When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I was talking about your omments on the 7163 turbo the other guy was doing, in them you completely ignored all the things he was doing wrong that was leading you not to be impressed. I detailed those points out over in my concept thread.
As far as your other comment is concerned, it's not a card, it's my life now and there is only one judge when that days comes and it isn't you ... you have no idea what I do or don't do as far as that goes. You just judge words on a forum in your own biased, ignorant slant. There are people on this forum who can provide testimony on that too should they choose to step forward. I don't care if they do or not, nor what you believe. I know whats true in my heart and so does the only one that matters to me. The nly reason you'd even say that is because you again take everything personally.
I was talking about your comments on the 7163 turbo the other guy was doing, in them you completely ignored all the things he was doing wrong that was leading you not to be impressed. I detailed those points out over in my concept thread.
You were talking about me digging a hole for myself .... that's what i was responding to - read the quote above my statement. BTW , you should learn to do that so people an understand what you are referring to.
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
You just judge words on a forum
Correct ..... I guess being a nice guy on the forum doesn't meet any criteria you have set for yourself.
I'm not attacking you. I don't understand why you've been behaving like this over the last several days. It seems like you're having an emotional breakdown or something. I'm genuinely concerned for you.
Brettus, good that you are tacking that chalenge on the renessis. I did it too that why i owen and fd now. Dont get me wrong i love the 8's handleling and ride quality even more after all the $$i dumped into it, but at the end its still a 3300 lbs car with an engine that is meant to stay the way it was designed. I tried different rotors , i tried lighter rotors, porting and turbo, guess what? Engine cant haldle very well more than 13psi. That was in 2006by now It might ,but it might not last you for too long.
anyways good luck...
Brettus, good that you are tacking that chalenge on the renessis. I did it too that why i owen and fd now. Dont get me wrong i love the 8's handleling and ride quality even more after all the $$i dumped into it, but at the end its still a 3300 lbs car with an engine that is meant to stay the way it was designed. I tried different rotors , i tried lighter rotors, porting and turbo, guess what? Engine cant haldle very well more than 13psi. That was in 2006by now It might ,but it might not last you for too long.
anyways good luck...
Thanks RRC ..... yes , I've been through all that and more . I'm pretty much at the end of the trail now but am hopeful I've at least figured out what the biggest issue is and have taken steps to try and mitigate that.
However, If I can't get my next mod. to work , I'll have to concede defeat.I do see some good indicators though ...............fingers xd !
Well look, you don't understand why I chose not to discuss it with you and all of this is exactly why. First, I can't tell you anything without you going to the extreme overboard position by portraying it as trashing your idea, attacking you, etc. Then when I sincerely explain that you misunderstood my intent and explain what it was you call me a liar. Now you want to make the entire thing out like some big psych game I'm playing on you. Well all of that makes having any kind of dialogue with you an impossibility right from the go. Well again, best wishes to you just the same.
Look ..............I am perfectly capable of having a meaningful discussion . It's when you say "the design is flawed" etc etc without backing it up with anything but an opinion that I get annoyed with you. Just because I keep arguing my point doesn't mean I'm upset as you keep trying to insinuate . It just means I want a proper answer.
We can only hope. The cognitive dissonance between what Team preaches and how he acts is a head-scratcher.
He keeps earning his reputation.
Enough of the drama, back to the turbo build, Brett! Full steam... er... hot exhaust gas ahead!
+1
There’s been a line drawn in the sand, and I’m on the 6 port side. Those 4port pussies are trying to get the most out of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but they’re only working with the jelly.....iiiits peanut butter jelly time!
You can see turbine backpressure reaches 18psi on both front and rear scrolls. Boost pressure is 10-11psi . I would like to get backpressure down to just above boost pressure .
From what I remember, it was mentioned that you see about 2:1 in pressure ratio on a healthy system, meaning around 20psi hot side pressure when cold side are at 10psi.
From what I remember, it was mentioned that you see about 2:1 in pressure ratio on a healthy system, meaning around 20psi hot side pressure when cold side are at 10psi.
Does my memory serve me wrong?
Quite correct . That is what the gurus used to say about a healthy street setup . It is also widely accepted that for a race car you want something around 1:1 . I'm looking for something in between but still with decent spoolup. The Renesis engine is more affected by backpressure than other designs from what I've seen. Ideally I'd like something like a 'P' trim turbine as that works really well on the REW engine for the power level I'm after.
I recently found out there is a 'p' trim upgrade for the GT35r but I've already shot my bolt on this hi flo so I'll have to live with whatever it gives me.
EDIT: Was too fast there, 18/11= 1,63. I forgot that you was "only" at 10PSI, not 16PSI.
Yeah ..... that's what I was refering to . I want to get intake manifold pressure above exhaust manifold pressure up to around 6000rpm (where apv kicks in) climbing to around 1.5 max.
But the "2" in above shown turbine chart equals 14.7PSI compared to atmosphere, like in the pressures in compressor maps, correct? If so, you are shooting for 1 + (16/14.7) = 1 + 1.09 = 2.09 maximum..?
One more question,
Looks like you are sitting on quite a database, would it be possible for you to do a compilation to see how g/s reading is changing when FI, compared to NA? I know that the MAF sensor is not very accurate/calibrated, but if we read with the same sensor in otherwise(more or less) identical system, then we could see how much the resonances we have in NA is is doing, and we could give a estimate how good filling of chamber are FI(in %). Now, if we go from say 105% NA, to 95%FI, it makes a decent difference on what compressor that could work well.
But the "2" in above shown turbine chart equals 14.7PSI compared to atmosphere, like in the pressures in compressor maps, correct? If so, you are shooting for 1 + (16/14.7) = 1 + 1.09 = 2.09 maximum..?
no the 2 isn't that at all . It's the pressure before the turbine over the pressure after or more correctly
the pressure ratio on the turbine side uses total pressure at the turbine inlet and static pressure at the turbine outlet.
. Don't ask me what that means.
Originally Posted by AAaF
One more question,
Looks like you are sitting on quite a database, would it be possible for you to do a compilation to see how g/s reading is changing when FI, compared to NA? I know that the MAF sensor is not very accurate/calibrated, but if we read with the same sensor in otherwise(more or less) identical system, then we could see how much the resonances we have in NA is is doing, and we could give a estimate how good filling of chamber are FI(in %). Now, if we go from say 105% NA, to 95%FI, it makes a decent difference on what compressor that could work well.
I actually don't trust the maf numbers I get at all . I think they are higher than actual and am thinking i might change my tuning method so they more accurate by scaling down the maf and adjusting VE.
But isnt static pressure at outlet relatively close to atmosphere if you have an exhaust system that isn't too restrictive?
Yes, I've picked up that we cannot trust the absolute numbers from MAF, so that comparing what two different MAF's are giving is not sensible, but it might be that the same sensor would give us info regarding changes. For example, when you increase pressure to say 12psi, does your MAF reading go up by (14.7+12)/14.7 = 1.82 = 182%. I suspect that you see less, because filling is reduced from above 100%+ to something slightly less, for example 95%. Therefore (partly I guess), you need to have a bit more than 12psi to get a 182% increased reading from your MAF. This would might give us a picture about how filling/Ve changes during FI. Then we can use the numbers given by Mazda as reference for further estimations. Sounds sensible from your experience/numbers? ? It's just a loose theory in my head, caused by Teams input in his thread.
01-06-2018, 05:15 PM
