The Interceptor-X for N/A Cars
12-25-2005, 08:33 PM
#551
Int'l Man of Mystery
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by neit_jnf
It's been more than proven that due to the Rotary's inefficient combustion chamber shape (long and flat rather than round) it benefits from faster burning fuel, i.e., low octane. This promotes a more complete burn thanks to the faster travel of the flame front and thus better power.
This is not the case on turbocharged ones though; due to the low resistance to detonation the seals in a rotary have, they need to run higher octane at richer mixtures.
This have been proven on older 13B's though, the Renesis is still too young. I don't see why it would be any different as the combustion chambers are the same between older 13B's and the Renesis.
This is not the case on turbocharged ones though; due to the low resistance to detonation the seals in a rotary have, they need to run higher octane at richer mixtures.
This have been proven on older 13B's though, the Renesis is still too young. I don't see why it would be any different as the combustion chambers are the same between older 13B's and the Renesis.
87 vs 93... been heavily debated before. I need to see post 480. Until then... I am curious about this as the strategy Ford used on the V8 in the new Mustang was to aggressively tuning the ECU for 93 octane, but sell the car as 87 octane. The ECU has enough control... is advanced enough to compensate for whatever gas you run in the car. Run 87... it'll pull timing. Run 93 and it'll advance it. With the sharing of engineers and parts (the ECU's are different though)... I am wondering how Mazda went about this.
12-25-2005, 08:39 PM
#552
Int'l Man of Mystery
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw post 480... hmm. Interesting. Makes me wonder why Mazda recommends 93 (not requires). I think I'd like to see stock ECU dynos on 87 vs 93... makes me wonder what's going on in the box.
12-26-2005, 06:01 AM
#554
Int'l Man of Mystery
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ read the post before yours. I did see that post on the results Scott got with your car. My question is not about his tuning and rotaries in general, but why Mazda recommends 93 and how the stock ECU is behaving. I still have some suspicions about the ECU playing with the throttle body even when you're running a "piggyback" (I still consider the Interceptor-X a type of piggyback in this application).
12-26-2005, 11:32 AM
#555
Mad for a Furai
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Madrid - Spain
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must recognise that I am a bit dissapointed about the max output of the renesis in NA. I was hoping/wanting/wishing about 5-10 whp more. 
Nevertheless and being positive let summarise the results in terms of absolute power:
Before: about 195 whp (with some of the usual bolt ons)
After: about 204 whp
I would like to point out that the "prototype" car choosen was one of the "good" ones as usually a stock RX8 puts 175-185 hp at wheels. If the results are consistent and repetitive with all/most of the cars I imagine that "weak" cars (170-180 whp) can reach 200+ whp as well.
If that is the case, weak cars would benefit clearly from the use of the interceptor-X more than "naturally powerful" cars.
Having said that, I still think (wish?) that 210-215 whp can be possible from a N/A car +the interceptor-X safely tuned. Let us see the forthcoming results for different configurations, fuel type, etc.
Something that I appreciate from the interceptor-X is that the gain of torque is quite decent from about 5000 to 8000 rpm. Additionally mileage will be improved between 2000-5000 rpm as it runs leaner than stock
(sometimes much leaner), so no power/torque gains there but some fuel saving. Let´s wait for user reports about this subject.
Hope that idle and general smoothness are not affected or are even improved.
Regards
jird20
Nevertheless and being positive let summarise the results in terms of absolute power:
Before: about 195 whp (with some of the usual bolt ons)
After: about 204 whp
I would like to point out that the "prototype" car choosen was one of the "good" ones as usually a stock RX8 puts 175-185 hp at wheels. If the results are consistent and repetitive with all/most of the cars I imagine that "weak" cars (170-180 whp) can reach 200+ whp as well.
If that is the case, weak cars would benefit clearly from the use of the interceptor-X more than "naturally powerful" cars.
Having said that, I still think (wish?) that 210-215 whp can be possible from a N/A car +the interceptor-X safely tuned. Let us see the forthcoming results for different configurations, fuel type, etc.
Something that I appreciate from the interceptor-X is that the gain of torque is quite decent from about 5000 to 8000 rpm. Additionally mileage will be improved between 2000-5000 rpm as it runs leaner than stock
(sometimes much leaner), so no power/torque gains there but some fuel saving. Let´s wait for user reports about this subject.Hope that idle and general smoothness are not affected or are even improved.
