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.
What I'm hearing over and over from you just reinforces what I keep saying .... you don't have enough experience in this and don't understand it well enough to lecture anyone other than the noobs you like to put down.
I'll take your point about my upgrades and it would be a valid one if they had achieved what I had hoped they would. If you read through the thread you will see that they really didn't. I'd he happy to reinsert a bone stock 3582 in there because I know I'd get the same results.
You are clutching at straws . I answered your callout comprehensively and you didn't like it . All you are doing right now is sqirming around trying to save face.
Is that clutching at straws? You don’t think the boost can be turned up quicker with more timing than on street gas? Unfortunately the EFR line is not a good comparison because your turbo is in the middle, but the 8374 can hit 16psi by 3000 rpm with E30. I only mention it because you did. That was a pretty weak graph imo, but it will never fit a Renesis low mount position due to the 6-port intake or unless you can rework it like I was intending to due with the 4-port. That’s an easier situation though without the APV junk and the SSV isn’t even needed for it either. That was never discussed before. So I don’t get wigged out with you saying it won’t fit or work or whatever.
Guess I should have pointed out the other differences too, but all those points are in your threads if anyone wants to take the time reading them. It seems to me there’s no clear answer really, because the one thing we don’t know is how the Mainline or that other dyno compares to others because it’s just not that common. Like it or not, that is a reality. I didn’t really look around that much to try and prove you wrong. They’re sll in that same general range and I’ve complimented you many times. Still not sure that I fully agree with that particular assessment of being superior. I know here in the US the Mustang dyno is considered to be the lowest reading of the common competition.
I take your point that these are Mustang dynos which generally read low ....and they are low..... so I don't see what your point was in posting them.
E30: not much an advantage whp wise (single digits at this level).... only reason to run it is to avoid detonation. This is a big advantage the REW has over the Renesis - it can make a lot more power on pump gas than a Renesis.
Hybrid turbo: Gave me about 1/2 of what I'd get moving up in AR by one level (ie 0.83 up to 1.01) in backpressure reduction . Zero to F**k all in WHP terms according to my before and after logs.
Other changes : no idea what you are referring to there.
Consider this though ... RX7s have been running big turbos for 30 odd years. It is very well known what you have to do to the car to get power and almost every big turbo project is done according to those learnings.
Renesis turbo conversions have been amateur by comparison up to the last few years .... Stock exhaust systems, restrictive pipework , small turbos, poor fuel , tired worn out engines with no strengthening. Is it any wonder that our results have been bad by comparison? I think that is why you have this notion that the Renesis can't match an REW in any way.
My results have proven that isn't the case.
However, just like I said before and you essentially blew off again, I laud your efforts and am not in any way trying to beat you or your results down. These are all just unrelated dyno graphs and who really knows what would happen if everyone was there on the same day shooting it out under the same conditions? You might beat them all.
I wouldn’t necessarily put one over the other though. Which is all I ever intended from the beginning when you made that statement. They’re all mostly in the same general range. Close enough for me to say that you proved the Renesis is at least on par with the REW. Which in itself is a substantial accomplishment that most people never thought and likely still don’t think was possible.
So again Brettus, you have nothing to be ashamed of, just the opposite. You, Slash and what’s his name are all king of the Renesis hill.
.
Thank you for the back and forth on this. Its very revealing that most pro builders, as far as I know, don't touch the ports at all. Is this true? Team has said that the builder he uses doesn't touch the ports. Has anyone seen a teardown of another noted race builder's engine? Is there no cleanup done in any way at all?
PLUS:
I now have a better picture for Team and Brett:
Much more appropriate!!!
XOXOXOXOX
Last edited by kevink0000; 09-06-2020 at 11:21 PM.
And just to be clear, the Simon and Garfunkel reference is in many ways complimentary. S&G had an amazing catalog of work product over many years. Even if you do not like their type of music, you still must admire the level they both operated at. Stunning, really.
They did it while being in constant battle with each other personally. All the more amazing!
This thread filled up with a lot of good information with amazing speed, mostly from the brains of T&B, as they worked out their differences in front of us, again. I learned something from each of their posts. Sometimes friction and tension is needed to allow talent to present itself.
So, thank you T&B.
Last edited by kevink0000; 09-07-2020 at 06:50 AM.
