RICE RACING

After doing this for 10 years (this year for AI as you people call it!) I can honestly say to you all that I only trust my own system & nothing else.

Its pure mechanical, no pump's, relays, solenoids or anything else to f*ck up on me/you.

Only thing you can do wrong is not fill your tank full of water.

Like JD I tune RICH always have and always will on most applications (pump or race gas) Generaly we are in the low 10's (10.3 to 10.5) and thats what it needs to be reliable most times wether it be a 400rwhp pump fuel FD or a world record 12A running C16 making 700+rwhp.

When you get to these upper echlons of performances fuel dumping is a critical component to making ANY highly stressed turbocharged car live be it a RX7, Supra or a mid 80's F1 car running tolulene fuel. I have a motec map of a leading pro rwd supra running 500kpa absolute and its pegged at 10.1:1 I have video of a 1986 BMW f1 engine with Bosch programing module hooked up to it during a qualifying session and the AFR mixture is set to 10.4:1 you need fuel and copious amounts of it if your trying to perform miracales with turbo cars (i.e make them live!).

I have experimented with WI to replace fuel (up to 13.7:1 @ high power) and it can be done easily but I only use the WI as a back up personaly, and most times rely on fuel dumping to achieve aceptable engine life.

RICE RACING

With TO4's form 60-1 to T66 size comps:

When running rich we generaly run 20psi on pump fuel here in Australia.

With water injection to compliment this we genraly use about 26 to 29psi.

All on 98RON petrol/gasoline, the WI can be run at this level on 95RON (which is like your 91 or 92mon?) I know this cause one of my customers told me he was running it for 3 months due to being low on funds !

rexhvn

I'm from Australia and only run 10psi because I don't see the need for anymore... I don't need to put my rotary in any danger of extra heat, air pressure, or internals can't handle it or whatever... and I use 98 octane. Yeah sure I can boost higher, say to 14psi with an aftermarket ecu, but not stock stock.

matty

where is improvedfd when u need him? he says 13psi is max despite hundreds of peoples experiences.

BDC

I'll clarify, John:

I never said that anyone here needs methanol to make 400rwhp. I'm saying that it's one sure-fire way of doing it but that's only part and parcel of my overall argument -- use the right kind of fuel for the load. Obviously race fuels that are designed for high heat and heavy loads work well, too. I've tuned alot of cars on race gas and I can attest with the same confidence as you that they work and work extremely reliably. You're right on the money about race gas. The issue with methanol, however, is a try at "marrying" the pump gas and "race-gas like power" worlds together in an attempt to save on fuel costs and the inconvenience of using race fuels on a street-driven vehicle.

I don't believe it helps in the event of the lower-quality fuel auto-igniting and causing pre-ignition during the compression stroke prior to anytime we would otherwise (normally) fire the plugs.

Philosophically speaking, I think it's a hack job, when we're trying so hard to inch ourselves ever so closer to the "edge of the cliff" as it were in terms of reliability on pump fuel just to barely eek out a bit more power by running way too rich of a mixture with an already very volatile fuel. As a result, how are we taxing our fuel systems under those loads to run high 10's:1 (how bout them duty cycles)? How are we affecting our plug life? How much carbon are we loading up on the rotors and depositing on them? How does that increase the likelihood of hot-spot induced pre-ignition? Not to mention, gasoline fuel is grossly inferior to many other substances (water and the different alcohols for instance) at reducing chamber temperatures. My argument is we don't have to wash... no, nearly flood our engines to try and gain a marginal semblence of (alleged) reliability just to run a few more lbs of boost with our standard EFI systems when we can utilize something that is enormously better at it. My bottom line on it -- it's a cheap fuel that, in and of itself, is not designed to be reliable for the loads we're trying to achieve.

Many of them still are. We got the idea from a contingency of GN guys that are at-present using a particular system with pretty much unquestioned quality and reliability.

A fair question -- use a system that's overbuilt and designed for this, specifically. No cheapie components, no cheap pump. As a comparative example: How do we know that the airplanes we board when we travel are reliable? How do we know any one of 1000's of components on that thing isn't going to fail in mid-flight? They're purposefully designed to be extra robust and greatly overbuilt just so the question of reliability is a moot one. I think the same rule applies here with AI and there are a very limited number of systems offered out there that adhere to this principle.

