judge ito ran 14.5!
11-16-2003, 05:23 PM
#103
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by vosko
what are you talking about ? i talk to him nearly everyday! he never mentioned anything to me! his tranny/diff was making noise before he did anything. i will talk to him monday and let you guys know
RIKKI did blow his trans at the track.........
what are you talking about ? i talk to him nearly everyday! he never mentioned anything to me! his tranny/diff was making noise before he did anything. i will talk to him monday and let you guys know
RIKKI did blow his trans at the track.........
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...threadid=14477
Seems sort of odd he wouldn't mention it to you if you talk to him every day... looks like it's already fixed.
11-16-2003, 05:26 PM
#104
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by zoomzooomp5
at what rpm are you droping the cluch? I drop my between 3.5 to 4000rpm. Anything higher I'm just getting alot of wheel sping and a very bad 60 foot time.
at what rpm are you droping the cluch? I drop my between 3.5 to 4000rpm. Anything higher I'm just getting alot of wheel sping and a very bad 60 foot time.
What kind of times are you getting, it seems like ages since anyone has put up some times. However I and many others have seen RX-8s at the track. There were 3 running at a track my friend went to in Florida.
11-16-2003, 06:30 PM
#105
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by IkeWRX
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...threadid=14477
Seems sort of odd he wouldn't mention it to you if you talk to him every day... looks like it's already fixed.
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...threadid=14477
Seems sort of odd he wouldn't mention it to you if you talk to him every day... looks like it's already fixed.
11-16-2003, 07:08 PM
#106
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only got in two runs at the last day at our track here.
First was a 15.4 with a 2.2 60 foot.
Second was a 14.9 with a 2.4 60 foot.
Wheel spin was a m/f'er. Good burnout, only launched at 6k, feathered it, not dumped it. Still felt like I was standing still.
Car is completely stock... 6spd MT, Grand Touring Package, Nav, Appearance pkg, etc. Running on 93 octane with half a tank of gas. Didn't lower the tire pressure.
Air temp at the track was about 50 - 55 degrees, and the track was not holding much heat.
First was a 15.4 with a 2.2 60 foot.
Second was a 14.9 with a 2.4 60 foot.
Wheel spin was a m/f'er. Good burnout, only launched at 6k, feathered it, not dumped it. Still felt like I was standing still.
Car is completely stock... 6spd MT, Grand Touring Package, Nav, Appearance pkg, etc. Running on 93 octane with half a tank of gas. Didn't lower the tire pressure.
Air temp at the track was about 50 - 55 degrees, and the track was not holding much heat.
11-17-2003, 02:14 PM
#109
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by IkeWRX
What kind of times are you getting, it seems like ages since anyone has put up some times.
What kind of times are you getting, it seems like ages since anyone has put up some times.
Originally posted by labrat1123
Second was a 14.9 with a 2.4 60 foot.
Wheel spin was a m/f'er. Good burnout, only launched at 6k, feathered it, not dumped it. Still felt like I was standing still.
Car is completely stock... 6spd MT, Grand Touring Package, Nav, Appearance pkg, etc. Running on 93 octane with half a tank of gas. Didn't lower the tire pressure.
Second was a 14.9 with a 2.4 60 foot.
Wheel spin was a m/f'er. Good burnout, only launched at 6k, feathered it, not dumped it. Still felt like I was standing still.
Car is completely stock... 6spd MT, Grand Touring Package, Nav, Appearance pkg, etc. Running on 93 octane with half a tank of gas. Didn't lower the tire pressure.
Ike, I guess you can give it a rest now
11-17-2003, 02:44 PM
#110
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by renotse
Under 15 on bone stock rx8 and 93 octane.
Ike, I guess you can give it a rest now
Under 15 on bone stock rx8 and 93 octane.
Ike, I guess you can give it a rest now
Second was a 14.9 with a 2.4 60 foot.
Something seems off, getting a better 60' yeilded a worse time? I'd like to see a time slip.
