3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002) 1993-2002 Discussion including performance modifications and Technical Support Sections.
Sponsored by:

A/F ratio question

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 20, 2005 | 05:54 PM
  #1  
FD3SR1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
From: springfield MO
A/F ratio question

Ok i have heard different things from different people so i was wondering if some on could explain it to me that knows what they are talking about.

I have heard that a 12 is rich and i have heard that its lean so im not sure whats what and what the optimum A/F ratio is. I have also heard that the optimum A/f ratio is different for a rotary.

if some one could clear this up for me i would apreciate it. im not planning on tunning my car i just want to be able to keep an eye on it and be able to read what its doing.
thanks
Reply
Old Nov 20, 2005 | 06:23 PM
  #2  
84gsNC's Avatar
12a turbo by FBII
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
From: Waxhaw, NC
A/f

Im not a 100% sure either, I like to keep mine in the 12's and no higher than 12.5 under boost. 13 is too lean and 11 is ok, but rich.
Reply
Old Nov 20, 2005 | 07:18 PM
  #3  
rynberg's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 20 Years
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 10
From: San Lorenzo, California
12 is NOT rich for a turbo-rotary under boost. Go to the PFC sub-forum and run a search for any posts by Chuck (cewrx7r1) on this topic. Here's one thread:

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...ight=boost+afr

You can also read Brian Davies tuning document:

http://www.zeroglabs.com/rx7/singleturbotuning.htm
Reply
Old Nov 20, 2005 | 08:41 PM
  #4  
technonovice's Avatar
Jinx
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 1
From: Raleigh, NC
I think sub and low 12's is a little rich for normal boost levels. But there are other variiables (temp, timing...etc.) that come into play. I aim for 12.5 or so, but run only 11-12 lbs. I have yet to see anything alarming from the knock sensor in my logs.
Reply
Old Nov 20, 2005 | 09:03 PM
  #5  
maxcooper's Avatar
WWFSMD
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,035
Likes: 4
From: SoCal
There are two contexts at work here:

1. The actual chemical context, in which anything lower than 14.7 is "rich" and anything higher than 14.7 is "lean". At the stoichiometric ratio 14.7:1, air and fuel are available in just the right proportion such that you don't end up with extra air and fuel after a complete burn. (<-- or something like that; this is my layman's understanding)

2. The context of tuning a car, specifically a turbo rotary. In this context, there is no specific proportion that is "right", but something like 12:1 is kind of the center point between what people call "rich" and "lean". 13:1, for instance, is still technically "rich" (see context 1 above), but it is not as rich as you want for a turbo rotary, so we call it "lean", meaning "not as rich as it should be".

Note also that context 2 mainly applies to the mixture under boost. At idle and light load cruising, you don't need (or want) the engine to run that rich, so something more like context 1 applies.

-Max
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2005 | 12:14 AM
  #6  
FD3SR1's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Enthusiast
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
From: springfield MO
thanks that cleared it up for me alot
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2005 | 12:27 AM
  #7  
RotaryEvolution's Avatar
Sharp Claws
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 50
From: Central Florida
i've found that rotaries tend to like the number 12.4 but this all depends on each persons setup.
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2005 | 04:22 PM
  #8  
Trevor's Avatar
Senior Member
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ. USA
Personally I lift if it goes leaner than 11.5...maybe 11.6:1 at full boost on 91 octane. 11.3 is my target AFR.

On a rotary mid-low 11's is quite a bit safer than mid 12's and you really don't take much of a power hit for it.

Anything richer than 10.9 or so won't light very well though. Random misfires occur pretty often with stock design plugs.
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2005 | 05:14 PM
  #9  
rynberg's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 20 Years
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 10
From: San Lorenzo, California
Just to keep things in perspective, a stock car will run AFRs around 10:1 or less under boost above 4000 rpm.

Anything over 12:1 under boost on our ****-water 91 octane out west would be too lean for me. Trevor's numbers are very reasonable for a car not being tuned for max power but to make good power while lasting longer than 10k miles.

Another thing to consider is that the car will run slightly leaner in real driving as compared to AFRs measured on the dyno.
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2005 | 08:32 PM
  #10  
technonovice's Avatar
Jinx
Tenured Member 10 Years
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 1
From: Raleigh, NC
Ah...thanks guys I did not think about lower octane applications. I am surprised by that stock AFR reading. Do you know how those readings were recorded?
Reply
Old Nov 21, 2005 | 11:39 PM
  #11  
rynberg's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 20 Years
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 10
From: San Lorenzo, California
Originally Posted by technonovice
I am surprised by that stock AFR reading. Do you know how those readings were recorded?
Yes, with several different wideband setups on several different cars.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
stickmantijuana
20B Forum
21
Mar 22, 2022 01:00 PM
_Tones_
Adaptronic Engine Mgmt - AUS
10
May 25, 2021 05:37 AM
Frox
New Member RX-7 Technical
72
Oct 22, 2015 04:54 PM
t-von
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
9
Sep 10, 2015 01:56 PM
Nosferatu
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
7
Sep 5, 2015 02:13 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:25 AM.