Speed Force Racing Turbo 292whp
02-10-2005, 08:10 PM
#128
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dmp,I don't really know , this is an old dyno maybe in this one they having fuel issues, because in last nights dyno they pulled 292whp but at what RPM's I don't know yet. I'am sure will know shortly.
02-10-2005, 09:59 PM
#129
Originally Posted by SpeedForceRacing
We are not bending the laws of physics.A german did this when he designed the rotary motor 50+ years ago:^) We are just utilizing technology to extract what supposedly cannot be extracted! To make a long story short, the big turbo we are using will supply much more cfm per psi of boost then the turbo Greddy is using.More CFM means more power, if the motor can injest it. Sure there are some other factors in the equation but this basically sums it up. Another benefit of using a larger turbo is that the charge air temps which be less then that of a smaller turbo.On these rotaries keeping the charge air temps in check is very critical becasue the rotaries run so damn hot as it is.
Tim
Tim
Sorry Tim, that dog will not hunt. Like I said earlier, it does not matter if you have a giant turbo. You can have a monster turbo say off a tuna trawler it can't flow more air into an engine unless it makes more pressure. Pressure is just resistance to flow. To get more to go in you need to pressurize it more. Simple physics.
On top of that the bigger turbo might be less efficent operating in an area that isn't in the best island. A big turbo isn't going to be able to operate at design speed without making more pressure. That means you would be getting more heat rise then the smaller one, not less. I'm not saying that you are using the wrong turbo, you might be spot on. I just think the smaller turbo Geddy is running has a better chance of being closer to max efficency.
Doesn't matter it's a small argument. If your not getting into surge then you are running somewhere over 55% to 65%. Back to your theory, no more CFM can go in, you can't tune it in and you can't get it in without more pressure. True more can go in at a given pressure if it is cooler. I don't know where you are and what the temp is but you said SAE corrected so leave that out.
Now if you got the engine working better so it flowed more air then stock the manifold pressure will go down. That is because more is going in and there is less resistence. There is a way to get the mass flow out of the ECU. I believe Hymee has some hardware for this. Then you could show before and after airflow to support your case.
I'm still not raising the BS flag, I'm just questioning the numbers and waiting for something that backs up the dyno. So far I can't see anything that explains your fabulous numbers. Hey I'll be happy if you are doing it because that means I can also do it with my supercharger at that pressure. In my mind it should do better with cooler air carrying more mass. If your right my 7 psi will easily exceed 300 rwhp.
Wouldn't that be nice. So tell me how it happens, I'll buy you a beer. Or six.
02-10-2005, 10:13 PM
#130
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well when is your's going to be done.. That's all I hear is stories long ones and short ones, as I said before let them prove it. it looks like SFR is proving their story what about your's.
I sorry but sometimes I wish the bull **** would stop. Good nite....
I sorry but sometimes I wish the bull **** would stop. Good nite....
02-10-2005, 10:26 PM
#131
Rotoman,
I can't see anyone proving anything so far.
I can't help but remind you that I am developing a compressor with very complex aerodynamic parameters. Not just an installation using a blower off the shelf.
The installation will be the easy part.
Again I'm not saying it isn't happening I just need to know how it can break all the rules of physics. I want to do it too. Trouble is that it flies in the face of recent installs that seem to work out well with theory. On top of that they are using less boost and doubling the increase. Do you buy that just from a published dyno sheet?
I can adjust the printout to say anything I want. If I publish one that reads 500HP with 5psi are you going to believe it? It will be a real print out. Why doubt it?
I can't see anyone proving anything so far.
I can't help but remind you that I am developing a compressor with very complex aerodynamic parameters. Not just an installation using a blower off the shelf.
The installation will be the easy part.
Again I'm not saying it isn't happening I just need to know how it can break all the rules of physics. I want to do it too. Trouble is that it flies in the face of recent installs that seem to work out well with theory. On top of that they are using less boost and doubling the increase. Do you buy that just from a published dyno sheet?
I can adjust the printout to say anything I want. If I publish one that reads 500HP with 5psi are you going to believe it? It will be a real print out. Why doubt it?
