Well I will have to call www.levelten.com on this one. I mean all this FI talk and week AT/MT is getting to me... If they helped the 3G guys the can help us out too then.

 

A friend told me that the 8's motor with a turbo will see some major torque gains because of its compression ratio. I dont know how true that is.

 

Level Ten? If thats the company I am thinking of BWAHAHAHAHA. Level ten, bwahahaha. Man you got lucky, glad it worked out in the end.

Because of the high compression the RX-8 will have the low end improved greater with a turbo than it would if it was say 9:1 compression. I wouldnt really call it a major torque gain because of the compression ratio(since turbos cause a significant torque gain anyways...), but I would say it will have more power in the lower RPMS and spool the turbo faster because of it. I liked running 9:7 compression rotors over 9:1 compression rotors, but then again do you want to run around with 100 or 116 octane gas everyday to run more than 8-10 psi?

 

I read the article about amemiya turbo kit in the modified mag. It just does not make any sense. First they mention that the engine was producing 240 hp stock, which would suggest it is a 6 speed. Then they say it required a new, stronger clutch - still the same suggestion, and then you see the pictures and it is a auto. It seems they're blowing smoke.

 

What has me curious about this whole thing is what in the world we would do with 325 lbs. of low rpm torque unless we swapped out the rear gears for something like a 3.55-3.73:1 ratio. I can't get the car to hook up as it is. I am aware of the complaints regarding the lack of low rpm torque generated by the rotary engine and I am under the impression that the rotary was not designed to be a truck engine. It was mentioned earlier that to see a 300 h.p. engine produce 1,000 lbs. of torque is not out of the ordinary. That's true if we are talking about a 4 cylinder Cummins, Caterpillar, or Detroit diesel. I am in the camp who thinks the Amemiya turbo kit is reducing the boost as the rpm's climb.

Charles

 

And the best part of all this HP Nu# talk is its an AUTO!!!!! Yeaaaaaaa for the AT/RX-8's

 

its a rotary engine, quite different from a cylinder block engine.

think about a 1.3L putting out 238hp on rotary.
then think about like a 3.0L putting out 240hp on a v6.
VERY DIFFERENT. rotary works lightweight, the horsepower is limited and the torque can fly from the new drivetrain. therefor torque is converted by a massive amount.
also like someone said above, the compression ratios do work to create more torque.

correct me if im wrong. something my friend *who has an 8 with a greddy turbo* said.

**waiting 2 months for my amemiya kit (without fogs) and ms wing. **
(saving up for the amemiya turbo kit)

 

You know what is funny about this forum, people complain about lack of torque, then something like this shows up and people complain that there is too much torque . . . I think I am just going to take a break from this forum for awhile . . .

 

on a super dinky turbo running that much boost, those numbers MIGHT make sense, but otherwise it looks like utter crap or bad translations.

 

Nobody's complaining, they're calling BS . . . or to be more precise, accurate numbers from a JDM turbo AT that's months old, compunded by some BS journalism. There's practically no way to double the stock torque peak of the Renesis, while raising the HP peak by ~10%.

This is clearly an AT with the Trust (Greddy) turbo.

Peace
policy

 

You gotta admit, those numbers look like SRT-4's more than RX-8's. It's just hard to convince anyone in this forum how a high-rev rotary engine could get higher torque numbers than HPs. It doesn't make sense at all.

<raising the BS flag> :D

ps. It would make sense, somehow, if the numbers were interchanged into 325whp 256lb-ft TQ.

 

Did anyone check and see if there was an oil burning, compression ignition engine under the hood??