TeamRX8 4-Port Renesis Street Turbo Concept Thread - Page 4 - RX8Club.com



Series I Major Horsepower Upgrades This is the place to discuss Super Chargers and Turbos, Nitrous, Porting, etc
Sponsored by: RX8Performance.com

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread
Old 01-12-2018, 03:10 AM   #76
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAaF View Post
Yes I used the table shown in the picture you mention. I guess the values will change a bit, but remember that when increasing pressure, you are changing density of air, far more than the volume. I assume that volume is close to identical, but density is close to doubled(molecules packed twice as tight)

Understood, if you port it, you'll often shift Ve curve upwards, getting the peak Ve at higher RPM. But looking at the compressor map, this does not look beneficial, the 13B-SI as it is, looks to be close to perfect match. If you port, and get higher Ve at higher RPM, you'll need to move more air, and moving out of the efficiency range, similar to the 4- port renesis.

Just a refresh for new readers:




So after considering this more there is a point in here that I now recognize that I missed previously. I did my theoretical boost calculations based on a Renesis using the S-DAIS resonating intake, which is incorrect. Since those harmonics are out the window with FI, especially if I do the plenum on the LIM which deletes the UIM, then the NA bhp value for the calculation needs to be based on the engine without S-DAIS on it. So the 210 bhp number the pro builder saw on the engine dyno is artificially high due to it having the S-DAIS resonance design on it.

As demonstrated in the Mazda graph above, the engine performance is lower without S-DAIS and I’d either need to estimate that that loss is based on the Mazda graph or have the turbo system plenum/TB assembly ready when the engine goes on the dyno for break-in, and power runs once broken in, to determine a more accurate NA bhp value for the calcs to estimating the required boost pressure to achieve a 350 rwhp peak output. Probably closer to 20 psig I’m thinking now, though the 80 bhp drivetrain loss is likely too conservative too (high). Guess it was me out in left field afterall ...

And I also came to the same conclusion you did, and completely glossed over your point previously, that porting was going to do more harm than good for keeping the turbo operating in the more efficient area of the compressor flow map. So my apology for not fully grasping your well thought out points.





.

Last edited by TeamRX8; 01-12-2018 at 03:16 AM.
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2018, 03:21 AM   #77
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAaF View Post
Thanks, good point, without resonance, its impossible to get above 100% Ve, haven't thought about that. But if you exclude the effects resonances have(who also occurs at Ve below 100%, yes), then I do not see why Ve should change massively...?

But I'm also quite sure that even at FI, resonances will occur somewhere, but even estimating this is above my league. Among other things, if density of air is increased, resonance frequency for a given length will lower. Air temp is another thing that affect a lot. As said, above me....

EDIT: Not sure what if resonance fill increase or lower, but it will change a lot with pressure, density and temperature.

Again you have some good points that I failed to read through and assess correctly. Apparently I need to follow my advise to Brettus and lay off the hair trigger responses myself ...
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2018, 03:49 AM   #78
Registered
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 337
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamRX8 View Post
The ID is 2.067Ē which is actually just a fraction larger on circumference than the port.
Then we perfectly agree, rest of the post is a massive over- interpretation of my post I was only talking about keeping as much as possible of the pulse energy for the turbine to harvest, not waste them in the pipeline, nothing more.

By the way, I've dug myself quite deep down in the audio hole for a couple of decades(ref previously mentioned "other industry"), there are a fascinating many similarities between NA intakes/exhaust and horn speakers. So I hope you don't mind, just for to spice up, here is one project I was involved in, that also is a bit extreme. I guess its the equivalent to a optimized variable low RPM ship engine NA intake:

AAaF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2018, 04:21 AM   #79
Registered
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 337
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamRX8 View Post
....your well thought out points.
Well, according to statistics, if I just have enough stupid points, it must come a good one at some time
AAaF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2018, 07:16 AM   #80
Registered
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 337
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Could not get rest before I checked, the 7000RPM limit, and a slight reduction in Ve seems to make a big difference as well, without the resonances, I would expect that Ve is reduced, and maybe a bit more than we think(having the 13B-SI in mind). Only small changes makes much difference, so I think this has potential:



You might even be able to have a 7500RPM limit, if my inner psychic tells the truth
AAaF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2018, 01:36 PM   #81
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAaF View Post
No worries, not insulted, I do not know what left wing means, I guess sometimes ignorance is a blessing

I think its me mixing up the expressions and definitions, as previously mentioned I'm trying to learn. But think we kind of have the same basic understanding. I thought about Ve as how much filling you have in each stroke. With 100% you'll have atmosphere inside cylinder when NA, or whatever the compressor delivers if you are FI. Imagine a very slow engine where this is the case, no resonances. Now the volume will be the same, but density of molecules doubled if you have doubled the atmospheric pressure. Now you can do a calculation of Ve x Pressure to find the fuel you should spray. Therefore I came from the opposite side from what was explained in the link you provided(thanks!), I thought that you multiplied Ve with whatever pressure you are using, to get the amount of air going in, I did not know that it was baked together in one lump, and expressed as Ve FI, if you understand what I mean?

