|
29.1psi today :) carbon wings
Weather is niceeeeee (around 18 deg C this afternoon), car is pooping flames on changes and off large back off's its fucken sick!!! I love it :coolgleamA::coolgleamA::coolgleamA::coolgleamA: I'm tempted to dial up the mega boost :o11: but its tight as now, so good touch typing can't do it justice :auto: fucken cool to just reach in turn the key, warm the bad boy up and affect the earths rotation as I accelerate down the road :auto: BEAST!!! |
Gag factor rice magic dominates cunts!@!!@@!
Running 2.4 bar gauge boost pressure or just a shade under 35psi, the car kind of accelerates pretty quickly :) Traction is an issue (surprised ha ha) even with the race tires on the back.
100% pump obtained BP Optimax fuel only, no octane boosters needed ;) Rice Racing RRWEP140 Water Injection wound out to its maximum! *a huge amount of WM50 going through the engine* charge temperature is still under control (better than what I had a couple of years ago running ~17psi boost pressure!) water temp great, engine just loves it. I can't run any more boost pressure on this turbo without greatly over speeding it (it is well off its compressor map now, flow and speed off the charts!) but keeps on making power and the car is just faster in every test I put it through. This is it for this set up (when my work allows *free time pending* I'll run a couple more tests, post up some performance graphs, maybe even a video). I'll focus my energy on my other long term project that should debut some time soon, where I will really push my development for the ultimate in street rotary powered super car beaters ;) |
Peter, there is something I wondered about.
Lately, I've been going through the many recent papers about development of various piston engines with port injected gasoline as base fuel and ethanol/methanol as mean of charge coolant. They tested 3 methods of charge coolant delivery: port injected, direct injected during intake stroke and after intake stroke. Last method allowed highest levels of boost pressure and power without detonation due to highest cooling effect I.e. lowest in-cylinder temperature. Difference was really huge, 1.05 bar for PFI, 2.4 bar for second method and 4 bar for last. Note: very low engine speeds and overall Lambda 1. So my question basically is, do you use pre-turbo system mainly due to simplicity and reliability? I can see the benefit in cooling of inlet air which can dramatically increase mass flow for any given shaft speed. But with the above in mind, would direct port injection I.e. very close to engine block, be superior for detonation suppression @ given flow rate? Many people talk about time factor for atomization, and surely, water can absorb huge amount of heat even by the time its in the engine so the heat of compression in the turbo is really not a problem, but isn't it a bit of waste? We want maximum cooling effect in the engine, not in the manifold:o11: I would be happy for your input:bigear: |
Quote:
A few years ago now I had two special Aquamist systems made for me by Richard (bespoke twin pump set up's) with all kinds of stuff available (pre turbo special rings with center discharge) + individual injectors to place in the ports. My test was simple: I ran pre turbo I ran post IC I ran pre IC I ran port injection The one location that gave me most power was pre turbo, the ones that gave least performance increase were post IC and port injection. I ran a fixed volume of liquid and just changed the location of delivery. I deduced from my tests that if the pre compressor gave the best acceleration and power that then I could simply use my very own basic RRWEP140 system without much of the complexity and fine orifice injection components that are prone to blockage and failure. That is why I stuck with my own system and its location. Of interest is the location changes: You could move the nozzels from pre turbo and to then to the throttle body and have absolutely no increase in acceleration. All other parameters being held equal. For that test you list above, I'd love to try something like that one day. I'd need to modify some rotor housings and figure out a whole heap of ancillaries to make it a reality, if it works there it should work for rotaries, its just complex to make a reality :smash: Makes sense to me that most of the cooling is happening where it is needed most (during the compression phase), as you say though I wonder what the effects are at Lambda 0.65. It is beyond my realm of experience really. In my own case I just went with a system that is basic and works at conventional setting ranges and gives a measurable performance benefit. |
Quote:
But it still leaves me with scratching head, same tune, same boost, almost same observed AFR and IAT so we can assume same airflow, but at the one point, pre-turbo produced about 10% more power. Maybe just post IC or port injection quenches combustion and hurts cycle a bit more than pre-turbo? Another thing to propose to Barry for testing:001_302: |
Quote:
