Wards 10 Best Engines 2006: No more Renesis, but...
#52
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by playdoh43
i always wonder why foreign companies dosnt make pushrod engines.
i think foreign companies dosnt make pushrod engines because many countries place large import tax based on the displacement of the engine. the idea is that more displacement = more exhaust/pollution and bad fuel economy.
i think foreign companies dosnt make pushrod engines because many countries place large import tax based on the displacement of the engine. the idea is that more displacement = more exhaust/pollution and bad fuel economy.
#53
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by playdoh43
yep under the SAE rules, seems just about all japanese engines are overated. especially hondas though.
Have anything to back up such a bold statement?
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: University of Maryland
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
check yahoo/autos. acura TL's hp went down from 270 to 258. rsx also went down, i dont remeber by how much. camry V6 went down... and many others. there were tons of threads about hp ratings going down under new strict SAE requlations. companies could choose to either adopt the stricter rules with their pre-2006 models. Honda is one of the companies that changed their ratings.
Last edited by playdoh43; 12-15-2005 at 12:07 AM.
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: University of Maryland
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
its still the same engines making the same power, but some companies were overating their engines in the past, something to do with not attaching certain things to the engine while taking the ratings.
i noticed in the past some engines had nice and pretty flat numbers like 200hp, 270hp, 300hp etc... now they are like 197, 298, 287, 306, 204 etc etc
i noticed in the past some engines had nice and pretty flat numbers like 200hp, 270hp, 300hp etc... now they are like 197, 298, 287, 306, 204 etc etc
Last edited by playdoh43; 12-15-2005 at 12:11 AM.
#57
I understood it as using different testing procedures to obtain hp ratings. Depending on procdure, different ratings were obtained. None of them wrong, just different. Now everyone is going to use the same.
#59
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those numbers for the most partm are pretty minor adjustments, but I didn't realize so many of them were going down. The RSX went from 200hp in '04 to 210hp in '05 and the '06 is 201hp. I'll bet anyone on this site that Mazda either doesn't hit near their 238hp rating for the RX-8, or most likely elects to not use the new SAE rating system.
#60
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^So far I have not heard about the Renesis under the SAE rules, but I'll bet your right.
What's funny, is that alot of American engines went up.
I'm the 3-rotor hoe of this website, but I'll continue to say that it's time Mazda adopts a 1L 3-rotor design, which will give them alot more NA HP while not adding much more weight. On top of that, IF they give it better gearing we even might see better fuel economy.
It's amazing what 2 rotors can do compared to 4-8 cylinders, but that LS2/6/7...you just got to love them.
What's funny, is that alot of American engines went up.
I'm the 3-rotor hoe of this website, but I'll continue to say that it's time Mazda adopts a 1L 3-rotor design, which will give them alot more NA HP while not adding much more weight. On top of that, IF they give it better gearing we even might see better fuel economy.
It's amazing what 2 rotors can do compared to 4-8 cylinders, but that LS2/6/7...you just got to love them.
#61
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: University of Maryland
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
only american engine i know of that went up is the new corvette z06 LS7 engine that went from 500 to 505hp, other than that, i think most American engines also went down a bit, but not as dramatic as the japanese engines.
#62
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by playdoh43
only american engine i know of that went up is the new corvette z06 LS7 engine that went from 500 to 505hp, other than that, i think most American engines also went down a bit, but not as dramatic as the japanese engines.
#64
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by playdoh43
wow thats a huge gain, are you sure its due to the SAE... this isnt a new tune of the engine?
#65
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
only american engine i know of that went up is the new corvette z06 LS7 engine that went from 500 to 505hp, other than that, i think most American engines also went down a bit, but not as dramatic as the japanese engines.
#66
THREAD KILLER
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 1,342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree about 4G63 should have been on the list. It's not surprising the Renesis is not on the list. At the time when it was awarded, there weren't any real-world data on the engine. After it has been out for two years, those judges have read about some of the qualifications that gave the Renesis those awards were no longer true. Examples are:
- Promised higher mileage compared to past N/A rotaries
Real-world: not true
- Promised lesser oil consumption compared to past N/A rotaries
Real-world: not true
- Promised matched power ratings to the 13B-REW, which was boosted
Real-world: not true
- Promised lower emissions, lesser unburned gas from exhaust
Real-world: RX-8 drivers taking videos of their flaming exhausts
- 1.3 liter bragging rights
Real-world: still debatable
...don't get me wrong, I'm not hating. In fact, even though I praise 4G63 and VQ35DE so much, I'd still take the Renesis as my favorite. I'm just presenting my guesses as to why those judges are no longer fans of our dear engine.
- Promised higher mileage compared to past N/A rotaries
Real-world: not true
- Promised lesser oil consumption compared to past N/A rotaries
Real-world: not true
- Promised matched power ratings to the 13B-REW, which was boosted
Real-world: not true
- Promised lower emissions, lesser unburned gas from exhaust
Real-world: RX-8 drivers taking videos of their flaming exhausts
- 1.3 liter bragging rights
Real-world: still debatable
...don't get me wrong, I'm not hating. In fact, even though I praise 4G63 and VQ35DE so much, I'd still take the Renesis as my favorite. I'm just presenting my guesses as to why those judges are no longer fans of our dear engine.
