I just change the main jet and the air corrector jet. Then I might change the emulsion tube and sometimes the idle jet. For a bog I might change the squirter and/or the pump bleedback plus the pump rod on rare occations. Mostly just the spring.
I can change the choke size if I'm having to much trouble getting rid of a bog or on the other hand can use more top end.

Not in that particular order though. It would depend on other clues.
I would just set the timing at the known max below peak tq with maybe a retard above when peak boost came in.
Uh, OK.
If I install Webber down drafts or a Holley 4-barrel on my 13b-MSP I'll keep that in mind. :rolleyes:

Well, I'm basically tuning for 7.5 PSI, but my wastegate actuator is too stiff so I've seen spikes as high as 9 PSI, so I have my maps run out at 9.5 PSI just for that eventuality. I doubt there is enough fuel available to support 9.5 PSI at redline.
I've had no luck finding a 5 or 6 PSI actuator from any of my usual sources, so I may have to dismantle the 7 PSI actuator that I have and mutilate the spring.
I am going to try to get a set of secondaries from a 4-speed RX-8 and drop them in where the second primaries are on my car. That will give me 10 or 15% more fuel to play with and no need to weld extra injectors in place.
The stock maps barely ever touch the second primaries - they aren't even turned on below 6700 RPM.

I'd be reticent to just blow away your Greddy tune. They put a lot of thought into it and it would be better to start there then from scratch if you have the option.

Also, I have my injectors wired differently - I don't have the primaries hooked up to the E-Manage because tuning them is seemingly pointless - they are mapped all over the place and are maxed out by 3750 RPM or so. I rely on the secondaries to cover the added fuel after that point. I am also running the second primaries as sub-injectors so I can turn them on at will. They now come on under boost fairly rich up to 3750 RPM where I shut them down a bit and switch over to the add injection map for the secondaries.
Greddy didn't do it this way so my maps probably wont work right on your setup.
Of course, I could generate a whole new set of maps for you on the dyno, I'd just rather have the Greddy maps to fall back on and analyze.

what amount of boost are you tuning for Jeff? If I can't get the password for my e-manage, I may ask to have a copy of your base map so I have something to work with when I go to the tuner.

I finally did it!!! Two days and 51 pages later; I've finally caught up with this thread. You guys are making me soooooo jelous with your turbo talk! Congratulations to both of you, have some serious fun for me!

emsdad - 51 pages at 7 psi :)

Jon and Jeff - and others, Charles, Horse, to name a few, have shown us that the seals are built for FI under a controlled boost. True Renesis innovators for the USDM 13B-MSP SE3P. My hat is off to you all of you...

Beers!

Well, to be perfectly honest, no one has proven any such thing yet. We won't know the answer to that until someone has been running under boost for a decent period of time. I don't think anyone expected the enging to instantly grenade itself. That said, the initial news has certainly been good! Its been especially interesting, as the rumors have been that the side port motor wasn't as suitable for turbo charging as previous versions, but so far I would say it seems perfectly suitable to me.

jds

emsdad - 51 pages at 7 psi :)

Jon and Jeff - and others, Charles, Horse, to name a few, have shown us that the seals are built for FI under a controlled boost. True Renesis innovators for the USDM 13B-MSP SE3P. My hat is off to you all of you...

Beers!

There is one thing I can’t figure out, when tuning under WOT does the ECU read from the o2 sensor? I remember reading somewhere here that it doesn’t. So, if it doesn’t read from the o2 sensor how can you tune properly?

did anyone get the crack for the emanage? I need it.

-Ryan

The sensor is still working, the ECU simply isn't using it for calculations - which is good. You don't want the ECU to see that you are intentionally running rich and try to pull fuel out because it reads it on the WBO2S.

You tune it the same way you tune any car. You take A/F readings under different, progressively increasing load conditions and then add or subtract injector duty cycle until you hit your target A/F under that load condition.

There is one thing I can’t figure out, when tuning under WOT does the ECU read from the o2 sensor? I remember reading somewhere here that it doesn’t. So, if it doesn’t read from the o2 sensor how can you tune properly?

The sensor is still working, the ECU simply isn't using it for calculations - which is good. You don't want the ECU to see that you are intentionally running rich and try to pull fuel out because it reads it on the WBO2S.

You tune it the same way you tune any car. You take A/F readings under different, progressively increasing load conditions and then add or subtract injector duty cycle until you hit your target A/F under that load condition.

or to put it in laymans terms: Use a wideband
:p

Yes - and in a lot of ways it is convenient. Cool too.
But doing it with a laptop is a bit easier.

I still use both. I create a MAP on my laptop and load it into the E-Manage.
Then I drive and log on the Profec and make tuning changes.
When I get home I watch the log and offload the tweaked MAP back into the laptop where I analyze it and make changes to smooth transitions and look for minor mistakes or glitches.
Then I save it trough my wireless network from the garage and load it back into the E-Manage.

Wow, tracking maps, adjusting a/f, monitoring psi, it seems that having a turbo is a heck of a lot of work. Can't the average 8 owner just install it and drive it and not worry about tweaking, or is this a necessary evil of having a turbo?

Sorry i couldnt read the 51 pages :eek: , but what did the car put down before and after the turbo?

Wow, tracking maps, adjusting a/f, monitoring psi, it seems that having a turbo is a heck of a lot of work. Can't the average 8 owner just install it and drive it and not worry about tweaking, or is this a necessary evil of having a turbo?
Absolutely not - especially if you buy a tested kit like the Greddy.

However, some of us like that sort of thing and if you want to push the kit harder than it comes configured, you need to do that kind of stuff initially.

You can just bolt on the Greddy kit and go if you like.

Wow, tracking maps, adjusting a/f, monitoring psi, it seems that having a turbo is a heck of a lot of work. Can't the average 8 owner just install it and drive it and not worry about tweaking, or is this a necessary evil of having a turbo?

so far it seems if you keep this out of the box...you will be fine to leave it alone...

now...coming from a tuning background...i would strongly be against this...i would at least become familiar enough with the system and how your car interacts with the new mods...to me...and i'm sure others, i think it is absolutely VITAL to monitor and tweak as you go...no kit OTB is perfect...there is always room for improvement and EVERY car is different and will handle the mods differently...also once you do a major upgrade, i.e. Turbo, you have pretty much rendered "leaving it be" out of the question...the more you add, change, take away, the more tweaking, observing, and research you will need to do...once you begin mods of this magnitude...there is the "necessary inherent evil" of constant tweaking...especially if you live where you have 4 seasons..

so far it seems if you keep this out of the box...you will be fine to leave it alone...

now...coming from a tuning background...i would strongly be against this...i would at least become familiar enough with the system and how your car interacts with the new mods.
I'd agree with that.

...once you begin mods of this magnitude...there is the "necessary inherent evil" of constant tweaking...especially if you live where you have 4 seasons..
I guess. Or you can just get it right and leave it alone.
After the initial tuning of my Miata in 1999, I didn't touch it again until just a few weeks ago when I switched to a smaller turbo.
Just bolted that on and that was it.
Once I got the tuning dialed in, I only felt the need to twiddle with it if I had a new toy that I wanted to test on a "known entity".

lol...guess i should've stuck with Mazda's...

i probably shouldn't have said "constant"...i know on my 300Z SMZ..it felt like i was always tweaking things...but I was also changing stuff around too...so...your right...new toys = more tweaking...

that's funny...this is probably the first time you've ever agreed with something i said...i feel ...rather enlightened...

Absolutely not - especially if you buy a tested kit like the Greddy.

However, some of us like that sort of thing and if you want to push the kit harder than it comes configured, you need to do that kind of stuff initially.

You can just bolt on the Greddy kit and go if you like.

That's good to know..

Initially I'd just want to bolt it on, and run and be happy, but of course as more time and $ come my way, I'd be more than willing to learn more about it and tweak. Its just that most of us dont have the time, equipment or know how to do all these awesome things you folks are doing. :o I'd just like to know that going with a kit like this could be simple too, yet could also be advanced as you want it to be!

That's good to know..

Initially I'd just want to bolt it on, and run and be happy, but of course as more time and $ come my way, I'd be more than willing to learn more about it and tweak. Its just that most of us dont have the time, equipment or know how to do all these awesome things you folks are doing. :o I'd just like to know that going with a kit like this could be simple too, yet could also be advanced as you want it to be!

That's the route I'm going. I'm going to keep the stock tune on the greddy kit for another 100 miles or so before I go to my tuner.

That's the route I'm going. I'm going to keep the stock tune on the greddy kit for another 100 miles or so before I go to my tuner.

Yeah, we gotta find out how much boost the stock internals and drive chain
can handle :P

And I guess the only way to find out how much abuse it can take is to break it.

Going to hijack my own thread for a minute and direct your attention over to this thread (http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?p=699372#post699372). I posted some pics of Richard Pauls short throw shifter which he asked me to test out for him. Top notch product there. Details there so go check it out!

Now back to the topic at hand. I don't see any part of the drive train breaking down due to the turbo kit. At 7psi it really isn't much more stress on the engine and transmission. The only thing I see 'going' is the stock clutch. I was expecting to have to replace it because the stock clutch probably can't handle the extra torque the turbo delivers.

Bad news on the password for the emanage. Talked to Greddy and they dont give out the passwords because of some copyright issue with Trust Japan. Only thing that can be done is load a base map and do your own map.

Jason

Bad news on the password for the emanage. Talked to Greddy and they dont give out the passwords because of some copyright issue with Trust Japan. Only thing that can be done is load a base map and do your own map.

Jason

Crap. Now isn't that some crap... I wish they would have included that information along with the kit.. Oh well.. Jeff, looks like I may use your base map as a reference after all.

what format is are the password protected maps in? brute force could work...even if it locks up after 3 tires, just let it run all night on a cycle

lets discuss this some more...anything is possible ;)

Assuming it is 5 letters and from what I remember the password is case sensitive.
That leaves 52^5 possibilities. Assuming that the com port locks out for 1 second after 3 tries we end up with roughly ~2 years (since we normally find the correct code after trying 50% of the possiblities) to crack the code. We better get on it!

If 1000 people buy the kit then we could do some distributed form of brute force crack.

Find a way to prevent the com port from disabling and we are on a roll..

Sorry i couldnt read the 51 pages :eek: , but what did the car put down before and after the turbo?


Why not? I did it!

Anyway, there have been no times posted as of yet.

Why not? I did it!

Anyway, there have been no times posted as of yet.

I took my RX-8 to the dyno before and I had a max of 177.16whp and 129.88ft/lbs of torque. I'll post numbers friday of the dyno results with the turbo on.

-Jon

A search on an e-manage forum turned up some information about having to call the support number that came with the kit and requesting a form to wave liability in order to get the password.

Not sure if thats true but its worth a try.

A search on an e-manage forum turned up some information about having to call the support number that came with the kit and requesting a form to wave liability in order to get the password.

Not sure if thats true but its worth a try.

Thank you sir! I'll try to find out more info on that tomorrow.

in greddy's finite wisdom, im sure the password is the same for all the kits they ship for all cars...might be time to register on some 'enemy' boards and do a little recon

Crap. Now isn't that some crap... I wish they would have included that information along with the kit.. Oh well.. Jeff, looks like I may use your base map as a reference after all.So do we have any HACKERS reading this thread? :D

Hey Jon, It's omecron's birthday today, why not take him for a helo ride as a present. I'll pay the rental. :D :D :DHey, I was Airborn and AirAssault in the Army. I have no problems with any kinda flying machine. If you pick me up, I'm there baby! :D

Hey, I was Airborn (paratrooper) and AirAssault (helicopter rapelling) in the Army. I have no problems with any kinda flying machine. If you pick me up, I'm there baby! :D
Really, what unit were you in? I was in the 82nd Airborne.. to be specific, 1/505 Parachue Infantry Regiment, Scout Platoon. My MOS was 11B3VB4

I found this little blurb out there.... maybe it will help, but I doubt it:

no, as far as I know. greddy emailed a stock map for 96-2000 19t
kit and the hooked the stock e-manage to the laptop using the
support tool and then they loaded the map. Im not sure of this but I
was told that when you connect the e-manage to the support tool and
put any random number, the e-manage zeroizes itself and then you can
do whatever to it. it basically unlocks itself. <
> Like I said, im not 100% sure cause my tuner did it but that is
what he said he did.

