Mazdatrix Turbo Renesis
10-12-2020, 05:23 PM
#251
- Are there really any benefits of the side exhaust ports from the REN in this build? From what I can collect the only potentially beneficial aspect of the Ren is how much engineering went into the variable intake for lower end drivability. Ideally wouldn't we want the intake system of the REN with the exhaust ports of a 13b being able to turbo easier?
- If the overlap is such an issue, what are the thoughts on reducing the overlap with 74-78 housings since the exhaust opens/closes sooner? (Disregarding the coolant jacket issue) Maybe these open too soon?
- Other than the turbo lag from such a large manifold, where else is drivability suffering for this to be a viable street build?
2/ The overlap of PP exhausts with Renesis intake would be beneficial IMO (I disagree with Teamrx8s' assessment on that ) . You only have to look at the great early rpm torque possible with a bridgeported REW engine and a big turbo. That points to there being a big benefit in the extra overlap the Renesis Intake would create when used with pp exhaust. Possibly without the driveability disadvantages of a BP.
3/Hard to know how bad it would be at low rpm ..... Mazdatrix never mentioned that aspect of it but would be good to know.
10-12-2020, 06:14 PM
#252
Registered
1/ Yep 100%
2/ The overlap of PP exhausts with Renesis intake would be beneficial IMO (I disagree with Teamrx8s' assessment on that ) . You only have to look at the great early rpm torque possible with a bridgeported REW engine and a big turbo. That points to there being a big benefit in the extra overlap the Renesis Intake would create when used with pp exhaust. Possibly without the driveability disadvantages of a BP.
3/Hard to know how bad it would be at low rpm ..... Mazdatrix never mentioned that aspect of it but would be good to know.
2/ The overlap of PP exhausts with Renesis intake would be beneficial IMO (I disagree with Teamrx8s' assessment on that ) . You only have to look at the great early rpm torque possible with a bridgeported REW engine and a big turbo. That points to there being a big benefit in the extra overlap the Renesis Intake would create when used with pp exhaust. Possibly without the driveability disadvantages of a BP.
3/Hard to know how bad it would be at low rpm ..... Mazdatrix never mentioned that aspect of it but would be good to know.
10-13-2020, 05:03 PM
#256
I’m not trying to sell you anything and if you understand both my explanations on the subject and the actual results you’d know that’s simply not true.
It not only has a lot of overlap, it all happens way earlier in the Renesis intake cycle than the 13B intake cycle as I explained in detail on this forum. Nobody ever raised or discussed this point ever that I’m aware of. I went through all this same nonsense with the NA header design starting 14 years ago and people still can’t come to grips with the differences of the Renesis. Even afyer finally explaining it to them in detail. Everybody thinks you just add overlap and magic happens. That’s not how it works and people egging you on is upsetting to me. People have spent over $10k just on the engine build alone going full tilt on this and there isn’t a successful result yet, including the results they posted up to date.
There’s no advantage to doing this and I strongly recommend against it.
It not only has a lot of overlap, it all happens way earlier in the Renesis intake cycle than the 13B intake cycle as I explained in detail on this forum. Nobody ever raised or discussed this point ever that I’m aware of. I went through all this same nonsense with the NA header design starting 14 years ago and people still can’t come to grips with the differences of the Renesis. Even afyer finally explaining it to them in detail. Everybody thinks you just add overlap and magic happens. That’s not how it works and people egging you on is upsetting to me. People have spent over $10k just on the engine build alone going full tilt on this and there isn’t a successful result yet, including the results they posted up to date.
There’s no advantage to doing this and I strongly recommend against it.
10-13-2020, 05:28 PM
#257
Mincvinyl is talking about filling in the Renesis exhaust ports and running PP exhaust with Renesis intake . This has not been tried before to my knowledge.
I think that setup has possibilities assuming the blocking process can be done with no side affects.
Your explanation of why you think that wont work didn't convince me because we all know how effective a bridgeport can be. I see this setup being halfway between a BP and a stockport REW .......... overlap wise.
I am aware of an engine with this format that is running in atm and should be dynotuned in a few weeks. Very interested to see how this goes.
I think that setup has possibilities assuming the blocking process can be done with no side affects.
