It's most likely that once Scott posts the correct dyno graph, and we see his AFR, that there might be room to push the mixture leaner to about .92 - .93 lambda. Most likely Scott tuned swoope's car conservatively since it was not his. But I'll hold off any speculation until we see this graph.

 

AFR! AFR! AFR!

Scott, did you try playing with the ignition settings? Try maybe between 26 to 35 degrees? I did, and no harm done but got more kick up top.

 

Thanks for the insight to your previous comments. I appreciate substative answers (vs emotional words) because you can learn from that. In my case I use the CZ Gold to tune right now, and I figure tuning with it IS my only power edge being NA, until and if I TC or SC.

One thing I'd be interested to see is someone do a staightup comparison between the two units from a power curve perspective. Dyno charts showing 'under the curve' power not just peak HP would help to show whether the I-X has a tuning edge here. Peps are asking for full torque & A/F charts but they've not been produced yet, which would help even more.

As for my CZ Gold and tuning on the bleeding edge, well, I figure why not get all the power I can (for track use and esp. at constant higher RPMs), and if a couple bucks extra for higher octane fuel will do it...or a can or two of octane booster does the trick... so be it... if it actually works. That's what I'm emperically working to discover. The fuel maps in the CZ certainly help a lot for mid and high end grunt, and I'll be working the ignition maps next Spring to find any power left on the (bleeding) table, if it's there.

I'm still a bit confused whether you think more absolute power can be obtained with low or high octane fuel, emission/cost issues aside, and given 'proper' tuning. Do you believe 87 w/good tuning is equal to 93+ w/good tuning, or are you saying 87 works 'ok' and is the best value, and that whatever little extra isn't worth it (to you)? I guess I'm asking - have you done both so as to compare and dynoed them? Charts would be a great help if you had them. Thanks.

 

bah, i wish this would have been done on a stock 8

 

Let me say that this low octane/low advance high octane/high advance debate has been going on between rotary engine builders and tuners for ever. I personally have known people using additives to lower the rating below 87. What I have not told you guys is that this was the second dyno session. Wed. afternoon was the 93 octane high timing tests. I advanced the timing up to 38 degrees at one point from 7-9k rpm and the motor hated it! It was not pinging but lost alot of power, I went in two degree increments up and down from 30 degrees, adjusted the split between 5 and 15 degrees. I also have the ability to vary the amount of fuel per pair of injectors and therfore can select and change the volume and how fuel enters the intake runners/ports. I still beat the Factory computer up top and through the midrange on 93 but was less than happy with the difference. So thursday we empied the tank and filled it with 87 and returned to the dyno. In the past when trying to build the worlds strongest stock 13B in the SCCA ITS class I found 87 made the more power than 93 and after last night I found the new motor likes it as well. Sure there is a 25 cent savings per gallon but that really has nothing to do with it, the engines produce less heat because of the lower timing, and therefor run better longer. The bottom line is this, I found better results using 87 octane. I have owned and been involved with high performance rotary powered cars since the late 80's. Maybe someone out there who has no history with how they work will come up with a whole new approach and look like a Rotary God with kerosine? What I have brought to the table is a plug and play increase in performance. The Interceptor-X is not a SuperAFC or a SuperAFC with a laptop interface. It is a full standalone in a plug and play configuration that will allow users to tune, yes really tune the ECU to their specific car,fuel and collection of components. Back to the shop,Scott

 

Thanks - is the complete dyno graph a secret?

 

the results were exactly what I was expecting. All of us old CZ followers are familar. Now Scott has done a great job. The graph shows a good tune(as far as you can tell) that will be consistant(unlike the CZ). Also to all the under the curve power is where the action is and he has good gains there. A car with this powerband will pull the stock car on the track/strip or street. Good usable power. Now with a mild street port with the right header, high flow cat and cat back and the car tuned with scott's thingy you will see 225-235 horses on the concrete. The beat goes on and I am broke!
rotor on Scott---congrats
olddragger

 

Oh by the way the rotor does like the slower burning fuel. Everyone does know( I KNOW some do)the rotor has a MUCH longer combusion/flame time than the recip---right?
olddragger

 

really, i wouldn't have cared if there were no gains. right now the mods for the 8 are pretty standardized. if you have a turbo, it's more than likely the greddy and most NA mods are pretty similar in terms of power gains. so now we can expect to all see similar gains. i think the interceptor is just a stepping stone to larger projects for many of us, whether it be FI, porting, nitrous, mystery juice..whatever. once the aftermarket really opens up, the interceptor will prove invaluable as it can be adapted to work with anything as well as it works NA or with a bolt on turbo.

PnP gains are great, but like the canzoomer ended up being, that's not really what this is intended for.

 

another idea Scott and guys. Everyone may really want to consider having sometype of additional ventilation in the ecu box. You may be surprised how hot it can get in there and those with the turbo's --well need I say more. For longitivity purposes please look at that. Temps outside are cool now but this summer is another matter. The factory ecu(within the ecu box) in the summer in ga on a n/a car will get so hot that you can hardly touch it without burning yourself.
OD

 

Did you mean the faster burning fuel? 87 is the faster burning fuel, which Scott just intimated was the better option in his findings...


Wow, 1000 posts and it only took me 3 1/2 years.

 

very quick note.

the thing drives amazing overall, notably between 3.5k and 6k.

and the traction control was on a long time on the 1-2 which was shifter early.

beers

cool that this is my 1k post

 

Everyone stay off the highway while swoope plays

 

no,
you are safe only drove it for about a half hour in moderate traffic.

will be nice to get it back to my low density orange tree lined area near my house.

beers

 

..................................

 

Just curious scott, what ignition timing made the most power using 87 octane? Was it 26? I'd like to try this some time.

 

i'm just going to take a wild shot that the 87 octane means he wasn't shooting for the .93 lambda Motec uses

 

What was the targeted AFR for your Int-X? Better yet.. You know what I want.. Ok.. This is the last time I ask.. Others need to do it from now on... I dont want to be a PITA...

 

Sorry for the delay with this chart. Somthing in the "save" process (somtimes happens with the dynojet)has distorted the data if I choose engine R.P.M. This pull was performed in fifth gear and full throttle was applied at ~2800rpm as indicated on the factory Tach. I have added the rpm as close as I can. There is no doubt with more time I could have made the AFR visually smoother, but the engine was not responding to the same AFR/timing across the RPM range. I feel confident there is more power still in the tune, not alot but a couple here and a couple there. Swoope was kind enough to help out and I have already done enough testing with the car. BTW A big Thanks to "Swoop" for stepping up and saying "if it will help the RX-8 community use my car" no strings attatched. If he had not stepped up the testing and results would not have happend this quickly,Scott

 

You may want to look very carefully, perhaps print it and use a straight edge over to horsepower. There is more there than you may think,Scott

 

thanks for the chart, why the dip in the afr around 4500? other than that, its flat as a board.

 

Thanks Brillo, I actually had the AFR's very flat, within .2 points all the way to redline at different AFR's. But, it did not yield the best power at all rpm. I was in the 11's and in the 14's, testing,testing and more testing, this seemed to make the best power for this setup.

 

It's going to be a challenge with a 6-port for sure.

 

I think owning one is a must for N/A modified 8's, with a future path with a turbo. Why operate the stock OEM PCM if everything else is modifed? I'm sold, just have to get past the holidays.

 

Is there a torque graph anywhere, or did I miss a post somehow?