How fast is a RX8?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronng

False, at 9000rpm, your crank is rotating 9000 times a minute.

---

actually, surprisingly it isnt for the rotary motor. each rotor is rotating at 3000rpm when the tacho reads 9000rpm. it has 9000 combustions per minute, which is 18000 combustions per minute for a twin rotor. if it had 54000 combustions per minute, it would chug thru a tank in like 30 minutes.

i said that rotaries dont need vtec because they arent inefficient enough to need something as such to make it more efficient, wasnt referring to vtec alone, was saying it doesnt need something to alter how much air-fuel mixture goes in to boost power.

as for the power jump, was talking about the top end of the performance motor scale, but touche~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeverAMV

actually, surprisingly it isnt for the rotary motor. each rotor is rotating at 3000rpm when the tacho reads 9000rpm. it has 9000 combustions per minute, which is 18000 combustions per minute for a twin rotor. if it had 54000 combustions per minute, it would chug thru a tank in like 30 minutes.

i said that rotaries dont need vtec because they arent inefficient enough to need something as such to make it more efficient, wasnt referring to vtec alone, was saying it doesnt need something to alter how much air-fuel mixture goes in to boost power.

as for the power jump, was talking about the top end of the performance motor scale, but touche~

---

LOL, calculation error on my part on the 54000 combustions. :) yes, the rotor spins at 3000rpm, but does 9000 orbitals per minute.

Well, Honda never released a 3-valve B series that I can use for comparison purposes. The next one down is the 1966 S800 2 valve per cylinder engine I guess....

would say having 3 ports for intake/exhaust give a performance boost.
and to maybe implement some kind of system to block of a port in the lower revs i.e run on 2 ports for intake/exhaust in lower revs/economy and 3 ports for more power?
variable port electronic control. VPEC just kicked in yo?

that would be a good idea. like variable port size. like it can open up during hard driving then you have a aggresive race port engine when u open the throttle up. i don't really know what im talking about. is it possible? haha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mqt55s

would say having 3 ports for intake/exhaust give a performance boost.
and to maybe implement some kind of system to block of a port in the lower revs i.e run on 2 ports for intake/exhaust in lower revs/economy and 3 ports for more power?
variable port electronic control. VPEC just kicked in yo?

---

According to wiki, Mazda's 1965 10A rotary supposedly had something similar. It had 2 intake ports, one of which was closed at low loads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muzz

Incorrect, 4 stroke, 4 cylinder = 2 power strokes per revolution, not 4.
4 stroke, 6 cyl = 3 power strokes/revolution
4 stroke 8 cyl = 4 power strokes/revolution

Each cylinder has 1 power stroke every 2 revs.

---

im actually 100% correct.

can we leave out the 'f1 technology' argument... the brochure for my accord claimed it has nsx technology jus coz it has vtec :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silver_screen

im actually 100% correct.

---

Incorrect again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silver_screen

a 4 cyl is 1/4 each.. so every 1/4 of the crank turn, theres a power stroke.

---

What you are saying here, is that a 4 stroke 4 cylinder has 4 power strokes per revolution.

You could directly translate that to each cylinder having a power stroke in one complete revolution, correct??

So let me ask you this.
If all the cylinders fire within one revolution, do all 4 cylinders fire again the next revolution, or does each alternate revolution have no power strokes??

See whats wrong here?
Your saying each cylinder has a 180 degree power stroke within every 360 degrees of rotation:zip:

Intake, compression, power, exhaust, 4 strokes, 4 strokes which add up to 720 degrease rotation.

It takes 2 rotations of the crank for each cylinder to have a SINGLE power stroke. Agree????

