Engine Dyno testing of Renesis
#301
Registered
iTrader: (5)
Let's go over this offer. If your engine makes the power I get to pay the dyno time and buy you your seals. If it doesn't make the power I get nothing and you have to pay for your own seals and to get your own engine dyno'd.
How come this doesn't sound like a good bet to me???
"There's not a man alive who'll take 8 for 5"
But that sounds better then this by a long way.
How come this doesn't sound like a good bet to me???
"There's not a man alive who'll take 8 for 5"
But that sounds better then this by a long way.
Last edited by Richard Paul; 07-19-2006 at 11:10 PM.
#302
peak rpm and torque?
Hi Hymee,
Thanks for the effort :-)
I am interested to know the maximum rpm the engine was turning at peak
power? also at which rpm was the maximum torque produced?
Is there any chance of a dyno chart pic?
I think that a longer induction would probably improve the flow into the engine?
Depending on the use (race <g>) how about adding couple of large round
holes to the rotor housings for the exhaust gases to leave by?
Regards
Michael
Thanks for the effort :-)
I am interested to know the maximum rpm the engine was turning at peak
power? also at which rpm was the maximum torque produced?
Is there any chance of a dyno chart pic?
I think that a longer induction would probably improve the flow into the engine?
Depending on the use (race <g>) how about adding couple of large round
holes to the rotor housings for the exhaust gases to leave by?
Regards
Michael
#306
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Santiago, Dominican Republic
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by David Haskell
I would agree with Ceramic seal. 260 HP is a realistic number with the right seals and management.
looks like the big guns are finally putting it to rest
good to see you posting MR. Haskell and thanks for representing our beloved RX-8 in racing, great job!
congrats on getting back where you belong on the podium
Last edited by rotary crazy; 07-20-2006 at 07:59 AM.
#307
Cones need lovin' too!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by David Haskell
I would agree with Ceramic seal. 260 HP is a realistic number with the right seals and management.
As for 9500 all day Richard, it has been done before. Recall the two 8s that ran 24 hours flat out only to stop for fluids and drivers...
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-200...Record-Run.htm
3,174 miles WOT. Stock except for safety features.
Best of luck Hymee. Always anxious to hear more info.
#309
Administrator
Originally Posted by ranger4277
As for 9500 all day Richard, it has been done before. Recall the two 8s that ran 24 hours flat out only to stop for fluids and drivers...
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-200...Record-Run.htm
3,174 miles WOT.
#310
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: atlanta ga
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hymee
So are we saying the ceramic seals will give more RPM, reliably?
We have already run stock renesis to 10,500.
Cheers,
Hymee.
We have already run stock renesis to 10,500.
Cheers,
Hymee.
#312
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Santiago, Dominican Republic
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by willofgod
"There's a reason they are so expensive."
b/c someone is a capitalist? ;P
b/c someone is a capitalist? ;P
#314
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: atlanta ga
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by willofgod
"There's a reason they are so expensive."
b/c someone is a capitalist? ;P
b/c someone is a capitalist? ;P
Now back to our regularly scheduled program:
Hopefully all this testing will yield great results and products (But make sure you aren't seaking to profit by this).
#316
NT Rotorhead
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Katherine, NT
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently did a 3200km road trip, mostly in remote parts of Australia, so I had plently of opportunity to look at the top speed of my RX-8 under different conditions. Here is what I learned:
Over time the long term fuel trim (LTFT) in my car seems to gradually creep up. It was at 11% at the start of this trip. The result was that above (160km/h) 100mph, AFR's were pig-rich (<0.75). This not only effected fuel economy, but also max speed. Under this condition, I only got a max speed of 205km/h. Running that rich must really kill the power.
Seeing this, I reset the ECU by disconnecting the battery, and immediately my AFR's leaned out by 10%. My top speed also increased to 216km/h. As the trip progressed, I found that the LTFT would stay at 0 for about 3 hours max, and then it would start increasing gradually - first 2%, then 5% etc. This also resulted in the AFR's becoming richer and economy getting worse. In all I reset my ECU 3 or 4 times during the trip to reset the LTFT back to zero.
Note that these AFR problems only seem to be an issue in Closed Loop. I have found that the cruising speed needed to be in closed loop varies - anywhere from 130km/h to 160km/h. So most people aren't going to encounter this LTFT problem at all. Unless you are trying for max speed. I have no idea what criteria the ECU uses to adjust LTFT.
The second thing about top speed is that I think wind direction and speed make an pretty big difference. On this drive, I had headwinds all the way, and the fastest my car ever got to was 220km/h. 6 months ago in exactly the same configuration, it got 240km/h with a slight tail wind.
With regard to the RB intake, taking it out 6 months ago did make a difference to top speed, but here are two possible contributors:
1. The MAF is one of the primary sensors used in Closed loop and changing the intake may have changed the signal the MAF was sending to the ECU. This may have effected Closed loop operation, hence AFRs, hence top speed.
2. I think when I changed intakes, I reset the ECU. This would have cleared any bad long term fuel trims that may have been present, which would have imporved AFRs, hence top speed.