Your explanation of why you think that wont work didn't convince me because we all know how effective a bridgeport can be. I see this setup being halfway between a BP and a stockport REW .......... overlap wise.
I am aware of an engine with this format that is running in atm and should be dynotuned in a few weeks. Very interested to see how this goes.
Last edited by Brettus; 10-13-2020 at 05:35 PM.
10-13-2020, 06:00 PM
#258
Registered
Well finding a way to block the renesis sideports and just using periphrial exhaust ports was a thought a long time ago. I think that idea comes down to machining and a material science issue of sorts.
So team is saying there is too much overlap. Concept wise if we had housings that closed earlier reducing the overlap to the magical point would running the 5 ports still be a terrible idea? Like i brought up before, someone posted a picture in another thread comparing the gsl se housings to the 74-78 housings. The 74s open and close earlier and would have less overlap. Say we could machine even the rx8 housings and put our own insert in for a pport. What amount of overlap is that magical number seems to be the argument I see you guys have over and over.
for those 74s what downsides would they have with opening exhaust even earlier? Assuming we can machine the coolant seal grooves.
So team is saying there is too much overlap. Concept wise if we had housings that closed earlier reducing the overlap to the magical point would running the 5 ports still be a terrible idea? Like i brought up before, someone posted a picture in another thread comparing the gsl se housings to the 74-78 housings. The 74s open and close earlier and would have less overlap. Say we could machine even the rx8 housings and put our own insert in for a pport. What amount of overlap is that magical number seems to be the argument I see you guys have over and over.
for those 74s what downsides would they have with opening exhaust even earlier? Assuming we can machine the coolant seal grooves.
10-13-2020, 07:07 PM
#260
As far as which PP exhaust housing would work best in a 2 exhaust port setup ...... my thoughts are that you can theorise all you like but the flow dynamics complexities make it near impossible to predict an outcome without actually trying it. Like I said ...someone is already doing it (with REW housings I believe)....might pay to hang on a while till we have some results.
Last edited by Brettus; 10-13-2020 at 07:12 PM.
10-13-2020, 08:34 PM
#261
Registered
The whole point is ...5 exhaust ports doesn't work well............... IMO . In an N/A it eliminates any possibility of scavenging due to the weak pulses and with a turbo it destroys spoolup for the same reason.
As far as which PP exhaust housing would work best in a 2 exhaust port setup ...... my thoughts are that you can theorise all you like but the flow dynamics complexities make it near impossible to predict an outcome without actually trying it. Like I said ...someone is already doing it (with REW housings I believe)....might pay to hang on a while till we have some results.
As far as which PP exhaust housing would work best in a 2 exhaust port setup ...... my thoughts are that you can theorise all you like but the flow dynamics complexities make it near impossible to predict an outcome without actually trying it. Like I said ...someone is already doing it (with REW housings I believe)....might pay to hang on a while till we have some results.
The 5 port when i first saw it seemed like it would for sure have those issues. Which was where I got that concept of blocking the ren side ports to just use gsl se housings or do machining for rew housings to add coolant seal grooves or figure out how to make port inserts possible on the 4 extra 120k mile housings i have sitting around.
Turbo build wise I would think the 5 port would hold up better than the stock renesis reliability wise. Although you guys know leaps and bounds more than i do on this topic.
10-14-2020, 01:59 AM
#262
I looked at all that including casting or machining solid inserts, which imo is the only real way to do it, but came to realize why not to bother. Some guy in EU claimed to have welded them shut and he was going to show us all over on RX7Club. Never heard from again, no surprise. Nobody ever talks about the one Chip Motorsports built several years back. People see, yet they miss what’s right in front of their eyes; nobody ever seemed to notice that is has custom peripheral exhaust ports made into Renesis rotor housings. A lot of detailed skill and quality work was poured into it, and a boat load or two of cash, but it won’t really matter too much to the end result.
Just like people talk about peripheral ports as if they understand them, yet clearly don’t. It’s not just about overlap that makes a PP intake port work. So let me try one more time. Once you add overlap into the Renesis cycle, the entire dynamic is going to change. They derived the name Renesis combining RE + Genesis for a good reason. There’s only 10 degrees difference in closing timing on those earlier housings. It’s not really addressing the actual issue. It never can with a peripheral port because then it’d be too small. Again, Mazda engineers understand all this hence the turbo patent changes from several years ago with some fairly ingenious, but complicated, ideas that are really stretching it thin from a production engine perspective.
