My RX7SP build up

[RICE RACING]

Got a log today of a 33.2psi peak boost run! when my internet goes off gay cock speed I'll up "load" them

I still cant get rid of the smile off my face after driving it today, thing is just a fucking animal !

[RICE RACING]

Forgot to add, did 100kmh to 169kmh in ~3.71 seconds on the ECU log (0.4 seconds faster to that point than when I did my 6.25 second 100kmh to 200kmh run on lower boost), ran out of test track to do 200kmh test, and only did easy shifting 3rd to 4th, with flat shift (on the race logic traction control) and run it out to 200kmh it will do this in the high 5 second range easy. This car is QUICK!

Log

[RICE RACING]

This is the standard RICE RACING "3rd gear power band test" (~4500rpm to ~7500rpm).
90kmh to 140kmh = 1.91 seconds!

[RICE RACING]

Race Logic VBOX proven

Anyway this year *time pending* the power train set up is being optimized further, still looking 100% standard factory RX7SP under the hood

just more power with matching performance increase (not just token BS dyno sheet guesses that don't add up with reality like others lol).

100kmh to 200kmh in sub 5 second range? ......... wif 13B in a real road car not running poofter juice?
check the FAST FD thread

http://rotarycarclub.com/rotary_foru...ad.php?t=14704

Acceleration tests of FD rotary RX7's (VBOX data only accepted) verified by RICE RACING.
Only will accept flat road runs, any downward slopes greater then ~1.5 degree's over the length of the test will be rejected
Ranked FASTEST to SLOWEST
A little background information on acceleration times in gear/s: To do half the time of a stock weight FD you need basically double the power (simple), if you can do it in 1/3rd of the time you need 3 times the power (simple again) and so on it goes..... In your VBOX log the distance taken to achieve the speed is also exactly half if you had half the time taken, thus double the power (see proven example at end of post) eg: double the power also equals double the acceleration (Longitudinal G force average) *IT ALL ADDS UP IN REALITY! real world testing!!!*. These test really do separate the bullshit (dyno sheets) from the reality of practical acceleration tests.SEE EXAMPLE TEST @ BOTTOM OF THIS POST

OFFICIAL LIST
100kmh to 200kmh (Any gear or gears you like!)
User name - Time (seconds) - basic spec
smg944 - 5.12 sec - C16 water injected 27psi 525rwhp http://www.rotarycarclub.com/rotary_...ad.php?t=14704
RICE RACING - 5.70 sec - 93 oct water injected 31psi run stock standard 13B-REW http://www.riceracing.com.au/RiceSPGallery.htm
Ferrari ENZO - 5.80 sec - Blueprinted rebuilt motor (est 687bhp, 1505kg run weight) > http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/sho...#post141406422
"A new engine is $250K USD and a re-built one from the factory is about $150K. We did ours for under $100K."
Ferrari ENZO - 6.20 sec - Factory motor > http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/sho...#post141406422
RICE RACING - 6.25 sec - 93 oct water injected 24psi run stock standard 13B-REW http://www.aquamist.co.uk/vbulletin/...?t=1590&page=3
smg944 - 6.39 sec - 93 oct water injected 23psi 473rwhp
Ferrari F40 - 6.74sec sec - The super car reference, 1421kg run weight ~500bhp catless http://www.carobu.com/F40%20LM%20510hp%20dyno.html
Docmar - 6.90 sec - 93 oct 22psi 2 people in car http://www.rotarycarclub.com/rotary_...t=14704&page=3
smg944 - 8.27 sec - 93 oct 16psi gt35r medium street port 407whp
smg944 - 9.08 sec - 93 oct 16psi my streetported motor, stock twins non seq PFC
Jose - 9.52 sec - 93 oct 17psi streetported motor t04e or 57mm turbo
Dan McVicker - 9.99 sec - 93 oct 12psi streetported motor copy T04R or 67mm turbo 235~240rwkw VBOX power 1385kg test weight
Nathan - 10.82 sec - 93 oct 18.5psi RF420 twins
Kila13B - 15.52 sec - 93 oct 15psi 100% stock std RX7 Spirit R Type A





