adam c

iTrader: (2)

He said he was going 100. The cops only got him for 70 mph, but thought he was going faster.

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

First of all, Rich, DAAAAYYYYYUMN MAN. You've been on this forum for a WHILE... My hat's off to you man. I had no idea....

Ie, check it every 2 days? lol. I can easily finish my tank in 2 - 3 days. I don't worry about my oil for 2 - 3 WEEKS tho...

That's from their prespective. From MY prespective, it's a NO-BRAINER to turn off the car IMMEDIATELY once you get pulled over. Why? Lessens the chance you can get ANOTHER ticket for "loud exhaust"

Very true...I have yet to come across a situation where I've been THRASHING the car, then all of a sudden pull into a parking spot IMMEDIATELY and turn off the car... There's always a good min or two to cruise while the car slows down. Also, while you're doing that, dropping it into neutral drops oil temps INSTANTLY... around 40 degrees IIRC. My Defi don't lie

But I still want a turbo timer, for ONE reason, and ONE reason ONLY. I have to make a bunch of stops sometimes around town, and if the weather's nice, I wanna do it in my FD, since I don't drive her much. It's not only a pain, but simply BAD for your car to keep on turning it on and off (don't you get the most wear on the car during startup?). I'd love it if I had a turbo timer to simply enable me to take out the key, arm the alarm, yet leave the engine running while I did my business in whatever store etc for a quick 5 min, then come back, put the key in, and drive off. THAT'S very tempting to me, and why I want one.

the ancient words

after the car is warmed up there is very little (if any) additional wear on engine internals....hopefully you are using a good synthetic oil which keeps cold start wear in check anyhow

turbo timers are stupid....another gimmick for ignorant ricers to get excited about, just like their 6-inch diameter rev meter mounted prominently on the dash

GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

I told you I'd been around the block a few times

the ancient words

me too

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Actually I use Castrol GTX 10-30. <----- Paranoid about using synthetic

Understandable, but you gotta admit, it would be very convenient to not have to keep turning the car on and off

You can say THAT again! Madd props to ya Rich.

GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

So many identities. So you are yzf reincarnated? And we all know who the penguin is too, lol

adam c

iTrader: (2)

Thats a bad reason. Starting your car when it is warm will not cause any engine wear. Leaving the engine running will make it hotter .......... no air going thru the radiator, unless your fans are on. In addition, you are wasting gas, and running your engine when you don't need to, causing (minimal) engine wear.

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Hmmm...I guess I stand corrected

skhaos

wow. nice

LemonR1

I really appreciate this thread even though i did not contribute , because i was about 1 week from buying a turbo timer and E.B.C., and now its just down to E.B.C. This forum has saved me a lot of time and money already in the MONTH AND A HALF I OWNED THIS CAR, and a lot of the people posted in this thread so i figured i would show my appreciation to you pimp daddies.

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

Turbo timers are a waste of money...put your money elsewhere.

Montego

iTrader: (1)

Ok I know that this post is several months old, but what good is running the fans on a motor than is already off. Basically all you are doing is cooling the water that is sitting in the radiator and is no longer flowing through the engine.

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Being that most things are water and oil cooled, it won't make much a difference to the actual powertrain parts (engine, turbos, etc). But the less time the engine bay is super hot, the longer life you can get out of the plastics under the hood (or at least the theory goes as such). Yesterday, I personally got to see what 68K miles of Florida heat did to a bunch of stock parts on an FD: cracked an airhose, made many rubber hoses glass-like, lead to a nipple braking off of a solenoid, and various other normally soft and and pliable parts rock-solid and extremely brittle.

Montego

iTrader: (1)

^^ wouldn't a vented hood be a better modification in order to reduce heat soak?

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Vented hoods are always a good idea to decrease engine bay temps. Real aerodynamically designed vented hoods will actually generate downforce as well (by decreasing lift). I think a vented hood + a fan mod (not a TT, but say a fan relay switch or controlling the fans via the PFC) would be ideal

jimlab

Show me a vented hood that generates downforce.

