When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
This is an adaptation from and old Carbureted setup. Pretty insane and something I have thought about for a while, I had no idea this type of setup already existed on a rotary, it's called a "suck thru" setup,
My only concern is that will the fuel damage the compressor wheel or upset its function in any way?
Kind of cool layout. Thats a big stack of rotor housings in the back.
Ive seen a lot about pre turbo water. So i don't think it would cause a problem. The engine bay eat would probably cause the fuel to vaporize before the turbo.
It looks like a drag setup though. No intercoolers
I'm mostly curious from an N/A race application where a broad streetable powerband wouldn't really be all that useful and a direct max flow intake stream would be more ideal. If I imagine the turbo stuff out of the picture for a moment, I see a short run manifold that could easily place the throttle body, MAF (if you aren't MAP) and intake pickup point right at the cowl of the RX-8 for easy access to the high pressure zone. Ala Grand-Am 8s.
It might be more viable to fabricate a custom manifold though, if there is a lot of fab work involved anyway.
I'm mostly curious from an N/A race application where a broad streetable powerband wouldn't really be all that useful and a direct max flow intake stream would be more ideal. If I imagine the turbo stuff out of the picture for a moment, I see a short run manifold that could easily place the throttle body, MAF (if you aren't MAP) and intake pickup point right at the cowl of the RX-8 for easy access to the high pressure zone. Ala Grand-Am 8s.
It might be more viable to fabricate a custom manifold though, if there is a lot of fab work involved anyway.
Yeah for max power with FI this setup would work well, not sure on the drivability overall. I imagine it with a modern BW EFR or something
I have seen (like one or two ever) draw thru carbureted turbo setups on older 12A's, but never one mounted on top like this, let alone fuel injected. Pretty cool.
Yup, not new, and doesn't cause much turbo wear. Oh and why intercool if you are injecting enough coolant into the turbo? Toss on some WI and it will work on an 8.
What makes it a fail? The turbo trans am did it. The Turbo jetfire did it with high compression (10.25:1) and no intercooler long before that and with very low levels of water injection. Yes the technology is old, but it has been used from time to time by manufacturers with the biggest issue being the end consumer taking care of the system. A well designed and maintained system should have no problems making power reliably.
Fail because it's totally unnecessary. No reason to go there except to put form over function. I especially like how you two other notable long forgotten turbo systems of automotive manufacturing fail stature to try and prop up your lack of fail recognition ...
Turbo Jetfire is 1962-1963, why stay stuck in the 80s when you can go back to your grandfather's Oldsmobile ...
*sigh* Old technology isn't bad technology, and those aren't the only examples. Yes there are drawbacks which make port fuel injection and intercoolers better in production cars, but that doesn't negate the benefits. This is the same style argument the piston heads use against the rotary: If the technology can't be a jack of all trades (reliability especially) then it should be abandoned.
I feel that just because it's specialized in application does not mean it should be ignored or abandoned. Preturbo fuel injection has its benefits. First you never have to deal with boost pressure changing your fuel flow rates. Second there is better fuel atomization because it's broken up by the turbocharger. Third the fuel cools the air as it's compressed increasing the efficiency of the turbo.
But to get those benefits you have to deal with an explosive intake charge, and a carbon seal turbo (because it's at vacuum).
Also it's hard to intercool (liquids like gasoline don't like to flow through intercoolers) and because of that the maximum pressure is limited by fuel used. Or you can inject water and make lots of power, but have your engine's life dependent on it.
Or why use a troublesome turbocharger? Drop a big block GM engine in and just have the power to begin with. Or add some nitrous oxide, that too is old technology, but it's never been in use in a production car so I guess it's worthless too.
It's all about what you want out of it and what trade-offs you are willing to take to get there. The form over function comment is bunk unless you know the function of the vehicle. I'd write more, but you don't wrestle a pig in mud.
I would argue that the liquid hitting the blades would cause more pooling not better atomization. It will sling off and pool in the volute of the compressor housing.
Maybe the heat of the blades might cause it to evaporate. I would think with water it will cause definite pooling.
There is some of that too, but remember the liquid (fuel or water) is taking a lot of the heat of compression as well. Also it's hard to pool water when air is quickly moving over it.
03-05-2015 | 02:53 PM
True top mount setup.
