Defined 20b n/a semi p-port. 421rwhp

[NoDOHC]

Originally Posted by GtoRX7

Well honestly the 160rwtq is probably the highest I've seen from any n/a 13b. Short of a full p-port. After reviewing the setup, I do not know how it pulled it off. That exhaust is terrible in a high efficiency standpoint, and the correct resonance. The most torque I have made is 152rwtq on a 9.7:1 13b. But only after getting the exhaust in correct length. 135-140rwtq was with a off the shelf Rb header. Remember rotaries are not very efficient. 15% less is normal. I am half tempted to send you one of my headers and see what your car could do. The other half of me thinks the dyno wasnt calibrated correctly. lol. But in short its WAY different to get the 160rwtq at 6500 and getting 160rwtq at 10000. You have not considered frictional losses which go up exponentially with RPM. The engine is getting more friction, the water pump and alternator are getting more, the weight of everything takes more energy to spin, and the transmission friction is rising a bunch too. Then add into the fact air velocity is moving much faster, well you get the idea. Compression does not change HP alot on rotaries, you are correct. Lastly, I can tell you personally that the FC coils are great. There is not 30rwhp from a ignition upgrade. Feel free to PM me though, you are on a very right track for sure!

I thought the same thing (about the dyno) I made him show me the certificate of calibration (it was 5 months old and done by Mustang dyno themselves).

Maybe I am listing the wrong number. I found that the sheet shows a WC Torque Number, I asked the guy and he said that this was to compensate for engine inertia (which was determined by a rolldown after the run). The torque without WC was 154 W lb-ft and 205 WHp. Maybe this is the more correct number - The dyno guy said that the WC was the correct number to list.

EDIT: After looking at the manual for the dyno, the WC is Weather Corrected. This means that the numbers are corrected to a standard temperature and humidity. It was about 38 C (100F) in the dyno room while we were doing the tests as the door was closed (noise concerns) and I was the fourth car to run that day.

I was running 15W-50 Full Synthetic oil in the engine, 75W90 synthetic in the differential and straight gear lube in the transmission (which had bad bearings, which didn't matter for the dyno run as it was done in 4th gear, but made me not want to buy synthetic oil for the transmission). I had 205-60 R15 tires on stock rims on the car. The tires were nearly bald.

I can say this, my G-tech put it in at 235 WHp@8,200 rpm and 165 WLb-ft@7,200 rpm with a 2800 lb weight entered. 0-60 (datalogged matched G-tech) = 4.7 seconds. 1/4 mile (G-tech) = 12.6 @ 122 mph (lets not say where this was tested). The car was not a slouch.

With 245/40R17s on the back, it would pull the tires loose when it hit about 6,000 rpm in a straight line - full throttle - acceleration.

Anyway, I have replaced the rotors - let me know if this makes sense to you:

It has INSANE low end (I'm talking almost like a V8). It will pull hills at 1700 RPM with a 0.72 overdrive that it wouldn't pull at 2,000 rpm (0.80 overdrive) before. I am pleased with the 42 mpg instantaneous that it will give at 60 mph (before I maxed out at 34 instantaneous at 75).

Unfortunately, I seem to have lost my volumetric efficiency up high (same engine, same exhaust, same intake, same ecu, different rotors). The VE now appears to peak at 96% at 4,500 rpm. I have not yet put the car on a dyno, so I am not certain of the AFR and VE numbers.

Flooring the car at 2,500 rpm will cause tire spin on 245 40 R17s. Flooring the car at 6,000 rpm will not. I have no high end data due to insufficient fuel from my injectors (I hate the E6X staging for an NA car, so I turned the secondaries off). I run about 17:1 AFR at 9,000 rpm, so I can't say anything about VE past 6,000 rpm.

Fastest 0-60 is 5.7 seconds (gentle launch and shift at 7,500 rpm), 1/4 on g-tech = 13.3 @ 101 mph (gentle launch)

Gtech shows peak torque at 5,000 rpm (180 Wlb-ft).

I should have cited my findings before when referencing your above post, as I have been disappointed with my results, the data above only served to reinforce my theory about the compression. Your experience of the compression number not changing the torque matches what I am seeing, I am saddened.

Whatever my engine does, I am pleased to see that you are making this much power. Maybe someone should try a high powered NA build using 9.0:1 rotors...

I will PM you about the headers, I am very interrested in this idea, as I was thinking about building a set of my own.