Found it here.. but I'm sure it has already been checked out:
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/emanage/message/8738

We'll get it eventually... :cool:

Damn it Jon, there goes your good idea :)

Omicron, maybe you should move those last two posts to the lounge. :rolleyes:
Maybe I'll let up on you in a couple of years. :D

I found this little blurb out there.... maybe it will help, but I doubt it:

no, as far as I know. greddy emailed a stock map for 96-2000 19t
kit and the hooked the stock e-manage to the laptop using the
support tool and then they loaded the map. Im not sure of this but I
was told that when you connect the e-manage to the support tool and
put any random number, the e-manage zeroizes itself and then you can
do whatever to it. it basically unlocks itself. <
> Like I said, im not 100% sure cause my tuner did it but that is
what he said he did.

Found it here.. but I'm sure it has already been checked out:
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/emanage/message/8738

We'll get it eventually... :cool:
Jeff and I tried that already and it didn't work. I just sent an email to GReddy USA to ask about signing this waiver of liability so I can get the password. I am also going to call them tomorrow and inquire about it over the phone.

-Jon

That would be really great if you could tune it yourself, but if you intend to, BE SURE TO BUY A WBO2 GAUGE FIRST, and an EGT couldn't hurt either.

Congrats on the kit, hopefully you can get to Atco this spring and run 13s.

Really, what unit were you in? I was in the 82nd Airborne.. to be specific, 1/505 Parachue Infantry Regiment, Scout Platoon. My MOS was 11B3VB4Never had a chance to do anything with the classes, which I attended in 1980 and 1981. Tried to get into Ranger school (was headed for SF) and actually had a slot in '82, then lost it due to the military cutbacks of the time. :( Wound up becoming a Chemical Decontamination officer.

Damn it Jon, there goes your good idea :)

Omicron, maybe you should move those last two posts to the lounge. :rolleyes:
Maybe I'll let up on you in a couple of years. :DYeah yeah... :D

That would be really great if you could tune it yourself, but if you intend to, BE SURE TO BUY A WBO2 GAUGE FIRST, and an EGT couldn't hurt either.

Congrats on the kit, hopefully you can get to Atco this spring and run 13s.
13s are good. :p

13s are good. :p
Hey, what's up, sugar? Forgot you had an 8 as well. ;)

That would be really great if you could tune it yourself, but if you intend to, BE SURE TO BUY A WBO2 GAUGE FIRST, and an EGT couldn't hurt either.

Though I agree that you should have a WBO2S (I have the LM-1 installed in my RX-8), the factory WBO2S as read through the CAN bus is adequate for tuning (this is not the same as the narrow-band O2 sensor in other cars).

For tuning purposes, an EGT gauge is pretty useless.

So is the EGT good for anything?

So is the EGT good for anything?
Yes.
Once you have tuned for maximum torque at the proper A/F, you can take an EGT reading.
That temperature will be the correct temperature for your particular motor and setup. (It has no correlation to anyone else's numbers, regardless of how high or low it is. For most rotary engines, it is not unusual to see EGTs as high as 1800°F. Even higher is possible. Don't forget, this is the temperature of the gas, not the metal.)

You can then look at that number under different conditions to determine if the engine is optimally tuned for maximum torque.

Anyone notice that this thread has been viewed almost 46,000 times?

Though I agree that you should have a WBO2S (I have the LM-1 installed in my RX-8), the factory WBO2S as read through the CAN bus is adequate for tuning (this is not the same as the narrow-band O2 sensor in other cars).

It comes with a WBO2??? Wow. It's a full wideband? 5v sensor??

I'm afraid to ask what the CAN bus is because I fear I'll hear "search, n00b". :)


For tuning purposes, an EGT gauge is pretty useless.

That's not true. I don't care how rich your A:F ratio is, if you're hitting 1500F, you may want to lay off the throttle and figure out why you're running so hot.

Yes.
For most rotary engines, it is not unusual to see EGTs as high as 1800°F. Even higher is possible. Don't forget, this is the temperature of the gas, not the metal.)


1800F? HOLY SH@#.

1800F? HOLY SH@#. Like I said, EGTs (on their own) are useless.
My MX-3 was happy at 1600°F at the torque peak.
My Miata sits around 1100°F.
At some point I'll probably probe my RX-8, but I've seen EGTs reported by the ECU via CAN in the 1500°F range, so it has probably been higher.

If EGTs really were an indicator of doom for your engine, 1275°F would be the magic number as your rotor housings melted.

Assuming it is 5 letters and from what I remember the password is case sensitive.
That leaves 52^5 possibilities. Assuming that the com port locks out for 1 second after 3 tries we end up with roughly ~2 years (since we normally find the correct code after trying 50% of the possiblities) to crack the code. We better get on it!

If 1000 people buy the kit then we could do some distributed form of brute force crack.

Find a way to prevent the com port from disabling and we are on a roll..

I'm doing a little more analysis: It take about 80 bytes per transaction to unlock the emanage communicate over a 9600 baud speed. This mean we can request 15 tries per seconds. I've have tried using my own written code and haven't experience the port shutdown from eManage yet after so many tries. So assuming no downtime with your 52^5 possiblity, it would take roughly 10.5 months to be exact :eek: Either we got the password or the eManage would be fried by then :D So my best bet would be open the EPROM and read the data/password from there.

Like I said, EGTs (on their own) are useless.

Not if you know the maximum safe EGT on a given motor. But regardless, there's no reason NOT to have an EGT on a boosted RX-8.

My MX-3 was happy at 1600°F at the torque peak.
My Miata sits around 1100°F.

1100 @ WOT and 90mph?


At some point I'll probably probe my RX-8, but I've seen EGTs reported by the ECU via CAN in the 1500°F range, so it has probably been higher.

Wow, the RX-8 has sensors galore from the factory...

If EGTs really were an indicator of doom for your engine, 1275°F would be the magic number as your rotor housings melted.

Why would your rotor housings melt at 1275°F ?

Anyone peel of the sticker and tell me the rotary switch setting that Greddy is using on the Turbo E-manage??

@ MazdaManiac - Have we met before? Did you have a black MX-3 with two blue(?) racing stripes? If so, we met at Import Wars in 03 (in PA)...and I've seen videos of your boosted MX-3.

I'm doing a little more analysis: It take about 80 bytes per transaction to unlock the emanage communicate over a 9600 baud speed. This mean we can request 15 tries per seconds. I've have tried using my own written code and haven't experience the port shutdown from eManage yet after so many tries. So assuming no downtime with your 52^5 possiblity, it would take roughly 10.5 months to be exact :eek: Either we got the password or the eManage would be fried by then :D So my best bet would be open the EPROM and read the data/password from there.

The problem is that the com port locks out after 3 tries. This sounds very easy
to hack though.

Not if you know the maximum safe EGT on a given motor. But regardless, there's no reason NOT to have an EGT on a boosted RX-8.
But you can't really know this unless you have found out the hard way.
Just because one RX-8 hits a certain temp at max torque doesn't mean another will do the same.
That said, I am a fan of over instrumentation! :D


1100 @ WOT and 90mph?
WOT, 7200 RPM in third on the dyno.


Wow, the RX-8 has sensors galore from the factory...
It calculates the temp from the WBO2S and NBO2S. Since it has calibrated the sensors and has a known, fixed table of values, it can compute the temp from the change in impedance.


Why would your rotor housings melt at 1275°F ?
I was kidding. That is the melting point of aluminum.
Of course, they are made of an alloy, which has a higher melting point and, as stated earlier, EGTs are the temp of the gas, not the metal.

@ MazdaManiac - Have we met before? Did you have a black MX-3 with two blue(?) racing stripes? If so, we met at Import Wars in 03 (in PA)...and I've seen videos of your boosted MX-3.
That was me. This is a pic of that car right before I sold it:

But you can't really know this unless you have found out the hard way.
Just because one RX-8 hits a certain temp at max torque doesn't mean another will do the same.

Yeah, but you should be able to narrow it down to a 50*F range, at least (assuming similar mods).


That said, I am a fan of over instrumentation! :D



WOT, 7200 RPM in third on the dyno.

Where was the probe placed?

It calculates the temp from the WBO2S and NBO2S. Since it has calibrated the sensors and has a known, fixed table of values, it can compute the temp from the change in impedance.

Gotcha.


I was kidding. That is the melting point of aluminum.
Of course, they are made of an alloy, which has a higher melting point and, as stated earlier, EGTs are the temp of the gas, not the metal.

I was assuming you were talking about the melting point of aluminum...and was going to say the same points you just listed. :) But I knew that you knew better, so that's why I asked. :D

That was me. This is a pic of that car right before I sold it:

Cool. I also remember some kind of jester hat in your car or something too. :)

Not sure if you saw/remember my car...it was the boosted yellow MP3 at the same show.

But you can't really know this unless you have found out the hard way.
Just because one RX-8 hits a certain temp at max torque doesn't mean another will do the same.
That said, I am a fan of over instrumentation! :D



WOT, 7200 RPM in third on the dyno.



It calculates the temp from the WBO2S and NBO2S. Since it has calibrated the sensors and has a known, fixed table of values, it can compute the temp from the change in impedance.



I was kidding. That is the melting point of aluminum.
Of course, they are made of an alloy, which has a higher melting point and, as stated earlier, EGTs are the temp of the gas, not the metal.


That was me. This is a pic of that car right before I sold it:



I remember that car from MIR. That was one bad ass MX-3. I wanted to build mine like yours when I had one but then I got an RX-7 :)

Nice pic :cool:

So do we have any HACKERS reading this thread? :D
I am far from a hacker, BUT I have a program that *could possibly* help. I have tried many diff passwords and it has always figured them out. sometimes it took a while, but it worked.... the "intention" of the program is for getting the passwords for a PC that has a few "users" to get in.
Maybe I will burn it on a disc for you and leave it at Jim's for him to try. :)

I am far from a hacker, BUT I have a program that *could possibly* help. I have tried many diff passwords and it has always figured them out. sometimes it took a while, but it worked.... the "intention" of the program is for getting the passwords for a PC that has a few "users" to get in.
Maybe I will burn it on a disc for you and leave it at Jim's for him to try. :)

As I wrote earlier the problem is that the com port locks out after 3 wrong passwords. It doesn't matter what kind of hacker tool you use, it's going to take years to hack it that way.

First we must disable the com lock out part. If we figure that part out, then a brute force might be possible to apply. I would assume it is a lot easier to figure out how to dump the entire memory of that device and scan through it looking for where the password is stored. Does anyone know what kind of CPU the device uses?

this might be a stupid idea, and if it is... please ignore it... but did anyone call Greddy and tell them that you need to custom tune your car, maybe they would give it too you or would have a way around it that they might share with you?

this might be a stupid idea, and if it is... please ignore it... but did anyone call Greddy and tell them that you need to custom tune your car, maybe they would give it too you or would have a way around it that they might share with you?