So if all 4 cylinders fire in one rotation, then there must be no power strokes the next rotation, as each cylinder needs 2 full rotations to complete a power stroke.
^^Is this what you are trying to say:zip:

0 degrease
cyl 1, power stroke
cyl 2, intake stroke
cyl 3, exhaust stroke
cyl 4, compression stroke

180 degrease
cyl 1, exhaust stroke
cyl 2, compression stroke
cyl 3, intake stroke
cyl 4, power stroke

360 degrease
cyl 1, intake stroke
cyl 2, power stroke
cyl 3, compression stroke
cyl 4, exhaust stroke

540 degrease
cyl 1, compression stroke
cyl 2, exhaust stroke
cyl 3, power stroke
cyl 4, intake stroke

720 degrease, Back to the start:
cyl 1, power stroke
cyl 2, intake stroke
cyl 3, exhaust stroke
cyl 4, compression stroke

As you can plainly see, there arnt 4 power strokes per rotation. There are 4 power strokes per 2 revolutions, which means there are 2 power strokes per revolution:thumbsup:

Still dissagree??

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hhc6xM0wjKQ

Nice one:thumbsup:
However, he shouldnt need that, he build engines for a living :/
Scary huh..

rx8 are slow lol jks

eg6 ftw hehhheheh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0u4zNetRNE

old but nice clip

Both are good cars...but one takes more fuel than the other...thats all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronng

Tsukuba's straight too long? LOL. It's not long at all.

BTW, you have to remember, it is the AP1 that is nervous at the limit. The AP2 is less. But I have a Best Motoring video showing the difference at the limit between an AP2 and the 350Z. It is a very big difference and what Tsuchiya said, at the limit in a 350Z, you are only 8/10ths committed. In an AP2, you are 10/10ths committed. If he can say that about the AP2, imagine the AP1! :)

---

Ummmmm that Tsukuba straight doesn't look long? Take a look here http://www.jasc.or.jp/outline/index.html . It is a 433 metres long straight and is one part of the circuit where faster straight line cars always have a chance to overtake the slower ones.

I also don't agree that the AP1 has such a big difference with the AP2 although obviously AP2 is slightly less nervous. My point was, even when the Japs were driving the AP1 they already unanimously gave it the vote as a top driver's machine with great at-the-limit control ability whereas the local journos bagged it for being too nervous and twitchy. The way I look at it is however, even if the S2000 is twitchy at the limit it actually won't bite like an MR2. Its twitchiness is its advantage because the top drivers can extract the most out of it!



And what hasn't been mentioned yet?

Mazda are actually trying to make Hydrogen rotaries out of the RX-8 platform. Well they already have. So I fail to understand the philosophy behind it as yet, because if rotaries really aren't that fuel efficient then aren't they putting too much effort into the wrong system to showcase their environmental products?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omotesando

Ummmmm that Tsukuba straight doesn't look long? Take a look here http://www.jasc.or.jp/outline/index.html . It is a 433 metres long straight and is one part of the circuit where faster straight line cars always have a chance to overtake the slower ones.

I also don't agree that the AP1 has such a big difference with the AP2 although obviously AP2 is slightly less nervous. My point was, even when the Japs were driving the AP1 they already unanimously gave it the vote as a top driver's machine with great at-the-limit control ability whereas the local journos bagged it for being too nervous and twitchy. The way I look at it is however, even if the S2000 is twitchy at the limit it actually won't bite like an MR2. Its twitchiness is its advantage because the top drivers can extract the most out of it!

---

433m is SHORT. You know our favourite Wakefield Park raceway? It's considered a short and tight track. Even so, the main straight is 900m long! Yes, more than TWICE as long as Tsukuba!

The reason why the S2000 is twitchy at the limit even with a suspension revision in AP2 is because of its 50:50 weight distribution. Without electronics to help it, of course it is prone to spinning at the limit. Same case as the MR2, which has it worse because of the rear bias in weight distribution. Being twitchy doesn't mean that you can extract better handling/grip out of it. It means you have less of a buffer to catch it before it spins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omotesando

Mazda are actually trying to make Hydrogen rotaries out of the RX-8 platform. Well they already have. So I fail to understand the philosophy behind it as yet, because if rotaries really aren't that fuel efficient then aren't they putting too much effort into the wrong system to showcase their environmental products?

---

THREE reasons. First, hydrogen is a renewable resource and you can use more of it without getting a slap on the wrist from environmentalists. Second, they were showcasing that the Renesis did not require many modifications to use hydrogen as a fuel, as compared to a piston engine. Third, if they made a hydrogen Mazda2, Mazda3 or Mazda6, it would just be labelled as a greenie car. Using an RX-8 it shows that people can have performance while saving the environment (having your cake and eating it :)).