What do you guys think a good exhaust porting could accomplish above 400 whp?
The guy who ported my irons have been doing it for decades on both piston engines and rotaries. He stated that he measured an increase in flow over the exhaust port by just above 50% without changing the timing or anything drastic. Just polishing and rounding off the corners as much as possible without going in to the waterjacket.
What do you guys think a good exhaust porting could accomplish above 400 whp?
The guy who ported my irons have been doing it for decades on both piston engines and rotaries. He stated that he measured an increase in flow over the exhaust port by just above 50% without changing the timing or anything drastic. Just polishing and rounding off the corners as much as possible without going in to the waterjacket.
Wow. 50%? Do you have an pictures of his work you can post? I would love to see it. Is your engine FI or NA?
... without changing the timing or anything drastic. Just polishing and rounding off the corners as much as possible without going in to the waterjacket.
rather than stir up the hornets nest again, I’ll just come back after a while and see if there’s possibly anything else new going on since 16 years ago ...
.
rather than stir up the hornets nest again, I’ll just come back after a while and see if there’s possibly anything else new going on since 16 years ago ...
.
I'm sure we are not going to hold our breath waiting for something to support this. 🙄
What do you guys think a good exhaust porting could accomplish above 400 whp?
The guy who ported my irons have been doing it for decades on both piston engines and rotaries. He stated that he measured an increase in flow over the exhaust port by just above 50% without changing the timing or anything drastic. Just polishing and rounding off the corners as much as possible without going in to the waterjacket.
Nothing much at all .... IMO.
And it sounds like your decade guy is pulling your leg.
The engine is assembled, looked through my old photos and this was unfortunately the only decent pic I had... Doesn't say much. But I blew another side seal and will be tearing it down next couple of weeks, I'll upload some more photos then. Might not say anything, but I'm happy to contribute to the community if I can.
But it you feel the port with your finger you can feel that the port from factory is a 90 degree bend, and this port had a smooth arc with constant radius.
It is probably not much different than other experienced porting guys on this forum. He may be pulling my leg with the numbers, would be interesting if someone else who works with this had flow tested their ports.
When we started this, we discussed bridgeporting and delaying the closing of the exhaust port in order to create som overlap. But I had a guy simulate the engine with different turbo choices and he said that the internal egr was pretty low as it was and he thought that adding overlap would only mess things up with disturbances between the chambers on the exhaust side. So we kept the closing timing and skipped the bridge.
I am running NA currently, but have a gtx3576r waiting.
The engine is assembled, looked through my old photos and this was unfortunately the only decent pic I had... Doesn't say much. But I blew another side seal and will be tearing it down next couple of weeks, I'll upload some more photos then. Might not say anything, but I'm happy to contribute to the community if I can.
But it you feel the port with your finger you can feel that the port from factory is a 90 degree bend, and this port had a smooth arc with constant radius.
It is probably not much different than other experienced porting guys on this forum. He may be pulling my leg with the numbers, would be interesting if someone else who works with this had flow tested their ports.
When we started this, we discussed bridgeporting and delaying the closing of the exhaust port in order to create som overlap. But I had a guy simulate the engine with different turbo choices and he said that the internal egr was pretty low as it was and he thought that adding overlap would only mess things up with disturbances between the chambers on the exhaust side. So we kept the closing timing and skipped the bridge.
I am running NA currently, but have a gtx3576r waiting.
Thank you for this. I appreciate the contribution. When you teardown, please post as well.
well if you just slap it on a flow bench and run air through it you’ll get a number, but that doesn’t simulate the conditions occurring within a rotary engine.
the internal (end) port itself is so oversized that what was mentioned really amounts to nothing much. About the best you can hope for NA is maybe 3 - 5 whp and you’ll be hard pressed to get that. On the otherhand you can lose power real quick trying to treat it like an earlier 13B engine. The water jacket around opening prevents doing what is necessary for the Renesis exhaust port. Then there’s the intake phase timing issue too.
There’s some info being posted about flow percentages through the two exhaust ports that I don’t agree with either.