That’s just an unmodified exhaust port. Then porting the exhaust and bridgeporting it too, while claiming a peripheral exhaust port doesn’t add that much overlap. Sure, if you ignore that the intake ports open right around TDC and what it really means to the flow dynamic. So what will you really have? I can make a projection despite the claim of uncertainty expressed by others. IMO if you don’t address the entire dynamic of the engine it will have all the disadvantages of a PP intake without the advantages. With a peripheral exhaust port there’s no adding a “little overlap”. The low end rpm range you can forget about. Even a turbo can’t overcome that situation. So any tricks or tuning of either the primary or secondary runners are not going to produce any fruit. It won’t even come “up on the cam” so to speak until well past where the Renesis APV typically opens. When it finally does you might get a mediocre result (compared to a proper NA PP) over a 500-1000 rpm range and then the party’s over.
What you fail to realize is that your idea went away from a multi-runner exhaust to a multi-runner intake and also flipped the dynamic around while doing so. The dynamic flip means starting over from scratch and redesigning everything using all the old school methods that were, and still are, being misapplied to the Renesis. Again, people still don’t fully see and comprehend what’s right in front of their eyes. Even in this thread too. The details matter. If you fail to either see or understand them then you might as well be out in left field after the game is over, the stadium is empty, and the lights are turned off.
So let me try this one more time. Somebody comes up with an idea; a triangle shaped wheel. Then says let me try a 4-sided square wheel, then a 5 sided, 6, 7 , 8 etc. Somebody else sees the concept of triangle-shaped wheel and immediately deduces that a smooth circle is the obvious solution without ever getting their hands dirty. If you have nothing better to do than squander resources getting your hands dirty reinventing the rotary engine wheel, then ok, but there’s no secret well of magic rotary sauce to be discovered and spring forth. That already happened with the zero overlap Renesis. The revised intake phase only works NA because there is no overlap, which then allows using as much of the intake cycle as possible to fill the chamber. They went to great measures minimizing exhaust carryover as much as possible. Until you get your head around all of that then you’re the sad panda standing in left field all alone in the dark.
Just like people talk about peripheral ports as if they understand them, yet clearly don’t. It’s not just about overlap that makes a PP intake port work. So let me try one more time. Once you add overlap into the Renesis cycle, the entire dynamic is going to change. They derived the name Renesis combining RE + Genesis for a good reason. There’s only 10 degrees difference in closing timing on those earlier housings. It’s not really addressing the actual issue. It never can with a peripheral port because then it’d be too small. Again, Mazda engineers understand all this hence the turbo patent changes from several years ago with some fairly ingenious, but complicated, ideas that are really stretching it thin from a production engine perspective.
That’s just an unmodified exhaust port. Then porting the exhaust and bridgeporting it too, while claiming a peripheral exhaust port doesn’t add that much overlap. Sure, if you ignore that the intake ports open right around TDC and what it really means to the flow dynamic. So what will you really have? I can make a projection despite the claim of uncertainty expressed by others. IMO if you don’t address the entire dynamic of the engine it will have all the disadvantages of a PP intake without the advantages. With a peripheral exhaust port there’s no adding a “little overlap”. The low end rpm range you can forget about. Even a turbo can’t overcome that situation. So any tricks or tuning of either the primary or secondary runners are not going to produce any fruit. It won’t even come “up on the cam” so to speak until well past where the Renesis APV typically opens. When it finally does you might get a mediocre result (compared to a proper NA PP) over a 500-1000 rpm range and then the party’s over.
What you fail to realize is that your idea went away from a multi-runner exhaust to a multi-runner intake and also flipped the dynamic around while doing so. The dynamic flip means starting over from scratch and redesigning everything using all the old school methods that were, and still are, being misapplied to the Renesis. Again, people still don’t fully see and comprehend what’s right in front of their eyes. Even in this thread too. The details matter. If you fail to either see or understand them then you might as well be out in left field after the game is over, the stadium is empty, and the lights are turned off.