Now i really start to wonder, where did you get your facts from...are you in that field? or you're just stating your opinion???...i'm just curious thats all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by todaek9

Now i really start to wonder, where did you get your facts from...are you in that field? or you're just stating your opinion???...i'm just curious thats all...

---

Read the press releases :) Also, being a chemical engineer helps with fuel/oil details.

Here is the press release on the hydrogen Renesis, if you are interested. http://www.mazdausamedia.com/article...ticle_id=18623

Well Wakefield does have a long straight but that doesn't necessarily make the Tsukuba straight short. Wakefield is tight and twisty at the back but that's not to say it doesnt carry a long straight. Granted the Tsukuba straight is not extremely long but it does already give two cars that are usually very similar enough in straight line performance, the chance to pass the car infront.

As for "Being twitchy doesn't mean that you can extract better handling/grip out of it. It means you have less of a buffer to catch it before it spins."

Well I disagree entirely because the first part of that sentence and the second part do not agree with each other.

Perhaps instead of saying twitchy I should have used the word Agility. I agree that you have less buffer to catch it before it spins, but one must consider that during the transition from 8/10ths to 9 and 10/10ths limit of a car's track ability, that transitional phrase is when additional seconds can be reduced from the circuit time. Hence cars such as S2000, MR-2s and M3s can be driven on the limit but will spit back at you if you are not capable enough to handle them. However, cars like the 350Z are easier at the limit and turns to understeer unless you provoke it to oversteer first. In fact the E46 M3 is similar enough to the 350Z compared to the older versions. They are safer, but ultimately, won't be as fast on the track for a professional driver driving a more agile car.

Bump for more "Who's bigger" posts...:angel:

size matters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tank

So, which part of the RX-8 has F1 technology??? The renesis rotary engine??? I hope not because all F1 engines are piston.

Mazda doesn't even have a F1 team.

---

No but they had a Le mans team...

Look the rx8 should have had a turbo from the get go ... it`s not exactly a lightweight car so it`s not going to be fast with a N/A engine . 180 hp @ wheels .if you`re lucky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PP Sports sedan

Look the rx8 should have had a turbo from the get go ... it`s not exactly a lightweight car so it`s not going to be fast with a N/A engine . 180 hp @ wheels .if you`re lucky

---

dude, abit late with your suggestion.... the rx8 was aimed at a different market

the "most" at the wheel dyno i have seen from a "stock" rx8 is about 125kw-ish....

rx8's would be prtty quick. everyone saying they 'beat' them with ek's and b16's. when you say 'beat' what do you mean? What is 'beat'? is it gettin infront by a few metres then just calling it? or is it going full stick on a strip to see who's quicker? or is it even going full stick somewhere else because i would bet that an rx8 would have better top end than a b16.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EZZY

dude, abit late with your suggestion.... the rx8 was aimed at a different market

the "most" at the wheel dyno i have seen from a "stock" rx8 is about 125kw-ish....

---

work out what 180 hp is in kw ...lol
as for a different market ....??? its a sports car . thanks for your input though :wave:
as a circuit car they work well as the weight split is 50/50 front rear ..doesn`t get any better than that . they handle very well but they lack in the go dept .. 1 more rotor should fix that ,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PP Sports sedan

work out what 180 hp is in kw ...lol

---

i know what 180hp is in kw.... and a stock rx8 doesnt not have that much at the wheels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PP Sports sedan

as for a different market ....??? its a sports car . thanks for your input though :wave:

---

same thing can be said for DC2R, Lancer MR coupe, Porsche Cayman S.... theya re all sports cars, but aimed at different markets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PP Sports sedan

s a circuit car they work well as the weight split is 50/50 front rear ..doesn`t get any better than that . they handle very well but they lack in the go dept .. 1 more rotor should fix that ,

