Anyone tried one or at least considered one on an Esmeril style setup?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KNLKVgg8po

http://www.spracingonline.com/store/...ool_Valve/3659

It's used on turbos with divided inlets. You can't really make a divided manifold for a Renesis because of the exhaust port design, so I think this would be ideal. Unfortunately they're not cheap. It's controlled by an actuator which is the pretty much the same thing you find on an internal wastegate. I'm not sure how much pressure it takes to open it, but the simplest way to control the valve would be to use a pressure switch and solenoid valve to control its opening.

Also, there is precedent for using this type of system on rotaries. Mazda actually had a similar system on 87-88 Rx-7's .
It was controlled by vacuum instead of pressure. The factory ECU switched a vacuum solenoid at 3000rpm to open the valve in the manifold.

 

I believe that there is not enough room to jsut install this on an esmeril kit. I think there would be some major rework of the flange/manifold to get the apparatus to fit between the turbo and flange.



jsut dont htink it would fit because of hte cross brace and that acuator valve sticking off the plate.

 

Cut off the current manifold flange and weld this piece on in place of it with the actuator on the top side away from the cross brace

 

Hence the rework part

 

You would have to rework the downpipe otherwise because of the turbo relocation if you just sandwiched it inbetween. Choose your poison.

 

If i were to do this i would go the route Team said, not sure if uninstalling everything to get to the manifold and to get it off the car would be worth the gains though.

 

I would like to see a before and after dyno or some other comparison to show the differnce this would make. It sounds like an interesting idea but jsut need to be sold on it a little more.

 

Here's the comparison dynosheet from their website, for what it's worth



I'm certain it would increase low end torque. How much in a Renesis application is anybody's guess. And I'm sure you would be using a simple control method... in this dyno they probably duty controlled the quick spool valve using an AEM EMS and a boost control style solenoid. Depending how much "spring pressure" the actuator has (doesn't seem to be listed), you may just be able to run a hose to the actuator and be done with it.

The only reason I am not super skeptical about this product is that Mazda used an OEM quick spool valve on a production rotary. I haven't heard whether the Sound Performance unit is prone to failure, but I don't doubt that it improves low end torque.

 

I will soon be testing this one...same thing...half the price.

http://performancemetalwerkz.webs.com/

Best regards,

Chris

 

let us know what you find Chris. there could end up being a home for this on my rear mount system depending on the gains.

 

I seriously considered one on my setup. Especially since I was running a 1.00 divided hotside. Just never got around to it.

 

funny thing is when i was trying to fab up a full duel exhaust this is what i was planing
the guys at work were laughing at me because i was about to make it 1 a year ago
i should have then been a producier damnit cuz im still twin scroll i may be joining you bumblebeer because i have room for it

 

If i still had the whole kit uninstalled i would seriouslly think about it. Could be a good project for down the road.

 

Compared to the modification removing the manifold should be no big deal

 

Through testing we have seen a 33% decrease in spool up time. Making cars that might have alot of lag come alive. This was on a rear mount turbo kit where lag is usually very timely. Jeremy, who has been testing this flange for us has stated that he has a whole new car now

 

It's definitely an interesting design feature

 

Make a good turbo setup and you won't have a need for it. 09factors car for example, top mount t4 turbo, in a few psi by 2200rpms.
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-specific-performance-mods-97/my-new-install-project-176409/

 

^^ Unless of course it allows boost to come in sooner and better still ....

 

I'm happy to see Chris is already involved in making better his kit! Especially since this makes sense and could be making newer kits with this.

 

But if it breaks, ouch!

 

Fixed ....

 

Updates?

 

Factually incorrect.

It has already been accomplished with several different designs for a "front/top" mount system and a low-mount divided design is in the works presently.

 

Pictures?

 

that's the way I had planned to do it as well, looking forward to seeing some results eventually