2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992) 1986-1992 Discussion including performance modifications and technical support sections.

How much HP can the stock TII fuelpump support

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 15, 2006 | 04:37 AM
  #1  
rx7jocke's Avatar
Thread Starter
3-Rotor madness
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 391
Likes: 1
From: sweden
How much HP can the stock TII fuelpump support

Both on a rotary and on a piston engine..

The reason i am asking i that my stock pump on my 180sx went out and i have like 3 stock TII pumps i my garage.

Can it support 250FWHP on a pistonengine?
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2006 | 05:59 AM
  #2  
RETed's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,664
Likes: 22
From: n
Yep, no problem.
On an FC, it will barely support 250hp at the wheels.
That's like 300 for a piston engine.
BTW, flow is like 180lph.


-Ted
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2006 | 08:48 AM
  #3  
calrx7's Avatar
aim** JI II IM IM Y
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
From: 90703 cerritos california
how much are better fuel pumps? ie: walbaro

btw, ur avatar pwns
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2006 | 09:56 AM
  #4  
classicauto's Avatar
Crash Auto?Fix Auto.
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,831
Likes: 2
From: Hagersville Ontario
Originally Posted by calrx7
how much are better fuel pumps? ie: walbaro
money or flow rate?

255lph (thats why its called the walbro 255)
$100 on ebay
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2006 | 12:27 PM
  #5  
RotaryEvolution's Avatar
Sharp Claws
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 50
From: Central Florida
i would have to agree with ReTed, i noticed pressure dropping off in the 260-270 range so i would guess it can push 250 safely on the stock ECU since i was able to compensate with my standalone. rotaries are less efficient than piston engines so i would guess at least 300WHP for a piston engine.
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2006 | 12:49 PM
  #6  
ericgrau's Avatar
Clean.
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,521
Likes: 3
From: Huntington Beach, CA
Not THAT much less efficient. I'd give it less than 10% more HP on a piston engine, to be safe.
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2006 | 12:53 PM
  #7  
RotaryEvolution's Avatar
Sharp Claws
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 50
From: Central Florida
actually they are about that much less efficient, the rotary is a gas hungry machine when you open the throttle.
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2006 | 10:10 PM
  #8  
RETed's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,664
Likes: 22
From: n
Originally Posted by ericgrau
Not THAT much less efficient. I'd give it less than 10% more HP on a piston engine, to be safe.
You'd be suprised...

Turbos that pump out 400hp on a piston motor will barely crack 300 on a rotary.
So it's more like 20%+!


-Ted
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2006 | 10:37 PM
  #9  
andru's Avatar
Full Member
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
From: Thornhill,Ontario
In terms of producing hp efficiently, what kind of engines are u guys comparing the rotary to? This is just a question but how much better does a 1.6L piston engine produce power compared to a rotary?
Reply
Old Sep 16, 2006 | 12:27 AM
  #10  
RETed's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,664
Likes: 22
From: n
BSFC would be about 0.55 to 0.60 on a rotary engine.
A modern, multi-valve piston engine will go 0.55 and even down to 0.50 on the BSFC.

You're asking way too general a question.
You talking Honda B16?


-Ted
Reply
Old Sep 16, 2006 | 06:58 PM
  #11  
andru's Avatar
Full Member
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
From: Thornhill,Ontario
Originally Posted by RETed
BSFC would be about 0.55 to 0.60 on a rotary engine.
A modern, multi-valve piston engine will go 0.55 and even down to 0.50 on the BSFC.

You're asking way too general a question.
You talking Honda B16?


-Ted
I'm not asking about any specific engine. The reason I asked that question, was to go against comments like "rotaries are less efficient than piston engines so i would guess 250whp to be at least 300WHP for a piston engine". I asked how much better a 1.6L piston engine would produce power simply because it has the closes displacement to a 1.3 rotary.
Reply
Old Sep 17, 2006 | 09:18 AM
  #12  
drago86's Avatar
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 0
From: California, Bay Area
Originally Posted by Karack
actually they are about that much less efficient, the (turbo) rotary is a gas hungry machine when you open the throttle.

Fixed
Reply
Old Sep 17, 2006 | 08:21 PM
  #13  
RETed's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,664
Likes: 22
From: n
Originally Posted by andru
I asked how much better a 1.6L piston engine would produce power simply because it has the closes displacement to a 1.3 rotary.
This is where your assumption is wrong.
The 1.3-liter rotary engine runs similarly to a 2.6-liter to 3.0-liter 6-cylinder.


-Ted
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cristoDathird
Introduce yourself
28
May 30, 2019 08:47 PM
KAL797
Test Area 51
0
Aug 11, 2015 03:47 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:27 PM.