---

for those who can not drive it properly, it can be a slow car...... i'd suggest a FI option would fix that... but then again, why not just get a FD instead :angel::wave:

http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/charshey...hreadSucks.jpg

a slightly modded Dc2R will take on a rx-8
stock engine to stock engine a B16a will have no chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EZZY

i know what 180hp is in kw.... and a stock rx8 doesnt not have that much at the wheels.


same thing can be said for DC2R, Lancer MR coupe, Porsche Cayman S.... theya re all sports cars, but aimed at different markets.



for those who can not drive it properly, it can be a slow car...... i'd suggest a FI option would fix that... but then again, why not just get a FD instead :angel::wave:

---

i thought this thread was about if a rx8 was fast , no car will be fast if an idiot is driving it ... and seriously if you think that a Dc2r , or a lancer mrcoupe, are sports cars ...you truely have never driven a true sports car . Now a s2000 thats a sports car .My mistake i meant hp not hp at the wheels , hp figures are always at the engine when spoken about factory vehicles ... so 180 isnt far off at all ..
the rx8 will have a better power plant soon , as for fc`s they`re old tech for a new car and the engine`s are nothing alike ,apart from being a rotary ....this is something i know about seeing as i race a rotary sports sedan , and have been both racing them and driving them for 19 years this year in fact ...my god i`m old ...lol ....lets just leave it at that .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pumped

http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/charshey...hreadSucks.jpg

---

i agree its just going to turn into a shitfight ... it should probably be locked now .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PP Sports sedan

i thought this thread was about if a rx8 was fast , no car will be fast if an idiot is driving it ... and seriously if you think that a Dc2r , or a lancer mrcoupe, are sports cars ...you truely have never driven a true sports car . Now a s2000 thats a sports car .My mistake i meant hp not hp at the wheels , hp figures are always at the engine when spoken about factory vehicles ... so 180 isnt far off at all ..
the rx8 will have a better power plant soon , as for fc`s they`re old tech for a new car and the engine`s are nothing alike ,apart from being a rotary ....this is something i know about seeing as i race a rotary sports sedan , and have been both racing them and driving them for 19 years this year in fact ...my god i`m old ...lol ....lets just leave it at that .

---

I take it PP stands for Peripheral Port, if so, care to share some pics mate? i love rotors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zilli

I take it PP stands for Peripheral Port, if so, care to share some pics mate? i love rotors

---

http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showthr...05#post1302905
:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PP Sports sedan

i thought this thread was about if a rx8 was fast , no car will be fast if an idiot is driving it ...

---

yes, and yes :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PP Sports sedan

and seriously if you think that a Dc2r , or a lancer mrcoupe, are sports cars ...you truely have never driven a true sports car .

---

no, you are missing the point....
in your previous post you made the different market and sports cars comments.... believe it or not... DC2R and lancer MR coupe were once "called" sports cars when first released... (damn marketing ppl.....) :angel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PP Sports sedan

the rx8 will have a better power plant soon ,

---

hope so.... "they" have been talking about a potential 15B power plant for that last what..... 2 years :p

True and that will be a benifit for all rotary drivers , i`d like to have a pp 15a in my car thats for sure . although i was hoping for some more cubes either a new 20b twin rotor or a new model 20b tripple ..... we live in hope i guess...:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PP Sports sedan

http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showthr...05#post1302905
:wave:

---

DAMMIT rx3 sedan, exactly what i want to build someday! got any clips of it by any chance?

u can compare only to the engine, like how much energy it loss during the tranmission from the engine to the wheels, also think about the weight, EG is lighter, and think about the arrangement of the car, like EG is FF and RX8 is FR, RX8 has a better balance, and once again, everyone knows RX8 is rotary engine, 1.3 rotary is like 4L straight engine. comparing these two like comparing eating noodles and reading books, it just doesnt make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mqt55s

jimmy's gti is faster than that., damn you fatboyz and your fast 1.3L under estimated car!

---

hahah i was waiting for this.. Jimmy's 1.3ltr is a rotor.. ahhaha..

Why would you want PP... eheheheh I rather exend or bridge port turbos.. heheeheh

It aint a motor if it aint a rotor..

the wankel engine was desgined for planes as there are less moving components and should theoretically be more reliable.. rotors are relaibale from factory but once you mod them they dont have a good track record of making the distance. Rotors will make more power per dollar than a 4 stroker turbo anyday... just that it might not start on the first click.