So let me try this one more time. Somebody comes up with an idea; a triangle shaped wheel. Then says let me try a 4-sided square wheel, then a 5 sided, 6, 7 , 8 etc. Somebody else sees the concept of triangle-shaped wheel and immediately deduces that a smooth circle is the obvious solution without ever getting their hands dirty. If you have nothing better to do than squander resources getting your hands dirty reinventing the rotary engine wheel, then ok, but there’s no secret well of magic rotary sauce to be discovered and spring forth. That already happened with the zero overlap Renesis. The revised intake phase only works NA because there is no overlap, which then allows using as much of the intake cycle as possible to fill the chamber. They went to great measures minimizing exhaust carryover as much as possible. Until you get your head around all of that then you’re the sad panda standing in left field all alone in the dark.
Last edited by TeamRX8; 10-14-2020 at 04:28 AM.
10-14-2020, 01:03 PM
#263
Registered
I looked at all that including casting or machining solid inserts, which imo is the only real way to do it, but came to realize why not to bother. Some guy in EU claimed to have welded them shut and he was going to show us all over on RX7Club. Never heard from again, no surprise. Nobody ever talks about the one Chip Motorsports built several years back. People see, yet they miss what’s right in front of their eyes; nobody ever seemed to notice that is has custom peripheral exhaust ports made into Renesis rotor housings. A lot of detailed skill and quality work was poured into it, and a boat load or two of cash, but it won’t really matter too much to the end result.
Just like people talk about peripheral ports as if they understand them, yet clearly don’t. It’s not just about overlap that makes a PP intake port work. So let me try one more time. Once you add overlap into the Renesis cycle, the entire dynamic is going to change. They derived the name Renesis combining RE + Genesis for a good reason. There’s only 10 degrees difference in closing timing on those earlier housings. It’s not really addressing the actual issue. It never can with a peripheral port because then it’d be too small. Again, Mazda engineers understand all this hence the turbo patent changes from several years ago with some fairly ingenious, but complicated, ideas that are really stretching it thin from a production engine perspective.
That’s just an unmodified exhaust port. Then porting the exhaust and bridgeporting it too, while claiming a peripheral exhaust port doesn’t add that much overlap. Sure, if you ignore that the intake ports open right around TDC and what it really means to the flow dynamic. So what will you really have? I can make a projection despite the claim of uncertainty expressed by others. IMO if you don’t address the entire dynamic of the engine it will have all the disadvantages of a PP intake without the advantages. With a peripheral exhaust port there’s no adding a “little overlap”. The low end rpm range you can forget about. Even a turbo can’t overcome that situation. So any tricks or tuning of either the primary or secondary runners are not going to produce any fruit. It won’t even come “up on the cam” so to speak until well past where the Renesis APV typically opens. When it finally does you might get a mediocre result (compared to a proper NA PP) over a 500-1000 rpm range and then the party’s over.
What you fail to realize is that your idea went away from a multi-runner exhaust to a multi-runner intake and also flipped the dynamic around while doing so. The dynamic flip means starting over from scratch and redesigning everything using all the old school methods that were, and still are, being misapplied to the Renesis. Again, people still don’t fully see and comprehend what’s right in front of their eyes. Even in this thread too. The details matter. If you fail to either see or understand them then you might as well be out in left field after the game is over, the stadium is empty, and the lights are turned off.
So let me try this one more time. Somebody comes up with an idea; a triangle shaped wheel. Then says let me try a 4-sided square wheel, then a 5 sided, 6, 7 , 8 etc. Somebody else sees the concept of triangle-shaped wheel and immediately deduces that a smooth circle is the obvious solution without ever getting their hands dirty. If you have nothing better to do than squander resources getting your hands dirty reinventing the rotary engine wheel, then ok, but there’s no secret well of magic rotary sauce to be discovered and spring forth. That already happened with the zero overlap Renesis. The revised intake phase only works NA because there is no overlap, which then allows using as much of the intake cycle as possible to fill the chamber. They went to great measures minimizing exhaust carryover as much as possible. Until you get your head around all of that then you’re the sad panda standing in left field all alone in the dark.
Just like people talk about peripheral ports as if they understand them, yet clearly don’t. It’s not just about overlap that makes a PP intake port work. So let me try one more time. Once you add overlap into the Renesis cycle, the entire dynamic is going to change. They derived the name Renesis combining RE + Genesis for a good reason. There’s only 10 degrees difference in closing timing on those earlier housings. It’s not really addressing the actual issue. It never can with a peripheral port because then it’d be too small. Again, Mazda engineers understand all this hence the turbo patent changes from several years ago with some fairly ingenious, but complicated, ideas that are really stretching it thin from a production engine perspective.
