Imports

[Omnis]

Pretty much. It's supposed to be a retro-ish livery. It's a $20K+ paint job that according to the owner, takes a very, very long time to do.

It's "Mirrachrome abstract with flouresent orange center stripe separated with a satin black pinstripe".

He's designing the paintjob for this 917 as well for an event later this year.

This new one is called "200mph Pigeon **** From Blue Corn Tortilla Chips & Mexican Tap Water".

 

[happycorey]

It's PhotoShoped
It looks bad 👎

Obviously it's photoshopped and it looks amazing. Overall as a GTR Spyder

 

[motortrend]

I'd love to see some supras, preferably black, so I'm requesting if anyone can post some pics.

 

[astrosdude91]

I'd love to see some supras, preferably black, so I'm requesting if anyone can post some pics.

Ok.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

My buddies's MK III.

7M power with a rare twin turbo setup. It's nearly finished now, should be making over 600hp.

*it's obviously blue

 

[Encyclopedia]

Nice one Astrosdude. 👍

 

[motortrend]

Thanks 👍 Those are both nice, though I do like the MKIIs more that MKIIIs.

 

[speed junkie]

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Beast.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I think that photo would fit better in a "Amazing and Cool Pics - Cars Edition" thread.

^^ We need one.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

PPRE are doing something a little different...

And yes, it's real.

 

[Keef]

There's more to building a 6-rotor than simply buying hella long bolts and slapping it together.

Does it actually run, or will it?

Also, theoretically, that's a 960 horsepower 7.8 liter engine, naturally aspirated. And that's using numbers from my 1991 13B. If you used Renesis numbers...1440 horsepower. Very nice.

 

[TheCracker]

Also, theoretically, that's a 960 horsepower 7.8 liter engine, naturally aspirated. And that's using numbers from my 1991 13B. If you used Renesis numbers...1440 horsepower. Very nice.

and 213 lbs/ft

 

[hemisport15]

I think that photo would fit better in a "Amazing and Cool Pics - Cars Edition" thread.

^^ We need one.

I've wanted to start that thread for the longest time, but I feel like it will be plagued by pictures that people think are amazing due to a large amount post processing and not due to the photo's composition/content.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

There's more to building a 6-rotor than simply buying hella long bolts and slapping it together.

Does it actually run, or will it?

Also, theoretically, that's a 960 horsepower 7.8 liter engine, naturally aspirated. And that's using numbers from my 1991 13B. If you used Renesis numbers...1440 horsepower. Very nice.

They are the same folks who built the engine for Mad Mike's 4 rotor drift car. They apparently already have all the internals squared away and some of the problems with 3 and 4 rotors (IE: balancing issues) go away with 6 rotors. I'm anxious to hear it.

I think you are doing your math wrong. You are assuming that the 13b is a single rotor, according to your numbers. Renesis spec power per rotor would put a 6 rotor at 720hp, not 1440.

 

[Keef]

Yes, you are correct. I doubled mah numbers.

So, make that 720hp out of 3.9 liters then. Before three coconut-sized turbos. Still not too shabby.

 

[happycorey]

 

[CodeRedR51]

^^^ Win.

 

[Perfect Balance]

and 213 lbs/ft

Why do people have this misconception that rotaries don't make torque?

Generally the torque figures are only slightly lower than the hp figures, pretty typical for most engines.

 

[Azuremen]

Why do people have this misconception that rotaries don't make torque?

Generally the torque figures are only slightly lower than the hp figures, pretty typical for most engines.

But that really isn't the case at all from what I've seen. The Renesis is about 150 ftlbs with 230 HP. This might compare to an S2000, but my M3 makes about the same power and over 200 ftlbs. And the resulting power delivery is dramatically different than the RX-8.

 

[exigeracer]

I've wanted to start that thread for the longest time, but I feel like it will be plagued by pictures that people think are amazing due to a large amount post processing and not due to the photo's composition/content.

I think that photo would fit better in a "Amazing and Cool Pics - Cars Edition" thread.

^^ We need one.

I typically treat this thread as "modified car culture" and the Sexy & Mean pics thread for anything else.

 

[motortrend]

But that really isn't the case at all from what I've seen. The Renesis is about 150 ftlbs with 230 HP. This might compare to an S2000, but my M3 makes about the same power and over 200 ftlbs. And the resulting power delivery is dramatically different than the RX-8.

The E9X M3 only makes 295 ft/lbs and that makes 414 HP. Maybe it has to do with how high the engines rev.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

The E9X M3 only makes 295 ft/lbs and that makes 414 HP. Maybe it has to do with how high the engines rev.

Maybe?

No no, it absolutely has to do with how high the engines rev.

Displacement is torque, airflow is horsepower.

 

[Keef]

Typically, higher-revving engines have shorter piston strokes, lighter assemblies, and free-flowing air intakes and exhausts. Most of the time there is very little restriction in the system. They rev high. The high horsepower is simply a mathematical byproduct of the engine torque and rpm. Theoretically there is no difference between an engine that revs high and produces low torque but it augmented by high gear ratios, and an engine that revs low and produces high torque but has low gear ratios.