02-10-2005, 11:27 PM
#133
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Rancho, So cal
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there is a vid on their website evidently. And the SSR guy said that it was actually not just 6 but in the high sixes I think. But even then lets just say 7 to be nice and round, in theory if the car had a base run of 185 that should only be a jump up to 273 at max. I'm just throwing stuff out there I don't know what I'm talking about anyways.
02-11-2005, 12:11 AM
#134
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 3,535
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Has anyone driven the car and verified the figures by the butt dyno .???
Sounds promising are the turbo kits going to be offered for sale in Australia .?
cheers
michael
Sounds promising are the turbo kits going to be offered for sale in Australia .?
cheers
michael
02-11-2005, 12:14 AM
#135
Stuck in a love triangle
Originally Posted by cretinx
Stock for Stock the RX-8 got the exact same time as the E46 M3 around Top Gear's test track.
So basically it could outperform an M3 with some springs, sways, intake and exhaust.
So basically it could outperform an M3 with some springs, sways, intake and exhaust.
Last edited by JeRKy 8 Owner; 02-11-2005 at 12:28 AM.
02-11-2005, 12:29 AM
#136
Registered
Richard,
Assume for a moment that the car tuned by mazda is not outputting the maximum horsepower at the crank and therefore at the wheels that it could be putting out stock. It's putting out a safe level or even some kind of psychotic odd tune. If you ask fred, he'll tell you that it is doing exactly that, that their tune doesnt make any sense, that it's running split tuning way too late (7000rpm) and it shouldnt be.
Now, assume you can tune the stock car much better than mazda wanted it tuned (for whatever reasons, emissions or reliability whatever), but it's not tuned for max performance, so you tune it there and you end up putting out around 250+ fwhp (even tho mazda states that they're putting out 238, we've all seen that it's probably around 220), so you gain 30 horsepower by tuning the car, possibly more.
Now add the turbo and 7 pounds of boost and you have to retune the car because conditions change. Again, if you can get 30 extra horsepower out of the car stock, I don't see why you couldnt get 30 extra horsepower out of the car with the turbo. And in the case of FI, isnt tuning even more important? Wouldn't the results of a tuned engine be even more exaggerated when FI is added than w/o it?
I just dont see it as impossible because i guarantee that the greddy tune is a timid tune that isnt gaining much of anything beyond keeping the turbo stable.
Let's put it this way.. the greddy turbo is gaining 60 rwhp at 7psi. this turbo is gaining 100 rwhp at 7psi (not 6.. 7..) Yes, more CFM will give you more power to the point where you cant possibly flow anymore air into the engine, but it's all gonna be limited by tuning. Tuning is the key. Steve Kan and Rob Golden both agree that tuning is everything when it comes to this car. Jim Mederer would probably say the same.
I don't think they're breaking the laws of physics. I think they're just doing a better job of tuning the car (or maybe just a more aggressive job).
Am I wrong or insane? I could be.
Assume for a moment that the car tuned by mazda is not outputting the maximum horsepower at the crank and therefore at the wheels that it could be putting out stock. It's putting out a safe level or even some kind of psychotic odd tune. If you ask fred, he'll tell you that it is doing exactly that, that their tune doesnt make any sense, that it's running split tuning way too late (7000rpm) and it shouldnt be.
Now, assume you can tune the stock car much better than mazda wanted it tuned (for whatever reasons, emissions or reliability whatever), but it's not tuned for max performance, so you tune it there and you end up putting out around 250+ fwhp (even tho mazda states that they're putting out 238, we've all seen that it's probably around 220), so you gain 30 horsepower by tuning the car, possibly more.
Now add the turbo and 7 pounds of boost and you have to retune the car because conditions change. Again, if you can get 30 extra horsepower out of the car stock, I don't see why you couldnt get 30 extra horsepower out of the car with the turbo. And in the case of FI, isnt tuning even more important? Wouldn't the results of a tuned engine be even more exaggerated when FI is added than w/o it?
I just dont see it as impossible because i guarantee that the greddy tune is a timid tune that isnt gaining much of anything beyond keeping the turbo stable.