That is in a nutshell what Jon is doing. This is probably the easiest way to get it.

this might be a stupid idea, and if it is... please ignore it... but did anyone call Greddy and tell them that you need to custom tune your car, maybe they would give it too you or would have a way around it that they might share with you?
I highly doubt it. Otherwise they wouldn't have locked it in the first place. They don't want to be answering calls about how their engine blew up because of their turbo (and not because of getting greedy with the tuning).

The problem is that the com port locks out after 3 tries. This sounds very easy
to hack though.


If you're using the original eManage Tools software sure, it would lock out the port. etc. Sometime, not even hacking the password, the hardware does lock out time to time, so it's depend on the communication and the software itself; as you can't really tell what the software did.

If you rewrite your own software to communicate with the eManage, it has not lock out from what I had experience, tried more than 5 still no problem; that's what I'm saying ;) Argh, what the hell, I'm going to implement the Auto tuning features, so who care about the password :D

As I wrote earlier the problem is that the com port locks out after 3 wrong passwords. It doesn't matter what kind of hacker tool you use, it's going to take years to hack it that way.

First we must disable the com lock out part. If we figure that part out, then a brute force might be possible to apply. I would assume it is a lot easier to figure out how to dump the entire memory of that device and scan through it looking for where the password is stored. Does anyone know what kind of CPU the device uses?

now we are talk'in! :D

Just FYI guys, I put in the Oil Catch Can and the Profec B Boost Controller tonight. I'll take pics in a few minutes once I get settled in, just got home.


Also, that CEL that I had... well I pulled the code today and it was nothing serious at all. The code was "Secondary Air Pump, Bad Flow"

Turns out that the gasket Greddy supplied for the air pump hose that connects to the downpipe is crap. The hole in it is about 1/8" in diameter, really limits the airflow.. So I put back the stock gasket and things seem good now. We'll see if it pops back up.

Wish me luck in the dyno tomorrow. I'll be leaving for Jeff's place around 730am or so.

-Jon

**EDIT** Here are the pics of the boost controller and Oil Catch Can I put in today.**EDIT**

What time do you think you'll have the video and stats up by? I wanna see it as soon as you put it up..I'll get out of class just to see the dyno results

damn this thread posts way to much..when i get on to read it there are liek 7 more pages....hehe but it's 7 more pages of bliss:D

What time do you think you'll have the video and stats up by? I wanna see it as soon as you put it up..I'll get out of class just to see the dyno results

Well, It's about 160 miles to Jeff's (MazdaManiac) house. My plan is to leave around 730am so I can beat the rush hour traffic on I-95. Going to try to time it so I get to Jeff's place around 1030am. Jeff and I are scheduled at 11am for the dyno. We'll probably be there for about 2 hours or so. If Jeff is kind, he'll let me use his computer to post the figures on this thread. So, best case scenario I have them posted by 130pm or so. Worst case I post them when I get home around 530pm. I wouldn't skip class for the results, school is important ;) Once I post them, they won't be going anywhere.. hehe.

-Jon

Philodox,

Where did you buy the extra stuff...

Greddy Type S BOV: $139
Aluminum Mounting Flange for BOV: $26
Defi BF white Boost Gauge: $224
Defi Link control unit: $114

Thanks,

cortc

Sure thing, I'll talk to him today when I go over there to work on this BOV and gauges.





Greddy Type S BOV: $139
Aluminum Mounting Flange for BOV: $26
Defi BF white Boost Gauge: $224
Defi Link control unit: $114

that's it for extra stuff :)



Hehe.. Thanks! But.. Mazdamaniac was the first.. He hand built his turbo and has had it on the road for about 2 weeks.



Hey.. no problem.. just trying to support the RX-8 community with my personal experiences. Hope I've been a help.

Philodox,

Where did you buy the extra stuff...

Greddy Type S BOV: $139
Aluminum Mounting Flange for BOV: $26
Defi BF white Boost Gauge: $224
Defi Link control unit: $114

Thanks,

cortc

PM sent to you cortc. Hope I answered all your questions.
-Jon

Thanks...

$139 for the BOV? That is below dealer cost on that.

Jason

$139 for the BOV? That is below dealer cost on that.

Jason

Actually, it is $149.. typo on my part.. sorry about that. And for the general public that cares to know. Here is where I got those parts:


I bought the Defi BF series gauges and Defi Link controller from www.hopupracing.com. They offer free shipping on the gauges and they have the cheapest prices on those gauges that I've found.

I bought the Type-S BOV, mounting flange, Greddy Profec B2 boost controler, Greddy Turbo Timer, and oil catch can from this ebay vendor. Very good guy. here's a link to his ebay store:

http://stores.ebay.com/Kuruma-Motor...genameZl2QQtZkm

I hope that answers all your questions. Please feel free to PM me if you have anything further or post them here for everyone's benefit.

What is everyones guess on the Dyno numbers?

I would say 240 RWHP

Jason

What is everyones guess on the Dyno numbers?

I would say 240 RWHP

Jason

We'll see tomorrow! I will definately post my results by 530pm EST. I may be able to post them sooner if Jeff lets me use the computer at his house to post ;)

Actually, it is $149.. typo on my part.. sorry about that. And for the general public that cares to know. Here is where I got those parts:


I bought the Defi BF series gauges and Defi Link controller from www.hopupracing.com. They offer free shipping on the gauges and they have the cheapest prices on those gauges that I've found.

I bought the Type-S BOV, mounting flange, Greddy Profec B2 boost controler, Greddy Turbo Timer, and oil catch can from this ebay vendor. Very good guy. here's a link to his ebay store:

http://stores.ebay.com/Kuruma-Motor...genameZl2QQtZkm

I hope that answers all your questions. Please feel free to PM me if you have anything further or post them here for everyone's benefit.

$149 is still below dealer cost. You got a good price or a fake Greddy BOV :)

Jason

$149 is still below dealer cost. You got a good price or a fake Greddy BOV :)

Jason

lol.. nah.. it's the real deal. I think that guy does over $60k per month in sales for GReddy parts so he gets a HUGE volume discount from them.. something like 40%

Is there a pool?? I'll take 228

239RWP for me. How bout a free turbo :)

Yeah...what Polak said :)

243

I wanna say 247WHP... but I'm feeling 221WHP.

Man it seems you guys are being conservative with your guesses. My guess would be 255whp. For a pool bet I'd say 250. It really comes down to they type of dyno they use. They all deviate greatly.

Hi Jon (and Jeff). I've been reading this thread (from the UK) with great interest for a while now and looking forward to the dyno runs (and some more street run video).

Is water injection something to consider in keeping the change temperature down and avoiding detonation (which is a bad think on a Wankel - sorry "Rotary" engine).

Oh, my guess for the dyno is 256bhp at the wheels.

Cheers
Paul

So is anyong dynoing today at Altered Atmosphere? If so, when, and can I come by?

228 rwhp

I'll give them more credit than that..265

hmmm....232.3 whp for me--if were rounding 232.

I'm with VelociRedBeast, I think closer to 265, but I think the torque will still be fairly low. I'm guessing 170ish at wheels, So about 330 hp and 220 tq at fly wheel

223 Hp

Wouldn't that be a bigger power increase than GReddy claims? I don't recall them being known for understatement!

jds

Question guys, I want to get a boost gauge. Can anyone recommend one that matches the panel colors? I've been searching for a small one, preferably 52mm-60mm in the stock panel color scheme, but can't find one. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
-Jon


defi, 60mmBF. you will also need the Link Control Unit.

Anyone want to bet on the spread between my custom job and Jon's Greddy setup?
How about an over/under?

Has anyone thought of or installed the N-tercooler system from nitous express. That with the turbo kit and a good tuning job should wow alot of cobras, rx7s, wrx...

Dont want to start a war, but my guess Jon 238 Jeff 245 RWHP ;)

251rwhp

Well, from the videos Jeff's appears to be faster than Jon's...of course that could be because it was filmed during the day...hard to tell how fast your accelerating at night.

I'm guessing...241hp- Jon 256hp-Jeff (if you're tuning for @ 7PSI)

Are you guys going to tune where you're at or are you going to try and increase the boost a bit, maybe 8 or 9 PSI? That could really skew the numbers were guessing here.

Looking forward to the numbers!!!

No one has tracked their turboed 8s yet--correct--I didn't know if I missed that in the 57 (!) pages of posts.

My guess is 238 for Jon (I just like the irony there) and 248 for Jeff.

jds

My guess is 245 jon
265 for jeff

what is different with jon and jeffs cars?

263 Jeff, 248 Jon

what is different with jon and jeffs cars?

Greddy OTB kit = Jon

Homemade fab job = Jeff <- bigger turbo also..

So what kind of prize do we get if we are correct?

If you're using the original eManage Tools software sure, it would lock out the port. etc. Sometime, not even hacking the password, the hardware does lock out time to time, so it's depend on the communication and the software itself; as you can't really tell what the software did.

If you rewrite your own software to communicate with the eManage, it has not lock out from what I had experience, tried more than 5 still no problem; that's what I'm saying ;) Argh, what the hell, I'm going to implement the Auto tuning features, so who care about the password :D

Doh, the lock out is in software??? Ohwell, then writing or getting a tool to do a brute force crack should be pretty easy to do.

If we are correct that the password is 5 characters long and does not include numbers and / or special characters then it will take and average of 9 days to brute force crack it with the 9600 baud com port running at full boost (240 tries a second).

Has anyone thought of or installed the N-tercooler system from nitous express. That with the turbo kit and a good tuning job should wow alot of cobras, rx7s, wrx...
Not sure you'd gain much at such a low PSI.

Dunno what setup Jeff is running, but I'd guess around 240whp for Jon.

If Jon is running at 7psi we should see an increase of 61.6% torque and 48.6% hps (if the aussies weren't lying).

That ammounts to 263 hps and 209 torque for Jons car based on his previous dyno results.

The sad part is that it looks like we are having 25.6% drive chain loss.
I wonder if RB could post their dyno stats since the have an engine dyno. Curious to see if we really have 238 hps.

You can't calculate horsepower based on pressure like that. Too many other factors....as has been said many times, if you take two turbos of different sizes and run 'em both at 7 psi, the larger turbo will make more power, all other things being equal. Its all about the number of air molecules that go in, pressure is just one element of that equation.

jds

You can't calculate horsepower based on pressure like that. Too many other factors....as has been said many times, if you take two turbos of different sizes and run 'em both at 7 psi, the larger turbo will make more power, all other things being equal. Its all about the number of air molecules that go in, pressure is just one element of that equation.

jds

If the temp of the air and the size of the tubes are the same why would a larger turbo producing the same PSI make more power than a smaller turbo?

it is able to flow more air at 7psi than a small one, right?

If we get numbers like 189 hp -- I guess all the threads will again speculate on if the 8 can be accurately dyno'd again :( Let's hope that's not the case.

It will also be interesting to see how Greddy's map hold up against Jeff's custom tuning.

it is able to flow more air at 7psi than a small one, right?

I might be totally off here but I'll give my 2 cents.
IF you have 1" tube you plug one end up and plug the other one into something which can pressurize the air inside the tube.

You get the pressure inside the tube to 7 psi. You open the closed end and let the pressure out. The amount air (molecules, if the temp. is the same) being let out is exactly the same regardless oh how you got the pressure to 7 psi. If I used a hand pump and got to 7 psi, or if I used a gigantic turbo charger the pressure inside the tube is still 7 psi. Granted a large turbo can generate that pressure faster and higher, that’s why you use a larger turbo, but it also requires more exhaust to spool up.

Assuming you attached that tube to your intake and you keep the pressure gauge still on. If I can pump fast enough with my hand I can still generate 7 psi (which is what the Greddy turbo does). If I keep the tubing size exactly the same and just put on a bigger turbo and keep the pressure at 7 psi how in the WORLD can more air molecules get inside my intake? Pressure is a function of how many air molecules you have crammed inside a certain space at a certain temperature.

