twint78

hmmm...aight rx7tt remember how i talked to u about the three plug idea?how much would this really do for it?i know a cleaner burn.im thinkin it would give it more combustion correct?more combustion=more torque correct?microtech does run split timing?cuz if they do this would be perfect.i plan on getting this one as u know,it would only make it better knowing it could run split timing.

but i figure if i go with RB and drop 5 inches in length and almost 100 lbs in weight, that i wouldnt even hafta do a dry sump system.and i have the manifold cut down of course, i could easily push it back into the firewall.therefore putting it into the stock position of the 13b.plus it would be lighter.

also as far as the lightweight rotors go.i know they would work like a lightened flywheel,but would they actually be that boggy in the lower rpm's?

it doesnt matter anyways.i do not plan on making power above 4000 rpms' anway with that t51r.im going to see if i cant make a custom straight pipe system all the way to the catback outta carbonfiber.it should be able to handle the heat.even maybe fiberglass,since it more at hand.

what kind of clutch can u use on the gforce since that is what im going with.have u decided if that is going to be ur tranny?we will hafta get a digital gear readout to tell us what gear we r in.so we dont hafta count in our head all the time.im thinkin about maybe goin with paddle shifters.but the weight of the hydraulics is something i dont want.as i told u already im going light as possible.yes im crazy.

have u talked with pineapple lately?what did they hafta say?im tellin u go with the straight primary sized ports.it cuts down in length of the motor.does pineapple also make the e-shaft?if they do how much for a smoothed laser cut e-shaft.

r u going lightweight as i am?if so what r u doing to do this?im making a dash outta fiberglass that u can take apart in less than 2 mins.if u ever look at a ducati or any crotchrocket for matter they have pins u can use for the ferrings.instead taking forever and using screws, u just pop these in and push the little ring on the pins down.these fasten the pins down.

electronics will be my main thing.i want to have many electronics to keep an eye out for everything and get precise measurements.for instance.
microtech and datalogit in dash comp for tuning.
a/f meter so i can see meassurements at all rpms.(ill get a good one not a damn autometer where it cant tell its elbow from its *******.)
knock meter
HKS CAMP and conjunction box to monitor revs speed egt air temp and something else cant remember
do u know if microtech uses a map sensor built into the ecu like the link system.

so how does pettit use a 3 snap disconnect?

thanx
joe

twint78

ive also though about going p.port.since i wont be drivin this car except for showing and street racing.but i havent heard too much on the reliability factor.is it hours,days,weeks?how long would a pport last if i raced every two weekends if that,maybe once a month?this means also if i can pport it i can get the engine even shorter.does it idle erratically, or does it idle smoothly at 2-3k rpms?ive never been able to be near a pport or hear one.

mad20b

I wish I had your budget!!

twint78

hahahaha this will be my 3 rotor version of jimlab's v8.
it will take a few yrs.

i also thought of something.3 ford 72mm tbodies.one for each port.with a carbon fiber manifold cover.or i might just go with one single.nevermind i could do that.i would have a huge boost leak.scratch that idea.

oh yeah and when im done ill challenge jimlab and lay the smack down.no offense jim i love ur car but its gonne get left behind.

KraftDinner

Oh my god!! I love you. No really, I LOVE YOU! Make a webpage documenting all stages and progress of your work with pics! Don't know how?!? I'll do it for you

rx7tt95

Ok, essentially what Pineapple said was that some other shop had paid them to do the R&D on a "shorter" three rotor. Apparently it's ok for him to make me one that's similar, but he cannot even get around to it until Fall.

I think the three plug setup may be a little overkill and it would really limit our options in terms of computers if split were run on all three...I could see running the same timing on two and split on the third, but that's getting into some pretty heavy R&D. I'm currently trying to find contact information for Spencer Racing as they began campaigning a turbocharged three rotor instead of the n/a version this year. They race in what I believe is the WSC Historic series. I may contact Downing Mazda, but getting any info out of them may be futile. They're great guys though so who knows.

I have not done any research on clutches. It would appear that the input spline is different, necessitating a different clutch package. I'm sure ACT could do a disk with the correct number of splines. They may have something already. As RP ran the G-Force box, I may contact them (or just purchase it from them) on a recommended clutch for the G-Force setup. Whatever I go with, it'll probably be a sprung hub design. The gearbox can take the shock of the solid hub. I'm worried about the differential and the rest of the driveline however.

