Notices
Series I Major Horsepower Upgrades This is the place to discuss Super Chargers and Turbos, Nitrous, Porting, etc

Engine Dyno testing of Renesis

Old Jul 19, 2006 | 11:05 PM
  #301  
Richard Paul's Avatar
Registered
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,438
Likes: 20
From: Chatsworth Ca
Let's go over this offer. If your engine makes the power I get to pay the dyno time and buy you your seals. If it doesn't make the power I get nothing and you have to pay for your own seals and to get your own engine dyno'd.

How come this doesn't sound like a good bet to me???
"There's not a man alive who'll take 8 for 5"
But that sounds better then this by a long way.

Last edited by Richard Paul; Jul 19, 2006 at 11:10 PM.
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2006 | 12:24 AM
  #302  
goldedge's Avatar
goldedge
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
peak rpm and torque?

Hi Hymee,
Thanks for the effort :-)
I am interested to know the maximum rpm the engine was turning at peak
power? also at which rpm was the maximum torque produced?
Is there any chance of a dyno chart pic?

I think that a longer induction would probably improve the flow into the engine?

Depending on the use (race <g>) how about adding couple of large round
holes to the rotor housings for the exhaust gases to leave by?

Regards
Michael
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2006 | 04:09 AM
  #303  
Hymee's Avatar
Thread Starter
Race Steward
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,430
Likes: 2
From: Brisbane, Australia
What do I win if I get 260 HP on the engine dyno? Supply the engine and dyno time?

Cheers,
Hymee.
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2006 | 06:30 AM
  #304  
David Haskell's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
I would agree with Ceramic seal. 260 HP is a realistic number with the right seals and management.
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2006 | 06:33 AM
  #305  
Hymee's Avatar
Thread Starter
Race Steward
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,430
Likes: 2
From: Brisbane, Australia
So are we saying the ceramic seals will give more RPM, reliably?

We have already run stock renesis to 10,500.

Cheers,
Hymee.
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2006 | 07:52 AM
  #306  
rotary crazy's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
From: Santiago, Dominican Republic
Originally Posted by David Haskell
I would agree with Ceramic seal. 260 HP is a realistic number with the right seals and management.

looks like the big guns are finally putting it to rest

good to see you posting MR. Haskell and thanks for representing our beloved RX-8 in racing, great job!

congrats on getting back where you belong on the podium

Last edited by rotary crazy; Jul 20, 2006 at 07:59 AM.
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2006 | 07:56 AM
  #307  
ranger4277's Avatar
Cones need lovin' too!
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
From: Beavercreek, Ohio
Originally Posted by David Haskell
I would agree with Ceramic seal. 260 HP is a realistic number with the right seals and management.
Pity you can't tell us more... good luck on the rest of the season! Looks like the new regs. helped a bit.


As for 9500 all day Richard, it has been done before. Recall the two 8s that ran 24 hours flat out only to stop for fluids and drivers...

http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-200...Record-Run.htm

3,174 miles WOT. Stock except for safety features.


Best of luck Hymee. Always anxious to hear more info.
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2006 | 09:44 AM
  #308  
Richard Paul's Avatar
Registered
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,438
Likes: 20
From: Chatsworth Ca
Originally Posted by Hymee
What do I win if I get 260 HP on the engine dyno? Supply the engine and dyno time?

Cheers,
Hymee.

A double ended *****.
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2006 | 11:20 AM
  #309  
zoom44's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 21,958
Likes: 115
From: portland oregon
Originally Posted by ranger4277

As for 9500 all day Richard, it has been done before. Recall the two 8s that ran 24 hours flat out only to stop for fluids and drivers...

http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-200...Record-Run.htm

3,174 miles WOT.
that was my idea ya know!
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2006 | 11:14 PM
  #310  
CERAMICSEAL's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
From: atlanta ga
Originally Posted by Hymee
So are we saying the ceramic seals will give more RPM, reliably?

We have already run stock renesis to 10,500.