Regarding your list of failure modes -- don't we already run into that on EFI systems? Failed pump (be it stock or aftermarket), stuck injector, blown off vacuum hose on MAP sensor, failed MAF, clogged fuel filter, EMI and/or RF intereference, failed coolant temp sensor, and any endless number of other things that constitute either the EFI system being at fault or the physical components therein...

It doesn't surprise me if people are having problems with AI. Speaking as a consumer of such and having limited knowledge of the systems available, there's alot of junk out there that's being sold that's built with cheap parts and even worse design even though they're advertised with marvelous claims.

B

matty

how often does one need to run race gas/25psi on the road? i would say its very very occassional. maybe a few times a yr to shut up that buddy or at the drag strip,etc. I dotn understand why it is necessary to have these type of injection debates constantly these days. if people want to run serious boost a couple times a yr slap some c16 in there. it is expensive but how often do u actually need to run this kind of power. problem solved.
i am not understanding why people are afraid of using c16 as oppose to these ai setups which seem so damn confusing to tune for and just cumbersome in general. if u have a drag car that u run every weekend i could see it but most guys in here have street cars. i dont think an ai setup is applicable to these people.

BDC

Matty, why would you think people are afraid to run C16? Like any other race fuel, I'm not afraid at all to use it. I would gather that the other tuners on this forum would agree.

B

matty

so much talk about these ai setups etc lately. like i said seems silly to me for use on a street car.

Boostn7

Well....based on your statement you're unsure......... you also limit yourself to 15psi and but have no problem running 25psi with alcohol injection.


"poor-quality fuel and pre-ignition".

Do you realize the shape of a rotary combustion chamber with a moving rotor actually prevents hot spots, the main cause of pre-ignition !!!
The main reason for Mazda messing with Hydrogen in a rotary.
Now, detonation is directly related to fuel quality. Octane rating being a measure of how well a particular gas will resist detonation.
Hmmm, but it is possible for detonation to induce pre-ignition:-).

We all know the tendency to knock/ping increases as ignition advance is increased. Lowering it allows more boost or less octane......
Its' a balance to ensure that the air-fuel mixture burns and reaches its maximum pressure @ ~ 15° degrees after TDC.

Your philosophy is getting the best of you......
The argument here: - Is 15psi the limit on a 13B turbo (9.0:1) engine?
NO. As long as the tune is good and everything else is under control such as air temps, fuel pressure, egts.....18psi is a piece of cake.

If you have a need to inject alcohol to feel safe @ 15psi+ is ok w/ me but let's not act like you discovered the cure to broken seals and eveyone needs to buy an AI system....reminds me of that anti-knock mod:-)
Most people are happy with the possible hp levels of pump gas but those that want/need more could easily add C16 and crank up the boost.

You make it sound like eveyone wants 400rwh+/15psi+ at 95% of the time !!!!
If gasoline is so inferior/horrible why don't you just run alcohol 100% ?

Take a look on the Evo forums and read about the engines failures due to failed Ai systems from top vendors.

Airplanes and AI systems ???
I hear of AI systems failing more often then airplanes falling off the sky !!!
Airplane maintenance is no joke.

So if you add your list of EFI failures + AI failures we're in good shape then.

Methanol Inj does raise the knock levels of pump gas but just another thing to worry about when something fails.
Race gas is a safer option when the limit of pump gas has been reached!!!!

JD

RX794

I can't believe this issue is STILL being brought up after all these years of tuning and experience with rotaries. 15psi is no where near the SAFE limits of pump gas on a rotary, like numerous people have stated before: it's ALL in the tuning! My car has seen 20psi on pump 93 octane gas from time to time with no ill effects, usually I will run about 17psi for the daily drive everyday. My engine is STILL intact after about 3 years of daily driving HARD with the use of strictly pump gas at those boost levels, there's a few people on this forum that can back this claim up as well as also having their cars at those boost levels as well with no problems, it boils down to having the proper fuel supply and TUNING to support these engines reliability and power production at those levels. If my car as well as Boostn7s car and a few others on this forum can do it, then that means that anyone else can as long as they know what they're doing.

gp1500r

what AFRs were you running at 20 psi?

Boostn7

~10.8 A/F's....
With proper timing advance and stable A/Fs, monitoring EGTs will give you a clear indication when something is out of control before any serious damage(unless you never lift off gas).

JD

GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

JD, please check your PMs. Thanks

BDC

Caveat, John:

If it is "all in the tuning" as RX794 alleges and it's just a matter of having "proper timing advance", having ~10.8 A/F's (stable A/F's) while monitoring EGT's, then why would we ever have to be concerned about the possibility of something getting out of control in the first place?

