Non-turbo 428rwhp FD build up and history
#126
My mind just exploded. Nice to see all your info in one thread. This is officially my dream track-car! Maybe a little nitrous for the streets for that angry barbaric power lust though...
I'm surprised you haven't tried port-phased rotors yet, I thought those were CLR's specialty? Surely that can gain you something without affecting idle/drivability too much, it does seem like you've found the mechanical limit for your current setup minus the variable length intake runners you mentioned. Either that or adding bridge ports, I know some drag racers on the giggly gas were fond of that setup, low end will suffer though.
You mentioned trying to eliminate the air gap between the semi-pp TB and port opening. This has been on my mind for a long time, as I'd like to someday build a semi-pp 13B with staged throttle. The only things I could come up with are a slide throttle body setup nearer the port face, or some reed valves. Although I'm not sure I'd be comfortable having some delicate reeds sitting near the port face waiting to be ingested! Any hints you wanna share?
I'm surprised you haven't tried port-phased rotors yet, I thought those were CLR's specialty? Surely that can gain you something without affecting idle/drivability too much, it does seem like you've found the mechanical limit for your current setup minus the variable length intake runners you mentioned. Either that or adding bridge ports, I know some drag racers on the giggly gas were fond of that setup, low end will suffer though.
You mentioned trying to eliminate the air gap between the semi-pp TB and port opening. This has been on my mind for a long time, as I'd like to someday build a semi-pp 13B with staged throttle. The only things I could come up with are a slide throttle body setup nearer the port face, or some reed valves. Although I'm not sure I'd be comfortable having some delicate reeds sitting near the port face waiting to be ingested! Any hints you wanna share?
#129
Rotary Freak
iTrader: (8)
I read that the GT3 RS is a good "target". Sharkwerks & Evolution Motorsports upped the displacement to 3.9L (and compression 13.3) on 91/93 octane and now 500HP N/A (515 HP clubsport) . . .
:-) neil
http://www.evomsit.com/PR_Porsche_10...Conversion.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzeLcvgOVzQ
:-) neil
http://www.evomsit.com/PR_Porsche_10...Conversion.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzeLcvgOVzQ
#130
I read that the GT3 RS is a good "target". Sharkwerks & Evolution Motorsports upped the displacement to 3.9L (and compression 13.3) on 91/93 octane and now 500HP N/A (515 HP clubsport) . . .
:-) neil
http://www.evomsit.com/PR_Porsche_10...Conversion.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzeLcvgOVzQ
:-) neil
http://www.evomsit.com/PR_Porsche_10...Conversion.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzeLcvgOVzQ
Back to the lab!!!
#134
Do a barrel roll!
iTrader: (4)
#135
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Czech republic
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On stroke note, when you increase stroke, for same displacement you have to decrease bore and hence an area on witch pressure applies and vica versa.
Why is rotary so inefficient is questionable. Vast area to volume ratio is one possibility but I´ve been lately reading work of Sir Harry Ricardo "The High-Speed Internal Combustion Engine", and everything indicates, that surface/volume ratio isn´t such big factor as many are proposing.
So it probably goes down to fuel distribution and flame propagation...
#136
Rotor Head Extreme
iTrader: (8)
Stroke has nothing to do with torque output or efficiency. Torque is solely based on displacement and BMEP. BMEP is influenced by VE% and combustion efficiency, mainly by how efficient is engine in terms of air consumption.
On stroke note, when you increase stroke, for same displacement you have to decrease bore and hence an area on witch pressure applies and vica versa.
Why is rotary so inefficient is questionable. Vast area to volume ratio is one possibility but I´ve been lately reading work of Sir Harry Ricardo "The High-Speed Internal Combustion Engine", and everything indicates, that surface/volume ratio isn´t such big factor as many are proposing.
So it probably goes down to fuel distribution and flame propagation...
On stroke note, when you increase stroke, for same displacement you have to decrease bore and hence an area on witch pressure applies and vica versa.
Why is rotary so inefficient is questionable. Vast area to volume ratio is one possibility but I´ve been lately reading work of Sir Harry Ricardo "The High-Speed Internal Combustion Engine", and everything indicates, that surface/volume ratio isn´t such big factor as many are proposing.
So it probably goes down to fuel distribution and flame propagation...