Thing is that when I did it this way(Ve x Pr), then the numbers looked sensible for the results I've seen. If you multiply NA hp with FI absolute pressure, you end up reasonably correct. For example Brettus who had [email protected] According to this simplified approach:
231fwhp x (16+14,7)/14,7) = 231 x 2,09 = 482fwhp
Or old draggers SC(330whp:
231 x (13+14,7)= 435fwhp. Here we need to subtract 40-50hp drive power to the SC.

I hope you realize this project, I think it can evolve our understanding of Renesis and FI.


Sorry, guess we were posting up at the same time. I deleted that reply after realizing I had misread your post. Again youíve made a number of valid points that contribute to the thread positively. I need to slow down and take more time to consider things more.
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2018, 02:49 PM   #82
Registered
iTrader: (2)
 
Hi Flying 8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 161
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
There are very interesting concepts here. My son and I are incorporating some of these in our XP RX-7 over the off season. We are putting a new LIM on and replacing the UIM with the plenum and short runners also. We added the electric water pump for safety and efficiency also.

Our intent with the plenum is to lower and fatten the torque curve to improve response out of corners. This is the idea that the supplier has anyway and it makes sense to us. After we rebuild the engine and get things tested, i would be glad to let you know how the dyno figures work even though it is on the REW.

We'll follow this thread and see how your ideas are coming to fruition.
Hi Flying 8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2018, 06:33 PM   #83
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
Well thanks and I agree with going in that direction 100%.

To be honest I’m going to slow up here a bit high on the technical discussions. I’m on meds dealing with a health issue that should hopefully wrap up in the next several weeks or so. It seems to be affecting my judgement and comprehension maybe more than I was realizing so it seems best to back off some of this for a bit.

I apprereciate the input and support from everyone. Trying my best to see if this can progress to an actual build and find out what the real truth is with documented results. Even if it flops, will at least provide a further level of our understanding with thie uniqueness of the Renesis side-port exhaust engine.

I’m still fully committed in believing that flopping won’t be the case though. I still think this turbo and engine are going to be a great combination.

.

Last edited by TeamRX8; 01-13-2018 at 10:33 AM.
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2018, 06:44 PM   #84
Registered
 
rotarenvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: QLD .au
Posts: 1,745
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
good luck TeamRX8.
It's an interesting build and I'm looking forward to seeing the fabrication of the components. I do admire and apreciate the fabrication you do with the intakes and exhaust work. it stands out as well done.

I'm interested in seeing your ideas for the plenum as I was intending to try this myself.
rotarenvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 07:59 AM   #85
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
So for the record, this is the Mazda part# for the 4-port rear manual transmission iron: N3H1-10-C50

Special thanks to Ash for helping me with that. Looks like I can import a new one from Jp for ~$350 + $75 USD shipping

Since the builder already has a built 4-port auto engine, or the basic parts for it along with the stronger 6-port parts like stationary gears, e-shaft, etc. (the one he recorded the 210 bhp dyno on), he’s suggesting I start from there rather than buying the used jdm engine and rebuilding it from scratch.

Trying to figure out how there might be an effective way to lower compression some, not much to work with on a Renesis rotor though, it’s so thin as cast from Mazda ...

On the plenum I’m thinking just a base plate maybe with trumpets or just machined bell openings for smooth flow into the LIM flange port openings in an open plenum with the TB on the front side facing forward. Nothing too fancy. It just needs to be properly sized on volume and some consideration for flow to get smoothly into the LIM port openings is all.

There being two oval openings makes it a big more complicated for trumpets, but a thick base plate or maybe better is thinner base plate with a thicker Nylon etc plate that bolts on to the inside of the base plate could be easily machined or cut and then a router with a round radius nose tool run around the ID perimeter edge of the openings to provide radius inlets into the LIM oval ports might be one idea.

