I have to agree with one of the posts.... Water Injection will do a much better job of this. I had a Series III RX7 12A turbo that had audible detonation at 10 psi boost with 96 octane and with water injection, I ran it at 15 psi on 91 for years and there was no detonation at all. And the power difference was HUGE!

 

LOL
goodnight. play nice guys....

 

I knew something about it, but needed to maintain a degree of trust with some of the people that gave me the information who wanted to remain "hidden" as customers (not sure if it was due to the NDAs).

Also, if I was discreet with the information and helped mis-lead folks so that people won't try to "copy" the product I did my job.

We all have seen examples on and off this forum of folks "ripping" people off.

Just look at M2's intake box.

And then look at RX7fashion's box.

 

JoeD is that u?

 

BTW, I was wondering if u can use 87-88 rotors, since they are heavier duty, in the FD to avoid the rotor face from sinking in due to the high EGTs.........

 

you have as much respect for your expertise with this vehicle as you do for being the number one forum irritant.

somehow you appointed yourself the anti det champion. now the truth is out and no one is impressed.







j

 

That's the basic problem with trying to appear mysteriously knowledgeable about something you're not connected with... someone eventually discovers that you were just trying to impress everyone by implying you had inside information.
"I'm not at liberty to discuss the details."

 

Wow , what a thread. Let's see some dyno charts and some customer testimonials...

-s-

 

I'd be willing to test it. I am going to discuss this topic with roger mandeville tomorrow and see what he thinks of it if I have a chance. I will be fairly busy trying to get my newly built engine in the fd and fit the turbo and such. It would help if I had an actual plug but I'm sure a picture and description will suffice. It seems to me that the idea isn't exactly far-fetched. Obviously nothing can be substituted for good tuning and finding the best timing split for your engine but I feel that this would be a good alternative for someone running a stock ecu, close to stock injectors, exhaust and intake. I'd be willing to lose a little power on my daily driver to ensure the longevity of the engine's life and I feel that that should be the target market for this device rather than we folks with haltechs and widebands.

 

I think the first 10 sets should be sold at a discounted rate if the person is willing to fully record his/her exp with these plugs, with running and tuning with this product. I would be fully willing to use this product on my next rebuild but everyone saying 450 is kind of much they are right to an extent. 450 is a little much of a product that is unproven. After time if this works as good as you and I hope it does then the price could be warranted. But if you need some help making believers out of this bunch I would suggest a little more real data and 3rd party use. Good luck to you and if you need any space monkeys I’m always happy to blow my engine in the hopes of helping humanity.

~Luke

 

Wow...I just read this entire thread in one sitting...(ran outta popcorn waaay back too)

man, that was the quote of the thread haha

COsborne, I understand what you're saying regarding sacrificing a little power to ensure longevity, but why try and do it w/ this anti-det device, vs. just run a less agressive map?? I mean, I don't see the difference really...ppl usually detonate because they're trying to squeeze every last hp they can, running lean on aggressive maps. If you go a little less aggressive, sure, you'll make less power, but you'd also reduce your risk of detonation, right? And that costs nothing (vs. $450 for this device)

I'm def. lookin forward to the dyno sheet tomarrow, and Jimlab unleashed LOL. I just wish this forum had the smiley face icon of the guy eating popcorn and lookin back and forth haha.

Last thing...I could be mistaken, but didn't someone post on the forum not too long ago that they blew their engine while running the KDR anti-det device...and blamed it on a 1300cc injector failing? (I coulda sworn someone ragged on them for that claim too...I think it might have been Stephen...)

 

Here's what he said his peak Mustang dyno numbers were, "with the sheet in front of him"...

273.5 RWHP @ 6,750 rpm
237.4 RWTQ @ 6,250 rpm

The only problem with that is the peak torque rpm.

horsepower = torque * rpm / 5252

237.4 * 6,250 / 5252 = 282.5 horsepower

Want to take bets on what the story changes to next?

