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!
sweet, i know you like it. my friend drops kicks me in the face. it hurt at the time, but a really awesome scene. ill email my Game Master at our Dungeon and Dragons club.
Just in case some of you missed this one. The GA RX-8 Club was privileged to visit Downing/Atlanta Inc. They fired up the #77, RX-792P just for us. This should get your blood rushing. Crank up the volumn!
Holy CRAP!!!! er, ah, so when is that technology going to trickle down to the street? I'd love to drive to work in that every day.
And really, what's the technical difficulty in producing a three rotor? I'd always heard that the ecentric shaft was too complicated/expensive to mass produce effectively once you went from two to three rotors? Any truth to this? If so why not do like a lot of GP bikes and mate two smaller two rotor motors together? (Like two mini renesis motors tied together )
Holy CRAP!!!! er, ah, so when is that technology going to trickle down to the street? I'd love to drive to work in that every day.
And really, what's the technical difficulty in producing a three rotor? I'd always heard that the ecentric shaft was too complicated/expensive to mass produce effectively once you went from two to three rotors? Any truth to this? If so why not do like a lot of GP bikes and mate two smaller two rotor motors together? (Like two mini renesis motors tied together )
that be sick, is there any motorcycles with rotors?
For me the best would be a factory made turbo. The rotors should be lower compression 8:1, and use a veritable vain turbo (same advantages of a twin sequential with out the complexity). You may also want to increase the width of the engines center section which separates the two rotors to allow a larger shared exhaust port. You end up with a turbo which should surpass the RX-7 3rd gen in horse power and reliability. You don't get the weight penalty of a 3 or 4 rotor and you get a factory warranty.
The more rotors the more high-pitched smooth sound. My friends are amazed at how my Rx-8 sounds, and I'm all stock. I just wish it was a little louder, but the exact same sound.
Suzuki and Norton both made them. I know there were a few others as well.
Never sold well, and been out of market a long time. Very awkward looking bikes, pricey, and ran really hot.
But what is this thread asking? If people want the 3 rotor or who would say no to more power? Everyone likes power, but I'd pass if it severely compromised the reason I like the renesis, like smoothness, high RPM's, a linear power delivery, light weight, reliability...
As for a 3 rotary renesis, it would likely provide even worse fuel economy and emissions that wouldn't pass strict emissions testing up here at plate renewal time.
The more rotors the more high-pitched smooth sound. My friends are amazed at how my Rx-8 sounds, and I'm all stock. I just wish it was a little louder, but the exact same sound.
Is there a noticeable difference. I've read many posts where people say they can barely tell a difference. And I can barley tell a difference fromt he audio clips I've heard.
But what is this thread asking? If people want the 3 rotor or who would say no to more power? Everyone likes power, but I'd pass if it severely compromised the reason I like the renesis, like smoothness, high RPM's, a linear power delivery, light weight, reliability...
Smoothness? Equally, if not moreso than the 13B. As for the other issues you mentioned why would you believe any of them would be severely compromised? Reliability? Should be the same, no? All you're doing is adding another rotor thereby upping displacement 50%. And that third rotor with a bigger block would maybe add 100 pounds. I'll have to dig up an older issue of Sport Compact Car where they did a write up on Pettit's 3 rotor turbo for the FD. IIRC, the coolest thing they said about the car (other than alot more power and torque) was the fact the 20B sounded very much like a V 12.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9291150
As for a 3 rotary renesis, it would likely provide even worse fuel economy and emissions that wouldn't pass strict emissions testing up here at plate renewal time.
I'll bet if there was enough demand that the engineers could make a 3 rotor turbo pass emissions. I mean, if Bugatti can have a 16 cylinder monster do it, why can't Mazda with a 2 liter?
I remember reading a post where the poster said (Zoom44 perhaps?) that the 13B was maxed out for rotor size because the size of the ports couldn't be increased due to physical room restrictions, hence the limited N/A power.
With forced induction couldn't the rotor size (width) be increased, even if it meant that we'd have to run 4 spark plugs per rotor to help with the flame front speed? Can you imagine the increase in torque AND horsepower from a 16B or 18B with light forced induction?
