S-dais
#26
Administrator
Thread Starter
it means someone thought this was useful enough info to keep it stuck at the top of the page. it wont get buried by new threads until it is "unstickied". i dont start many of those
#27
Administrator
Thread Starter
Re: Water suckage....
Originally posted by Doctorr
I
Also, this thread has got this far without mentioning the word 'Helmholtz'. This is not allowed. Don't ask me, it is one of Wakeech's rules.
.
.
.
doc
I
Also, this thread has got this far without mentioning the word 'Helmholtz'. This is not allowed. Don't ask me, it is one of Wakeech's rules.
.
.
.
doc
#29
Registered
Re: Water suckage....
Originally posted by Doctorr
I have to agree with you, rotarygod, the concern for sucking in water thru the CAI type intake is way overblown.
I'm pretty sure it is an urban myth, everyone knows someone who's 'friend' went thru a little puddle and blew the heads off their WRX/civic/Evo (whatever).
This scenario doesn't 'hold water' if you do the math - revs/water depth/amount per cylinder/vacuum required to lift water head etc.
Probably just perpetuated by the vendors of those 'foam-anti-suck' valves....don't get me started!
Also, this thread has got this far without mentioning the word 'Helmholtz'. This is not allowed. Don't ask me, it is one of Wakeech's rules.
.
.
.
doc
I have to agree with you, rotarygod, the concern for sucking in water thru the CAI type intake is way overblown.
I'm pretty sure it is an urban myth, everyone knows someone who's 'friend' went thru a little puddle and blew the heads off their WRX/civic/Evo (whatever).
This scenario doesn't 'hold water' if you do the math - revs/water depth/amount per cylinder/vacuum required to lift water head etc.
Probably just perpetuated by the vendors of those 'foam-anti-suck' valves....don't get me started!
Also, this thread has got this far without mentioning the word 'Helmholtz'. This is not allowed. Don't ask me, it is one of Wakeech's rules.
.
.
.
doc
I started the Helmholtz thread a year ago. It's funny how it still gets mentioned. I don't really need to post anymore on it. It would be a redundant book.
#32
Do What!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cypress, Texas, USA, North America, Earth
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rotarygod
Several people here have commented about how worried they are of sucking up water through the intake. It is nearly impossible without purposely driving through a flood as it would take about 90% of the filter being submerged for a period of time along with high rpms for this to happen. Someone has to be really careless to drive through water that high. My little Honda has a filter this low and I have never had a problem.
Several people here have commented about how worried they are of sucking up water through the intake. It is nearly impossible without purposely driving through a flood as it would take about 90% of the filter being submerged for a period of time along with high rpms for this to happen. Someone has to be really careless to drive through water that high. My little Honda has a filter this low and I have never had a problem.
It does happen.
#33
Registered
If the water level gets up to the hood, it doesn't matter where the air filter is at that point. You're still getting flooded. What I am referring to is people who have low filters who are afraid that a little splash from rain water or the ditch is going to kill their engine. It isn't. As I said earlier, you have to drive through a flood to hurt it. This you have proved.
#34
Do What!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cypress, Texas, USA, North America, Earth
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rotarygod
If the water level gets up to the hood, it doesn't matter where the air filter is at that point. You're still getting flooded. What I am referring to is people who have low filters who are afraid that a little splash from rain water or the ditch is going to kill their engine. It isn't. As I said earlier, you have to drive through a flood to hurt it. This you have proved.
If the water level gets up to the hood, it doesn't matter where the air filter is at that point. You're still getting flooded. What I am referring to is people who have low filters who are afraid that a little splash from rain water or the ditch is going to kill their engine. It isn't. As I said earlier, you have to drive through a flood to hurt it. This you have proved.
From personal experience, it takes a LOT of water. A good way to tell if there is enough water to cause a problem is to check the seat of your pants. If they are wet, you may have a problem.
Sure was a good thing that a fire engine came up behind me and pushed me to higher ground, that water was moving fast.
#35
Int'l Man of Mystery
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The total area for air to enter the stock box is less than the area of either the throttlebody or the MAF sensor. If Mazda would have given it a little more intake area with the same tuning, the aftermarket probably would have never outdone it.
So what's my suggestion for RB and anyone else for an intake? Work on the VFAD diameter and length. If you want to look cool too... have that feed into a heat sheilded box (not just aluminum box, but add insulation/sound deadening material) with a cone filter. I think this will achieve the goal of a fair power increase without the crazy noise and idling problems of the K&N Typhoon.
If you want to figure out the perfect size for the intake tube, figure out the diameter necessary for air entering the box at 8500 rpms to not exceed 122.74 mph. That will be the optimum size. Length will be determined based on tuning rpm and intake box size. There is a fun exercise for someone.