11-17-2003, 02:49 PM
#111
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 350z Driver
First was a 15.4 with a 2.2 60 foot.
Second was a 14.9 with a 2.4 60 foot.
Something seems off, getting a better 60' yeilded a worse time? I'd like to see a time slip.
First was a 15.4 with a 2.2 60 foot.
Second was a 14.9 with a 2.4 60 foot.
Something seems off, getting a better 60' yeilded a worse time? I'd like to see a time slip.
Is that you blue350????
maybe he missed a SHIFT, or got more wheelspin in the the first 60 ft before hooking, I don't know. Are you calling labrat a liar?
11-17-2003, 03:00 PM
#112
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by renotse
Under 15 on bone stock rx8 and 93 octane.
Ike, I guess you can give it a rest now
Under 15 on bone stock rx8 and 93 octane.
Ike, I guess you can give it a rest now
I've been saying all along I thought it was a high 14 second car (14.7-14.9) bone stock... What the hell are you talking about?
11-17-2003, 05:18 PM
#115
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by IkeWRX
RussellP = Renotse? By the way you are the ones stirring the pot and that think you have something to prove, maybe you need to give it a rest.
RussellP = Renotse? By the way you are the ones stirring the pot and that think you have something to prove, maybe you need to give it a rest.
Read It and Weep
14.9 BONE STOCK on 93 OCTANE
What is your argument now that the times are posted
Last edited by renotse; 11-17-2003 at 05:55 PM.
11-17-2003, 05:43 PM
#117
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus Christ some people are never happy....
On the left slip, I'm car 579 (tower must have read it wrong.) On the right, I'm 379 (correct number). No those times at the top are not typos.... 5 hours between 2 qualifying runs. That's how packed MIR was that day (not to mention the nice delay when the old school Chevelle ate the right wall at half track and actually moved the wall..prompting a visit from the tractor.)
I do agree with Ike (this will not be a habit) that it is puzzling that I went half a second faster with a worse 60 foot. Only difference I remember was I shifted at 9000 rpm on the second run instead of 9500.
On the left slip, I'm car 579 (tower must have read it wrong.) On the right, I'm 379 (correct number). No those times at the top are not typos.... 5 hours between 2 qualifying runs. That's how packed MIR was that day (not to mention the nice delay when the old school Chevelle ate the right wall at half track and actually moved the wall..prompting a visit from the tractor.)
I do agree with Ike (this will not be a habit) that it is puzzling that I went half a second faster with a worse 60 foot. Only difference I remember was I shifted at 9000 rpm on the second run instead of 9500.
Last edited by labrat1123; 11-17-2003 at 05:57 PM.
11-17-2003, 05:54 PM
#118
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by labrat1123
Jesus Christ some people are never happy....
On the left slip, I'm car 579 (tower must have read it wrong.) On the right, I'm 379 (correct number). No those times at the top are not typos.... 5 hours between 2 qualifying runs. That's how packed MIR was that day (not to mention the nice delay when the old school Chevelle at the right wall at half track and actually moved the wall..prompting a visit from the tractor.)
I do agree with Ike (this will not be a habit) that it is puzzling that I went half a second faster with a worse 60 foot. Only difference I remember was I shifted at 9000 rpm on the second run instead of 9500.
Jesus Christ some people are never happy....
On the left slip, I'm car 579 (tower must have read it wrong.) On the right, I'm 379 (correct number). No those times at the top are not typos.... 5 hours between 2 qualifying runs. That's how packed MIR was that day (not to mention the nice delay when the old school Chevelle at the right wall at half track and actually moved the wall..prompting a visit from the tractor.)
I do agree with Ike (this will not be a habit) that it is puzzling that I went half a second faster with a worse 60 foot. Only difference I remember was I shifted at 9000 rpm on the second run instead of 9500.
