I wasn't logging...but based on historical performance... 13.5 psi held throughout should generate ~ 370 HP / 270 lbft. The resulting v-dyno s/b similar to the one @ post #672 w/a slightly better sustained torque curve.

System performance has exceeded my goals at this point. So, in the interest of hopefully achieving some reliability I'll limit boost here..., and begin augmenting other systems, e.g. suspension and brakes.

 

FAITH, FAMILY, FITNESS, & FUN (MY 8 ;-)

Already training to resume another of my time consuming hobbies...where rotary power is self-generated. ...


.

 

I understand... my weight fluctuates ~ 10-12 lbs between on and off riding season, i.e. summer to winter. I s/b down to optimal riding weight by March / April.

Do eeet! Not many things more important than health. Strike while the irons hot...spring time...

 

This is exactly where I would have aimed for had I stuck to the Renesis platform. Congrats, that's a dreamy set-up, hope this inspires more people to put some faith into the Rx8! Beautifully done!

 

Agree RMRX .... that power level is perfect for the platform . Too much more and you have to look at g/box , diff , axle shafts etc etc etc. The money needed to make it all work well rises exponentially.
That's why I still think the turbo Renesis is a viable engine for a high performance 8. But you see what Curtis went through ..... (quadruple that for what I went through ) to achieve this. It aint easy.

 

Thanks, guys!

Yeah, we're an odd sort. If we merely wanted an exhilarating car, we'd buy a finished product. But for me/ us ...the means is part of the end, ...the journey sweetens the reward.

It's gratifying knowing that considering current system torque / mass... from a roll... she can run w/ good 2020 company:

- My 8 ($...):0.104
- BMW Z4, ($50K):0.089
- Lexus LC 500, ($92K): 0.093
- Porsche 718 Cayman, ($99k):0.097
- Toyota Supra, ($50k): 0.107

 

Found this little Easter egg on routine inspection today...

First pic shows the front of the 90 elbow on the compressor discharge. The second pic is the rear of the same coupler... taken from w/ in the engine bay...looking downward past the LIM.

This coupler slipping it's clamp had to have just happened b/c I hadn't seen any indication of a boost leak. Well, s/b a quick fix.

 

True.

Seriously, anything of value worth having requires maintenance. Regularly checking & addressing issues w/ couplers, clamps, hoses, valves, wires, etc. ....are all in the normal course of owning a custom turbo'd car. To which... it's a huge advantage to having installed the kit.

Conversely, owning an RX8 w/ a custom kit .......and no knowledge or experience to upkeep it will require deep pockets.

Anyway, I've the coupler and a few other misc. items tightened up, and ready for a quick spin.

 

 

Team in January: More Boost
JCB in January: 13#'s
Team in February: More Boost
JCB in February: 14#'s
Team in March: More Boost
JCB in March: 15#'s
Team in April: More Boost
JCB in April: 16#'s

JCB in April: "I think the motors blown"
Team: "You know MSPs can't be pushed like that, too much boost"

 

Initial Objectives:
- quality build
- daily driven
- 12 psi (340HP / 240ftlbs) (Achieved: 13.5 psi (370 HP / 270 ftlbs), w/ an ~3500 rpm wide trq band.)
- "reasonably reliable" ...work in progress...

One doesn't achieve significant things w/out adherence to clearly defined objectives.

So, whatever the intention...jest or otherwise...my ears are immune to brother Team's "sirenic song"...

Sirens were mythological half women, half bird creatures depicted as deadly temptresses who lured sailors to a dastardly demise via their hypnotic singing, causing them to crash their ships into rocky shores.

 

You know deep down that an REW is in your future

I get the high rpm power concern, but imo you’re leaving a lot on the table at the other end of the graph

ultimately what the Renesis needs is a boost vs rpm strategy imo.

I thought we had established it as jesting and not personal.

.

 

I've discovered your error...

I've not even begun to consider what I will or won't do in the future..., but imo atm I plan to enjoy what I have achieved...for a while...

 

Honest mistake; corrected.

 

Update:

Appears the slippage of the coupler was d/t heat. I'll need to source an elbow of higher heat resistant material...or heat wrap it as well...as I've done the motor mount.

