When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Here are the results from my build.
S5 block streetport
rx8 eccentric
lightened, side clearances and balanced rotating assembly
E&J apex seals
Solid lower dowel, hollow one piece upper dowel and turblown engine studs
BW S369 SXE 1.0 ar
Twin AEM 400 LPH pumps
4 X ID2600 injectors
Pump E85 testing 73%
Custom tapered runner turbo manifold with twin tial 44mm gates
T2 LIM with Fd UIM and throttle body
3" dp into 3.5" then tapers back to 3" at muffler
Cd009
Tilton twin disk
8.8 rear
Haltech
Its tuned by TunedByShawn
659RWHP 555RWTQ 38psi
Plan is to figure out a different intake manifold setup. Will probably end up making my own as the options are limited for the t2 block. Has anyone ran the Rotary works lim? Looks like its just cx racing to me in pictures.
can’t recall if I sold you the turbo or not, same specs?
it’s great for up in that range as other past threads show, but for the low-mid 500 range the 362-364 is going to be a better fit.
but at 38 psig there seem to be some restrictions, so a freer flowing intake swap makes sense. Somebody did make 719 whp with an S369SX-E at 32 psig in a thread here, but his street porting was max’d out race size especially the exhaust port. It only made about 500 ft-lbs, so your TQ output looks good.
"EMAP would be almost 3:1 at 38PSI of boost with that turbo. Not going to want to make top end."
yes, i put a post together on that and scrubbed it.
my reaction to the dyno graph was that peak torque at 5700 is at least 600 rpm low for that setup. there are multiple factors that could be the cause... primarily ports and manifolding.
the 369 compressor map shows you were still in a 72% efficiency island so that is a nice fit and a positive rather than negative as to your power..
it has always irritated me (just can't help it) when i see a dyno sheet in STD correction which adds 3% from the correct correction which is SAE. that's 20 hp with just a keystroke.
nevertheless, i offer congratulations on a nice build and tune.
Last edited by Howard Coleman; Apr 4, 2024 at 06:33 AM.
can’t recall if I sold you the turbo or not, same specs?
it’s great for up in that range as other past threads show, but for the low-mid 500 range the 362-364 is going to be a better fit.
but at 38 psig there seem to be some restrictions, so a freer flowing intake swap makes sense. Somebody did make 719 whp with an S369SX-E at 32 psig in a thread here, but his street porting was max’d out race size especially the exhaust port. It only made about 500 ft-lbs, so your TQ output looks good.
Yea I got it from you. I suspect his intake manifold setup and the scalloped rotors are helping quite a bit. I was impressed with the torque. I don’t think I ported overly big. Based off some racing beat templates. I’ll try to find some pics of them. My turbo manifold is a tapered runner design too.
Originally Posted by Slides
That's big power at that engine speed. I would have expected an extend to peak a bit higher. Is the expectation another 1000rpm with a new manifold?
I think the 1.0 ar is not helping top end either. We were revving to 8k. I let off early a few times.
Originally Posted by Howard Coleman
"EMAP would be almost 3:1 at 38PSI of boost with that turbo. Not going to want to make top end."
yes, i put a post together on that and scrubbed it.
my reaction to the dyno graph was that peak torque at 5700 is at least 600 rpm low for that setup. there are multiple factors that could be the cause... primarily ports and manifolding.
the 369 compressor map shows you were still in a 72% efficiency island so that is a nice fit and a positive rather than negative as to your power..
it has always irritated me (just can't help it) when i see a dyno sheet in STD correction which adds 3% from the correct correction which is SAE. that's 20 hp with just a keystroke.
nevertheless, i offer congratulations on a nice build and tune.
I’ll try to find pics of the manifold and porting. The turbo manifold is a tapered runner design. I really want to upgrade intake manifold sooner than later and see how big of a difference it makes.
as i previously posted, the single item that jumped off the dyno sheet was the location of peak torque. a proper system with a SX-E 69 would locate peak torque around 6300.
thanks for posting the pictures (post 14) as they provide the answer and it is your manifold.
you have a 400 hp manifold.
that's not to say it can make more power as, of course, it did. just not make the power efficiently.
the problem is your runner size. the exhaust port is 50 mm/1.97 inches.
exhaust port area 3.05 sq inches
your initial runner area is 3.36 sq inches (2 inch pipe 2.067 inside diameter)
the second section of your runners is a reducer to 1 1/2 pipe which is 1.61 inside diameter
reduced runner area 2.04 square inches
your runner area is reduced by THIRTY THREE PERCENT versus the port area and THIRTY NINE PERCENT versus the preceding initial 2 inch section.