I doubt you will find any formal text book explanation on this. All I know is that in ~1994 when I tested this only pre turbo gave an acceleration increase. I later confirmed this to much higher detail when I got my VBOX equipment. The way I do it, it just works, it's flattering to see so many people now copying it word for word part for part spec for spec......... and like now its some kind of amazing discovery when I was 20 years ahead of the game lol. Lots of great tests were done on this though in the 1960's and 1970's with the fore fathers of after market turbo charging and running WM50 (all pre compressor), find some books called How to select and instal Turbochargers by Hugh McInnes > http://www.amazon.com/Select-Install.../dp/0912656050 ^ I have an original of the above book! it is worth buying from a historical stand point alone....... I have all of his others too. And this is where I got the idea to try water injection myself when I was a kid still. There is a fantastic book > http://www.fefcholden.org.au/techinf...rge/index.html a good friend of mine lent me his book *he is the man with a 36psi 1970's old Holden in line 6 running tripple SU carburettors that I VBOX tuned and tested in my Aquamist thread)... All these pioneers ALL talk about water injection and its benefit and all run pre compressor. |
0 to100 m.p.h. in 14 seconds in a HR Holden
by Eldred Norman Chapter 6 - Water As An Anti-Detonant A British Thermal Unit, B.T.U. for short, is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. To completely vaporize a pound of water requires about 800 B.T.Us. A pound of methanol requires about 450 B.T.Us. and a pound of petrol about 130 B.T.Us. Now the colder we can keep the charge density being introduced into the cylinder the greater will be it's density, through contraction, and the more we will get into the cylinder prior to compression. One of the disadvantages of supercharging is that it tends to pre-heat the mixture which results in some loss of volumetric efficiency, but in any case, from the time that the charge enters the cylinder head until it is finally compressed the charge increases in temperature. After it leaves the supercharger or in the case of the unblown motor, the carburetor, there are only two sources which can be responsible for this increase. First, friction in negotiating tortuous passages and second, by conduction from the heated walls of these passages. Some of this heat is communicated to the air and some to the fuel in the air/fuel mixture. But the petrol only represents one thirteenth of the weight of the total mixture and since it can absorb only 130 B.T.Us. per pound before vaporization a considerable portion of it does become vaporized during this period. This of course results in expansion and loss of efficiency. Now turning to methanol as a fuel. In this case the combustible mixture consists of about five parts of air to one of fuel by weight. This means that there is two and a half times as much fuel to absorb the heat, but in addition methanol requires three times the number of B.T.Us. per pound to vaporize it. In all it proves to be more than seven times as effective as petrol in controlling temperature rises in the induction. It is generally recognized that a change to methanol fuel in the right air/fuel proportions, will increase the power of any engine by about 10% and this with no other changes. With the supercharged engine, it can give power increases up to 25% because as I said earlier, all superchargers, by compression, raise the temperature of the charge. So effective is methanol in reducing temperatures that it is quite common under humid conditions, to see a supercharged car come in after a hard race, with the entire supercharger and manifold encased in ice. I said earlier that the latent heat value of water is again double that of methanol, but of course it is not a fuel and can play no part in the combustion process. It has been suggested that water admitted in droplet form would be instantaneously converted to steam by the 2300 degree C temperature of the combustion, and, as steam, would combine any red hot carbon particles to form carbon-monoxide, thus preventing the depositing of carbon on the walls of the combustion chamber. This may or may not be so. I am not competent to pronounce on such a matter. I do know this, however. The combustion chambers of engines using water inhalation are remarkably free from carbon deposits when compared with those where water is not used. In the late nineteen forties a certain petrol company in the U.S.A. carried out a number of tests which involved the introduction of appreciable quantities of water in atomized form, into the air/fuel mixture. In conclusion they decided that if water could be correctly introduced in the ratio of one volume of water to three of petrol, it was possible to operate satisfactorily two units of a compression ratio higher than with petrol alone. That is that a petrol which would operate on a ratio of say eight to one, could be used on ten to one if water was introduced in the above proportions. The findings of this company have been confirmed by my own experiments except that I find that with the supercharged car it is necessary to use water at slightly higher rate than this. It might be thought that the introduction of water would lead to misfiring. I have passed a gallon of water through a three litre motor in seventy seconds at 5000 r.p.m. without a trace of misfiring. Unfortunately the use of water raises two problems. First, where to carry the water in sufficient quantity, so that re-watering will not be an intolerable nuisance. And second, how best to introduce it to the motor. There is no real solution to the first of these problems. A five gallon tank of water is quite bulky and occupies an appreciable amount of space in the boot of an average sedan. A two gallon tank