True... hmm... then I dunno?

Big if though...the larger turbo will be more efficient generally (somebody yell at me if I'm getting this wrong) and so the temperature won't be the same.

jds

If the temp of the air and the size of the tubes are the same why would a larger turbo producing the same PSI make more power than a smaller turbo?

You can't calculate horsepower based on pressure like that. Too many other factors....as has been said many times, if you take two turbos of different sizes and run 'em both at 7 psi, the larger turbo will make more power, all other things being equal. Its all about the number of air molecules that go in, pressure is just one element of that equation.

jds
True, but I've also heard that it takes the same amount of air to create the same amount of psi on a given motor. Assuming both turbos are equally efficient, then turbos A and B both making 7psi on a given motor will be pushing the same amount of air to do so, and thus make the same amount of HP.

Not sure which was is the correct way, but it's food for thought.

In this case running 7,8,9,10 psi should make the same level of power but jeff can run more boost BECAUSE of the bigger turbo. 7 psi on tdo6 and 7psi on a t78 should(will) be the same. Now jeff has his own maps he can lean his out, as philodox is stuck with a preset map from greddy. So Jeff I think will make more power if he got enough time on the dyno.

Big if though...the larger turbo will be more efficient generally (somebody yell at me if I'm getting this wrong) and so the temperature won't be the same.

jds

That's a reasonable and true point in some cases, BUT, you really need compressor maps to get specific.

At 7psi, I'd wager that neither of the turbos in question are out of their efficiency ranges.

If we were talking abot 17psi, it'd be a different story.

In this case running 7,8,9,10 psi should make the same level of power but jeff can run more boost BECAUSE of the bigger turbo. 7 psi on tdo6 and 7psi on a t78 swould be the same. Now jeff has his own maps he can lean his out, as philodox is stuck with a preset map from greddy. So Jeff I think will make more power if he got enough time on the dyno.

QFT

Good point, I hadn't considered that at low boost, the efficiency differences would be negligible. That's probably true. Hmmm, so unless you're planning on upping the boost by quite a bit over the stock GReddy settings (and incuring the greater risk to your motor by doing so) the complaints about the GReddy turbo in the kit being a bit on the small side are probably irrelevant.

jds

I would also assume that when you increase the pressure a bigger turbo is more likely to be able to sustain the desired pressure without to much fluctuation.

If Jon is running at 7psi we should see an increase of 61.6% torque and 48.6% hps (if the aussies weren't lying).

That ammounts to 263 hps and 209 torque for Jons car based on his previous dyno results.

The sad part is that it looks like we are having 25.6% drive chain loss.
I wonder if RB could post their dyno stats since the have an engine dyno. Curious to see if we really have 238 hps.


Engine Dyno shows 207-212 for the 13B-MSP courtesy of my visit to the Racing Beat Facility.

Engine Dyno shows 207-212 for the 13B-MSP courtesy of my visit to the Racing Beat Facility.

Thanks! Now it all makes sense! If you average for 210hps then the Greddy kit gives us roughly 102hps more. 15.7% drive chain loss is much better :)

So my guestimate are: 312hps crank, 263hps wheels.

Thanks! Now it all makes sense! If you average for 210hps then the Greddy kit gives us roughly 102hps more. 15.7% drive chain loss is much better :)

So my guestimate are: 312hps crank, 263hps wheels.

hey not bad at all especially considering the price

I'll still wait for the dynos b4 I get excited but your analysis is interesting

hey not bad at all especially considering the price

I'll still wait for the dynos b4 I get excited but your analysis is interesting

It's just a maths based upon the numbers the aussies claimed for their 7.5psi turbo. If their numbers were bs, then this math is bs. :)

Thanks! Now it all makes sense! If you average for 210hps then the Greddy kit gives us roughly 102hps more. 15.7% drive chain loss is much better :)

So my guestimate are: 312hps crank, 263hps wheels.

Most ppl are estimating 230-240hp at the wheels. 100hp from 7 pounds boost on a 1.3L engine? I'd say 50-60 would be lucky. :)

Most ppl are estimating 230-240hp at the wheels. 100hp from 7 pounds boost on a 1.3L engine? I'd say 50-60 would be lucky. :)

Well, the ppl down under claimed 362hps with 7.5psi.. Theoretically 14.7psi should give you a 100% increase in hps, so it's not completely unreasonable...

Edit, they calculated based upon 238 hps crank, which is incorrect. Their numbers should be 319.2hps and not 362.

Well, the ppl down under claimed 362hps with 7.5psi.. Theoretically 14.7psi should give you a 100% increase in hps, so it's not completely unreasonable...

Edit, they calculated based upon 238 hps crank, which is incorrect. Their numbers should be 319.2hps and not 362.


I still don't buy 100hp from 7psi on a 1.3L. I probably can't argue 'why', but that's where I stand. IMO, mid 200s at the wheels is the most one can expect.

fwiw, on my last car - 2.5L Mazda V6, my car went from ~160whp to ~250 whp on 8psi - similar sized turbo as the GReddy RX8 kit uses, IIRC.


Side note: Quoting 'crank' HP is a bad habbit, imo...it's impossible to measure, and in reality, doesn't mean squat.
:D

lol :D

I still don't buy 100hp from 7psi on a 1.3L. I probably can't argue 'why', but that's where I stand. IMO, mid 200s at the wheels is the most one can expect.



lol :D


why do people always insist on comparing piston engine displacement with rotary engine displacement?

It doesn't quite work that way.

I still don't buy 100hp from 7psi on a 1.3L. I probably can't argue 'why', but that's where I stand. IMO, mid 200s at the wheels is the most one can expect.

fwiw, on my last car - 2.5L Mazda V6, my car went from ~160whp to ~250 whp on 8psi - similar sized turbo as the GReddy RX8 kit uses, IIRC.


Side note: Quoting 'crank' HP is a bad habbit, imo...it's impossible to measure, and in reality, doesn't mean squat.
:D

lol :D

By using the same algorithm I came to 55.4% increase in power using 8 psi. So, 248.64 hps on the mazda v6.. Guess there isn’t that much magic to this after all.

The suspense is KILLING ME!

Can't wait to se the dyno figures, and how they compare.............. :D

I want to know the 1/4 ET and maybe the 0-60 if possible too.

I give up................................................ .

Let's all just go to the pub an grab some beers... it's friday.. let's get drunk.

dam were they at ????

By using the same algorithm I came to 55.4% increase in power using 8 psi. So, 248.64 hps on the mazda v6.. Guess there isn’t that much magic to this after all.


yeah - 248hp at the wheels - A side note, I had 17hp MORE in 4th gear, than in 3rd, during most dyno pulls. :)


Remember....the V6 had a 1.2L more displacement. ;) That may affect things. 7psi on my 1.6L Miata (with tiny turbo, no FMIC, though) took it from 100whp to about 150...so I dunno.


Still, I'd rather be pessimistic - if you expect the worst, you won't be dissapointed.

Now I will tell you again why you can't tell hp gain from pressure.
Go to the first few pages of the axial flow thread or search for the plots produced by Turbine_pwr.
Here he shows you the mass flow for different efficencys.

I'll give you a simple equation to show what gets into the engine, it's called: density ratio. As opposed to pressure ratio which is what you guys are using.

P2/P1 = Pr
Pr x T1/T2 = density ratio or the actual amount of additional mass entering the engine.
Temps are in degree R, or absolut F. Or ambiant plus 460.

Given a Pr of 1.5 which is roughly 7.5psi. Then given an efficency of 65% we can calculate the temp rise.
Pr to the power of .283-1 gives the y factor
So 1.5 ^.283-1=.1215
this times the tempR at std cond=520F
=63 F at 100 % eff.
divide by eff so 63/.65=97 temp rise

so 520 + 97=617 therefore 520/617=.84
.84x1.5=1.26
so if you want to use your 14.7 std times 1.26 you now have18.6
or 18.6-14.7=3.88psi worth of air.
So you really are getting 3.88 if it were a perfect world that is what you would need to produce to get the same results.

So use your 3.88 times whatever power you had to start with and you will be closer.
The question is how much does the ren produce? And what is the real eff of the turbo. As that is a big part of the equation.

If It is what I said and you were getting say 170 WHP mult it by 1.388=235 WHP
Lets see how close that number is. I'm betting a bit less because i think the eff is less due to heat transfer from the turbine side. Which is never figured into the compressor maps.

Next I'll tell you why you might get more then the math says you will. But I have to go to work so save it for later. Or you can go back and study the math provided at the start of my thread.

I hope no one Broke an apex seal :)

Now I will tell you again why you can't tell hp gain from pressure.
Go to the first few pages or search for the plots produced by Turbine_pwr.
Here he shows you the mass flow for different efficencys.

I'll give you a simple equation to show what gets into the engine, it's called: density ratio. As opposed to pressure ratio which is what you guys are using.

P2/P1 = Pr
Pr x T1/T2 = density ratio or the actual amount of additional mass entering the engine.
Temps are in degree R, or absolut F. Or ambiant plus 460.

Given a Pr of 1.5 which is roughly 7.5psi. Then given an efficency of 65% we can calculate the temp rise.
Pr to the power of .283-1 gives the y factor
So 1.5 ^.283-1=.1215
this times the tempR at std cond=520F
=63 F at 100 % eff.
devide by eff so 63/.65=97 temp rise

so 520 + 97=617 therefore 520/617=.84
.84x1.5=1.26
so if you want to use your 14.7 std times 1.26 you now have18.6
or 18.6-14.7=3.88psi worth of air.
So you really are getting 3.88 if it were a perfect world that is what you would need to produce to get the same results.

So use your 3.88 times whatever power you had to start with and you will be closer.
The question is how much does the ren produce?

Next I'll tell you why you might get more then the math says you will. But I have to go to work so save it for later. Or you can go back and study the math provided at the start of my thread.

yeah - that is all great and stuff, but it means nothing to me.

I have learned there are three types of HP.

1st is the "Planned HP" where ppl make predictions, based on experience
2nd is the "Mathematical HP" where ppl like you write up equasions to PROVE their predictions
3rd is "The HP the car actually makes" where people sit around and scratch their heads because their experience, their math all seemed in order, but the result was different.

Over and under hummmmm

i'll say 210 for Jeff untuned
and 235 for John using the greddy map.

Hmmm, so unless you're planning on upping the boost by quite a bit over the stock GReddy settings (and incuring the greater risk to your motor by doing so) the complaints about the GReddy turbo in the kit being a bit on the small side are probably irrelevant.

jds


Exactly. A friend of mine (Dreamwarrior) was telling me that people were complaining about the turbo that came with the Greddy kit was too small. I told him it was probably unfounded, and unless you were running BIG boost, there was no reason to have a big turbo.

On top of that, a modern "smaller" turbo can still be efficient until relatively high boost levels.

You really have to look at compressor maps to make any judgement calls.

yeah - that is all great and stuff, but it means nothing to me.

I have learned there are three types of HP.

1st is the "Planned HP" where ppl make predictions, based on experience
2nd is the "Mathematical HP" where ppl like you write up equasions to PROVE their predictions
3rd is "The HP the car actually makes" where people sit around and scratch their heads because their experience, their math all seemed in order, but the result was different.

Too bad none of that explains ANY direct correlation between pressure and power output nor does it explain how a rotaries theoretical power output can be figured based on what happened on a Mazda 6. If those are the only "3 types of hp" your own reasoning of power output would seem to be unjustified.

