When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
From my view it doesn’t and won’t offer any performance benefit over the other standard options, the idea that it does has no viable truth in it, but as with anything untruthful it can be called anything you want.
to clarify the standard options:
properly built Renesis engine with unmodified side ports
I don't understand what a renesis with a PP exhaust would do better than a REW. I thought the only real reasons why the renesis made more power NA than the REW does is higher compression rotors, and a lighter e shaft, and some other minor things.
I don't see the incentive for a PP exhaust naturally aspirated renesis.
I think is cool experience, that turn idea into reality , Mabe is just impossible to find a shop or any one to try this , that why all the doubt
I don't need prove any thing , that is my good friend daily driver if he want to Dyno it , I will bring him to the shop I Dyno my Rx8 post the comparison result ~
In the mean time , he is enjoy A Rx8 with Brap Brap sound
And I think the tiny island I live , being creative to have ExT PP RX8 , in other world we might be more freedom of idea then most Place did
I don't understand what a renesis with a PP exhaust would do better than a REW. I thought the only real reasons why the renesis made more power NA than the REW does is higher compression rotors, and a lighter e shaft, and some other minor things.
I don't see the incentive for a PP exhaust naturally aspirated renesis.
those things you mention are only minor contributors to power output.
You should go back and reread my analysis comparing the two and what differentiates them along with what occurs when port timing overlap is introduced to the Renesis configuration. Which is still highly under-appreciated by pretty much everybody, if not discounted entirely out of ignorance.
The bottom line is that a Renesis draws in more intake air without the drawbacks of exhaust gas dilution, poor low rpm driveability, and bad exhaust emissions that results from port timing overlap, and also the advanced staged intake design that supports and contributes to it across a much wider powerband range.
A 2-rotor engine doesn’t gain 40 bhp on 1/2 point of compression or lighter rotating system components. It accomplishes it by moving more air, which coupled with the appropriate amount of fuel, increases the amount of work-energy output being produced.
.
those things you mention are only minor contributors to power output.
You should go back and reread my analysis comparing the two and what differentiates them along with what occurs when port timing overlap is introduced to the Renesis configuration. Which is still highly under-appreciated by pretty much everybody, if not discounted entirely out of ignorance.
The bottom line is that a Renesis draws in more intake air without the drawbacks of exhaust gas dilution, poor low rpm driveability, and bad exhaust emissions that results from port timing overlap, and also the advanced staged intake design that supports and contributes to it across a much wider powerband range.
A 2-rotor engine doesn’t gain 40 bhp on 1/2 point of compression or lighter rotating system components. It accomplishes it by moving more air, which coupled with the appropriate amount of fuel, increases the amount of work-energy output being produced.
.
I'd definitely read your analysis, is this the one? A lot of it is over my head to be honest. I have read the same features that gives the renesis it's good manners and relatively high NA HP are the same ones that make it difficult to turbo. I've never heard of anyone say the intake design wasn't good, it was getting exhaust gases out that was the problem, for obvious reasons.
I really don't know that much about the REW, nor the real implications of having your exhaust go out the housing instead of being pushed out of the irons, other than being more suited for a turbo. In my mind, which is probably a wrong assessment, if you make the renesis PP, you are essentially making it a REW, and it would have been better to just use one of those.
you’re spending a lot of money for making a low performance junk engine, it doesn’t even come close to an REW wrt maximum performance
the only one that ever did anything even remotely at all was the Kyle Mohan/Mazdatrix engine and it still only made low 400 whp with absolutely **nothing** below 5000 rpm.
I know my words are harsh and I get that not everybody understands all the technical details, but how so many people can be so clueless and hopelessly hung up on an idea that has quite literally never been successful at all despite being on the scene for going on 12 or 13 years is beyond my patience. It’s even more of a lie than bridgeporting a Renesis.
In both cases there are no real results, just people pooping blah-blah-blah out of their butt-dyno hole about how great it is and other such brap-crap nonsense. The emperor has no clothes, ok? You people need to wake up. Even if you don’t get the technical side, there are no established, verifiable results after all these years despite many being built. Which is a result in itself if you have even half a brain to think about it.
In the modern, anti-social media consumed world of Attention Ho-ism on steroids&crack, nobody is holding back keeping it their personal secret. The secret is this; the truth is more painful than they’re willing to admit to and endure, as it often is. This is why men choose darkness rather than the light. It always has been.
.
you’re spending a lot of money for making a low performance junk engine, it doesn’t even come close to an REW wrt maximum performance
the only one that ever did anything even remotely at all was the Kyle Mohan/Mazdatrix engine and it still only made low 400 whp with absolutely **nothing** below 5000 rpm.