#67
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an old thread that some of you might enjoy:
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...&highlight=ls6
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...&highlight=ls6
#68
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Morristown Tennessee
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Xyntax
I agree about 4G63 should have been on the list. It's not surprising the Renesis is not on the list. At the time when it was awarded, there weren't any real-world data on the engine. After it has been out for two years, those judges have read about some of the qualifications that gave the Renesis those awards were no longer true. Examples are:
- Promised higher mileage compared to past N/A rotaries
Real-world: not true
- Promised lesser oil consumption compared to past N/A rotaries
Real-world: not true
- Promised matched power ratings to the 13B-REW, which was boosted
Real-world: not true
- Promised lower emissions, lesser unburned gas from exhaust
Real-world: RX-8 drivers taking videos of their flaming exhausts
- 1.3 liter bragging rights
Real-world: still debatable
...don't get me wrong, I'm not hating. In fact, even though I praise 4G63 and VQ35DE so much, I'd still take the Renesis as my favorite. I'm just presenting my guesses as to why those judges are no longer fans of our dear engine.
- Promised higher mileage compared to past N/A rotaries
Real-world: not true
- Promised lesser oil consumption compared to past N/A rotaries
Real-world: not true
- Promised matched power ratings to the 13B-REW, which was boosted
Real-world: not true
- Promised lower emissions, lesser unburned gas from exhaust
Real-world: RX-8 drivers taking videos of their flaming exhausts
- 1.3 liter bragging rights
Real-world: still debatable
...don't get me wrong, I'm not hating. In fact, even though I praise 4G63 and VQ35DE so much, I'd still take the Renesis as my favorite. I'm just presenting my guesses as to why those judges are no longer fans of our dear engine.
And you can't directly compare a turbo with a non turbo engine- the turbo engine is going to cost a lot more, weigh more, be larger dressed, have issues due to the low compression and cool spark plugs needed for boost conditions when driven normally, and long term reliability issues. A better comparison would be the last 13B na and the Renesis.
Heck- my 12A 85 RX7 gets about the same fuel economy as my 04 RX-8. And there is no comparison in driving performance between the two.
Considering there has been so little actual work done on the rotary engine by any manufacturer in the last twenty years, that improvement is viable. But I agree- Mazda over sold the engine before production started. But, it is a sports car. And sports cars are about handling balance and revvy engines- not fuel economy, ease of maintenance or straight line drag racing. (shrug)
#69
Damn, nearly 70 posts and nobody has said anything about the 2.0 T FSI, which was at the top of the list. I LOVE it in my new A3, and it's only a software flash away from 250+hp (using the REVO flash, for example). Oh, 30 MPG highway on the very first trip, too
Max torque from 1800RPM on up, with a good stong kick in acceleration from 4000 - 6000 RPM.
http://oooo-a3.blogspot.com
Max torque from 1800RPM on up, with a good stong kick in acceleration from 4000 - 6000 RPM.
http://oooo-a3.blogspot.com
#71
Bummed, but bring on OU!
Originally Posted by BlueEyes
Maybe because you have to spend 70K to get it. I don't see the M5 engine on there either. The most expensive car on there is the S4 a ~50k. Everything else is mid 30's and below. Maybe thier criteria exclude it.
#72
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by playdoh43
whao thats pretty impressive with max torque comming this early, especially for a turbo engine.
#73
Originally Posted by Steiner
It's a very small turbo IIRC. Sorta like the snail VW sticks on their 1.8T. The quick spool creates lots of low end power, but it really falls on its' face up top.
I was present when the guy in this link dyno'd his at AWE a couple of weeks ago. He has a K&N filter (demonstrated to have zero effect on performance one way or the other), and a cat-back exhaust.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2333329
And here's another with the same engine:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2319239
Explain to me where, precisely, citing points on the graph, it "falls on its' [sic] face up top".
Unlike the RX-8, where HP reality is somewhat less than the marketing claims, the 2.0 T FSI engines are dynoing better than they're advertised at.
#74
Was a Z Guy...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't look like it falls on its face, but the torque does drop off a bit near the end. Besides, if you know anything about turbos you know that small ones spool up very quickly, but if you want much more boost than stock up top, you'll need a bigger turbo to ensure a reliable flow. Small turbos are also more susceptible to boost creeping, but a better wastegate can take care of that. That being said, I think that 's a pretty tight little engine.
#75
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JM1FE
"falls on its face up top"... hardly. Can you back that up with dyno runs?
I was present when the guy in this link dyno'd his at AWE a couple of weeks ago. He has a K&N filter (demonstrated to have zero effect on performance one way or the other), and a cat-back exhaust.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2333329
And here's another with the same engine:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2319239
Explain to me where, precisely, citing points on the graph, it "falls on its' [sic] face up top".
I was present when the guy in this link dyno'd his at AWE a couple of weeks ago. He has a K&N filter (demonstrated to have zero effect on performance one way or the other), and a cat-back exhaust.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2333329
And here's another with the same engine:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2319239
Explain to me where, precisely, citing points on the graph, it "falls on its' [sic] face up top".
BTW...the power curve of that motor reminds me very much of the 2.4L turbo in the SRT-4...
SRT-4 with drop-in filter & CB exhuast (stock turbo)
A3 with drop-in filter & CB exhaust (stock turbo)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
badinfluence
Series II Aftermarket Performance Modifications
6
08-31-2015 11:51 AM