zero timing split and dual flame fronts
#28
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
Originally posted by peejay
Why not just run each rotor off of a single dual-ended coil? That way you KNOW the leading and trailing will fire at the same time, because they're being fired by the same coil.
Of course you'd need an aftermarket ECU running in four-cylinder waste-spark mode in order to do this...
Why not just run each rotor off of a single dual-ended coil? That way you KNOW the leading and trailing will fire at the same time, because they're being fired by the same coil.
Of course you'd need an aftermarket ECU running in four-cylinder waste-spark mode in order to do this...
Originally posted by twint78
how about running no trailing whatsoever?
how about running no trailing whatsoever?
#29
Old [Sch|F]ool
I lost about 20hp in a 120hp N/A by running without trailing. Went from calculated 120hp to calculated 100hp which corresponded to the factory stock 1/4mi times.
Well it was the other way around... I was only pulling stock times with an engine that had no business making only 100hp Then I reconnected the trailing timing and fixed the reason why I had it disconnected (I still owe ya one pp13bnos!) and all was well.
Well it was the other way around... I was only pulling stock times with an engine that had no business making only 100hp Then I reconnected the trailing timing and fixed the reason why I had it disconnected (I still owe ya one pp13bnos!) and all was well.
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: yeah
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well i was going to take and fill both holes in leading and trailing,then make two holes side by side where the lead hole was.then run two leadings for each rotor.will this most definitely make up for the trailing?i think it would right?
#31
RX-7 Bad Ass
iTrader: (55)
OK, dumb question time -
Besides an aftermarket fuel computer that shows the info on the screen, is there any way to find out what the timing advance, retard, and split is? As in, a gauge, a special timing light, whatever? I'm curious as well to find out what the stock ECU is doing at various loads and RPM's, but I'm not sure what the best way is to go about doing that.
Thanks,
Dale
Besides an aftermarket fuel computer that shows the info on the screen, is there any way to find out what the timing advance, retard, and split is? As in, a gauge, a special timing light, whatever? I'm curious as well to find out what the stock ECU is doing at various loads and RPM's, but I'm not sure what the best way is to go about doing that.
Thanks,
Dale
#32
FTD Wanna Be
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Off Topic speaks
Felix Wankel's original rotary engine (the real rotary engine) had the plugs in the rotor face.
You like apples? How bout them appples.
Who's in for a $1000 plug change?
You like apples? How bout them appples.
Who's in for a $1000 plug change?
#33
If I decide to lower the amount of split that I'm currently running, should I also consider changing my leading timing at all? Lower it a bit? Does running less split (or zero) create an increased potential for detonation on pump gas? I'm still fully sequential so perhaps more split at transition would be better? Just trying to be overly cautious:-)
Michel
Michel
#35
Old [Sch|F]ool
Originally posted by twint78
well i was going to take and fill both holes in leading and trailing,then make two holes side by side where the lead hole was.then run two leadings for each rotor.will this most definitely make up for the trailing?i think it would right?
well i was going to take and fill both holes in leading and trailing,then make two holes side by side where the lead hole was.then run two leadings for each rotor.will this most definitely make up for the trailing?i think it would right?
The combustion chamber is very long. The reason there are two spark plugs is to do a better job of getting that big long chamber ignited. Putting two plugs side by side (besides being an incredible project - have you ever even seen a rotor housing before??) would be completely pointless, because it's not the width that is a problem so much as it is the length.
Besides, the bowl in the rotor for the most part "contains" the charge to the spark plug area so the majority of it is exposed to the initial flame. You wouldn't be able to get the spark plugs close enough together that they'd be exposed to the bowl.
#36
fart on a friends head!!!
spark plugs that close together would also get very hot. that wouldnt be very good on the detonation factor. that area would be burning up. one also has to wonder who you would contract to put that precise layer of chrome on there too??
paul
paul
#37
03 Cobra Killer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: All Over
Posts: 1,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Maxthe7man
Hey nocab, at somepoints there was 18-20 degrees of split above 2000 rpm, at first I just knocked it down to 15 for a about a 5hpgain, then after reading alot on the zero split, decided to go down towards zero, but not all the way, I am so far pleased with the results, better than I would have expected.
