Speed Force Racing Turbo 292whp
Registered
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
From: Diamond Bar, Ca
Thankx for posting up all of the information about the kit SFR/SSR. The new video that you have posted sounds amazing! I dont think I have heard another car revving that I like more... Well maybe the 787B.. haha.. but it's close! 
Great job.
Great job.
TurboTim
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by rotarygod
I'm not saying you didn't get that horsepower number. The fact that the math doesn't add up just has me asking questions. I'm just trying to make sense of it. I'm not trying to discredit you.
I do have 1 very important question though. If the SAE correction standard is so universally accepted, why aren't dynos calibrated to a certain standard? Why do Mustang dynos read less than others? A correction standard isn't a very accurate thing when the units that test the inital number aren't even calibrated to a standard. Who's to say which is right?
I do have 1 very important question though. If the SAE correction standard is so universally accepted, why aren't dynos calibrated to a certain standard? Why do Mustang dynos read less than others? A correction standard isn't a very accurate thing when the units that test the inital number aren't even calibrated to a standard. Who's to say which is right?
I realize that you are not trying to discredit me so sorry if it appeared that way in my last post;^) You actually brought up a very good point.Why does a Mustang dyno read differently then say a dynojet? I really cannot comment on why there is a difference but I can tell you that each sort of dyno has its own sort of corrections so that in the end when this correction factor is used, it represents what your horsepower is at 0 elevation and a 70F ambient air temp.I hope this helps.
Tim
Registered
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 502
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by JeRKy 8 Owner
So I guess thismeans that SSRs kit is the one you buy if you would like to have an Rx8 that outperforms an E46 M3.
I hope their kit is released for/the automatic down the road too. A 300 bhp automatic rotary would also be just super. Comfort and speed.
I hope their kit is released for/the automatic down the road too. A 300 bhp automatic rotary would also be just super. Comfort and speed.
So basically it could outperform an M3 with some springs, sways, intake and exhaust.
TurboTim
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by rotarygod
I'll explain this a little better. First of all a rotary is NOT a 1.3 liter engine if we are comparing it's airflow to a piston engine. Why people think that is beyond me. All you have to do is study how one works and how Mazda rated displacement and you can easily see this. From a piston engine standpoint it is a 2.6 liter although the airflow through it for turbo sizing would suggest otherwise. Mazda sized the engine based on displacement over 1 full rotation of the eccentric shaft. A piston engine is sized based on total volume of all cylinders which takes place over 2 rotations of the crankshaft. Thus the rotary compares to a 2.6 piston engine. There's more confusion though.
A big problem with the rotary is it's fairly low efficiency in terms of combustion. There is alot of waste that doesn't get burned by the spark plugs at the combustion phase. Much more than the average piston engine. This leaves alot of unburned gasses in the form of hydrocarbons. Some of these hydrocarbons get ignited again in the exhaust stroke and add even more heat to the exhaust gasses. This causes the gasses to expand more since hotter air is less dense than colder air. The rotary exhaust is much hotter than the average piston engine and this alone adds volume to the amount of gas leaving the engine in terms of size but we obviously can't add to the amount of mols of gasses leaving. The same amount simply takes up more space. This is a source of confusion when sizing turbos for rotaries. You have to guess bigger than the expected numbers.
A big problem with the rotary is it's fairly low efficiency in terms of combustion. There is alot of waste that doesn't get burned by the spark plugs at the combustion phase. Much more than the average piston engine. This leaves alot of unburned gasses in the form of hydrocarbons. Some of these hydrocarbons get ignited again in the exhaust stroke and add even more heat to the exhaust gasses. This causes the gasses to expand more since hotter air is less dense than colder air. The rotary exhaust is much hotter than the average piston engine and this alone adds volume to the amount of gas leaving the engine in terms of size but we obviously can't add to the amount of mols of gasses leaving. The same amount simply takes up more space. This is a source of confusion when sizing turbos for rotaries. You have to guess bigger than the expected numbers.
This is a great explanation.I would like to add that I have heard that the 1.3L is close to a 3.9L (because of the fact that their is 3 sides to each rotor)if you were comparing it to a piston engine. I dont know how accurate this is though.What I do know is this is why a rotary can make 10 hp per cubic inch!
Tim
TurboTim
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
RG I hope you weren't explaining that to me. That was his quote, my contribution was only the "HUH"
I don't understand what he is saying. The extra exhaust we all know about. Just what the hell does it have to do with bending the laws of physics?
I don't understand what he is saying. The extra exhaust we all know about. Just what the hell does it have to do with bending the laws of physics?
We are not bending the laws of physics.A german did this when he designed the rotary motor 50+ years ago:^) We are just utilizing technology to extract what supposedly cannot be extracted! To make a long story short, the big turbo we are using will supply much more cfm per psi of boost then the turbo Greddy is using.More CFM means more power, if the motor can injest it. Sure there are some other factors in the equation but this basically sums it up. Another benefit of using a larger turbo is that the charge air temps which be less then that of a smaller turbo.On these rotaries keeping the charge air temps in check is very critical becasue the rotaries run so damn hot as it is.
Tim
TurboTim
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by brillo
Do you have your original dyno sheet before the turbo? Could you post that?
I will scan it and post it.It made 175 at the wheels and 125 ftlbs of torque on the same dyno.
Tim
TurboTim
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by Photic
Tim,
There is a little typo in the site.
the first 10,000 reads 10,0000
I'm not trying to be an ***, just trying to help. I make plenty of typos myself
There is a little typo in the site.
the first 10,000 reads 10,0000
I'm not trying to be an ***, just trying to help. I make plenty of typos myself
Thanks man.I will take care of it tonight along with getting the new prices up and all that good stuff.
Tim
TurboTim
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
One other thing that I thought I should mention.We are going to be settting up a water injection system that the TSI will control so we can run 10-13 psi of boost on pump fuel. At 10-13 psi of boost we are expecting about 330-340 horsepower at the wheels out of the Renesis motor. Unfortunately we will not be able to get this going till we get another test car since our test car has to leave real soon:^)
Tim
Tim
Last edited by SpeedForceRacing; Feb 10, 2005 at 07:24 PM.
This website needs your turbo
C:\>ping www.rx8club.com
Pinging rx8club.com [64.9.212.4] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 64.9.212.4:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
C:\>ping www.rx8club.com
Pinging rx8club.com [64.9.212.4] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 64.9.212.4:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
Last edited by Nemesis8; Feb 10, 2005 at 07:52 PM.
Registered
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 26
From: Houston
Originally Posted by SpeedForceRacing
I would like to add that I have heard that the 1.3L is close to a 3.9L (because of the fact that their is 3 sides to each rotor)if you were comparing it to a piston engine. I dont know how accurate this is though.