i removed my 6PI and wow... just wow.
08-19-05, 07:06 PM
#26
The mystery of the prize.
flubyux2, to satisfy the critics, why don't you just get a stock LIM and swap it in with working 6pi actuators etc. they arent expensive or hard to find. Then do some gtech pulls or if you can afford it dyno pulls, before and after the swap.
I'll be willing to do this after my car is back on the road, but it is not with a stock ecu or even stock intake beyond the LIM (which is heavily modified) and it's a ported motor.
I know the full time 6pi w/filled & smoothed runners improves the VE above 4500 on my setup, because when I switched to the heavily modified LIM the wideband logged AFR's went lean above 4500 rpm, which I had to correct for by adding more fuel on the e6k up there. Now it's not lean up there and it's injesting more fuel, meaning more power.
I'll be willing to do this after my car is back on the road, but it is not with a stock ecu or even stock intake beyond the LIM (which is heavily modified) and it's a ported motor.
I know the full time 6pi w/filled & smoothed runners improves the VE above 4500 on my setup, because when I switched to the heavily modified LIM the wideband logged AFR's went lean above 4500 rpm, which I had to correct for by adding more fuel on the e6k up there. Now it's not lean up there and it's injesting more fuel, meaning more power.
08-19-05, 07:50 PM
#27
Originally Posted by Sideways7
We arent denying that you have more power. We are just saying that the gains aren't from removing the sleaves, its from wiring open the aux ports.
Thats the most asenine comment i have ever heard. diop you realise what your saying is the most retarted thing on the face of this earth.
thats like saying if i put more ram into my computer it will make the mega hertz go faster. no. that doesnt work you clown.
throw the sleevs out, take out the actuator rods. jbweld it up. slab a big gob of jbweld insode the manifold, and port it acordingly. the sleevs are such a restruction its retartedly simple. thats like saying you can poop allot better with a cork up your butt.
08-19-05, 07:54 PM
#28
Originally Posted by Aaron Cake
The issue is that it's been known for about 20 years that removing the sleeves is worse then having them in place, and disabling the whole system gains you nothing but a loss in low end.
Unless you can produce 2 dyno pulls where the only change was removal of the ports, then it's kind of a moot point anyway. Even then, one dyno pull can easily vary from the next by a few HP "just because".
I have no doubt that you felt an improvement, but it was likely do to all the other work you did at the time. And let's not forget that the placebo effect is huge. I too have been guilty of this as one of the first things I did after purchasing my car was to get the port actuators working properly. I could SWEAR a huge improvement. Found out 3 years after, when I disassembled my engine that my aux port sleeves were never there.
Unless you can produce 2 dyno pulls where the only change was removal of the ports, then it's kind of a moot point anyway. Even then, one dyno pull can easily vary from the next by a few HP "just because".
I have no doubt that you felt an improvement, but it was likely do to all the other work you did at the time. And let's not forget that the placebo effect is huge. I too have been guilty of this as one of the first things I did after purchasing my car was to get the port actuators working properly. I could SWEAR a huge improvement. Found out 3 years after, when I disassembled my engine that my aux port sleeves were never there.
08-19-05, 08:03 PM
#29
The mystery of the prize.
alot of the problem is the actuator rod, it impedes airflow that isnt even destined for the aux ports, the air going to the secondary port has to go around the bushing and shaft.
You can actually narrow the actuator rod ALOT without running risk of breaking it with significant gains (at all rpms!), use a similar approach as you would a valve stem. You can also reduce the height of the bushing and streamline it to blend into the actuator rod (especially helpful if you narrow the rod). All of these changes show flow improvements when doing simple tests with a shop vac and manometer, and they don't even require you to disable the 6PI.
But if you are trying to get the most out of the motor @ high rpms, and the rest of your intake is not a bottleneck, removing the rods, bushings, pockets, sleeves, everything and streamlining it all will help in high rpms, no doubt about it. It will also hurt your low rpm torque, how much time do you spend below 4k? If you are regularly below 4k when racing your NA FC, you are doing something wrong.
