guitarjunkie28

that's gonna be for my friend's fc.

rotarenvy

but the other way to look at it is you should have your most cordinated hand on the wheel. ie right hand for most. as it is far more importaint to have the car under control and going where you want than being in the right gear.

Japan8

Which I considered, but really you're supposed to have both hands on the wheel at all times. Shifting... you are supposed to do it quickly and return your hand to the wheel.

guitarjunkie28

except when you're busy...in which case the steering gets done by the knee

zoom44

Iannetti. Dr. Iannetti makes a little something called Ceramic apex seals also did/does "a little" work for NASA and Rick Engman - Engine builder extrodinaire for Jim Downing those 2 plus Jim Mederer standing at the porting bench at Racing Beat looking at Aluminum Housings and discussing coatings etc is something i will not soon forget.


edit: ahh i see that Paul did chime in with the answers:D

Cam

iTrader: (1)

Guitarjunkie, I found your website over the weekend....very cool. Nice pics.

guitarjunkie28

i reall really wanted to post it, but i held off because i haven't paid the vendor fees yet. hope i don't get in trouble for someone else posting it though.

Cam

iTrader: (1)

Ohh, good point. I thought it was ok to post a URL, just not prices.

Ill PM a mod for clarification.

guitarjunkie28

cool.
i was going to pay the advertising fees and get a banner, but then my car got jacked and i had to spend all my money replacing my stolen tools. ain't life a bitch??

guitarjunkie28

ooo ooo,
i think i found a volunteer for the more aggressive porting :D
i'm hoping for mre than 20% with that one.

Omicron

Nope, sorry, we need to avoid posting that website for now because it lists prices and we can't allow that for non-forum vendors. But anyone who wants to PM Guitar or Cam and get the site URL is free to do so.

Dave, let us know when you're ready.

Cam

iTrader: (1)

Thanks Omicron, sorry 'bout the url post

guitarjunkie28

the site only has a price for the throttle body porting.

FONZIE

Hey Guitar, what are the specific bonuses for porting an existing turboe'd engine. It is a simple increase in airflow and power or are there other things that come into play? Would the air/fuel ratios need to be revisited when doing this to make it work?

guitarjunkie28

if you port a turbo engine, you'll get more power @ the same boost level, and hopefully more torque through the midrange.

afr's would hypathetically go leaner, but snoochies engine got richer... what i'd do there is jack the fuel up about 10% to be on the safe side, then go to the dyno or at least put a wideband on it and tune from there.

i don't know how it would effect the overall timing yet, so maybe back off 2 or 3 degrees, then slowly bring it back up.

Snoochie

Hey does anyone know the sepcs on the muffler? Cause we went to get a straight pipe and they said they couldn't measure it there, but if we had the details they could make one. Also I was thinking about just getting a resonator and directly swapping it with the cat. If so I still need the specs on it.

therm8

bump. can't have it falling off the front page :D

guitarjunkie28

lol

guitarjunkie28

here's something interesting i found on pineapple's site:
Flowbench

Flowbenches are great tools, particularly for piston engine work. However, their usefulness in porting rotary engines is virtually nonexistant. First, there is no easy way to simulate the operational characteristics of rotary engine ports. Simply strapping a side housing to a flow bench and measuring static flow rates is a futile excercise. One would have to build a very special apperatus to replicate the dynamics of port flow and the related turbulance of the intake charge. And, the extremely limited performance benefits make it hard to justify the expense. 2-3 hp for $200-300 in additional labor is not very cost effective. We recommend that you invest that money more wisely.

http://www.pineappleracing.com/TechLinks.html

i don't have an opinion on it yet, but anyone wanna comment?

Aoshi Shinomori

I'm going to hope that what their saying is simply wrong and silly, but I am not versed in these areas of physics (Aoshi sucks at Physics). I'm sure Rotarygod will come here to comment. I someone don't think that such great minds as these on this thread would not realize that these flowbenches don't work. Shelleys_ man might also have something intelligent to say, he's the Physics Moon Master. Anyway I really hope this is all wrong

guitarjunkie28

i don't know. rob knows what he's doing, so does rg...

if i had the means right now, i'd compare directly. until then i'll just try to do as much homework as i can, while keeping an objective viewpoint on both.