I know my words are harsh and I get that not everybody understands all the technical details, but how so many people can be so clueless and hopelessly hung up on an idea that has quite literally never been successful at all despite being on the scene for going on 12 or 13 years is beyond my patience. It’s even more of a lie than bridgeporting a Renesis.
In both cases there are no real results, just people pooping blah-blah-blah out of their butt-dyno hole about how great it is and other such brap-crap nonsense. The emperor has no clothes, ok? You people need to wake up. Even if you don’t get the technical side, there are no established, verifiable results after all these years despite many being built. Which is a result in itself if you have even half a brain to think about it.
In the modern, anti-social media consumed world of Attention Ho-ism on steroids&crack, nobody is holding back keeping it their personal secret. The secret is this; the truth is more painful than they’re willing to admit to and endure, as it often is. This is why men choose darkness rather than the light. It always has been.
.
Kinda going a bit off the rails here; sure some might think it's a good idea, but if putting a PP on a renesis was a great idea, I agree, it would be done a hell of a lot more. My first thought upon seeing one of these is "What's the goal that cannot be better/more easily accomplished by a REW?" I would have the same thought but in the opposite direction if I saw someone trying to build an NA street driven REW for an RX8, a renesis would likely be a better solution.
My thinking, even though incorrect, is the renesis and REW have roughly the same intake port through the center iron, add a PP on the renesis through the same spot and you've got the port set up of a REW. I know the seals are slightly different but...
I would try to not bring your ills with society at large into this thread, though. Even though you're not the only one worried about where things are headed, it's not really the time nor place.
Last edited by Killawatts; 05-07-2022 at 04:18 PM.
Is smooth now the word that defines slow? Kind of doubting it's 450kg heavier ... this is from March, 2012 after several years of competition use, sent it in for a rebuild after running it through 2013:
EDIT: Adding 3rd Gear 60 -90 mph data log from around the same time; these were both mid-March 2012
Superflow engine dyno from when it was built and broken in by Daryl Drummond in Jan/2010 (no intake or exhaust port mods; none)
that depends on the context of your question, but is likely better suited it it’s own subject thread rather than going off the ”don’t make this bad choice” topic here.
.
Team,
Based on DIYMan's video and your table, I see the PP Renesis is faster than yours. I didn't get a super accurate time count, due to the YouTube video and limited time to really analyze, but it looks like the 2nd gear pull he did was under 4sec 35-60 mph. Am I missing something?
I was just counting 1-1000, 2-1000 and coming up with roughly 5 sec for the same speed range on the video, but even what you posted is still slower than my logged range even though you have it listed for the PP at 5mph later at the start.
.
3.8 sec 30 - 60 mph and 6.9 sec 60 - 90 mph for the 2004 Road and Track RX-8 test. It was actually considered quite fast compared to other RX8s coming off the production line and ran 5.9 sec 0 - 60, do the maths ... but then I'm not bone factory stock for the entire vehicle either per the noted STX competition trim note. I'm sure mine launched better and was faster still getting to 30 mph. I ran plenty of 2.0 sec 0 - 60 ft times at Pro Solo events. Even though they only list 0 - 100 ft, pretty sure I beat 3.0 sec pretty good since I was shifting into 2nd right before or at 60 ft. The RX8 they tested was listed at 3,180 lbs with driver. The difference of course being that in a drag start situation you're well past 30 mph when shifting into 2nd compared to being in 2nd gear at low rpm and just flooring it like the log or video. In reality my drag start times would be considerably faster than the test below.
I was just counting 1-1000, 2-1000 and coming up with roughly 5 sec for the same speed range on the video, but even what you posted is still slower than my logged range even though you have it listed for the PP at 5mph later at the start.
.
Right,
I saw that, but nowhere on your table that I saw is a result that reflects that notation. I still don't see it.
Based on your table, I am assuming those are 2nd gear pulls, based on the rpm column, so it would be close to apples/apples comparison, which I assume is why you posted it.
That is why I asked if I am missing something from your data. Maybe I still am, or the table is not complete?
try pulling the wood beam out of your eye to see the time column on the far left
the time starts at 3.98 sec @ 30.3 mph (not 35 mph btw) and ends at 7.45 sec @ 60.8 mph = 3.47 sec total elapsed time
honestly, some of the challenges you make against me, yet are unable to discern a basic log file … 🤔
but you have plenty of company, like the whole lot of lost souls that still falsely believe they’re on the right path trying to pursue this modification on a Renesis engine. That’s the wide gate on the broad path that they’ll loudly sing kumbahyah on as they merrily stroll together hand-in-hand while not realizing the damnation and destruction that awaits them ahead at their destination.
.