11-17-2003, 05:59 PM
#119
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PoLaK
Ike, you better then anyone should understand that race gas does not make a car faster, it is more of a cheep solution to retard/accelerate a cars timing etc... You also more than anyone puts a whole lot of emphasis on "quarter mile" or "my car can ran this" and I thought you would finally be pacified by this tread and ignore spreading your conspiracy theories about Mazda lying to us. But instead you pick at little things like, it was race gas (your taking it to drag strip most of the cars there do), or not every car is built equal nonsense.
Ike, you better then anyone should understand that race gas does not make a car faster, it is more of a cheep solution to retard/accelerate a cars timing etc... You also more than anyone puts a whole lot of emphasis on "quarter mile" or "my car can ran this" and I thought you would finally be pacified by this tread and ignore spreading your conspiracy theories about Mazda lying to us. But instead you pick at little things like, it was race gas (your taking it to drag strip most of the cars there do), or not every car is built equal nonsense.
Last edited by renotse; 11-17-2003 at 06:03 PM.
11-17-2003, 06:35 PM
#120
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Judge Ito
Me personally knowing that the engine has higher compression rotors I did not want to detonate in the dyno. When I made my first dyno pull I checked igniton timing in the dyno making a 4 gear pull using 93 octane. Using a 2 CYCLE TIMING LIGHT. The ignition timing was over 30 degrees BTDC while we did the pull. Rx8 made 188rwhp after I saw that much timing advance under a load I changed to 103 octane and made a pull. Made 196.5 rwhp with the higher octance. I repeat timing was checked under a load and is over 30 degrees of timing advance.
Me personally knowing that the engine has higher compression rotors I did not want to detonate in the dyno. When I made my first dyno pull I checked igniton timing in the dyno making a 4 gear pull using 93 octane. Using a 2 CYCLE TIMING LIGHT. The ignition timing was over 30 degrees BTDC while we did the pull. Rx8 made 188rwhp after I saw that much timing advance under a load I changed to 103 octane and made a pull. Made 196.5 rwhp with the higher octance. I repeat timing was checked under a load and is over 30 degrees of timing advance.
11-17-2003, 06:45 PM
#121
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by IkeWRX
I guess Polak knows more than an experienced rotary tuner in your view.
I guess Polak knows more than an experienced rotary tuner in your view.
I thought you would finally be pacified by this tread and ignore spreading your conspiracy theories about Mazda lying to us. But instead you pick at little things
It is not only my opinion but the opinion of others that you exist on this board to discredit the RX8 in any way that you can.
11-17-2003, 08:39 PM
#123
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by IkeWRX
My only theory was that the RX-8 didn't make the HP that was being advertised, hmmm who came out on top with that one?
My only theory was that the RX-8 didn't make the HP that was being advertised, hmmm who came out on top with that one?
Originally posted by IkeWRX
I think it's all going to end very badly for Mazda and the Rotary.
Ike
I think it's all going to end very badly for Mazda and the Rotary.
Ike
Originally posted by IkeWRX
Agreed, lets close the thread and open it again in 5 years :p I do however think the engine issue is more than just first year problems that most cars experience. Besides we're just going to get a bunch of responses from RX-8 owners that have had their car a whopping 5k miles and haven't had any problems...
Agreed, lets close the thread and open it again in 5 years :p I do however think the engine issue is more than just first year problems that most cars experience. Besides we're just going to get a bunch of responses from RX-8 owners that have had their car a whopping 5k miles and haven't had any problems...
11-18-2003, 03:01 AM
#125
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why some people are making a big deal out of the rx 8 not running consistent 14.5 quarter mile time. Befor I brought my car. I did a lot of reading about the rx8. Car and Driver, Motortrend and I can't remember the 3rd. Anyway, one magazine had it at 14.5 another at 14.6 and 14.7. My points is. 14.5 is not the gold stander for the 8. This is a mid to hight 14s car. If I am running 14.9 with my car I'm happy. Beside I do alot of auto crossing and quarter mile time don't mean squat. And that is where the strength of the rx8 is. Turning, braking. It is a very good balance car. And if you want to go fast . Sticke a turbo on it.