You can actually narrow the actuator rod ALOT without running risk of breaking it with significant gains (at all rpms!), use a similar approach as you would a valve stem. You can also reduce the height of the bushing and streamline it to blend into the actuator rod (especially helpful if you narrow the rod). All of these changes show flow improvements when doing simple tests with a shop vac and manometer, and they don't even require you to disable the 6PI.
But if you are trying to get the most out of the motor @ high rpms, and the rest of your intake is not a bottleneck, removing the rods, bushings, pockets, sleeves, everything and streamlining it all will help in high rpms, no doubt about it. It will also hurt your low rpm torque, how much time do you spend below 4k? If you are regularly below 4k when racing your NA FC, you are doing something wrong.
08-19-05, 08:32 PM
#30
Displacement > Boost
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pengaru, you've seen how bad that stock manifold is for varying cross section area down there, yuck! Don't you want to make a custom manifold? I sure do. The problem I'm having is how darn long the rotary intake stroke duration is, my aux is just about 360 degrees, that's right it barely ever closes all the way. Those U shaped 32" runners seem to match a mild physics analysis I did of the speed of sound running through the tubes: 4 bounces or two round trips per intake stroke is how the mazda engineers set it up. If they had just lopped off the runners at the dynamic chamber the pressure waves would make 4 round trips back and fourth from the port to the dynamic chamber before the port closes.
Anyhow, my rambling is probably not good in this thread. On with the stock manifold modding.
Anyhow, my rambling is probably not good in this thread. On with the stock manifold modding.
08-19-05, 09:03 PM
#31
The mystery of the prize.
Originally Posted by 88IntegraLS
pengaru, you've seen how bad that stock manifold is for varying cross section area down there, yuck! Don't you want to make a custom manifold? I sure do. The problem I'm having is how darn long the rotary intake stroke duration is, my aux is just about 360 degrees, that's right it barely ever closes all the way. Those U shaped 32" runners seem to match a mild physics analysis I did of the speed of sound running through the tubes: 4 bounces or two round trips per intake stroke is how the mazda engineers set it up. If they had just lopped off the runners at the dynamic chamber the pressure waves would make 4 round trips back and fourth from the port to the dynamic chamber before the port closes.
Anyhow, my rambling is probably not good in this thread. On with the stock manifold modding.
Anyhow, my rambling is probably not good in this thread. On with the stock manifold modding.
I agree though, the stock LIM is a pretty poor compromise, S4 and S5's alike, it's not ideal. But if you think the NA LIM is bad, look at the T2 LIM, it's far worse than the NA just so the turbo can clear it.
One nice thing with moving to speed/density is you can experiment with the intake alot more freely, you can forget about everything before the throttle until you find the setup you want to keep, then plumb the air filter.
08-20-05, 03:13 AM
#32
Thats not an FC...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: spring hill, Fla
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i appreciate that you folks have your own opinion and varying points of view. i like the diversity and discussion that it brings.
in all reality, there isnt ONE person here that can say, straight-faced, that the auxillary port system is a well designed and well-flowing induction setup. the fact that the actuator rods, guides, bosses, bushings and sleeve wall thickness all contributes to a massivly varying cross sectional area of these ports does NOTHING for the volumetric efficiency of the lower intake manifold or aux port inlets of the Irons.
the most legitimate comparison of perceivable gains before and after would be a car with operational 6PI and VDI and then my car as it sits now. considering that the Low end torque is a non-issue for me and not something im in pursuit of, i wont bother disputing that or even discussing that. im not into rotaries to build low end torque. im here for the midrange and top end. thats what i was aiming to improve and i feel that its better than before.
this sounds completely stupid, but the way i can tell my car is pulling faster is that its pulling more G's. see, my idiot light surround is broken. so if you hit gears hard enough, the thing flys back at you. rolling on the throttle in 1st or 2nd from 2000 rpm causes this trim piece to become unsettled and slide back about 8mm. its NEVER done this before. i know because it bugs the **** out of me when its out of place. considering that its never moved due to a 1st or 2nd gear roll-on BEFORE this leads me to beleive that its now accelerating harder now. again, i know it sounds like a highly illegetimate comparison, but its simple physics at work here. it didnt move at all before, now it does.
the fact that my car doesnt have low end power now does not mean that i lost it from having the 6PI in place and seized in the open-position. my ports timing is still stock, so the speed of the negative and positive sound waves/pressure waves should occur at the same speed. thusly, my power curve will not shift. however, having MORE airflow at the same port duration would equate to more power with a curve similar to stock... within reason.