Kento

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Here's one for starters... (yes it's heresay, but it's the best I can do. I thought the theory was solid, and prob is only in practice in full fleged race cars, but doesn't Mazdaspeed windtunnel test their products? Did they just go for cooling the engine bay and forgoe aerodynamics w/ their hood?)

"The Cantrell Studios NSX-R Style Carbon Fiber Hood is the most technological advanced hood designed for the NSX. Unlike any NSX hood before, the hood uses a one piece construction design using a carbon fiber upper deck and a Nomex honeycomb inner frame vacuum sandwiched between a bottom layer of carbon fiber. Unlike the traditional design of using a top deck half and lower frame half, this method reduces material and mass resulting in a hood that is significantly (8 lbs) lighter than even the light weight factory aluminum hood. This one piece construction also eliminates the risk of delaminating of the upper and lower halves. This construction method is the same as used for producing the Ferrari Enzo front hood.

The upper deck is a direct replica of the NSX-R hood found on the 2002 Honda NSX-R. This aerodynamic device decreases frontal lift at speed and increasing cooling efficiency by allowing airflow to pass through the radiator, through the hood, and over the cabin."

From http://www.scienceofspeed.com/produc...-R_style_hood/

Kento, you were in on Damian's "do sideskirts really work" (or somethin like that) thread, and this issue was discussed. Crispy had brought it up, and I don't recall you saying anything against it. Why you a nay-sayer now all of a sudden? If I'm wrong, plz correct me...I'm not claiming MY vented hood decreases lift, but I believe it's definitely POSSIBLE. In fact, I think I read somewhere that Mitsubishi claims the vented hood on the Evo generates downforce...

Kento

sigh...you need to read a bit more or work on your memory...
https://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php...8&postcount=71
You're making a ton of suppositions based upon either adspeak or website text derived from adspeak, and that text is basing its claims purely on supposition, with no real aerodynamic testing or data to prove what they're claiming is true. Just because something looks similar in concept to the hood of an Enzo, it must be creating downforce? That particular concept is part of a complete underbody package to create major downforce; you can't just take a part of that concept and say "well, it's part of it, so it must create some downforce."

Just because Mazdaspeed makes a product that fits the FD, you can't automatically assume that it will magically do everything just by slapping it on a street-driven car.

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Kento, sorry if my post gave you the wrong impression. Ditto Jim. I wasn't even BEGINNING to say that an FD vented hood makes downforce. montego's question sounded vague/general to me, so I answered it generally. I believe it is 100% that one of the advantages of vented hoods (in general) is to reduce lift. If I'm wrong about that, please correct em.

Now how many functional vented hoods are there, and if there are ANY available for the FD, I have no idea. Plus, (w/o any knowledge to back it up), I disagree w/ the last part of your post...it would seem (I say seem because I'm stressing this is my logic, not knowledge) that if a hood is designed to produce downforce, it must do so, whether or not the overall body aerodynamics are ideal. Now it's entirely possible (and in fact highly likely) that the OVERALL aerodynamics of the car make the downforce generated by the hood significant, and by just slapping on a functional hood onto a non-aerodynamically engineered car you're basically making the contribution of the hood negligible, but the hood in itself still does generate downforce. I'm not looking at it as a vector equation w/ a net force blah blah...I'm saying taken in isolation, the hood still does what it's designed to do, plain and simple.

Now I ASSUME Mazdaspeed's engineering included making the hood produce downforce (who knows). But assuming that, whether or not your overall body aerodynamics are all Mazdaspeed or just aftermarket crap, that hood will still generate downforce, either the same it was designed to generate, but it's effect would be deminished by bad overall aerodynamics of the car, or the overall aeordynamics of the car would make the hood generate less downforce. In both cases, it still does it's function. Maybe not as well, but it still does it (or so I believe).

Kento

Now you're suddenly splitting hairs, after making an incredibly broad generalization about aerodynamics in your original statement about vented hoods generating downforce?

