> > Paul,
    > > Can you send me the last RX8 Dyno test please - in all the
   excitement, I
    > > seem to have misplaced it.
    > > George (down under)
    > >
    > > Here it is plotted with the stock engine HP and torque.
    > >
    > > The second one is probably what you would get with fuel injection.
    > > I.E. No venturi to screw up the results.
    > >
    > > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
    >
    >
    > Paul
    >
    >
    > Do you think you can do a run up to 8200rpm and see what power is
    > available? With a shorter manifold it should be about 300Hp unless
   the side
    > exhaust ports don't breath as well as the P-Port exhaust.
    >
    > Doug
    >
    > The torque is already falling off at 7500 RPM.
    > We can't shorten the present runners as we would get into the
   tube bends.
    > All we have right at the moment is the downdraft Weber.
    >
    > Maybe when I get the new slide carb working.
    >
    > I am pleasantly surprised about the side exhaust. It does not seem to
    > hurt. Of course total exhaust port area is now 17% more than the old
    > peripheral port exhaust. We are getting more power with the RX8
   P-port
    > than we got with a 2nd gen P-port. Here are charts from both of them.
    >
    > The RX8 p-port has everything. More power, idles better, lower EGT,
    > quieter and recycles unburned fuel. What is not to like? :)
    >
    > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

   Fantastic, Paul!  The RX-8 intake P-port is a success!

   Soooo,

   What about go the whole hog and P-port both the intake AND the exhaust
   sides of the RX-8 engine?

   I can hear your fingers tapping the keys now: " . . . even MORE power,
   idles better, lower EGT . . . what's not to like?"

   Les Nordman :-)

   I am speechless. Perhaps somebody else can explain it to Les :)

   Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.


Les obviously already knows the answer...  cause then you have just
returned to essentially the 13B p-port.    Progress in regression  :-)