That’s just an unmodified exhaust port. Then porting the exhaust and bridgeporting it too, while claiming a peripheral exhaust port doesn’t add that much overlap. Sure, if you ignore that the intake ports open right around TDC and what it really means to the flow dynamic. So what will you really have? I can make a projection despite the claim of uncertainty expressed by others. IMO if you don’t address the entire dynamic of the engine it will have all the disadvantages of a PP intake without the advantages. With a peripheral exhaust port there’s no adding a “little overlap”. The low end rpm range you can forget about. Even a turbo can’t overcome that situation. So any tricks or tuning of either the primary or secondary runners are not going to produce any fruit. It won’t even come “up on the cam” so to speak until well past where the Renesis APV typically opens. When it finally does you might get a mediocre result (compared to a proper NA PP) over a 500-1000 rpm range and then the party’s over.
What you fail to realize is that your idea went away from a multi-runner exhaust to a multi-runner intake and also flipped the dynamic around while doing so. The dynamic flip means starting over from scratch and redesigning everything using all the old school methods that were, and still are, being misapplied to the Renesis. Again, people still don’t fully see and comprehend what’s right in front of their eyes. Even in this thread too. The details matter. If you fail to either see or understand them then you might as well be out in left field after the game is over, the stadium is empty, and the lights are turned off.
So let me try this one more time. Somebody comes up with an idea; a triangle shaped wheel. Then says let me try a 4-sided square wheel, then a 5 sided, 6, 7 , 8 etc. Somebody else sees the concept of triangle-shaped wheel and immediately deduces that a smooth circle is the obvious solution without ever getting their hands dirty. If you have nothing better to do than squander resources getting your hands dirty reinventing the rotary engine wheel, then ok, but there’s no secret well of magic rotary sauce to be discovered and spring forth. That already happened with the zero overlap Renesis. The revised intake phase only works NA because there is no overlap, which then allows using as much of the intake cycle as possible to fill the chamber. They went to great measures minimizing exhaust carryover as much as possible. Until you get your head around all of that then you’re the sad panda standing in left field all alone in the dark.
> The reason the Renesis can have such a large intake is due to the design having no overlap.
> Say we add PPort exhaust to a Ren, as is the idea with the hybrid Ren concept
> Now the intake overlap will be too much causing drivability/tuning issues? (here's where my knowledge clearly falls out, being 23yo spending the past 5 years through college solely keeping a 125k mile rx8 afloat, now self rebuilt 110psi@250rpm still breaking in)
> The fix would be to change the intake design, inevitably we would end up back with what is a butchered 13b/rew design with a semi working variable intake system.
10-14-2020, 04:01 PM
#264
So we’re back to square one; why use a Renesis then? why go through all these gyrations that require more resources to accomplish a same or worse result?
A PP Renesis was done once for an airplane application. You’re still going to be dealing with a PP intake engine, which unless you employ a way to vary intake runner length like the sliding trumpet design on the Lemans 4-rotor engine then it will have a narrow powerband and it will still come up against the exhaust port limitation. I think that engine dyno with a comparison to my own stock port Renesis is already posted earlier in this thread, but a link to the original bickerfest is below. Which they weren’t shooting for peak high rpm power, but for an airplane peak take-off power at 7200 rpm. You can clearly see that HP under the curve suffers as does low rpm power. For an automotive application it’d require a short ratio trans being continuously revved up and shifting like crazy. Which with a synchro type street trans you’ll probably losing more time making all the extra shifts than gained by the power peak difference.
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-maj...2/#post4656570
.
.
A PP Renesis was done once for an airplane application. You’re still going to be dealing with a PP intake engine, which unless you employ a way to vary intake runner length like the sliding trumpet design on the Lemans 4-rotor engine then it will have a narrow powerband and it will still come up against the exhaust port limitation. I think that engine dyno with a comparison to my own stock port Renesis is already posted earlier in this thread, but a link to the original bickerfest is below. Which they weren’t shooting for peak high rpm power, but for an airplane peak take-off power at 7200 rpm. You can clearly see that HP under the curve suffers as does low rpm power. For an automotive application it’d require a short ratio trans being continuously revved up and shifting like crazy. Which with a synchro type street trans you’ll probably losing more time making all the extra shifts than gained by the power peak difference.