So blaming the RB intake as I did at the time was probably incorrect. It's frightening how much the ECU controls this car and how little we know or can do about it. It seems that it can easily rob 10 or 20hp from the car without you even knowing about it - and here we are spending all this money to gain 3-5hp from mods like intake and exhaust. Understanding and controlling the ECU seems to be the key to reliable performance. Environmental conditions, including wind, are also crucial at top speed.
Sorry about the small hijack, but I thought I ought to share this experience.
Over time the long term fuel trim (LTFT) in my car seems to gradually creep up. It was at 11% at the start of this trip. The result was that above (160km/h) 100mph, AFR's were pig-rich (<0.75). This not only effected fuel economy, but also max speed. Under this condition, I only got a max speed of 205km/h. Running that rich must really kill the power.
Seeing this, I reset the ECU by disconnecting the battery, and immediately my AFR's leaned out by 10%. My top speed also increased to 216km/h. As the trip progressed, I found that the LTFT would stay at 0 for about 3 hours max, and then it would start increasing gradually - first 2%, then 5% etc. This also resulted in the AFR's becoming richer and economy getting worse. In all I reset my ECU 3 or 4 times during the trip to reset the LTFT back to zero.
Note that these AFR problems only seem to be an issue in Closed Loop. I have found that the cruising speed needed to be in closed loop varies - anywhere from 130km/h to 160km/h. So most people aren't going to encounter this LTFT problem at all. Unless you are trying for max speed. I have no idea what criteria the ECU uses to adjust LTFT.
The second thing about top speed is that I think wind direction and speed make an pretty big difference. On this drive, I had headwinds all the way, and the fastest my car ever got to was 220km/h. 6 months ago in exactly the same configuration, it got 240km/h with a slight tail wind.
With regard to the RB intake, taking it out 6 months ago did make a difference to top speed, but here are two possible contributors:
1. The MAF is one of the primary sensors used in Closed loop and changing the intake may have changed the signal the MAF was sending to the ECU. This may have effected Closed loop operation, hence AFRs, hence top speed.
2. I think when I changed intakes, I reset the ECU. This would have cleared any bad long term fuel trims that may have been present, which would have imporved AFRs, hence top speed.
So blaming the RB intake as I did at the time was probably incorrect. It's frightening how much the ECU controls this car and how little we know or can do about it. It seems that it can easily rob 10 or 20hp from the car without you even knowing about it - and here we are spending all this money to gain 3-5hp from mods like intake and exhaust. Understanding and controlling the ECU seems to be the key to reliable performance. Environmental conditions, including wind, are also crucial at top speed.
Sorry about the small hijack, but I thought I ought to share this experience.
#317
Good work Wildcard. #2 seems more plausible, don't your reckon?
As you know, I don't have much legal opportunity to test at speeds over 110 km/h, but I did find my car would drop into open-loop at about 120km on cruise.
Thanks for the report.
Cheers,
Hymee.
As you know, I don't have much legal opportunity to test at speeds over 110 km/h, but I did find my car would drop into open-loop at about 120km on cruise.
Thanks for the report.
Cheers,
Hymee.
#319
Zoom-Freakin'-Zoom
iTrader: (5)
Originally Posted by Hymee
Good work Wildcard. #2 seems more plausible, don't your reckon?
As you know, I don't have much legal opportunity to test at speeds over 110 km/h, but I did find my car would drop into open-loop at about 120km on cruise.
Thanks for the report.
Cheers,
Hymee.
As you know, I don't have much legal opportunity to test at speeds over 110 km/h, but I did find my car would drop into open-loop at about 120km on cruise.
Thanks for the report.
Cheers,
Hymee.
beers
#320
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Adelaide SA, Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wildcard, just reading your report and Hymee's reply and I'm a bit confused.
When you discuss your RX8 going into 'Closed Loop' mode anywhere between 130km/hr and 160km/hr did you really mean 'Open loop'? Hymee's reply says he goes into open loop above 120km/hr which is what I understood occurred at higher speeds.
Cheers,
Jared.
When you discuss your RX8 going into 'Closed Loop' mode anywhere between 130km/hr and 160km/hr did you really mean 'Open loop'? Hymee's reply says he goes into open loop above 120km/hr which is what I understood occurred at higher speeds.
Cheers,
Jared.
#321
NT Rotorhead
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Katherine, NT
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I really meant open loop. The terms really make more sense to me the other way around. Closed loop uses a continuous open feedback loop, while open loop is a closed circuit with no external feedback. That's how I would describe it anyhow.
#325
Originally Posted by cleoent
So let me just get this straight...
In 2003 the RX8 supposedly had 250 BHP
In 2004 the RX8 supposedly had 238 BHP
In 2006 the RX8 supposedly had 232 BHP
but for realz this entire time it has about 210 stock? WTF mates? How can a car company do that and get away with it?
In 2003 the RX8 supposedly had 250 BHP
In 2004 the RX8 supposedly had 238 BHP
In 2006 the RX8 supposedly had 232 BHP
but for realz this entire time it has about 210 stock? WTF mates? How can a car company do that and get away with it?
That's a really interesting topic: Back in Japan & some Asia markets, they can still claim that the engine has 250hp as it first announced. I'm just wondering is there any differences between ours & their 13B. Anyone can tell me the answer?
Good work, Guys!