Peng, i saw you mentioned that simply massaging the actuator rod guide boss and the guide itself while also narrowing the rod will yeild desirable results. now, on the same concept wouldnt it also be logical to think that COMPLETELY removing the rod, sleeve, bushing, guide and boss would yeild even BETTER results? see, removing the Aux port sleeve does not leave a gigantic gaping hole that is much different in relation to the cross sectional area of the LIM port sizes. without the 6PI sleeve, the aux port in the irons are now approximately the same diameter/cross sectional area as the aux port runner in the LIM. the resonant pulse tuning doesnt change from the LIM as it enteres the engine, it stays about the same. it is different than the original mazda design, but the design is flawed from the beginning.
and Snrub... my point isnt that it JUST chirps tires. its that it can chirp THESE tires on THESE wheels on THIS car. the fact you can chirp tires in a softly suspended and underdampend frontwheel drive toilet with 55hp means dick-all. thats apples and oranges when comparing this car that has a better spring rate, strut valving, weight transfering vehicle with MUCH larger and stickier tires than stock. you seem to forget that i said these are 17x9" wheels w/ 255/40's. this application is significantly harder to get the tires to break free than your example.
i wish i had the means and the urge to dyno my sub-200rwhp NA FC for you guys to prove a point, but the fact is, im a supra elitist and im here for fun. this is my daily beater and i just wanted to improve the inherent design flaw and inefficiencies that were engineered into my car. not to mention that this was a free mod for me. i dont regret doing this one bit. my car feels notably stronger between 3000 and 6000. i think above 6000, its being choked off by the exhaust system. im no stranger to dynoing cars... thats how i tune my supras or my friends supras. and with no changes ill have lost 7hp or something stupid because of the engine heat or intercooler heatup. maybe the IAT will be warmer and ill get more timng pull. its actually gotten to the point where i can SEE The car pull timing because of knock, whereas it didnt do it the prior run.. so its entirely possible that dyno runs wouldnt even conclusivly prove or disprove my gains... right? anyways, dats cool.
thanks for debate. again, im sorry that i couldnt build my car the way you guys like
just remember, dont knock something untill you try it.
in all reality, there isnt ONE person here that can say, straight-faced, that the auxillary port system is a well designed and well-flowing induction setup. the fact that the actuator rods, guides, bosses, bushings and sleeve wall thickness all contributes to a massivly varying cross sectional area of these ports does NOTHING for the volumetric efficiency of the lower intake manifold or aux port inlets of the Irons.
the most legitimate comparison of perceivable gains before and after would be a car with operational 6PI and VDI and then my car as it sits now. considering that the Low end torque is a non-issue for me and not something im in pursuit of, i wont bother disputing that or even discussing that. im not into rotaries to build low end torque. im here for the midrange and top end. thats what i was aiming to improve and i feel that its better than before.
this sounds completely stupid, but the way i can tell my car is pulling faster is that its pulling more G's. see, my idiot light surround is broken. so if you hit gears hard enough, the thing flys back at you. rolling on the throttle in 1st or 2nd from 2000 rpm causes this trim piece to become unsettled and slide back about 8mm. its NEVER done this before. i know because it bugs the **** out of me when its out of place. considering that its never moved due to a 1st or 2nd gear roll-on BEFORE this leads me to beleive that its now accelerating harder now. again, i know it sounds like a highly illegetimate comparison, but its simple physics at work here. it didnt move at all before, now it does.
the fact that my car doesnt have low end power now does not mean that i lost it from having the 6PI in place and seized in the open-position. my ports timing is still stock, so the speed of the negative and positive sound waves/pressure waves should occur at the same speed. thusly, my power curve will not shift. however, having MORE airflow at the same port duration would equate to more power with a curve similar to stock... within reason.
