When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Before posting this I looked for a thread to post on but they all seemed a bit of a mess so I'm starting a new thread.
First I'm gunna state that I think there are far too many people experimenting with this at the moment and IMO they are setting themselves up for disappointment. There has NEVER been published, verifiable, good results for a Renesis hybrid as far as I know. If there is anyone reading this that has such info ..please post it here.
I believe what we are seeing atm is a whole lot of old school rotor guys now coming to the rx8 thinking they know better than those of us that have been messing with them for years.
Contrary to some(hi Team) on here however, I do believe there are possibilities for decent results by blocking the side exhaust ports. Unfortunately No-one I'm aware of has tested this through to a conclusion.
All that said : the main reason I'm posting this is because I've been asked to help help tune a Renesis hybrid . I have told them I don't think it will work........... but, they are going ahead anyway.
So why am I starting this thread? Because , with any luck , I'll be able to post some actual unbiased results - or state that it failed - without pointing out who it is obviously.
Aim of thread is to either squash or encourage this practice based on actual results rather than hopes and dreams!
Edit : I've already been kicked off one FB page for suggesting we need results before encouraging people to do this ....
Should be interesting to see what comes of it, as one of the new school generation that is hoping to find a way to keep the Rx8 kicking. Personally after piecing together a lot of the various theories from the scattered threads I still don't have high hopes. It seems like pairing together the parts leads to shooting yourself in the foot in aspects that would make a strong N/A build and aspects that would make a strong turbo build, with the only gain being variability.
I shall include my findings and current turbo hybrid theory build in a spoiler to reduce clutter.
Spoiler
The Stack:
Rx8 front and rear Iron stock secondary ports and auxiliary ports with cleaned up exhaust ports to avoid carbon buildup. I do not believe filling the side exhaust ports is the way to go for the people reading this that are likely backyard builders. Maybe if a block off sleeve was made to better seal it off with no worry of breaking free or melting.
Gslse housings (has coolant seal grooves and PPort exhaust)
Rx8 rotors, side seals, corner seals machined for Rx7 depth Apex seals. Mazda did a lot of work in reliably making those side seals be able to survive going across the side exhaust ports for as long as they do.
86-88 N/A Rx7 Center Iron, which aims to eliminate the Siamese port while at the same time reducing the overlap between the intake Primary and exhaust ports. Ideally I believe for flow this would want to be ported aiming to close later without opening earlier.......... I chose this year N/A iron because of the port opening timing and because of how the intake runner is oriented. Also there is plenty of meat there to cut and match the LIM to the runners. I believe the rx8 manifold may actually bolt right up. Also the rx8 primary injector rail may mount up as well. You would need a blockoff plate for the opening on top of the plate. Because these Irons have coolant seal grooves, You would have to fill the center face GSLSE housing grooves.
This stack would ideally bolt right to the rx8 LIM so you can fully utilize the variable intake design while only having 4 exhaust ports instead of 5 to deal with. Now the variable LIM is a blessing and a curse. Cons are that it is more volume for the turbo to pressurize, and the secondary will be an open cavity during the intake cycle which may see exhaust gases from overlap(see timing map pic below). Pros would be that you could have better control across your rpm bands. For instance you would aim to have a stock primary port idle+low end torque and higher flowing secondary and auxiliary ports aiming for top end.
Now it comes down to convenience almost, does the variability to swap between a stock 13b primary port and what can be more of a bridge port 13b bring anything to the table? Response could be a mess to deal with and tune. In the end its likely that the engine would perform like a mediocre N/A 13b in the low end, poor responding mid range, and some cross between a street/bridge port in the higher range. Even though the exhaust ports can be setup for a twinscroll, I believe the pulses and exhaust energy are going to be weak due to the volume and split exhaust ports. My turbo theory knowledge is lacking however since I am young and have only dealt with low compression rx8s for 7 years. (had to get a mech engineering degree before being able to finally rebuild)
I'm already in the planning and prep phase of doing a rew build within the next year, so I likely won't be trying this concept out unless parts fall into my lap.
(timing graph not to scale, was hard to fit in one picture so I put in the actual timing degrees instead)
Edit: Maybe Gamechangers?