90mh to 140kmh (3rd gear only) power band acceleration test ~4500rpm to ~8000rpm < *rough rpm range* for typical FD's
User name - Time (seconds) - basic spec
smg944 - 1.83sec sec - C16 water injected 27psi 525rwhp *NOTE* unofficial as 3 to 2.5 degree down slope over run
RICE RACING - 1.91sec - 93 oct water injected 31psi run stock standard 13B-REW http://imageshack.us/f/806/191secvbox30psisicbro.jpg
smg944 - 2.18 sec - C16 water injected 27psi 525rwhp
RICE RACING - 2.26 sec - 93 oct water injected 24psi run stock standard 13B-REW
smg944 - 2.59 sec - 93 oct water injected 23psi 473rwhp
Nathan - 3.25 sec - 93 oct 18.5psi RF420 twins http://www.riceracing.com.au/vbox-ii...ing-tuning.htm
smg944 - 3.26 sec - 93 oct 16psi gt35r medium street port 407whp
Jose - 3.48 sec - 93 oct 17psi streetported motor t04e or 57mm turbo
Dan McVicker - 3.81 sec - 93 oct 12psi streetported motor copy T04R or 67mm turbo 235~240rwkw VBOX power 1385kg test weight
Russ - 4.21 sec - 93 oct 10psi stock port motor BNR TWINS
Kila13B - 5.70 sec - 93 oct 15psi 100% stock std RX7 Spirit R Type A http://www.riceracing.com.au/vbox-ii...ing-tuning.htm
Docmar -


OFFICIAL LIST of some real fast tuned & factory super cars & a few shit box porsches mixed in as well


EXAMPLE TEST OF PROOF OF POWER RELATIONSHIP TO TIMES TAKEN TO ACCELERATE
This is another interesting comparison: From my collection of VBOX tests http://www.riceracing.com.au/vbox-ii...ing-tuning.htm
90kmh to 135kmh (best power gearing for the stock RX7) see rpm logging.

RICESP V Spirit R Type A (stock standard)

Car specs:
Spirit R Type A
1335kg as run
280PS factory rated engine (100% stock std no mods at all)
Car ran 0-100kmh in 5.55 seconds & 13.85 second @ 104.78mph RR V-BOX Recorded for 1/4 mile *no roll out*
Time = 5.06 seconds & 158 meters

RICESP:
~21psi Rice Racing Engineered Water Injected Monster
1310kg as run
Power is over double a factory RX7 (see actual VBOX RR rwkw measure) so roughly double the power, double the acceleration & half the time required to do it and distance as well
Time = 2.21 seconds & 69 meters

VBOX File report


Another power analysis graph of RICESP using VBOX3i instrument
This is another interesting comparison: From my collection of VBOX tests http://www.riceracing.com.au/vbox-ii...ing-tuning.htm
Here is the 3 rd gear acceleration of the stock RX7 SP, tested by Motor Magazine with Correvit digital timing.

RX7SP stock 1995 test
204kw
276bhp claimed power factory rated engine (100% stock std no mods at all)

100kmh = 0 sec
110kmh = 0.87 sec
120kmh = 1.83 sec
130kmh = 2.84 sec
140kmh = 4.58 sec

RICESP
You guess the power

100kmh = 0 sec
110kmh = 0.51 sec
120kmh = 0.99 sec
130kmh = 1.51 sec
140kmh = 2.01 sec



VBOX proof of my figures at mid range boost on our list, HIGH BOOST VBOX runs to come stay tuned
O.K. Remember pump petrol/gasoline here only ! ***OFFICIAL VBOX test results***

90kmh-140kmh = 2.26 seconds!
100kmh-150kmh = 2.39 seoconds!
100kmh-200kmh = 6.25 seconds!





Still on old tires, and showing about 24psi boost on the VBOX, and ~330rwkw VBOX POWER

Tested at 1320kg run weight and 25 deg C ambient day, still doing boost learning procedure so there is a bit more in at this level and fuel mixture set rich to be on safe side.

