Umbra

We probably get somewhere between 1 and 5hp by using 91 octane and the timing not retarding. If were trying to get max power going with 87 is kinda dumb. If I can get 1-5hp by spending an extra $2(or less) on a tank of gas why not. It's not like those of us doing these things to our cars are using them as daily drivers anyway.

zoom44

the whole point of using the lowest octane he has available is that not everyone has the same highest octane available to them. so by using the low grade gas he shows the increases that EVERYONE should be able to make. if people switch to better gas and have better increases that just icing on top. if he showed you only the absolute best results and then half th people couldnt get them because they dont have 94 octane gas there would be a bunch of pissed off peopel claiming his **** dont work.

under promise and over produce- works for Scotty

zoom44

just busting you ***** here but jet fuel is kerosene so i hope they would opt for it and not the gasoline

rotary crazy

another thing to consider is that with this you can tune the car to every mod you make, now we will see if a header and inatke and other mods can give better power

LET THE PORTING BEGIN !!!!!!!!

guitarjunky its going to love this

Nemesis8

iTrader: (3)

It would be nice to get a preloaded map for 91 octane when I place my order. That way, I have less tweaking to do for my mods.

But if not, then so be it. This looks to be in my future - just have to convince RP that his SC will be powered by my Int-X one day

zoom44

not going to happen there nem.

swiftnet

I think this is great - the car with an extra 10~20hp, that is a 5 to 10% increase in power, will have a noticable difference in drivability. I really would love to see this done on a stock MT, and the graph in rpm's would be easier to understand (at least for me). If a stock 8 will see the same percentage increase, then count me in.
Thanks Scott!

davefzr

Scott.. How about that chart? I really dont want to loose sight of that. For me.. It's easier to understand whats going on with the car with a hp-rpm style chart...

dmp

Where do you see a 5-10% increase in power? After an email discussion with a close friend, he showed me how it's about 4rwhp, average over the entire rpm range, and averages about 11whp over the last 1/3 of the rpm range.

rx8wannahave

Thanks, I understand the gist of it...it's not only about peak power...agreed.

I also understand that if you are getting a turbo in the future it's a good idea also, and heck even if you keep it NA it will allow you to gain the most possible power per mod.

All great and understood...

But I still think the bang for your buck factor is not really good with this product. I'm not saying for them to give it away free or for $500 but $1,000 would be a fair price for such a product considering it's potential to help each and every mod you add on to the car in the future...not to mention it finds another 10HP here and there.

We all have seen what it has done for Turbo's and I think we are lucky Scott came around, but I just can't convince myself to pay nearly 2K for an ECU. We will see in time where the aftermarket heads for the RX8...but right now I'm priced out of the joy it must be to make our 8 even better.

Ahhh, don't listen to me...I won't be modding the 8 for a good long time so I should just shut up about it.

ZIP!

Nemesis8

iTrader: (3)

It's most likely that once Scott posts the correct dyno graph, and we see his AFR, that there might be room to push the mixture leaner to about .92 - .93 lambda. Most likely Scott tuned swoope's car conservatively since it was not his. But I'll hold off any speculation until we see this graph.

Xyntax

AFR! AFR! AFR!

Scott, did you try playing with the ignition settings? Try maybe between 26 to 35 degrees? I did, and no harm done but got more kick up top.

Spin9k

Thanks for the insight to your previous comments. I appreciate substative answers (vs emotional words) because you can learn from that. In my case I use the CZ Gold to tune right now, and I figure tuning with it IS my only power edge being NA, until and if I TC or SC.

One thing I'd be interested to see is someone do a staightup comparison between the two units from a power curve perspective. Dyno charts showing 'under the curve' power not just peak HP would help to show whether the I-X has a tuning edge here. Peps are asking for full torque & A/F charts but they've not been produced yet, which would help even more.

As for my CZ Gold and tuning on the bleeding edge, well, I figure why not get all the power I can (for track use and esp. at constant higher RPMs), and if a couple bucks extra for higher octane fuel will do it...or a can or two of octane booster does the trick... so be it... if it actually works. That's what I'm emperically working to discover. The fuel maps in the CZ certainly help a lot for mid and high end grunt, and I'll be working the ignition maps next Spring to find any power left on the (bleeding) table, if it's there.

I'm still a bit confused whether you think more absolute power can be obtained with low or high octane fuel, emission/cost issues aside, and given 'proper' tuning. Do you believe 87 w/good tuning is equal to 93+ w/good tuning, or are you saying 87 works 'ok' and is the best value, and that whatever little extra isn't worth it (to you)? I guess I'm asking - have you done both so as to compare and dynoed them? Charts would be a great help if you had them. Thanks.

cleoent

bah, i wish this would have been done on a stock 8

MazsportScott

Let me say that this low octane/low advance high octane/high advance debate has been going on between rotary engine builders and tuners for ever. I personally have known people using additives to lower the rating below 87. What I have not told you guys is that this was the second dyno session. Wed. afternoon was the 93 octane high timing tests. I advanced the timing up to 38 degrees at one point from 7-9k rpm and the motor hated it! It was not pinging but lost alot of power, I went in two degree increments up and down from 30 degrees, adjusted the split between 5 and 15 degrees. I also have the ability to vary the amount of fuel per pair of injectors and therfore can select and change the volume and how fuel enters the intake runners/ports. I still beat the Factory computer up top and through the midrange on 93 but was less than happy with the difference. So thursday we empied the tank and filled it with 87 and returned to the dyno. In the past when trying to build the worlds strongest stock 13B in the SCCA ITS class I found 87 made the more power than 93 and after last night I found the new motor likes it as well. Sure there is a 25 cent savings per gallon but that really has nothing to do with it, the engines produce less heat because of the lower timing, and therefor run better longer. The bottom line is this, I found better results using 87 octane. I have owned and been involved with high performance rotary powered cars since the late 80's. Maybe someone out there who has no history with how they work will come up with a whole new approach and look like a Rotary God with kerosine? What I have brought to the table is a plug and play increase in performance. The Interceptor-X is not a SuperAFC or a SuperAFC with a laptop interface. It is a full standalone in a plug and play configuration that will allow users to tune, yes really tune the ECU to their specific car,fuel and collection of components. Back to the shop,Scott