What is the Claimed vs. Observed WHP and Torque for all the editions(I,II,III-Stock) of the RX7 and how they compare with the RX8 numbers ?
Thanks

 

search search search. here and www.rx7club.com plus google. dont expect people to do the homework for you. do it yourself.

 

I wasnt just asking for raw data. We all know the big fiasco of advertised HP vs the actual one(RX8). The question was to inquire based on experience if any of previous models of rotary engine cars suffered from the same as the rx8?.
Raw data can be obtained by searching here,rx7club and google, that is correct, but what I wanted was from people with experience with both cars as to difference between advertised and observed for the rx7- rx8.
I'm not asking for anyone to do any homework. If people in this forum want to comment fine if not , fine too.

Thanks

Jeremy Carlson

 

wow, MIT prof.

I think you would have more luck talking with the RX7 guys.

As far as rx8 goes, it is now advertised at 238HP at the crank. The cars DYNO at the wheels closer to 170-180whp, the car should have about 15% loss from engine to wheels, if that was true the car should make around 203hp at the wheels, so there is 20-30hp that is 'missing' most people feel that this power could be found with a differnt catalytic converter and a differnt air/fuel ratio and timing change.

 

The 3rd gen was about 205-212RWHP IIRC

 

well since youre a astrophysics professor, you should know that a peak power number is really meaningless...you really need to compare sid by side two engine dyno outputs and take a look at not only the peak numbers, but the area under the torque curve...

500hp is no good if it shoots up from 170hp at 8800 only to redline at 9000

 

thank you for the PM Jeremy. I am sorry you thought my post here was too rude.
The claimed numbers for other rotary cars vs. the observed whp numbers wont do you any good without knowing what Mazda believes is the drivetrain losses for each vehicle. that would be the only way to make a true measure of their claims.

since your stated goal would be to find some more power for the RX-8( a laudable goal for sure and I, for one, would like to see what an MIT proffessor and Jet Propulsion engineers come up with) i dont undertand how re hashing the horspower debacle would furthur this goal. but i invite anyone with information who would like to post it here to do so.

Perhaps you could ask Dr. Ianneti to get on with developing the ceramic apex seals for this engine? Thanks.

 

The 1st generation 12A engine equipped RX-7's had anywhere from 95-110 fwhp depending on the year model. I don't know rear wheel numbers. The 13B equipped 1st gens had 138 fwhp. The 2nd generation RX-7 nonturbos were rated at 146 hp stock for 86-88. This car dyno'd anywhere from 115-120 hp stock at the wheels. In 89-91 they were upgraded to 160 hp and the dynos went up accordingly. This engine added higher compression and a better intake manifold. Strangely enough by just swapping the intake only over to the 86-88 cars, the same power coulld be had and this was with slightly lower compression ratio. No sure what the T-II RX-7's dyno'd at stock. We almost enver see a stock one dyno'd. The 3rd generation RX-7's were typically around 215-220 or so. The RX-8 is rated at 238 but we have seen anywhere from 165-200 rwhp on a dyno. The car does behave differently on a dyno though than previous cars as the ecu is now much more intrusive. This car has been far more inconsistent on a dyno than the RX-7's ever were which is why a dyno chart shouldn't be trusted for the RX-8. It's funny how this nonturbo rotary is rated at 78 hp more than the last nonturbo rotary but so many people still seem to complain about it all the time.

 

they arent comparing it to the last non turbo rotary.

 

May as well compare it to John Force then.

 

Is he a fast runner?:p
I'd love to drive one of his cars though. I don't plan on dynoing my car for a long time. I like seeing increases on other peoples dynos after mods because it gives me a general feel for how much of an increase in performance was gained, but I like my butt dyno better. If it feels a lot better, than it is good in my book.

 

OT - There is no Jeremy Carlson at MIT in astrophysics or otherwise. That was gratuitous and no one is impressed.

 

pwn3d.

 

hahah i was just coming back from having looked at the faculty list myself. however to be fair in his pm to me he did say he was working with NASA now so his name could have been removed from those lists. Is there a NASA Jet Propulsion Lab in Atlanta? his hotmail addy seems to reflect a different name as well.

edit-damn suspicious bunch arent we

 

The real science in Missouri is done in Poplar Bluff and Jefferson County ... in the trailer park meth labs!

 

That's what I'm talkin' about!! GO JACKETS! TO HELL WITH GEORGIA!


-George P Burdell


BTW: I thought he was being sarcastic.

 

For the last year, I've been at the Michoud assembly facility North of New Orleans. It is a Lockheed Martin Space systems -Nasa facility. We reports to Marshall Space center in Huntsville, Alabama. The Jet propulsion lab is in there. Currently working on Hybrid propulsion(A combination of solid, non-explosive fuel and a liquid oxidizer.) We also worked on the ET 119,120,121 for the Space shuttle. The other division at Lockheed works in developing composite products(Nice for building stronger Apex seals). Well enough about my work. Thank you guys for all the technical info.

 

thanks jeremy sorry for being so suspicious. thanks for the clarification. my father in law also works for lockheed he spends most of his time in d.c. and cali. nice to meet you.

 

suspicious would have been a polite term for it.