White_Shadows

I didn't contradict myself. I said amount of air/fuel compressed in chamber = psi.
Yes and I said mass air flow sensor.
Yes it is amount of air and fuel molecules in the combustion chamber, but in the end it all winds up to how compressed you can make the mixture. Pounds per square inch. Fred majors designed a motor capable of infinite possible pressure taking a bmw boxster motor and turning the pistons into eachother. Amazing design, working model. 1l was capable of 1000hp. Just amazing watch the video. Efficency is accomplished from pressure.
http://hypermiling.brighterplanet.org/getting-more-car-mileage/the-dr-paul-internal-combustion-engine-80-efficient (ok video is private now wtf) really is cool if someone can find a not private version. Watched this video in an engine theory class two years ago we all laughed saying he'd get pinched off from the oil companies maybe he did haha.
I am Very aware of how an internal combustion engine works. The objective is taking that mixture of compressed air and fuel bringing it to stoichiometric constantly as well as, as I said, removing negative pressure/flow.
Speaking of Which, anyone have an answer on that one? What is creating the vacuum to bring air into the port n/a?

Loki:
So many more factors come into play going from compairing n/a numbers to turbo numbers. Under your same theory/math, hennesy would never be able to improve their turbo kit with the same exact turbos. Actually...they changed out the piping dropped 2psi gained 350hp hmm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0AJLWH_p_g
Also you yourself keep saying psi on the turbo. Why does everyone say psi then if psi is not a part of anything to do with the internal combustion engine? Start giving me flow numbers then. I'm more than happy to move to measuring the amount of air moving past a given point over what period of time, but shoot everyone keeps talking in psi. What are you measuring then in saying that 8psi is 2psi?? (Side note, Supra's are parallel not Sequential? anyone have a diagram? I read they was sequential, but I have never pulled one apart.)

I completely agree with you guys that if you can move more air through the turbo, through the intake, and into the port in a shorter period of time and deliver fuel to the mixture more power can be produced. That is flowing air CFH, gravy. Ok why is the intercooler required? Heat of compression....how are you measuring the compression in your CFH number?
I may just be as guilty as you guys are of continuing to use PSI maybe, but I don't see any CFH numbers in anyones arguments. Even loki's diagram has pressure against lbs/min

Thewird:
Many many many problems with electric fans.
A. I want something constant that I don't need to be pushing any buttons.
B. Bernoulli's principle refer to previous post for diagram link. Your picture does create restrictions and changes in velocity. Only way bypass could be made is creating a split intake system and pointing piping in such a way that the secondary intake doesn't suck the forced air back out, but then you would need pressure high enough that when at that point of incressed pipe diameter blah blah...you get the point.
C. Heat of compression, I would assume if you are compressing the air, the loss from air molecules expanding with heat would eliminate benefits gained. Can be wrong here though.
D. You are needing to create energy as opposed to using wasted energy.
I have thought about it and if you can move around these issues then it may be a good plan.

Another plan could even be changing the intake side of the turbo to an alternator for electricity and running all accessories off of the exhaust gasses. It was slightly touched on already, but not in that wording. I do not have the machine shop capabilities of this though haha.

White_Shadows

And carbon fiber bicycles hold up some of the fatest fools ever. Seibon already has both doors made. I assume they have been tested if it was a huge issue they would have major complaints and lawsuits to boot. Also if it does become a B pillar issue. Rollcage in aluminum bolt it down. Tada. I'll look at it. thanks.

shaunv74

Compressing the mixture in the chamber and the amount of resulting expansion pressure is dependent on how much air is in the chamber when the port closes and the compression ratio of the chamber. NOT THE BOOST PRESSURE OF THE TURBO.

And to answer your second question. The vaccum in the rotor chamber comes from sealing of the side, corner, and apex seals against the rotor housing and the evacuation of hot gases when the rotor moves across the exhaust ports. The chamber volume decreases through this portion of the cycle. The chamber then increases in volume as the rotor moves across the intake ports creating a vacuum. Edit: More correctly a drop in pressure below atmosphere which we commonly call vacuum in practical discussions.

thewird

Seibon assumes none of that responsibility. Carbon fiber doors will break like paper in an impact and provide no defence whatsoever. They do not test anything,. they make a mold, produce it, see if it fits and they are done. You would need to reinforce them yourself. Carbon fiber doors are for the hardcore racer with a full cage or show cars. That covers most users. Then there are the people who dont know how dangerous it is to run them on the streets if you get an idiot driver and T-bones you to death.