Peng, i saw you mentioned that simply massaging the actuator rod guide boss and the guide itself while also narrowing the rod will yeild desirable results. now, on the same concept wouldnt it also be logical to think that COMPLETELY removing the rod, sleeve, bushing, guide and boss would yeild even BETTER results? see, removing the Aux port sleeve does not leave a gigantic gaping hole that is much different in relation to the cross sectional area of the LIM port sizes. without the 6PI sleeve, the aux port in the irons are now approximately the same diameter/cross sectional area as the aux port runner in the LIM. the resonant pulse tuning doesnt change from the LIM as it enteres the engine, it stays about the same. it is different than the original mazda design, but the design is flawed from the beginning.
and Snrub... my point isnt that it JUST chirps tires. its that it can chirp THESE tires on THESE wheels on THIS car. the fact you can chirp tires in a softly suspended and underdampend frontwheel drive toilet with 55hp means dick-all. thats apples and oranges when comparing this car that has a better spring rate, strut valving, weight transfering vehicle with MUCH larger and stickier tires than stock. you seem to forget that i said these are 17x9" wheels w/ 255/40's. this application is significantly harder to get the tires to break free than your example.
i wish i had the means and the urge to dyno my sub-200rwhp NA FC for you guys to prove a point, but the fact is, im a supra elitist and im here for fun. this is my daily beater and i just wanted to improve the inherent design flaw and inefficiencies that were engineered into my car. not to mention that this was a free mod for me. i dont regret doing this one bit. my car feels notably stronger between 3000 and 6000. i think above 6000, its being choked off by the exhaust system. im no stranger to dynoing cars... thats how i tune my supras or my friends supras. and with no changes ill have lost 7hp or something stupid because of the engine heat or intercooler heatup. maybe the IAT will be warmer and ill get more timng pull. its actually gotten to the point where i can SEE The car pull timing because of knock, whereas it didnt do it the prior run.. so its entirely possible that dyno runs wouldnt even conclusivly prove or disprove my gains... right? anyways, dats cool.
thanks for debate. again, im sorry that i couldnt build my car the way you guys like
just remember, dont knock something untill you try it.
08-20-05, 03:23 AM
#33
The mystery of the prize.
hey guy you don't need to explain it to me, you're preaching to the choir. All I'm saying is for those who actually care about functioning aux ports theres still room for improvement along the same lines, narrow the rod and grind down the bushing. Pineapple sleeves are not all there is to do.
I don't have any of the 6PI BS on my 6 port, my motor breathes well **** that.
I don't have any of the 6PI BS on my 6 port, my motor breathes well **** that.
08-20-05, 03:30 AM
#34
Thats not an FC...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: spring hill, Fla
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guy? no, they call me Chris. but thanks
i was just seeing if we were in agreement and at least on the same page
the way i look at the stock 6PI; you cant polish a turd... so i just flushed it!
Chris "Loving the lack of Low-end"
i was just seeing if we were in agreement and at least on the same page
the way i look at the stock 6PI; you cant polish a turd... so i just flushed it!
Chris "Loving the lack of Low-end"
08-20-05, 10:35 AM
#35
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Originally Posted by SirCygnus
Tthats like saying if i put more ram into my computer it will make the mega hertz go faster. no. that doesnt work you clown.
So your analogy dosen't really hold up.
08-20-05, 10:48 AM
#36
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Originally Posted by flubyux2
this sounds completely stupid, but the way i can tell my car is pulling faster is that its pulling more G's. see, my idiot light surround is broken. so if you hit gears hard enough, the thing flys back at you. rolling on the throttle in 1st or 2nd from 2000 rpm causes this trim piece to become unsettled and slide back about 8mm. its NEVER done this before. i know because it bugs the **** out of me when its out of place. considering that its never moved due to a 1st or 2nd gear roll-on BEFORE this leads me to beleive that its now accelerating harder now. again, i know it sounds like a highly illegetimate comparison, but its simple physics at work here. it didnt move at all before, now it does.
