Lasse wankel header
07-01-2007, 04:08 PM
#51
Lasse wankel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Stockholm,Sweden
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 hp from exhaust system? But that is with a race/high flow cat --right? Plausible!
Curious with what you have done with the center port--can you give us another picture showing the header ports? if not then I understand--have to guard development secrets.
Important step toward that hp goal of yours and i am following closely. If that goal is obtained (and I am optimistically cautious
) then i will not need to go FI.
header looks good for prototype. Are there air holes for the air pump present?
olddragger
Curious with what you have done with the center port--can you give us another picture showing the header ports? if not then I understand--have to guard development secrets.
Important step toward that hp goal of yours and i am following closely. If that goal is obtained (and I am optimistically cautious
) then i will not need to go FI.header looks good for prototype. Are there air holes for the air pump present?
olddragger
/Lasse
07-01-2007, 04:13 PM
#52
Lasse wankel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Stockholm,Sweden
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
/Lasse
07-01-2007, 08:44 PM
#54
Registered
LOL!!!
The exhaust ports themselves are much smaller in area than the exhaust runners are which is why I think 2.5" is fine if done properly. If you go purely off of runner area, a 3" is about right. Unfortunately Mazda can't seem to get port area and runner area matched up very well. Even if a 2.5" makes slightly less top end power, I'll bet it makes more average power everywhere else. Someone go test that statement and report back.
The exhaust ports themselves are much smaller in area than the exhaust runners are which is why I think 2.5" is fine if done properly. If you go purely off of runner area, a 3" is about right. Unfortunately Mazda can't seem to get port area and runner area matched up very well. Even if a 2.5" makes slightly less top end power, I'll bet it makes more average power everywhere else. Someone go test that statement and report back.
07-02-2007, 02:00 PM
#56
LOL!!!
The exhaust ports themselves are much smaller in area than the exhaust runners are which is why I think 2.5" is fine if done properly. If you go purely off of runner area, a 3" is about right. Unfortunately Mazda can't seem to get port area and runner area matched up very well. Even if a 2.5" makes slightly less top end power, I'll bet it makes more average power everywhere else. Someone go test that statement and report back.
The exhaust ports themselves are much smaller in area than the exhaust runners are which is why I think 2.5" is fine if done properly. If you go purely off of runner area, a 3" is about right. Unfortunately Mazda can't seem to get port area and runner area matched up very well. Even if a 2.5" makes slightly less top end power, I'll bet it makes more average power everywhere else. Someone go test that statement and report back.
Lets ask Lasse since he seems to have all the needed equiptment?
Have you tested out a 3" exhaust as well as the 2.5" that you are currently using? What about a 2.75"?
07-02-2007, 04:59 PM
#57
Lasse wankel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Stockholm,Sweden
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can say that i have not tested any 2.75" or 3" on my N/A RX-8. But it can be easily done i just have to ask Ferrita and they will make a bigger bore exhaust. Maybe i'm gonna test the 2.5" and a 3" prototype on Lennarts RX-8 race car on my RotoTest dyno? Lennarts RX-8 has a Procharger kit from DNA on his stock block Renesis engine that is pumping out 326 hp at rear wheels on a DynoDynamics hub dyno. Should be interesting to see the results!
/Lasse
/Lasse
I'm more curious about dropping weight. Any target weight reduction numbers verses stock weight?
08-14-2007, 10:18 AM
#61
Lasse wankel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Stockholm,Sweden
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well one thing i can say for sure is that i am still waiting for Peter G to get his hands dirty on manufacturing the headers! I talk to him last Monday and then he said he should "only" do some Ford Cosworth turbo headers. This means that hopefully he can start with my headers late next week. I am not gonna comment or write anything more about the header before he makes the first one!Then i will post some pictures. About the weight i think it will be around 2 lbs lighter than stock.
/Lasse
/Lasse
12-22-2007, 03:01 PM
#73
Administrator
iTrader: (7)
update?
12-27-2007, 09:36 AM
#74
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL!!!
The exhaust ports themselves are much smaller in area than the exhaust runners are which is why I think 2.5" is fine if done properly. If you go purely off of runner area, a 3" is about right. Unfortunately Mazda can't seem to get port area and runner area matched up very well. Even if a 2.5" makes slightly less top end power, I'll bet it makes more average power everywhere else. Someone go test that statement and report back.
The exhaust ports themselves are much smaller in area than the exhaust runners are which is why I think 2.5" is fine if done properly. If you go purely off of runner area, a 3" is about right. Unfortunately Mazda can't seem to get port area and runner area matched up very well. Even if a 2.5" makes slightly less top end power, I'll bet it makes more average power everywhere else. Someone go test that statement and report back.
Slight thread hijack here but hey!
Just flicking through the exhaust threads for some tips on making up our exhaust system to mate to our own headers, and picked up on this, nice to see someone confirmed my calculations, I was getting a bit worried I'd gone too small seeing all the big bore systems on here!