 

I also wonder how you would tune for this. What AFR would you aim for? I just wonder what some of the major tuners out there will say about this.

FDNewbie, the biggest advantages I see to this product, going by how it is described, is running higher boost on lower octane. Being able to run 20psi on pump gas and lowering the risk of detonation. If this really does work I would still want to run 92 but go to its limits and not just use it to save a couple bucks at the pump. I also hope this works for the pure fact that it could put rotary engines back up to a level of respect do to the higher reliability and power they can produce. Just whatever it takes lets find out how good these things are ASAP. This coupled with a method of cooling the intake temps by water injection could really be something amazing.

 

Assuming I'm reading all of this right on the website, you are preventing a bridge when the apex seal sits over the trailing spark hole. I was just wondering how you completely plug that whole because I'm looking at a rotor housing and it doesn't look like it's by any means a flat surface without any curvature to the face in that area. This means that if they were machined exactly right, you would have to have the exact right angle inside the chamber to block it off perfectly so it wouldn't stick into the chamber. Assuming this isn't the case, you're still going to have a small gap (extremely small) which will create a bridge, just one with a smaller passage. Wouldn't that build up deposits as well?

The extra plug helps you pass emissions because it burns more of the gas throughout the cycle which in theory should make more power as well. This would explain why you would put 3 per chamber in a race car. It just seems like if you're not burning all the fuel completely, it seems like it's not going to give you a lot of gains.

Just my 2 cents on it. If I'm looking at any of this wrong I'd like to know. -Zach- (Zach2 since someone else is already using Zach)

 

Just wondering if it works like its suppose to why are people keeping it a secret??? Wouldnt you want poeple to know so u can sell more of this? Or maybe not enough R&D. But anyways hope it works ill like to try it.

 

im not an expert, but from what i got from this thread is, i think, that the advantage, power wise, of the lessened chance of detonation (and being able to run more boost at higher a/fs, because of the lessened chance of detontation) outweighs the power disadvantage of not running the 2nd spark plug. i am guessing that its probably like running higher octane gas (although maybe to a more extreme level). lower octane burns faster and produces slightly more power, but is more dangerous at high boost/compression/etc. than high octane.

from all this, i have to wonder why they didnt just make a spark plug that has the shape of the anti-det device to prevent carbon build up and at the same time burn the excess fuel. (maybe i should have patented that idea before posting it, heh)

*flame suit on*

 

I'm no longer going to entertain this thread; it's just doing me more harm than good right now. Jim is correct, I’m just digging myself a hole here with no end in sight until people start using them. Those who have purchased or been sent a set to try out will post their findings here, I'm sure of it. It's pointless in trying to defend this at the moment, my *** hurts already and the product has only been out for a day.

I really can't say anything else to help people understand the benefits. I too was skeptical when I first started using it but I've had great results. People will have to experience it themselves and post reviews. Whether those posts are bad reviews or good reviews, at least we will know the truth about it other than just taking my word on it. Would it be different if the RX7Store.net carried them?

Jason has agreed to take a set and test them out for himself. I’m sure he will call bullshit if this product doesn’t work as claimed and I’m also sure that he will post his findings on the forum. Until then I really can’t do anything but sit back and enjoy the ride.

Thanks everyone.

Steven

 

This is the funniest thread I've ever seen. The only way KDR isn't going to blow anymore motors is if Dave takes off every plug wire. LOL...........

 

*nevermind, this comment is more applicable to a PM*

sorry for the hi-jacking

 

A couiple of ppl on a local list have been using Skip's product for some time, under NDA, and have been pretty happy. They have relativeley moderate tuning - and their cars seem to be holding up on the long run.

I don't know what this would do to state inspections (dyno type) our cars already have some trouble in that area. I guess it's possible if the mixture is leaner that things could cancel out.