Fact V's Fiction

Will put up some VBOX graphs when I get them off the lap dancer top

[Libor]

Peter, there is something I wondered about.
Lately, I've been going through the many recent papers about development of various piston engines with port injected gasoline as base fuel and ethanol/methanol as mean of charge coolant. They tested 3 methods of charge coolant delivery: port injected, direct injected during intake stroke and after intake stroke. Last method allowed highest levels of boost pressure and power without detonation due to highest cooling effect I.e. lowest in-cylinder temperature. Difference was really huge, 1.05 bar for PFI, 2.4 bar for second method and 4 bar for last. Note: very low engine speeds and overall Lambda 1.

So my question basically is, do you use pre-turbo system mainly due to simplicity and reliability? I can see the benefit in cooling of inlet air which can dramatically increase mass flow for any given shaft speed. But with the above in mind, would direct port injection I.e. very close to engine block, be superior for detonation suppression @ given flow rate?

Many people talk about time factor for atomization, and surely, water can absorb huge amount of heat even by the time its in the engine so the heat of compression in the turbo is really not a problem, but isn't it a bit of waste? We want maximum cooling effect in the engine, not in the manifold

I would be happy for your input

[RICE RACING]

Originally Posted by Libor

Peter, there is something I wondered about.
Lately, I've been going through the many recent papers about development of various piston engines with port injected gasoline as base fuel and ethanol/methanol as mean of charge coolant. They tested 3 methods of charge coolant delivery: port injected, direct injected during intake stroke and after intake stroke. Last method allowed highest levels of boost pressure and power without detonation due to highest cooling effect I.e. lowest in-cylinder temperature. Difference was really huge, 1.05 bar for PFI, 2.4 bar for second method and 4 bar for last. Note: very low engine speeds and overall Lambda 1.

So my question basically is, do you use pre-turbo system mainly due to simplicity and reliability? I can see the benefit in cooling of inlet air which can dramatically increase mass flow for any given shaft speed. But with the above in mind, would direct port injection I.e. very close to engine block, be superior for detonation suppression @ given flow rate?

Many people talk about time factor for atomization, and surely, water can absorb huge amount of heat even by the time its in the engine so the heat of compression in the turbo is really not a problem, but isn't it a bit of waste? We want maximum cooling effect in the engine, not in the manifold

I would be happy for your input

I do my system for simplicity and performance.

A few years ago now I had two special Aquamist systems made for me by Richard (bespoke twin pump set up's) with all kinds of stuff available (pre turbo special rings with center discharge) + individual injectors to place in the ports.

My test was simple:
I ran pre turbo
I ran post IC
I ran pre IC
I ran port injection

The one location that gave me most power was pre turbo, the ones that gave least performance increase were post IC and port injection. I ran a fixed volume of liquid and just changed the location of delivery.

I deduced from my tests that if the pre compressor gave the best acceleration and power that then I could simply use my very own basic RRWEP140 system without much of the complexity and fine orifice injection components that are prone to blockage and failure. That is why I stuck with my own system and its location.

Of interest is the location changes:
You could move the nozzels from pre turbo and to then to the throttle body and have absolutely no increase in acceleration. All other parameters being held equal.

For that test you list above, I'd love to try something like that one day. I'd need to modify some rotor housings and figure out a whole heap of ancillaries to make it a reality, if it works there it should work for rotaries, its just complex to make a reality Makes sense to me that most of the cooling is happening where it is needed most (during the compression phase), as you say though I wonder what the effects are at Lambda 0.65. It is beyond my realm of experience really. In my own case I just went with a system that is basic and works at conventional setting ranges and gives a measurable performance benefit.

[Libor]

Originally Posted by RICE RACING

The one location that gave me most power was pre turbo, the ones that gave least performance increase were post IC and port injection. I ran a fixed volume of liquid and just changed the location of delivery.

This goes hand in hand with what has been observed here http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=987107

But it still leaves me with scratching head, same tune, same boost, almost same observed AFR and IAT so we can assume same airflow, but at the one point, pre-turbo produced about 10% more power. Maybe just post IC or port injection quenches combustion and hurts cycle a bit more than pre-turbo?

