Naturally Aspirated Performance Forum Discussion of naturally-aspirated rotary performance. No Power Adders, only pure rotary power! From the "12A" to the "RENESIS" and beyond.

Peripheral port project

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 20, 2008 | 06:28 PM
  #26  
aerosev's Avatar
aerosev
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
From: New Zealand
Im not buying the whole 'The carbon seals will basically destroy any real possibility of actually driving the car' I use these in my mildly extend ported series 1 and drive it everywhere, it has no problam starting and runs great, I basically used the carbons to prolong the life of the brand new rotahousings I bought and so I can lift the upper rpm limit of the engine, I have seen too many steel apex seals fly out the exhaust port due to people using them in high rpm applications
Reply
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 08:06 PM
  #27  
Ukrarex's Avatar
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
From: Dallas
Thumbs up

Wow this is a major project. What do u think its going to idle at 2000 2500 rpm. Can u put some pics up
Reply
Old Oct 2, 2008 | 02:11 AM
  #28  
EpitrochoidalPower!'s Avatar
Full Member
Tenured Member 05 Years
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
From: South Africa
Dunno where this misconception about PP idle comes from but ive seen two PP's that idle happily at round 1000-1200 (brapping of course) on 51 IDA's, and ive had my BP which is "supposed" to idle really high too idleing at 400-600 rpm (With lightweight flywheel), obviously turned it up and now its at a nice 900-1000, im on fuel injection, twin 50mm TB's, which makes a difference, but still, there are lots of guys down here running peripheral ports and full bridgeports on the street, my engine builder runs his peripheral port as his daily driver, ive been in it and it drives nicely. They no doubt arent perfect, but there seems to be alot of exaggeration as to how unfriendly they are supposed to be.

Oh and for blastingsideways12a i run carbon apex seals, and they dont affect driveability or idle (as i stated earlier i can get really low idles and im running throttle body injection, whereas your setup should be even better for idle), not sure where you got that information but carbon seals should be fine, and great for revving 9500rpm, i think u are worrying far too much about idleing, it really isnt a big issue here, u will easily get good idle with fuel injection, carbon seals or not. The DD PP of my engine builder is running carbon apex seals, drives nicely and idles nicely and makes great power, on a 51 IDA. I know there is alot of misinformation out there about BP and PP on this topic, almost any site i read says PP idles 2000+ etc, completely unstreetable, kills small children. Here in SA noone listens to that, BP and PP are the most common way people go here, so im speaking from first hand experience as to what ive seen and driven in, and what i drive. My engine builder has 4 rotary cars, even his wife drives an RX-2, He has two small pickup trucks, ones the daily driver PP and the other a J-Port, and his other car is a BP RX-3 (all 13B's)

Hope it helps

Last edited by EpitrochoidalPower!; Oct 2, 2008 at 02:31 AM.
Reply
Old Oct 2, 2008 | 11:34 AM
  #29  
peejay's Avatar
Old [Sch|F]ool
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 12,865
Likes: 571
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Originally Posted by EpitrochoidalPower!
Dunno where this misconception about PP idle comes from
Parrots. That's all.

The racers *do* often set the idles to 2500-3000rpm but they have other considerations to think about. (My assumption is to *guarantee* that it doesn't stall, or maybe reduce manifold vacuum when off throttle at high RPM for whatever reasons you may decide: reduce smoking, reduce the amount of fuel dumped through the idle circuit, etc)

Formula One engines idle at 6000, does that mean all multivalve V engines have to? Of course not...
Reply
Old Oct 2, 2008 | 10:24 PM
  #30  
ultimatejay's Avatar
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,148
Likes: 4
From: California
There's also a misconception of PPorts not having any low end when in fact they have more low end and all around better power band than a BP.
Reply
Old Oct 3, 2008 | 10:32 PM
  #31  
Ukrarex's Avatar
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
From: Dallas
sort of makes me whant to make a pport
Reply
Old Oct 3, 2008 | 11:33 PM
  #32  
Falken's Avatar
DIY Tubine Guy
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by ultimatejay
There's also a misconception of PPorts not having any low end when in fact they have more low end and all around better power band than a BP.
I also think it's just a generally simpler design.
Reply
Old Oct 4, 2008 | 11:20 AM
  #33  
peejay's Avatar
Old [Sch|F]ool
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 12,865
Likes: 571
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
I dunno, if I had to do it again, I'd do a late opening bridge port rather than a P-port.

Late opening being relative here... you can cut the eyebrows down only about 2/3rds of the way down, so the opening time is similar to that of a peripheral port.

Why would I do this?

I could bolt on any intake manifold that fits a standard engine, there's less machine work involved, rotor housings are more replaceable...

With EFI, could even use OEM fuel rails instead of having to make my own. Injecting the fuel close to the port is nice for efficiency, too.

Never mind that my own fuel rail took about 1/2 hour to make, including making/installing the fuel injector bungs... but that was 1/2 of work and about eight hours of thinking about it while driving to work, taking a shower, etc!
Reply
Old Oct 4, 2008 | 07:35 PM
  #34  
ultimatejay's Avatar
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,148
Likes: 4
From: California
Originally Posted by peejay
I dunno, if I had to do it again, I'd do a late opening bridge port rather than a P-port.

Late opening being relative here... you can cut the eyebrows down only about 2/3rds of the way down, so the opening time is similar to that of a peripheral port.

Why would I do this?

I could bolt on any intake manifold that fits a standard engine, there's less machine work involved, rotor housings are more replaceable...

With EFI, could even use OEM fuel rails instead of having to make my own. Injecting the fuel close to the port is nice for efficiency, too.

Never mind that my own fuel rail took about 1/2 hour to make, including making/installing the fuel injector bungs... but that was 1/2 of work and about eight hours of thinking about it while driving to work, taking a shower, etc!
That's all fine and dandy but you will never match the power and flow of a Pport with a BP bottom line!
Reply
Old Oct 5, 2008 | 09:38 PM
  #35  
peejay's Avatar
Old [Sch|F]ool
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 12,865
Likes: 571
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
A BP on the road is a lot more powerful than a P-port on the bench in pieces because you're still screwing around trying to make custom crap for it...
Reply
Old Oct 5, 2008 | 10:48 PM
  #36  
ultimatejay's Avatar
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,148
Likes: 4
From: California
Originally Posted by peejay
A BP on the road is a lot more powerful than a P-port on the bench in pieces because you're still screwing around trying to make custom crap for it...
Damn, I guess you had a bad experience.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ZacMan
Build Threads
4
Sep 19, 2015 09:20 PM
josef 91 vert
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
14
Sep 17, 2015 09:22 PM
Joe's_7
New Member RX-7 Technical
1
Sep 8, 2015 04:44 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 AM.