If we could fill the rx8 side exhaust ports (issue of exhaust heat and pressure)
If we could make our own Pport exhaust sleeves for renesis housings. Which would allow you to potentially make them close sooner reducing overlap. For a N/A build I imagine since mazda did a simple log manifold and nobody really gets gains from tubed simply adding a more flow within the same exhaust timing wouldn't hurt. (Machining issue of flaking the Nitride surface)
Custom LIM that utilizes two apv style sleeves so the volume between the Rx8 secondary port and the SSV is lessened.
He didnt plug the side ports but rather used them to get even more exhaust flow. Sounds like a great recipe even if very few people tried it successfully.
It may have it’s place, but under a very limited set of circumstances. I never said it wouldn’t work, having put forth the case for where and how it might possibly work. Most people missed that or forgot about it.
In general it’s not going to be for most people and it simply isn’t going to work as what might be reasonably defined as a daily driver type street vehicle. IMO it will never work NA regardless due to the primary and secondary ports being repositioned so far advanced in the Renesis than any previous Wankel engine. Which was done entirely around the zero overlap design principle that the Renesis is based upon and is what makes it unique among combustion engines IMO. It was never intended to have overlap and once that is added, whether intentionally or through loss of sealing, performance suffers as a result in most situations.
Mazda designed in many features on the Renesis to avoid and address it as per the original SAE paper. Again, nobody is recognizing or acknowledging the significance of this. Instead they assume a Renesis is just like the prior engines and throwing a peri exhaust port housing will magically result in many unicorns being generated. Nope, rather it only demonstrates that zero effort was put into analyzing the situation, but only misplaced assumptions and guesses . Without a doubt it is very significant wrt exhaust reversion into the intake system and is made manifest in gummed up intake manifold valves, low vacuum, performance loss, and so on. As I’ve said before, installing peri exhaust ports on a Renesis is the equivalent of installing a mega-dragstrip type camshaft in your otherwise stockish street engine. In the piston engine world, the net result of doing that is an obvious fail.
IMO it will never have much to offer below 5500 rpm, which to date is actually proven if you know where to look for the answers and can then also discern them. Again, the only hope for it IMO is to treat it like a full-on peripheral port engine with a turbo application; big turbo & big AR to avoid the emap ever exceeding boost. What that comes down to is 600+ whp that has nothing below 6000 rpm if it actually proves to work. Or you can do what Kyle Mohan did, which again has nothing below 5500 and then really doesn’t offer anything that you can get out of an REW without the substantial low end loss. I demonstrated it over in the Mazfatrix thread, though there are those who refuse to accept the results.
So this is how I came to the understanding of what is stated above. It’s not as simple as a virtual video game where things magically appear at your command or dreaming stuff up in your head that have no basis in reality. You have to sit down to study and logically analyze the details:
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
lol, can’t recall posting that, might have gotten the idea from Brettus. I might even instead say to instead have two manifolds now; the two peri exhaust ports to the turbo and all the side ports to a wastegate. It might actually work except ...
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
that having ideas based on shooting from the hip and fully understanding in detail what makes things tick, or not, can often be quite different in the perceived and actual outcome. So just throwing 13B housings together with Renesis plates might seem like a good idea.
I even thought so myself at one time. It all comes down to port timing though. Mazda didn’t just reduce exhaust overlap on the Renesis. They rotated a lot of the intake and port timing events together. Not just closing the exhaust port sooner, but opening the intake ports sooner. A lot sooner for both.
So on the Renesis there’s no intake-exhaust overlap at all. On the REW, which has the same exhaust opening timing as the GSL housing; so I’m going to focus on the REW timing as a comparison, it has some overlap. It’s not a lot, but some.
REW Primary port - 3 deg overlap Secondary port - 13 deg overlap APV port - N/A
Because Mazda phased the REW intake port opening points away from when the exhaust port closes to minimize overlap. With the Renesis they did the same thing, which is they closed the exhaust port a lot earlier, and then opened the intake ports a lot earlier too. So when the peripheral exhaust is added it doesn’t just add some overlap. It adds a LOT of overlap. Like peripheral intake port amount of overlap.
So most people are familiar with this comparison between the REW and Renesis ports from the Renesis SAE paper.
However, the scaling is such that the detail at the overlap point is not readily seen.