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-maj...2/#post4656570
.
.
10-15-2020, 02:05 PM
#265
Profile cut mild steel inserts around 5mm thick to the shape of the lower port. There will be no flow so I don't think the material needs to be more heat resistant than MS.
Prep side of port and tig weld this piece of plate into place such that it sits 3-4mm below the flat surface of the iron.
Lap the irons.
I think this would work pretty well on its own leaving a depression in the side of the iron . This would in time get carbon in it and the risk is this breaks loose at some point and does damage . I think this would be quite a few miles down the road however and for a performance engine may not be an issue as they get rebuilt often anyway.
Attempting to fill this depression is where it gets risky ...IMO.
Last edited by Brettus; 10-15-2020 at 02:08 PM.
10-15-2020, 11:58 PM
#266
Registered
Have given this a lot of thought and the most practical idea I can come up that has the best chance of not damaging the plates or failing in use goes something like this:
Profile cut mild steel inserts around 5mm thick to the shape of the lower port. There will be no flow so I don't think the material needs to be more heat resistant than MS.
Prep side of port and tig weld this piece of plate into place such that it sits 3-4mm below the flat surface of the iron.
Lap the irons.
I think this would work pretty well on its own leaving a depression in the side of the iron . This would in time get carbon in it and the risk is this breaks loose at some point and does damage . I think this would be quite a few miles down the road however and for a performance engine may not be an issue as they get rebuilt often anyway.
Attempting to fill this depression is where it gets risky ...IMO.
Profile cut mild steel inserts around 5mm thick to the shape of the lower port. There will be no flow so I don't think the material needs to be more heat resistant than MS.
Prep side of port and tig weld this piece of plate into place such that it sits 3-4mm below the flat surface of the iron.
Lap the irons.
I think this would work pretty well on its own leaving a depression in the side of the iron . This would in time get carbon in it and the risk is this breaks loose at some point and does damage . I think this would be quite a few miles down the road however and for a performance engine may not be an issue as they get rebuilt often anyway.
Attempting to fill this depression is where it gets risky ...IMO.
Then it would be the matter of the Pport housing choice, which still would bring us back into the overlap argument.
-----------
Or if we really wanted to go overkill im sure its possible to CAD up renesis plates without the side ports in them.....much like the billet engines we see. With this you could probably figure out how early you want your intake to open to reduce the overlap and retain the use of off the shelf gslse housings. ---------->should have looked into this while i was still in college, we had access to a full machine shop with pretty much anything I think would be needed for free.....well $200k in debt kinda free but who's keeping track.
10-16-2020, 12:41 AM
#267
What material/coating is used on the iron face where the side seal glides across? For sure this is in the realm of overkill, but my thought was to essentially create a permanent insert that could be coated like the iron plate surface. Then lap the iron and insert flat. This would heavily dip into some material science questioning of whether you could bond that insert to the iron face without it being at risk of separating due to exhaust temps.
Then it would be the matter of the Pport housing choice, which still would bring us back into the overlap argument.
-----------
Or if we really wanted to go overkill im sure its possible to CAD up renesis plates without the side ports in them.....much like the billet engines we see. With this you could probably figure out how early you want your intake to open to reduce the overlap and retain the use of off the shelf gslse housings. ---------->should have looked into this while i was still in college, we had access to a full machine shop with pretty much anything I think would be needed for free.....well $200k in debt kinda free but who's keeping track.
Then it would be the matter of the Pport housing choice, which still would bring us back into the overlap argument.
-----------
Or if we really wanted to go overkill im sure its possible to CAD up renesis plates without the side ports in them.....much like the billet engines we see. With this you could probably figure out how early you want your intake to open to reduce the overlap and retain the use of off the shelf gslse housings. ---------->should have looked into this while i was still in college, we had access to a full machine shop with pretty much anything I think would be needed for free.....well $200k in debt kinda free but who's keeping track.
I really can't see the overlap causing much power loss low down . Would have to be better than a bridgeport . We know that causes a low rpm power loss but a BP has HUGE overlap by comparison. Whether the pp exhaust overlap would be beneficial up top is the big question.