BTW, GReddy claims that their intake is resonance tuned to increase mid-range power. We'll see how that is once people can get their hands on it and give it a whirl.
#36
Bigus Rotus
iTrader: (3)
Originally Posted by Japan8
Now I get to say it.. :D I posted about this recently in another thread. In the review of the changes made on the Mazdaspeed RX-8, changes to the size of the VFAD ducts is one. Mazda's goal with the MS RX-8 wasn't to tune for ultimate horsepower. They were tuning for more "reliable" power... power on tap easily throughout the rev range. I suppose another way to say it is an increase in driveablility.
So what's my suggestion for RB and anyone else for an intake? Work on the VFAD diameter and length. If you want to look cool too... have that feed into a heat sheilded box (not just aluminum box, but add insulation/sound deadening material) with a cone filter. I think this will achieve the goal of a fair power increase without the crazy noise and idling problems of the K&N Typhoon.
Indeed. I hate math, so I won't be doing those calculations.
BTW, GReddy claims that their intake is resonance tuned to increase mid-range power. We'll see how that is once people can get their hands on it and give it a whirl.
So what's my suggestion for RB and anyone else for an intake? Work on the VFAD diameter and length. If you want to look cool too... have that feed into a heat sheilded box (not just aluminum box, but add insulation/sound deadening material) with a cone filter. I think this will achieve the goal of a fair power increase without the crazy noise and idling problems of the K&N Typhoon.
Indeed. I hate math, so I won't be doing those calculations.
BTW, GReddy claims that their intake is resonance tuned to increase mid-range power. We'll see how that is once people can get their hands on it and give it a whirl.
#37
What effect would forced induction have on S-DAIS? I am assuming you would have to change the time at which each valve opens. Since the valves are vacuum-regulated, wouldn't they adjust to the pressure rise in the intake stream, or is the valve actuation independent of pressure changes? I think Mazda chose vacuums because electronics would make the car unaffordale. Is it possible to switch from vacuum modulation to eletronic control, such as using a stand-alone EMS to do so? After all of the thinking I've been doing about forced induction, I forgot about the intake tract :o.
#38
Registered
I would set it up so that under boost, all valves are open. When not under boost, it would work normally. The VFAD duct would no longer be needed. This would be very easy to setup. The hard part is setting up an ecu to switch maps based on boost or no boost.
#39
mostly harmless
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shelleys_man_06
What effect would forced induction have on S-DAIS? I am assuming you would have to change the time at which each valve opens. Since the valves are vacuum-regulated, wouldn't they adjust to the pressure rise in the intake stream, or is the valve actuation independent of pressure changes? I think Mazda chose vacuums because electronics would make the car unaffordale. Is it possible to switch from vacuum modulation to eletronic control, such as using a stand-alone EMS to do so? After all of the thinking I've been doing about forced induction, I forgot about the intake tract :o.
all you gotta worry about actuating is the tertiary port, and just have six runners at a tuned length to the engine from one plenum designed to resonate at X rpm.
i dunno, instead of complecating things even more, i move to simplify things a lot.
#40
mostly harmless
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shelleys_man_06
What effect would forced induction have on S-DAIS? I am assuming you would have to change the time at which each valve opens. Since the valves are vacuum-regulated, wouldn't they adjust to the pressure rise in the intake stream, or is the valve actuation independent of pressure changes? I think Mazda chose vacuums because electronics would make the car unaffordale. Is it possible to switch from vacuum modulation to eletronic control, such as using a stand-alone EMS to do so? After all of the thinking I've been doing about forced induction, I forgot about the intake tract :o.
all you gotta worry about actuating is the tertiary port, and just have six runners at a tuned length (you could choose to go either with a comprimise setup where the runner to each port resonates at a different velocity and has a different diameter, or the full-out performance setup where they all resonate at one rpm and are of a larger diameter) to the engine from one plenum designed to resonate at X rpm.
i dunno, instead of complecating things even more, i move to simplify things a lot.
#42
The Art Of Sound
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zoom44, (or any of the other more 'techie minded' people here)
Is the data you gave at the very beginning of this thread only applicable to the MT or does it apply to the AT too? Or, did they change at what rpm things occur to take into account the lower available rpm to the AT owner?
(Sorry if this is both a dumb and obvious question... but I'm curious given I own both an MT and AT and am trying to learn as much as I can about the tech side of these cars..)
Is the data you gave at the very beginning of this thread only applicable to the MT or does it apply to the AT too? Or, did they change at what rpm things occur to take into account the lower available rpm to the AT owner?
(Sorry if this is both a dumb and obvious question... but I'm curious given I own both an MT and AT and am trying to learn as much as I can about the tech side of these cars..)