Planned horsepower output is the goal that is hopefully to be attained.
Mathematical horsepower is in fact what is determined by years and years of equations based on actual testing in order to determine what would on paper appear to be the best route to take in order to reach said planned output.
The hp the car actually makes is only finalized after testing. It is in fact true that a design on paper can vary from the real thing. This is usually a fine tuning issue but on occassion can mean going back to the drawing board. If this is the case then it would seem that there was an incorrect equation used in the math part so in reality the math is not flawed but the variables used in the original equation were. When done properly, the math can and does exactly prove the outcome. Now you know how products are designed, tested, retested, finalized and put into production.

They can't get a good product to the market with pure speculation that it "should" be this much power based on how much another car or engine had at the same psi level. That's irrelevant. That means nothing. The only thing of relevance is that exact product combination and not another one that is merely a resemblance.

question why does his turbo make his exhaust pop so much i hate to be driving that thing farting up a storm everywere i go.

i say 253hp 212tq at the wheels.

although Jon is a little late...hope nothing broke!

Exactly. A friend of mine (Dreamwarrior) was telling me that people were complaining about the turbo that came with the Greddy kit was too small. I told him it was probably unfounded, and unless you were running BIG boost, there was no reason to have a big turbo.

On top of that, a modern "smaller" turbo can still be efficient until relatively high boost levels.

You really have to look at compressor maps to make any judgement calls.

I wish more people understood this. On the RX-7 forum all you ever see is the same question over and over again. "What is the largest turbo I can use with...?" That is the single dumbest question anyone could ever ask. A better question would be what is a good turbo for my intended application? The response to that should be "are you being honest in what the car will actually be used for or are you telling me what you are dreaming that it was to be used for?" This is another area that people are unrealistic. Small turbos can do more than most people think they can and many times are better at the cars intended power level than a larger turbo. Of course a small turbo doesn't have the physical bragging rights but oh well. It's not what you have it's how you use it!

question why does his turbo make his exhaust pop so much i hate to be driving that thing farting up a storm everywere i go.the map runs very rich to keep the egt's within reason, and all that unburnt fuel is ignited in the hot exhaust system. the car is basically backfiring, but the cat and mufflers arrest most of the flames. ours cars do it stock too.

Too bad none of that explains ANY direct correlation between pressure and power output nor does it explain how a rotaries theoretical power output can be figured based on what happened on a Mazda 6. If those are the only "3 types of hp" your own reasoning of power output would seem to be unjustified.
.

My 3 types of power doesn't attempt to explain correlations between pressure and power output, nor does it attempt to predict what power the Rotary will have compared to the mazda V6 I had boosted prior.

Here's my point; I think you are over-engineering the issues:


With a similiar sized turbo, (as on the GReddy) my 2.5L engine made 90 hp more than before boost, at 8psi. Most people are predicting about 235-250hp for the GReddy turbo system on an RX8 at close to the same boost. I contend, similiar sized turbos, similar boost, a lower displacement engine will make LESS power.

the map runs very rich to keep the egt's within reason, and all that unburnt fuel is ignited in the hot exhaust system. the car is basically backfiring, but the cat and mufflers arrest most of the flames. ours cars do it stock too.

Is there a way to fix this... or do you think Greddy would release new maps? I for one would probably not know how to tune it to minimize the backfire so I would rely on Greddy. Is backfire a bad thing, other than sounding ugly?

I like to use statistical data to predict output. History has a tendency to tell us what's right.

Everyone please stop and read this article, then please continue this thread:

http://www.rx7.com/techarticles_displacement.html

Using the RP displacement calculation the 13b is equates to roughly a 2.6L 4-cylinder 4-cycle engine. This is a pretty logical assessment from a knowledgable source.

Carry on with the bench racing now...

I still don't buy 100hp from 7psi on a 1.3L. I probably can't argue 'why', but that's where I stand. IMO, mid 200s at the wheels is the most one can expect.
Why do you compare it with a 1.3l piston engine? A 1.3l 4 stroke piston engine displaces 0.65l per revolution and NOT 1.3l per revolution.
Besides the rotary engine has no air restricting valves and larger intake ports so it might even pump more air than a comparable 2.6l piston engine (higher volumetric efficiency). Also the intake cycle lasts longer 270 degrees compared to 180 degrees on a piston engine.

Why do you compare it with a 1.3l piston engine? A 1.3l 4 stroke piston engine displaces 0.65l per revolution and NOT 1.3l per revolution.
Besides the rotary engine has no air restricting valves and larger intake ports so it might even pump more air than a comparable 2.6l piston engine (higher volumetric efficiency). Also the intake cycle lasts longer 270 degrees compared to 180 degrees on a piston engine.

I compare them because they are two engines I have, or have owned. I don't know much about the volumetric efficiency of either - but I'm pretty certain in my belief re: similar turbos/similiar boost/ higher displacement engine will make more power. Again - I doubt I could 'prove it' but I think I'm right. We'll see, maybe, when the dyno's are published.

Everyone please stop and read this article, then please continue this thread:

http://www.rx7.com/techarticles_displacement.html

Using the RP displacement calculation the 13b is equates to roughly a 2.6L 4-cylinder 4-cycle engine. This is a pretty logical assessment from a knowledgable source.

Carry on with the bench racing now...


EXCELLENT info...thanks - I'll read that :)

I still don't buy 100hp from 7psi on a 1.3L. I probably can't argue 'why', but that's where I stand. IMO, mid 200s at the wheels is the most one can expect.

fwiw, on my last car - 2.5L Mazda V6, my car went from ~160whp to ~250 whp on 8psi - similar sized turbo as the GReddy RX8 kit uses, IIRC.


Side note: Quoting 'crank' HP is a bad habbit, imo...it's impossible to measure, and in reality, doesn't mean squat.
:D

lol :D

A little side note on the crank hp. Since RB had an engine dyno the numbers should be pretty accurate. Secondly, if the rx8 had 25% drive chain loss then it would open up for some nice aftermarket parts to reduce parasitic loss. Since it's down to "only" 15% it makes me sleep better at night at least.

A little side note on the crank hp. Since RB had an engine dyno the numbers should be pretty accurate. Secondly, if the rx8 had 25% drive chain loss then it would open up for some nice aftermarket parts to reduce parasitic loss. Since it's down to "only" 15% it makes me sleep better at night at least.


:cool: :)

Is there a way to fix this... or do you think Greddy would release new maps? I for one would probably not know how to tune it to minimize the backfire so I would rely on Greddy. Is backfire a bad thing, other than sounding ugly?

It might kill your cats faster.

Over and under hummmmm

i'll say 210 for Jeff untuned
and 235 for John using the greddy map. Cheater!

Still wrong, though...:p

Jon and I will both post up once he gets back home to NJ.
Give it 'till 9pm or so.http://www.mazdamaniac.com/images/smiles/cry.gif

I contend, similiar sized turbos, similar boost, a lower displacement engine will make LESS power.

That's the must unfounded statement I've read in this thread.

The important factor isn't the displacement of said motor, it's the output of said motor.

My 2.0L Mazda motor doesn't respond to boost as well as most 1.8L Acura motors. Why? Because the Acura motor has more output to begin with.

Within reason, if you run 7.5psi on any given motor, you'll almost always get between a 40% and 60% hp gain, regardless of the displacement.

Cheater!

Still wrong, though...:p
OMGHI2u!!!

results?

dyno numbers please

Cheater!

Still wrong, though...:p

Jon and I will both post up once he gets back home to NJ.
Give it 'till 9pm or so.http://www.mazdamaniac.com/images/smiles/cry.gif

You guys are doomed....you will have nightmares with voices going in chorus: "Results! Results! Results! Results! Results! Results! "

I compare them because they are two engines I have, or have owned. I don't know much about the volumetric efficiency of either - but I'm pretty certain in my belief re: similar turbos/similiar boost/ higher displacement engine will make more power. Again - I doubt I could 'prove it' but I think I'm right. We'll see, maybe, when the dyno's are published.
It has nothing to do with volumetric efficiency. Your 2.5l V6 Mazda displaces 1.25l per revolution. 0.05l less than the RX-8. The RX-8 has therefore more displacement (even regardless of any intake port considerations).

I was relieved to see where you placed your catch can, I was worried that I would have to move mine once I purchased my turbo kit.

but I'm pretty certain in my belief re: similar turbos/similiar boost/ higher displacement engine will make more power. Again - I doubt I could 'prove it' but I think I'm right. We'll see, maybe, when the dyno's are published.

Nope displacemnt isn't an issue...an S2000 (I4 2.0l) makes about 300whp @ 7psi...which is an increase of about 100hp (they put 190 to 200hp stock). I think tuning is the biggest issue. I've seen anywhere from 300hp (with VAFC) to 330hp (Greddy Emanage).

It all comes down to how much control you have with your fuel and how rich or lean you're willing to run. I think that will be the biggest difference between Jon and Jeff...unless Jon tossed the GReddy map and started from scratch. Then I'd say they'll be within few hp of each other.

Nope displacemnt isn't an issue...an S2000 (I4 2.0l) makes about 300whp @ 7psi...which is an increase of about 100hp (they put 190 to 200hp stock). I think tuning is the biggest issue. I've seen anywhere from 300hp (with VAFC) to 330hp (Greddy Emanage).

I agree, tuning can totally make or break you. I speak from much experience tuning my setup by myself.

Nope displacemnt isn't an issue...an S2000 (I4 2.0l) makes about 300whp @ 7psi...which is an increase of about 100hp (they put 190 to 200hp stock). I think tuning is the biggest issue. I've seen anywhere from 300hp (with VAFC) to 330hp (Greddy Emanage).

It all comes down to how much control you have with your fuel and how rich or lean you're willing to run. I think that will be the biggest difference between Jon and Jeff...unless Jon tossed the GReddy map and started from scratch. Then I'd say they'll be within few hp of each other.


Right - the point was, all other things equal, a td04 on a 2.5@ 7psi will likely produce less power than a T3/T4. I've seen the same mazda v6 I had make 300whp on 8psi - with a BIG hair-drier; compared to my ~250.

Again - given similiar-sized turbos, ICs, etc, the larger displacement an engine will make more power. Thus, I was suspecting the ~7psi on the GReddy turbo system won't make as much power, psi-for-psi, as 7psi on my Mazda V6 made.
We'll find out soon enough.

One huge assumption I'm making: I'm assuming the GReddy-supplied turbo is about the same specs as my T3Super60 was.

I really love s2k's, btw...if i didn't need a four seater, I'd have one. :)

Within reason, if you run 7.5psi on any given motor, you'll almost always get between a 40% and 60% hp gain, regardless of the displacement.


That suggests if the RX8 really DOES have 238hp - 7.5psi should neat at least 330hp...or 280+whp at the wheels. I hope that's the case! If they stop stringing us along, we'll know! :p :p :p :cool:

Im going with 250-260 for Jon
270-280 for Jeff. Gotta go with the homemade brew! That and the maps, larger turbo, yadda. AND YES LARGER TURBO DOES MATTER!!! Compressing 1 ft^3 of air in a small turbo to 7 psi IS NOT THE SAME as 1.4 ft^3 of air compressed at 7 psi by a large turbo.

Now I will tell you again why you can't tell hp gain from pressure.
Go to the first few pages of the axial flow thread or search for the plots produced by Turbine_pwr.
Here he shows you the mass flow for different efficencys.

I'll give you a simple equation to show what gets into the engine, it's called: density ratio. As opposed to pressure ratio which is what you guys are using.

P2/P1 = Pr
Pr x T1/T2 = density ratio or the actual amount of additional mass entering the engine.
Temps are in degree R, or absolut F. Or ambiant plus 460.