Aoshi Shinomori

Sounds good, I wish I could help to denounce these filthy lies(I hope). I'm sure this will be figured out tomorrow. I don't understand why it wouldn't work if he's got molds of the housings and whatnot. I'll try not to get involved too much until someone of a higher intelligence and dumb things down for me :D

guitarjunkie28

well i can understand that how much a port flows doesn't necessarily reflect HOW it flows.
i've never heard anything bad about the pineapple stuff except one guy who was pissed off because he didn't get any pictures of his ports.

since i do a lot of this stuff, i really want to learn all i can about it. i've had great results with no flow bench so far... does that mean i've got things perfect? hell no! i learn new stuff every day-as do most people.

the minute you think you have something "perfected" is the minute you stop learning. and it never fails--someone will come along and do it better than you. there's always room for improvement-whether it be trial and error, flow testing, mathmatical calculation or an act of god...

btw, there's a new forum my buddy started.
http://www.rotaryforums.com

only like 70 members so far, but i'll be posting lots of stuff about porting, turbojunk, 20b conversions and the like over there.

Aoshi Shinomori

Looks like it could be a cool site, might have to join up. I hope you'll keep getting better with the renesis ports, make examples for some east coast porters
Now it's bedtime everyone. Good night.

rotarygod

I met Rob at Sevenstock. I will say that he is a very well spoken person and he is very easy to believe because he talks so well. I will also not hide the fact that I disagree strongly with several things he believes in. Flowtesting is one of them. It happens and I hope he doesn't take it personal because I do believe him to be a good and honorable person. I know he's done this for a long time and he does know alot about rotaries. What he doesn't know though (and this is my opinion) is about the science and dynamics of airflow and pressure. The only person to truly belive on this subject is Paul Yaw. I remind everyone that they should read his article on flow testing. I'll dissect Pineapple's comments from the above quote to show you how this statement is actually true but it is missing something very important.

First of all, if you aren't testing, you're guessing. Period. To say that flowtesting on a rotary is worthless is to justify ones own lack of testing. It's plain and simple, an excuse. Excuses aren't results though. Just because something works better than stock, doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. Anyone can take a die grinder and make a port larger and get more power. Someone who flow tests can get the same flow result with a smaller port. This is a wider powerband with more average power. If I'm going to take an engine apart and modify it, I'd like to know that I am getting the most for my money and effort rather than just simply "more". Anyways enough with the rambling. I'll requote the post and then answer it.

"Flowbenches are great tools, particularly for piston engine work."

Yes they are.

"However, their usefulness in porting rotary engines is virtually nonexistant."

Really? Explain...

"First, there is no easy way to simulate the operational characteristics of rotary engine ports."

And there is on a piston engine? This comment is too vague so let's go on...

"Simply strapping a side housing to a flow bench and measuring static flow rates is a futile excercise."

True! It doesn't work this way on a piston engine either! You don't just strap a cylinder head to a bench with no valves in it and test away. This too is a futile exercise. There's more to it than that.

"One would have to build a very special apperatus to replicate the dynamics of port flow and the related turbulance of the intake charge."

No you don't. When you test a cylinder head on a flow bench, you do so without the rest of the engine. Why would a piston engine not need a special apparatus to replicate turbulence and flow dynamics but a rotary would? This is irrelevant. When a cylinder head is tested, it's valves are opened at different amounts and flow through them is measured. When you see a flow number for a cylinder head, you see it at a certain amount of valve lift. Having a fully opened valve and going solely by it's numbers is no more indicitive of performance on a piston engine than just simply strapping a rotor housing on a bench to obtain a total flow number. As with a piston engine, flow is done at several points on a rotary with a rotor housing and a rotor also bolted on. This way the port is tested with the rotor in varying states of opening and closing. You get a pretty damn good idea of how much flow there is at different points in the intake cycle this way. This is the exact same way it is done on a piston engine and their results speak volumes. If you take a piston engine that has great flow at max lift but poor flow at lower lifts and compare it to an engine that has great low lift numbers but a lower total lift flow (that got confusing!), the one with more average flow but less peak flow will make the better power. This is no different than on a rotary. The difference is that instead of opening or closing the valves a certain amount, we move the rotor across the port at varying stages to simulate the same thing. To say that, "Simply strapping a side housing to a flow bench and measuring static flow rates is a futile excercise" is inconclusive. While technically true, it also tells me that there is absolutely no experience with a flowbench nor is there any knowledge of how to properly test anything on one. That's not how you do it. If this is the case, then everything is in fact just a guess!

"And, the extremely limited performance benefits make it hard to justify the expense. 2-3 hp for $200-300 in additional labor is not very cost effective. We recommend that you invest that money more wisely."

How can anyone with zero experience in flowtesting claim that there is only a 2-3 hp benefit? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. You won't know unless you test it. I agree with the very last sentence. Spend your money more wisely. Do you want your engine builder guessing or testing?