Let's put it this way.. the greddy turbo is gaining 60 rwhp at 7psi. this turbo is gaining 100 rwhp at 7psi (not 6.. 7..) Yes, more CFM will give you more power to the point where you cant possibly flow anymore air into the engine, but it's all gonna be limited by tuning. Tuning is the key. Steve Kan and Rob Golden both agree that tuning is everything when it comes to this car. Jim Mederer would probably say the same.
I don't think they're breaking the laws of physics. I think they're just doing a better job of tuning the car (or maybe just a more aggressive job).
Am I wrong or insane? I could be.
02-11-2005, 12:39 AM
#138
Registered
Ajax,
If you look back at the 3 possibilities I listed that can explain this, you'll see that what you stated is in fact on the list of one of the 3 possibilities. I've got a possible 4th to add to the list which if true and verified could be very exciting but I need to do more homework on it before I list it. I will not say that this number is impossible with this amount of pressure. I just need to figure out the math to prove it. When it comes to verifying something mathematically there are only a could of possibilities. The math is never wrong. The variables used in the math could be off though. This is what is being looked at.
If you look back at the 3 possibilities I listed that can explain this, you'll see that what you stated is in fact on the list of one of the 3 possibilities. I've got a possible 4th to add to the list which if true and verified could be very exciting but I need to do more homework on it before I list it. I will not say that this number is impossible with this amount of pressure. I just need to figure out the math to prove it. When it comes to verifying something mathematically there are only a could of possibilities. The math is never wrong. The variables used in the math could be off though. This is what is being looked at.
02-11-2005, 12:44 AM
#139
Registered
Originally Posted by rotarygod
Ajax,
If you look back at the 3 possibilities I listed that can explain this, you'll see that what you stated is in fact on the list of one of the 3 possibilities. I've got a possible 4th to add to the list which if true and verified could be very exciting but I need to do more homework on it before I list it. I will not say that this number is impossible with this amount of pressure. I just need to figure out the math to prove it. When it comes to verifying something mathematically there are only a could of possibilities. The math is never wrong. The variables used in the math could be off though. This is what is being looked at.
If you look back at the 3 possibilities I listed that can explain this, you'll see that what you stated is in fact on the list of one of the 3 possibilities. I've got a possible 4th to add to the list which if true and verified could be very exciting but I need to do more homework on it before I list it. I will not say that this number is impossible with this amount of pressure. I just need to figure out the math to prove it. When it comes to verifying something mathematically there are only a could of possibilities. The math is never wrong. The variables used in the math could be off though. This is what is being looked at.
That's part of where I got it. I've been thinking about this ever since there started to be a debate about the possibility. When you posted that, I looked back at all the e-manage and canzoomer tuning stuff and realized, yea, you could do a whole lot more w/the stock car.
02-11-2005, 01:50 AM
#140
I'm just happy there is another Turbo kit coming out for the 8...it is a strong statement to the aftermarket world...this car is viable for a whole lot of custom parts (not just FIs 
)
BTW another vendor of ours sells the SFR/SSR kit
) BTW another vendor of ours sells the SFR/SSR kit
02-11-2005, 01:58 AM
#142
www.rx8garage.net when SFR updates their prices lets check in with Thew (owner of rx8garage) and see if that changes anything
02-11-2005, 11:34 AM
#143
TurboTim
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Tim, that dog will not hunt. Like I said earlier, it does not matter if you have a giant turbo. You can have a monster turbo say off a tuna trawler it can't flow more air into an engine unless it makes more pressure.
Now you are being ridiculous.A tuna trawler huh? A turbo that large would never spool-up so you wouldnt get any pressure into the engine.
Pressure is just resistance to flow. To get more to go in you need to pressurize it more. Simple physics.
Simple physics yes.But you are making ASSUMPTIONS about alot of things.
On top of that the bigger turbo might be less efficent operating in an area that isn't in the best island. A big turbo isn't going to be able to operate at design speed without making more pressure. That means you would be getting more heat rise then the smaller one, not less. I'm not saying that you are using the wrong turbo, you might be spot on. I just think the smaller turbo Geddy is running has a better chance of being closer to max efficency.
Actually you are making an assumption again with no proof to back it up.
Doesn't matter it's a small argument. If your not getting into surge then you are running somewhere over 55% to 65%.
