The Interceptor-X for N/A Cars
12-14-2005, 09:58 PM
#436
i will have that info for you thur evening. all the tests will be done on the same gtimer i have had since i put on the revi.
before i think my best 0 to 60 is 6.1
and .25 was 14.45 @ 94.5
this is from memory since i have not seen my gtimer in a couple of weeks.
beers
before i think my best 0 to 60 is 6.1
and .25 was 14.45 @ 94.5
this is from memory since i have not seen my gtimer in a couple of weeks.
beers
12-14-2005, 10:08 PM
#437
Momentum Keeps Me Going
I may have missed the rational on this this but why would you not use the best, highest octane gas available if you're trying to get the most HP gain?
87 octane is not even what's recommended for the car, and certainly not what is best for performance either. The manual says so, doesn't it?
Using something like Shell V-Power or a 93 octane gas from any of the Top-Tier companies would have to be at least as 'standard' as an 87 octane fuel one would only imagine.
Not knocking the effort (no pun intended), it still looks impressive, but when you're trying for the gold, why not go all the way to get it?
87 octane is not even what's recommended for the car, and certainly not what is best for performance either. The manual says so, doesn't it?
Using something like Shell V-Power or a 93 octane gas from any of the Top-Tier companies would have to be at least as 'standard' as an 87 octane fuel one would only imagine.
Not knocking the effort (no pun intended), it still looks impressive, but when you're trying for the gold, why not go all the way to get it?
12-14-2005, 10:22 PM
#438
Go Texas Longhorns!
Scott,
do you have a chart with the afr's for this? how about the torque curve? I'm having trouble telling exactly where the biggest gains are due to the speed rather than rpm labels.
awesome work btw.
I know what uncle sam is going to help me buy this spring
do you have a chart with the afr's for this? how about the torque curve? I'm having trouble telling exactly where the biggest gains are due to the speed rather than rpm labels.
awesome work btw.
I know what uncle sam is going to help me buy this spring
Last edited by brillo; 12-14-2005 at 10:34 PM.
12-14-2005, 10:23 PM
#439
U-Stink-But-I-♥-U
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 12 o'clock on the Beltway.
Posts: 2,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lets go ahead and get this out of the way. First off, I dont mean to be disrespectful. I think your work has been mostly logical and produced good results. Nevertheless, is this all we can expect? Is 220 just not obtainable with this car? is 200 not obtainable at 7.5k? And no differences below 5.5k (these rpms are my best guess considering the graph)? For me to drop $1.6k for respectable but not "eye-widening" gains is going to require a really good sell job on your part. I am willing to pay. But for what? Again, with all respect
me
me
12-14-2005, 10:33 PM
#441
Consiglieri
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: yourI'mgirl
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with carbon. I remember making a claim a couple of months ago that the gains would be Canzoomer-like. That dyno sheet looks exactly like some of the canzoomer dynos - gains only where the PCM was running in open-loop. There is only so much you can do with tweaking AFR. What were you guys expecting? A miracle? I think the only advantage is the elimintation of the LTFT issue. Maybe a canzoomer with the GReddy temp dongle to avoid learning over 5kRPM would work. Sure would be a bargain...
12-14-2005, 10:46 PM
#443
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Virginia/Maryland
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you know what this shows is there is no way the Renesis ever made 247hp. I always thought it didn't due to the ecu flash to meet emissions, but I guess not.
12-14-2005, 10:49 PM
#444
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nemesis8
We need to see a HP vs Torque vs. RPM vs. AFR curve
Thankx for posting!! Great results and thankx for all your hard work on this....
12-14-2005, 10:50 PM
#445
Registered
This is a great result for an n/a mod. This engine already makes far and away more power than the last n/a 13B. Why people forget about this and say this very torquey n/a rotary is so weak is beyond me. This is a very acceptable gain and more than worthwhile.
I'm happy to see 87 octane gas used as it's the best stuff to use on an n/a unless you like wasting money for little to no extra power. If the car isn't running good on 87 to begin with, it's only because it isn't tuned very well from the factory. Naturally aspirated rotaries have always loved low octane. If you can pick up power and run lower cheaper octane, be happy.
Don't expect 220 rwhp. Don't ask for miracles. This is a stepping stone to other mods. Now go port it since it can be tuned and see what kind of results can be had. Again don't expect miracles but more is more and this is a very respectable gain.
I'm happy to see 87 octane gas used as it's the best stuff to use on an n/a unless you like wasting money for little to no extra power. If the car isn't running good on 87 to begin with, it's only because it isn't tuned very well from the factory. Naturally aspirated rotaries have always loved low octane. If you can pick up power and run lower cheaper octane, be happy.
Don't expect 220 rwhp. Don't ask for miracles. This is a stepping stone to other mods. Now go port it since it can be tuned and see what kind of results can be had. Again don't expect miracles but more is more and this is a very respectable gain.
12-14-2005, 11:07 PM
#448
The Professor
Originally Posted by Spin9k
I may have missed the rational on this this but why would you not use the best, highest octane gas available if you're trying to get the most HP gain?
87 octane is not even what's recommended for the car, and certainly not what is best for performance either. The manual says so, doesn't it?
Using something like Shell V-Power or a 93 octane gas from any of the Top-Tier companies would have to be at least as 'standard' as an 87 octane fuel one would only imagine.
Not knocking the effort (no pun intended), it still looks impressive, but when you're trying for the gold, why not go all the way to get it?
87 octane is not even what's recommended for the car, and certainly not what is best for performance either. The manual says so, doesn't it?
Using something like Shell V-Power or a 93 octane gas from any of the Top-Tier companies would have to be at least as 'standard' as an 87 octane fuel one would only imagine.
Not knocking the effort (no pun intended), it still looks impressive, but when you're trying for the gold, why not go all the way to get it?
12-14-2005, 11:30 PM
#449
Registered
Why not be more realistic about real world gains? Not everyone uses expensive octane. If you get a few more horsepower, and I emphasize the word few, then you'll just be happy when you get more than you thought. That's fair. It also shows that low octane is fine. Someone name one solid reason why low octane is not safe for the engine. Don't cite the manual. I could care less what it says. Why is low octane harmful? Is it corrosive? Does it contain mad little trolls who score housings and glue injectors shut? Why is it bad? Also ignore tuning issues. I want actual reasons why the fuel itself is not good.
12-14-2005, 11:31 PM
#450
U-Stink-But-I-♥-U
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 12 o'clock on the Beltway.
Posts: 2,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by rotarygod
This is a great result for an n/a mod. ...Yada, yada, yada...Again don't expect miracles but more is more and this is a very respectable gain.
Now if I was going FI (which I am now leaning back in that camp after tonight, I am a fickle bitch) I would drop this kind of cash to make my turbo run right.