B

BDC

Yes, that's correct. Alcohol (methanol in my case) is being used as an anti-knock agent and is also being used in a fairly heavy ratio with the gasoline. Instead of 100% 93 octane fuel, I'm using 70% 93 octane and 30% methanol. Giant difference.

Makes sense. You're right about the octane rating, also.

That's not my argument. Infact, I've made statements to the contrary. My argument has to do with load as opposed to boost. In and of itself, boost is an ambiguous and arbitrary number unless we're talking about identical setups -- engine, turbo, intercooler, plumbing, and the like. My argument, summarized, is that we as a community are putting way too much reliance on pump fuels for loads that are better designed for race gas (which typically are at 1+ bar of boost). You guys assert that it's "all in the tuning", yet we have blown motor after blown motor in our history books from people that felt it was safe to run alot of boost because their tuner sold them ultimately on a false sense of security. I've rebuilt motors that had less than 5,000 miles on them that were catastrophically blown at and less than the boost levels you're talking about here on 93 octane pump gas. You can't just keep throwing more and more of the same, highly volatile and temperamental fuel to squelch a problem with the real limiter in the system -- the same kind of highly volatile and temperamental fuel. That's why I call running mixtures like 10.8:1 at 1+bar of boost on pump gas a "hack job". With the right kind of fuel for the loads the motor will be under, there's absolutely no reason in the world to do that. It doesn't buy reliability. The best it'll do is possibly turn the **** counter-clockwise a bit on that ticking time bomb.

... but not everything is under control, JD. This is part and parcel of my overall argument: We can't control the quality of the pump fuels we're loading our engine up on. With race gas, we get what we pay for, absolutely. But with pump gas, we're at the mercy of not only the manufacturer's blends, we're at the mercy of the station as well. I know that in your area you've got Sunoco 94 at the pump, and there's a darn good chance you're always getting that same 94, but alot of us go from station to station and expect the same quality of fuels. It's entirely possible to get a bad tank of gas from a station. It's also possible for there to be 93 in the 89 tank and 89 in the 93 tank. And I'm not even getting into the non-universal replacement of MTBE for ethanol in varied mixtures of gasoline...

It may or may not be "The Cure" (I think it is), but it's sure as heck a better alternative than the too-high standard that's floating around the RE community of being able to reliably (in the long term sense) run a gazillion pounds of boost on 100% pump gas only as evidenced by the vertical stack of dead rotor housings in my garage that's taller than me.

Alcohol works. It utterly destroys any inclination of knock at those same boost levels and above. So what if other car communities and enthusiasts have been doing it before us? It works! On my car, I don't run out of injector or fuel pump. I run out of turbo, first! I can hammer my car in 4th gear at nearly 26psi of boost with a bone-cold motor that's happy as a clam on nearly stock plugs all around! And I'm not having to run some ridiculously-rich A/F ratio to do it, either! And, a bonus -- my motor's getting cleaned up; the opposite of what's happening to that 10.8:1 on 100% gasoline motor.

The "Anti-Knock" mod (if it's the same thing I'm thinking of) was sensationalism, much like a good chunk of the garbage that floats around on these car forums when it comes to power, engineering the car's modifications, and tuning. Alcohol, however, atleast in my case and Howard's case, comes with substantiation in the form of datalogs proving what it can do when injected alongside pump gas.

So, do I think everyone that aspires to make lots of power needs to go AI and run alcohol with pump gas? Absolutely. If it means it will reduce our engine's horrific reliability record, then by all means ...

I don't care what everyone wants. I'm not arguing people's motives by way of their desires. They have their own vehicles; they can do what they like. But, I know what I want and I do know what alot of my customers want. I understand just as well as you and most everyone else in this community how the "speed bug" bites you and won't ever go away. We generally seem to have a need for more power, more speed, up until the point it becomes dangerous or to the point where our wallet no longer complies.

100% alcohol? Why should I, when I've already got the best of both worlds: Lower octane fuel for lighter loads such as all daily driving aspects, then very high (effective) octane fuel for race-gas like power when I want it, on-tap?

I believe it. It's not surprising given the lack of overall quality standards because, in my opinion, due to the lack of demand for quality by way of consumers.

