary" is a stupid name: it denotes that the port is of little importance, which it obviously isn't... this nomenclature also limits Mazda to using ONLY 3 ports, as you can't really have a "secondary auxilary" port without sounding like a total idiot... i want to see the days of 8 or even 10 port engines, and thus it is the "tertiary" (think like "thirdiary" :p) leaving them room to continue development in this area :p

Oh just admit it wakeech....you just like using the "Borg" lingo.... LOL

Seven of Nine of Tertiary Adjucnt of Unimatirx.....etc., etc.,


;)

BTW, I am a little concerned about the "auxilliary port" / "tertiary port" (there you go wakeech you have another half a supporter :D ) issue, but hopefully Mazda had enough time to take care of it BEFORE final production as opposed to starting out the debut of the RX-8 with a recall.

We used the word "tertiary" all the time in my biochemistry classes back in high school. I always thought it was a widely used/accepted term.

Originally posted by evel333
We used the word "tertiary" all the time in my biochemistry classes back in high school. I always thought it was a widely used/accepted term.

It is in certain circles / diciplines such as sciences, technology, engineering, etc. You just don't hear the average joe saying "I finished in the tertiary position" or "take a left hand turn at the tertiary light" as opposed to "I came in third place" or "make a left at the third light for example..... ;)

Well, before your last post, only Wakeech insisted on calling that 3rd Intake port "tertiary port". Everyone else including Mazda called the 3rd Intake port "auxiliary port".


All this talk of auxillary ports, tertiary ports should have its own thread. (can a thread around here ever stay on subject?!)

Consider this: those of us that had 2nd Gen N/A RX-7 FC3s's know them as 6-ports. I recommend if you want to better communicate with existing RX owners, esp. FC 6-port owners, everyone call the ports that open at high RPM's "The 6-ports."


rotarynews.com -> wouldnt it have felt pretty choked by redline then?


(back on subject) That is a good point. The cars on the track, at least (my my recolection) had a flat torque curve all the way up. Further leading me to beleive the problem developed after the cars were given the the journalists.

Originally posted by eccles
They may be electronically activated, but they're still mechanically operated. It's not a question of whether the ECU chose not to open them, it's that the mechanicals were unable to comply, due to being stuck or broken.

Nah, the article said it was specifically a software bug. As an embedded programmer, that just strikes me as a very dumb mistake. All I can think of is that maybe they fitted the 'low power' motor ecu to the 'high power' cars. Because you can get 'low power' & manual somewhere in the world cant you?

So can we say then that NOBODY has timed a properly working rx-8 yet then?

-pete

Originally posted by rpm_pwr


Nah, the article said it was specifically a software bug. As an embedded programmer, that just strikes me as a very dumb mistake. All I can think of is that maybe they fitted the 'low power' motor ecu to the 'high power' cars. Because you can get 'low power' & manual somewhere in the world cant you?

So can we say then that NOBODY has timed a properly working rx-8 yet then?

-pete We can say that when a final version is released and tested... then if the numbers are somewhat lower.. we know the culprit :)

Originally posted by Maximus


hehe...I am with you now.
I agree with Wakeech's philosophy of the possibility of having more ports in future :-)

i honestly don't see how more ports would help... please elaborate. the way i see it, there is a finite area you carve out of the side housing before you cut into the compression stroke and/or start letting apex seals slide out. to me, more ports = more closed ports = less air

Ok, so I read here in the US Sport Compact Car, which also has the car down some 40 horsepower. And reference was made that the other magazines that tested 0-60 times, which was done in 5.9 secs, did their testing with the horsepower deficit.

So it stands to reasons that with the additional power, 0-60 should be in the mid 5 second range.

Don't get me wrong, I am satisfied with the performance as it is currently reported. However, if I can get the extra performance from the missing 40 hp, I will never complain.

I think black with the red and black interior with every possible option. Yeah!!

If it took Mazda this long then a little longer well not hurt after all I like to have a vehicle that is as free of glitches as possable. And I think Mazda well deliver:D

Originally posted by lefuton


i honestly don't see how more ports would help... please elaborate. the way i see it, there is a finite area you carve out of the side housing before you cut into the compression stroke and/or start letting apex seals slide out. to me, more ports = more closed ports = less air

but realize that there is more to cut than just the side housing, there is also the intermediate housing, and the (perhipheral) rotor housing as well... there's a lot more space (staying within the cycle timing restrictions) which could be opened up for even-higher rpm breathing....
but this isn't exactly what i meant: more ports equals more variability... even if it was just a 4th (quarternary, yes i looked it up) port on the intermediate housing (above the secondary port) it'd make a huge difference to the dynamics of the engine, allowing it to take it hard up to ten grand... with a third (central) bearing (which would be really spiffy, and sort of go well in a beefier intermediate housing to make room for those quarternary ports) stock rpm limits of 10.5k rpm could be achieved (at costs of weight, complexity, money, etc)... it COULD be ;)

Originally posted by wakeech


but realize that there is more to cut than just the side housing, there is also the intermediate housing, and the (perhipheral) rotor housing as well... there's a lot more space (staying within the cycle timing restrictions) which could be opened up for even-higher rpm breathing....
but this isn't exactly what i meant: more ports equals more variability... even if it was just a 4th (quarternary, yes i looked it up) port on the intermediate housing (above the secondary port) it'd make a huge difference to the dynamics of the engine, allowing it to take it hard up to ten grand... with a third (central) bearing (which would be really spiffy, and sort of go well in a beefier intermediate housing to make room for those quarternary ports) stock rpm limits of 10.5k rpm could be achieved (at costs of weight, complexity, money, etc)... it COULD be ;)

Something to wait for with the 15(D,E?) maybe? ;)