The exhaust port openings are identical on both sides of each rotor. However, the condition past the opening is quite different between them. The End port is wide open while the Siamese port in the center plate has a divider plate in the middle limiting it to a much more convoluted flow path than the end plate exhaust port. Let’s take a look at the numbers:
Because the port runner intersects the housing face at an approx. 15 deg angle, the vertical measurement of the port at the opening is not true. The true vertical measurement is less, which translates to:
End plate port open flow area = 1034 mm^2
Siamese plate port open area = 769 mm^2 (a little less actually due to the divider plate
except the Siamese port serves two rotors and the divider plate limits the effective flow path out of the port to 1/2 that area, so
End plate port open flow area = 1034 mm^2. Siamese plate port open area = 384 mm^2
which then translates to
End plate port open flow area = 72.9% Siamese plate port open area = 27.1%
This would apply after the exhaust flow passes through the orifice opening on the plate face. The general rule of thumb is that flow will seek the path of least resistance. However, determining the exact flow percentage for each port isn’t so simple. The port opening serves as an orifice that is going to alter the path of resistance some. This will also be dependent on mass volume and pressure, which is going to vary by rpm, load, etc. The flow through the port varies as well from when it first cracks open, to having full flow, and then closes down the tapering port shape at the end. RPM affects this a lot due to the amount of time the port transitions from open to closed decreasing more and more as rpm increases more and more.
An argument was made that the divider plate in the Siamese port serves to provide a siphoning effect as the hot gasses rush past the end of the divider plate to create a pulling effect to the lower pressure side of the plate. That’s a valid argument ... depending on the conditions. One condition, what occurs in the NA with minimal manifold back-pressure is not going to be the same as FI with manifold back-pressure. Another condition, even with NA the manifold flange opening is going to impact the effectiveness of that scenario. Let’s just say that I don’t agree with the general thing that most people do trying to apply the wrong theory in the wrong place; they make their manifold flange opening match the port ID opening. I’d suggest doing the opposite for an NA Renesis manifold.
.
which then translates to
End plate port open flow area = 72.9% Siamese plate port open area = 27.1%
What actually happens though ,possibly due partly to the siphon effect and partly because the length of that restriction is very short, is quite different.
If there was only 27% flow through the siamese there is no way I could have run the siamese as the source for all the wastegate gases in my old turbo manifold setup, without significant boost creep. I was actually able to run that manifold down to as low as 6 psi with it creeping to about 7psi at 7500rpm. That would change a little depending on which AR turbine housing I used and if the siamese sleeve was modified for more flow or not. If you work that back using Matchbot (allowing some artistic licence between turbo brands) you would see that the siamese would need to be capable of flowing 40-50% of the total flow to achieve this. Note: As the Siamese/Wastegate was totally seperate from the outer ports there could be a lower pressure at the WG/siamese port than the outer two, which helped facilitate this flow %.
Also: there are a at least two videos floating around of N/A renesis engines on engine dynos. Both show the siamese port pipe (same diameter as the outers) glowing red while the outer ports are a lot duller in colour. This is evedence that the siamese must flow MORE than 1/3rd of the total (or33%).
Based on all this plus other observations made with my latest turbo manifold I estimate the siamese flows:
In an N/A engine I believe it flows as much as 40% of the total flow
In a turbo engine I believe it still flows around 40% at low boost but as boost increases this % reduces as the port becomes choked.
I addressed everything in one manner or another, sometimes subtly, because what I’ve learned over the years is that regardless of whether I dance around the fire trying to get people to use their head properly for finally reaching their own understanding or handing them all the details on a silver platter with cream and butter on top, it always ends up the same. I addressed all that whether you picked it up or not. Otherwise I’ve reverted back to the same position I eventually came to on the NA exhaust manifold; everyone is free to believe whatever they want. It’s no skin off my back.
.
I addressed everything in one manner or another, sometimes subtly, because what I’ve learned over the years is that regardless of whether I dance around the fire trying to get people to use their head properly for finally reaching their own understanding or handing them all the details on a silver platter with cream and butter on top, it always ends up the same. I addressed all that whether you picked it up or not. Otherwise I’ve reverted back to the same position I eventually came to on the NA exhaust manifold; everyone is free to believe whatever they want. It’s no skin off my back.
.
I wasn't disagreeing with you ...just trying to put some real world numbers on it.
09-05-2020, 04:22 PM
are all king of the Renesis hill.
