Speed Force Racing Turbo 292whp
02-11-2005, 01:05 PM
#151
TurboTim
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dmp
Why did you, or the dyno place stop the dyno at 7700 rpms?
Because the car maxed out the injectors and we were getting a bit lean.When we install the new injectors we will run it a little higher in the rpm range.
02-11-2005, 01:06 PM
#152
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant' wait to see who is going to eat crow on this one... Let's just let the results speak for themselfs... I 'am just glad we have the FI systems hitting the market now . People can choose which sytem they want. you can have High Power for bigger bucks or a Lower Power for lower bucks there will be something for everyone.. We can choose a FI system based on our needs or pocket book, or chose not to FI ..
02-11-2005, 01:09 PM
#153
RX8 and a Truk....
Originally Posted by SpeedForceRacing
Because the car maxed out the injectors and we were getting a bit lean.When we install the new injectors we will run it a little higher in the rpm range.
That's what I suspected; I was hoping you'd not sell a kit before you could provide one with enough stuff to keep things safe and rich. :D
:D
02-11-2005, 01:25 PM
#155
RX8 and a Truk....
Originally Posted by DreamWarrior
If the injectors are maxed out and we need bigger to get above 300 whp I think we're in for a surprise at the gas stations.
02-11-2005, 01:34 PM
#156
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dmp
...only whilst on boost. For normal driving, one can adjust the injectors to run the car same as before...+/-
, so my MPG is going to plunge, badly. I get 18-19 MPG regularly now...I'm thinking if I get a Turbo and start using the power I'll be getting 14-16 
.
02-11-2005, 01:37 PM
#157
RX8 and a Truk....
Originally Posted by DreamWarrior
But if I have the boost, I'm bound to be using it , so my MPG is going to plunge, badly. I get 18-19 MPG regularly now...I'm thinking if I get a Turbo and start using the power I'll be getting 14-16 .
, so my MPG is going to plunge, badly. I get 18-19 MPG regularly now...I'm thinking if I get a Turbo and start using the power I'll be getting 14-16 .That'll change....I bet. The first tankfull in my old probe managed about 10 or 12mpg...as I started paying more and more for fuel, and the newness started wearing off, I boosted less and less. In fact, one trip I managed 28mpg - just about the factory rating. :D
02-11-2005, 01:38 PM
#158
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey SFR, does your boost only come on at WOT or is it tuned to also apply minimal boost at partial throttle?
I really like the idea of having little or no boost at part throttle and your tuned boost at WOT.
I really like the idea of having little or no boost at part throttle and your tuned boost at WOT.
02-11-2005, 01:39 PM
#159
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A-spec claims 300rwhp on s2000 with 6psi. Roughly the same statement made by SFR on the Rx8. What I don't understand is that a good turbo can flow up to 3x the ammount of air of a crappy turbo, yet it is supposed to only make 10% more hps under the same psi?
02-11-2005, 02:15 PM
#160
Kaiten Kenbu Rokuren
Everyone needs to cool down and take a chill pill or two. SFR, if your product is making 292whp at 6 psi, then what do you have to prove? There is no point in arguing, if you are confident in your product let it speak for itself. Richard is one of the most intelligent people on this board, he wouldn't make statements he can't back up. I'm sure something has been lost in translation and maybe it will show up after the installation of the first few kits. I hope your kit can make 292 whp, that's amazing 
:D But I hate seeing these silly altercations, just prove wrong the naysayers, bickering gets you nowhere. Phew, alright, so when can we expect some dyno videos or even installation results? :D Thanks.
:D But I hate seeing these silly altercations, just prove wrong the naysayers, bickering gets you nowhere. Phew, alright, so when can we expect some dyno videos or even installation results? :D Thanks.
02-11-2005, 02:31 PM
#161
TurboTim
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by twospoons_
A-spec claims 300rwhp on s2000 with 6psi. Roughly the same statement made by SFR on the Rx8. What I don't understand is that a good turbo can flow up to 3x the ammount of air of a crappy turbo, yet it is supposed to only make 10% more hps under the same psi?
We also have a turbo kit for the S2000 and it made 306hp at the wheels at 6.4 psi.We have the 350Z/G35 turbo kit and it adds a whopping 170 horsepower at the wheels at 6.6 psi! We have a supercharger system for a Porsche that adds 120 horsepower at the wheels at 6 psi.We have a Spec-V kit that added 100 horsepower at the wheels at 5.5 psi.
Last edited by SpeedForceRacing; 02-11-2005 at 02:45 PM.
02-11-2005, 02:34 PM
#162
TurboTim
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davefzr
Hey SFR, does your boost only come on at WOT or is it tuned to also apply minimal boost at partial throttle?
I really like the idea of having little or no boost at part throttle and your tuned boost at WOT.
I really like the idea of having little or no boost at part throttle and your tuned boost at WOT.