10-16-2020, 01:19 AM
#268
Registered
I'd be wary of trying to replicate the existing surface and more inclined to go with something that I know wouldn't be an issue. Hence leaving the fill plate recessed idea.
I really can't see the overlap causing much power loss low down . Would have to be better than a bridgeport . We know that causes a low rpm power loss but a BP has HUGE overlap by comparison. Whether the pp exhaust overlap would be beneficial up top is the big question.
I really can't see the overlap causing much power loss low down . Would have to be better than a bridgeport . We know that causes a low rpm power loss but a BP has HUGE overlap by comparison. Whether the pp exhaust overlap would be beneficial up top is the big question.
Reading up on some renesis turbo setups it seemed like there were issues with the apv's opening too slowly for a 300+hp engine.
10-16-2020, 05:17 AM
#269
So now here's my question, what part of the renesis do you think is worth keeping over a rew block? The intake design? Intake ports? Variable intake system?
Reading up on some renesis turbo setups it seemed like there were issues with the apv's opening too slowly for a 300+hp engine.
Reading up on some renesis turbo setups it seemed like there were issues with the apv's opening too slowly for a 300+hp engine.
The big issue with the REW is that it's an engine swap .....which can be expensive.
With the APV ...sure it's slow for a turbo setup . But you just need to adjust the rpm it operates at to compensate for that so ...not an issue.
10-16-2020, 11:23 AM
#270
just because any particular person isn’t informed about it doesn’t negate the knowledge of others.
instead of being the dreaming noob chasing unicorns in threads like this, try posting less and reading more to inform and educate yourself on the facts and realities.
that’s the real issue long before you need to be concerned about the engine itself.
or let yourself be led down the path of ruin because you’re only willing to listen to those things you want to hear. The same things you don’t really understand enough about to know any better of.
there’s nothing either unsound or unreasonable about educating and arming yourself with knowledge to fend off the potential afflictions of fools and their follies ...
.
instead of being the dreaming noob chasing unicorns in threads like this, try posting less and reading more to inform and educate yourself on the facts and realities.
that’s the real issue long before you need to be concerned about the engine itself.
or let yourself be led down the path of ruin because you’re only willing to listen to those things you want to hear. The same things you don’t really understand enough about to know any better of.
there’s nothing either unsound or unreasonable about educating and arming yourself with knowledge to fend off the potential afflictions of fools and their follies ...
.
10-17-2020, 09:58 PM
#272
why ignore the results and evidence here, which have never been anything special?
what do you think you can add to it that these guys in particular, and everybody else who ever tried it, can’t?
everything needed to know and understand is here in this thread if you have the eyes to see and the ears to hear it.
this is no place for noobs though. if you want a turbo renesis then focus on the successful results and what make them that way compared to the heaping pile of mediocre, unsuccessful, or incomplete attempts.
those would be the threads for forum members brettus, slash128, jcbrx8, 9krpmrx8, and gregs.
if you want a strong NA engine then don’t even bother because all it will ever be is mediocre results at unnecessarily high rpm, which will likely take many iterations of modifications and extensive testing to dial in.
otherwise there are numerous threads on this forum alone, just a few, you can look for all the rest.
this guy built one then sold it for an REW swap; went from 5 to 2 exhaust ports, talked up a lot but never produced any actual results despite claiming to have put it on the dyno ... he knows and found out the hard way. note the other people in the thread that claimed to have one in progress ...
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-maj...4/#post4687808
https://www.rx8club.com/australia-new-zealand-forum-37/rebuilt-renesis-bridgeport-hybrid-peripheral-exhaust-engine-extractors-sydney-264419
the mother cash load of them all, here then, gone later ...
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-maj...set-up-261432/
https://chipsmotorsports.com/product...nifold-flange/
multiple attempts in the UK, Australia, Greece, France, probably Russia too, but still we never see any meaningful results
https://monstand.forumactif.info/t15...uralimentation
there are multiple sources for buying the exhaust flange now, it’s been done many times
do we really need to review all the Renesis bridgeport and other porting results, which are pretty well accepted by most anyone on here now as 2-steps backwards; either NA or turbo?
there’s another thread that could be posted, but that might be taken too personal even though that wouldn’t be the intention.
which again, people can’t even see what’s clearly in front of their eyes and should be obvious. adding more content or proof won’t change what already isn’t being comprehended.