In terms of tuning and setup, I want something that's as reliable as possible and very streetable. By the time a 3-rotor is placed in the car, I'll have an RX8 as a daily driver. I plan on retaining the a/c and power steering as well. Currently, my car weighs in at under 2700lbs. with 1/2 tank of gas and I've done nothing major to reduce weight. I still need to add a cage, the extra weight of the three rotor, single turbo, etc...so figure I go to 2750 before taking weight-saving measures into account. RotaryExtreme is working on a titanium midpipe and exhaust which will save me 15lbs. or so. Without stripping the interior, I'm not going to get much lighter. I believe the G-Force tranny is heavier than the stock gearbox as well.

Since I do not wish to run a front mount IC (road damage and overheating issues on the track), I plan on doing most of the real "engineering" in that department. I am going to try and use a unique packaging solution which uses one large radiator and two smaller IC's fed by ducts in the front and ducted on the rear to the fender area, just in front of the doors. That way each gets a full on shot of incoming fresh air.

That's where I am at this point. Obviously I have lots more to research (and purchase!).
Michel

Jeff20B

iTrader: (13)

Yeah, make a webpage man!

About the third plug per rotor housing, MFR called it a "late Trailing" which, to me, means it fired after the regular Trailing. That seems a little odd to me though, because as the eccentric shaft rotates, the tip of the rotor will pass by the upper (third) plug first. This means it needs to fire possibly at the same time as the regular Trailing plug, so maybe Leading fired normally and both Trailings fired at the same time? It still requires a split, which, as you mentioned, means more R&D time. Maybe it was called late Trailing because of its location in the rotor housing only? Maybe it did actually fire at the same time as regular Trailing?

You mentioned RB. Were you talking about their aluminum side housings? Those would be nice (with a peripheral port engine).

twint78

same here im gonna be in debt up to my ears when im done.hah not actually cuz i will everything piece by piece.i looked into the pport idea.its actually more reliable than a bport.i will be doing the custom fab myself with the handy old welder.and some pipe cutting tools.i will use a flat mount i/c, just like shane racing use to make. ill probably use a fan on it also.this will help alot .

as far as engine that will not be an issue with me.i will use aluminum housings,which are almost 60% lighter than the stock ones and more durable.and as i said b4 since they will be pported i can use smaller intermediate housings.which in turn makes the engine smaller.i figure if i cant find someone to make an aluminum rotor.i heard maybe cerafuse could do it, but for how much?ill hafta check.this plus a more shorter stout eshaft would have less bearing load and shaft flex.

the timing issue.sorry for not being clear.i will only use split timing on the leading and trailing.i will use non split on the trailing one and trailing two.

i will probably have RBeat make me the rotor housings.
cerafuse make the rotors
send it all to pineapple and have them make the custom intermediate housings, shaft, and wetsump.
ill ask them too to create an intake manifold flange about half an inch thick with two injector ports over each pport.plus i have a secret design to flow some good air into the ports that i can not tell.

i was also looking into the midpipe by RExtreme,but im thinkin of C.fiber

Kurgan

before I went with dual ICs, I'd go air to water. dual ICs will introduce lag and a longer intake tract. With the proper heat exchanger, an air to water IC is very streetable.

twint78

i was thinking about an air to water design also.where it has a tank on the back and a drain plug on the bottom.so i can put icewater in it.then again i might just stay with the fan.

rx7tt95

Actually the pipe connecting the two IC's will be about 2ft. long...the entire pipe system would still be shorter than a front mount. I believe I will use a horizontal mount however, and will probably just re-engineer my CWR IC or purchase Rotary Extreme's new HMIC since it's designed to work with his hood (which I have). I need to get that radiator as vertical as possible and run a thicker core as well. Pettit's radiator is simply HUGE. I'd rather do some sort of a V-mount IC/radiator system however and have the hot air escape below the radiator and out the bottom of the car.