Given a Pr of 1.5 which is roughly 7.5psi. Then given an efficency of 65% we can calculate the temp rise.
Pr to the power of .283-1 gives the y factor
So 1.5 ^.283-1=.1215
this times the tempR at std cond=520F
=63 F at 100 % eff.
divide by eff so 63/.65=97 temp rise

so 520 + 97=617 therefore 520/617=.84
.84x1.5=1.26
so if you want to use your 14.7 std times 1.26 you now have18.6
or 18.6-14.7=3.88psi worth of air.
So you really are getting 3.88 if it were a perfect world that is what you would need to produce to get the same results.

So use your 3.88 times whatever power you had to start with and you will be closer.
The question is how much does the ren produce? And what is the real eff of the turbo. As that is a big part of the equation.

If It is what I said and you were getting say 170 WHP mult it by 1.388=235 WHP
Lets see how close that number is. I'm betting a bit less because i think the eff is less due to heat transfer from the turbine side. Which is never figured into the compressor maps.

Next I'll tell you why you might get more then the math says you will. But I have to go to work so save it for later. Or you can go back and study the math provided at the start of my thread.

I can't really see the difference between density and pressure.
If you have 1 cubic inch of air at 60f under 7psi it is possible to determine the
density. And the density of air molecules increases with the psi. As long as we keep stuffing air inside our little box it doesn't matter if we use PSI or density as PSI is a function of density. Higher the pressure is the same as higher density.

According to the data provided by turbine_pwr the change in temp is almost linear depending on boost which leads me to believe that a statistical approach to calculating hps from psi is valid.

Arrest me if i'm wrong. I'm just trying to understand this.

Your under arrest. Look at the equation again, you have to add the temp rise or heat to the factor.
Once more, (I know I've said this before) ...............Wait a minuite, where did I explain the experament box recently. I'm going to look for it, Might be in Hymees thread. I'll get back to you.

Im going with 250-260 for Jon
270-280 for Jeff. Gotta go with the homemade brew! That and the maps, larger turbo, yadda. AND YES LARGER TURBO DOES MATTER!!! Compressing 1 ft^3 of air in a small turbo to 7 psi IS NOT THE SAME as 1.4 ft^3 of air compressed at 7 psi by a large turbo.

So you are saying that there is more air molecules in 1 cubic inch of air compressed by the super duper gigantic turbo compared to my small hand pump if the temperature of the air is the same?

Take one big box. Take 20 balloons and fill them with air. You drop 10 balloons inside the box and squeeze the lid shut. The pressure on the walls inside the box is now 2 psi. Drop 10 more and squeeze the lid shut. The pressure is now 4 psi. There are 20 balloons in the box.

Drop 20 balloons inside the box and shut it. The pressure is 4 psi. The amount of balloons is the same.

Your under arrest. Look at the equation again, you have to add the temp rise or heat to the factor.
Once more, (I know I've said this before) ...............Wait a minuite, where did I explain the experament box recently. I'm going to look for it, Might be in Hymees thread. I'll get back to you.

Well, gasses expand when they are hot. So the more you pressurize the air the hotter it will get and the less air molecules you will be able to fit inside the same space. My point was, if the air temperature of the compressed air is the same it should have the same amount of air molecules if it has the same PSI, which again leads to the air having the same density.

I am not disputing that 20 balloons in a small box is still 20 balloons in a small box. Proportion it though. Lets say box A has a housing size of 20 balloons maximum. Box B can hold 40 balloons maximum.

Box B and A, when at maximum pressure, are 7.5 psi. When you open the boxes, 20 balloons come out at the same rate from box A as box B's 40 balloons. Is there 'more balloons' per cubic whatever? Maybe, but not that much if any at all. But, there is more airspace for compression and for more air, period. More volume of air at 7.5 psi rushing into your engine with Box B v. Box A

Twospoons, go to post 973 in my axial flow thread. This explains it and gives you a lab experiment example. See I knew I went through this before.
I'm going to the post office now to mail some shifters, when I comeback I expect you will have had an awakening.

I am not disputing that 20 balloons in a small box is still 20 balloons in a small box. Proportion it though. Lets say box A has a housing size of 20 balloons maximum. Box B can hold 40 balloons maximum.

Box B and A, when at maximum pressure, are 7.5 psi. When you open the boxes, 20 balloons come out at the same rate from box A as box B's 40 balloons. Is there 'more balloons' per cubic whatever? Maybe, but not that much if any at all. But, there is more airspace for compression and for more air, period. More volume of air at 7.5 psi rushing into your engine with Box B v. Box A

Which again leads me to my first question. If the size of the tubing going to the intake is the same it doesn't matter what kind of turbo you have if the pressure and the temp. is the same.

Which again leads me to my first question. If the size of the tubing going to the intake is the same it doesn't matter what kind of turbo you have if the pressure and the temp. is the same.

Ok. If both tubes are the same, and the MAXIMUM air flow of that tube is met by the smaller turbo, then it is out of the question. Remember, VOLUME. FORCED INDUCTION. We are not necessarily trying to get a lot of air crammed into a small area. That is just an efficiency matter. We are trying to get air INTO the engine. Larger turbo's push a larger volume of air, at the same pressure, into the engine. But, as you said, if the pipe isnt large enough, or the temps get too high, then you are going to start seeing some major lag.

Twospoons, go to post 973 in my axial flow thread. This explains it and gives you a lab experiment example. See I knew I went through this before.
I'm going to the post office now to mail some shifters, when I comeback I expect you will have had an awakening.

Yeah, I guess my English is not good enough. I'm constantly saying this:
IF you have a 2" tubing. The temp. of the air inside the tube is 60F. The pressure is 7PSI. This pressure is created with my hand pump.
Prove that there will be more air molecules inside this tube if you add a bigger turbo which produces 7PSI and the air temp. is still 60F inside the tube.

Or again, prove that more air molecules will flow out of the end of this tube.

The only benefits I can see of a bigger turbo are that it can create more pressure. If you want to keep the PSI the same and have more air flow you need to increase the size of the tubes going from the turbo all the way to the intake. Then again I would assume that the size of the intake is fixed so when you have 7 PSI in a large tube going to the intake it narrows down and you actually increase the pressure going in through the intake.

Heck, give us some dyno numbers!!!!!!!!! This is torture. I'm trying to play semi intelligent just to get the time to pass.

...the more you pressurize the air the hotter it will get and the less air molecules you will be able to fit inside the same space. My point was, if the air temperature of the compressed air is the same it should have the same amount of air molecules if it has the same PSI, which again leads to the air having the same density.
If you keep the temperature the same this is true. However depending on what compressor you use the temperature will vary. If you would measure the pressure and the temperature after the compressor you could calculate the potential power gain if the compressor was for instance electrically driven (no parasitic powerloss or increased backpressure).

That suggests if the RX8 really DOES have 238hp - 7.5psi should neat at least 330hp...or 280+whp at the wheels. I hope that's the case! If they stop stringing us along, we'll know! :p :p :p :cool:

Whoa, there, tiger...

I'm talking WHP.

So 40%-60% added to ~170whp = 238-272 whp.

AND YES LARGER TURBO DOES MATTER!!! Compressing 1 ft^3 of air in a small turbo to 7 psi IS NOT THE SAME as 1.4 ft^3 of air compressed at 7 psi by a large turbo.

That's only true when you're talking about the air INSIDE the tubo housing itself.

Where you measure it, at the intake mani, will read the only number that really matters.

That's only true when you're talking about the air INSIDE the tubo housing itself.

Where you measure it, at the intake mani, will read the only number that really matters.

Assuming there is no air leakage from the turbo to the mani, the system (turbo to intake) should normalize and be relatively close just outside the housing as it is right outside the intake. Granted, on paper, it works out that way. But in real life, there is going to be some back pressure and some fluctuation from point A to point B. But not so much as to really cause anything noticeable. Must be a closed system. Wastegate will take care of the rest.

THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT PICS

DYNO SHEETS PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!

Just kidding. I was just suprised no one else said it, being the unpatient lot that is on this board.
:)

bw

Wait a minuite I must have come in late. I never said anything about the size of the turbo. The compressor in my equations doesn't know anything or have a size. I'm only pointing out that the number of moles depends on the efficency.

Next if the tubes are smaller the air just speeds up. The same will go through unless your talking grossly small. You want to keep the speed up in the tract to a certain point.
Also when it goes through a smaller tube and speed goes up the pressure goes DOWN. This is known a Bernoulli's theorem. This is the reason venturi's work.

So go back to the experiments and it proves why you can get a false impresion as to what you have in the way of mass. Simply put, temp makes the moles run faster thus hitting the walls harder showing more pressure but there are no more moles.

Remember 2mc. Mass x twice the speed. Force.

It is Jan 21, You guys back from the dyno yet? :)

temp makes the moles run faster thus hitting the walls harder

RP, This line made me laugh. :)

bw, I love the car in your avatar... have any more floating about?

Whoa, there, tiger...

I'm talking WHP.

So 40%-60% added to ~170whp = 238-272 whp.


I understand, Tiger ( :rolleyes: ).

Looks like the car is losing 31??% thru the drivetrain, or we aren't starting with 238hp. ;) The post you are quoting I used 15% - which SHOULD be about right for a rwd sports car. (Miatas, for example, are 'around' 15%). I can't believe the rx8 would be TWICE that.

I used 180whp. why? 180 x .75 - 240hp.

180whp + 40% = 250whp....180whp + 50%= 270whp. Frankly, I'd be thrilled if the car makes 230-235 w/ the GReddy kit....but since we don't have a baseline, we can only 'assume' whatever gains it shows. :)

My hidden agenda is this: 8psi on a motor rated at 164hp = 250whp. 8psi on a motor rated at 238hp, with a similiar-sized turbo SHOULD be quite a bit MORE....because as so many of you have stated, 'displacement doesn't matter'.

Let's all just go to the pub an grab some beers... it's friday.. let's get drunk.

^^^^^ What he said!!! ^^^^^^

(...and wait for the dyno numbers, of course....IMPATIENTLY, I might add...) :)

So if displacement is what really matters, what if we had a 450 cu. in. engine that only deveoped 200 hp for whatever reason. (I know it sounds like a waste but bear with me). If we had perfect efficiency meaning absolutely no temperature change at exactly 14.7 psi which also meant that we'd have exactly twice the air as at ambient (this is all for reference sake so don't get technical), we should theoretically have 400 hp. How would displacement factor in? Obviously the example assumes 100% efficiency and is purely fictional but the deciding factor seems to be the initial horsepower at ambient temperatures and pressures and not engine size. Displacement doesn't matter. Sorry. Initial horsepower along with a combination of airflow and efficiency (note I didn't state at what pressure!) and frictional losses will determine power output.

I understand, Tiger ( :rolleyes: ).

Looks like the car is losing 31??% thru the drivetrain, or we aren't starting with 238hp. ;)

Probably the latter.

The post you are quoting I used 15% - which SHOULD be about right for a rwd sports car. (Miatas, for example, are 'around' 15%). I can't believe the rx8 would be TWICE that.

15% sounds a tad optimistic, but a lot more reaslistic than 31%

I used 180whp. why? 180 x .75 - 240hp.

180whp + 40% = 250whp....180whp + 50%= 270whp. Frankly, I'd be thrilled if the car makes 230-235 w/ the GReddy kit....but since we don't have a baseline, we can only 'assume' whatever gains it shows. :)

Right. Plus, we know jack about the dyno he's running on, and that's a big variable in itself.

My hidden agenda is this: 8psi on a motor rated at 164hp = 250whp. 8psi on a motor rated at 238hp, with a similiar-sized turbo SHOULD be quite a bit MORE....because as so many of you have stated, 'displacement doesn't matter'.

You have to compare WHP to WHP, not CHP to CHP. And you'd have to comprare both cars on the same dyno on the same day.

Besides, while a KL might claim 164chp, it probably puts 140 or so to the wheels.