I’m thinking there’s not enough space to the hood to mount the TB vertically on top of the plenum up over the openings with the IC discharge pipe in into it with an elbow, but it might be worth looking at. Otherwise I might need to consider aligning the TB on the side instead. This makes me realize the TB on the front position puts the ovals side-side such that the far one is pulling from over close one. Now I think it’d be better to align the TB on the side instead such that the air is coming in equally into both openings along the long axis so they can pull air in more smoothly in with less turbulence on each other that way. Not sure if this makes sense to anyone without me sketching it out?

I’d also be sure to use an oversize IC though. Even though this increases the volume between the turbo and engine that has to be compressed and moving, which may delay response some, it’s going to be important to have max intake air cooling to offset the temp increase of using the turbo boost pressures we’re discussing. Just the same, the IC I’m looking at on Treadstone rated for 720 HP doesn’t really seem all that big to me.






Some pics of the 4-port intake manifold. I may epoxy fill the VDI valve cavity or pull it out and fill the whole thing for a smooth bore down to where the individual port tubes start:







.
.

Last edited by TeamRX8; 01-13-2018 at 05:13 PM.
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 03:26 PM   #86
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Brettus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Y-cat-o NZ
Posts: 17,704
Thanked 75 Times in 57 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamRX8 View Post


Some pics of the 4-port manifold. Doesnít have VDI like the 6-port, but looks like cast plates or something that stick out rather far from where the VDI opening would be on a 6-port. It sort of looks like the VDI cavity is maybe behind them? I suppose if it is and I just grind or cut those outer seal plates off that I could maybe just epoxy fill it for a smooth bore down to where the individual port tubes start:




.
Good idea ... I just wired mine shut .
Brettus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 03:42 PM   #87
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
I can see that for FI. Filling it would be better imo though.
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 03:51 PM   #88
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Brettus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Y-cat-o NZ
Posts: 17,704
Thanked 75 Times in 57 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamRX8 View Post
I can see that for FI. Filling it would be better imo though.
VDI is identical in construction to the 6 port one , I think you are mixing up VDI and APV ?
You just need to remove the VDI and fill it up , but you will have to make up a plate to block the hole it comes out of.
Brettus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 05:04 PM   #89
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
No man, just fill the open cavity in the actual VDI valve so that it’s solid. It won’t matter if it operates or not and you could just leave the vacuum line off and let the canister spring hold it in place. No wiring etc. required. It’s just less volume to pressurize is all, but not really a big deal since it’s not that much.

EDIT: ok I was way off base. I didn’t recognize that the 4-port manifold still also has the VDI valve. Since the redline is 7500 rpm I thought that got deleted and it only had the SSV valve. I didn’t really look at the exterior manifold pic much because I was focused on the port ends only. So yeah, I’ll just do what I said to do above or maybe pull it, make a solid flat cover plate to bolt on where the canister mounted , and just fill it in entirely to have smooth interior walls

On the Mazda intake valve operation gifs/jpegs I never really paid the 4-port much attention, even though I have a pic diagraming both on the first post of this thread, lol ...




.

Last edited by TeamRX8; 01-13-2018 at 05:21 PM.
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 08:58 PM   #90
Registered
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 34
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Have you considered alcohol injection for cooling to allow running a smaller intercooler?

https://www.rx7club.com/3rd-generati...fd-fix-806104/

Granted it does add weight and complexity.
TomD_Cincy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 09:11 PM   #91
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
Well that adds complication and is just something else to go wrong. If it stops working or runs afoul somehow you potentially go from zoom-zoom to boom-boom . I get where you’re coming from though because it would keep the compressed intake volume lower for sure. There is plenty of room for that intercooler to fit though and I’m feeling confident that this turbo is going to spool up so quickly that the additional volume isn’t going to be much if any issue.



.
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 09:59 PM   #92
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Brettus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Y-cat-o NZ
Posts: 17,704
Thanked 75 Times in 57 Posts
I tried W/M injection and I really didn't think it worked very well at all (on a Renesis) . I believe all the bends allow much of it come out of suspension and bead . Maybe if you could get closer to the ports it would work better . E85 (or any decent amount of ethanol) is a much better alternative ..... IMO
Brettus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 10:34 PM   #93
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
Well at least we don’t disagree on everything
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 11:29 PM   #94
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Brettus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Y-cat-o NZ
Posts: 17,704
Thanked 75 Times in 57 Posts


It's actually a BIG hole to fill ! 2" diameter . Me thinks a piece of machined aluminium bar will be the answer!
Brettus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 01:00 AM   #95
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
meh, just put some duct tape over the inner openings and fill it with urethane, no biggie really ...
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 02:03 AM   #96
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
I don’t know why these turbo companies always only show lengths like height and width dimensions don’t matter too? It makes no sense.