Oh, about the dash...there was some discussion on this (Pettit thread). I believe that the Micro computer will work with the STACK digital guage cluster. It has a "normal" tach with a digital speedo, water and oil temp, etc...Reasonably affordable, more so than the Motec dash.
Michel

twint78

i am of course doing so much r&d right now its stupid.
i believe what they did with a 3 plug option was to ignite the late trailing first.and run trailing and leading together.the reason for this was, with 2 plug option, the combustion chamber created a thing called "squish".and this process is where unburnt fuel would get between the rotor and housing about the trailing plug.so to cure this, they had the late trailing fire first sparking the squish area as where, the trail lead would get the rest. making a complete combustion.

jimlab

OK.

twint78

aight throw the 20b ideas i had out the window.

im doing some extensive r and d as u know.and i looked into the pport/turbo idea.

not a good idea.since the overlap is so huge, adding the turbo would start lapping exhuast gas into the intake chamber.ruining combustion and an engine.

this is still a good idea for someone wanting to go n/a 3 rotor or even 4.

i will not be goin with microtech.i will be using the electromotive tec3.just alot better system.plus it can remove alot wiring hassle like the link system.but it is a good quality ems.

i will be going with the 3 plug idea still. but it will not be like mazdas 1 lead 2 trails. it will be 2 leads 1 trail.

i will just use the aluminum intermediate housings RB sells for the 3 rotor.

i will not go with the mechanical pump system they have made for the 3 rotor.i forget the website.i will use an oil pump they have for the stock front housing.cant remember which engine either.i have this all written done and will post later.mounting an external oil pump can cause shaft bend.im not down with that.still using the dry sump to lwer the engine though.

using 9 1600's injector setup.

so if u want a 650hp pport 3 rotor almost as short as the 2 rotor and lighter, pm me and ill tell u how.a pport will just not be good with a turbo.or now a twin setup .i will instead have to go with a bridgy.

so its back to the drawing board.

Jeff20B

iTrader: (13)

That's so good R and D!

twint78

u like that jeff?or r we being smart?

Jeff20B

iTrader: (13)

I like it! I was trying to spell the word 'some' but it came out as 'so' so, oops. Anyway, I think it's a great idea to use RB's aluminum side housings to make a short 3 or 4 rotor that will end up being lighter than a standard 2 rotor. Now if you can only find out if porting them is possible...

jimlab

It would be lighter than a standard 20B, of course, but I don't believe that you can add another rotor housing, rotor, and side plate, and the longer eccentric shaft and wind up with something that's lighter than a standard 13B-REW, even using aluminum side plates. In all this "R&D", I haven't seen any weights or lengths quoted. Call up Racing Beat and find out what their side plates weigh, then compare them to the cast iron side plates, find out how much weight you'd actually save, and then talk about weight savings. And be sure to tell us what the current cost of those aluminum parts is... the data from my own R&D is several years old now.

Furthermore, you're not going to gain much using 13B components to build a 3-rotor or 4-rotor engine, where overall length is concerned. You might save an inch or so in length on a 3-rotor engine, but that's a negligible savings and would still require a very expensive dry sump oiling system to clear the steering rack in a 3rd gen. (or the relocation of the steering rack as well as a custom oil pan), not to mention requiring a custom exhaust, custom lower intake manifold, custom fuel rail, custom eccentric shaft... I'm not saying it can't be done, but if you're doing it to shorten the engine, it'll end up costing a lot more than it's worth, especially if you don't turbocharge it.

Here's some information on the subject from someone who has already built a "shortened 20B" from 13B components...

http://www.hitman.hm/engine.htm

Sorry, but I don't see much "R&D" here, just a lot of speculation. I actually owned a 20B at one point, and went through these same exercises... how to make it lighter, shorter, clear the stock steering rack, and so on. But I took it a step further and actually talked to RB about the weight savings, cost (high) and availability (good luck) of their aluminum side plates. I talked to Mazdacomp about a dry sump system for the 20B (non-existent... but they sell one for the 13G for about $3,500 that could be modified to work...) and so on. I think the idea process is great, but I haven't seen any concrete numbers or facts yet, and speculating that you'll "leave me behind" is a bit premature, at this point. Especially when you haven't even started selecting gearing to match your non-existent engine's power curve...

Still, good luck on your project, and let us know when you have something concrete to report.

rx7tt95

It's actually possible to use the stock 20B and mount it far enough back that the steering rack does not need to be moved and a custom oil pan is not needed either. Simply using a custom intake manifold (one piece aluminum) which sits lower on the "block" will allow the engine to be slid back without cutting the firewall. If you take a look at Pettit's installation, there's an easy six inches between the back of the intake manifold and the firewall. Look at PFS's installation, hnd he had to cut the firewall. If they had just taken a look at doing a different intake manifold, that would not have been necessary.

Pineapple Racing was contracted out by someone to create a shorter three rotor engine. I do not know who that is. But it has and can be done, yielding an engine a few inches shorter. Cost isn't prohibitive either.