We set-up the boost to roll on gradually.The TSI computer it a great computer and it is capable of controlling all sorts of things.We also have an overbost protection feature tuned into the system that will cut the boost if it goes beyond a safe level.So there is alot of safety featured being incorporated into the system.Now for guys that want to just buy the basic kit without the TSI.......you will have to use your own system for tuning and hopefully it will have as many of the features that the TSI does.
02-11-2005, 03:06 PM
#163
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im an amature at this so goe easy, but
if exhaust gasses are hotter and more dense in a rotary, can that affect the horsepower equation (higher than standard piston engine) or is it limited by what can be shoved back through the intake?
if exhaust gasses are hotter and more dense in a rotary, can that affect the horsepower equation (higher than standard piston engine) or is it limited by what can be shoved back through the intake?
Originally Posted by rotarygod
I'll explain this a little better. First of all a rotary is NOT a 1.3 liter engine if we are comparing it's airflow to a piston engine. Why people think that is beyond me. All you have to do is study how one works and how Mazda rated displacement and you can easily see this. From a piston engine standpoint it is a 2.6 liter although the airflow through it for turbo sizing would suggest otherwise. Mazda sized the engine based on displacement over 1 full rotation of the eccentric shaft. A piston engine is sized based on total volume of all cylinders which takes place over 2 rotations of the crankshaft. Thus the rotary compares to a 2.6 piston engine. There's more confusion though.
A big problem with the rotary is it's fairly low efficiency in terms of combustion. There is alot of waste that doesn't get burned by the spark plugs at the combustion phase. Much more than the average piston engine. This leaves alot of unburned gasses in the form of hydrocarbons. Some of these hydrocarbons get ignited again in the exhaust stroke and add even more heat to the exhaust gasses. This causes the gasses to expand more since hotter air is less dense than colder air. The rotary exhaust is much hotter than the average piston engine and this alone adds volume to the amount of gas leaving the engine in terms of size but we obviously can't add to the amount of mols of gasses leaving. The same amount simply takes up more space. This is a source of confusion when sizing turbos for rotaries. You have to guess bigger than the expected numbers.
A big problem with the rotary is it's fairly low efficiency in terms of combustion. There is alot of waste that doesn't get burned by the spark plugs at the combustion phase. Much more than the average piston engine. This leaves alot of unburned gasses in the form of hydrocarbons. Some of these hydrocarbons get ignited again in the exhaust stroke and add even more heat to the exhaust gasses. This causes the gasses to expand more since hotter air is less dense than colder air. The rotary exhaust is much hotter than the average piston engine and this alone adds volume to the amount of gas leaving the engine in terms of size but we obviously can't add to the amount of mols of gasses leaving. The same amount simply takes up more space. This is a source of confusion when sizing turbos for rotaries. You have to guess bigger than the expected numbers.
02-11-2005, 03:31 PM
#164
Registered
Originally Posted by rudy8
im an amature at this so goe easy, but
if exhaust gasses are hotter and more dense in a rotary, can that affect the horsepower equation (higher than standard piston engine) or is it limited by what can be shoved back through the intake?
if exhaust gasses are hotter and more dense in a rotary, can that affect the horsepower equation (higher than standard piston engine) or is it limited by what can be shoved back through the intake?
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo4.htm
What hotter, denser exhaust gasses do for you is allow you to spin up a turbo faster thereby allowing you to use a larger turbo than on a piston engine of the same size (1.3L vs 1.3L). On a piston engine of 1.3L or say 1.5L mini cooper S engine, you wouldnt want to use a T-04E turbo. It'd be too big for the car and have insane lag, whereas on a 1.3L rotary, because of the speed of the gas, the T-04E is well within the usable range.
02-11-2005, 03:35 PM
#165
Kaiten Kenbu Rokuren
Originally Posted by SpeedForceRacing
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.
But I think that was for the Air Force Jets or something. You and Richard should have a talk about these things, both seem like smart guys. Settle your differences and share some quality information/beer. :p
02-11-2005, 03:57 PM
#166
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
constant bickering is no way to solve this especially when everybody doesnt know how SFR is doing this............the best thing is to see the final results once the turbo is released.........I can say one thing, If the turbo performs close to what is stated its a good thing, If not, then so what, there are other companies to buy from.
In the final analasis(sp) reputaton and performance is what sells products not empty promises.
In the final analasis(sp) reputaton and performance is what sells products not empty promises.
02-11-2005, 04:19 PM
#167
TurboTim
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Aoshi Shinomori
I could be wrong but I think this is a very vague statement. The kind of supercharger Richard is building outdoes the efficiency ratings of just about any other form of forced induction. I think these types of blowers have seen efficiecy ratings of something like 94%(I think Turbine Pwr mentioned it) But I think that was for the Air Force Jets or something. You and Richard should have a talk about these things, both seem like smart guys. Settle your differences and share some quality information/beer. :p
But I think that was for the Air Force Jets or something. You and Richard should have a talk about these things, both seem like smart guys. Settle your differences and share some quality information/beer. :pYou are right, it is a vague statement. However, any SC that is belt driven requires horsepower from the engine to spin it.Even an SC that could theortically be 100% efficient will rob power from the motor.So lets say the blower will move enough air at 6 psi of boost to make 100 horsepower.Lets say it take 25 horsepower to spin the blower.The net gain you will see at the motor would be an increase of 75 horsepower. It takes power to make power is all I am saying.