Elliot @ Turblown send me a few pics to help. I want to center the turbine inlet with the center port for the manifold piping layout I have in mind, but am not sure if it will be too wide then? Most people are sliding the turbo back some to fit the compressor and turbin housings back further in between the exhaust manifold ports. Guess I need to go take a few mesurements on my race RX8 since it’s sitting there with no exhaust manifold now.

So now I’m looking at 2.25” OD Tube Type 321 stainless 16 Ga. (0.065” wall thickness, 2.125”ID) ells for the two main end ports and same except 2” (1.875” ID) for the center port. These are tight radius ells with the radius equal to the diameter, which is about as tight of a bend as you can get for any diameter. So my memory was off some when we were discussing pipe sizes earlier in the thread. 1.5” pipe is still too small for even the siamese center port. These OD tube sizes pretty much match the exhaust port opening circumferences.

I can actually get it to fit if there’s enough width to fit it. The piping is all equal that way. If I have to offest the turbo back the same way everyone esle does it then. I don’t really want to do that ...











.

Last edited by TeamRX8; 01-14-2018 at 02:42 AM.
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 02:35 AM   #97
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
Rough hand sketch of how I’d like to do it, not sure if there’s enough width space between the engine and the far chassis/subframe though. The turbine housing isn’t as wide across the volute as a Garrett though for the same size. Might go in there ...



Last edited by TeamRX8; 01-14-2018 at 02:38 AM.
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 02:50 AM   #98
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Brettus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Y-cat-o NZ
Posts: 17,704
Thanked 75 Times in 57 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamRX8 View Post
1.5” pipe is still too small for even the siamese center port. These OD tube sizes pretty much match the exhaust port opening circumferences.
There you go again ...putting a round peg in a square hole !

Outer port AREA is actually about the same as 37ID pipe ........
Brettus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 03:02 AM   #99
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
 
Brettus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Y-cat-o NZ
Posts: 17,704
Thanked 75 Times in 57 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamRX8 View Post
Rough hand sketch of how Iíd like to do it, not sure if thereís enough width space between the engine and the far chassis/subframe though. The turbine housing isnít as wide across the volute as a Garrett though for the same size. Might go in there ...



The look on your face when you seee how much room you have :



Brettus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2018, 03:12 AM   #100
Koi no Ousama
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
TeamRX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 20,425
Thanks: 0
Thanked 232 Times in 191 Posts
Well I have a Renesis plate exhaust flange that matchs the engine ports exactly and 37mm is too small.

Take (port width x 2) + (port height + 2) and then divide that by Pi (3.142) and that will give you an equivalent pipe ID. It’s not 37mm I guarantee you

You do understand the dimensional difference between sch wall pipe and OD tube right? The OD tube I’m using has about the same OD as 2” Sch pipe, but it’s larger ID since it’s T321 high temp strength matrrial so I can get away with thinner walk to have a better port fit and be lighter. Gonna cost more though.

So for the center port I’m measuring 15/16” wide and 2-1/8” tall which is equal to a 1.94” ID round tube/pipe. Now I didn’t radius the corners which will make it slightly smaller. As I posted before, the 37mm/1.5” Sch pipe ID is only 1.6x” depending on if you use std wall Sch 40 pipe fittings or thin wall Sch 10 pipe fittings. I keep telling you that the engine is being choked using that smaller size.




.

Last edited by TeamRX8; 01-14-2018 at 03:30 AM.
TeamRX8 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TeamRX8ís Renesis Header Theory Thread TeamRX8 Series I Aftermarket Performance Modifications 26 01-02-2018 10:06 PM
street port exhaust port owners n/a jorx7 Series I Major Horsepower Upgrades 30 08-31-2016 02:34 PM
Renesis Street Port complete + dyno RacingDynamcs Series I Aftermarket Performance Modifications 51 07-27-2012 06:22 PM
BDC Street port vs. stock port dyno comparison BDC Series I Major Horsepower Upgrades 234 01-14-2012 10:10 AM
Anyone Street Port the new Renesis? legokcen Series I Tech Garage 8 02-02-2004 08:28 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 AM.


All content Copyright © 2017 by Internet Brands, Inc. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.