Cheers,
Hymee.
What I'm saying is they will make more torque at elevated rpms (HP) even to the point where the lesser equipped one drops off due to better sealing by way of higher spring pressure. You simply cannot run as much pressure in this way with steel seals unless you are trying to make sparks. Obviously there is an rpm at which this motor runs out of breath but with inferior seals it just happens earlier than the ports are fully capable of. These seals are so much better that they can continue making this increased power for many cycles than would be imagined otherwise (as seen in racing applications) whilst being gentle on the rotor grooves and the rotor housing surface. There's a reason they are so expensive.
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2006 | 06:56 AM
  #311  
willofgod's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
"There's a reason they are so expensive."

b/c someone is a capitalist? ;P
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2006 | 06:57 AM
  #312  
rotary crazy's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
From: Santiago, Dominican Republic
Originally Posted by willofgod
"There's a reason they are so expensive."

b/c someone is a capitalist? ;P
The material and R&D that goes into those seals is amazing.
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2006 | 07:00 AM
  #313  
Hymee's Avatar
Thread Starter
Race Steward
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,430
Likes: 2
From: Brisbane, Australia
Can we take seal discussion to another on-topic thread please... And put this comment there: "I wonder who has spent the most $$$ on seal development?"

Cheers,
Hymee.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2006 | 08:42 AM
  #314  
CERAMICSEAL's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
From: atlanta ga
Originally Posted by willofgod
"There's a reason they are so expensive."

b/c someone is a capitalist? ;P
Those evil capatilists .
Now back to our regularly scheduled program:
Hopefully all this testing will yield great results and products (But make sure you aren't seaking to profit by this).
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2006 | 10:26 AM
  #315  
Hymee's Avatar
Thread Starter
Race Steward
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,430
Likes: 2
From: Brisbane, Australia
My aim, is for everyone to gain!!
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2006 | 08:22 PM
  #316  
Wildcard's Avatar
NT Rotorhead
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
From: Katherine, NT
I recently did a 3200km road trip, mostly in remote parts of Australia, so I had plently of opportunity to look at the top speed of my RX-8 under different conditions. Here is what I learned:

Over time the long term fuel trim (LTFT) in my car seems to gradually creep up. It was at 11% at the start of this trip. The result was that above (160km/h) 100mph, AFR's were pig-rich (<0.75). This not only effected fuel economy, but also max speed. Under this condition, I only got a max speed of 205km/h. Running that rich must really kill the power.

Seeing this, I reset the ECU by disconnecting the battery, and immediately my AFR's leaned out by 10%. My top speed also increased to 216km/h. As the trip progressed, I found that the LTFT would stay at 0 for about 3 hours max, and then it would start increasing gradually - first 2%, then 5% etc. This also resulted in the AFR's becoming richer and economy getting worse. In all I reset my ECU 3 or 4 times during the trip to reset the LTFT back to zero.

Note that these AFR problems only seem to be an issue in Closed Loop. I have found that the cruising speed needed to be in closed loop varies - anywhere from 130km/h to 160km/h. So most people aren't going to encounter this LTFT problem at all. Unless you are trying for max speed. I have no idea what criteria the ECU uses to adjust LTFT.

The second thing about top speed is that I think wind direction and speed make an pretty big difference. On this drive, I had headwinds all the way, and the fastest my car ever got to was 220km/h. 6 months ago in exactly the same configuration, it got 240km/h with a slight tail wind.

With regard to the RB intake, taking it out 6 months ago did make a difference to top speed, but here are two possible contributors:

1. The MAF is one of the primary sensors used in Closed loop and changing the intake may have changed the signal the MAF was sending to the ECU. This may have effected Closed loop operation, hence AFRs, hence top speed.

2. I think when I changed intakes, I reset the ECU. This would have cleared any bad long term fuel trims that may have been present, which would have imporved AFRs, hence top speed.

