i love how after i've supplied all the information anyone could want on how an aftermarket intake does not help AT ALL and possibly loses a couple ponies people still try to tell other people the first thing to do is intake and exhaust.

mazda is not honda guys, rx7's we're designed with a racing in mind. , the only mod that will help is going to a bigger AFM seeing as thats the smallest bottle neck on the stock intake system

any removal of the stock snorkle results in sever Heatsoak and the loss of power is extremely noticable

 

You could supercharge it- but then it wouldn't be n/a anymore would it?

 

Although I've seen mirrors on sticks (presumably to check under the car) at the EnviroTest stations, I've never actually seen anyone use them.
They seem to pretty much rely on the tailpipe sniffer and a good condition RX will have enough trouble passing with a functional airpump/cat, much less without.

Even if they did perform a visual test, I think a hi-flow cat would be OK.

 

So, will this be an issue in CO? What is your current build and what if any issues do/did you have w/emissions here? If I have to deal w/alot of bs.......I may tag and title my car in FL through mail...get FL tags..and just do what I want in terms of engine building.....moderate port w/all the bells and whistles.

 

You didn't post about how exactly yours is set up though. On my car for instance I've got a cone filter with a aluminum heat shield and a scoop on the headlight cover to direct ambient air at it. That'll certainly give nice cool intake temps at any sort of speed. Also, unless you have some tests to prove it, then your claim that the stock intake flows better is complete and utter speculation.

 

It would be silly to claim the stock airbox and intake duct flow better than a pod filter. Very silly. The gains from fitting one are minimal on a stock engine because most of the restrictions are in other areas, but that doesn't make your claim any less wrong. Air temp is a matter of properly segregating the filter from engine bay air and allowing outside air in, neither of which is difficult or expensive to do.

Do you also have an outside temp sensor so you can verify that claim. Or are you guessing? Because others have proven that the stock air box heat-soaks just like you'd expect a large lump of plastic to do.

I know from my own measuring that there is no such thing as a "consistent" underbonnet engine temp. It varies wildly depending on ambient temp, road speed and how long the car's been both moving and stationary. Besides, what did you expect if you didn't do anything to prevent hot air getting in?

I guess you've never been in a TII then. Anybody who has would laugh at that comment...

They ignored you because you're wrong.

No they weren't. They were designed for street use just like nearly all mass-produced cars. Hondas have nothing to do with this.

 

Maybe he's talking about no need for a 200hp+ NA FC, in which case I'd tend to agree, on the road with that sort of power to the rear wheels would mean that you'd have to have a bunch of compromises that'd make it not a very streetable engine, in which case you'd be better off to have gone turbo.

 

ok, I am a physics major, and I can answer this. A flywheel stores mechanical energy like a battery stores electrical energy. Every time you rev your engine, you are spinning flywheel faster and storing more mechanical energy. The advantage is you can use that stored up energy to get the car moving in first gear. The disadvantage is that once you're moving, you can't stop "charging" the flywheel. Therefore its always siphoning off a little of the energy from your engine. While it doesn't increase the actual power produced by the burning of the fuel, it increases the power that reaches the wheels (where it really counts).

I can back this up with actual fomulae

 

In other words, it reduces horsepower lost through the drivetrain.

I'm always looking for more power, so if that's what you want, you might as well turn to forced induction. Unless you plan to race in a class that's strictly atmospheric.

 

One thing I've learned is to never say never.

Claimed 300hp (assuming @ engine) on from vin 86 or 87 non turbo 13B..and it passes cali emissions...

http://www.mariahmotorsports.com/com...s_87_m6blk.htm

edit....it is turbo, but still that is quite an accomplishment...being emissions legal

 

That looks like a lie to me. Don't believe everything you read.

 

Are you talking about torque reaching the wheels or hp reaching the wheels? Neither HP or torque are static values, they change depending on the rpms and the gearing and heat and many other variables..not just the weight of the flywheel right? HP is a function of so many variables that I don't think you can just flat out say that the fly wheel has any more significance than if you changed your oil that day. Peak HP is something different. Again, I'm speculating so...who knows. just my 7 cents

 

Actually it's a legit company.

 

If you understood the physics of it you'd know that what was said before was the truth. It takes power to get the flywheel up to speed. If the flywheel is lighter then it takes less power to get it to speed. This will be a constant over all the other variables. Yes a stock flywheel car might make more power at one time/place than a light flywheel car at another time/place. But take two otherwise indentical cars and the light flywheel one will put more power to the ground.

The key thing here is that the flywheel doesn't have anything to do with the making of the power, what it does is parasitically absorb some power before it has a chance to reach the ground. A lower parasitic loss means more power to the ground.