With the above said, neither the custom intake manifold (Pettit already has one for the two rotor) nor the oil pan will be nearly as difficult, expensive, or time consuming to create as some of the work that's been done to your car, Jim :-) There are plenty of people in Australia and in S. Florida who are more than capable of producing a 3-rotor turbo manifold of quality design.

If I remember correctly, RB's aluminum side housings were $1500 a pop. As much as I'd like to use them, the thought of loosing an apex seal (especially if I go ceramic) and destroying these beauties is too much. I'll stick with iron, LOL.

Twin, will the Electromotive run split timing and sequential fuel injection?
Michel

jimlab

I think you'll find that it's more than just the intake manifold that interferes with the firewall if the engine is relocated. If you take a good look at the front of the transmission tunnel, it becomes clear that it is not physically possible to move the bellhousing of the transmission much farther to the rear without cutting and modifying the tunnel and firewall, which is what Peter Farrell did. If it were as simple as fabricating a new intake manifold, no one would balk at choosing that route instead of hacking into the firewall.

Sure there are plenty of people who can produce the parts required, but they are not off-the-shelf items, and will require a good amount of time (and cost) to fabricate. All custom parts are expensive, unless you can make them yourself. No one stocks a ready-made lower intake, fuel rail, or turbo manifold for a shortened "20B", so there are quite a few hurdles that need to be overcome. I think you might be underestimating the amount of work required to put something like this together and install it.

If you shave an inch out of the center of the engine, the spacing of everything else changes. I think you might be referring to sourcing parts for a standard 20B install, and you're right, they're not as scarce or as expensive as they used to be. However, if you suddenly need someone to build you a custom lower intake manifold for a shortened 20B made with 13B components, all of a sudden you're on your own. They've got to have your engine or an identical engine for measurements for fabrication, and not many people go to the trouble to build something like this, even in Australia.

Pineapple may be able to produce a (relatively) low cost, shortened 13B/20B 3-rotor engine with cast iron side plates, and they'll fabricate everything else you need too, probably, but it won't be cheap when all is said and done, and you'll still have to figure out how to mount it in the car. Three choices... (1) move the steering rack and space the tie rods to compensate for bump steer, (2) dry sump oiling system, or (3) cut the firewall. Most people choose to relocate the steering rack. It's a lot cheaper.

That sounds about right. I was told to expect several months delay to get them, also. They're not an "in-stock" item.

jimlab

Michel, I looked at the pictures you posted in the Axia/Pettit/Stillway thread, and I think you'll find that the reason that there's a "hand's width" at the back of the intake manifold in the Pettit car is because it also has the stock 20B twin turbos, and has to be positioned (at the rear of the engine) the same as the 13B-REW it replaced to have room for the turbos and piping. The space between the intake manifold and the firewall is the result. The rear rotor in a Pettit conversion is no farther forward than the rear rotor in the original 13B-REW, so all of the extra length of the engine is at the front, requiring the relocation of the steering rack because of interference with the oil pan. It may look like the engine was mounted farther forward because of the spacing between the intake manifold and firewall, but you have to remember that the 20B was not designed with the FD's engine compartment in mind.

The Stillway car, on the other hand, with the intake manifold slapped up against the firewall is a single turbo car. There's a lot more latitude with a custom fabricated turbo exhaust manifold, but I think you'll find if you do some more research or talk to the Stillway folks that they also had to modify the firewall in order to mount the engine where it is, since the FD's transmission tunnel quickly "collapses" to just enough room for the relatively narrow body of the transmission case and the exhaust. The bellhousing and engine are too wide to mount much further back in the chassis without modification of the firewall and trans tunnel, as I stated above. Talk to Peter Farrell about his conversion some time, if you have the chance.

j9fd3s

iTrader: (3)

it may very well be that the fd was designed so the 20b wont fit. paul ko measured up jims old 20b in an fd and they want to make a subframe and spindles too.

mike

twint78

well jim for someone sayin things are prematurely said.mabe u need to read this again.i will not be going with a 3rd gen transmission.i will be using a g-force, which has a totally different bellhousing and length.i will not be using mazdacomp's dry sump system.as i stated earlier, one will be custom made by a rotary shop no more than half an hour away.