So if displacement is what really matters, what if we had a 450 cu. in. engine that only deveoped 200 hp for whatever reason. (I know it sounds like a waste but bear with me). If we had perfect efficiency meaning absolutely no temperature change at exactly 14.7 psi which also meant that we'd have exactly twice the air as at ambient (this is all for reference sake so don't get technical), we should theoretically have 400 hp. How would displacement factor in? Obviously the example assumes 100% efficiency and is purely fictional but the deciding factor seems to be the initial horsepower at ambient temperatures and pressures and not engine size. Displacement doesn't matter. Sorry. Initial horsepower along with a combination of airflow and efficiency (note I didn't state at what pressure!) and frictional losses will determine power output.

My point exactly.

I know the numbers, but I'm not gonna tell because of legal matters... sound familiar?
:D :D :D :D :D

37.06%

So if displacement is what really matters, what if we had a 450 cu. in. engine that only deveoped 200 hp for whatever reason. (I know it sounds like a waste but bear with me). If we had perfect efficiency meaning absolutely no temperature change at exactly 14.7 psi which also meant that we'd have exactly twice the air as at ambient (this is all for reference sake so don't get technical), we should theoretically have 400 hp. How would displacement factor in? Obviously the example assumes 100% efficiency and is purely fictional but the deciding factor seems to be the initial horsepower at ambient temperatures and pressures and not engine size. Displacement doesn't matter. Sorry. Initial horsepower along with a combination of airflow and efficiency (note I didn't state at what pressure!) and frictional losses will determine power output.
I don't disagree with what you just said, but airflow (massflow) is a function of pressure, temperature, displacement, rpm and volumetric efficiency. (That's why you didn't state at what pressure.)

243 hp,
at the wheels,
289 at the crank,
on a Dynojet brand dyno.

My guess is as good as anyone's. :D

S

Wait a minuite I must have come in late. I never said anything about the size of the turbo. The compressor in my equations doesn't know anything or have a size. I'm only pointing out that the number of moles depends on the efficency.

Next if the tubes are smaller the air just speeds up. The same will go through unless your talking grossly small. You want to keep the speed up in the tract to a certain point.
Also when it goes through a smaller tube and speed goes up the pressure goes DOWN. This is known a Bernoulli's theorem. This is the reason venturi's work.

So go back to the experiments and it proves why you can get a false impresion as to what you have in the way of mass. Simply put, temp makes the moles run faster thus hitting the walls harder showing more pressure but there are no more moles.

Remember 2mc. Mass x twice the speed. Force.

Just thought about it, we never had any flow / fluid theory in physics. That is kinda strange isn't it. Oh well, time to do some reading. Thanks for the info.

So, pressure drops with velocity also. Meaning that a high flowing big turbo actually creates less pressure?

I think my brain finally re-booted.

And if we're not satisified with the numbers we get from THE DUO, we'll start to question the accuracy of the dynos. I mean, wasn't the RX-8 was considered a bad dyno test car without FI (due to a Nazi PCM and finicky ABS/DSC/TCS blah blah)... wont it be a bad test car with FI?

Ok, honestly... MazdaManiac, Philodox... you have built us up to a climax. The story is NOW at its apex. The suspense is killer... the commercial break, is over.

GIVE UP THE NUMBERS!!! WE WANT DYNO!!!! :D VIDEO!!! PICTURES!!! AIIEEEEE

Ok, honestly... MazdaManiac, Philodox... you have built us up to a climax. The story is NOW at its apex. The suspense is killer... the commercial break, is over.

GIVE UP THE NUMBERS!!! WE WANT DYNO!!!! :D VIDEO!!! PICTURES!!! AIIEEEEE


Heh-heh...he said "apex"....

(sorry...I'm impatient and trolling for the numbers, too)

Okay guys! After 400 miles and 8 hours I am finally back at home. It was quite an eventful day today at Altered Atmosphere. Some members of the forum tried to get the scoop ahead of everyone else by pulling out a dirty little trick and calling my cell phone.. I won't mention any names *cough Polak cough*.. But he was misinformed by the media ;) Here are the results


Jon's Car: 240.4 rwhp. Torque is a big fat ???????? because their dyno wouldn't read it properly.

Jeffs Car: 225 I think.. hopefuly he stops by to let you guys know.

Now, I did dyno my car before I put the turbo on. I had 174.44rwhp pre turbo and now I have 240.4rwhp with the turbo. For those of you that aren't mathematically inclined, that's a gain of 65.96rwhp coming from 7psi of boost. Not bad for a stock tune at all. I am very confident that when I tune the air/fuel I can squeeze another 25hp at the wheels. Eventually, I will tune for 9psi.

sorry for no torque numbers guys, call Altered Atmosphere and bitch at them for not being able how to get a proper RPM reading from a rotary engine ;) Now your thoughts?

Well, the dyno session went well, though it was a bit more expensive for me than I planned - I ended up being strapped down for three hours. Money well spent, though.

We had one fairly significant glitch and that is with the tach signal on the DynoJet. For some reason, it was unable to read our RPM ater 5500 RPM or so. Because of that, we couldn't get any torque plots because the machine would stop reading torque after it lost the ignition signal. It did, however, continue to record HP, but it needed to be plotted against wheel speed instead of RPM as most of us are acostomed.
This glitch was on both of our vehicles, so it isn't a failed component or the result of any particular combination of aftermarket parts since our cars are different in that respect.

First, Jon was hooked up and ran several base runs that were all within a hair of each other, so I think it is fair to say his graph is representative of the power he is producing. His results can be found just above this post in the thread.

After I got strapped in, we spent the better part of the next 3 hours tuning. My A/Fs were bumpy - mostly over-rich except for this lean spot right at 5100 RPM that I am still trying to tune completely out. The other issue was my boost.
I came to the dyno fearful of over-boosting since that had occured on some of my street-tuning runs. Last night, I pulled my wastegate actuator, cut it open and milled the spring down so that it would open at a significantly lower pressure. The problem is, I still don't understand how the PRofec modulates boost. I kept increasing the duty cycle to no avail. The result was I was trapped at 6 PSI, though I have been preparing for 9 PSI.
I guess I'll go back once I learn how to program the PRofec correctly.

Peak HP was 225 HP. I don't have a torque figure for the above-referenced reasons.

So, you have a peak hp number, but no plot? I was curious to see how linear the boost is and how well the GReddy maps are working.

Still, 240 hp is great! Congrats!

~ Matt

Jeff, looks like your not running to rich from what I can see, mostly all above 12. Is that what you were aiming for? Look's like the Greddy kit is performing as advertised.

Oh, and congrats guys :)

Another thought...if you have the mph, you can figure out the RPM and then, using the 5252 (is that it?) factor, you can get the torque, right? Anyone want to play with Excel? I'd do it, but I'm still at work...

~ Matt

Guys, I don't have a scanner to scan the dyno sheet it. So I'm trying to use my digital camera to photograph the pages.

Dynorun.007 is in 4th gear
Dynorun.008 is in 3rd gear

Sorry for the poor quality of the pics, but the graphs are faint even in person. Enjoy!

-Jon

If you have the engine running perfectly in tune the rotary will make about 7 BHP for every pound of air/min. A piston engine will make 10. No tears boys I learned this the very hard way.
Now it doesn't know how you made it eat that much air. If you forced it in at high pressure and high temp or lower press at lower press. It is the mass flow. Now it is easier to get the heavyer air in as it is displacing less volume. Also it lessens the thermal load on things plus helps detonation.

If you use a small tube or a big tube it doesn't know. It has nothing to do with the size of the turbo.
It has nothing to do with the displacement of the engine. What you are getting at is that a bigger engine will swallow more air thus have less resistance. Good point if that is what you ment. Manifold pressure is just the resistance to the airflow.

We took my blower off my dyno just as it was including pulleys, carbs and ducts. On my engine it was making 7psi. When we put it on the engine at someone elses dyno it made 10 psi. Their engine just didn't flow as much air. Proven by the fact that my engine made a lot more power with less boost. Their engine made less power before and after supercharging. The SC or turbo can't cover up all ills.

RG, I'm a little disappointed with the volume of you post, need some more mass.
Maybe you can explain it better then my little lab experiments did. But I can't see how, that is as plain as I can show it. I think these are smart guys saying the same thing, no?

In the famous words of Paul Newman "what we have here is a failure to comunicate"

Excellent. Thanks Jon. We can all take a breath now.

So...who won the bet?

so I take it the you did both 3rd and 4th gear pulls. Philodox hit 240rwhp on one of his 4th gear pulls. How many minutes did you take between runs to have the engine cool? Also, was there a fan blowing on the engine? If so, was it a small fan or some big jet fan like the one dinan has?

Not sure you'd gain much at such a low PSI.

Dunno what setup Jeff is running, but I'd guess around 240whp for Jon.

I think we have a winner in the guessing pool for dyno results ;)

so I take it the you did both 3rd and 4th gear pulls. Philodox hit 240rwhp on one of his 4th gear pulls. How many minutes did you take between runs to have the engine cool? Also, was there a fan blowing on the engine? If so, was it a small fan or some big jet fan like the one dinan has?

I did all my runs back to back to back.. maybe 1-2 minutes between each run. The 4th gear pull was the 2nd to last run. I posted the last two runs I did in a post just a little bit ago. They had 2 fans, one blowing on the IC and the other was a huge monster going over the whole front of the car.

I have to go out for a little bit guys.. be back in a few hours.. hopefuly Jeff can field a few questions while I'm out ;)

Let's see how the math works. note my prior calc of the density ratio of 1.388. Or 1.388 times the base. So Jon says he had 174 hp before so 1.388 X 174=241.5
This isn't the final word but it seems to work. :cool:

It also shows that guessing by pressure does not work and that was the lead argument.

Okay, I took the first dyno, estimated the hp numbers to about the nearest 5, used 93.3 mph in 3rd gear at 9000 rpm, and this is what I got.

I also assumed 5252 was the torque/hp factor. Do I remember correctly?

Source for 93.3 mph:
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=931&highlight=fuel+economy+gear+rpm

Enjoy!

~ Matt

*** EDIT *** I took a closer look at the 93.3 mph post and I think it isn't right. Let me know the real number and I'll update the spreadsheet.

*** EDIT #2 *** I tried searching, but couldn't find the right number. Now it is time for me to go home, so someone else will have to finish it. Still, the numbers look reasonable.

so I take it the you did both 3rd and 4th gear pulls. Philodox hit 240rwhp on one of his 4th gear pulls. How many minutes did you take between runs to have the engine cool? Also, was there a fan blowing on the engine? If so, was it a small fan or some big jet fan like the one dinan has?
Big swamp-boat sized fan.

I never did a run in 4th. In Jon's case, it netted a slightly higher power figure.

I spent most of my time (all of it, actually) just tuning. I didn't look at the peak HP numbers until I started to get the A/F right.

Thanks for the report Jon and Jeff... I'm really impressed with this Greddy kit now. That's one fast RX8! :D

Interesting..

Do you folks trust the dynos numbers even with its inability to read RPMs and the RX-8's history of poor dyno run results?

^^^I would trust that they are making at least 225 and 240rwhp. If there are issues w/ the DSC kicking in to cut the gas (since front wheels are stationary and the rear wheels are going at 10+ mph faster), then they are probably really making more than what the dyno reads.

WOW, thanks for the info...and now to 0-60 & 1/4 mile times...

So, we have a (probably) 300HP RX8 or 240whp...wow!

Interesting..

Do you folks trust the dynos numbers even with its inability to read RPMs and the RX-8's history of poor dyno run results?

No!! Take it to the track guys against a stock RX8!!! :p I wanna know how fast the beast is.