I really felt the difference in the car, I usually don't bother g-teching until there is a definite seat o the pants pull factor, I knew the car was pulling harder, I think with the g-tech, the rpm at which you spool can really play with the hp number, and given that it made the turbo spool that little bt quicker, thats largely responsible for the increase.
By the way thats one of the largest hp increases I have ever seen from any tuning change I have done on my rx-7's.
Hey nocab, at somepoints there was 18-20 degrees of split above 2000 rpm, at first I just knocked it down to 15 for a about a 5hpgain, then after reading alot on the zero split, decided to go down towards zero, but not all the way, I am so far pleased with the results, better than I would have expected.
I really felt the difference in the car, I usually don't bother g-teching until there is a definite seat o the pants pull factor, I knew the car was pulling harder, I think with the g-tech, the rpm at which you spool can really play with the hp number, and given that it made the turbo spool that little bt quicker, thats largely responsible for the increase.
By the way thats one of the largest hp increases I have ever seen from any tuning change I have done on my rx-7's.
Dyno day coming up next weekend, so I'll verify these findings on the dyno.
K
#38
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Re: zero timing split and dual flame fronts
Originally posted by spyfish007
As some of you know I have been running zero timing split from time to time with good results (ie no blow motor). Before I commit to it full time I was hoping someone would answer my final question.
Assuming that both plugs fire at the same time, how come the dual flame fronts don't compress the air between them enough to cause detonation?
As some of you know I have been running zero timing split from time to time with good results (ie no blow motor). Before I commit to it full time I was hoping someone would answer my final question.
Assuming that both plugs fire at the same time, how come the dual flame fronts don't compress the air between them enough to cause detonation?
Inherently then even when both plugs are fired together, the leading plug gets a head start on the trailing, and realy the trailing is coming in on the final part of the combustion process, this is even more acentuated when you put a CDI on the leading plugs as CDI ignitions a much faster than transistorized ones.
Basically the limit of T&L is down to the acurate firing of you ignition computer or system, so long as the T does not fire before the L then there will be conflicting flame front, it is physically imposible due to the design of the plug clearnce volumes and their exposure to the combustion chamber.
As you know when you fire the T & L closer together in N/A or Forced Induction motor you get a mucher better more complete burn, which gives you more power in higher engine speeds, this is what I have found in my testing.
Good luck with it.
#39
Rotors still spinning
iTrader: (1)
I adjusted the timing split on my GSL-SE from the factory 15 degrees to 10 degrees. Noticable improvement in power. Average 1/4 mile times according to G-Tech were 1/4 second faster. Adjusted to 0 split and tried again. Car went slower than with 10 degree split. It felt weaker throughout the rpm range especially at low to mid rpms. I don't think ultimate top end power was decreased though. I'm definitely going to stay at 10 degrees for an n/a. Turbos are a different ballgame altogether. BDC alters his split according to different rpm and boost levels with great results. Never gets less than about 4 degrees split ever and goes about as high as 10 or so.
#40
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by RX794
I know that the Factory ECU(Don't laugh, it's very accurate), Power FC, Electromotive(Tec1,2,3), and Motec can control these splits properly due to these units having really good ignition accuracy, and the speed of at which their processors handle the ignition system. Just my 2 cents.
I know that the Factory ECU(Don't laugh, it's very accurate), Power FC, Electromotive(Tec1,2,3), and Motec can control these splits properly due to these units having really good ignition accuracy, and the speed of at which their processors handle the ignition system. Just my 2 cents.
As for the rest of the thread, Mazda R&D has already proved a "zero" split makes for more power, period.  There should be a FSAE paper on this - http://www.sae.org/
-Ted
#41
NYC's Loudest FD
Originally posted by RETed
Oh come on, I know for a fact the Electromotive TECII absolutely cannot do this with a rotary engine unless they have come out with a new version of software that allows it to run just one magnetic pick-up.
As for the rest of the thread, Mazda R&D has already proved a "zero" split makes for more power, period.  There should be a FSAE paper on this - http://www.sae.org/
-Ted
Oh come on, I know for a fact the Electromotive TECII absolutely cannot do this with a rotary engine unless they have come out with a new version of software that allows it to run just one magnetic pick-up.