can be fitted under the bonnet of most cars today ( together with the supercharger) but is only good for about 100 miles of hard driving. With regard to the second part of the problem there are many difficulties. I have tried many methods, none of them entirely satisfactory, since some consideration must be given to cost. At first glance the problem seems simple enough. Use a small water carburetor in parallel with the fuel carburetor and interconnect them so that they open together and make the fuel carburetor slightly over rich to compensate for the extra air introduced by the water carburetor. But, we don't want to take in any water unless we have a positive boost in the manifold. This is where the first of the complications arise. We must introduce a valve between the water carburetor and the supercharger inlet manifold and which is opened by a positive manifold pressure from the outlet manifold , acting on a diaphragm. This is well enough but still not satisfactory , because we find that if we open the throttle fully at say 25 m.p.h. we get a positive boost which opens the valve between the small water carburetor and the intake manifold but because the main petrol carburetor is wide open there is not sufficient vacuum to introduce much water just when we want it most. Also the more the speed increases the lower become the compression pressures but the amount of water being introduced is increasing as the pressure falls in the induction manifold. Clearly the small water carburetor is not a satisfactory method. As I have said I have tried many methods, but only two are reasonably satisfactory. The least complex of the two is to use the backpressure of the exhaust to pressurize a water tank and to force water from a tank via a small jet into the throat of the petrol carburetor. The water tank must be arranged or located below the level of the carburetor so that water cannot feed by gravity into the engine. If it is located in the boot it is as well to provide a tap in the line in case the car has to be parked nose down on a steep hill, in which case the carburetor might be lower than the tank. A filter of reasonable capacity should be provided in the line from the tank as the gas from the exhaust which pressurizes the tank can contain particles of carbon. If the water passes through a jet of about .025 this will be approximately the right size. It can be introduced into the carburetor via one of the choke spindle holes if the choke assembly is removed, this latter being superfluous with all carburetors fitted with an accelerator pump. The pipe from the exhaust manifold to the tank should be fairly large, say about five sixteenths O.D. It should be passed through the manifold where the various branches have united, and the end should be directed by means of a slight bend inside the manifold, so that it faces into the exhaust flow. The reason for the large pipe is so that the air cavity in the tank responds quickly to variations in the exhaust pressure. The tank of course must have a sealed filler. This very simple system has faults, the chief of which is the delay in response to pressure variations particulary when the tank is fairly empty. For this reason a small tank works better than a large one. Naturally it is impossible in this way to get instantaneous responses and throttle opening must thus be a rather gradual process if pinking is to be avoided. The system at present employed by me makes use of the supercharger manifold pressure and operates much like a paint spray gun with the atomized water directed into the throat of the carburetor. The spray or injector unit consists of two small nozzles. The water nozzle has an aperture of .050 diameter, and the air jet of .060. They are arranged at right angles so that the tip of the water nozzle slightly intersects the jet of air through the air nozzle. It must be kept as close as possible to the tip of the later so that the velocity of the air is as high as possible when it passes over the water nozzle. This unit will cause quite a fine spray with pressures as low as 2 p.s.i. The water tank, usually of about two gallons capacity is mounted under the bonnet and as close to the injector unit as possible. It must be arranged so that the water level when the tank is full is about three inches below the tip of the water nozzle. This unit is very effective in operation and also economical of water since it will not operate at all unless there is a positive manifold pressure. With low manifold pressures there is some variation in delivery rate of water, as the level in the tank falls, but it is not very great and it is very slight with the higher manifold pressures which of course are primarily the problem. With this system it is necessary to use a small non-return valve in the air delivery pipe from the pressure manifold, otherwise there would be an air leak into the manifold when the engine is idling. When mounting the water tank, it is advisable to so locate it that the water level in its relationship to the water jet does not vary when the car is parked on a steep hill. For instance if the tank is put in the boot and the car is facing downhill the water would flow out of the water jet by gravity. If twin carburetors are employed on the supercharger it is advisable to use two of the injector units otherwise some cylinders are likely to be more favored than others in respect of water droplets. |
No internet back last century!