I ran a rx8 the other day on a private road.. Its pretty damn quick.. Racing stopped at about 100km/ph though (traffic fench ahead) and dc2r won.

the only prob i have with the rx8 is that it drinks oil like crazy.
I'd prob forget to pour oil and then the engine would seize.

can't understand how you can build a new engine that sucks oil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dupac->

coz everyone always hates on the b16's.. thumbs down to them!
IMO it's a weapon for a 1.6

---

PRICE DIFFERENCE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! rx8 we talking abt here LOL! b16 is good for what it is.

wonder how quick the '2.6l' version is :confused::zip:

http://www.carsales.com.au/used-cars...e_id=0&trecs=6

i think the seller of the "" 2.6L rotary "" doesnt know sh!t. 2 cylinders 1.3 means 2*0.65L, u cant get that big rotary.. however in 2009, there will be a new RX8 version 2 with 1.6 rotary engine, is all new decide.. (read that from Speed). there is no such thing as 2.6L rotary... WTF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by connorling

i think the seller of the "" 2.6L rotary "" doesnt know sh!t. 2 cylinders 1.3 means 2*0.65L, u cant get that big rotary.. however in 2009, there will be a new RX8 version 2 with 1.6 rotary engine, is all new decide.. (read that from Speed). there is no such thing as 2.6L rotary... WTF

---

don't be a hater..

I think some queen st had one. Think Pac can build them
************************************************** *************

Quad rotor 26B

R26B

The most prominent 4-rotor engine from Mazda was used exclusively for various Mazda-built GT cars (including the 767 and 787B) in replacement of the older 13J. In 1991 this engine in a 787B became the first from outside the U.S. or Western Europe and the first (and so far only) car with a rotary engine to win outright the 24 hours of Le Mans race. It displaced 2622 cc and built 700 hp (522 kW) at 9000RPM. The engine design originates as a single 13B with: an additional rotor and housing added at each end, continually variable geometry intakes, and an additional (third) spark plug. The R26B's rotor housing can be purchased at retail from Mazdaspeed, but no internal parts are available to the general public.

quoted for the haters :
another take :

Quote:

---

actually this is correct. each face of the rotor has 654cc and there are 2 rotors, so thats 1.3liters. every time the rotors go all the way around, the drive shaft goes around 3 times, thus every revolution of the crankshaft has 1.3 liters of displacement fired. However in piston engines, it takes 2 rotations of the crankshaft for all the displacement to fire, thus you take the displacement of two revolutions of the driveshaft in the rotary, which is 2.6liters.

---

thats the rule when it comes to the RTA etc and engine conversions , also in licensing etc. But technically a 13b for example still only has 1.3 liters :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlitZ

hahah i was waiting for this.. Jimmy's 1.3ltr is a rotor.. ahhaha..

---

LOL noo my secrets out:eek::eek:.

I was talking to a rx-8 onwer at the track, bigggest downfall tracking the rx-8 is petrol. he said its like 1km track = 1litre... :eek::eek::eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fatboyz39

LOL noo my secrets out:eek::eek:.

I was talking to a rx-8 onwer at the track, bigggest downfall tracking the rx-8 is petrol. he said its like 1km track = 1litre... :eek::eek::eek:

---

Not true, Euro77 has an RX-8 and goes to Winton regularly. He says he sees just above 30L/100km. Your 100L/100km figure is close to a Bugatti Veyron's 112L/100km consumption when trying for 400+km/h top speed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronng

Not true, Euro77 has an RX-8 and goes to Winton regularly. He says he sees just above 30L/100km. Your 100L/100km figure is close to a Bugatti Veyron's 112L/100km consumption when trying for 400+km/h top speed!

---

Those were the figures that guy told me. He has tested this a few times and yeah pretty close to 1l per 1km. 30L/100km? Doesn't type R get those mileage at the track....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fatboyz39

Those were the figures that guy told me. He has tested this a few times and yeah pretty close to 1l per 1km. 30L/100km? Doesn't type R get those mileage at the track....