Which you can see it in the timing events if the effort is made to do that. So what happens when the 13B housing and Renesis plates are combined? Well I’m going to compare it against the MFR factory peripheral intake port paired with the REW housing. In reality, the exhaust port is opened more for racing with added overlap, but this is with the unmodified exhaust port with OE closing
Renesis with REW housing Primary port - 45 deg overlap Secondary port - 36 deg overlap APV port - 20 deg overlap
MFR PP with REW housing P port - 58 deg overlap
Note that the P port opens 13 deg earlier than the earliest Renesis intake port, but has the same closing point as the latest Renesis intake port. So what Mazda has done with the Renesis is create intake timing similar to a P port, but with the staged S-DAIS intake manifold system to greatly improve drivability. Plus, they did it with no intake-exhaust overlap. On the Renesis there’s 6 degs timing between when the exhaust port closes and the earliest intake port opens.
I’m coming to the conclusion that this has a lot implications that likely weren’t ever realized before. It’s been well accepted that the common scavenging intake theory applies well to the Rotary engine, yet Mazda achieved power on the Renesis without it. Even without the S-DAIS intake system the Renesis excels above a 13B.
So it seems there’s more going on with this than was ever previously realized on a rotary engine. Almost as if there are two entirely different methods to achieve rotary power output now. So where is all this going? If we’re essentially pairing a P port intake; and staged one at that, with a P port exhaust, then herds of unicorns and lucky charm leprechauns ought to be flying out of the exhaust pipe, right? Unfortunately life isn’t that simple.
With the 13B housings a lot of overlap is added and as we saw previously, it’s added the most on the primary ports, which are never closed off, and then more coming in later with the staged Sec and APV ports. So in that sense it’s more like the race P port intake. However I concluded and have stated before that the real spoiler is the side exhaust ports.
The scavenging port flow theory is based on tuning exhaust pulses to time them with the intake ports opening to scavenge out the last of the exhaust gasses and replace them with fresh intake A/F. The problem is though, that with both the side and peri exhaust ports together it greatly increased volume, which in turn reduces velocity, but it’s also broken up into three separate streams rather than in one concentrated pulse stream per rotor. That more or less kills scavenging; lot’s of overlap, no scavenging, and then the logical extension is, lots of exhaust gasses recirculating into the intake cycle. However, scavenging mostly applies to normal aspiration. once FI is introduced it changes. In my estimation, the Renesis-13B hybrid concept for NA is never going to work for these reasons.
So ok, we just throw a turbo on and get ready for the sudden rush of unicorns and leprechauns, right? Not so fast. Yes, a P port setup can make big power with a turbo, really big power, but only under certain conditions. The big benefit of a P port is that it can be extremely efficient, quite a bit greater than 100% even, but generally within a narrow operating range.
You can stage a Pport similar to what the Renesis S-DAIS intake does, i.e. the infamous 26B 4-port LeMans engine. However that was all done integrally with sliding trumpet runners. It’s accomplished some with the S-DAIS intake, but the port runners are never going to shorten and free flow up enough to achieve that kind of efficiency. It’s all that drag from the runner wall length holding it back.
The other thing is, a P port intake is very sensitive to backpressure. Even with the drivability issue aside, the problem with running one on the street is the exhaust noise because it has to flow freely for the scavenging to work properly. Except we throw scavenging out the window with FI. What you then have to avoid is turbo manifold backpressure. Also, while overlap is good for scavenging, that amount of it for turbo is not good. The goal is to fill the chamber, combust it powerfully, and then get it out, rinse an repeat. Too much overlap and too much backpressure with a turbo is simply creating the NA condition; excessive combustion gasses going back to the intake cycle.
So my final conclusion is that potentially big power can be had with this using a turbo; a really big turbo. A small turbo with a tight turbine isn’t going to cut it at all. It needs a big turbo with a big A/R. You need to be thinking EFR 9174/80 with 1.45 housing or equivalent non-EFR without modifying the exhaust port timing, set up with E85, high boost and high rpm. Think Scoot Japan kind of power and rpm. That’s my current conclusion any way. . .
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
Ok, so now let’s take it to the next level. In summary of the previous post I made regarding Renesis port timing relative to the 13B REW, Mazda mostly advanced the phasing of the intake and exhaust ports in the combustion cycle.