.
try pulling the wood beam out of your eye to see the time column on the far left
the time starts at 3.98 sec @ 30.3 mph (not 35 mph btw) and ends at 7.45 sec @ 60.8 mph = 3.47 sec total elapsed time
honestly, some of the challenges you make against me, yet are unable to discern a basic log file … 🤔
but you have plenty of company, like the whole lot of lost souls that still falsely believe they’re on the right path trying to pursue this modification on a Renesis engine. That’s the wide gate on the broad path that they’ll loudly sing kumbahyah on as they merrily stroll together hand-in-hand while not realizing the damnation and destruction that awaits them ahead at their destination.
.
.
Yeah, well not my finest hour to be sure. I would like to use the excuse that I was looking at it on my phone, but that wasn't where I was looking at that file all the time. Very lame on my part. Too many distractions not enough care before I posted. Thank you for pointing it out to me multiple times. I do appreciate it.
Your car is indeed fast, based on that log!
Team, my challenge with you has not been what you know, but how you condemn other's projects. Like this one. Or your long manifestoes on topics other than mechanics, when mechanics is the reason why we are here.
If this engine gets tuned and dyno'd, and we know for sure it makes less power/torque, then this is just a starting point in my opinion. The stock exhaust timing is just too radical to work. But, unlike the Renesis, the exhaust timing can be changed, and possibly(probably) flow better with less duration. Bingo.
I believe this type of build will be proven to be the best way to build a higher output Renesis in the future. Will it take refinement and time/effort? Yes. Like I said this is just a starting point. Maybe it will be you who builds one first.
Unfortunately these engines require a full build to test something, as opposed to a piston engine where this type of operation is easier.
Last edited by kevink0000; 05-18-2022 at 06:37 PM.
the laws of physics doesn’t care about feelings; yours, mine, or anyone else’s.
this idea is a dead-end rabbit hole regardless of whether you can envision the end of it in your own mind’s eye or you end up going there at great expense and effort to ultimately find out the hard way.
I’d suggest that you simply overlooked knowing and perceiving the truth of it in my detailed comments explaining why in other past threads, just like you overlooked the brightly yellow-highlighted Time & Speed columns in the log I posted above.
it might also help for you to remove and cleanse the bitter root of guile and wormwood from within your own heart. It’s not personal, just complete honesty. Repeating past commentary once again; my comments and beliefs don’t lock anyone up in a prison and throw away the key. You believe you can prove otherwise; then by all means, be my guest.
.
the laws of physics doesn’t care about feelings; yours, mine, or anyone else’s.
this idea is a dead-end rabbit hole regardless of whether you can envision the end of it in your own mind’s eye or you end up going there at great expense and effort to ultimately find out the hard way.
I’d suggest that you simply overlooked knowing and perceiving the truth of it in my detailed comments explaining why in other past threads, just like you overlooked the brightly yellow-highlighted Time & Speed columns in the log I posted above.
it might also help for you to remove and cleanse the bitter root of guile and wormwood from within your own heart. It’s not personal, just complete honesty. Repeating past commentary once again; my comments and beliefs don’t lock anyone up in a prison and throw away the key. You believe you can prove otherwise; then by all means, be my guest.
.
Again, long on rhetoric, short on substance. I thought you would parlay my mistake on the table into a greater explanation of our differences in your favor, and you did. Too bad.
I know you have convinced yourself you are only being honest with people here, but I assert the reality is something different, and it is personal. Your person.
I still hope you will elevate your discussions with facts and figures, which you certainly possess, instead of dispensing wisdom, which you may, or may not possess.
RX8 Exhaust port timing
Open 50' BBDC
Close 3' BTDC
GSL-SE Exhaust port timing
Open 71' BBDC
Close 48' ATDC
I believe this to be correct, even though I read someplace years ago that the GSL-SE had different (less duration/more conservative) port timing than this. If anyone can confirm/correct, feel free to do so.
RX8 Exhaust port timing
Open 50' BBDC
Close 3' BTDC
GSL-SE Exhaust port timing
Open 71' BBDC
Close 48' ATDC
I believe this to be correct, even though I read someplace years ago that the GSL-SE had different (less duration/more conservative) port timing than this. If anyone can confirm/correct, feel free to do so.
here you go (the 13B column):
funny you should mention that, let me expound some more “rhetoric” on that point. Back in the 1984 Motor Trend magazine road test, the 1984 RX7 GSL SE weighed in at 2512 lbs and ran a 4.45 second 30-60 mph time from a standing start. Based on the 2nd gear video of the hybrid Renesis posted in this very thread; the one I challenged by posting my factory Renesis port datalog against, I suspect they’re both fairly evenly matched in that regard. The 0 - 60 mph time was 7.9 seconds btw, hth’s.
.
05-04-2022, 06:21 PM
