RX7Club.com - Mazda RX7 Forum

RX7Club.com - Mazda RX7 Forum (https://www.rx7club.com/)
-   2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992) (https://www.rx7club.com/2nd-generation-specific-1986-1992-17/)
-   -   Stock boost pressure (https://www.rx7club.com/2nd-generation-specific-1986-1992-17/stock-boost-pressure-620993/)

Beto Dan 02-05-07 04:03 PM

Stock boost pressure
 
New to rx7s.... wats the stock boost pressure my 88 Turbo 2 should be runnin(stock)

Loki101 02-05-07 04:09 PM

The stock boost should be around 5.5

mort2002 02-05-07 04:24 PM

and on an 89 and up it is around 8psi IIRC

NZConvertible 02-05-07 04:46 PM


Originally Posted by Loki101
The stock boost should be around 5.5

Why does this BS keep getting repeated again and again... :(

Stock boost is 6.6psi for S4 and 8.3psi for S5. How much boost you get 20-odd years after the car left the factory depends on what's broken and what's been replaced.

Loki101 02-05-07 05:05 PM

Did I not say around? I think I did..BUT I guess you NEEDED to be right so...6.6 is it is masta. BUT I'm wrong...you're right. :)

Stanis 02-05-07 08:11 PM


Originally Posted by Beto Dan
New to rx7s.... wats the stock boost pressure my 88 Turbo 2 should be runnin(stock)

Welcome to the department of redundancy department. May I help you. ;)

I get 6psi on my s4 with a free flow 3inch and ported wastegate, which is *around* what the wastegate spring is rated at (or at least that is what I think it's rated at).

NZConvertible 02-05-07 10:11 PM


Originally Posted by fossil_484
I get 6psi on my s4 with a free flow 3inch and ported wastegate, which is *around* what the wastegate spring is rated at (or at least that is what I think it's rated at).

Whatever the aftermarket sellers might tell you, wastegate spring ratings are meaningless, and there's no rating for the stock one anyway. It's a combination of many variables that determines how much boost you get.

My5ABaby 02-06-07 07:21 AM


Originally Posted by Loki101
Did I not say around? I think I did..BUT I guess you NEEDED to be right so...6.6 is it is masta. BUT I'm wrong...you're right. :)

So he wanted the right information to be posted on a technical forum... God forbid... :rolleyes:

J-Rat 02-06-07 08:46 AM

Guess someone needs to talk to the TEAMFC3S people then:


Upgrading Steps

These aren't the absolutes but after many hours on the phone with "rotary experts", these are the rough guidelines I've found to be generally true.

Exhaust Intake Fuel System Intercooler Turbo

Often, people turn up their boost to net more power. This can give you slightly more power but there are points when you need to upgrade before you can get anymore power.

5.5psi Stock Boost for 1987-1988 Turbo II (6.2psi max peak)
7.5psi Stock Boost for 1989-1991 Turbo II (8.6psi max peak)

The stock ECU will cut off fuel above 8.6psi. Once that is taken care, there are some guidelines to follow when turning up the boost.

8-10psi -- ECU/Fuel System 12psi -- Intercooler/Turbo 15psi -- Engine

Remember, these numbers are not EXACT

What was NZC's source for the numbers?

K-Tune 02-06-07 09:50 AM

my car does .5 BAR. series 4 with stock DP.

Loki101 02-06-07 03:33 PM

Lol...comedy

NZConvertible 02-07-07 02:15 AM


Originally Posted by J-Rat
5.5psi Stock Boost for 1987-1988 Turbo II (6.2psi max peak)
7.5psi Stock Boost for 1989-1991 Turbo II (8.6psi max peak)

Not only are these numbers slightly wrong, they're also confusing. They should state that the lower figure is what boost dropped to by redline after achieving the "max" figure in the mid-range. When people ask what "stock boost" was, I assume they want to know how high it got, not what it was at redline.


What was NZC's source for the numbers?
88 FSM page 4B-9: "Boost pressure 45.2kPa (6.56psi)"
89 FSM page F2-9: "Boost pressure 57.0kPa (8.25psi)"

(I rounded up. ;))

Not that these figures really mean much on a 20yo modified car. A big exhaust will make it go up, porting the wastegate will make it go down, a split wastegate hose will make it go up, a worn turbo or clogged cat will make it go down, etc, etc.

RotaryEvolution 02-07-07 03:23 AM

don't mind NZ, he has a lot of time on his hands and likes making people feel small over the most petty of differences. then again i do sometimes too but only if the time seems appropriate.

