I dont think there has been much whining at all.. It's just excitement I think...

 

whine
v. whined, whin·ing, whines
v. intr.

1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.


I can't seem to find any.

 

Here dyno requests go all the way back to the first page. asking the same question 10 times in a row does not accomplish anything.

 

Tigster don't be so hard on us...we are all little kids at times, but I guess I'll find out tomorrow cause I got to go to bed soon....too bad, but thanks swoope for giving up your 8 and Scott for the work you have put into it.

 

Well I went to the dyno tonight for the long awaited non turbo (NA) test session. The test car has a Revi intake, a pipe formally known as a SSR cat (now with a Borla presilencer installed) and a Corksport catback exhaust. Try as I might, I was unable to find an additional 30 rearwheel horspower. What I did find however were results I think are much more useful than just the peak number. A ~10 rwhp gain between 4-5k rpm gives a noticable improvement in daily traffic (feels much more responsive). But, Check out the MIDRANGE The largest spread at a given RPM is 22 rwhp. More importantly, a noticable improvement over a wide RPM range yields higher levels of performance in the real world. Also to eliminate any variations in fuel quality, all dyno tests were performed on 87 octane gas. Needless to say, I am quit pleased with the results! Thanks for your continued support and we look forward to hearing from you.

 

Scott Rocks

 

Good job Scott. Time to start making those n/a units!

 

Any improvements in the torque curve?

 

between this and my first sale on ebay ending in 15min it is killing me.

beers

 

Now we just need quarter mile times...how much of a difference from a stock's 14.5 seconds do you guys think there could be?

 

i will have that info for you thur evening. all the tests will be done on the same gtimer i have had since i put on the revi.

before i think my best 0 to 60 is 6.1
and .25 was 14.45 @ 94.5

this is from memory since i have not seen my gtimer in a couple of weeks.

beers

 

I may have missed the rational on this this but why would you not use the best, highest octane gas available if you're trying to get the most HP gain?

87 octane is not even what's recommended for the car, and certainly not what is best for performance either. The manual says so, doesn't it?

Using something like Shell V-Power or a 93 octane gas from any of the Top-Tier companies would have to be at least as 'standard' as an 87 octane fuel one would only imagine.

Not knocking the effort (no pun intended), it still looks impressive, but when you're trying for the gold, why not go all the way to get it?

 

Scott,

do you have a chart with the afr's for this? how about the torque curve? I'm having trouble telling exactly where the biggest gains are due to the speed rather than rpm labels.

awesome work btw.

I know what uncle sam is going to help me buy this spring

 

Lets go ahead and get this out of the way. First off, I dont mean to be disrespectful. I think your work has been mostly logical and produced good results. Nevertheless, is this all we can expect? Is 220 just not obtainable with this car? is 200 not obtainable at 7.5k? And no differences below 5.5k (these rpms are my best guess considering the graph)? For me to drop $1.6k for respectable but not "eye-widening" gains is going to require a really good sell job on your part. I am willing to pay. But for what? Again, with all respect

me

 

badass!

 

I'm with carbon. I remember making a claim a couple of months ago that the gains would be Canzoomer-like. That dyno sheet looks exactly like some of the canzoomer dynos - gains only where the PCM was running in open-loop. There is only so much you can do with tweaking AFR. What were you guys expecting? A miracle? I think the only advantage is the elimintation of the LTFT issue. Maybe a canzoomer with the GReddy temp dongle to avoid learning over 5kRPM would work. Sure would be a bargain...

 

We need to see a HP vs Torque vs. RPM vs. AFR curve

 

But you know what this shows is there is no way the Renesis ever made 247hp. I always thought it didn't due to the ecu flash to meet emissions, but I guess not.

 

^ Exactly.. I would love to see that type of chart...

Thankx for posting!! Great results and thankx for all your hard work on this....

 

This is a great result for an n/a mod. This engine already makes far and away more power than the last n/a 13B. Why people forget about this and say this very torquey n/a rotary is so weak is beyond me. This is a very acceptable gain and more than worthwhile.

I'm happy to see 87 octane gas used as it's the best stuff to use on an n/a unless you like wasting money for little to no extra power. If the car isn't running good on 87 to begin with, it's only because it isn't tuned very well from the factory. Naturally aspirated rotaries have always loved low octane. If you can pick up power and run lower cheaper octane, be happy.

Don't expect 220 rwhp. Don't ask for miracles. This is a stepping stone to other mods. Now go port it since it can be tuned and see what kind of results can be had. Again don't expect miracles but more is more and this is a very respectable gain.

 

I think I remember reading that you were going for a 12 AFR. Is this true? Some people with the CZ were trying to achieve mid-high 13's....

 

...I'd settle for the 238hp I was promised.

:D

 

I agree.

 

Why not be more realistic about real world gains? Not everyone uses expensive octane. If you get a few more horsepower, and I emphasize the word few, then you'll just be happy when you get more than you thought. That's fair. It also shows that low octane is fine. Someone name one solid reason why low octane is not safe for the engine. Don't cite the manual. I could care less what it says. Why is low octane harmful? Is it corrosive? Does it contain mad little trolls who score housings and glue injectors shut? Why is it bad? Also ignore tuning issues. I want actual reasons why the fuel itself is not good.

 

Dont get me wrong. I am not bashing anything. All props to Scott. The area under the curve is an appropriate gain for this sort of thing. But that is all it is, appropriate for a well tuned AFC. $1.6k is not appropriate for a well tuned afc, imho. $400-600 is. I was not expecting miracles, I was hoping for one. Big difference. I was hoping that the rumored "detune" for USDM was a fuel glut that could be removed. As demonstrated here, the stock map is the normal conservative, slightly rich map (maybe slightly rich +) There was never a "detune" apparently, so there will never be 220 rwhp on a na without internals. THis is now very clear and has been dyno proven several times now. I accept it. It is ok. I love my car. I am not bagging on it either.

Now if I was going FI (which I am now leaning back in that camp after tonight, I am a fickle bitch) I would drop this kind of cash to make my turbo run right.