Not to sound like the dumb-*** that I am, but I thought since the radiator is air tight and under pressure that its not possible for rust to form..even if you ran 100 pct water.

As for rust forming in the engine from water injection...if you see how fine the mist of water is you will see that it immediately evaporates. Its been a year for me using it daily.

 

zerobanger, this is why we are informed to flush our coolant system once a year. corrosion forms. . . mineral deposits. . . all the such. whatever. anyways, theres a rust inhibitor in anti-freeze for a reason.

paul

 

Kids, here you can see the risk of trying to sound intelligent by using words you don't know the meanings of. Ensue for a second? Opinions are un-bias? And of the opinion?!? Moneys can buy a head of the neck!!!

Actually, the formula I posted is used for calculating horsepower from torque and rpm (and vice versa) regardless of what car, engine, or dyno type is involved. It's not my fault your dyno chart is screwed.

Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? That explains everything.

At least you've admitted that you made a complete mess of the situation. I'll give you credit for that and give you a break.

 

Thanks boss.

 

No flamage on this thread?

Ur kidding right?

I didn't even have to chime in to fuel the camp fire.



*grabs popcorn*

 

Ur jokin', right?

 

Umm...it may very well be airtight...until you open the coolant filler neck, right? In which case, it's air-tight no more...

Jimlab, I have no problem admitting that I think you're probably very well-educated and know quite a good deal about auto mechanics and the like. But I also believe that either you may not have the best judgement (or just don't display it, at that), or you get your emotions get the best of you.

I'm very glad that you and other knowledgeable members (like Rynberg) chime in on things many of us may not have as much technical info about, and indeed, it may be very helpful and even save us from potential scams. But what matty is talking about - and I have to agree w/ him on this - is that your criticism (call it constructive, negative opinion, whatever), seems to ALWAYS be negative. I haven't been on the forum long enough to generalize about your posts over the years, but from what I've read, I have yet to see a thread where you actually praise, compliment, or encourage someone's ideas.

I have, however, seen endless flame wars with Zerobanger and others, and you shooting down countless other people, followed by personal attacks on their intelligence.

Allow me to share with you a tiny bit of wisdom I've learned, despite my young age. No matter how smart and possibly helpful someone may be, if they come off in the wrong manner, people will turn away from them. So if you really want to help us newbs on the forum from getting suckered into things, you may want to address us in a manner that ensures your message is well received. If you don't care, however, then let's not go around claiming to be trying to help other forum members.

Also, I love a particular quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson, "What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say." My point? Even if your intentions are altruistic, unfortunately, your manner, more often than not, comes off making you seem like an old grouch who wants to make a mockery of everyone and establish his intelligence as dominant, to sum it up.

I think Rynberg is a good example of a balance between possessing knowledge and being able to effectively share it with others. He knows a lot, but isn't on a "you're stupid" forum rampage - while he may get a bit moody at times HAHA So Jimlab, don't waste your intelligence by turning ears away from you, because we sure need knowledgeable people on the forum...people we actually should and *want* to listen to.

Finally, I just wanted to comment on your "hater" generalization. I think you have to be VERY careful with generalizations in general, but especially this one. It's foolish (although like you said many times accurate) to judge a book by it's cover. You'd prob. quickly assume some guy wearing an NBA jersey with a bandana on, speaking ghetto talk probably isn't very bright. That's an assumption you're making, and one that you must *verify* before branding as fact in your head. Becase if you don't do so, you'll interact (or not interact) with that person based upon your assumption, which may prove to be a fatal mistake in certain circumstances.

You're actually a perfect example of this, if I may say. Most very knowledgeable people are smart enough to know that it's not intelligent to ever claim to have knowledge or wisdom, or to speak down to others. Rather, humbleness and even shying away from answering, even when you know the answer, is often a sign of great intelligence and wisdom. So if I didn't know any better, and I judged you from the get-go, I'd think you were an idiot. But you're definetly not...you just don't display the best judgement (IMO) as I stated before.

Just my $0.02, in good faith.

 

THANK YOU FDNEWB!!!!! bravo. . . very well said. . . im sure there are a few others who think the same. i hope this isnt turned into bad mojo!!!

paul

 

Paul...I just wanna hear results about the TrailPlugs, that's all lol :shrug:

Thanks for the compliment tho. I try I just hope my words aren't taken in a negative manner.
EDIT: Oh and sorry for going off on a tangent on your thread w/ my opinions haha

 

thats all im waiting for myself. . .

paul

 

Or, just possibly, I don't care what people think about me.

I have never once seen anyone I consider to have a good head on their shoulders use the word "hater" in a post.

 

I don't doubt that for a second. You obviously don't give much weight to others' opinion of you. That's a double-edged sword. But I think you missed my point...if you actually WANT to help people, caring about how they view you and what they think of you is CRITICAL to getting your message across effectively. You don't have to be so hard pressed to please people...but c'mon Jimlab, at least be "tolerable" lol. Right now forum members probably see you in a lesser light.