Another thing to propose to Barry for testing

[RICE RACING]

Originally Posted by Libor

This goes hand in hand with what has been observed here http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=987107

But it still leaves me with scratching head, same tune, same boost, almost same observed AFR and IAT so we can assume same airflow, but at the one point, pre-turbo produced about 10% more power. Maybe just post IC or port injection quenches combustion and hurts cycle a bit more than pre-turbo?

Another thing to propose to Barry for testing

I doubt you will find any formal text book explanation on this.

All I know is that in ~1994 when I tested this only pre turbo gave an acceleration increase. I later confirmed this to much higher detail when I got my VBOX equipment. The way I do it, it just works, it's flattering to see so many people now copying it word for word part for part spec for spec......... and like now its some kind of amazing discovery when I was 20 years ahead of the game lol.

Lots of great tests were done on this though in the 1960's and 1970's with the fore fathers of after market turbo charging and running WM50 (all pre compressor), find some books called How to select and instal Turbochargers by Hugh McInnes > http://www.amazon.com/Select-Install.../dp/0912656050
^ I have an original of the above book! it is worth buying from a historical stand point alone....... I have all of his others too. And this is where I got the idea to try water injection myself when I was a kid still. There is a fantastic book > http://www.fefcholden.org.au/techinf...rge/index.html a good friend of mine lent me his book *he is the man with a 36psi 1970's old Holden in line 6 running tripple SU carburettors that I VBOX tuned and tested in my Aquamist thread)... All these pioneers ALL talk about water injection and its benefit and all run pre compressor.

[RICE RACING]

0 to100 m.p.h. in 14 seconds in a HR Holden
by Eldred Norman


Chapter 6 - Water As An Anti-Detonant

A British Thermal Unit, B.T.U. for short, is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. To completely vaporize a pound of water requires about 800 B.T.Us. A pound of methanol requires about 450 B.T.Us. and a pound of petrol about 130 B.T.Us.

Now the colder we can keep the charge density being introduced into the cylinder the greater will be it's density, through contraction, and the more we will get into the cylinder prior to compression.

One of the disadvantages of supercharging is that it tends to pre-heat the mixture which results in some loss of volumetric efficiency, but in any case, from the time that the charge enters the cylinder head until it is finally compressed the charge increases in temperature.

After it leaves the supercharger or in the case of the unblown motor, the carburetor, there are only two sources which can be responsible for this increase. First, friction in negotiating tortuous passages and second, by conduction from the heated walls of these passages. Some of this heat is communicated to the air and some to the fuel in the air/fuel mixture. But the petrol only represents one thirteenth of the weight of the total mixture and since it can absorb only 130 B.T.Us. per pound before vaporization a considerable portion of it does become vaporized during this period. This of course results in expansion and loss of efficiency.

Now turning to methanol as a fuel. In this case the combustible mixture consists of about five parts of air to one of fuel by weight. This means that there is two and a half times as much fuel to absorb the heat, but in addition methanol requires three times the number of B.T.Us. per pound to vaporize it. In all it proves to be more than seven times as effective as petrol in controlling temperature rises in the induction.

It is generally recognized that a change to methanol fuel in the right air/fuel proportions, will increase the power of any engine by about 10% and this with no other changes. With the supercharged engine, it can give power increases up to 25% because as I said earlier, all superchargers, by compression, raise the temperature of the charge.

So effective is methanol in reducing temperatures that it is quite common under humid conditions, to see a supercharged car come in after a hard race, with the entire supercharger and manifold encased in ice. I said earlier that the latent heat value of water is again double that of methanol, but of course it is not a fuel and can play no part in the combustion process. It has been suggested that water admitted in droplet form would be instantaneously converted to steam by the 2300 degree C temperature of the combustion, and, as steam, would combine any red hot carbon particles to form carbon-monoxide, thus preventing the depositing of carbon on the walls of the combustion chamber.

This may or may not be so. I am not competent to pronounce on such a matter. I do know this, however. The combustion chambers of engines using water inhalation are remarkably free from carbon deposits when compared with those where water is not used.

