The Interceptor-X for N/A Cars
#601
Mazsport.net
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In the shop
Posts: 753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davefzr
So whats the latest on this project? Is Scott continuing to perfect the drivability of the car in different situations?
#602
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So does that mean you are completely finished with all the tinkering to swoope's car and that he should have it back very soon? I still havent seen that review he was talking about unless I missed it.
#604
The Professor
Originally Posted by davefzr
So does that mean you are completely finished with all the tinkering to swoope's car and that he should have it back very soon? I still havent seen that review he was talking about unless I missed it.
Did you manage to tweak anything else out of the engine?
#605
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Santiago, Dominican Republic
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by carbonRX8
Team's post is what I intended, but I would also point out that to say that the car manufacturer made a car that makes x hp because someone mods a car to make x hp is rather nosensical.[/size]
what I meant to say is that the car is capable of this power, a few moht ago there was a lot of arguing that the car was not capable of this power the new sae testin methot gave the car 232 hp thats with all the auxiliarys conected, the area of rwhp to fwhp is very confusin because one car may loose 15% but another may only loose 20%, there are not alot of engine dynos out there.
#607
always preoccupied.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 827
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably because he didn't think he would get enough coverage in his vender forum, so like some other venders he decided to put it elsewhere rather than in the normal location for it.
#608
Purveyor of fine bass
Discussion of tuning an N/A car with the fully standalone engine management system is quite interesting, hasn't been done before [at least with results posted and all], and thus deserves wide exposure of the forum it's in, instead of the confines of the vendor forum.
#609
Zoom-Freakin'-Zoom
iTrader: (5)
Originally Posted by Nemesis8
Why is this thread here instead of in Scott's forum?
would you have looked at mazsport before this thread?????
it preceded the turbo thread if i am correct.....
and yes i looked that stuff myself....
beers
#614
Zoom-Freakin'-Zoom
iTrader: (5)
when it is done.
scott is meticulous.... so far his first project got held up to make it right. well and a hurricane.. and the demand for a turbo fix was overwhelming....
i am guessing the demand for n/a is low... not that it is not important, but it is a luxury item. better right than fight the battles of an emanage...
this is just my opionion, i could be wrong.
btw, i am still driving around with scotts midpipe with the borla resonator. that is the ticket. dont know if it is any louder than with my cat.
beers
scott is meticulous.... so far his first project got held up to make it right. well and a hurricane.. and the demand for a turbo fix was overwhelming....
i am guessing the demand for n/a is low... not that it is not important, but it is a luxury item. better right than fight the battles of an emanage...
this is just my opionion, i could be wrong.
btw, i am still driving around with scotts midpipe with the borla resonator. that is the ticket. dont know if it is any louder than with my cat.
beers
#615
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait.. Either I am slow or I am missing something.. (Thats not a question nor should you comment on it.. )
If you have your car back then that means that Scott has either completed all of the modifications to the Int-X for a N/A car or he felt bad about having your car for so long and you have gotten it back. I thought that once you had your car back all of the development was done but yet you dont have the Int-X in your car...
Do you see my dilema? I am confused here. If you have your car back but the project is not done yet.. Then whats going on? Did he find another test car? Is he truly completed with the updates and ready to take orders?
Be easy with the comments..
I just want to know where this stands so I can purchase the product in the near future myself after I hear the review.
If you have your car back then that means that Scott has either completed all of the modifications to the Int-X for a N/A car or he felt bad about having your car for so long and you have gotten it back. I thought that once you had your car back all of the development was done but yet you dont have the Int-X in your car...
Do you see my dilema? I am confused here. If you have your car back but the project is not done yet.. Then whats going on? Did he find another test car? Is he truly completed with the updates and ready to take orders?
Be easy with the comments..
I just want to know where this stands so I can purchase the product in the near future myself after I hear the review.
#616
Zoom-Freakin'-Zoom
iTrader: (5)
no i got the car back and he is not done... i got all the afr he need and did the dyno stuff..... but he is got to get all the parts into one box. to my best guess their are to or three boards / boxes that make the intercepter....
a guess because i have not seen them, they are all combined inside the box that you see on the website.
i am sure scott will chime in soon enough.... pm me and i will answere any ??s i can...
beers
a guess because i have not seen them, they are all combined inside the box that you see on the website.
i am sure scott will chime in soon enough.... pm me and i will answere any ??s i can...
beers
#617
Bigus Rotus
iTrader: (3)
Hey, look what CERAMICSEAL said over at RX7Club
In this thread: http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=496533
So whats 265 at the flywheel in RWHP????
Originally Posted by CERAMICSEAL
The re-mans are $2800 plus core. The core charge is $1000. They've been known to make as much as 265hp to the flywheel with the right management and the right seals. Pretty incredible for normally aspirated with smooth idle.
So whats 265 at the flywheel in RWHP????
#618
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nemesis8
Hey, look what CERAMICSEAL said over at RX7Club
In this thread: http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=496533
So whats 265 at the flywheel in RWHP????
In this thread: http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=496533
So whats 265 at the flywheel in RWHP????
#619
always preoccupied.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 827
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by QBallz
Depends if Mazda math was used to calculate the HP at the flywheel.
What's so unbelievable about it? He said "right management." That's the key point in what he said! Read that as, NOT STOCK controlled.
And if you assume a realistic drivetrain loss of 20-25% (15% is way too low for most cars, realistically), then that equates to 198.75 to 212 hp at the wheels. That's not too far fetched...
#620
U-Stink-But-I-♥-U
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 12 o'clock on the Beltway.
Posts: 2,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by dDuB
And if you assume a realistic drivetrain loss of 20-25% ...