That's meant to be metaphorical. The point I'm trying to make is that, as you've rightly said, airplane maintenance isn't a joke. Planes can't just pull over when they have problem like we can. Therefore, the highest standards imaginable with cost not being an option are employed (I would think) to help ensure that the issues of reliability aren't an issue when a plane is in-flight. The stuff is very critical. Likewise, an AI system that we're heavily relying upon when our foots are planted in the floor, just like our EFI systems, needs to be robust and overdesigned specifically and purposefully for reliability so that same question is a non-issue.

Thanks for the response, JD. I suppose we can agree to disagree on a few points here. I'm staying with methanol and nobody will change my mind, not after what I've seen and experienced.

Regards,

B

RX794

What I think Boostn7 is trying to say is if for example like fuel pressure drop from a weak fuel pump, or a fuel filter being clogged, bad injector, bad gas, etc., something that is physically uncontrollable due to the circumstances of mechanical failure. Basically monitoring the engines A/F ratios, EGT's, and having conservative timing will help prevent engine failures if monitored properly. Just in case something gives out you'll have a bigger safety window before apex seal failure. Remember, EVERY factory ECU whether it be a rotary engine's ECU or a piston engine's ECU is tuned somewhat conservatively to compensate for things like this, you must do the same!! The only difference between a factory ECU and self tuning for a street car on pump gas is that it's done at elevated boost levels, hence the 10.8-10.9AFR's on 93 pump gas at 20 psi of boost, yes, you'll loose a little bit of HP, BUT the life of the apex seal, housings, and the motor in general will be lengthened due to it running cooler as well as you having a bigger safety margin and time to respond or check something if something fails within the engine's functioning subsystems. My motor is 3-4 years old now and has probably more mileage than anyone here on this forum in that same time frame(with the exception of Boostn7) w/o any apex seal failure at the boost levels we're discussing here on pump gas(there are more than a few people on the forum that can attest to this being true). Do you think that I'm just a lucky guy in that respect? Sorry, but no one is that lucky, like I said before, considering you have all the right parts in proper working order, it's all in the tuning.

Boostn7

Once I get it tuned to my liking I always monitor EGTs on extended high boost loads(4-5th gear pulls), even when I continously see the same pattern.

I think you have answered your own question as to why its important to monitor:

Xeros

This has got to be one of the most informative and intresting discussions I have seen on this board in a while.

gp1500r

interesting discussion, but it hasn't really changed my mind

if I plan on making a 15+ psi run, I'm going to throw 4-5 gallons (or more) of 100 octane in the tank....it's just not worth the risk

Boostn7

You have to be kidding !!! and this coming from someone that tunes cars.
Ask anyone that tunes rotaries for a living if tuning to ~ 10.8 A/F on pump gas at the higher boost levels is a "hack job" ! even the OEM ECUs are tuned for that richness.
Don't you tune to low 11's @ 1 bar ??
Want to talk about a "hack job" ?
Let me bring up a few issues you've so far encountered with your AI system:
Methanol priming issues, external leaks at the nozzle(not once but 3 times), fuel cell leaks, leaking fuel pump, delivery issues......
I respect the idea of you (& anybody else) that pursue the Alcohol/Methanol injection route but NO THANKS !!!
I'll stick to race gas whenever I need more then what pump gas allows me to make.

When my ign advance is set, A/F and EGTs are stable then its under control in my eyes.
We no longer have Sunoco 94 around here but have been on 93 w/ same level of boost with no issues.

RACE GAS is a better option !

No problem, you're entitled to your opinions and I quite understand the advantages of methanol injection *but* when you're relying on the system to fuel an extra 10+psi of boost it simply adds to the list of things to fail.

JD

BDC

No, I'm not kidding.

Yes, that's what I do. It's a hack job. It seems to me to be a cheap way to try and garner just a marginal amount more power without much decrease in overall risk. Compared to other substances that are far more superior, throwing more fuel at a problem that has to do with the same fuel in the first place is just plain counter-intuitive, in my opinion. I think it's silly, yet we all continue to blow motor after motor because of this even though we're not making squat for power compared to what race gas or even methanol-powered (or methanol-augmented) setups are doing with considerable more long-term reliability. Now, gee whiz... why is that, JD? Could it be because we're putting too much reliance and expecting too much out of an inferior, cheaper fuel? I think so. The standard for pump gas is set way too damn high!

