rotarygod

It's still not a bad engine. It just has less performance potential. Remember that smaller is better only until you max it out and need more. Mazda did pretty good and only used what they needed.

HiTMaNN

Yah you know i love reading your posts. Your wisdome is infinate, you know everything and i just love how you put everything in perfect detail. You broke this post down into sections lol you should join me at uni and write some good papers for me LoL yah i have contacted 4 ppl on used rx8s now im just waiting on their replies

JeRKy 8 Owner

Hitmann - so after a year of ownership youve had enough? Fed up w/the lack of power and gas mileage? The stellar cornering just isnt cutting it for you anymore eh?
Sorry to hear that - see I thought I had you pinned as one of the members on here that would definitely end up installing a turbo on his automatic.

By the way - Imnot quite sure why this thread was resurrected from May 04. The information it contains still seems pretty accurate but theres already a member onhere who has installed the turbo on his automatic and has cut his 0-60 down by nearly 2 and a half seconds (8.8 to 6.4). I find that somewhat impressive given all the barriers the automatic has going against it (based on what rotarygod has stated here).

rotarygod

You can always make an engine faster with forced induction. Even the 4 port. How high you can ultimately take it will not be as high as the 6 port engine though. You never know, the point that it can't be made to go any higher may not be until 400 hp or more. It's not saying this can't be a fast engine with some work. It just can't get the ultimate power that a 6 port engine could. In no way do I think the auto owners should be discouraged with their engines. Add forced induction. You can go alot faster. Without forced induction they will have a harder time getting power.

Keep in mind that even the 4 port engine makes more power than the last nonturbo rotary did stock. 197hp RX-8 vs 146hp '86-'88 RX-7 and 160hp 89'-91' RX-7. People have done no more than just throw on the stock turbos from a Turbo II RX-7 onto these nonturbo cars and have gotten 275 rwhp. Remember that the 4 port is starting from a higher number. Getting this low power engine over 300 rwhp shouldn't be an issue with a turbo if you can tune it.

therm8

So I guess maybe the thread title should now read, "Why the auto 8 has less potential for power"
:D

rotarygod

That would probably be more appropriate.

SingRX8

RG, mine is a JDM 5sp. So my engine is the same as the auto 8? If I were to go FI, my yields would be that of the auto 8 as well right?

rotarygod

They should be.

slllygrl10

What about that sc that claims to have 325 lbs of torque that too has no potential?

automaton

I don't think I read even once in this thread that there is "no potential" for improvement, only that said potential is lower in the 4 port engine. In fact, Rotary God has said numerous times in this thread that FI (Super- or Turbocharging) holds great performance potential for both engines. The 6 port engine will have higher relative gains (i.e. a 4 port may gain 15% more power from a given mod whereas the 6 port might gain 20% from that same mod)

Feel free to correct me if I've missinterpretted.

zaku

It's the same engine as a auto one but the ecu tuning is different.

nzarnow

I own an auto rx-8 stock and my 0-60 time is 6.6....

truemagellen

that is not true....the 6sp is 6 port and the auto/5sp mt is 4 port...

also the VFAD intake is not on the auto/5sp as there is no need for further aspiration since the engine tops out at 7500rpms

that is the reason why at 7500rpms things start getting loud and furious for the 6sp mt owners

would you like the tech module that goes into detail on the engines and the differentce between the standard power (auto/5sp mt) and high power (6sp) it is very fascinating to learn how complex the renesis engine is

rotarygod

That's what he said.

RodsterinFL

So, is it worth putting money out for $300 intake filter kits really?

mikeb

not really but I love the way it sounds

Jdunsh

Rotary God, You are the most negative person on this site. I rarely see you post anything that doesn't rain on someone elses parade, what gives?

rotarygod

Negative? About what? Is the big problem that I'm raining on someone else's parade alot, or that they had higher expectations than what is realistic and they just found out? I try to tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. That's usually the opposite of alot of false advertising. That's what my negative side is generally aimed at. People do have the right to not agree with me if they choose not to. It won't hurt my feelings.

Lock & Load

Learn to respect the knowlege of God , when he speaks we all listen .

cheers
michael

truemagellen

except about politics

cheers
jason :D

Jdunsh

Perhaps that is the case, just seems to me you're always unneccesarily knocking a lot of things.

DjRx8

You're right, rotarygod when you say "the AT RX-8 engine has less power potential than the 6MT" , i mean just the gearbox alone could make everyone agree to the fact... but... " the Auto RX-8 has little potential for power" is debatable. RE Amemiya beefed up an auto RX8 to 256whp/325 lb-ft. Greddy's working on the turbo version as well which should at least match those figures or even exceed them.

But DAMN, wouldn't it be nice if us auto 8 owners have a 6-speed gearbox instead of 4?

slllygrl10

Im still very hopeful

rotarygod

That's why I went back to rename the thread since I felt it was a little misleading to begin with. Unfortunately when you go back in to edit a thread to change the name, you only change it in the first post. The overall thread title does not get altered. The system wouldn't let me do it.

EDIT: Wait a minute. I'm a moderator. I CAN change it!!! Thread title is now more appropriate.

truemagellen

You are a moderator? :p g-d help us all...oh wait you can't have those goofy little sayings under you screename anymore can you....ok I don't mind your new status now :p :D