Bridgeport RX8
05-26-2009, 05:07 PM
#127
Yes,
to be honest, my budget dont allow more spending at moment (the whole rebuild and new fuel pump and coils and clutch was a hard one!), although i want to, and i dont want to have a piggyback system on, thus rather wait a while, and do it properly with complete other system like microtech or so....
Philip
to be honest, my budget dont allow more spending at moment (the whole rebuild and new fuel pump and coils and clutch was a hard one!), although i want to, and i dont want to have a piggyback system on, thus rather wait a while, and do it properly with complete other system like microtech or so....
Philip
if the std fuel system has enough juice for 300hp FI then a little bridge is nothing.
05-28-2009, 09:30 AM
#131
3-wheeler
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-28-2009, 11:06 AM
#133
I've actually been thinking of this for a while... The stock bevel is only on the closing edge...and according to mazda that constitutes for a 15Deg later closing of the ports... (it looked small to me but that is what they said...) If you were to replicate this on the leading edge of the rotor it would open the ports earlier by 15deg, at least in theory....and 15>6 so youwould introduce 9deg of overlap....without having to do a bridge....that sounds good to me....the draw back is that it would force the exhaust ports to open earlier also which might be detrimental for N/A but for Boosted applications that is gravy helping you boost sooner.
what do you think?
Chris
what do you think?
Chris
05-28-2009, 01:45 PM
#134
Super Moderator
And I have nothing against HYMEE...
05-28-2009, 02:10 PM
#135
3-wheeler
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without getting too far off the topic of this thread, I'm a huge fan of expectations when it comes to products, services and the like. My belief is as long as my customers are armed with a proper set of expectations that they are responsible for their own decision. I cannot expect my customers to make good part decisions if they expect something they won't get.
In the case of cat back exhausts, no one should expect power gains from something like that. In that case, it's a modification for sound and sometimes weight reduction. If/when BHR moves that route it will be marketed as such.
Intakes, for example, are not marketed as sound generators but power adders yet we've seen very limited proof of that. Yet, about the only two things they do is lighten your wallet and make lots of noise.
As Charles pointed out, if you want the engine sound of overlap I'm sure it could be produced for less than it would cost for a bridge port. Porting is about performance, not sound.
In the case of cat back exhausts, no one should expect power gains from something like that. In that case, it's a modification for sound and sometimes weight reduction. If/when BHR moves that route it will be marketed as such.
Intakes, for example, are not marketed as sound generators but power adders yet we've seen very limited proof of that. Yet, about the only two things they do is lighten your wallet and make lots of noise.
As Charles pointed out, if you want the engine sound of overlap I'm sure it could be produced for less than it would cost for a bridge port. Porting is about performance, not sound.
05-28-2009, 02:28 PM
#136
Super Moderator
Without getting too far off the topic of this thread, I'm a huge fan of expectations when it comes to products, services and the like. My belief is as long as my customers are armed with a proper set of expectations that they are responsible for their own decision. I cannot expect my customers to make good part decisions if they expect something they won't get.
In the case of cat back exhausts, no one should expect power gains from something like that. In that case, it's a modification for sound and sometimes weight reduction. If/when BHR moves that route it will be marketed as such.
Intakes, for example, are not marketed as sound generators but power adders yet we've seen very limited proof of that. Yet, about the only two things they do is lighten your wallet and make lots of noise.
As Charles pointed out, if you want the engine sound of overlap I'm sure it could be produced for less than it would cost for a bridge port. Porting is about performance, not sound.
In the case of cat back exhausts, no one should expect power gains from something like that. In that case, it's a modification for sound and sometimes weight reduction. If/when BHR moves that route it will be marketed as such.
Intakes, for example, are not marketed as sound generators but power adders yet we've seen very limited proof of that. Yet, about the only two things they do is lighten your wallet and make lots of noise.
As Charles pointed out, if you want the engine sound of overlap I'm sure it could be produced for less than it would cost for a bridge port. Porting is about performance, not sound.
However as we know so many of these so called reputable Cat Back sellers and manufacturers were talking HP gains, and it was wrong of them to do so, I said it years back and got the usual response.
Mazda just spend a small fortune on getting it right for the past 40 years but 'others' know better.....it's called marketing...and bullshit.
As far a Philip and this thread, I have got to know Phillip over a few years and I believe him when he says there are some gains, even though I did say to him you have a new engine you should see a difference from the old.
In time I think he will put it on the Dyno.
He has a young family with expenses that take priority, the guy was not even sure he would see his car back because it took 2 Months to do a re-build..the business kept stalling him....engine in pieces, what does one do.
Thankfully the rebuild had no serious issues first up...so give the guy some time and space I am sure he will let us know..
Ash
05-28-2009, 02:42 PM
#137
Super Moderator
Forgot to add, I don't think I have seen Any performance gains from ANYTHING that is sold here or anywhere else for the RX-8, apart from Turbo's or Superchargers.