Regards
jird20
Last edited by jird20; 12-27-2005 at 04:20 AM.
12-28-2005, 12:29 PM
#557
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hows your cars idle and start up? It seems that the turbo folks that are using the product have varying responses regarding this topic...
Have you noticed any other changes at all while using this product other than the power increase?
Have you noticed any other changes at all while using this product other than the power increase?
12-28-2005, 12:52 PM
#558
dave,
i only drove it for about a half hour... scott is still working on it.... think he is on vacation..
one of the things he is messing with is the idle with ac on.
as to other changes the biggest thing i noticed was that when you roll into the throttle it was somehow smoother in a big way. i dont know how to explain it other than that.
i hope to have it next week. but it will be done when it is done. would rather have it right the first time.
beers
i only drove it for about a half hour... scott is still working on it.... think he is on vacation..
one of the things he is messing with is the idle with ac on.
as to other changes the biggest thing i noticed was that when you roll into the throttle it was somehow smoother in a big way. i dont know how to explain it other than that.
i hope to have it next week. but it will be done when it is done. would rather have it right the first time.
beers
12-28-2005, 04:23 PM
#562
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by swoope
no,
all the high power and dyno stuff is done, think he is tweaking all the little drivability stuff...
if i had it i would have done a review by now. it is very nice.
beers
all the high power and dyno stuff is done, think he is tweaking all the little drivability stuff...
if i had it i would have done a review by now. it is very nice.
beers
Besides the Intercepto, what other mods are you running? (sorry if it has been asked before)
12-29-2005, 07:20 AM
#564
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by swoope
revi and duct, corksport catback exhaust.. the car has a midpipe with a borla resonator right now it will be replaced buy a rp cat.
has lots of other mods, but none that would have anything to with power...
beers
has lots of other mods, but none that would have anything to with power...
beers
Thanks!
01-02-2006, 12:47 PM
#568
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPG Numbers?
Originally Posted by jird20
... Additionally mileage will be improved between 2000-5000 rpm as it runs leaner than stock (sometimes much leaner), so no power/torque gains there but some fuel saving. Let´s wait for user reports about this subject.
(sometimes much leaner), so no power/torque gains there but some fuel saving. Let´s wait for user reports about this subject.
01-02-2006, 11:47 PM
#569
Mazsport.net
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In the shop
Posts: 753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MPG > HP
Per jird20's post - Swoope, how long after testing will it take you to run enough miles to get initial MPG numbers? Kudos to Scott for a great job! I'm sure that many of us would have gladly plunked down an extra $1,600, when we bought the car, to get the HP and MPG improvements promised by your product. The ability to carry forward to FI is a definite +!
01-03-2006, 03:31 PM
#571
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: rialto ca
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why pay 1600 when i can get a hks f con for this car for 1000. and get it tuned for a few hundred more. remember this is not 1600 tuned will still need to spen few hundred to get it tuned
01-03-2006, 04:21 PM
#572
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by toca
why pay 1600 when i can get a hks f con for this car for 1000. and get it tuned for a few hundred more. remember this is not 1600 tuned will still need to spen few hundred to get it tuned
$1400 F Con Pro
$400 harness
you also need map sensor and temp sensor
Last edited by colin204; 01-03-2006 at 04:31 PM.
01-03-2006, 05:37 PM
#573
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Escondido
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott,
I know this thread is for N/A cars but I just watched your video of a dyno pull on your website and I was just wondering if you have 2 different pre-programmed values that you will ship the Interceptor with for N/A or for turbo cars.
Holla at your boy,
Whitey
I know this thread is for N/A cars but I just watched your video of a dyno pull on your website and I was just wondering if you have 2 different pre-programmed values that you will ship the Interceptor with for N/A or for turbo cars.
Holla at your boy,
Whitey
01-03-2006, 07:49 PM
#575
Riot Controller
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by colin204
The F Con Pro, harness, and sensors will cost you at least $1900 not $1000.
$1400 F Con Pro
$400 harness
you also need map sensor and temp sensor
$1400 F Con Pro
$400 harness
you also need map sensor and temp sensor