Eldred was a very smart **** for his time, In this chapter I got my inspiration to stay with a stock port stock motor, and very high boost, far less engine stresses involved. Not to mention a far better power band on stock engine timing..... :bowdown:
Supercharge! 0 to100 m.p.h. in 14 seconds in a HR Holden by Eldred Norman Chapter 3 - Why Supercharge? Why not a general "work over?" At first sight it might appear that supercharging is an expensive way to get more power. From the manufacturer's point of view it would be so. He can make a big cylinder almost as cheaply as a little one, certainly cheaper than he can supercharge the small one. This book is not for him. It is for the man who already has a car who looks enviously as a Mustang swings out and surges in safety past a semi-trailer whose diesel fumes he has been inhaling for the last five minutes. Most likely he doesn't know and never will know that supercharged, his car would out-accelerate the Mustang. But there is something of Walter Mitty in all of us. There are two ways to increase the power of the car engine without actually increasing it in bore and stroke. You can improve the breathing and cylinder filling by fitting larger valves, 'hot' camshaft, extractors, and multi carburetors, and just let the atmospheric pressure do the rest. These things will give you a considerable increase in power but will make little difference to the amount of torque. They will however move the maximum torque figure much higher up the rev. range, and since torque times revolutions per minute is the basis of horsepower, the latter will have increased materially. This increased power with the right gearing must mean higher top speed and more acceleration. Power obtained in this way however has some disadvantages. If we have moved the maximum torque point from say 2000 to 4000 r.p.m. and if we are using one gear mainly, such as top gear, we have moved the maximum acceleration period from 40 to 80 m.p.h. This might be good on the race track where we never go as slowly as 40, but is not much use for city driving. Also, and of great importance is the fact that the usable torque range forms a smaller proportion of the total rev. range as the maximum r.p.m. figure is lifted. For example an engine might have a reasonable torque range operating from 1500 to 3000 r.p.m. with peak b.h.p. at 4500. That is we have torque for one-third of the rev. range. Now if we raise the maximum r.p.m. to 6000 with hot bits, we find that we get the same or less torque range starting at 3000 and going up to 4500. This represents only a quarter of the available revs. This means we need a four speed box to go with our hot motor. Racing cars with high power outputs are often out-accelerated by cars of lesser power but with a better torque range. The supercharged motor presents a very different picture. Let us assume that we take a completely standard engine and we supercharge it sufficiently to put out the same maximum b.h.p as the 'worked motor'. We find here that because the supercharger becomes more efficient as the revs increase, so does the engines breathing and filling improves. We find that maximum power occurs at a figure slightly higher than that with the unblown standard motor but nowhere near as high as with the 'hot' motor. We find that the torque range which originally occupied a third of maximum revs. now occupies something over half as compared with the quarter in the case of the 'hot' motor. Also the maximum torque figure will have gone up more than proportionally when compared with the b.h.p. increase. In fact so much will the torque have increased that using top gear it will out-accelerate the 'hot' motor in second. There is however one drawback, it will now be very undergeared. The hot motor will have the higher top speed unless the final drive of the 'blown' motor is changed. A standard 1963 EJ Holden was fitted with slightly larger valves and double valve springs. With the normal manifold and carburetor it had a top speed of 84 m.p.h. It was supercharged at 10 lbs. and road tested by the Adelaide 'Advertiser'. The maximum top speed was found to be a mean 102 m.p.h. The car was then fitted with a 32% Laycock overdrive. No changes were made to the motor or boost. Top speed then increased to 124 m.p.h. in overdrive. As I mentioned before a supercharged motor does reach the point of maximum power at slightly higher revs than the same motor would reach 'un-blown'. For practical purposes when supercharged the engine will reach a peak power point in r.p.m. equal to the original peak power revs times the cube root of the absolute pressure and divided by the cube root of atmospheric pressure. As an example:- Peak power revs unblown: 4500 Maximum boost: 14.7 + 7 = 21.7 lbs. absolute R.P.M. blown equals (about) (equals about) 5010 R.P.M It might be thought that maximum power when supercharged would increase proportionately by the amount by which the maximum absolute pressure exceeds the atmospheric pressure. This is not so for two reasons. The adiabatic increase in temperature of the charge because of the increase in pressure; and second, an increase in pressure does not mean the same proportion of increase in volume passing through a fixed aperture. One atmosphere of pressure might pass 100 cubic feet of air a minute through a 1" hole but two atmospheres would not pass double the amount. The harder you blow the more is the turbulence and skin friction. For this reason if top performance is being sought when supercharged, large manifolds and large valves are even more important than they are with the unblown motor. An obstruction to a gas moving with a velocity of 200 feet per second is more that twice as great if the velocity is doubled. This is the main reason that torque rises faster that b.h.p when supercharging. Actually the torque increases more than the increase in the ratio which the absolute pressure bears to the atmospheric pressure. This is because not only does the quantity of material for combustion increase in the cylinder under supercharging, but that