 

Old pic (setup is a bit different now) but still have the same heat shield in place protecting the compressor housing. Works great!

 

Hmm...ok., that's some serious shielding.

Below is what I currently have installed. If insufficient...then the compressor outlet AND inlet are in jeopardy. Just a matter of time. Seems I m/h to step up my heat shielding game.

Edit: Initially, I'm hoping that adding shielding on the manifold (compressor side) w/b sufficient. Hoping to be able to add that just w/ the car on stands.

 

Silicone.

 

I agree...a true boost vs rpm EBC would add value in wringing out every iota of performance across the rpm range. That's simply not my interest.

Brett and I have discussed implementing a simple boost cut via rpm...which should meet my goals, and he's recommended strategies to enact it. The recent discussion above regarding MAF flow dynamics... assists in understanding at precisely what rpm to cut boost.

Implementing this simple boost cut should result in:
- ~120 >> 270 lbft ....(2500 - 4500 rpm) ,
- ~ 270 lbft ...............(4500 - 7300 rpm) ,
- ~ 225 lbft ...............(7300 - 8200 rpm) (a nice shift indicator )

... more than sufficient for a fun daily driver.

 

Update:

More fun... Saw some light smoke coming from the engine bay after a spirited romp. Investigated and found my turbo oil drain leaking. It's worse in the pic below after my fiddling w/ it trying to identify exactly where it was leaking. The heat from the manifold completely disintegrated the braided SS line inner material. (See the first ~1/2 " out of the connector below.) I carry an extinguisher as a precaution..., glad I didn't need it.

Spent time this afternoon removing the drain, and oil soaked wrap. No easy task....see below. Yes, it's that tight. Obviously, I won't be reinstalling the same SS line. So, need to find another solution...that:
- can withstand the heat
- be installed thru sliver of space, ~1 1/8", shown below (......the alternative is painful).

Has anyone installed a drain in a similar situation? Suggestions are welcomed.
.

.
.

.
.

 

Perhaps a hard tube with insulation around it to get around the exhaust manifold with a short piece of hose to provide flexibility and connect to the oil pan. The insulation would be more for preventing/limiting the exhaust heat causing the oil to coke up on the inside of the tube than for protection of the tube itself.

 

Thanks, Tom.

I've been thinking along the same lines...install an "extension": a straight tube...female threaded on one end and male threaded on the other; that c/b inserted into the space and threaded onto the existing flange. Then as you suggest... insulate it, and complete the connection to the pan via braided SS hose.

Edit: After giving it a bit more thought I decided against a solid tube b/c it w/b difficult to get the tube length exactly right for install in the limited space. Instead I'm going to go w/ SS line again with 10AN to "push-on" style connectors:

• 10AN straight at the turbo -->
• SS hose again (needed for its flexibility for install), but adding a dbl layer of Fire Sleeve this time -->
• 10AN 90 degree to the pan.

Note: Adding to the difficulty of limited space...the connection to the turbo drain mount has to be installed from 3-4" below it, i.e. the connector can't be reached w/ a wrench. The connector has to be "fixed" to the hose / tube, and then the hose used to tighten the connector. Same method I used the first time and had no issue sealing at the connector w/ thread seal.

Parts are on order...

 

Heat shielded the manifold w/thicker shielding as well as Fire Sleeve on the drain line.

Rolling again...

 

With my turbo oil drain repaired and dry pavement...took her for a spirited drive. Confirmed that my earlier estimate was fairly spot-on... given 372 HP & 272 lbft today.
.

 

So, I'm finally getting around to posting the MAF curve associated w/ the v-dyno above in post #705.

I noticed a couple of things:

1. I'm better understanding the relationship between g/s and performance. Though I've seen higher g/s, ~390, the car has never performed better or posted better #s than it is today. I suspect that as I've eliminated / reduced boost leaks, the more efficient system has achieved higher HP/ Trq #s at reduced g/s values.

2. Here she generates peak 363.5 g/s @ 7482 rpm. You were spot on w/ your estimate of ~7500 rpm being the approximate rpm at which the system would likely achieve peak mass air flow, and fall off after that. Definitely a good plan to drop to WG boost there.
​​​​​​​.