In the late nineteen forties a certain petrol company in the U.S.A. carried out a number of tests which involved the introduction of appreciable quantities of water in atomized form, into the air/fuel mixture. In conclusion they decided that if water could be correctly introduced in the ratio of one volume of water to three of petrol, it was possible to operate satisfactorily two units of a compression ratio higher than with petrol alone. That is that a petrol which would operate on a ratio of say eight to one, could be used on ten to one if water was introduced in the above proportions.

The findings of this company have been confirmed by my own experiments except that I find that with the supercharged car it is necessary to use water at slightly higher rate than this.

It might be thought that the introduction of water would lead to misfiring. I have passed a gallon of water through a three litre motor in seventy seconds at 5000 r.p.m. without a trace of misfiring.

Unfortunately the use of water raises two problems.

First, where to carry the water in sufficient quantity, so that re-watering will not be an intolerable nuisance. And second, how best to introduce it to the motor.

There is no real solution to the first of these problems. A five gallon tank of water is quite bulky and occupies an appreciable amount of space in the boot of an average sedan. A two gallon tank can be fitted under the bonnet of most cars today ( together with the supercharger) but is only good for about 100 miles of hard driving.

With regard to the second part of the problem there are many difficulties. I have tried many methods, none of them entirely satisfactory, since some consideration must be given to cost. At first glance the problem seems simple enough. Use a small water carburetor in parallel with the fuel carburetor and interconnect them so that they open together and make the fuel carburetor slightly over rich to compensate for the extra air introduced by the water carburetor. But, we don't want to take in any water unless we have a positive boost in the manifold. This is where the first of the complications arise. We must introduce a valve between the water carburetor and the supercharger inlet manifold and which is opened by a positive manifold pressure from the outlet manifold , acting on a diaphragm. This is well enough but still not satisfactory , because we find that if we open the throttle fully at say 25 m.p.h. we get a positive boost which opens the valve between the small water carburetor and the intake manifold but because the main petrol carburetor is wide open there is not sufficient vacuum to introduce much water just when we want it most. Also the more the speed increases the lower become the compression pressures but the amount of water being introduced is increasing as the pressure falls in the induction manifold. Clearly the small water carburetor is not a satisfactory method.

As I have said I have tried many methods, but only two are reasonably satisfactory. The least complex of the two is to use the backpressure of the exhaust to pressurize a water tank and to force water from a tank via a small jet into the throat of the petrol carburetor. The water tank must be arranged or located below the level of the carburetor so that water cannot feed by gravity into the engine. If it is located in the boot it is as well to provide a tap in the line in case the car has to be parked nose down on a steep hill, in which case the carburetor might be lower than the tank. A filter of reasonable capacity should be provided in the line from the tank as the gas from the exhaust which pressurizes the tank can contain particles of carbon. If the water passes through a jet of about .025 this will be approximately the right size. It can be introduced into the carburetor via one of the choke spindle holes if the choke assembly is removed, this latter being superfluous with all carburetors fitted with an accelerator pump.

The pipe from the exhaust manifold to the tank should be fairly large, say about five sixteenths O.D. It should be passed through the manifold where the various branches have united, and the end should be directed by means of a slight bend inside the manifold, so that it faces into the exhaust flow.

The reason for the large pipe is so that the air cavity in the tank responds quickly to variations in the exhaust pressure. The tank of course must have a sealed filler. This very simple system has faults, the chief of which is the delay in response to pressure variations particulary when the tank is fairly empty. For this reason a small tank works better than a large one. Naturally it is impossible in this way to get instantaneous responses and throttle opening must thus be a rather gradual process if pinking is to be avoided.

The system at present employed by me makes use of the supercharger manifold pressure and operates much like a paint spray gun with the atomized water directed into the throat of the carburetor. The spray or injector unit consists of two small nozzles. The water nozzle has an aperture of .050 diameter, and the air jet of .060. They are arranged at right angles so that the tip of the water nozzle slightly intersects the jet of air through the air nozzle. It must be kept as close as possible to the tip of the later so that the velocity of the air is as high as possible when it passes over the water nozzle.