BTW, I get what you are saying and I am sorry Richard for getting into it with you.The fact is that I am a newbie to these boards but that doesnt mean I am a newbie to forced induction, physics, etc........so please play fairly.Take care.
02-11-2005, 05:04 PM
#169
I hope that no one thinks that there is no losses on a turbo...they are exaust restrictions at best.... that also robs horespower from the 100% situation...not to mention the added heat from the exaust gas heat transfer......You don't get anything for free :D
02-11-2005, 05:10 PM
#170
Alright I'll be nice and respond to that last statment. Driving the compressor with the exhaust is not free. You loose by restricting the exhaust flow.
I'll give you an example. If you put a nozzle on the tip of exhaust instead of those big tips what happens? You loose power and that is what turbos do. You need that nozzle to spin the turbine. Nothing is free.
I'll give a not so nice example. Machine a nice tapered orfice to put in your butt and tell me if it doesn't restrict your performance.
That wasn't ment to be insulting it was just to bring home the point to others who think turboing is free. It just isn't. You can open the A/R but you loose responce, this you can see in CART cars. on big ovals they use a large turbo and it takes two laps before they are up to speed. On road courses they use small turbos because they have to be on and off the throttle.
Yet they are still restricted to about 6psi and they want all of it.
There's a case study for you in the exact pressure range you are working with.
I think it's restricted to 53 in hg absolut. about 6.5psi.
I'll give you an example. If you put a nozzle on the tip of exhaust instead of those big tips what happens? You loose power and that is what turbos do. You need that nozzle to spin the turbine. Nothing is free.
I'll give a not so nice example. Machine a nice tapered orfice to put in your butt and tell me if it doesn't restrict your performance.
That wasn't ment to be insulting it was just to bring home the point to others who think turboing is free. It just isn't. You can open the A/R but you loose responce, this you can see in CART cars. on big ovals they use a large turbo and it takes two laps before they are up to speed. On road courses they use small turbos because they have to be on and off the throttle.
Yet they are still restricted to about 6psi and they want all of it.
There's a case study for you in the exact pressure range you are working with.
I think it's restricted to 53 in hg absolut. about 6.5psi.
02-11-2005, 05:20 PM
#171
RX8 and a Truk....
There are two kinds of smart people. The first kind knows how to relate what they know to people without much in the way of 'jabs'. They are not just books smart, they are 'people smart'. When in debate they word their replies in such as way as to inflict the least amount of attack as possible. They strive to keep the OTHER person from going on the defensive.
Then, there are those who seem smart, but flaunt it with an aire of "I'm better than you". They reply back without regard as to the verbal image they may portray. They haven't yet learned that being 'right' is no excuse to be 'rude'.
We should strive to be the FIRST kind of smart guy.
Then, there are those who seem smart, but flaunt it with an aire of "I'm better than you". They reply back without regard as to the verbal image they may portray. They haven't yet learned that being 'right' is no excuse to be 'rude'.
We should strive to be the FIRST kind of smart guy.
Last edited by dmp; 02-11-2005 at 05:22 PM.
02-11-2005, 05:21 PM
#172
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a quote that could only come from a guy in Chatsworth. You don't live in an unmarked industrial park do you?
You might be the only guy with two first names an no last name that I trust. I hope you come out with a product someday. I'm in Calabasas, so you are close enoguh for me to coast my car when it breaks!
You might be the only guy with two first names an no last name that I trust. I hope you come out with a product someday. I'm in Calabasas, so you are close enoguh for me to coast my car when it breaks!
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
I'll give a not so nice example. Machine a nice tapered orfice to put in your butt and tell me if it doesn't restrict your performance.
.
.
02-11-2005, 06:41 PM
#174
Not as smart as you
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took a quick glance at the dyno at noticed one thing...
torque and HP do not meet at 5252... why? Did I miss something or am I misinterpreting the results (if I am sorry... I just got back from a week in the field)
torque and HP do not meet at 5252... why? Did I miss something or am I misinterpreting the results (if I am sorry... I just got back from a week in the field)
02-11-2005, 07:12 PM
#175
RX8 and a Truk....
Originally Posted by AvatarQAZ
I took a quick glance at the dyno at noticed one thing...
torque and HP do not meet at 5252... why? Did I miss something or am I misinterpreting the results (if I am sorry... I just got back from a week in the field)
torque and HP do not meet at 5252... why? Did I miss something or am I misinterpreting the results (if I am sorry... I just got back from a week in the field)
They do meet - The scales are different, however...Look at how much TQ is at 5250...on the right it shows about 175lbs-ft. Now, on the LEFT, the HP side, you will see..yeah...about 175 +/-...
It's just the scaling of the power...that's all.