^^^I would trust that they are making at least 225 and 240rwhp. If there are issues w/ the DSC kicking in to cut the gas (since front wheels are stationary and the rear wheels are going at 10+ mph faster), then they are probably really making more than what the dyno reads.

Yea, that's what I'm hoping.. but regardless those are still pretty damn good numbers dont get me wrong.

Way to go guys.

Now if it can be tuned to remove the popping richness and possibly even result in more 'oomph'........ hhmm

is it cutting gas or adding gas to be fast and rich?
Since he has the A/F ratio on the graph, if your near your target A/F ratios of 12 to 1 or whatever you're shooting for and you make 225 or 240...then that is what your car makes to the wheels. No dyno crying or making excuses about it. If you tune for 12 to 1 and your dead on it, you can't blame it on the stock ECU and the DSC or try and say you'd be making more if isn't wasn't for this or that kicking in.

with the greddy kit, can you adjust timing any?

Tim

^^^relax guy. no crying by anyone on these dyno results. Philodox got 60+ horses to the wheels from his Greddy Kit. Maybe the DSC kicks in and he could be making a little more if it doesn't...maybe not. Nobody is complaining at the results. take a pill man.

I think 60rwhp is what Greddy was claiming it makes so spot on. Nice numbers. It must be a fun ride.

Cheers.

umm what's whp without the turbos again?

Philodox baselined at 174rwhp or so. most dead stock 8s will baseline at around 169 rwhp. Of course there are some stock 8s that will dyno higher or lower.

No DSC. No limp mode.

I ran the CanScan as we dyno'ed and there was nothing odd about the ignition timing or throttle.
We did NOT pull the rear wheel sensors.

The myth about dynoing the the RX-8 is busted.

There are only three ways the RX-8 could do anything like a limp mode:
1) Pull throttle
2) Pull ignition timing
3) Add a LOT of fuel (though, really, that wouldn't do much but make the car run like crap)

After 16 consecutive dyno runs - the last 11 without turning off the ignition at any point - nothing like the above ever happened.

This is for sure...the 8 will only get more toy's built for it with time, the ECU will be figured out, turbo's/sc will get better, add on's will get better, and our car will become a near perfect sports car!!!

65HP is great, but and I hate to say this...it appears that either the rotary is hard or does not dyno right, 27% loss (Flywheel hp to whp) is normal/standard for a rotary, or our 8's make less than the 238HP Mazda tells us.

Not to nock our great car...I'm just saying, but does anyone know what loss the RX7 rotary had...or what whp it made? I just wonder about that heavy 27% loss....

RX-8s dyno out to 160 or 170 WHP.
Experience shows that nearly all vehicles exibit approximately 17% loss from rated power figures.
This puts the flywheel HP around 200, which matches the performance exactly.

Now, I hate to call Mazda a liar, but...

It's already been told so I'm not breaking the news. It makes 212 to 219 BHP at the crank. :(

65HP is great, but and I hate to say this...it appears that either the rotary is hard or does not dyno right, 27% loss (Flywheel hp to whp) is normal/standard for a rotary, or our 8's make less than the 238HP Mazda tells us.

Not to nock our great car...I'm just saying, but does anyone know what loss the RX7 rotary had...or what whp it made? I just wonder about that heavy 27% loss....

It has been demonstrated for a long time that the RX8 does not make 238HP at the flywheel... more than likely it's between 210-220hp.

What would you believe.....really unreal drivetrain losses........25-30%

OR that Mazda has a very unreal Dyno :D :D :D

I am eventually going to tune for 9.5 psi. From looking at the numbers Jeff was pulling, the injectors will definately handle the load. Hopefuly I can get 300 at the wheels at 9.5psi and a killer tune.

With the greddy kit, keep in mind that I am getting about 7psi.. the map on the emanage is pre-tuned for 5psi. So there is room for improvement in the base tune. Also, if I work the ignition in advance a little bit that can help too. I really do think with the right tune, this Greddy kit can handle 300rwhp safely.... then again, it's always ALL in the tune.

I am eventually going to tune for 9.5 psi. From looking at the numbers Jeff was pulling, the injectors will definately handle the load. Hopefuly I can get 300 at the wheels at 9.5psi and a killer tune.

With the greddy kit, keep in mind that I am getting about 7psi.. the map on the emanage is pre-tuned for 5psi. So there is room for improvement in the base tune. Also, if I work the ignition in advance a little bit that can help too. I really do think with the right tune, this Greddy kit can handle 300rwhp safely.... then again, it's always ALL in the tune.

Do you have a timeline for ^these events... or are you going to get around to it whenever... the masses thirst for info!

Jon,

if you're getting 7psi and the eManage is set for 5, how are you getting 7? Sorry if this sounds totally off. ..

Am I totally wrong by thinking the eManage does not control psi and only controls A/F? What determines the psi you achieve, the wastegate? What do you adjust to get more psi?

Yes, ima turbonewb.

Jon,

if you're getting 7psi and the eManage is set for 5, how are you getting 7? Sorry if this sounds totally off. ..

Am I totally wrong by thinking the eManage does not control psi and only controls A/F? What determines the psi you achieve, the wastegate? What do you adjust to get more psi?

Yes, ima turbonewb.


Boost controller my friend ;) It allows you to raise your boost levels even though the wastegate is preset for a certain boost pressure.

Jon's Car: 240.4 rwhp.

BAM! I was spot on!

Torque is a big fat ???????? because their dyno wouldn't read it properly.

It can be calculated base on the HP.

sorry for no torque numbers guys, call Altered Atmosphere and bitch at them for not being able how to get a proper RPM reading from a rotary engine ;) Now your thoughts?

If they didn't get RPM, did they at least get MPH? Because then you can calculate RPM if you use the final drive...

If you have the engine running perfectly in tune the rotary will make about 7 BHP for every pound of air/min. A piston engine will make 10. No tears boys I learned this the very hard way.

Does it have to do with apex seals vs piston rings?

I think we have a winner in the guessing pool for dyno results ;)

w00t. Not bad for my 2nd day on this forum. :)

No DSC. No limp mode.

I ran the CanScan as we dyno'ed and there was nothing odd about the ignition timing or throttle.
We did NOT pull the rear wheel sensors.

The myth about dynoing the the RX-8 is busted.

There are only three ways the RX-8 could do anything like a limp mode:
1) Pull throttle
2) Pull ignition timing
3) Add a LOT of fuel (though, really, that wouldn't do much but make the car run like crap)

After 16 consecutive dyno runs - the last 11 without turning off the ignition at any point - nothing like the above ever happened.

This is what I've been saying all along. Because if they had much more than 170whp stock, they'd be running faster 1/4 mile times.

I am eventually going to tune for 9.5 psi. From looking at the numbers Jeff was pulling, the injectors will definately handle the load. Hopefuly I can get 300 at the wheels at 9.5psi and a killer tune.

With the greddy kit, keep in mind that I am getting about 7psi.. the map on the emanage is pre-tuned for 5psi. So there is room for improvement in the base tune. Also, if I<a onMouseOver="window.status='' ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='';" oncontextmenu="window.status=''; return true;" onclick="location.href='http://www.enhancemysearch.com/admin/results.php?q=work&id=4';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> work </a>the ignition in advance a little bit that can help too. I really do think with the right tune, this Greddy kit can handle 300rwhp safely.... then again, it's always ALL in the tune.

Great numbers. By looking at your graph your A/F at peak power is perfect. There is no room for correction there. By smoothing the A/F you will smooth out the graph but its not going to change your peak power. For every pound of boost you will gain 10-15 RWHP, so its possilbe to hit 270 RWHP by upping the boost to 9lbs and tuning the A/F. I would not touch the timing unless you have an EGT gauge or you risk blowing the motor.

Jason

...and now I feel dirty...dirty...why Mazda, why???

Who am I kidding...I'm having huge amounts of fun in my 8 either way...Philodox, keep up the great work!

For every pound of boost you will gain 10-15 RWHP

No way. He's gained around 8whp per PSI so far. 10-15 isn't going to happen.

...and now I feel dirty...dirty...why Mazda, why???

Who am I kidding...I'm having huge amounts of fun in my 8 either way...Philodox, keep up the great work!
That's all that matters, man.

No way. He's gained around 8whp per PSI so far. 10-15 isn't going to happen.

With a proper tune he will. I tune cars all the time and that is the norm.

Jason

FYI -- Eric (@ CitySpeed) is fresh out of Greddy kits. Looks like the positive results from our friend Philodox has created a "run" on them. They're expecting a new shipment in a few weeks or so, but their current ebay auction will be for one from the next shipment.

With a proper tune he will. I tune cars all the time and that is the norm.

Jason

I tune all the time too. I was just tuning 2 hours ago. And yes, my Mazda MP3 gained over 10whp per PSI.

Do I think he could get more power out of his tune? Sure. 10whp per PSI sounds reasonable. 15whp per PSI? Not on a stock Greddy turbo setup with pump gas.

FYI -- Eric (@ CitySpeed) is fresh out of Greddy kits. Looks like the positive results from our friend Philodox has created a "run" on them. They're expecting a new shipment in a few weeks or so, but their current ebay auction will be for one from the next shipment.

Looks like Greddy should be giving Philodox a customer referral bonus or credit! :D

You havent been tuning rotarys then. Greddy turbo and pump gas have nothing to do with the HP gained from boost. I will leave it at that.

Any particular reason why other cars that use say 9-10psi sometimes double their HP output? I was reading on how a Scion tC put out almost 300whp on 10psi when these tC's run stock 120-130whp. (granted the tC uses a tried and true age old reliable Camry engine :o)

Is the Renesis topped out or is mainly due to its "newness" and lack of work on them?

Do you think 9-10psi will garner say 300+ whp? (still far less than double)

AGAIN, you can't predict HP by boost. The efficency will be different at another point on the map. And the density ratio will be different. In a turbo you can run into turbine efficency problems also. Where are you on the map now?

Where the hell are you Fred, got a girl over there or something?

Any particular reason why other cars that use say 9-10psi sometimes double their HP output? I was reading on how a Scion tC put out almost 300whp on 10psi when these tC's run stock 120-130whp. (granted the tC uses a tried and true age old reliable Camry engine :o)

Is the Renesis topped out or is mainly due to its "newness" and lack of work on them?

Do you think 9-10psi will garner say 300+ whp? (still far less than double)


You didn't say on pump gas, so I think it could definately be done on racing gas.

I understand that boost does not necessarily equate to HP..

I was trying to ask if you believe if there is a some max HP that the Renesis can provide. It seems easier for others engine to double their HP output with a turbo addon whereas the Renesis looks like its struggling to get more than half. In other words I guess the possible potential of the Renesis..

Now I dont even know if its struggling to meet less than half its normal HP, but it seems that way.

What are 350z owners getting by slapping on similar bolt ons? Other cars? Are they seeing 40-60hp gains, or are they seeing 100+ gains? I guess, again since I'm a turbonewb, what are average gains by bolt on turbos?

Keep up the great work guys much appreciated ,especially when i see your weather over your part of the world , here we have a nice 30 degrees C

cheers
michael

I understand that boost does not necessarily equate to HP..

I was trying to ask if you believe if there is a some max HP that the Renesis can provide. It seems easier for others engine to double their HP output with a turbo addon whereas the Renesis looks like its struggling to get more than half. In other words I guess the possible potential of the Renesis..

Now I dont even know if its struggling to meet less than half its normal HP, but it seems that way.

What are 350z owners getting by slapping on similar bolt ons? Other cars? Are they seeing 40-60hp gains, or are they seeing 100+ gains? I guess, again since I'm a turbonewb, what are average gains by bolt on turbos?

350z tt at 12psi = 415whps (From roughly 245 whps).

Whoa, that's a jump... are you sayin tt as in twin turbo? If so, that's not a fair comparo..