Ramy, you're completely missing the point that I made in that post in Damian's thread, and in my last post. Aerodynamics isn't something where you can take a very small portion of Bernoulli's Principle and proclaim success; it requires the complete equation. All these people making claims of "downforce-producing hoods" are basing their flawed theory on the fact that they're relieving positive pressure that would normally be exhausted "underneath" the car. They're overlooking all the other aspects of the car's aerodynamics, including the airflow underneath and to the sides, as well as the actual airflow into the engine bay (a radiator is a major obstruction to airflow; you're not automatically creating this massive positive pressure base in the engine bay or underneath the car), and the actual chassis attitude of the car itself.

Duly noted.

Read above.

You're making a great case for the power of adspeak over the masses.

See above...

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Kento, not splitting hairs. I'd hope you've read my posts and corrected me to the nth degree enough to realize I'm not asking ?s for fault-finding...I'm actually and genuinely trying to learn. So that's why I was being stickler about whether a hood in itself COULD produce downforce, and it seemed like you were saying that entire concept was BS.

To clarify, you responded to this post of mine:

The first part is what I believe applies to pretty much any FD (or car that generates a lot of heat under the engine bay that isn't adequately dispursed). Ie, "vented hoods are always a good idea..."

In the second part, I specifically said "real aerodynamically designed vented hoods..." which doesn't claim that my or anyone else's vented hood is included. It's talking in absolute... and when you responded by "" it seemed like you were arguing that vented hoods simply do not produce downforce, plain and simple. That's why I was going back and forth w/ you because I think the theory is 100% true, but it's successful application is prob very rare (but does exist!) Jim pointed out how I don't know where it exists...and I'm real curious too.

Kento, maybe I did miss it. I was under the impression that aerodynamics were additive effects... and based on that, I think you misunderstood my point. "Success" in aerodynamics would be the resultant of overall aerodynamics (not just the hood, but undertray, skirts, airdam, spoiler, etc etc). Given that, you may have unfavorable (bad) aerodynamics overall (again, a resultant force), but some of the individual components (here being the hood) may very well work and be "successful" in it itself. Or at least that's how I understand it, and I don't think you've explained to me why that's wrong? Or maybe my explanation really sucks so you're having a hard time explaining what I'm trying say?

Simply said, if you have A, B, and C, w/ the resultant being D, just because D is negative (bad overall aerodynamics) doesn't mean that A, B, and C are also negative. It's additive, so A (the hood) could very well be a large positive, yet B + C together are a larger negative, producing an overall negative D (overall poor aerodynamics). That's exactly how I see things. Plz (seriously) correct me if I'm wrong.

On that note, however, I totally understand your point that just because a hood may be designed to generate downforce doesn't mean it'll still work if you put it on a car in which the body isn't designed to utilize that hood. That's understood. But such situations can also cause the hood to impart partial function, no?

Kento

OK, this is going to be my last post on this subject, because you're it's obvious you're not understanding me here.

It is BS, if you just consider a "real aerodynamically designed vented hood" by itself, without any other considerations whatsoever. What's the point of saying it, if you're not going to include the other aspects of aerodynamics that should go together with that "real aerodynamically designed vented hood" in order for it to work as claimed? A vented hood in and of itself will not generate downforce. Is that clear?

No, I only responded to a specific part of the post...

Because they don't, without taking all the other aerodynamics of the car into account...

You're wrong, because, as I've explained previously, you cannot just take one portion of Bernoulli's Principle, and claim that a product works because of that-- YOU NEED THE WHOLE EQUATION. "Additive effects in aerodynamics" are only that if they truly work with the principles. A properly designed wing stuck on the back of car will create downforce because it fulfills all of the functions of Bernoulli's Principle. A vented hood by itself will not. Please reread my last post about the "positive pressure" in the engine bay, and how radiators create a huge impedance to airflow.

No, you don't, because it must be part of an aerodynamic package to do that...

No.

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Crystal.

Ok sorry, my fault. I guess you were saying that from the beginning, but I thought you were wrong, because I equated a wing with a hood. I obviously didn't know the disctinction between them (the wing fulfilling all of the functions of Bernoulli's Principle, and the hood not). It's crystal clear now, and thanks for your patience in clarifying this.