You spend all that time doing work, and can't spend $40 on a new surround or even buy a roll of double stick tape???
But anyway...
I think the point that the "working aux port" crowd was saying, was that if you think your car pulls better (which if a plastic panel falling - and a butt dyno tells you), then just think of how much faster it would be with a functioning aux port system. That should have been your goal.
But publishing that your car is faster because you removed them and didn't have a properlly functioning system in the past is just BS. Now if you had a properlly functioning system, and some 0-60 or 0-100 times (since it sounds like you can't or are not willing to afford a dyno run), and then removed them and had the removed 0-60 times... then you could say without a doubt there were gains.
But saying everyone should do it (without originally have a functioning system) and that you had gains.. well of course you did. Your motor was not working correctly.
Sort of like if you had a turbo, and the bearing was spun... and you put a new non stock turbo on, would you say that this new turbo was plastic shattering faster??? Of course you would- because the old turbo was not working to half its ability. But would it be plastic shattering faster than a good condition turbo??? Probably not.
Last edited by Icemark; 08-20-05 at 11:06 AM.
08-21-05, 06:00 PM
#38
Thats not an FC...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: spring hill, Fla
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fixing the surround is low priority right now. before, it sat in its place and wouldnt get unsettled... now its unsettled every time i full throttle 1st or 2nd gear.
and as far as anyone is concerned, the mid and top end of the car was "operational". let me break it down for you guys that insist that im only dreaming improvements. a NON functioning 6PI system that is STUCK in the open position will blatantly pull from 3800+ the same as it would if it WERE operational and opened at 3800 as intended.
from UNDER 3800 rpm in a car with operational 6PI, there would plainly be more power due to retained intake port velocity. unfortunately, my car didnt have bottom end before, and it doesnt now. therefore, i dont know what im missing.
from 5000rpm+, the car still have functioning VDI and still revved VERY slowly past 5000rpm. now, with the work done to the induction system, it revs past 5000rpm cleanly, quickly and smoothly.
btw, i did get my VDI functioning. i plumbed the output hose of the smog pump to the 90* hose that ran from the ACV to the releif silencer. i used a 3/4" pre-soldered copper 90* pip elbow. they have beads rolled into the ends and fits perfectly between the smog pump hose and releif system inlet hose. i added a hose barb and connected the VDI solenoid to it. it would open by 8500 or so. so i had to add a 3/4" LP ball valve to the releif system. i simply removed the plastic expansion chamber and replaced it w/ the valve. i closed it off enough so that the hoses wouldnt pop off the smog pump, but enough to build backpressure. the VDI is now operating as it should. as i mentioned before, the car pulls faster past 5000rpm than it EVER has.
anyways, i can guarantee you that a working 6PI system would not have given me mid range and top end results like i have now. the sheer fact that all the 6PI system components places such a huge inlet restriction is not conducive to making the mid and top end improvements that my car has now. honestly, i dont care who you are, how many posts you have, what degrees you hold or which rotary shop you own. the plain fact that the 6PI system posed such a ridiculous obstruction to the inlet tract will never allow me to beleive that results like mine would be repeatable with the stock components in place.
just to appease the haters, i will splurge for dyno pulls at the next dyno day so i can at least show you where the power is and how much area there is under the curve. i sure hope there is at least someone on here who has done baseline runs on an S5 with operational 6PI and VDI... or a STOCK S5. If i show ANY gains over a stock S5 baseline ANYWHERE in the rpm range (specifically mid and top end since thats what im claiming) ill be serving you all a slice of crow pie and a side of Nike-Fillet. If i make LESS power everywhere, specifically mid range and top end, i will make a public retraction and say "dont do this mod. i dont recommend it to anyone, not even someone i hate"
fair enough?
and as far as anyone is concerned, the mid and top end of the car was "operational". let me break it down for you guys that insist that im only dreaming improvements. a NON functioning 6PI system that is STUCK in the open position will blatantly pull from 3800+ the same as it would if it WERE operational and opened at 3800 as intended.
from UNDER 3800 rpm in a car with operational 6PI, there would plainly be more power due to retained intake port velocity. unfortunately, my car didnt have bottom end before, and it doesnt now. therefore, i dont know what im missing.