This unit will cause quite a fine spray with pressures as low as 2 p.s.i. The water tank, usually of about two gallons capacity is mounted under the bonnet and as close to the injector unit as possible. It must be arranged so that the water level when the tank is full is about three inches below the tip of the water nozzle. This unit is very effective in operation and also economical of water since it will not operate at all unless there is a positive manifold pressure. With low manifold pressures there is some variation in delivery rate of water, as the level in the tank falls, but it is not very great and it is very slight with the higher manifold pressures which of course are primarily the problem.

With this system it is necessary to use a small non-return valve in the air delivery pipe from the pressure manifold, otherwise there would be an air leak into the manifold when the engine is idling.

When mounting the water tank, it is advisable to so locate it that the water level in its relationship to the water jet does not vary when the car is parked on a steep hill. For instance if the tank is put in the boot and the car is facing downhill the water would flow out of the water jet by gravity.

If twin carburetors are employed on the supercharger it is advisable to use two of the injector units otherwise some cylinders are likely to be more favored than others in respect of water droplets.

[WE3RX7]

So a 911 RS is still faster by almost a half a second 0-400m, is that what the take away is?

[RICE RACING]

Originally Posted by WE3RX7

So a 911 RS is still faster by almost a half a second 0-400m, is that what the take away is?

And a Ford Pinto is about 3 minutes faster than an RX3 lol.

[RICE RACING]

Originally Posted by WE3RX7

So a 911 RS is still faster by almost a half a second 0-400m, is that what the take away is?

As a funny side note:
True story verified by Mazda Factory, the SP cars were mandated by the factory to run with THREE! welded in washers of 2.5" size along the 3" after market exhaust! this was done to reduce the mass flow and thus power of the "released to public cars" (25 originals that were made) Walker manufacturing who were contracted to make the systems indeed confirmed that this is what they did and when I got my car (still fitted with Walker factory 3" SP exhaust), it did have the welded in washers LOL!!!!

Soon as you removed these the car had another 50++bhp more! and was very quick indeed. Much faster than in that article, I had allot of testing of the original SP set up with non molested restricted exhaust. For a twin turbo factory set up they were fast as for the period. Mine had around 380bhp in unrestricted & tuned ECU form.

In its current guise it has double that again! should get around to posting up some new specifications

[ROT8WA]

Originally Posted by RICE RACING

In its current guise it has double that again! should get around to posting up some new specifications

Would be nice to see some...hurry up stop talking shit and wack some up..

[RICE RACING]

Originally Posted by ROT8WA

Would be nice to see some...hurry up stop talking shit and wack some up..

Do NOT confuse this for a Fact V's Fiction thread on gayclub.com
NO shit talk
ONLY world leading results
Go check the FAST FD thread for names of cunts who actually have cars that run and are fast. there is only a few of us.

Some other cunts should take a 'leaf' and lead by example

I'll post up what I want & when I feel like it, till then eat a cock! OR get off your arse and do some hard work yourself

So when I feel like it you will see some, till then get on the DILDO CANNON

[ROT8WA]

Originally Posted by RICE RACING

Do NOT confuse this for a Fact V's Fiction thread on gayclub.com
NO shit talk
ONLY world leading results
Go check the FAST FD thread for names of cunts who actually have cars that run and are fast. there is only a few of us.

Some other cunts should take a 'leaf' and lead by example

I'll post up what I want & when I feel like it, till then eat a cock! OR get off your arse and do some hard work yourself

So when I feel like it you will see some, till then get on the DILDO CANNON

BLAH Blah Blah....... see what I mean...need I say more.
I wasn't stating anything other than the fact that shit talk persay meant your acute case of verbal diarrhea you farken wogbogan.

Not a bad choice of turbo, remember it would have been about a year ago when I almost went the S362 FMW as it was a lot of turbo for 1000 bucks..

I take it you will be running this new unit of yours at its max pressure ratio...?

P.S next time you take a pic of your turbo can you throw in a ruler as your disproportionately small feet make it look farken huge... or should I just call you christy lol