#622
always preoccupied.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 827
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by carbonRX8
Sorry, but I respectfully question the assumption of a 25% drive train loss at peak HP production (in any resonable gear) on a direct linkage transmission. To be fair, I would not have posted if you would have left it at 20%, though that is a little high for a bare assumption.
What is your reasoning for believing it? I'm curious to know. If the only reason you believe it is because everyone quotes 15%, since that's what everyone has been assuming for years and years, then that doesn't seem like a justifiable point. If you have more insight, though, I'd love to hear it.
Also, the percentage I was quoting for modern day vehicles wasn't just from drivetrain, I probably should've mentioned that. But it includes all the "frills" that these modern cars monitor and run. Anything electrical, any monitoring system, anything extra that has to run while the car is on will suck from the power as well.
Last edited by ddub; 01-11-2006 at 10:01 PM.
#623
U-Stink-But-I-♥-U
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 12 o'clock on the Beltway.
Posts: 2,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by dDuB
Lots of modern day tuners and shops I talk to and information I have read lean to the side of 20 or so percent drivetrain loss in modern day vehicles. I have no clue where the 15% ever came from, but lots of what I have read says that it's a load of crap, and too low.
What is your reasoning for believing it? I'm curious to know. If the only reason you believe it is because everyone quotes 15%, since that's what everyone has been assuming for years and years, then that doesn't seem like a justifiable point. If you have more insight, though, I'd love to hear it.
Also, the percentage I was quoting for modern day vehicles wasn't just from drivetrain, I probably should've mentioned that. But it includes all the "frills" that these modern cars monitor and run. Anything electrical, any monitoring system, anything extra that has to run while the car is on will suck from the power as well.
What is your reasoning for believing it? I'm curious to know. If the only reason you believe it is because everyone quotes 15%, since that's what everyone has been assuming for years and years, then that doesn't seem like a justifiable point. If you have more insight, though, I'd love to hear it.
Also, the percentage I was quoting for modern day vehicles wasn't just from drivetrain, I probably should've mentioned that. But it includes all the "frills" that these modern cars monitor and run. Anything electrical, any monitoring system, anything extra that has to run while the car is on will suck from the power as well.
#624
Registered
I'm going to just quote SDS on this topic:
Flywheel vs. Wheel HP
As most people know, there are power losses through the drivetrain so wheel hp is always lower than flywheel hp. Front wheel drive cars with transverse engines tend to be more efficient than most rear drive configurations due to the layout of components. However most publications overestimate these losses considerably.
Most rear drive cars have a 1 to 1, 4th or 5th gear which means that the power path goes directly through the mainshaft of the transmission. The only losses here are bearing drag which is less than 0.5% and the viscous drag of the gears running through the oil which is about 1% with hot oil. Indeed, published data indicates a transmission efficiency of 98 to 98.5% for conventional transmissions in 4th gear.
Losses within the driveshaft account for about 0.5% if they are properly aligned, balanced and with fresh U-joints.
Differential losses in the commonly used Hypoid type gearset is in the order of 6 to 10%.
The worst scenario case for a rear drive setup is on the order of 12.5% in 4th gear, not the 20 -25% often published. If 25% was being lost in the drivetrain, the oil would boil in the differential housing in short order and aluminum transmission cases would fatigue and break from the temperatures generated. On a 200 hp engine, something on the order of 37,000 watts would have to be dissipated out of the transmission and differential housings. Obviously, this is not the case.
Transverse, front drive transaxles usually have no direct lockup gears and no 1 to 1 ratio, however, since the torque path is never turned 90 degrees as in the rear drive setup and efficient helical gears are usually employed for the final drive set, losses are more on the order of 6 to 9 percent in the upper ratios.
Tire pressure and wheel alignment can have very significant effects on losses at the rollers. Tire pressures should be set the same between each test. Tire rolling resistance varies inversely with speed, another factor not taken into account by most chassis dynos when applying phantom flywheel hp formulas.
Flywheel vs. Wheel HP
As most people know, there are power losses through the drivetrain so wheel hp is always lower than flywheel hp. Front wheel drive cars with transverse engines tend to be more efficient than most rear drive configurations due to the layout of components. However most publications overestimate these losses considerably.
Most rear drive cars have a 1 to 1, 4th or 5th gear which means that the power path goes directly through the mainshaft of the transmission. The only losses here are bearing drag which is less than 0.5% and the viscous drag of the gears running through the oil which is about 1% with hot oil. Indeed, published data indicates a transmission efficiency of 98 to 98.5% for conventional transmissions in 4th gear.
Losses within the driveshaft account for about 0.5% if they are properly aligned, balanced and with fresh U-joints.
Differential losses in the commonly used Hypoid type gearset is in the order of 6 to 10%.
The worst scenario case for a rear drive setup is on the order of 12.5% in 4th gear, not the 20 -25% often published. If 25% was being lost in the drivetrain, the oil would boil in the differential housing in short order and aluminum transmission cases would fatigue and break from the temperatures generated. On a 200 hp engine, something on the order of 37,000 watts would have to be dissipated out of the transmission and differential housings. Obviously, this is not the case.
Transverse, front drive transaxles usually have no direct lockup gears and no 1 to 1 ratio, however, since the torque path is never turned 90 degrees as in the rear drive setup and efficient helical gears are usually employed for the final drive set, losses are more on the order of 6 to 9 percent in the upper ratios.
Tire pressure and wheel alignment can have very significant effects on losses at the rollers. Tire pressures should be set the same between each test. Tire rolling resistance varies inversely with speed, another factor not taken into account by most chassis dynos when applying phantom flywheel hp formulas.