from 5000rpm+, the car still have functioning VDI and still revved VERY slowly past 5000rpm. now, with the work done to the induction system, it revs past 5000rpm cleanly, quickly and smoothly.
btw, i did get my VDI functioning. i plumbed the output hose of the smog pump to the 90* hose that ran from the ACV to the releif silencer. i used a 3/4" pre-soldered copper 90* pip elbow. they have beads rolled into the ends and fits perfectly between the smog pump hose and releif system inlet hose. i added a hose barb and connected the VDI solenoid to it. it would open by 8500 or so. so i had to add a 3/4" LP ball valve to the releif system. i simply removed the plastic expansion chamber and replaced it w/ the valve. i closed it off enough so that the hoses wouldnt pop off the smog pump, but enough to build backpressure. the VDI is now operating as it should. as i mentioned before, the car pulls faster past 5000rpm than it EVER has.
anyways, i can guarantee you that a working 6PI system would not have given me mid range and top end results like i have now. the sheer fact that all the 6PI system components places such a huge inlet restriction is not conducive to making the mid and top end improvements that my car has now. honestly, i dont care who you are, how many posts you have, what degrees you hold or which rotary shop you own. the plain fact that the 6PI system posed such a ridiculous obstruction to the inlet tract will never allow me to beleive that results like mine would be repeatable with the stock components in place.
just to appease the haters, i will splurge for dyno pulls at the next dyno day so i can at least show you where the power is and how much area there is under the curve. i sure hope there is at least someone on here who has done baseline runs on an S5 with operational 6PI and VDI... or a STOCK S5. If i show ANY gains over a stock S5 baseline ANYWHERE in the rpm range (specifically mid and top end since thats what im claiming) ill be serving you all a slice of crow pie and a side of Nike-Fillet. If i make LESS power everywhere, specifically mid range and top end, i will make a public retraction and say "dont do this mod. i dont recommend it to anyone, not even someone i hate"
fair enough?
08-22-05, 04:44 PM
#40
Thats not an FC...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: spring hill, Fla
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol... thats cool. if anything like that happens to me, ill just fetch out my supra course then again, a stock 13BT w/ open exhaust may just smoke my T88H car anyways... :?
course then again, a stock 13BT w/ open exhaust may just smoke my T88H car anyways... :?
08-22-05, 05:59 PM
#41
Passing life by
Originally Posted by Icemark
actually more RAM in most computers will make them considerably faster, it just won't speed up processing speed. It just makes them complete the software tasks faster.
So your analogy dosen't really hold up.
So your analogy dosen't really hold up.
08-22-05, 06:23 PM
#42
i hate to fuel the fire, but this thread is bullshit. have you people that want to remove 6p sleeves actually ever taken apart a motor and looked at the ports? if you remove the sleeve, you make 'pit' so to speak that causes all kinds of turbulence. i'm not trying to say that the factory system is great, because it isnt, but it is a hell of a lot better than nothing. anyone who has ever driven a properly working 6p car, and then removed them will tell you that they wished they hadnt done it. it is a noticable difference, especially in low end, but also in high end just slightly.
as for your car in particular, probably all the gains you felt were from the porting, which produces a quite a few horsepower just in itself. however, youre saying that it pulls the same at 3k as at 6k? if so theres something majorly wrong... it should pull much harder at 6k than at 3k.
pat
as for your car in particular, probably all the gains you felt were from the porting, which produces a quite a few horsepower just in itself. however, youre saying that it pulls the same at 3k as at 6k? if so theres something majorly wrong... it should pull much harder at 6k than at 3k.
pat
08-22-05, 06:23 PM
#43
I live in an igloo
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: calgary alberta
Posts: 2,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but i dropped an actual 10 cent coin into both holes. it rested right on the recessed lip
So you ported and smoothed out the whole intake system for the least amount of turbulance huh? You said that you removed the injector air bleeds, I thought that they were extremley important for fuel atomization? Are they worth removing for the extra airflow?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Erosangel
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
5
09-18-15 04:06 PM