How could it not when it gives you more leverage? I know that the longer stroke will increase displacement but it also gives more leverage on the power stroke. Without all the technical stuff, I've always seen torque on a piston engines as increasing with it's longer stroke (especially with Diesels). I notice this more in the lower rpm ranges. The Dodge Cummings for instance. The older engine was a 6.0L but had a really long stoke and made 600LBS at 1,500rpms. I know it's turbo but still, that's a lot of torque. Longer stroke means lower rpm red line (something else I noticed). Another example is if you had a 1 speed bicycle and you shortened the pedal arms (bringing them closer to center), it would be more difficult to pedal because you would have less leverage. Same principle as having a breaker bar on the end of the 3/4" drive to break the big flywheel nut loose. Your never gonna break that loose with all your efforts placed near the nut. Your forgetting about the mechanical advantage at it's foundation. The rotor lobes on a rotary e-shaft are very close to the center of rotation. Not so on a piston which are further away! The new 16x has it's lobes further away from center and is suppose to make a lot more torque down low with it's longer stroke. Mazda will even tell you this! Time will tell when we start seeing a power graph of that engine.
#137
LSx 7.0L
iTrader: (20)
Stroke has nothing to do with torque output or efficiency. Torque is solely based on displacement and BMEP. BMEP is influenced by VE% and combustion efficiency, mainly by how efficient is engine in terms of air consumption.
On stroke note, when you increase stroke, for same displacement you have to decrease bore and hence an area on witch pressure applies and vica versa.
Why is rotary so inefficient is questionable. Vast area to volume ratio is one possibility but I´ve been lately reading work of Sir Harry Ricardo "The High-Speed Internal Combustion Engine", and everything indicates, that surface/volume ratio isn´t such big factor as many are proposing.
So it probably goes down to fuel distribution and flame propagation...
On stroke note, when you increase stroke, for same displacement you have to decrease bore and hence an area on witch pressure applies and vica versa.
Why is rotary so inefficient is questionable. Vast area to volume ratio is one possibility but I´ve been lately reading work of Sir Harry Ricardo "The High-Speed Internal Combustion Engine", and everything indicates, that surface/volume ratio isn´t such big factor as many are proposing.
So it probably goes down to fuel distribution and flame propagation...
End of discussion and you can close the book on that one. :P
tvon, right on regarding torque and the rotary. I've always thought the same exact thing. The lobes on an e-shaft are very close to the center of rotation, hence the lower torque.
#138
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Czech republic
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol wut?! Are you forgetting about simple physics here? Last time I checked, torque = amount of force applied x distance from the center of rotation at which it's exerted. Given an equal amount of force on the piston, a longer stroke will ALWAYS generate more torque because you're essentially increasing the distance from the center of rotation at which the force is applied.
We are dealing here with pressure, you have to apply it to area(bore) to become force. And as I said, on given displacement as you increase one parameter, you have to decrease other one and vica versa
Also, you can´t do such simplification, force has to be perpendicular to arm from center of rotation and this happens at only one moment
If it was such easy, we would build engines with ridiculous ratio between bore and stroke and achieving huge torque, right?
#139
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Czech republic
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without all the technical stuff, I've always seen torque on a piston engines as increasing with it's longer stroke (especially with Diesels). I notice this more in the lower rpm ranges. The Dodge Cummings for instance. The older engine was a 6.0L but had a really long stoke and made 600LBS at 1,500rpms. I know it's turbo but still, that's a lot of torque.
Turbo diesels and their torque curve has everything to do with fact that its turbocharged with very restrictive turbine which is able to build boost in very low-end and tapering down with revs due to same thing....
#140
Rx7 Wagon
iTrader: (16)
Well, reason why longer stroke engines are giving more torque in the low-end is simple, again it has nothing to do with leverage, but with mean piston speed and its huge influence on volumetric efficiency in given RPMs.
Turbo diesels and their torque curve has everything to do with fact that its turbocharged with very restrictive turbine which is able to build boost in very low-end and tapering down with revs due to same thing....
Turbo diesels and their torque curve has everything to do with fact that its turbocharged with very restrictive turbine which is able to build boost in very low-end and tapering down with revs due to same thing....
#142
Rotor Head Extreme
iTrader: (8)
I completely agree. It's a combination of both. You want the higher VE to create more air inside the combustion chamber so when ignited, you have more working force as a result. I mean the working force (whether it be combustion inside an engine or someones leg pushing down on a bicycle pedal) will have more force if that force is further away from the center of rotation. That's just the simple laws of physics! More boost pressure just gives you more working force. Stronger legs will do the same. With my 3 dimensional mindset, too me that's what I see.
#143
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Czech republic
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I´m not proposing such thing, stroke aka leverage is essential to create torque ie rotational force, but examples with bikes or breaker bar aren´t applicable in internal combustion engine. With given displacement, when we increase stroke, we have to decrease bore which decreases AREA on which PRESSURE applies, hence the force is not same. We increased leverage, but decreased force and again, it is applicable in other way.
#144
4th string e-armchair QB
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Bay, Ontario
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No comment. This argument has already gone on too far, we need to stop bullshitting up the OP's quality thread.
Last edited by Trots*88TII-AE*; 03-11-11 at 07:14 PM. Reason: stupid argument
#147
Its cool guys I am never one to miss a chance to learn more information. I did go back to the dyno today, and got to stretch the FD's legs a little. Did all types of video, and
tested 4 setups individually. Here is a overview, going off memory. Dyno charts and vids coming next!
-First I streamlined the semi p-port manifold some, just making the best of what was there. Did some pulls, and it did indeed help and made 434rwhp. Biggest surprise is 250 rwtq! excellent.
-Next I swapped in race plugs, due to so many members telling me that 10hp or more can be gained. I was a doubting tomas, but bought some anyway to test back to back. Result? 436rwhp. 2 horsepower for $190??? Yeah looks like this goes into the "busted" category.
-Then we swapped just upper intake manifolds, and ran the stock intake with semi p-ports. Shocking result #1 of the day, it make 420rwhp. Looks like semi p-ports are totally amazing in flow.
-Then I removed the gasket from the lower intake, and swapped in a stock one without semi p-port holes. This blocks off the semi p-ports at the flange. Then did some STREETPORT only pulls.
- Shocking result #2 of the day, the stock intake/streetport made 350rwhp!! Amazing!!!
Last time I tested the stock intake the electromotive software had a glitch which was not sparking leading #3. So Leading ignition missing on one rotor makes for a 28rwhp loss. In case anyone wondered lol
- Lastly we then swapped on the sheet metal intake/ streetport only. Kinda disappointing result, hit 355rwhp. It did lean out a bunch, and didnt have time to re-tune. I think it would have made 360-365. Only a 10-15 hp gain. But not bad!
tested 4 setups individually. Here is a overview, going off memory. Dyno charts and vids coming next!
-First I streamlined the semi p-port manifold some, just making the best of what was there. Did some pulls, and it did indeed help and made 434rwhp. Biggest surprise is 250 rwtq! excellent.
-Next I swapped in race plugs, due to so many members telling me that 10hp or more can be gained. I was a doubting tomas, but bought some anyway to test back to back. Result? 436rwhp. 2 horsepower for $190??? Yeah looks like this goes into the "busted" category.
-Then we swapped just upper intake manifolds, and ran the stock intake with semi p-ports. Shocking result #1 of the day, it make 420rwhp. Looks like semi p-ports are totally amazing in flow.
-Then I removed the gasket from the lower intake, and swapped in a stock one without semi p-port holes. This blocks off the semi p-ports at the flange. Then did some STREETPORT only pulls.
- Shocking result #2 of the day, the stock intake/streetport made 350rwhp!! Amazing!!!
Last time I tested the stock intake the electromotive software had a glitch which was not sparking leading #3. So Leading ignition missing on one rotor makes for a 28rwhp loss. In case anyone wondered lol
- Lastly we then swapped on the sheet metal intake/ streetport only. Kinda disappointing result, hit 355rwhp. It did lean out a bunch, and didnt have time to re-tune. I think it would have made 360-365. Only a 10-15 hp gain. But not bad!
#148
Rotor Head Extreme
iTrader: (8)
Great testing Logan! Just goes to show what some well built headers will do for NA rotarys with stock intakes. So how did the bottom end look when compared with the stock upper? I'm not that surprised at what your stock mani did when you compare it to your 13b Re set-up. Both uppers are virtually the same. Your making about 115 rwhp per rotor. It adds up!