thewird

Loki

iTrader: (1)

lbs/min.... OF AIRFLOW!
There`s an excellent book I`d recommend if you`re serious about this turbo business: Maximum Boost by Corky Bell. It`s about 25-30 bucks on Amazon, check it out. I`m not sure why you insist on arguing with people who actually have experience with turbos, so perhaps Mr. Bell can clear it all up.

shaunv74

+1

PSI=pounds of force per square inch=force per unit area=pressure
CFM=cubic feet per minute=volume flow rate=does not include density=does not account for compression from the turbo
lb/min=pounds of mass per minute=mass flow rate=velocity*cross sectional area of tube air is flowing through*density of fluid

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

Ahh, the level of fail in this thread is refreshing.
Again.

White_Shadows

MM:
Glad it meets your approval lol

As I said before I ride motorcycles trust me getting T-Boned is not a concern of mine. One more person gets a free job enjoy it. Structure however is. I said I would look into it and if an issue I will fix. Yes they just make molds so on, but if cars are falling together or twisting I think someone would look into it. You doubt the power of humans these days. A women is single handedly shutting down resturants in sacramento because she is handicap and an automatic door for her is not available. Either way as I said I personally will look into it.

shaunv74:
That is why I questioned efficiency on that. In multi cylinder engines you have gravity plus other pistons aiding in downward thrust, I suppose you do have the opposite face having a controlled burn, but I wonder how efficient it is.

Does anyone have any doubt that the motor is not efficent? Anyone making an arguement about that please speak up. I don't say you are wrong, but I don't say you are right or else someone would have given me the correct answer to what is wrong with the motor.

Loki:
I argue because A. It's a forum, if everyone was right why would we even have them? B. People post things like post number 42. (just because you have a turbo doesn't make you the master of one) C. Because you continually use the word PSI and ignore that you type it. D. Because I have not been given a reason why the word PSI is used in relation to turbo's if it is only flow. E. I want to know how you factor in velocity and pressure based on tube diameter if you are only working in CFM. F. To increase MM post count.

I'm not arguing to argue, I have not been given a legit answer. ShaunV gave definitions. I explained that I am completely aware of what they are.

I have given my reasons of why the electric motor will not work. Get's us back to the turbo discussion. If you agree that our motor is not efficient, (aka the **** *** gas mileage) then spell out for me how you would explain using your cfm numbers I can achieve my goals. Refer to upcoming post for a narrow down of my theory (as it has never been done) and what I view needs changing.

thewird

Honestly, I don't think your going to improve the Renissis's fuel mileage without leaning it out, changing your gear ratio's, or lightening up the car. Mazda's main focus in this engine was fuel economy and emissions. Atomizing air or using tiny turbo's will only make it have more power which will mean more fuel.

Also, look into Mazda's new direct fuel injection design in the prototype 16X engine. The combustion stroke has been lengthened and the rotor width reduced which supposedly provides a faster burn. Also, note that they are planning on going to all aluminum housings which equals 40-50 pound weight savings.

thewird

8 Maniac

iTrader: (1)

While you mentioned you aren't concerned with the costs since it would just be tinkering around, I'd guess that if you somehow did see some gains, they would be so miniscule that it would not be worth mentioning. I'm sure someone has said something along the same lines in this thread, but figured I put in my 2 cents.

White_Shadows

All as I view it, feel free to add legit reasons why it is efficent, just please be ready to back it up:

Issue #1
Start at the front of ICE.

Port is closed as seal passes, Rotor comes around with area in combustion chamber small. As it passes the area becomes larger. Atmospheric differences in pressure draws air in (vacuum). So the motor is pulling the air in which is wasting rotational force.
-Example: If you pull on a syringe plunger that is closed your bodies energy is what is bringing the air in. Now if you blow into the syringe the plunger requires no effort to raise and bring air in. (Yes you blowing is energy, but we are using wasted energy to create the air in)

Issue #2
The motor runs very rich. Why does it require it? My theory is as the mist of fuel enters the motor it is pooling at some point. Fuel as a liquid will not burn. Inturn the motor runs rich to help eliminate the risk of pooled fuel not burning. In this case more is not better. I view the turbo as pushed air. If, as the injectors spray the mist into the intake continue movement this should eliminate the pooling keeping the fuel atomized. In turn far less fuel should be required.