I'll bet if there was enough demand that the engineers could make a 3 rotor turbo pass emissions. I mean, if Bugatti can have a 16 cylinder monster do it, why can't Mazda with a 2 liter?
Can you imagine the increase in torque AND horsepower from a 16B or 18B with light forced induction?
Can you imagine if they shrunk the rotors down a tad, kept the 16B or 18B size you alluded to, made it a 3 rotor 1.8 liter...and turbo'd the damn thing. Freakin' 10,000 rpm redline easy, and a nice top end thanks to the one or more turbos.
I'd be willing to bet the weight penalty would be negligible comapred to the 13B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmorales
Because it's a rotary...it just is...
I'm gonna dig up last year's state emissions report I had done on the FD. It passed with flying colors. The car's bone stock; but even if you were to add 50% more pollution (representing the 3rd rotor) in each category it would still pass.
Of course, today's standards are stricter, but that's something left to the engineers at R&D to solve.
People are just too content with the anemic power (relative to other high performance cars in its price range) of the Renesis, and don't seem receptive to the idea mentioned in my first paragraph. I say if you're gonna burn up a gallon of fuel every 16 to 20 miles, why not get 12 to 15 but have 400 horses at your disposal. Who's with me?
You say you care about MPG but then you want a turbo? Turbo would burn at least as much if not more fuel than a 3 spinner.
I think you're wrong. I remember reading about turboed cars that (unless you were pushing them) used even somewhat less fuel in normal driving than their NA counterparts. That's because they ran leaner.
However with a NA 3-rotor, you're guaranteed to burn more fuel - and will have probably worse emissions than with the 2-rotor, be it turbo or NA.
I remember reading a post where the poster said (Zoom44 perhaps?) that the 13B was maxed out for rotor size because the size of the ports couldn't be increased due to physical room restrictions, hence the limited N/A power.
With forced induction couldn't the rotor size (width) be increased, even if it meant that we'd have to run 4 spark plugs per rotor to help with the flame front speed? Can you imagine the increase in torque AND horsepower from a 16B or 18B with light forced induction?
Something wicked this way comes...
Have you not heard of a PORIPHRIAL PORT ?
This is when the side intake ports are blocked off and an intake port (65mm ID) is created directly in the rotor housing. Racing Beat did this with their Bonneville Record try. I believe it was a Third gen. RX-7 with a 900HP Periphrial Port 20B.
I had an NA 13B Periphrial Port that had a little under 300hp.
Just think Racing Beat had three turbos on their engine.
Here is a pic of the rotor housing and a pic of RB's engine.
Just think how much fuel and air you could push through a pair of 65mm intake ports. Is your brain spinning now.
Note the intake and exhaust ports in the rotor housing, no side ports.
I remember reading a post where the poster said (Zoom44 perhaps?) that the 13B was maxed out for rotor size because the size of the ports couldn't be increased due to physical room restrictions, hence the limited N/A power.
With forced induction couldn't the rotor size (width) be increased, even if it meant that we'd have to run 4 spark plugs per rotor to help with the flame front speed? Can you imagine the increase in torque AND horsepower from a 16B or 18B with light forced induction?
Something wicked this way comes...
no, the ports are not max out, it has been proven by a lot of tuners that the renesis can still make power up to 10,000 rpms. what will hapeng if you make the rotors bigger is a lower red line but more low down torque and more power with maybe a 8,700 rpms red line.
I think a 3 rotor engine base on a 12a renesis can be a killer engine a lot of hp and torque combine with hi rpms capability.
there are a lot of ways to make a 3 rotor as fuel eficient as a 13b as long as you dont step on it
and remember that a bigger engine moving the same weight around will always be less stress
A 3 rotor engine in stock trim is much more smooth than a 13b
imagine a 2500lbs kabura type car with a 12a based renesis 3 rotor (or should I say a 1.8 lt 3 rotor), 280hp 220 lbft of torque with a 9000 rpm red line
Last edited by rotary crazy; 08-22-2006 at 08:56 AM.
)
Linear Mode
