what would benefit the 8 the most?
11-14-2006, 07:25 AM
#26
the giant tastetickles
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: in the basement
Posts: 2,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love A and B.
I like A more than B.
Majority prefer B.
B would help win race easier than A.
B will sell more car because majority don't realise the benefits of A
I like A more than B.
Majority prefer B.
B would help win race easier than A.
B will sell more car because majority don't realise the benefits of A
11-14-2006, 08:12 AM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B, plus more torque. 280WHP would be better than 280 flywheel.
However, as I've said in another post -
Mazda could do this rather easily, IMHO, by simply going to a 3-rotor, using the same technologies they already have in the Renesis:
238HP / 2 rotors = 119hp per rotor
119HP x 3 rotors = 350 flywheel hp (a little less due to parasitic losses).
And for those of you who will inevitably whine about balance, place the battery in the trunk and, TAA DAA, balance is restored to the kingdom.
However, as I've said in another post -
Mazda could do this rather easily, IMHO, by simply going to a 3-rotor, using the same technologies they already have in the Renesis:
238HP / 2 rotors = 119hp per rotor
119HP x 3 rotors = 350 flywheel hp (a little less due to parasitic losses).
And for those of you who will inevitably whine about balance, place the battery in the trunk and, TAA DAA, balance is restored to the kingdom.
11-16-2006, 09:13 PM
#28
II SOCIETY
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Bay Area
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skillmaker,
Wouldn't 3 rotors kill us on gas though? According to your logic, if HP can be divisible by 2 (rotors) then...logically, MPG could as well, no?! So, using your formula--18MPG divided by 2 rotors is 9 MPG/rotor. Adding an additional rotor should be the same in reverse...So, then 3 rotors would give us about 9MPG!
The balance issue could easily be compesnated for by your idea of placing the battery in the trunk and by increasing the fuel tank from 15.9 gallons to 55 gallons! That way, we could make it to the next Rest Area before refueling! But hey, at least then we could say that we've got 350HP right?!
Wouldn't 3 rotors kill us on gas though? According to your logic, if HP can be divisible by 2 (rotors) then...logically, MPG could as well, no?! So, using your formula--18MPG divided by 2 rotors is 9 MPG/rotor. Adding an additional rotor should be the same in reverse...So, then 3 rotors would give us about 9MPG!
The balance issue could easily be compesnated for by your idea of placing the battery in the trunk and by increasing the fuel tank from 15.9 gallons to 55 gallons! That way, we could make it to the next Rest Area before refueling! But hey, at least then we could say that we've got 350HP right?!
11-19-2006, 01:26 AM
#31
Book em' Dano
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Smyrna, GA
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the list - B and E
But I like the last comment on better visors. They don't really bother me, but it makes the point that there are some "attention to detail" things. Less rattles, easier access dipstick, better quality stock single cd player, better/more sensitive auto dim rear view....
I love my car - and am not knocking it. But those silly little details shouldn't be problems.
But I like the last comment on better visors. They don't really bother me, but it makes the point that there are some "attention to detail" things. Less rattles, easier access dipstick, better quality stock single cd player, better/more sensitive auto dim rear view....
I love my car - and am not knocking it. But those silly little details shouldn't be problems.
11-19-2006, 08:13 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd want B and C 1st, then C and B 2nd.
I figure E is already better then a Z car since I can get 96 pmpg average on my freeway driving !
Def: pmpg= people miles per gallon
Calc= mpg x number of total people carried in your car.
Only my ford Excursion gets better numbers when all 8 seats are occupied with 168 pmpg
I figure E is already better then a Z car since I can get 96 pmpg average on my freeway driving !
Def: pmpg= people miles per gallon
Calc= mpg x number of total people carried in your car.
Only my ford Excursion gets better numbers when all 8 seats are occupied with 168 pmpg
11-19-2006, 05:10 PM
#36
Listen to Zoom44
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Overland Park
Posts: 1,330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3) Torque. Im fine with the 8 but if I could add one thing, that would be to match the torque to the HP. Maybe research into different seal designs can provide some improvement in that department.
11-19-2006, 05:20 PM
#37
Rotary Superstar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tirminyl
3) Torque. Im fine with the 8 but if I could add one thing, that would be to match the torque to the HP. Maybe research into different seal designs can provide some improvement in that department.
Seal...designs?
A rotary engine is geared to spin at 1/3 the RPM you see at the flywheel (tachometer). When you see 3000rpm, the engine is only spinning at 1000rpm. Most V8's make peak torque between 2500-3000.
The rotary, at 2500-3000rpm, is around 7500-9000rpm. Where we make peak torque.
It all makes sense..
The Renesis produces less torque by design..basically no way to correct it. Peri-port exhaust is where the torque was at in the older 13B's...and Mazda should've stuck with them, if they wanted torque.
But rather, they decided to go the "pansy" route..
Put a big cat on, throw a ton of fuel at it, and let it run to 9000RPM. Sacrifices...all to say we rev the highest? Not to mention, the 2000-2004 S2000 made higher numbers...and went to 9000RPM, too.
Oh BTW, I do love my RX8. I just feel Mazda should've stuck with a peri-port exhaust...its so much more accessible to turbo-charging...and a rotary just isn't a rotary, if it isn't turbo'd or peri-(intake)ported...
11-20-2006, 12:12 PM
#42
'05 Titanium 6sp
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tirminyl
3) Torque. Im fine with the 8 but if I could add one thing, that would be to match the torque to the HP. Maybe research into different seal designs can provide some improvement in that department.
11-20-2006, 12:41 PM
#43
幹他媽!
one of my pet peeves is that you can't use the 8's armrest when u have drinks in the cupholders. mazda could learn a thing or two from honda or bmw on this one.
11-20-2006, 02:41 PM
#44
A & E
I can always add a turbo for power and torque but you can't really reduce weight much. Weight has a effect on every aspect of performance (acceleration, handling, breaking, MPG) killing weight is one of the best performance increase you can do.
I can always add a turbo for power and torque but you can't really reduce weight much. Weight has a effect on every aspect of performance (acceleration, handling, breaking, MPG) killing weight is one of the best performance increase you can do.
11-21-2006, 12:02 AM
#45
Wut da F Y'all lookin' @!
I will say for me "A"! Losing some weight as mentioned before will give the 8 some nice improvements in multiple areas of performance! That amount of weight loss would drop us below the weight of an S2000 which would definitely work out for our acceleration. It would also be less weight to slow down.
For Mazda to sell more cars "B" would be to the 8's benefit! It's been said time and time again that a lot of the buyers in this country look at HP very much when buying a performance car!
For Mazda to sell more cars "B" would be to the 8's benefit! It's been said time and time again that a lot of the buyers in this country look at HP very much when buying a performance car!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ktec
Series I Aftermarket Performance Modifications
3
07-29-2015 01:17 PM