Again another assumption.How do you know that our turbo isnt operating at 70-72 % efficiency. Are you taking into consideration the losses through the intercooler and piping? I doubt it.
Back to your theory, no more CFM can go in, you can't tune it in and you can't get it in without more pressure.
I said at a certain point no more cfm can get injecsted byt the motor but I never said we reached that point.
True more can go in at a given pressure if it is cooler. I don't know where you are and what the temp is but you said SAE corrected so leave that out.
Actually the tune was less then perfect which is why we will be going back to the dyno.On top of that we will be making run not only on the dyno dynamics but on the dynojet too.
Now if you got the engine working better so it flowed more air then stock the manifold pressure will go down. That is because more is going in and there is less resistence. There is a way to get the mass flow out of the ECU. I believe Hymee has some hardware for this. Then you could show before and after airflow to support your case.
With the TSI we can put a clamp on the mass-flows max voltage which makes your statement inconclusive.
I'm still not raising the BS flag, I'm just questioning the numbers and waiting for something that backs up the dyno. So far I can't see anything that explains your fabulous numbers. Hey I'll be happy if you are doing it because that means I can also do it with my supercharger at that pressure. In my mind it should do better with cooler air carrying more mass. If your right my 7 psi will easily exceed 300 rwhp.
Not if you are using a belt driven blower which requires engine horsepower to drive the blower.Remember we are using an exhaust driven turbo which does not sap as much energy as a belt driven blower.So at any given psi of boost, the turbo will be the winner.
Wouldn't that be nice. So tell me how it happens, I'll buy you a beer. Or six.
There is no need to tell you how it happens.We will prove it again.We have been proving naysayers wrong for many years.This is why we were in Popular Science magazine for a Supra we built. This is why we have been in more magazines then I can count. This is why we are in Turbo magazine and European car magazine which you can pick up at the news stand right now! Proving people wrong is what we do second best.What we do best is building fast cars that defy the laws of physics.Take care.
Now you are being ridiculous.A tuna trawler huh? A turbo that large would never spool-up so you wouldnt get any pressure into the engine.
Pressure is just resistance to flow. To get more to go in you need to pressurize it more. Simple physics.
Simple physics yes.But you are making ASSUMPTIONS about alot of things.
On top of that the bigger turbo might be less efficent operating in an area that isn't in the best island. A big turbo isn't going to be able to operate at design speed without making more pressure. That means you would be getting more heat rise then the smaller one, not less. I'm not saying that you are using the wrong turbo, you might be spot on. I just think the smaller turbo Geddy is running has a better chance of being closer to max efficency.
Actually you are making an assumption again with no proof to back it up.
Doesn't matter it's a small argument. If your not getting into surge then you are running somewhere over 55% to 65%.
Again another assumption.How do you know that our turbo isnt operating at 70-72 % efficiency. Are you taking into consideration the losses through the intercooler and piping? I doubt it.
Back to your theory, no more CFM can go in, you can't tune it in and you can't get it in without more pressure.
I said at a certain point no more cfm can get injecsted byt the motor but I never said we reached that point.
True more can go in at a given pressure if it is cooler. I don't know where you are and what the temp is but you said SAE corrected so leave that out.
Actually the tune was less then perfect which is why we will be going back to the dyno.On top of that we will be making run not only on the dyno dynamics but on the dynojet too.
Now if you got the engine working better so it flowed more air then stock the manifold pressure will go down. That is because more is going in and there is less resistence. There is a way to get the mass flow out of the ECU. I believe Hymee has some hardware for this. Then you could show before and after airflow to support your case.
With the TSI we can put a clamp on the mass-flows max voltage which makes your statement inconclusive.
I'm still not raising the BS flag, I'm just questioning the numbers and waiting for something that backs up the dyno. So far I can't see anything that explains your fabulous numbers. Hey I'll be happy if you are doing it because that means I can also do it with my supercharger at that pressure. In my mind it should do better with cooler air carrying more mass. If your right my 7 psi will easily exceed 300 rwhp.
Not if you are using a belt driven blower which requires engine horsepower to drive the blower.Remember we are using an exhaust driven turbo which does not sap as much energy as a belt driven blower.So at any given psi of boost, the turbo will be the winner.
Wouldn't that be nice. So tell me how it happens, I'll buy you a beer. Or six.