More should be able to be done with this.

Issue #3
Rotary engine runs hot. If it is running hot that is lost energy in the form of heat. Someone else give me solution to this. I assume the cast iron is absorbing to much heat? By all means if someone wants to make housings with a less conductive metal I'll test it for you lol.

Issue #4
Exhaust gasses have always and will always be wasted energy. The fact that the air coming out being rich is not a concern as hopefully issue #2 will solve that. Using a turbo uses this energy to create forced air. This moving air is reused to solve Issue #1.
This is where the question of what turbo came in. Reason I said small is because I viewed
A. Low boost/cfm/psi/air/rbi/whatever, but very early in rpm's as the less times the motor turns the less fuel is used.
B. Size of small because I want to use small quick spool turbos, as well as space issues. I want one tubo per main port.
C. Backpressure problems are solved with running the wastegates by the joined port pulling all left over air out.
I wish I could also machine a second "turbo" near the end of the exhaust to create electricity to remove all accessories from the engine, but don't have those resources.

Issue #5
Lack of torque, which when all is combined should be elevated allowing for much lower gearing. Again less rpm's to create more work.

Ok now if we are still saying the GT25 is all the wrong turbo with that information please tell me what turbo I should use then. As was the original question. Please have figures and reasons for the choice.

If you see holes in my "Issues" please add in figures to your reasons and feel free to add to the issues of why the motor is not efficient.

White_Shadows

We have a light weight car with only 1.3L's producing not the greatest torque numbers and not the greatest hp numbers and absolute **** for gas mileage. I think there is plenty of space for improvement. If you have a better reason then "miniscule cuz I have two pennies in my pocket" please chime in, but I can tell you didn't read any of the thread.

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

WS - do you realise that if you ran positive pressure into the the inlet manifold of a 13B that it would make too much power for cruiseing speed ?

Your theory would work if you went to a tiny motor and ran positive pressure to that - but running positive pressure to a 13b at cruise to save gas is f'd up thinking . Sorry man , like i said earlier , you are barking up the wrong tree .

thewird

Issue 1: Your going to be creating backpressure even if you only use one side of the port so your analogy doesn't work.

Issue 2: It runs rich from the factory to keep the engine cool and rotaries run smoother in all weather conditions when they are rich generally. You can of course lean it out with tuning but then your EGT's will be higher. Rotaries run hotter then a piston engine by design.

Issue 3: You can't fix that problem, you want the heat to go into the water or your going be in a constantly overheating situation.

Issue 4: Your not going to get more efficiency no matter how wasted the energy is

Issue 5: Quite simply yes, turbo will make you have more torque. Torque is directly related fueling assuming ideal AFR timing. More torque = more fuel per combustion event = LESS MPG

If you want better fuel mileage, you need to change the design of the motor, not feed it more air.

thewird

White_Shadows

You can't read can you. I know what the numbers on the side of the motor reads, please tell me why it won't work. This bullshit "sorry man barking up wrong tree" is a bullshit answer and you know it is. Ok running positive pressure will make to much power. Why? I told you why it's a loss in power please tell me why it will be an issue. Telling me it's a 13b...really I can read that. It says it on the motor.

Forgot. Also if it is an issue of running the RPM's too high, as you said to much power for cruising, then change the gearing. Seems like a good thing not an issue.

White_Shadows

Why am I creating backpressure or enough to create issues?

Yes it runs hotter then a piston engine, that means it's wasting energy. Didn't I say that? Saying by design is not an answer. Trying to fix the design flaw not just accept it.

Again heat is wasted energy if you aren't wasting energy you don't have heat issues. I don't know why you even brought coolant into the equation. I never said stop coolant flow....

If you're not going to get more efficency why the **** do people keep making better gas mileage cars. HORRID answer. I think Mazda would have tossed the motor then. Yes they improve, but thats exactly what I'm after.

I'm after torque gained from lost energy so no its not more fuel.

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

It won't work because you will make too much power for the speed you are traveling because the motor is too big - didn't I already say that ?
What is so hard to understand about that ?

White_Shadows

And I added to it read again. Change the gearing. It sounds like a major benefit to me.

thewird

You said your removing the force required for the engine to suck the air into the engine but at the same time your creating backpressure on the exhaust side which will create an opposing force on the spinning rotor since it requires more energy to push it out.