extra quantity is itself responsible for an increase in compression pressure since it must be compressed into the same space as with the unblown motor. Although the same rules relating to manifold and valve restrictions apply with regard to maximum torque figures they naturally do not have as much effect as they have on maximum b.h.p. since maximum torque occurs at much lower revs. When much less air/fuel is being passed. A valve which forms almost no obstruction to the passage of 20 cubic feet of air a minute may pass 30 'under slight protest' if however we try to pass 60 through it we may easily fail. A 179 Holden on a wheel dynamometer gave 69 b.h.p at the wheels at 3500 r.p.m. unsupercharged. The same motor with a boost of 6 lbs. ( 20.7 absolute) gave 112 b.h.p. at the same revs. This represents a 61% increase in torque for a theoretical 41% increase in air/fuel volume. People have often said to me "of course ports and manifolds don't matter as much when supercharged." If torque is all they want, fair enough, you can still get fairly good results through the standard manifold. But if you want 400 b.h.p from three litres you can't simply blow a standard engine at 25 lbs. You won't get it that way. You must work over the engine as if you were after the maximum power unblown and then use a supercharger big enough to give a 12 lb. supercharge on top of that. Of course if you simply want 200b.h.p. for road use on pump fuel, you can get it with nothing more than the supercharger, and you can have a nice drivable city car that attracts no attention at the traffic lights. Now compare the installation costs of the supercharger against those of the 'hot bits' method. The former will cost you about $400 fitted or thereabouts. A head, ported and polished with larger valves will cost you about $130. Three one and three quarter S.U carburetors will cost you about $180. A 25/65 cam about $25. Extractor exhaust system about $70. A total cost of $405. In fact almost identical with the cost of supercharging. Then comparing them on the road for performance all round. The supercharged car will be docile and smooth in traffic in top gear. It will accelerate from as low as 10 m.p.h. in top without snatch or jerk. It will go from 20 m.p.h. to 100 m.p.h. with out a gear change in about 20 seconds. If no change has been made in the final ratio, top speed will be about 105 m.p.h. In fact, it will be very similar to driving the 5 litre V8 except that it will have more acceleration than the later and a slightly lower top speed. Most drivers would think that it did not really require more than two gears unless a caravan was to be pulled. In top gear it would accelerate up a one in four grade and with a ton load behind, it would be much on par with an unladen standard Holden. For city driving fuel consumption would be down some two miles per gallon and the same on a country trip. Pulling a caravan it would be about two miles per gallon better than the unblown car. The reason for this last is that even with the caravan, gears are hardly ever needed. Now to take the unblown car. It would not be as easy to drive in traffic. Much more gear work would be required as it would not operate satisfactorily under 30 m.p.h. in top gear. Using the gears it would accelerate to 100 in much the same time as the blown car provided lots of revs. were used in the gears. It would have a top speed of about 110 m.p.h., possibly slightly more if the final ratio were lowered slightly. Fuel consumption would fall by about four miles per gallon for city driving, that is 2 m.p.g. less than the blown car ( because of the constant gear work), and in the country it would be about one mile to the gallon better than the blown car. If pulling a caravan it would do some four miles per gallon worse than the blown car, and be most unpleasant to drive because of it's inability to pull slowly in top gear. Wear-wise, at the end of 50,000 miles the blown car would be in far better condition. The gearbox would have done less than a quarter of the work since top gear is a straight through drive. Assuming both cars had been driven at the same average speed for the distance, the load transmitted would have been the same in both cases, in respect of the differential, but the constant gear changing with the unblown car would probably show up in increased backlash. I am often asked how the crankshaft and bearings stand up to supercharging. Put quite simply it is easier on the motor than any other method of increasing the power to the back wheels. Off all the forces operating in an engine the pressure of the explosion on the piston is by far the least. This pressure could be doubled and it would still not represent 10% of the stresses at work. Moreover, one of the greatest forces, centrifugal force, increases by the square of the proportion of the increase in r.p.m. This means that this force is two and a quarter times as great at 6000 r.p.m. as it is at 4000. From this it can be seen that supercharging is much easier on the motor than increasing the r.p.m. by improving the breathing. |
Got a log today of a 33.2psi peak boost run! when my internet goes off gay cock speed I'll up "load" them ;)
I still cant get rid of the smile off my face after driving it today, thing is just a fucking animal ! :Chevy_anim: |
Here is pics as promised c7nts
Parameters at start of test (before starting engine) 18deg C day http://www.rotarycarclub.com/rotary_...1&d=1334553373 Mid range mega boost, 33.2psi! http://www.rotarycarclub.com/rotary_...1&d=1334553828 1.742 seconds 90kmh to 140kmh! excellent charge temps, mega boost http://www.rotarycarclub.com/rotary_...1&d=1334553297 |
1 Attachment(s)
Forgot to add, did 100kmh to 169kmh in ~3.71 seconds on the ECU log (0.4 seconds faster to that point than when I did my 6.25 second 100kmh to 200kmh run on lower boost), ran out of test track to do 200kmh test, and only did easy shifting 3rd to 4th, with flat shift (on the race logic traction control) and run it out to 200kmh it will do this in the high 5 second range easy. This car is QUICK!
