Actually I am ready to start taking orders, the units will ship before the end of the month!

 

So does that mean you are completely finished with all the tinkering to swoope's car and that he should have it back very soon? I still havent seen that review he was talking about unless I missed it.

 

congrat's

 

Yeah...

Did you manage to tweak anything else out of the engine?

 

what I meant to say is that the car is capable of this power, a few moht ago there was a lot of arguing that the car was not capable of this power the new sae testin methot gave the car 232 hp thats with all the auxiliarys conected, the area of rwhp to fwhp is very confusin because one car may loose 15% but another may only loose 20%, there are not alot of engine dynos out there.

 

Why is this thread here instead of in Scott's forum?

 

Probably because he didn't think he would get enough coverage in his vender forum, so like some other venders he decided to put it elsewhere rather than in the normal location for it.

 

Discussion of tuning an N/A car with the fully standalone engine management system is quite interesting, hasn't been done before [at least with results posted and all], and thus deserves wide exposure of the forum it's in, instead of the confines of the vendor forum.

 

guessing that he became a vendor 8/3 and this thread was started 8/20 to stir up some interest...

would you have looked at mazsport before this thread?????

it preceded the turbo thread if i am correct.....

and yes i looked that stuff myself....

beers

 

OK, that makes scense - thanks.

Anyone pony up yet to get one? I have to wait until Spring - spent my Santa money already

 

lots of guys have on their turbos..the N/A unit isnt quite done yet

 

I am really just waiting on the review from swoope after he has had his car for a few weeks... I'll make up my mind at that time.

 

Any idea when this will happen Swoope? What is continuing to be working on and when does Scott expect to be completed?

 

when it is done.

scott is meticulous.... so far his first project got held up to make it right. well and a hurricane.. and the demand for a turbo fix was overwhelming....

i am guessing the demand for n/a is low... not that it is not important, but it is a luxury item. better right than fight the battles of an emanage...

this is just my opionion, i could be wrong.

btw, i am still driving around with scotts midpipe with the borla resonator. that is the ticket. dont know if it is any louder than with my cat.

beers

 

Wait.. Either I am slow or I am missing something.. (Thats not a question nor should you comment on it.. )

If you have your car back then that means that Scott has either completed all of the modifications to the Int-X for a N/A car or he felt bad about having your car for so long and you have gotten it back. I thought that once you had your car back all of the development was done but yet you dont have the Int-X in your car...

Do you see my dilema? I am confused here. If you have your car back but the project is not done yet.. Then whats going on? Did he find another test car? Is he truly completed with the updates and ready to take orders?

Be easy with the comments..

I just want to know where this stands so I can purchase the product in the near future myself after I hear the review.

 

no i got the car back and he is not done... i got all the afr he need and did the dyno stuff..... but he is got to get all the parts into one box. to my best guess their are to or three boards / boxes that make the intercepter....

a guess because i have not seen them, they are all combined inside the box that you see on the website.

i am sure scott will chime in soon enough.... pm me and i will answere any ??s i can...

beers

 

Hey, look what CERAMICSEAL said over at RX7Club

In this thread: http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=496533

So whats 265 at the flywheel in RWHP????

 

Depends if Mazda math was used to calculate the HP at the flywheel.

 

What's so unbelievable about it? He said "right management." That's the key point in what he said! Read that as, NOT STOCK controlled.

And if you assume a realistic drivetrain loss of 20-25% (15% is way too low for most cars, realistically), then that equates to 198.75 to 212 hp at the wheels. That's not too far fetched...

 

Sorry, but I respectfully question the assumption of a 25% drive train loss at peak HP production (in any resonable gear) on a direct linkage transmission. To be fair, I would not have posted if you would have left it at 20%, though that is a little high for a bare assumption.

 

I wonder if these were ceramic seals that were part of his test???

 

Lots of modern day tuners and shops I talk to and information I have read lean to the side of 20 or so percent drivetrain loss in modern day vehicles. I have no clue where the 15% ever came from, but lots of what I have read says that it's a load of crap, and too low.

What is your reasoning for believing it? I'm curious to know. If the only reason you believe it is because everyone quotes 15%, since that's what everyone has been assuming for years and years, then that doesn't seem like a justifiable point. If you have more insight, though, I'd love to hear it.

Also, the percentage I was quoting for modern day vehicles wasn't just from drivetrain, I probably should've mentioned that. But it includes all the "frills" that these modern cars monitor and run. Anything electrical, any monitoring system, anything extra that has to run while the car is on will suck from the power as well.

 

Sorry, I am not trying to start anything. Your numbers almost certainly bracket the true value (15%-25%) 15% is too low (for a "mass-produced" car, <15% is doable though. On a piston driven car you can get >2-3% increase in DT effi. by loosening the clearaces between the bareings at the crank by a few thousanths of an inch, though you may be rebuilding it more often) But whp to bhp of 0.75 for a manual is pretty rare just reading around. In fact, even on awd these numbers usually run 0.8. From what I have read (not measured myself) I think this ratio on our car is about 0.8+/-0.1. I say that knowing that bhp numbers are hard to come by, while whp is pretty well established.

 

I'm going to just quote SDS on this topic:



Flywheel vs. Wheel HP

As most people know, there are power losses through the drivetrain so wheel hp is always lower than flywheel hp. Front wheel drive cars with transverse engines tend to be more efficient than most rear drive configurations due to the layout of components. However most publications overestimate these losses considerably.

Most rear drive cars have a 1 to 1, 4th or 5th gear which means that the power path goes directly through the mainshaft of the transmission. The only losses here are bearing drag which is less than 0.5% and the viscous drag of the gears running through the oil which is about 1% with hot oil. Indeed, published data indicates a transmission efficiency of 98 to 98.5% for conventional transmissions in 4th gear.

Losses within the driveshaft account for about 0.5% if they are properly aligned, balanced and with fresh U-joints.

Differential losses in the commonly used Hypoid type gearset is in the order of 6 to 10%.

The worst scenario case for a rear drive setup is on the order of 12.5% in 4th gear, not the 20 -25% often published. If 25% was being lost in the drivetrain, the oil would boil in the differential housing in short order and aluminum transmission cases would fatigue and break from the temperatures generated. On a 200 hp engine, something on the order of 37,000 watts would have to be dissipated out of the transmission and differential housings. Obviously, this is not the case.

Transverse, front drive transaxles usually have no direct lockup gears and no 1 to 1 ratio, however, since the torque path is never turned 90 degrees as in the rear drive setup and efficient helical gears are usually employed for the final drive set, losses are more on the order of 6 to 9 percent in the upper ratios.

Tire pressure and wheel alignment can have very significant effects on losses at the rollers. Tire pressures should be set the same between each test. Tire rolling resistance varies inversely with speed, another factor not taken into account by most chassis dynos when applying phantom flywheel hp formulas.

 

thats been my mantra all along...but that article does not take into account the interia of the drivetrain and the wheels..20% may not be too inaccurate.