More torque comes as a DIRECT result of more air and fuel given the same engine design. If you feed it more air, you need to feed it more fuel.

I mentioned coolant because you need to keep the heat out or you will fatigue the engine internals due to heat not being able to escape and wearing the metal.

Mazda has been redesigned the motor consistently with every new motor. The renissis was the pinnacle of the 13b. Now they are working on a new design which is the 16X, you really should read up on it. There main focus is fuel economy and torque as its been for the past 40+ years of research and development (not sure the exact amount). They continue working on it because they see they haven't reached the limits of what can be done. Same reason they continue working on pistons improving them except pistons have the advantage that everyone and there mother is thinking of ways to make them better, while Mazda is the only manufacturer that is developing the rotary.

In order to gain torque you need more fuel and air given the same engine and assuming ideal tuning. You cannot change that fact no matter how hard you post or **** you add to the intake and exhaust.

thewird

Brettus

iTrader: (2)

OK - put a really tall 6th gear in there so you are running at say 1200rpm at 70mph then maybe you could run some boost ......

Of course , there are many reasons why this is impractical , but hey, knock yourself out ...

8 Maniac

iTrader: (1)

I read the earlier parts of the thread actually. The point I got to, all you had mentioned in any depth were hopes for improved milage. If your also after hp and torque, then yes, you could see some gains there. My statement, though, was directed at the hopes for improved fuel economy, which I just dont see happening on any significant level.

shaunv74

Man you are showing up like you discovered fire and for some reason think it hasn't been around for thousands of years. Even when we are trying to show you simple things like candles and matches. Unsubscribing.

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

Welcome to my world.

maxxdamigz

iTrader: (1)

The rotary engine has a poor BSFC compared to a reciprocating engine. I've always assumed this is because the expanding flame front pushes indirectly on the rotor face where as in a piston engine, the expanding force is fully orthogonal. That thought, though, could be entirely incorrect. This is also why I assumed rotary engines make poor torque. So take a 2.6 liter engine (rotaries do a full engine displacement per "crank" revolution and not 2 crank revs per full displacement) and then add in the disadvantage of no variable timing mechanism. Find a 2.6 liter reciprocating naturally aspirated engine capable of 220 hp without any kind of variable timing that is able to perform as well against it's BSFC as the Renny.

White_Shadows

Yes your world of 4 word posts and telling everyone that they are reposting or dumb. So beneficial to increasing everyones knowledge. You are good no doubt. You know very well what you are doing. You also have the resources to have done this already and maybe you have, but screw it, you'd rather have the image of *******. I see you even have your own thread about it. Congrats I still think you are an *******, thank you atleast for the GT25 post.


If I had the money I would have tested the theory already and posted results. Just to bring back to orignial post. Only thing I ever asked for was turbo's for size. Everyone debating, what do you fear? That I might be right? You can tell me I'm wrong, but I don't exactly see any proof. I never once said that I was going to get some 60mpg. The results would be minimal. I said that, but enough to drag it out of the 16mpg. Just testing a theory of whether the fuel can be used more efficently.

ShaunV: I never said I was going to reinvent the wheel. I already said that the cost will far outweigh the benefit. I'm not stupid, mazda has far more resources than any of us. 16x is great I have read about it, but it isn't here and I'm working with what I already have. It is just a test of theory and to see if it would work. You tell me you gave me matches and candles. What, matches without tips on them and candles without wicks? How about giving me some of those CFM figures instead of always just saying it won't work? How much backpressure will be created? You don't know, neither do I, but thats why I want to test it.

Thewird: You said exactly what I am after. Yes more fuel and air would be required to create torque IF and only IF the fuel and air that was already being used was being used efficently. It is not, you know it is not. That is my objective, using the fuel and air already present more efficently.

Everyone posted for 4 pages worth of thread, that means you have enough interest in the theory. When I come across the money I will test it. It won't be a complete waste of money as I will turn it around after testing for power and torque.

I'm sorry everyone thinks I'm wrong, I am fully able to take that I am wrong if I am wrong. All I ever asked for from the start of this thread was tiny turbo's in size. You asked what I was after I told you and immediatly the bashing begins. Let me test it, let me be wrong, but aid me in choosing the correct turbo's for my application instead of continuing to just tell me I am wrong. Not your money and I know you would love to see the results. I will take the "I told you so" with an open mind.