Log http://rotarycarclub.com/rotary_foru...1&d=1334559123 |
boost it bro
Image Shack eats balls! hope this works now.
Conditions at start of test, 18 deg C Ambient http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7...satstartof.jpg Mid range boost 33.2 psi Blitz boost SBC I-Color http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8...220kpaecul.jpg 90kmh to 140kmh 3rd gear test std power band test, very quick. http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/8...siruneculo.jpg 100kmh to 169kmh = 3.71 seconds short test http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/869...h371second.jpg |
Took a nice pic the other day :auto:
Need to upgrade some performance specs soon too :coolgleamA: http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/4...g4044clean.jpg |
This is the standard RICE RACING "3rd gear power band test" (~4500rpm to ~7500rpm).
90kmh to 140kmh = 1.91 seconds! http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/5...0psisicbro.jpg |
Race Logic VBOX proven ;)
Anyway this year *time pending* the power train set up is being optimized further, still looking 100% standard factory RX7SP under the hood http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/172...815donmega.jpg :coolgleamA: just more power with matching performance increase (not just token BS dyno sheet guesses that don't add up with reality like others lol). 100kmh to 200kmh in sub 5 second range? ......... wif 13B in a real road car not running poofter juice? :fawk: check the FAST FD thread :willy_nilly: http://rotarycarclub.com/rotary_foru...ad.php?t=14704 Acceleration tests of FD rotary RX7's (VBOX data only accepted) verified by RICE RACING. Only will accept flat road runs, any downward slopes greater then ~1.5 degree's over the length of the test will be rejected Ranked FASTEST to SLOWEST A little background information on acceleration times in gear/s: To do half the time of a stock weight FD you need basically double the power (simple), if you can do it in 1/3rd of the time you need 3 times the power (simple again) and so on it goes..... In your VBOX log the distance taken to achieve the speed is also exactly half if you had half the time taken, thus double the power (see proven example at end of post) eg: double the power also equals double the acceleration (Longitudinal G force average) *IT ALL ADDS UP IN REALITY! real world testing!!!*. These test really do separate the bullshit (dyno sheets) from the reality of practical acceleration tests.SEE EXAMPLE TEST @ BOTTOM OF THIS POST OFFICIAL LIST 100kmh to 200kmh (Any gear or gears you like!) User name - Time (seconds) - basic spec smg944 - 5.12 sec - C16 water injected 27psi 525rwhp http://www.rotarycarclub.com/rotary_...ad.php?t=14704 RICE RACING - 5.70 sec - 93 oct water injected 31psi run stock standard 13B-REW http://www.riceracing.com.au/RiceSPGallery.htm Ferrari ENZO - 5.80 sec - Blueprinted rebuilt motor (est 687bhp, 1505kg run weight) > http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/sho...#post141406422 "A new engine is $250K USD and a re-built one from the factory is about $150K. We did ours for under $100K." Ferrari ENZO - 6.20 sec - Factory motor > http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/sho...#post141406422 RICE RACING - 6.25 sec - 93 oct water injected 24psi run stock standard 13B-REW http://www.aquamist.co.uk/vbulletin/...?t=1590&page=3 smg944 - 6.39 sec - 93 oct water injected 23psi 473rwhp Ferrari F40 - 6.74sec sec - The super car reference, 1421kg run weight ~500bhp catless http://www.carobu.com/F40%20LM%20510hp%20dyno.html Docmar - 6.90 sec - 93 oct 22psi 2 people in car http://www.rotarycarclub.com/rotary_...t=14704&page=3 smg944 - 8.27 sec - 93 oct 16psi gt35r medium street port 407whp smg944 - 9.08 sec - 93 oct 16psi my streetported motor, stock twins non seq PFC Jose - 9.52 sec - 93 oct 17psi streetported motor t04e or 57mm turbo Dan McVicker - 9.99 sec - 93 oct 12psi streetported motor copy T04R or 67mm turbo 235~240rwkw VBOX power 1385kg test weight Nathan - 10.82 sec - 93 oct 18.5psi RF420 twins Kila13B - 15.52 sec - 93 oct 15psi 100% stock std RX7 Spirit R Type A 90mh to 140kmh (3rd gear only) power band acceleration test ~4500rpm to ~8000rpm < *rough rpm range* for typical FD's User name - Time (seconds) - basic spec smg944 - 1.83sec sec - C16 water injected 27psi 525rwhp *NOTE* unofficial as 3 to 2.5 degree down slope over run RICE RACING - 1.91sec - 93 oct water injected 31psi run stock standard 13B-REW http://imageshack.us/f/806/191secvbox30psisicbro.jpg smg944 - 2.18 sec - C16 water injected 27psi 525rwhp RICE RACING - 2.26 sec - 93 oct water injected 24psi run stock standard 13B-REW smg944 - 2.59 sec - 93 oct water injected 23psi 473rwhp Nathan - 3.25 sec - 93 oct 18.5psi RF420 twins http://www.riceracing.com.au/vbox-ii...ing-tuning.htm smg944 - 3.26 sec - 93 oct 16psi gt35r medium street port 407whp Jose - 3.48 sec - 93 oct 17psi streetported motor t04e or 57mm turbo Dan McVicker - 3.81 sec - 93 oct 12psi streetported motor copy T04R or 67mm turbo 235~240rwkw VBOX power 