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
Where the REW exhaust port closed at 48 deg ATDC, on the Renesis it closes at 3 deg BTDC; advanced 51 deg
Where the REW primary port opened at 45 deg ATDC, on the Renesis it opens at 3 deg ATDC; advanced 42 deg
Where the REW secondary port opened at 32 deg ATDC, on the Renesis it opens at 13 deg ATDC; advanced 19 deg from about 4000 rpm and up
Just for clarity, the Renesis APV port opens at 38 deg ATDC
Let’s start with the unmodified Renesis engine. It has no overlap between the exhaust port closing at 3 deg BTDC and the primary intake opening at 3 deg ATDC; a 6 deg separation. Whereas the REW port closes at 48 deg ATDC and the primary intake opening at 45 deg ATDC; 3 deg overlap. The one critical aspect of this that’s different between the two is the position of the rotor. When Mazda advanced the intake and exhaust phasing on the Renesis, it now occurs right around TDC; where the combustion chamber of the rotor is at it’s minimum volume. Whereas on the REW and earlier 13Bs it’s happening about 45 deg later when the volume is expanding for the intake cycle to take place. This is a big deal, especially for forced induction.
So think about a turbo REW which at some point is going to have exhaust back-pressure. Even though the exhaust port stays open for 48 deg past TDC, the rotor combustion chamber is expanding as the exhaust port opening is becoming smaller. So the net combustion chamber pressure is decreasing at the point the primary intake port is opening, helping to minimize back-flow into the intake system.
Rotor position and expanding chamber volume as 13B intake port opens
On a Renesis though, this same event is taking place right around TDC when combustion chamber is at a minimum and pressure is highest. Even though there is zero overlap, any remaining pressure in the combustion chamber when the exhaust port closes will be released into the primary intake port 6 deg later which for all basic purposes is still TDC. The pressure is not relieved into an expanding volume like on the REW. On the Renesis, it will instead be immediately released into the primary intake port.
Renesis is still essentially at BDC with minimum chamber volume when intake port opens.
Those of you who understand my Renesis exhaust manifold theory can perhaps better grasp why I had stressed that it was best to get the exhaust gasses out with the least amount of resistance/back-pressure. You can’t scavenge a closed chamber; the Zero Overlap condition, and the exhaust port closes slowly at the end with an every decreasing opening area. Some people theorized you could pulse tune a wave to hit at the closing, but because of the actual conditions that will never work. It can only occur if the port could be instantaneously shut from below ing widely open right as the pulse hits. Even then it’s still trying to pull a vacuum on a closed chamber. They don’t understand the difference between the energy of the pulse and the energy required to pull a vacuum. It simply can never happen. Nobody was listening when they were told that.
So that’s NA. What about FI on the Renesis? Well it’s the same thing. Any back-pressure that’s trapped in the combustion chamber when the exhaust port closes is immediately released into the primary port 6 deg later. Even if you think a way around that is to fill/block the primary port, the secondary port opens only 9 deg later. The rotor has progressed around some towards the intake cycle, but is still so close to TDC that it won’t be a huge difference, but it might offer an advantage. I had thought with a blocked primary port maybe combined with modifying the UIM to allow limited flow from the primary port runner over to the secondary runner, which would then transition to full secondary runner flow when the SSV opens, might be worth investigating. Still unsure on that though.
However, once we pair 13B rotor housings with Renesis plates to form a hybrid the impact is huge, as noted before. Not only is the exhaust port still open when the primary port opens at 3 deg ATDC, the secondary port opens only 9 deg later from 4000 rpm up, and even the APV has some overlap too from 6000 rpm up. Even though the combustion chamber is expanding, both the intake and exhaust ports are open at the same time for a very long period. There’s a lot of combustion gas dilution and back flow into the intake because of too much overlap too early in the intake cycle and imo all the results bear this out. This is why I stated previously that using a big turbo with a large A/R turbine housing and higher rpm range is the only way 13B housings with Renesis plates will ever work. That’s pretty much how it’s done with a P port intake and forced induction on a rotary.
I have one question for you : We know a bridgeport can be successful on an REW engine both N/A and turbo.
If we blocked the Renesis side exhaust ports and added PP housings (and an equal length header) ....... the amount of overlap is actually LESS than a BP REW . So, why shouldn't the Renesis work in the same way?