for specs
the aluminum housings are 1200 a piece plus shipping.
stock intermediate housing weighs 25.9 lbs
aluminum weighs 10 lbs
stock rear housing weighs in at 25.8 lbs
aluminum rear housing weighs 13lbs
im sure ur a smart man jim do the math

as far as gearing goes its a fight right now.i dont know if i want to go with top speed or acceleration.im sure i will not need to go 200+ mph.so i will not go with too small a gear.

i talked with racing beat about the shortened engine.thats another reason why i will not be doing it now.i got ahead of myself.u can shorten it alot if u want to go with a pport engine.but i will not go with pport now cuz it does not mix well with a turbo. so therefore i will be bridging the engine.

i proved to michel on how to shorten the engine by alot.
im not throwing out all ideas on here as i said earlier.i wanna keep some a secret.

for someone who talks about speculation jim, you seem to just repeat everything everyone else tells you. i do not doubt your abilities. but i guess some of us dont like to sweat on our own projects jim.i do, thats why 75% of the work will be done by me. the other 25 will be left to professionals,engine building,exhuast piping.

jim do not bash me on my project.i appraise ou for yours.

and jim yes a 1000hp +2200 lbs will leave your damn 650-700 hp +2700 lbs of car anytime , anyday jim.
its basic math.

2200 lbs is just basic things.a rear hatch,hood and some doors,of course a little here and a little there.

i will be removing all vents
all unneeded wiring(redoing this all)
75% interior
trunk
smaller fuel tank
forged rims
insulation
going to carbon fiber one piece seats
dash
i will have a 4-5 piece carbon fiber dash.
metal body parts will be exhanged for fiberglass pieces.

and jim thanks for the nudge,u have made it more than just a project, you have made it a love and desire.to hunt your little pretty car down and leave it.but i will not talk like this it is childish but competitive,and yet respectful.

just for this i will paint my car pink, just to make it more fun.

jimlab

The bellhousing is still the width of the engine and has to contain the clutch assembly, regardless of who manufacturers the transmission... you figure it out.

So you save ~40 lbs. in the section corresponding to the parts in the original 13B-REW, and then add back another 10 lb. end plate, rotor, and rotor housing, and the increased weight of the longer eccentric shaft, not to mention the extra stationary gears. Do the math yourself... it isn't likely to be lighter than a stock 13B-REW, but it will be quite a bit lighter than a standard 20B, which is heavier than **** with the stock cast iron exhaust and turbo manifolds.

You'd better budget for some wind tunnel testing before you go 200+ mph... the car was only designed to be stable up to 160-170 mph, and 180 is really pushing it. Mazda never intended anyone to be able to go that fast, and with the speed limiter removed, top speed in a stock car is about 169... the speed limiter was there for a reason, though.

Sure, you can shorten the engine further if you go periferal port, but you get all the problems that go along with that design, not to mention that it won't idle well and it'll sound like ****...

Fine. I'm as anxious as everyone else to see you succeed... but in the mean time, you sound just a little like someone who just thought this up while sitting on the ******* and regurgitated a bunch of ideas that have been thrown around for the last few years. And discarded.

I remember someone else who thought they'd just drop in a 4-rotor because they were able to "weld"... good luck. I've fabricated a lot of my own parts, but I'm well aware of when something is beyond my skills. Some people seem to think making a turbo exhaust manifold is just as simple as welding a bunch of pipe together and slapping flanges on it... again, good luck.

First explain to me how you're going to get 1,000 horsepower out of a naturally aspirated 3-rotor, and then explain to me how you're going to get that power to the ground.

Are you building a purpose-built drag car? You'll have to back-half the car at the very least to put enough tire in the back to put that kind of power to the ground, and at that point, you'll be trailering the car, not driving it on the street. Guess I won't have to worry about being shown up.

You apparently want to compare power to weight ratios, but there's a lot more to acceleration than comparing peak power level to the weight of the car. Putting the power to the ground, for one, and looking at the rest of the power curve, for another.

You mean you're going to remove them permanently? If you think carbon fiber parts and plexi windows are going to shave that much weight, along with the other things you mentioned, I'd like to see it done. Be sure to let us see the scale weight of the car when you're finished.

The only competition is in your head, but I guess I have to be somewhat flattered that you picked my poor little car as your measuring stick. Keep us updated on your project as you make progress.

mmaragos

Guess it is a turbo bridgeport.

Aside from that, what is the point of the pissing contest? Who's to say that Jim doesn't get bored (or just wants to show up some horsepower queens) and go for a monster twin turbo set up? <<Just saying...>>

There always seems to be a way to get more HP under the hood and make one car faster than another.