1385kg test weight Russ - 4.21 sec - 93 oct 10psi stock port motor BNR TWINS Kila13B - 5.70 sec - 93 oct 15psi 100% stock std RX7 Spirit R Type A http://www.riceracing.com.au/vbox-ii...ing-tuning.htm Docmar - OFFICIAL LIST of some real fast tuned & factory super cars & a few shit box porsches mixed in as well http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/942...mancetable.gif EXAMPLE TEST OF PROOF OF POWER RELATIONSHIP TO TIMES TAKEN TO ACCELERATE This is another interesting comparison: From my collection of VBOX tests http://www.riceracing.com.au/vbox-ii...ing-tuning.htm 90kmh to 135kmh (best power gearing for the stock RX7) see rpm logging. RICESP V Spirit R Type A (stock standard) Car specs: Spirit R Type A 1335kg as run 280PS factory rated engine (100% stock std no mods at all) Car ran 0-100kmh in 5.55 seconds & 13.85 second @ 104.78mph RR V-BOX Recorded for 1/4 mile *no roll out* Time = 5.06 seconds & 158 meters RICESP: ~21psi Rice Racing Engineered Water Injected Monster :) 1310kg as run Power is over double a factory RX7 (see actual VBOX RR rwkw measure) so roughly double the power, double the acceleration & half the time required to do it and distance as well :) Time = 2.21 seconds & 69 meters VBOX File report http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/7...rtypeastoc.jpg Another power analysis graph of RICESP using VBOX3i instrument This is another interesting comparison: From my collection of VBOX tests http://www.riceracing.com.au/vbox-ii...ing-tuning.htm Here is the 3 rd gear acceleration of the stock RX7 SP, tested by Motor Magazine with Correvit digital timing. RX7SP stock 1995 test 204kw 276bhp claimed power factory rated engine (100% stock std no mods at all) 100kmh = 0 sec 110kmh = 0.87 sec 120kmh = 1.83 sec 130kmh = 2.84 sec 140kmh = 4.58 sec RICESP You guess the power :) 100kmh = 0 sec 110kmh = 0.51 sec 120kmh = 0.99 sec 130kmh = 1.51 sec 140kmh = 2.01 sec http://www.ausrotary.com/images/refe...or/motor9e.jpg VBOX proof of my figures at mid range boost on our list, HIGH BOOST VBOX runs to come stay tuned :) O.K. Remember pump petrol/gasoline here only ! ***OFFICIAL VBOX test results*** 90kmh-140kmh = 2.26 seconds! 100kmh-150kmh = 2.39 seoconds! 100kmh-200kmh = 6.25 seconds! http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/6964/img3966don1.jpg http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/7215/img3886don1.jpg Still on old tires, and showing about 24psi boost on the VBOX, and ~330rwkw VBOX POWER Tested at 1320kg run weight and 25 deg C ambient day, still doing boost learning procedure so there is a bit more in at this level and fuel mixture set rich to be on safe side. Fact V's Fiction Will put up some VBOX graphs when I get them off the lap dancer top |
So a 911 RS is still faster by almost a half a second 0-400m, is that what the take away is? :)
|
Quote:
|
The RX7SP dominated the full race 911RSCS, beating it by over a lap at the 12hr race and the BMW M3R's were too scared to even show up to get beaten by the mighty SP :)
Mazda baited the German kuuunts pretty good, they hid a fair bit of their performance until race day, where they came out and simply dominated them lol. 4 years later another RX7SP won a 3 hr race at Bathurst beating Ferrari F355, 911's, Lotus, Honda, Nissan GTR's, all other kinds of pretenders....... It was so good they banned it from GTP racing after that LOL. Legendary car. |
Quote:
True story verified by Mazda Factory, the SP cars were mandated by the factory to run with THREE! welded in washers of 2.5" size along the 3" after market exhaust! this was done to reduce the mass flow and thus power of the "released to public cars" (25 originals that were made) Walker manufacturing who were contracted to make the systems indeed confirmed that this is what they did and when I got my car (still fitted with Walker factory 3" SP exhaust), it did have the welded in washers LOL!!!! Soon as you removed these the car had another 50++bhp more! and was very quick indeed. Much faster than in that article, I had allot of testing of the original SP set up with non molested restricted exhaust. For a twin turbo factory set up they were fast as for the period. Mine had around 380bhp in unrestricted & tuned ECU form. In its current guise it has double that again! should get around to posting up some new specifications :) |
|
Hows my favourite sausage lover doing... hello from Perth W.A
Lots of LOVE & KISSES.. Adamski That sounds as Gay as BUM AIDS, but i know you'll like it. |
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
NO shit talk ONLY world leading results Go check the FAST FD thread for names of cunts who actually have cars that run and are fast. there is only a few of us. Some other cunts should take a 'leaf' and lead by example :ugh2: I'll post up what I want & when I feel like it, till then eat a cock! OR get off your arse and do some hard work yourself :biggthumpup: So when I feel like it you will see some, till then get on the DILDO CANNON :tongue1: |
Nice tubs Peter ;) borg all the way baby which one did you go for ?