As for the rest of the thread, Mazda R&D has already proved a "zero" split makes for more power, period.  There should be a FSAE paper on this - http://www.sae.org/
-Ted
#42
Rotors still spinning
iTrader: (1)
I personally couldn't give a rat's *** what Mazda's R&D says! I've already corrected/improved upon so many of their mistakes I just wait and see how I can fix their newest endeavours. Based on pictures ask me how I would improve their Renesis. I see a mistake already and no one has seen it in person taken apart yet. Admittedly half of their problems are due to cost cutting and emissions but even then they still have much room for improvement.
I don't think there is any problem with ultimate top end power with zero split. I do think it suffers at lower RPM's though. My decision on this is because I tried it.
I don't think there is any problem with ultimate top end power with zero split. I do think it suffers at lower RPM's though. My decision on this is because I tried it.
#43
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by RX794
Check again, I know it can.
Check again, I know it can.
-Ted
#44
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by rotarygod
I personally couldn't give a rat's *** what Mazda's R&D says!
I personally couldn't give a rat's *** what Mazda's R&D says!
Mazda developed bridge porting.
Mazda developed peripheral porting.
Hell, Mazda developed the engine.
Overlooking these FSAE papers that Mazda engineers have done is really eliminating a source of some very useful information.
-Ted
#45
Rotors still spinning
iTrader: (1)
I didn't quite mean it that way. What I was referring to is Mazda R&D's zero timing split opinion. I can't imagine Mazda has honestly claimed that it works better or if someone is trying to interpret for them. I suspect it is the latter. I've tried zero split and it is complete bullshit on an n/a at anything other than high rpm's.
FWIW NSU/Wankel developed the peripheral port. Come to think about it everyone who played around with the rotary developed the pp. Wankels first little engine had pp's. Mazda did develop bridge porting as a way to cheat because they couldn't use peripheral porting. Of course Mazda developed the rotary engine. They were the only ones to keep using it. I praise them for it. Imagine how much better the engine could be now if everyone had tried to develop it. You don't honestly think the Renesis is perfect do you? Mazda's R&D has many good engineers and they definitely deserve their credit. Like every major company out there they still don't do everything right. You interpreted my words wrong or maybe I just wasn't clear but I don't hate them. I hate the penny pinching lawyer/bankers that affect their designs.
FWIW NSU/Wankel developed the peripheral port. Come to think about it everyone who played around with the rotary developed the pp. Wankels first little engine had pp's. Mazda did develop bridge porting as a way to cheat because they couldn't use peripheral porting. Of course Mazda developed the rotary engine. They were the only ones to keep using it. I praise them for it. Imagine how much better the engine could be now if everyone had tried to develop it. You don't honestly think the Renesis is perfect do you? Mazda's R&D has many good engineers and they definitely deserve their credit. Like every major company out there they still don't do everything right. You interpreted my words wrong or maybe I just wasn't clear but I don't hate them. I hate the penny pinching lawyer/bankers that affect their designs.
#46
Freedoms worth a buck o'5
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
On my own N/A, I found that my roughness and lack of power at lower RPMS was because the timing split wasn't there at idle, and low rpms, low load conditions, on an N/a, the timing split is part of the throttle tip in/accelaration programming running without split all the time makes it rough and jerky at low load..Max
#47
NYC's Loudest FD
Originally posted by RETed
Like I said before, does it require one mag pick-up or two?  Can't you answer a simple question like that?
-Ted
Like I said before, does it require one mag pick-up or two?  Can't you answer a simple question like that?
-Ted
#48
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by RX794
Yes, use 4 Electromotive dual post coils in a wasted spark setup.
Yes, use 4 Electromotive dual post coils in a wasted spark setup.
So what's the answer about the number of mag pick-ups?  One or two?
-Ted
#50
Money Pit
iTrader: (1)
So, if the timing split is reduced on the Trailing, then isn't this effectively just advancing the timing? (Trailing firing before leading at a given rotor position/combustion chamber)I could see this adding more HP but at the risk of detenation (of course I'm sure you guys take this into account while tuning). Could you not get the same or similar results by leaving the stock split but advancing the overall timing? Interesting.
Frank
Frank