Messages

Quick question what engine oil do you use and what would you recommend ,  mineral or synthetic oil,

I was just reading that thread!
hahaha *stalker*

It\'s just a suggestion:

can we have a breakdown of info please just like the first page of this thread. For example:

Such Rotor Midifications can be carried out:
S4 low compression rotors
advantages: xxxx
disadvantages:xxx
To what extent it can be modified: xxxx
Why you can\'t go above such modifications: xxxx
Good for what sort of an engine: bridge port, street port etc etc
Things to avoid when modifying them: xxxx
Advise regarding Re Build gasKits for such rotors:xxx
Advise regarding Apex Seals when using such modified rotors: xxxx
Advise regarding boost figures: xxx

High Compression Rotors:
As above explanation might help.

it may be I, but I tend to understand things that way easily.
 
 Mir

edit: I know it might be alot to ask but it helps alot when compared with understanding a whole paragraph which includes engineering terminology. Too much for a layman to understand :-(

That is a good idea, lot of work to do it though, and the "comments" would be :guinness

Maybe you can start a thread using the format you like above and others with "comments" can contribute their seemingly endless knowledge on all topics :Typing

Yes please. It would be nice:King

No problem, I\'ll get on it, what section is best?

Should I start the FAST FD thread here where it\'s measuring some quick in gear times for road going cars, using a VBOX?

That summarized means a car with a good power curve will be faster on the street than a far more powerful one fitted with a peaky bridge port and 600+rwhp and not using much more boost either. And in real world situations the power curve is much better so you can overtake cars easily in high gears.

Post number 148 here > http://www.aquamist.co.uk/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1590&page=15 proves it and you can read the analysis if you so wish.

This shows that YES 100% you can use a turbo and simply increase the pressure and keep the widest possible power band and have as much power as you need.

[POWER CURVE is important]

This gets complex, but I will try to keep it simple enough, for road cars and even some track cars, the POWER CURVE is important, and not to just focus on peak power numbers, IF you can keep the power curve it is a very simple physics relationship that if you double the power you will halve the time and halve the distance needed to accelerate to a certain speed.

The big problem is people go about lifting the power the wrong way and diminish the power curve of the engine as they increase the power (typical problem on turbo cars especially with mis matched turbo and screwed up porting styles) and when you give it back to the owner he wonders why the "dyno sheet" increase does not correspond with the actual vehicle performance.

This is why I invested allot of ca$h in the best Race Logic VBOX equipment and test from a different perspective to all others, I focus on car performance and back it up with actual vehicular tests and how the power makes an effect on it, and all of it backs the other up to a T. In many cases most dyno sheets you get never back up reality.

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

: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 jizz juice? :fawk:
check the FAST FD thread :willy_nilly:

http://rotarycarclub.com/rotary_forum/showthread.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 bullcrap(dyno sheets) from the reality of practical acceleration tests.SEE EXAMPLE TEST @ BOTTOM OF THIS POST

[SIZE=9]OFFICIAL LIST[/SIZE]
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_forum/showthread.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/showthread.php?p=141406422&posted=1#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/showthread.php?p=141406422&posted=1#post141406422
RICE RACING - 6.25 sec -  93 oct water injected 24psi run stock standard 13B-REW http://www.aquamist.co.uk/vbulletin/showthread.php?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_forum/showthread.php?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-iii-testing-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-iii-testing-tuning.htm
Docmar -


OFFICIAL LIST of some real fast tuned & factory super cars & a few :censored::censored::censored::censored: box porsches mixed in as well


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-iii-testing-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


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-iii-testing-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



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!





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

[Power cant just go up in linear line with adding boost...]

VS Motor is in Norway. Here is just local guy, who does rotarys just because he likes them...

Ok, i have read this topic like 100 times, 3 times today. My head hurts...

I just cant understand how engine can take so much air, just with higher boost to make those kind of power? There must be some kind of restriction in somepoint. Engine ports has to make a differense how much air is flowing in to compustion chamber. Power cant just go up in linear line with adding boost...

That why i just dont understand those numbers in first page of this topic. And im not sure can i explain my thoughts correctly... :/

Btw, has anyone just tryed to take of a turbo from FD and dyno it to see how much power it has?

What most people forget is that as pressure increases flow becomes less important (what I mean by that is) flow as you would know it in NA terms

You only need to look at my test on the stock 13B-REW, same everything air box, air filter, exhaust system!, stock engine, the only thing changed is a turbo that can deliver the air at the higher pressure ratio\'s, the concept if proven 100% :Tongue1

Only thing stock ports limit is the "range" of the engine (revs) and also the volumetric efficiency (as shown in the power to NA terms). And in simple language this just means you need to use more boost to make the same peak power v\'s a street port, or semi bridge or partial pp etc. *just read all the power figures* and boost used to reach them.

Power bands and power from low revs, well that is another debate lol. The prove is in the transient response and VBOX proven data for acceleration from 4500rpm to 8000rpm or the 90kmh to 140kmh real world test in 3rd gear.......... this is where the BS stops and all the theories get put to the test 100kmh to 200kmh is a nice test too

:3gears-rh :burnout

And to your high lighted point I have proven it does go up in a linear point, if charge temp is kept the same and tuning is the same (same timing and AFR) it is near enough linear, I list all these variables

[reliably & durably]

Ok, i´m trying to understand all of this...

I do understand both of those methods. I thought that big boost will be fatal to e-shaft and can brake housing to leak to waterchannels. Similar problem in piston engines is headgascet failure. But they can use tougher material in it. I cant understand how that problem can be fixed in rotarys...?