I'm just waiting on my intercooler and then I'm ready for that map :) Craig |
Quote:
No worries let me know and I will hook you up. :biggthumpup: |
Sexy it's the next up from mine your car will be mega as always
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I wasn't stating anything other than the fact that shit talk persay meant your acute case of verbal diarrhea you farken wogbogan. Not a bad choice of turbo, remember it would have been about a year ago when I almost went the S362 FMW as it was a lot of turbo for 1000 bucks.. I take it you will be running this new unit of yours at its max pressure ratio...? P.S next time you take a pic of your turbo can you throw in a ruler as your disproportionately small feet make it look farken huge... or should I just call you christy lol |
Probably around 6psi to 7psi boost should be enough.
|
Such a beautiful car, great build man. The turbo makes me happy in pants...
|
Quote:
Lol, I thought you said that your doing your tuning on the top of mount everest...and that you were just waiting on a fresh load of sherpas |
Quote:
Thanks mate, Yes it is jizzfactor3000 good. I have allot of parts for the next stage. Life Racing F88 OS Giken gearbox Host of other stuff....... When I get time I will post up some more. |
More detail pics of the UNIT!
http://imageshack.us/a/img441/9669/img5137habib.jpg http://imageshack.us/a/img855/1543/img5139habib.jpg Habib says: "Spool up the mouse mincer 3000" http://imageshack.us/a/img16/3826/img5149habib.jpg |
Kittay is not amused! Exactly how much boost you planning to run through Kittay?
Will your cat be faster then a Cheetah after the install? |
Quote:
Will take a while as I am fitting it around full time commitments, but I am gagging for it just like TTT is over a soldering iron :smilielol5: |
^lol
|
Quote:
Then again.............................. it is funny seeing peoples reactions when they see it haha. But it's just a normal sized turbo for the application and power rating. Think of it like a Benetton BMW F1 car :) :001_005: only better! cause its a rotary! I'll accumulate some of the other bits and pieces (of spares I have in stock) and take the picture you are looking for in the next couple of weeks, trying to fit time around work is hard but I will try for you mate. The Life Racing F88 ECU and me doing all of the wiring and install was time consuming but worth it, fully integrated system and the level to which its utilized is unheard of in rotary circles anywhere. It's a great piece far better than any of the other retail toys & pay to play hyped up window frame alloy extrusion self tapper screw gold shit boxes I have used to date. Running a revolutionary RRWEP4000 water injection system that is integrated within the ECU mapping strategy, and while its not every ones bag, or something that could be retailed like my other main stream offering, what it can do so far in testing is just gagfactor5000! |
Hey Peter.... you will have an email in the next few days about your gagfactor5000 WM setup.... I think we're on the same page about how to integrate it but the cobblers son goes barefoot and I haven't really done anything with it since october, but now I'm getting an itch again....
|
No problem Brian :coolgleamA:
It's a system I copied off Volvo Group A Touring Car, but with my own take, e-mail me and I will tell you how I set it up. But in essence I just have through the LR F88 three stages of injectors running the engine, with a special intake manifold (can be adapted to cosmo or rew) and main fuel system and WM50 system. It's fully automated though and retains a perfect AFR ratio in all combination's and levels of engagement and control modifiers/trims CLC etc, one brain running the whole system basically. Traction control fuel cutting compatible as well. 7psi of boost to 70psi of boost, on pump petrol :auto: |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Hosted by www.GotPlacement.com