I don’t know that and in fact argue the opposite, *especially* for NA. The bridgeport on a Renesis is fairly small and doesn’t add much compared to what’s done on the prior engines, again due to the revised intake port positions and timing on the Renesis. Yet that early timing position also results in the same thing; high exhaust pressure gasses at minimum combustion chamber volume rushing in very early, just to a lesser degree due to the smallish opening size. There isn’t the same amount of porting space between the housing wall and the port on the Renesis, yet the full port opening happens quickly thereafter and it’s still all way earlier in the intake timing phase.
I understand why you think and suggest that, but again imo it only demonstrates that the significance of the port repositioning is still not being fully understood. The closest equivalent might be a PP intake setup. A lot of people think a PP intake port is also a magic unicorn maker, but if you go over to RX7Club then you can see plenty of examples that don’t even come close to what a proper Renesis can do up high, and are a complete dud below 5500 rpm.
There are a lot of factors that go into a successful PP intake engine, and even then they don’t do much below 5500. They also have a specific intake design that suits the purpose well. A Renesis intake manifold doesn’t suit that well imo. So at a minimum you’re looking at a custom intake. However, my feeling is that the multiple intake ports are going to inhibit the effectiveness of such a design, the same as multiple exhaust ports will interfere with scavenging effectiveness. Breaking it up into multiple smaller pieces adds negative loss factors that decrease pulse effectiveness overall.
Why it works on the Renesis as designed has to be recognized. Let’s not forget that there was a 6-port NA 13B engine and it simply doesn’t compare to what a Renesis is capable of with it’s zero-overlap design principle. That engine doesn’t really make a good turbo engine either compared to the 4-port designs. The idea that you can block the side exhausts ports effectively long term is still out of reach imo. I considered and studied it for many years. Even a solid cast slug of Inconel to fill the exhaust port cavity in place of the OE insert is still going to result in some void at the side plate face.
The thing is, why do you want to go through all these circular gyrations instead of just using a 13B, whether NA PP intake or FI REW? Even if it does get built, imo you’re just wasting resources and not likely to have as good of a result. It might make sense for competition reasons like how a few of the crazy 13B port configurations came about in the past, but just like those it makes little sense elsewhere.
There are several people on here who have proven that the Renesis does have some potential for reasonable mid-400 whp turbo power, of which you’re undoubtedly chief among them. IMO it makes more sense to continue exploring and undertaking that instead. Which you’ve reached a point where that seems to be the limit or definitive wall in your mind. I’m still not convinced of it. Not saying there isn’t a wall/limit, just not convinced that it’s 450 whp due to some past conversations between us. Don’t care to muddy the water discussing the why’s of that that here though.
.
I don’t know that and in fact argue the opposite, *especially* for NA. The bridgeport on a Renesis .................................................. ........
.
Not sure you understood the question . I know a BP doesn't work on a Renesis - that's not what I was asking.
I'm saying ....IF the overlap from a BP on an REW works , why can't the overlap from a PP exhaust (but without a BP or side ex. ports) work the same way on a Renesis?
For overlap , the engine would be 1/2 way between a stock REW and an REW with a BP. BUT with the awesome Renesis intake setup. I would think it would make more peak hp than a stock Renesis with a very small dropoff down low in rpm band.
It’s not as simple as comparing overlap numbers; how much area is open when and what is the actual flow rate?
what we probably need is graphic overlay superimposing them over each other as the rotor rotates
In a simplified sense, a bridge is really a smaller secondary port area that slowly
opens earlier, then there’s the rotor transition across the bridge with no change in open area, and then the main port area becomes exposed
The Renesis port simply opens and has a lot more area. Note that the REW primary port doesn’t open until 45* ATDC (more to the right). Of course that usually gets ported larger all around with a BP.
So what you’re doing is putting PP exhaust housings on a Renesis is taking the exhaust plot on the LH side of the upper diagram and combining it with the intake plot on the RH side of the lower diagram in the image below. That’s the timing for an unmodified factory PP exhaust port. You can see not just the overlap that’s added, but the much larger intake port area that combines with it. It’s not even showing the actual closing point of the PP exhaust port, which would be a bit further to the right, but the exhaust port open area is decreasing as the intake port area is increasing.