Let's go one at a time on those and then I'll respond to your implication:

-) Priming issue -- that was related to the pump leak. There's never, not one time, ever been a bonafide priming issue. With just the test button alone, I can "prime" the system up to 150psi with no load on the MAP sensor.
-) Leaky pump -- This was caused by two things -- one, my decision, against the manufacturer's recommendations, to add alcohol fuel lube and two, the amount of 115 leaded race gas that made its way to the bottom of the jug. The three, I believe, when submersed in the pump, had an adverse reaction to it. This was outside of normal operation; had it been on 100% methanol as it's designed (and how it was for 4 gallons prior), it wouldn't have failed. My pump is the first pump to fail in three years per what the kit manufacturer has told me.
-) Fuel cell leak -- The cell has never leaked. I thought the leak that I saw was the low level sensor's sealing grommet. It wasn't. I was mistaken. The leak was the pump which is directly below it. I found this out shortly thereafter.
-) Nozzle leak -- Yep, I did have this problem a couple of times; maybe even 3 times. Oddly enough, when I use the right kind of sealing washer, I don't have this problem anymore.
-) Delivery issues -- I know of no delivery issue other than what may've been related to an external nozzle leak unless you mean something else specifically.

Given the true lack of problems with the Alkycontrol system, is it therefore reasonable to suggest that the system is pretty bulletproof, if not on-par with the reliability of standard EFI systems? For instance, a leaky nozzle due to my use of copper crush washers as opposed to rubberized, metal sealing washers, as well as the location which deviates from the recommended one -- is that necessarily the kit's fault? And, can that same type of problem (comparatively) occur with an EFI system where one installs injectors that still wind up leaking at the top?

The system is bulletproof. The not-so-bulletproof aspect of my experiment, without the exception of the 115L race gas that settled to the bottom of my 1st, 5-gal batch of methanol, is me. Time and again I've chosen to be stubborne and do my own thing with it and every single time it's bit me in the rear as well as proving the reliability of this system. Btw, thanks for checking out my on-going blog, John.

Oh, and one more thing... as I am trying to figure out what's going on with my car, it very well could be that my last NTK w/b sensor, which died a few weeks ago, could've been reading richer than what I was actually running. If this is true, then I've been doing a 70/30 ratio at high 13's to 14's:1 at 25lbs of boost and not knowing it yet not having any reliability problems. As unbelievable as it sounds, I'd sure love to prove that if it were true. If it is true, it's yet one more thing to add to the list of factors that change this entire paradigm of how we tune for power.

It's sure as heck a good one that I won't argue against. I'm either for race fuel or doing a heavy mixture of pump gas with methanol.

I agree. It does make the overall system more complex and it does add to what things can potentially fail. It seems to me, therefore, that everything be top notch so that reliability question becomes a moot point. We choose -- Either the inconvenience yet unquestioned reliability of race gas, or add marginal to fair complexity with alcohol, which is also very reliable and highly beneficial.

Regards,

B

BDC

That's wise. That's what I usually recommend for my customers, especially those that are more spirited drivers who like to plant their foot in the throttle alot.

B

jimlab

So let me get this straight... tuning rich on pump gas to increase the safety margin is a "hack job", but strapping an auxiliary injection system on the engine and introducing another potential point of failure to achieve a similar result isn't?

donz

iTrader: (2)

I'd hate this to be my first post but, what is the general opinion on ethanol blended gasolines? ie stuff from Mohawk? Where i live, we you can only get 91 octane for the regular gas stations, but you can get 93 octane from the one Mohawk station. What would you guys prefer?

I have been browsing the rx7 forum for over a year on an off, but I really wanted to ask, and I know how you guys feel about honda's. so I'm gonna get my flame suit.

Boostn7

You feel "pump gas" is the main cause for all blown engines ???
Is gas that poor in quality your way ??? Are you talking from experience....
"Pump gas" is obviously limited to its octane but its enough for the most of us which are already traction limited. I guess ~480rwh on that cheap gas is squat for power:-). You must be making big numbers !!!!

FYI: Air/fuel changes has a direct effect on the flame speed and temperature of the combustion gases. Rich mixtures do help in suppressing detonation to an extend, especially in rotaries.

Comparing your auxiliary methanol system to a std EFI system is JOKE !

The main purpose fo these systems were to suppress engine knock and prevent detonation while at peak power output.
The more boost you run and the more fuel you replace with methanol the greater the danger when messing with constant pressure & static flow injection systems.
Any failure under load and you will be rebuilding the motor.

Time will tell....

JD