The events in this thread smell a little to me - if the "public" technology is the same as the "private" technology that we have been watching for some time then that is a real shame - I just can't see how it could be anything other than a breach of NDA (certainly the intent of the NDA if not the letter). With the information we have available today I can't respect the new "public" product or promoters.

I've been interrested (as many have) in this product for some time, but will continue to wait on the sidelines until I hear from the "private" team. Or will head down to KDR if I can't wait that long. For now I'm going to avoid the new comany and offering - it just doesn't seem that supporting it is respectfull, IMHO (at this point) to the rotary comunity.

Also - my $0.02 on cost - I'm always happy to pay for a good idea, good execution, and hard work. Cost of the hardware is often trivial (e.g. you probably have paid $16 for a $0.05 CD + some packaging). In such a small comunity it would be nice, however, to know that the $$ are going to the right person - and that just isn't clear to me now.

-Erik

 

Okay, wether it works or not I don't really care. What I have a question about is how can it completely fill in the hole without risking a chip in the apex seal. If the tolerances are that close that it does indeed leave no gap and fills the hole completely, what happens if someone overtightens the bolt. It would seem that now the tip that was supposed to fill the whole has now stuck out of the hole. Bye Bye apex seal, hello rebuild. On the other hand if this has been taken into account then I don't' see how it is completely filling up the hole, as it seems this is its main goal. If this is the case just leave the spark plug in and unplug it

 

This might have been for economy. The R26B needed to have 100 more horsepower, then the previous one, and they needed better fuel economy. The 3rd plug probably assisted in both of these. A bunch of the economy they also got from a change in driving style.

 

The BP could actually have some positive affect regarding detonation, as the second spark helps burn all the fuel in the chamber. If you leave more unburnt fuel in the chamber the average temp of combustion will go down, as will power and fuel economy. These are probably as good way to get under the magic 10mpg number.

If anyone really wants to try these, PM me and I will build a few at cost.

 

What a thread!

Here's my 2 cents on the mix.

Does it work? Probably. Is $450 overcharging? Definitely. If I was worried about recouping costs, I'd keep the cost much more reasonable (like nearer to $100) and sell 20 times as much. Many people just aren't gonna spend $450 for a machined plug. Not to mention at that price, someone's gonna buy it, copy it, and sell it for less. Put enough of a change on it to circumvent the patent, and there you go. The high price is the source of a lot of the bad feelings, IMHO.

Also, "anti-detonation device" is sort of a misnomer. "Device" doesn't seem to describe a static plug that well.

I'm with Opec - I really can't see this plug properly FILLING the trailing plug hole. That's some SERIOUSLY precision work to have it fit that exact. I have a feeling there's still a slight gap where carbon could collect. If it was perfectly flush, a simple overtightening could make the tip protude into the combustion chamber, which would chip the apex seals on the way by. It would only need to be a VERY slight bit tighter, like a quarter turn, for it to stick out.

I am dying to hear from the guys that had KDR's device installed. If this is truly the same thing, then the NDA would be lifted - they can take pics and talk about it.

I find it sad that a new technique to reduce detonation is handled this damn poorly. Ludicrous price, misinformation, lack of hard facts...it's just silly.

Here's how things SHOULD have gone -

- Come up with great idea. Make prototype and test, discover that it works.

- Get a patent, which is actually not that hard to do or expensive.

- Keep people in the loop during initial customer testing.

- Provide back-to-back dyno runs with and without, and other hard evidence.

- Charge $100 for a pair of the plugs.

You'd be a hero, make a ton of money, and help out the rotary community. Win/win situation.

Pass the popcorn.

Dale

 

How in the hell did i miss this thread?

anyways, no amount of R&D time can inflate a products cost 45000%

these plugs cant be more than 1$ each to manufacture. Im sure a haltech took a hell of a lot more time to make and the percentage increase is wayyyyyyyy lower.

100$ would make it an option, But $450?

*steals the popcorn from dcfc3s*

Mike