Then what you’re into is it also requires designing/building/testing the new extractor header and also doing the same with a new intake manifold system. Because the RX8 intake manifold is designed for an entirely different resonance dynamic of the zero-overlap Renesis design. It’s being shifted to operate in a much higher rpm range and so on. It’s not a one size fits all scenario at all. Which is a big job given the intake valves when it comes to determining and fabricating it to all of the proper diameters and lengths to accomplish that. NA is much more complicated in that regard than FI imo.
.
Ok thanks for your reply. Looking through that I see some good points but I still think there is a chance it could work for better peak power. The overall engine package will be closer to a BP REW in the way it ran and that would only suit a few people however. Yes you would need to get the header design right but I doubt that the Renesis intake would be as severely compromised (at high rpm) as you are indicating. Nothing has changed as far as intake port timing or duration and at high rpm the tendency will be to push exhaust gas back rather than allow it into the intake.
Something worth experimenting with IMO.
I very well could be wrong. Nothing is posted by me to be king of the hill or such. They’re simply my deductions and experience on how I see it at this point in time. If someone can convince me or demonstrate otherwise then I might see it differently. If you go back to the early days on here you can find plenty of things I thought and said back then that are not my position today.
The Renesis bridgeport and PP exhaust housing mods are two good examples. Just like everyone else I thought if it worked on a 13B then naturally it’d apply to the Renesis. I simply didn’t understand then what I do today.
In my estimation, the Renesis intake manifold is probably one of the most overlooked components for both NA and FI modifications. That’s all I care to say about it at this point in time though.
.
In my estimation, the Renesis intake manifold is probably one of the most overlooked components for both NA and FI modifications. That’s all I care to say about it at this point in time though.
.
I feel like the variable intake is going to be really the only chance of the hybrid concept working by any means. Otherwise what else, other than variability, do the renesis plates bring to the table?
A simple example: being able to run stock primaries and secondaries but opening up to a bridge aux port solely for top end. Using the Apv sleeeves, any negative effects from overlap created with the bridge can be minimized in the low end.
I was hoping others would chime in with info as results came through. I have heard of plenty of them happening but I haven't seen any results whatsoever.
Yeah ...it's not too bad . Certainly not enough gains to justify the effort at this point, given that we have seen similar numbers from stock block Renesis engines. Still keen to see it done the way I mentioned above though !
Nobody ever had an exceptionally slower RX8, right? That pretty much describes 98+% of them imo.
if you watched the vid and can’t discern it relative to non-moving points and objects on the track, then ok.
it’s only running 40-110 mph speeds, I’m fairly familiar with that range and honestly it doesn’t seem that fast to me for what should be a sort of strong Renesis engine. There are quite a few track vids in the race area, maybe review and compare them is my suggestion.
Not disagreeing with you ...there is a lot going on .
*Slightly more power ... higher rev limit, race exhaust, porting, tuned,new engine etc
*lighter car ...maybe by as much as 100kg taking into account it will certainly have a roll cage.
*Better driver ...getting better corner exit speeds
*Better tyres .... getting better corner exit speeds
But .... daym it made those other 8s look hella sluggish !
After further consideration I have to concede not considering that I don’t know what the combined vehicle-occupant weight is. I don’t really have any experience with 3300+ lb RX8s. So it it’s loaded down with mass that would definitely be a factor. It has about 30 lbs of sticker weight on it at least.
It did seem to have low rear gearing though based on the shift speeds.
I’m just stating though once it’s out of the corner and capable of WOT that it’s not really accelerating that well imo. Even down at the lowest speeds is where an RX8 is most capable due to gearing and rpm range. It’s just not getting up and going imo.
.
After further consideration I have to concede not considering that I don’t know what the combined vehicle-occupant weight is. I don’t really have any experience with 3300+ lb RX8s. So it it’s loaded down with mass that would definitely be a factor. It has about 30 lbs of sticker weight on it at least.
It did seem to have low rear gearing though based on the shift speeds.
I’m just stating though once it’s out of the corner and capable of WOT that it’s not really accelerating that well imo. Even down at the lowest speeds is where an RX8 is most capable due to gearing and rpm range. It’s just not getting up and going imo.
.
Gearing you might be right, but regardless its keeping very well with the MS3 on the straights; and I assume that isn't stock? A large assumption there, but I mean it does look good so far! Driver mod is very obvious with his corner exit speeds.
04-09-2021, 05:56 PM