Everything else is just FLUFF, crap that is said to be better than the original.
It just shows what a good job Mazda does..to the RX-8 and other RX-'s.
Maybe the Water Pump is the exception.
Everything else is just FLUFF, crap that is said to be better than the original.
It just shows what a good job Mazda does..to the RX-8 and other RX-'s.
Maybe the Water Pump is the exception.
05-28-2009, 03:29 PM
#138
Forgot to add, I don't think I have seen Any performance gains from ANYTHING that is sold here or anywhere else for the RX-8, apart from Turbo's or Superchargers.
Everything else is just FLUFF, crap that is said to be better than the original.
It just shows what a good job Mazda does..to the RX-8 and other RX-'s.
Maybe the Water Pump is the exception.
Everything else is just FLUFF, crap that is said to be better than the original.
It just shows what a good job Mazda does..to the RX-8 and other RX-'s.
Maybe the Water Pump is the exception.
05-28-2009, 03:50 PM
#140
Well, the bevelling/scalloping of the edges of the rotor brings the potential for a mathematical change in the available overlap but how much flow it is that can be gleaned from such a small change can probably only be tried and measured. Then there is the expense of balancing the rotors to think about, too, and whether or not we would need to rebalance the counterweights.
What are your thoughts, Chris?
What are your thoughts, Chris?
The bevel, if at least .125"into the rotor face....would be similar to porting .125" on the leading edge of a port...and that is not huge but it is certainly noticeable by porting standards....the bridgeport in the engine from SA is probably about .125" wide itself if that...
I have lots to think about...I might do something crazy soon....
Chris
05-28-2009, 04:00 PM
#141
1) Seems we agree that, at the very least, it would be good to ensure proper balancing.
2) I would assert that scalloping the edges of the rotors .125" isn't the same as opening the ports .125" because once the scalloped edges move completely past the port, their effect will be moot. A larger port has benefits whenever air is moving through it, Helmholtz effect notwithstanding. Maybe do both and see what happens?
2) I would assert that scalloping the edges of the rotors .125" isn't the same as opening the ports .125" because once the scalloped edges move completely past the port, their effect will be moot. A larger port has benefits whenever air is moving through it, Helmholtz effect notwithstanding. Maybe do both and see what happens?
I'd like to add that I am thinking of this with FI in mind where the air is sitting there under pressure waiting for the rotor to move out of the way.
Chris
05-28-2009, 04:12 PM
#143
Registered
I'd agree with that. To understand why we need to think in piston engine terms. A scalloped rotor would have the same effect as changing cam duration. Enlargening the port would have the same effect as a cam duration change AND a lift increase as there would also be more open area. That's about the closest comparison I can think of.
05-28-2009, 04:56 PM
#144
Is there enough room to bevel the rotor edge enough to see noticeable gains? Our rotors are pretty light from the factory and probably beveling\rebalancing them would be too much.
Who wants to try?
Who wants to try?
05-29-2009, 08:39 AM
#145
The beveling of the rotors is not to make them lighter but to cause them to "move out of the way" of the port sooner effectively increasing the length of time the port remains open.
I know our rotors are light but we are removing material from a section which has plenty support and in an area which already comes beveled on the closing edge.
Best regards,
Chris
05-29-2009, 08:50 AM
#146
Chris, you got me right on the support thing. So the rotor faces are thick enough to support some beveling!
I thought they were too thin to scrape material off of them!
I thought they were too thin to scrape material off of them!
05-29-2009, 09:00 AM
#147
Chris
05-30-2009, 05:35 AM
#149
Rotary lover
Thread Starter
another clip when driving
Hi All,
it took a while, but here are another clip when driving,
i took it from second gear, low revs, and then just feed it through, changed to 3rd up to about 8000rpm,
i will do another one from 1st gear.
the cel is on, i know, but my battery went bang today and i had to go buy other one, so all reset, including fuel trims, thus i need another week or so for it to learn from start,
we live in high altitude bery high and far from coast, thus we do loose a lot of power due to less oxygen, when at the coast it should be faster, and when trims are learnt again, also better.
still no other problems,
will keep all up to date,
new clip soon
Philip
[EMBED]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgFUgThyV9s[/EMBED]
it took a while, but here are another clip when driving,
i took it from second gear, low revs, and then just feed it through, changed to 3rd up to about 8000rpm,
i will do another one from 1st gear.
the cel is on, i know, but my battery went bang today and i had to go buy other one, so all reset, including fuel trims, thus i need another week or so for it to learn from start,
we live in high altitude bery high and far from coast, thus we do loose a lot of power due to less oxygen, when at the coast it should be faster, and when trims are learnt again, also better.
still no other problems,
will keep all up to date,
new clip soon
Philip
[EMBED]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgFUgThyV9s[/EMBED]
Last edited by Philip_SA; 05-30-2009 at 10:37 AM. Reason: embedded
05-30-2009, 05:40 AM
#150
Rotary lover
Thread Starter