---

Yup, same as the Type R. We'll be going to winton next week, so I'll calculate his consumption on the track myself.

Edit: Just checked the RX-8 forums, yes, it's 30-32L/100km during their track days here in Aus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronng

Edit: Just checked the RX-8 forums, yes, it's 30-32L/100km during their track days here in Aus.

---

And 29.9l/100km in daily driving ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ginganggooly

And 29.9l/100km in daily driving ;)

---

They get a best of 10L/100km in pure highway cruising at 100-110km/h. That's crazy. Even a 6.0L SS does less than that on the highway...

Was reading through and they usually get about 400-500km out of a tank on the highway. In comparison, my Euro gets over 800km out of a tank when I did Sydney to Melb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PP Sports sedan

and seriously if you think that a Dc2r , or a lancer mrcoupe, are sports cars ...you truely have never driven a true sports car .

---

thats probably true.. but a more accepted definition of a "Sports Car" is MR layout which most of the exotics are anyway... SW20 MR2 yes... MR2 spyder... no...

Thats why all jap 2 door 'performance car's will always be called that or 'Sports Coupe' coz of chassis design... even HSV V8 supercars aren't called sports cars... the awd performance cars are generally rally orientated... or in the case of the liberty B4s.. a 'sports sedan'

***EDIT***
oh and GTRs are still considered a sports coupe.

Sports Car is an inappropriately overused term similar to saying you have the flu when you have a cold or fever..

THEREFORE.. RX8 is a sporty car but it aint no sports car

In my opinion, sports cars are cars that sacrifice something practical in exchange for more speed, handling and/or grip.

So yes, RX-8 does qualify as much as an S2000 does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronng

In my opinion, sports cars are cars that sacrifice something practical in exchange for more speed, handling and/or grip.

So yes, RX-8 does qualify as much as an S2000 does.

---

i can sorta see where your coming from but if i was too use an EG/EK for example and make said sacrifice.. at the end of the day its still a sporty hatch... or in todays lingo.. "Hot Hatch"?

Their just sports orientated... had you said NSX.. then.. yeah...

just for kicks (coz of validity of wiki):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car

but it does agree with your point regarding s2k
:p lol

***EDIT***
fEk!! surprisingly that article was quite informative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsp26

i can sorta see where your coming from but if i was too use an EG/EK for example and make said sacrifice.. at the end of the day its still a sporty hatch... or in todays lingo.. "Hot Hatch"?

Their just sports orientated... had you said NSX.. then.. yeah...

---

To me, the standard EG and EK (VTIR included) are sporty hatches and not sports cars. But when you put a B18C into them, remove A/C and/or for weight reduction, then yes, I consider them sports cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronng

To me, the standard EG and EK (VTIR included) are sporty hatches and not sports cars. .

---

My EG is a shopping trolley... :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e240

My EG is a shopping trolley... :o

---

Haha, yeah a fast shopping trolley with plenty of room (back seats removed);)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronng

They get a best of 10L/100km in pure highway cruising at 100-110km/h. That's crazy. Even a 6.0L SS does less than that on the highway...

Was reading through and they usually get about 400-500km out of a tank on the highway. In comparison, my Euro gets over 800km out of a tank when I did Sydney to Melb.

---

For fark's sake. I know sarcasm doesn't travel well through written mediums... but i still didn't think anyone would take 29.9l/100km as a serious attempt at statistic recital. Not even you.:thumbsup:

30L/100km is a realistic fuel consumption figure these days. ;)
BTW, I have a slight sense of humour, but I have zero sense of sarcasm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronng

VTEC is not used in LeMans, Formula1 or JGTC.

---

Are you telling me, the NSX in the JGTC have their vtec turned off?

If so, thats something i learnt today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray_mon

Are you telling me, the NSX in the JGTC have their vtec turned off?

If so, thats something i learnt today.

---

Not even turned off. It's totally removed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronng

In my opinion, sports cars are cars that sacrifice something practical in exchange for more speed, handling and/or grip.