"Only" turbo rotary tuner here (in Finland) said that rotarys cant take more than 1,6bar boost. That in mind, i would use high compression rotors, cause i cant use high boost. In piston engines i could use lower compression, cause i can go with higher boost. Knockin, pre ignition and so on can be fixed with good ecu.

I know that rotarys can take more boost than 1,6bar, but i really dont know how you do that. I have said before that i really dont care about max power, i really want the engine work perfectly in that job that it is built for. As for turbocharcing, i dont know s**t about it. And seems like i dont know anything about rotarys, but im trying to learn

VS Motor? (Can\'t remember if he is Norway or Finland? I helped a worker of his make his S5 engine reliable, they followed my set up and ran that motor to 2.0bar with water injection and pump petrol on 9.0:1 rotors, it is one I use figures on the first post as he sent me the engine dyno report many years ago now.

To reliably & durably do this long term rotaries need water injection :cheers

The limit for totally stock no side clearance\'d rotors is around 2.3 bar boost (gauge pressure) and 8000rpm, this is even using the latest mazda rotors with the extra side steps next the main rotor lands. Anyway more boost than this on stock ports combined with revs simply means the rotor sides crash into the side plates costing power and wearing the crap out of everything. Simple fix, side clearnce the rotors, then you can allow the movement and use much more boost/revs/power.

With regards to porting, what is your take on beveled/scalloped rotors to modify the timing and duration rather than the plates?

I do allot of it, listed all of the details on one irrelevant site many years ago with timing changes it gives and effects. on mine I scallop the intake open edge and closing edge, it is also a good way to make fine adjustments to the compression ratio as well

Marco, that is the essence of what both of us have been frothing about :Talking1

But I was more interested in porting  :mmmm This topic alone generates much excitement where people literally want to stab each other in the heart and urinate on the decapitated corpse of anyone who dares put forth an alternate view hahaha

p.s. what is better, my own feeling is I always go with lower compression, this is why I never use 9.7:1 high comp NA rotors in any of my builds like some love to do. 9.0:1 is great (best of both worlds) and for mental people who have a death wish then I go the custom RR developed 7.8:1 (modified S4 set). It just depends what the car is for and mostly the fuel type used.

But not turbocharged Peter so boost does not come into account here. I also play with these engines and even have 2 rotary engines. 4.9cc and 1.2hp.

I have had lots of the OS Wankels, too slow for me, I run my own modified AXE Rossi LSK motors fully modified and they make over 3.5bhp @ 26000rpm (runs to 36000rpm), very strong mid range and huge revs and can use proper tuned principles like 2 strokes can, which sadly the wankel can not... all from only 3.5cc.

I mad emy own bored out carburettor lol and crank shaft, and ported the sleeves too, stupidly good fun. I gave up racing mine as always people would come to me at the track to tune theres! and I took up the hobby so people would leave me alone and to destress from working on cars all the time. :yes

You should see my little tuning log, its funny reading back on it, AFR\'s, engine temps, engine rpm, all done through telemetry ! I ran over 20lt of fuel through one engine to prove it, was renoud for completeing a race then filling the car and ripping donuts contstanly for 15 minutes as a victory celebration.

:burnout

We should start up another thread on this alone!

Nitomethane you mean, a liquid form of TNT.
They run around 3 to air fuel ratio.
Also they are supercharged. approx 8000 hp
They used to run 100% but gradually to slow the cars down Methanol was introdeiced 1st at 5% and now its 15% so the cars were developed more in the clutch department and now are quicker than ever, so much so that they dont run 1/4 of a mile anymore in the states, they now run 300 meters.

weak! they should run them over a mile!

they use a methanol mix grant as rich as 2:4 ratio!

RC two stroke is no different, I do allot of development work on that as a hobby lol.

I use 40% Nitro and 60% Methanol (bit of oil added!) anyway. If you use too high a compression ratio you can and DO detonate the engine! Too little compression and the performance is just not there (slower on straights and on dyno).

AFR simple, you measure it the same as you do petrol, I mad a jig to test RC motors and I tune them to 12.7:1 in petrol AFR scale (same as Lambda) the numbers are not important here it is just what has "meaning to the tuner" so anyway with RC 2 strokes they make maximum power around that 0.85 lambda region, but its a balance of head temperature and how the AFR changes over a tank load of fuel in a race etc.

The points are as you increase compression ratio power goes up, but even on 40% Nitro and Methanol as a base fuel it is still prone to detonation small scale or large same thermodynamic principles apply .

[WORKING Capacity]

If you were to fill the "bowl" of a 9.0-1 comp rotor with water and measured that volume of water in ml. Then filled a 7.5-1 comp rotor with water and measured that would they be the same?? That\'s how I always though of as comp ratios, where piston or rotor.

But you have to empty the bowl and it is not just poured out like you do down the sink, it is "pumped out" and this is the clearance volume at top dead center, this is a dead area where nothing much happens, it is very hard to clear and in fact never really is very well at if ever.

WORKING Capacity is BDC volume - TDC volume

If you could amazingly increase power by lowering compression ratio, everyone would do it, you only ever can if you are limited by knock limitation of fuel ........... simple.

This is why full race methanol set ups typically do not care to waste time with "low compression" rotor sets, it is counter productive as the fuel is not a limiting factor

See the 13B S5 block I listed making 917bhp on an engine dyno with only 32psi boost pressure used

yep i can agree with this. some good stuff from two experienced individuals, good work guys:mmmm

And not one swear word or derogatory comment posted :Ladys-man