X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [64.12.136.171] (HELO imo-m12.mail.aol.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTP id 2110626 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:20:23 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.136.171; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-m12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id q.bc7.138c5bbb (40522) for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:19:34 -0400 (EDT) From: WRJJRS@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:19:34 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1182230374" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5042 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1182230374 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/18/2007 4:30:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, eanderson@carolina.rr.com writes: Renesis will undoubtedly get a better specific fuel consumption than a PP. So for those that want the utmost in power, it sounds like the PP is the way to go. For other cheap old chaps the Renesis would appear to offer a cost effective power increase. Ed Here Ed I have to totally DISagree. The side ported engine is used to provide more power, and has bigger side ports only workable with the Renesis, but must also pass smog regulations and provide low-end torque for car use. The need for the higher redline is the total giveaway. For ANY i.c.e. the key to higher bmep is higher RPM. Spin your 13B to 9k and provide it with an adaquate intake and exhaust I would bet money you will be within a few HP. While I don't want to sound like a broken record, and certainly not trying to be contentious, Mazda built the 26B for use in a race using an economy formula. If side ports were more efficient they would have used them! P-ports make more power, but in the low to midrange so critical in a car they are much dirtier on HC. I really believe that the Renesis came from Mazda's hydrogen experiments. The ability to produce large ports WITH NO OVERLAP was critical to the success of that project. Much talk has been made of the fact that p-port rotaries have considerable overlap in the exhaust to intake phase. So does every high performance piston engine ever built. Tuners have even found the overlap phase to be beneficial to performance when the engine is properly tuned. The reason for the renesis is IMHO the need to pass smog and provide competitive power, Not that the Renesis is the "best" configuration. I'm glad they're building it since it is the key to Rotary survival. I simply harbor no delusions that Mazda wouldn't run a p-port with variable length intake tract if smog and noise would allow it. The advent of truly functional Direct injection may make the return of p-ports possible, but there is now a lot of inertia against them. As for cheaper I agree. Anything over-the-counter is a less expensive solution! Bill Jepson ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -------------------------------1182230374 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 6/18/2007 4:30:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,=20 eanderson@carolina.rr.com writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>Renesis=20 will undoubtedly get a better specific fuel consumption than a=20 PP.

  So for those that want the utmost in power, it sounds li= ke=20 the PP is the
way to go.  For other cheap old chaps the Renesis w= ould=20 appear to offer a
cost effective power=20 increase.

Ed
Here Ed I have to totally DISagree. The side ported engine is used= to=20 provide more power, and has bigger side ports only workable with the=20 Renesis, but must also pass smog regulations and provide low-end=20 torque for car use. The need for the higher redline is the total giveaway. F= or=20 ANY i.c.e. the key to higher bmep is higher RPM. Spin your 13B to 9k and pro= vide=20 it with an adaquate intake and exhaust I would bet money you will be within=20= a=20 few HP. While I don't want to sound like a broken record, and certainly not=20 trying to be contentious, Mazda built the 26B for use in a race using an eco= nomy=20 formula. If side ports were more efficient they would have used them! =20 P-ports make more power, but in the low to midrange so critical in a car the= y=20 are much dirtier on HC. I really believe that the Renesis came from Mazda's=20 hydrogen experiments. The ability to produce large ports WITH NO OVERLAP was= =20 critical to the success of that project. Much talk has been made of the fact= =20 that p-port rotaries have considerable overlap in the exhaust to intake phas= e.=20 So does every high performance piston engine ever built. Tuners have even fo= und=20 the overlap phase to be beneficial to performance when the engine is properl= y=20 tuned. The reason for the renesis is IMHO the need to pass smog and provide=20 competitive power, Not that the Renesis is the "best" configuration. I'm gla= d=20 they're building it since it is the key to Rotary survival. I simply harbor=20= no=20 delusions that Mazda wouldn't run a p-port with variable length intake tract= if=20 smog and noise would allow it. The advent of truly functional Direct injecti= on=20 may make the return of p-ports possible, but there is now a lot of inertia=20 against them.
 As for cheaper I agree. Anything over-the-counter is a less=20 expensive solution! 
Bill Jepson



See what'= s free at AOL.co= m.
-------------------------------1182230374--