.
what do you think you can add to it that these guys in particular, and everybody else who ever tried it, can’t?
everything needed to know and understand is here in this thread if you have the eyes to see and the ears to hear it.
this is no place for noobs though. if you want a turbo renesis then focus on the successful results and what make them that way compared to the heaping pile of mediocre, unsuccessful, or incomplete attempts.
those would be the threads for forum members brettus, slash128, jcbrx8, 9krpmrx8, and gregs.
if you want a strong NA engine then don’t even bother because all it will ever be is mediocre results at unnecessarily high rpm, which will likely take many iterations of modifications and extensive testing to dial in.
otherwise there are numerous threads on this forum alone, just a few, you can look for all the rest.
this guy built one then sold it for an REW swap; went from 5 to 2 exhaust ports, talked up a lot but never produced any actual results despite claiming to have put it on the dyno ... he knows and found out the hard way. note the other people in the thread that claimed to have one in progress ...
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-maj...4/#post4687808
https://www.rx8club.com/australia-new-zealand-forum-37/rebuilt-renesis-bridgeport-hybrid-peripheral-exhaust-engine-extractors-sydney-264419
the mother cash load of them all, here then, gone later ...
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-maj...set-up-261432/
https://chipsmotorsports.com/product...nifold-flange/
multiple attempts in the UK, Australia, Greece, France, probably Russia too, but still we never see any meaningful results
https://monstand.forumactif.info/t15...uralimentation
there are multiple sources for buying the exhaust flange now, it’s been done many times
do we really need to review all the Renesis bridgeport and other porting results, which are pretty well accepted by most anyone on here now as 2-steps backwards; either NA or turbo?
there’s another thread that could be posted, but that might be taken too personal even though that wouldn’t be the intention.
which again, people can’t even see what’s clearly in front of their eyes and should be obvious. adding more content or proof won’t change what already isn’t being comprehended.
.
Last edited by TeamRX8; 10-18-2020 at 09:51 AM.
10-18-2020, 10:05 AM
#274
yes, there are other attempts on there too, I forgot the username of the one guy who did it back then or sooner too; a lot of talk and can’t back it up with numbers, which are lower than many stock port dynos on here.
there are a lot of people on that website who got sucked into thinking a brapping bridgeport @ idle means they make power; the few dynos that can be found say otherwise; no surprise
because again, they assumed all that from the past without assessing and understanding what it is that makes the Renesis dynamically different
the future for any production engine is all side ports, but as was detailed in the exhaust port thread, an entire engine redesign is needed to change the rotary eccentric and width dimensions to achieve a port configurations. Being locked into the 13B standard limited what could be accomplished on the RX8 Renesis. Easier said than done though as our engine does bear out. When it works, it works, but isn’t tolerant at all of sloppy clearances and sealing. It’s the same Renesis dynamic difference that causes this, because it essentially is mucking up the intake cycle. Which is excessive exhaust crossover, as evident by intake valves becoming crudded up with deposits.
.
.
there are a lot of people on that website who got sucked into thinking a brapping bridgeport @ idle means they make power; the few dynos that can be found say otherwise; no surprise
because again, they assumed all that from the past without assessing and understanding what it is that makes the Renesis dynamically different
the future for any production engine is all side ports, but as was detailed in the exhaust port thread, an entire engine redesign is needed to change the rotary eccentric and width dimensions to achieve a port configurations. Being locked into the 13B standard limited what could be accomplished on the RX8 Renesis. Easier said than done though as our engine does bear out. When it works, it works, but isn’t tolerant at all of sloppy clearances and sealing. It’s the same Renesis dynamic difference that causes this, because it essentially is mucking up the intake cycle. Which is excessive exhaust crossover, as evident by intake valves becoming crudded up with deposits.
.
.
10-18-2020, 07:09 PM
#275
Ok ...so lots of attempts and no results . Doesn't look good I agree. Very frustrating that these people never follow through with the results when there is bad news ...if indeed that is the case. That just leaves the door open for others to make the same mistakes .
Hope this one I mentioned above doesn't go the same way.
Hope this one I mentioned above doesn't go the same way.