#43
Originally Posted by Mag66
Zoom44, (or any of the other more 'techie minded' people here)
Is the data you gave at the very beginning of this thread only applicable to the MT or does it apply to the AT too? Or, did they change at what rpm things occur to take into account the lower available rpm to the AT owner?
Is the data you gave at the very beginning of this thread only applicable to the MT or does it apply to the AT too? Or, did they change at what rpm things occur to take into account the lower available rpm to the AT owner?
rotarygod had a thread a while back explaining the 4-port RENESIS. Try a search . It might help solve your question.
Last edited by shelleys_man_06; 07-18-2004 at 10:46 PM.
#44
Registered
Yep, the auto does not have the VFAD duct or the tertiary ports. the rest it does have. The lengths of the intake runners is different though and even the VFAD duct is longer. The principles are the same between both engines. The auto just has less of everything.
#45
Int'l Man of Mystery
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shelleys_man_06 has got it right. The A/T has the 4 port engine instead of the 6 port engine. The two engines are quite different with the 4 port motor lacking auxiliary ports and the port timing is different. To simplify the explanation that RG gave in another thread... the 4 port motor simply cannot "breathe" as well as the 6 port motor. However, as RG has pointed out... the intake system is still a resonance tuned system... just one built to flow less.
Wakeech has often said that the 4 port motor is a better FI candidate than the 6 port. RG has argued the opposite. The Renesis engine with the side port "can be set to less than 0 overlap" according to Seiji Tashima, Mazda lead rotary engineer.was built essentially without port overlap (if I understand my JP article correctly). This is how it make better emissions. This also has an effect upon how good it is for FI. RG would need to jump in to explain this better, but apparantly some port overlap is good for turbo applications.
Wakeech has often said that the 4 port motor is a better FI candidate than the 6 port. RG has argued the opposite. The Renesis engine with the side port "can be set to less than 0 overlap" according to Seiji Tashima, Mazda lead rotary engineer.was built essentially without port overlap (if I understand my JP article correctly). This is how it make better emissions. This also has an effect upon how good it is for FI. RG would need to jump in to explain this better, but apparantly some port overlap is good for turbo applications.
Last edited by Japan8; 07-19-2004 at 03:11 AM.
#46
Administrator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Mag66
Zoom44, (or any of the other more 'techie minded' people here)
wow i got included with the "techie minded" people here!! not sarcasm here- that is a great honor for me to be included in that group. thank you :o
#47
mostly harmless
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shelleys_man_06
wakeech, rotarygod, I found some of your old threads about making power with the RENESIS. Why did they die off?
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Belgique
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
Here's all you ever wanted to know about the RX-8 intake.
....
If you want to figure out the perfect size for the intake tube, figure out the diameter necessary for air entering the box at 8500 rpms to not exceed 122.74 mph. That will be the optimum size. Length will be determined based on tuning rpm and intake box size. There is a fun exercise for someone.
...
I wonder if I forgot anything else?
....
If you want to figure out the perfect size for the intake tube, figure out the diameter necessary for air entering the box at 8500 rpms to not exceed 122.74 mph. That will be the optimum size. Length will be determined based on tuning rpm and intake box size. There is a fun exercise for someone.
...
I wonder if I forgot anything else?
Re some other posts in this thread : water ingestion through the intake pipe (spout) is definitely not an urban myth. The intake pipe had to be redesign on the Escape / Tribute program before production due to this issue of water ingestion!
Now, it means that car manufacturers carefully check their intake systems against this issue and it should not be an issue any more on your production vehicle.
Last edited by IKnowNot'ing; 07-20-2004 at 12:04 PM.
#49
IKN, I believe if the velocity exceeds 122.74 mph, the flow losses through the intake will dramatically increase. Why *shrugs shoulders* ? If I am wrong, which in most cases I am , I am sure rotarygod would be more than happy to make any corrections, because I am starting to wonder the same.
#50
mostly harmless
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IKnowNot'ing
EXCELLENT summary, thanks. Can you however explain where does the 122,74 mph optimal speed for intake air come from?
this may have been a mathematically derived number (backwards from all the known meausurements), but theoretically it would be a speed where at maximum engine speed (WOT, of course) the comprimise was such that velocity could still be maintained at lower engine speeds (where marginal efficiency loss at some point in the higher end equals the marginal efficiency loss at some point in the lower range). the "terminal velocity" would change based on the shape of the path to the engine, and the surface over which all that air was travelling, not to mention the kind of comprimise you're trying to strike in the design.
i'm not sure how he came up with that number, though, as it's far less than half the speed of sound (some arbitrary number i read once on an F1 tech forum).