You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access
to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to start new topics, reply to conversations, privately message other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join RX8Club.com today!
I'm worndering what is the difference between the automatic version of the RX8 and the stick shift. I know the difference is the transmission but how about the engine. I thought the engine is the same? with the same engine one is detuned right and the other is a higher verison (performance version)
If the automatic version has a computer chip to limit the rev for the RX8 and if a performance was swapped then would the Automatic version can gain more hp (like the stick shift??)
Thanks
This ad is not displayed to registered and logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on RX8Club.com!
Originally posted by RotaryXTypeSH I'm worndering what is the difference between the automatic version of the RX8 and the stick shift. I know the difference is the transmission but how about the engine. I thought the engine is the same? with the same engine one is detuned right and the other is a higher verison (performance version)
...
If the automatic version has a computer chip to limit the rev for the RX8 and if a performance was swapped then would the Automatic version can gain more hp (like the stick shift??)
The engine block itself is the same AFAIK, however the intake system is physically more elaborate on the high power model (3-path vs. 2) so a chip alone wouldn't do it.
__________________
Was on order: Hi-power, Winning Blue, Black Leather. Too slow, Mazda
You could "make" the engine in the automatic rev higher but it will not make very much power at higher rpms because the lack of the extra ports and the lack of the high rpm dynamic effect path mean that the engine will not breathe very well at higher rpms.
Even if you could make the engine breathe better, the torque converter of the automatic would not handle the added rpms well.
the auto is a better candidate for FI tuning, as the smaller 4 ports are more efficient at moving a lot of pressurized air at lower engine speeds...
so, you could try supercharging or turboing it... but yes, there are many differences between the two engines which make the auto unfriendly to rpms.
Like buger and Wakeech said, you could make it rev higher, but the reason mazda limited the RPM was because they kept blowing up the torque converter. But if blowing up a torque converter is worth the extra RPM be my guest.
Originally posted by wakeech the auto is a better candidate for FI tuning, as the smaller 4 ports are more efficient at moving a lot of pressurized air at lower engine speeds...
so, you could try supercharging or turboing it... but yes, there are many differences between the two engines which make the auto unfriendly to rpms.
I still don't understand why you think the higher reving 6 port design is going to be hard to FI and harder than the 4 port version.
Jackson Racing using Eaton superchargers has had good success with VTEC engines that rev all the way to 8500 RPM.
-Mr. Wigggles
Last edited by MrWigggles; 03-22-2003 at 11:58 PM.
I still don't understand why you think the higher reving 6 port design is going to be hard to FI and harder than the 4 port version.
Jackson Racing using Eaton superchargers has had good success with VTEC engines that rev all the way to 8500 RPM.
-Mr. Wigggles
and...??
you can't compare a B16 or a K20 with the RENESIS... they rev high (although not nearly as), but obviously aren't the same in most other ways, other than they burn complex hydrocarbons and atmospheric oxygen to turn the wheels of a car.
you can set pulley ratios for low end pull, or high end pull, or somewhere in the middle with a supercharger, and still never get EVERYTHING you want...
in any case, my point was that the four port layout of the automatic engine block is better suited to forced induction tuning than the high-power six port layout... it has little to do with the lower redline, although when looking at it from a supercharger point of view, this lower operating range will be easier to tune to as well. :p
i'm not saying you can't do it, i'm saying the low-power engine is better for it.
Originally posted by cueball1029 Like buger and Wakeech said, you could make it rev higher, but the reason mazda limited the RPM was because they kept blowing up the torque converter.
FWIW, the low-power engine is attached to a manual 5-speed transmission in Europe and the rev limit is the same as on your auto model AFAIK.
__________________
Was on order: Hi-power, Winning Blue, Black Leather. Too slow, Mazda
you can't compare a B16 or a K20 with the RENESIS... they rev high (although not nearly as), but obviously aren't the same in most other ways, other than they burn complex hydrocarbons and atmospheric oxygen to turn the wheels of a car.
you can set pulley ratios for low end pull, or high end pull, or somewhere in the middle with a supercharger, and still never get EVERYTHING you want...
in any case, my point was that the four port layout of the automatic engine block is better suited to forced induction tuning than the high-power six port layout... it has little to do with the lower redline, although when looking at it from a supercharger point of view, this lower operating range will be easier to tune to as well. :p
i'm not saying you can't do it, i'm saying the low-power engine is better for it.
I agree with you. And to add. The quantity of air entering the engine when pressurized is different than when ambient. An NA intake system is designed around the air velocity of the intake plumbing. A FI intake system does not need increased velocities. The complexity of the 6 ports also affect fueling during transition. Mazda turbo 13B's have always been 4 ports.
I think the port number is irrelevant once forced induction is added to the mix. The stock method of trying to accoustically tune the intake with just the right air volume with valve and intake length manipulation will be irrelevant. Wether a supercharger or turbocharger I bet the the first ECU mod is for an FI system will be to open all ports, period. (especially for the high boost apps since the values designed for 1 bar might not be designed for the added pressure of say an additional bar or so)
To me the 6 port will just allow for better breathing over the 4 port design.
-Mr. Wigggles
Last edited by MrWigggles; 03-24-2003 at 01:15 AM.
Will the 6 ports make forced induction impractical? No. But if you had a choice between 4 and 6 ports, the 4 port will actually flow better for forced induction (why do you think FC NA rotaries were 6-port, and why the FC turbo engines were 4-port?). Tuning an intake path for NA is very different than tuning for FI.
---jps
__________________
"The truth is faster than fiction."
Originally posted by Sputnik the 4 port will actually flow better for forced induction (why do you think FC NA rotaries were 6-port, and why the FC turbo engines were 4-port?).
---jps
THANK you... sheesh.
as i was saying before, the smaller port areas allow the pressuruzed air to flow at a higher velocity at lower eninge rpms. this helps maximize your volumetric efficiency in a system where your charge is being crammed in there continuously, as opposed to drawn in by partial vacuum.
Originally posted by Sputnik Will the 6 ports make forced induction? No. But if you had a choice between 4 and 6 ports, the 4 port will actually flow better for forced induction (why do you think FC NA rotaries were 6-port, and why the FC turbo engines were 4-port?). Tuning an intake path for NA is very different than tuning for FI.
---jps
If you think 4 ports will work better than they simply won't use the last 2 of the 6 port engine, cap'em off. But the tuners will use all 6 ports and people will buy the FI kit. It is interesting you are quoting a totally different engine from over 10 years ago in your analysis.
Originally posted by MrWigggles But the tuners will use all 6 ports and people will buy the FI kit. It is interesting you are quoting a totally different engine from over 10 years ago in your analysis.
The number of ports just isn't going to matter.
it's true that the solution would be to wire/fill the tertiary ports, and use the higher revving motor, but Sputnik and i aren't incorrect in saying that using only 4 ports is a far better solution than the 6... the lower velocity of the charge air (plus the necessarily longer length of the intake, plus more complex path to the engine) does nothing but hinder your compressor in doing it's job... or at least doesn't help it any.
in any case, what i wanted to point out is that the 13BREW isn't a 10 year old engine, and has been continually developped and produced for the JDM up until the middle of last year. they have never used anything but a 4 port layout for FI wankels, and they probably always will. there is a reason to it: just 'cause the RENESIS has a different expiration port layout doesn't mean it's "totally different"... the inspiration side hasn't changed much, other than the intake runner system: the valves and ports are nearly identical (albeit relocated on the housings)
Linear Mode