So blaming the RB intake as I did at the time was probably incorrect. It's frightening how much the ECU controls this car and how little we know or can do about it. It seems that it can easily rob 10 or 20hp from the car without you even knowing about it - and here we are spending all this money to gain 3-5hp from mods like intake and exhaust. Understanding and controlling the ECU seems to be the key to reliable performance. Environmental conditions, including wind, are also crucial at top speed.

Sorry about the small hijack, but I thought I ought to share this experience.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2006 | 09:12 PM
  #317  
Hymee's Avatar
Thread Starter
Race Steward
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,430
Likes: 2
From: Brisbane, Australia
Good work Wildcard. #2 seems more plausible, don't your reckon?

As you know, I don't have much legal opportunity to test at speeds over 110 km/h, but I did find my car would drop into open-loop at about 120km on cruise.

Thanks for the report.

Cheers,
Hymee.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2006 | 10:31 PM
  #318  
zoom44's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 21,958
Likes: 115
From: portland oregon
current flash int he states drops you back out of open loop after an extended period at cruise- the afr then goes richer. must be extended cat protection
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2006 | 10:35 PM
  #319  
swoope's Avatar
Zoom-Freakin'-Zoom
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,603
Likes: 36
From: orlando, fl
Originally Posted by Hymee
Good work Wildcard. #2 seems more plausible, don't your reckon?

As you know, I don't have much legal opportunity to test at speeds over 110 km/h, but I did find my car would drop into open-loop at about 120km on cruise.

Thanks for the report.

Cheers,
Hymee.
it almost sounds like one of his o2 sensors is off just a bit.

beers
Reply
Old Aug 7, 2006 | 04:55 AM
  #320  
NT Rotor Head's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
From: Adelaide SA, Australia
Wildcard, just reading your report and Hymee's reply and I'm a bit confused.

When you discuss your RX8 going into 'Closed Loop' mode anywhere between 130km/hr and 160km/hr did you really mean 'Open loop'? Hymee's reply says he goes into open loop above 120km/hr which is what I understood occurred at higher speeds.

Cheers,

Jared.
Reply
Old Aug 7, 2006 | 05:11 AM
  #321  
Wildcard's Avatar
NT Rotorhead
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
From: Katherine, NT
Yes I really meant open loop. The terms really make more sense to me the other way around. Closed loop uses a continuous open feedback loop, while open loop is a closed circuit with no external feedback. That's how I would describe it anyhow.
Reply
Old Aug 7, 2006 | 06:34 AM
  #322  
NT Rotor Head's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
From: Adelaide SA, Australia
Phew, thought I was going crazy for a sec there! hehe.

Cheers,

Jared.
Reply
Old Aug 7, 2006 | 12:17 PM
  #323  
Brettus's Avatar
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20,844
Likes: 1,798
From: Y-cat-o NZ
Hymee - read somewhere that having no intake caused the Renesis to lose power (8kw from memory) . Any thoughts on this ? Sorry if it has already been covered.
Reply
Old Aug 7, 2006 | 04:11 PM
  #324  
olddragger's Avatar
Registered
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,828
Likes: 40
From: macon, georgia
whats also confusing to me is that we had a friend that reset his pcm mid dyno session and LOST 5-7 hp.
olddragger
ps dont forget that no water pump run--i think a little is there,
Reply
Old Aug 12, 2006 | 04:06 PM
  #325  
AgedFreak's Avatar
AgedFreak
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: Renton, WA
Originally Posted by cleoent
So let me just get this straight...

In 2003 the RX8 supposedly had 250 BHP
In 2004 the RX8 supposedly had 238 BHP
In 2006 the RX8 supposedly had 232 BHP

but for realz this entire time it has about 210 stock? WTF mates? How can a car company do that and get away with it?

That's a really interesting topic: Back in Japan & some Asia markets, they can still claim that the engine has 250hp as it first announced. I'm just wondering is there any differences between ours & their 13B. Anyone can tell me the answer?

Good work, Guys!
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:
You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:44 AM.