So yes, RX-8 does qualify as much as an S2000 does.

---

sacrificing 2 back door for the kids ehehehe kidding

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray_mon

Are you telling me, the NSX in the JGTC have their vtec turned off?

If so, thats something i learnt today.

---

race cars dont run vtec... vtec is only for street cars

rx8 is slow

Quote:

---

rx8 is slow

---

that pretty much sums it all up

so is a dc2r is a straight line ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vinnie

so is a dc2r is a straight line ;)

---

BUT...faster than a RX8 :p

but TypeR is cheaper and more reliable =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da1nONLY

BUT...faster than a RX8 :p

---

figures ive got for the rx-8 are 6.6 sec 0-100 and 14.6 sec quarter. only figures i remeber seeing for the dc2r put it at about 7.2 sec 0-100. i think its a fair comment that in a straight line the rx-8 is prob still faster, it just gets spanked on the track :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray_mon

Are you telling me, the NSX in the JGTC have their vtec turned off?

If so, thats something i learnt today.

---

lol...y need low cam when they can just run on hi cam all day?

'vtec turned off'?

am i the only person that thinks he was being sarcastic? ;) lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vinnie

'vtec turned off'?

am i the only person that thinks he was being sarcastic? ;) lol

---

either that ... or someone needs to know what is VTEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vinnie

'vtec turned off'?

am i the only person that thinks he was being sarcastic? ;) lol

---

well - the actual thing is any cars in that particular racing scene or any cars with "VTEC KILLER CAMS" etc are essentially running "TEC" ( no V because it isnt varible. Its constant like a normal camshaft profile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennjamin

well - the actual thing is any cars in that particular racing scene or any cars with "VTEC KILLER CAMS" etc are essentially running "TEC" ( no V because it isnt varible. Its constant like a normal camshaft profile

---

Sorry buddy, the other way round. The timing is still variable, just no Lift control, which is the EC (Electronic Lift Control).

*Edit - Actually, could be the whole thing. the VTEC mechanisim (Specifically the Variable Valve timing doesn't alter the Cam position like Mivecs, rather some have Phased low cam lobes, open the intake valves in sequence at low cam mode

Anywayz... VTEC simply put is the mechanism to run both a high lift cam and a standard (lower lift) cam. As you know, high lift cams are difficult to drive at lower rpms, this allows driveability in a road car, but in a race car which lives at high revs, the low lift cam just becomes dead weight.

VTEC is nothing special in a Race engine...hence its not needed.

don't talk so much..bring your car to the strip and see it for yourself...whats the point of talking so much here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by todaek9

don't talk so much..bring your car to the strip and see it for yourself...whats the point of talking so much here...

---

There's nothing wrong in having a simple conversation like this. You don't have to participate if you have nothing constructive to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by todaek9

don't talk so much..bring your car to the strip and see it for yourself...whats the point of talking so much here...

---

good point.. lets all run high comp and crazy non vtec cams to see if its true.

Why not you take your Vtec (or with your killer cams) and drag mine?
My point is that...why is there so much comparison? just do it and stop assuming...I think all of us would wanna know the results...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e240

There's nothing wrong in having a simple conversation like this. You don't have to participate if you have nothing constructive to say.

---

One thing, you seem very experience in VTEC...I really wonder how well you did in yours, or you just read from the book...but if you did very well, like there is some hidden secret to make your's somemore special than others, please do show me some trick up your sleeves...Cause i'm very curious bout it as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e240

As you know, high lift cams are difficult to drive at lower rpms, this allows driveability in a road car, but in a race car which lives at high revs, the low lift cam just becomes dead weight.

VTEC is nothing special in a Race engine...hence its not needed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by todaek9

One thing, you seem very experience in VTEC...I really wonder how well you did in yours, or you just read from the book...but if you did very well, like there is some hidden secret to make your's somemore special than others, please do show me some trick up your sleeves...Cause i'm very curious bout it as well...

---

Clear as mud mate.
I see what everyone else is getting at here, bar yourself.

So you don't believe that cams with large, long duration lobes can exist without vtec, or is it something else that confuses you?