When it comes to acceleration, matching gear ratios to the healthiest portion of the engine's powerband is very important. You'll notice that modern cars with direct injection and fancy turbo stuff are usually quicker than their older counterparts. These modern engines might produce maximum torque - acceleration - at only 1,500 rpm, while the naturally aspirated version that revs the same and has the same peak torque might produce its peak at 6,000 rpm. The fancy new turbo engine hits its peak and holds that all the way through the rpm range. That engine is producing maximum accelerated for a much longer period of time than the naturally aspirated engine, thus the car is quicker.

The reason Azuremen's car makes more torque but the same power as an RX8 or S2000 is because it just doesn't rev as high. In Azuremen's case, more torque peaking at a much lower rpm gives him the same horsepower. If his engine produced its torque at lofty rpm like the other two cars, he would have closer to 300 horsepower depending on the conversion used.

The force engines create is called torque. Horsepower is simply a calculated number relating the engine's torque to its rpm. The higher the rpm, the higher the horsepower. Physics dictates that an engine designed to rev high will create relatively low amounts of torque (short stroke, light rotating assembly, high compression, etc.)

 

[Azuremen]

The reason Azuremen's car makes more torque but the same power as an RX8 or S2000 is because it just doesn't rev as high. In Azuremen's case, more torque peaking at a much lower rpm gives him the same horsepower. If his engine produced its torque at lofty rpm like the other two cars, he would have closer to 300 horsepower depending on the conversion used.

As the Euro Spec motors do.

But the thing is the only reason rotaries make decent HP numbers is because they can spin fast. You can't build a large displacement lazy rotary and expect it to be terribly efficient. More so when you think about how inefficient rotaries are in general.

The average, typical motor found in less sporty cars tend to have similar HP and torque figures because they don't spin as fast. The comparison of NA rotaries having similar numbers only really works when comparing them to high revving NA piston engines.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Physics dictates that an engine designed to rev high will create relatively low amounts of torque (short stroke, light rotating assembly, high compression, etc.)

Not so much.

They won't necessarily make much down low, but once they come online they'll make pretty much the same torque figures as something not designed to rev.

Also, high compression, low friction, and a light rotating assembly will all help torque output. An 8.0:1 compression engine can make peak torque at 6000rpm just as easily as a 12.0:1 motor can, and vice versa... It's just that you generally see the lower compression numbers on less revvy (older) engines.

Well, that and it's harder to keep detonation away at lower RPM.

 

[Perfect Balance]

But that really isn't the case at all from what I've seen. The Renesis is about 150 ftlbs with 230 HP. This might compare to an S2000, but my M3 makes about the same power and over 200 ftlbs. And the resulting power delivery is dramatically different than the RX-8.

My bad, I was talking about the turbo motors. They are really the only ones worth messing with.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

My bad, I was talking about the turbo motors. They are really the only ones worth messing with.

The non-Renesis NAs are actually pretty decent in that regard as well.

86-88 NA = 146 HP @ 6500 RPM w/ 138 Ft/lb @ 3500 RPM
89-91 NA = 160 HP @ 7000 RPM w/ 140 Ft/lb @ 4000 RPM

For laughs, the turbo FCs:

86-88 Turbo = 182 @ 6500 RPM w/ 183 Ft/lb @ 3500 RPM
89-91 Turbo = 200-202 @ 6500 RPM w/ 196 Ft/lb @ 3500 RPM

The Renesis has higher compression to explain the slightly higher peak torque, but also has better flow characteristics and more of a bias towards high-RPM power, resulting in a bit less down low and a lot more up top.

 

[speed junkie]

No no, it absolutely has to do with how high the engines rev.

Ok, yeah...

Displacement is torque, airflow is horsepower.

Wait, wut? You were doing so well!

The high horsepower is simply a mathematical byproduct of the engine torque and rpm.
...
The reason Azuremen's car makes more torque but the same power as an RX8 or S2000 is because it just doesn't rev as high.
...
The force engines create is called torque. Horsepower is simply a calculated number relating the engine's torque to its rpm. The higher the rpm, the higher the horsepower.

Yes, yes, and yes. With everything in between also being true.

Again, torque is a force, measured in pounds per foot or newton meters etc. Horsepower is a relationship between that force (torque) and RPMs and can be expressed with this formula...

HP=(TQ(ft-lb)xRPM)÷5252

For example, you raise the RPMs and keep the torque the same, you get more HP. You lower the RPMs and keep the torque the same, you get less HP. And, of course, one can plug in different values and solve for different parts of the equation and always get the correct answer.

Anyways, I can't really say anything else that hasn't already been said.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Wait, wut? You were doing so well!

It's not a lie.

I was a bit vague, but I'm not talking out of my ass. Torque is created by the crank being forced to turn by pressure on the piston. Power is how often that torque is applied over a given amount of time.

Torque will be at its highest when volumetric efficiency is at its highest; as VE drops (running out of airflow) torque drops. Once it drops past a certain point, power stops increasing and starts decreasing.

Solution? More airflow. Suddenly, you can make more torque at a higher RPM, making more power.

As for forced induction...

Well, that'd be, in effect, displacement. You fill a cylinder to 200% of its capacity at atmospheric pressure and it is, in effect, the same as it being twice the volume.

But you still don't get anywhere without good head.