LOL...no comment. I'm sure you got my point tho (whether you agree w/ it or not)

 

All the dummies, likely. No surprise there.

 

Jason,

Time to close this thread or move it to the lounge.

PG...,

I asked some technical questions to get you out of the bs discussion, too bad you are surrounded by wannabe english teachers and self help codependents (I guess I should have proofread this before posting, forgive my bad additude and questionable choice of words that I may not understand).

 

Don't ask my why I'm posting in here, but the mathematical formula is used to calculate power from torque in EVERY situation. It's almost like converting feet to miles. Gaahh!!!

 

I also ran for some time with a burnt out trailing coil, and was down on power and had poor emissions. I even cracked my turbo housing from all the fuel that was buring right at the pre-controll gate. Ate the metal away and effectiveley bypassed the pro-control gate.

But I don't think this prooves or disprooves *anything* about the effectiveness of the technology - artguy. All it says is that with an ECU that assumes there is a second spark will get extra unburnt fuel when that spark is missing. Not that surprizing.

I don't doubt for a second that if I had a PFC at the time that the situation could have been cleaned up to lean the car back out, and bring the power back in line.

And I think there are enough people that are running with just leading spark that ARE getting decent performance that it does sort of proove this out, your experience and mine nonwithstanding.

I don't think the feasibility of this is the question. Honestly. I think the interresting questions can only be answered with a bunch of experinece over the next 6- to 12-months.

I generally fiond that the other set of interresting questions on ethics, vendor integrity, and all that are hardly ever well addressed in such public forums; as entertaining as the discussions tend to be.

 

I think I said "I think" about 100 times in that last post. *sigh*

 

I don't want to get involved in this mess, but I really don't understand why all the "non-haters" are saying, "we should wait until the test results come out to form an opinion." I mean lets face it, this isn't the most complicated or involved "device" ever created. Anyone with a somewhat knowledgeable understanding of a rotary engine could easily deduce the benefits and detriments of using these plugs, which they have already done, ie., running higher boost v. some loss of power, higher internal temps, etc., or they could just disconnect two of their plugs and go for a drive. Why do we need to wait to "see the results"?

Jimlab:

Stop being unbiased.

 

Wow...so in theory, if you run rich, and blow a lot of flames, can you damage your exhaust pipes over time? Because all that unburnt fuel gets ignited in the exhaust over and over...??

I see what you're saying, and the OBVIOUS effects are...well...obvious lol. But I'm really curious to see if anythign else comes to the table. Also, maybe running these plugs alone isn't the best idea. For example, if we've established in concrete what all the pros and cons are, no hidden issues, I'd really be interested in seeing if water injection + the plugs can work (if tuned accordingly), which in theory could provide some incredible results IMO.

Besides, like someone had posted, while heat is definetly the enemy of the rotary engine, I'd argue we've gotten to the point where we've overengineered, and are running much lower temps than necessary. Scrub is running some rock bottom temps w/ his RE hood and Chuck's V-mount. Waaay below normal temps. I think w/ that, you have lots of room to play with...

 

Is Rynberg of Teutonic descent?

 

That's why it's dangerous for some people to do their own thinking...

Oops, I'd better work on my delivery if I want you to take me seriously.

Really? Coolant temperature in the 185-220° F (85-100° C) range and intake air temperatures in the 85-115° F (30-45° C) range are "waaay" below normal?

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...p&pagenumber=1

First, intake air temperatures with a standard intercooler can't get any colder than ambient air temperature no matter where or how you mount the intercooler. The only way to cool intake temperature further is to spray the intercooler with nitrous (or another gas), switch to an air-to-water configuration, which is really only practical for drag racing or other short duration events, or inject water/alcohol or nitrous into the intake tract. Sorry, but there's nothing going on here temperature-wise that any large intercooler couldn't duplicate.

Second, the coolant temperatures he's reporting are considered normal operating temperatures. The directions for linearizing the stock temperature gauge says to set the hot mark at the high end of the gauge at 237° F (114° C) for water only and 247° F (119° C) with antifreeze. That puts the midpoint of the gauge, or normal operating temperature, at about 176-185° F (80-85° C), which matches the lower end of his coolant temperature range.

I hate to break it to you, but the temperatures he's reporting are ideal, not earth shatteringly low. Purposely putting more heat back into the system just because you increased your cooling capacity and lowered operating temperature somewhat (increasing your safety margin) is a rather bad idea.

 

lol...your truly are unbelivable man. Have you alienated yourself from society? Is that the reason why you spend so much time on the net?

I move we ban jimlab..tired of his pompous attitude...pm a moderator. There should be a antagonist/jerk rule.?.

 

excellent post but jim doesnt do what he does to protect people from making a mistake. He does it to feed his ego.

 

huh?

 

Temperatures in this thread are rising.

This thread might detonate.