NZConvertible 02-07-07 05:10 AM


Originally Posted by Karack
don't mind NZ, he has a lot of time on his hands...

Since your posts-per-day average isn't far behind mine, does that describe you too? :)

J-Rat 02-07-07 08:42 AM


Originally Posted by NZConvertible
Not only are these numbers slightly wrong, they're also confusing. They should state that the lower figure is what boost dropped to by redline after achieving the "max" figure in the mid-range. When people ask what "stock boost" was, I assume they want to know how high it got, not what it was at redline.

88 FSM page 4B-9: "Boost pressure 45.2kPa (6.56psi)"
89 FSM page F2-9: "Boost pressure 57.0kPa (8.25psi)"

(I rounded up. ;))

Not that these figures really mean much on a 20yo modified car. A big exhaust will make it go up, porting the wastegate will make it go down, a split wastegate hose will make it go up, a worn turbo or clogged cat will make it go down, etc, etc.

Thanks for providing the source for the numbers. Also, I posted those numbers off the TEAMFC3S site so you knew "where people are getting those numbers"

:)

Rat

J-Rat 02-07-07 08:43 AM


Originally Posted by Karack
don't mind NZ, he has a lot of time on his hands and likes making people feel small over the most petty of differences. then again i do sometimes too but only if the time seems appropriate.

he didnt make me feel small! He answered the questions I had! Those numbers I put up were from another site, not mine. Plus I wanted his source for the numbers so I dont just go around repeating what I heard.

Rat

HAILERS 02-07-07 10:42 AM


Originally Posted by J-Rat
he didnt make me feel small! He answered the questions I had! Those numbers I put up were from another site, not mine. Plus I wanted his source for the numbers so I dont just go around repeating what I heard.

Rat

hEY Mouse, where do they show *posts per day* non-sense?????

My5ABaby 02-07-07 10:59 AM

Karack has about 191 posts/month.
NZ has about 218 posts/month.

or...

Karack has about 6.28 posts/day.
NZ has about 7.1 posts/day.

I, on the other hand, have about 12.1 posts/day. :redface:

and Hailers has about 6.36 posts/day.

J-Rat 02-07-07 02:42 PM


Originally Posted by HAILERS
hEY Mouse, where do they show *posts per day* non-sense?????


Its on your public profile. I have a whopping 5.2 posts per day.

My5ABaby 02-07-07 04:14 PM


Originally Posted by J-Rat
Its on your public profile. I have a whopping 5.2 posts per day.

Oh for fucks sake... I was bored so I used a calculator. Oh how easy your way is... :wallbash:

Ok, I'm only at 9.62.

Loki101 02-07-07 04:16 PM

I have 9 :)

trochoid 02-07-07 05:25 PM

Post count aside, a technical forum needs to have the correct technical information. The by guess/by golly info doesn't really count, particularly when it involves info that can be critical to engine operation and long term preservation/maintinance.

Members should have more respect and gratitude for members like NZ that are willing to provide said correct info, instead of bagging on them. This is the biggest reason I spend most of my time in the 1st gen section and have earned a good deal of respect there for providing correct info.

J-Rat 02-07-07 05:35 PM


Originally Posted by trochoid
Post count aside, a technical forum needs to have the correct technical information. The by guess/by golly info doesn't really count, particularly when it involves info that can be critical to engine operation and long term preservation/maintinance.

Members should have more respect and gratitude for members like NZ that are willing to provide said correct info, instead of bagging on them. This is the biggest reason I spend most of my time in the 1st gen section and have earned a good deal of respect there for providing correct info.

I hope this isnt directed at me, I simply asked him where the numbers were gotten. I read the FSM and overlooked it. I am in no way bagging on him (at least in this thread).

He also asked this:


Why does this BS keep getting repeated again and again.
So I quoted a passage from another forum which provided inaccurate numbers in an effort to show him where the erroneous figures may be coming from.

In this thread, I was in NO WAY stating his information was incorrect. I asked a source, and showed him where the misinformation may be coming from. He responded with his source.

I am happy now!

Loki101 02-08-07 07:19 AM

Ha to think I started this..? I'm sorry for reading up and trying to help some one out. Thanks J-rat...At least there are people that understand that people can be wrong from reading WRONG information that was believed to be true. oh BTW..I got my info from Aaron Cakes website. http://aaroncake.net/RX-7/buy2.htm

J-Rat 02-08-07 08:08 AM

Good, then maybe NCZ needs to address this with aaroncake, and quit being rude to the little people..

:)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 PM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands