I was under the impression that T3/T4 hybrid turbos are quick to "crap in their pants" on rotaries making higher HP numbers. With the port design you want to use, this will be even more prevalent. I would think a full T4 would be the best option. Maybe a GT35R or a properly sized TO4Z would be a good choice. I would worry more about using too small of a turbo instead of too large

Also, props on the best new member thread in quite a while

 

yes, but my "experiment" has a direction. i've set goals for it and when it's all said and done i have reference points to judge whether or not i've achieved success or failed miserably. i only deem it an "experiment" because i've never done it before. it's my first dedicated race engine and dedicated racecar!

 

Any ideas/info on this topic ?

Please punch a line !!

 

Few more pics I found on my PC of my semi-peripheral ports three spark plug engine!!

don't be shy, throw some ideas on turbo Pp, or any ports, anything you always thought of IDEAS

 

i would like to know why not just build a fast t2 motor for the money your throwing into this? na would have a better powerband and turbo would have more power but me being fairly new in the game wouldn't even waste the money going all out like this. i have only owned rotaries since 04 but i think the pp would not be worth the time and money its gonna take for only "280 hp"?? its pretty much not gonna be worth it in the end the motor will only be good for racing. hopefully thats what you plan to do with it.

 

Yeah ! I know what you mean, I could of have a nice t2 engine already, but I guess I wanted something more unique and "experimental" us I heard it before. Actually form the very beginning, I started this semi-p, three spark plug, N/A, project, I thought of making an engine that would be very simple, and have its maximum power with not bad drive ability and fuel economy, I'd like to place a throttle (butterfly) on the p-port as close to the front of the port as possible and have it open only when it needs to ( at high rpm) that would take care of fuel economy and drive ability, would be more practical I would think, not just racing. But yeah, I always wanted to build a nice powerful and practical N/A engine, so that is why I went this way !!! THEY SHOULD DRIVE LIKE HONDA AND RACE LIKE FERRARI!!! !!

As for pp turbo I guess you are right, it would be much easier to make just with side ports a nice turbo engine and it would be more practical too, because there just no way to trick overlap with a full pp, but I still wanna do more research on its ups and downs before I make my final decision!! so don't be shy to share your ideas or ask questions !!

 

if you look in the drag racing section, theres a thread titled "new vivian" which made 1300+ hp off of a turbo 13bpp.
thats all you really need to know about that combination!
1000+ hp per liter!!!

 

I found this pics on this web, hope the owner of this pics wouldn't mind me posting 'em on here.

Very cool job ! Looks cool to me !

 

And doing so is just as easy as drilling peripheral ports into the housings then slapping on a monster turbo! Yep, it's that easy so that's all you really need to know about that combination.

It's almost as easy as building a full carbon fibre tube frame FC.

"Non trivial" doesn't even begin to describe how hard it is to build a 1300HP 13B and have it last for more then 10 seconds.

 

thats pretty unnecessary.

 

ooo very similar to what i would like to do someday do... I was thinking of filling in the secondarys on a 6 port and do a secondary perephial port with similar timing to the secondary side ports and have them controlled by a set of barrel throttle bodies and have a exauhst valve for a side exit megaphone for when i really wanted to open up a can and surprise the crap out of sombody!!!

 

I'm only being a slight smartass here, but so was your reply.

Have you paid out those bets you lost yet?

That's a bit of an odd plan. You'll still have overlap from the wide open peripheral ports so why bother with all the barrel valve stuff?

What exactly is a "secondary peripheral port"? My guess is that you want to valve the peripheral ports so they only open at high RPMs? If so, that's not going to work very well. Remember that you still have gaping hole in the rotor housing that will cause exhaust to wrap around into the intake charge. No matter how you valve the port, you still have that cavity.

 

Good luck! you are going into the realm of full experimental with out allot of hp expectations, now that is rotary love,dedication is a art form hands down to you .

 

Why wouldn't it work, of coarse it would! we're talking about increasing high end power while still maintaining low end torque. Yeah some exhaust gases will getting in but it looses low end torque with P-port not because of the exhaust gases, but because of the volume it strokes. What are the physics that P-port does not idle at low rpm? OK why there is a 6 port in N/A engine? For sure it will work !

 

So are you saying that it loses low end power because it is pulling in more air?

U do realize pulling in more air means more exhaust, and at low rpm that means more exhaust to mix back into the intake charge.

I dont know if anyone else is getting the same impression as i am from all of this, but it just seems to me that you are trying to make a Frankenstein's monster. You are throwing a unique build together, however it seems your only goal is for it to LIVE. It just blows my mind that someone would go in such an extreme direction without direction. Your goals arn't very well laid out (at least the don't seem that way to me). You really should have thought all of this through BEFORE you had those housings machined.

Interested to see how this all turns out.

 

It's under the same lines as aux bridging. People have failed at maintaining low-end torque while grasping for high-end power.

And, no, my paypal hasn't seen a dime or that $100 that Chaotic_FC owes me now and the $100 that he will owe me next January.

 

There are many reasons why peripheral ports have a seeming lack of low end torque. Now keep in mind that it is a "seeming lack", and not an actual lack. Compare a dyno sheet between a peripheral port and side port and you will find that the peripheral port makes more low and midrange torque then the side port above 2500 RPM or so. Keep in mind that this is with fuel injection and a proper tune, not some crappy carburetor that will respond to the uneven vacuum by dribbling fuel into the ports.

Must of the rough idle and bucking associated with aggressive ports is due to exhaust overlap. The intake charge gets polluted which causes the engine to rythmically misfire. Even if a peripheral port is closed off with a valve, there is still a huge cavity in the rotor housing that will lead from the intake "stroke" into the exhaust "stroke". In the beginning of the intake stroke a lt of high pressure exhaust will just wrap around the tip of the rotor through the port then as exhaust pressure decreases and intake pressure increases, that will cease. But the end result is that you still have massive exhaust overlap.

This is why half bridgeports still idle like a bridgeport is expected to even though the secondary port throttle plates are totally closed at idle. Exhaust wraparound happens through the eyebrow ports.

Keep in mind that the intake closing timing of a 6 port with all ports wide open is about the same as a peripheral. Port volume is huge but there isn't nearly as much overlap. This is one reason we see so much low end loss when crazy people tie their aux ports open. The aux port intrudes upon compression, and massively lowers velocity. A peripheral port, while having similar closing timing, has a much more efficient air path into the engine which will pick up torque far sooner then the wide open 6 port engine.

I'm not saying it won't work in a pure sense, I am saying it won't work in the way the poster above is thinking it will.

Keeping in mind that all of these ideas have been tried and discarded by Mazda. Additionally most of them have been tried by individuals as well.

And then not having enough bridge to enjoy the high end gains they thought they would.

Though I must say, my aux bridge with it's custom intake manifold works exceedingly well.

That's really too bad. I even re-opened the thread at the exact time Chaotic_FC claimed he would have work done and not a single person saw the money or progress they were owned. Such a shame.

 

No I mean much less air velocity when it strokes !

Aaron have greater ability to explain stuff, ask him. lol

 

Anyone wanna buy this? I changed my plans I want something else now! If I will not sell it then I will use it, I might try it on ebay later.

So it is a
- two housings cermet coated never used as you can see it is a semi-peripheral port, 3 spark plugs ported exsaust ports and all finished and ready to be used
- rear, center and front plates, cermet coated, used maybe 25% or so, also ported
- manifold to work with semi-peripheral ports and 48mm Weber IDA which is also available, both new

Thanks!

 

Thats some awesome craftsmanship on the housings
Since your not afraid of time and effort would you not be able to come up with a similar setup that mazda used on the 6port engines to open or close a valve or sleeve insert in the runners of the semi-PPs, altho thats kinda dangerous if any parts dislodged becuz they would go directly into the engine destroying one amazing one off piece.

 

With out having too much to do a butterfly valve as near to the front as possible would be OK, the port is approximately 1 inch diameter.

 

But that is near pointless, for reasons I have already covered in this thread.

 

How do you know it's pointless did you tested it? Or you just created your own theory that you stick to? Have you ever own a p-port car? And I just wonder how did you build your manifold, where did you get the measurement?

 

I calculated my measurements based on standard equations. Search the forum for "calculate manifold runners" under the username "rotarygod".

I've explained why the valved semi-pp (and other valved overlap projects like valved peripheral porting and valved bridgeporting) won't have the effect most assume it would in post #68. It is unnecessary to actually build one to know how it would behave. Only knowledge of how the rotary works is necessary. Most people want to try these engines assuming that by putting in a valve all the exhaust overlap (and thus the negatives of bridge/peripheral engines at low RPMs) is eliminated. That is simply untrue. The only way to make that happen is to go to side exhaust ports, or make a valve that closes flush with the rotor housing wear surface.

 

Yeah, I don't know what to say, I'll try and see what it does, if I wont sell it !