the T4 flange area is 2.68 square inches which is a 12% reduction to the port so some reduction needs to take place. certainly it is way less than the 33% on your manifold and ideally the reduction should take place linearly over a number of inches... mine is 4 inches...
you have a high drag manifold that will become significantly inefficient as flow through your turbo increases.
one other area to consider relates to your ports. your secondaries and exhaust port look O K and are not your problem.
the primary 13BREW port is a disaster for a 400+ app. Mazda clearly purposely applied the brakes on primary flow. either for fuel economy or emissions. there are the makings of a fairly good port hiding behind afterthought barriers. i spend much more time on the primary port than the secondaries. not only does it greatly add efficient flow but it also moves the flow to a more balanced position. flow ideally should enter the rotor from both sides equally. since the runners are smaller, even after opening them as well as the port, flow equality isn't achieved but the ball is moved much much closers to the goal line.
after almost doubling the primary port size i note that my primaries are still capable of doing around 21 mpg steady state on the highway around 13.9 AFR... there is no downside to cranking on the primaries and lots of upside.
do you have a picture of your primary port?
Last edited by Howard Coleman; Apr 5, 2024 at 07:50 AM.
Peak torque seems to be about the same rpm as the guys 719whp pull that is the same turbo. I dont think the manifold being tapered is causing any issue at all. Same diameter as the t4 flange inlets, same taper as some well known manifolds. I dont have pictures of the primaries. The lower power i believe is due to the stock t2 lim and fd upper. Thats why i want to upgrade them next. And this isnt a rew, its a t2.
well I’m going to disagree with some of those things based on the previously posted thread links below; which you guys participated in and didn’t express any of those things back then, but I did misstate the boost; it was 719 whp @ 30.5 psig with the same turbo and turbine housing, also with scalloped rotors, but it had a modified REW intake manifold with the UIM shortened and different plenum
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
Somebody did make 719 whp with an S369SX-E at 32 psig in a thread here, but his street porting was max’d out race size especially the exhaust port. It only made about 500 ft-lbs, so your TQ output looks good.
Originally Posted by pieced together from the two links above
Engine is a REW, large street port self designed, s4 scalloped rotors, E85, SXE369 with 1.0ar, Turblown EWG cast manifold, full 4” exhaust, turblown studs, solid stock location dowels, 4x id2000 2x id1050x, custom upper intake and port matched xcessive lower, M&W pro12 for leading and AEM smart coils for trailing, AEM Infinity with beta firmware, 155 deg thermostat and as big as I could fit intercooler and radiator.
Power is going through a 4 speed dog box, 3.5” drive shaft, and a 8.8 rearend.
which with a restricted intake system it makes sense to me that it made less power with more boost, plus some other likely differences as well.
and Howard, with all due respect, it’s not a 400 hp turbo manifold. The runners are direct and short, and there are plenty of long, all 1.5” pipe runners making well over 400 hp on a lot less boost. It’s overstated, but for that power level 2” would be preferred.
.
It was around 580whp on 30psi if I recall correctly. I believe that fd had a xcessive lim as well correct? With intake differences and scalloped rotors 120-140hp isn’t unrealistic in my opinion. I really want to upgrade to turblowns upper and lower. I have their turbo velocity stack on way that I will be doing a dyno comparison on.
Xcessive LIM in my testing never showed a HP difference. I did a back to back with nothing else changed and it did nothing. When I used the injectors that spray fuel into the primary ports instead of the secondary ports I actually lost 10-15hp on the same boost (Testing was done at 30psi of boost on a 700HP car)
The upper intake on that purple car has shortened the runners pretty significantly, this would shift the torque curve to the right hence why it makes more peak HP.
In reality if your enjoying the car, It doesn't matter what any of the keyboard experts here think
I never considered you to be in that group, but if you say so …
BTW, is the Madame G35-900 every going to make it onto the dyno?
.
one day. Dyno isn't the only part of building a car. It will get a turn on the dyno when it does.
We have another engine we are currently completing which is a street port with a Genuine Garrett G30-770 with a 1.06 T4 housing. Will be 93 octane so will be interesting to see how that goes.
Wish Garrett did a g35-770, would a great turbo option for a ported pump fuel rotary.
color me very impressed ... 
, it’s quite an impressive project overall.