There is no need to tell you how it happens.We will prove it again.We have been proving naysayers wrong for many years.This is why we were in Popular Science magazine for a Supra we built. This is why we have been in more magazines then I can count. This is why we are in Turbo magazine and European car magazine which you can pick up at the news stand right now! Proving people wrong is what we do second best.What we do best is building fast cars that defy the laws of physics.Take care.
02-11-2005, 11:48 AM
#145
TurboTim
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
Rotoman,
I can't see anyone proving anything so far.
I can't help but remind you that I am developing a compressor with very complex aerodynamic parameters. Not just an installation using a blower off the shelf.
The installation will be the easy part.
Again I'm not saying it isn't happening I just need to know how it can break all the rules of physics. I want to do it too. Trouble is that it flies in the face of recent installs that seem to work out well with theory. On top of that they are using less boost and doubling the increase. Do you buy that just from a published dyno sheet?
I can adjust the printout to say anything I want. If I publish one that reads 500HP with 5psi are you going to believe it? It will be a real print out. Why doubt it?
I can't see anyone proving anything so far.
I can't help but remind you that I am developing a compressor with very complex aerodynamic parameters. Not just an installation using a blower off the shelf.
The installation will be the easy part.
Again I'm not saying it isn't happening I just need to know how it can break all the rules of physics. I want to do it too. Trouble is that it flies in the face of recent installs that seem to work out well with theory. On top of that they are using less boost and doubling the increase. Do you buy that just from a published dyno sheet?
I can adjust the printout to say anything I want. If I publish one that reads 500HP with 5psi are you going to believe it? It will be a real print out. Why doubt it?
Well we dont have the option of making up numbers since our testing was done by an unbiased party. We do this for a reason. They have nothing to gain if we make power or we dont.They get paid either way. As a matter of fact, almost every car club in San Diego uses this same shop for their dyno days because they are unbiased.Did I mention how many magazines use the same shop for testing because of the same unbiased results? Basically, what I am saying is that you are trying to discredit us but you dont have a leg to stand on.So please quit.
02-11-2005, 12:07 PM
#146
RX8 and a Truk....
Originally Posted by SpeedForceRacing
Well we dont have the option of making up numbers since our testing was done by an unbiased party. We do this for a reason. They have nothing to gain if we make power or we dont.They get paid either way. As a matter of fact, almost every car club in San Diego uses this same shop for their dyno days because they are unbiased.Did I mention how many magazines use the same shop for testing because of the same unbiased results? Basically, what I am saying is that you are trying to discredit us but you dont have a leg to stand on.So please quit.
Why did you, or the dyno place stop the dyno at 7700 rpms?
02-11-2005, 12:35 PM
#147
give Richard Paul a break...scientific inquiry is good especially if your dynos are legit just makes us believe in your product more
we have a right to be skeptical your numbers are oustanding...just let them stand on their own people will start to believe
don't release statements agitating forum members especially respected ones even if they are agitating you...they may be your customer one day
Good luck with your product if you are for real and this is a durable application you'll be swimming in Benjamins
just makes us believe in your product morewe have a right to be skeptical your numbers are oustanding...just let them stand on their own people will start to believe
don't release statements agitating forum members especially respected ones even if they are agitating you...they may be your customer one day
Good luck with your product if you are for real and this is a durable application you'll be swimming in Benjamins
02-11-2005, 01:02 PM
#150
TurboTim
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
You know what, I can go back and forth with you on those things but why?
Anyone who claims they bend the laws of physics and is running a turbo at 70+%
has already put himself in his place.
Anyone who claims they bend the laws of physics and is running a turbo at 70+%
has already put himself in his place.
I never said we were running the turbo at 70+% efficiency. Here what I wrote exactly:
"Again another assumption.How do you know that our turbo isnt operating at 70-72 % efficiency. Are you taking into consideration the losses through the intercooler and piping? I doubt it. "
So where did you come up with me claiming anything? I didnt.I was just giving you some things to think about.The fact is that you dont know what turbo we are using.You dont know how we tuned the engine, you really dont know anything about our kit but yet you make generalized statements about we are doing.So you are basically putting yourself in your own place.Take care.