Which seals are better for redlining , i have an s4 n/a im getting rebuilt and just wondering what peoples experiences are with redlining on the atkins seals opposed to the ra seals....which last longer and are better for redlining with ?

just curious since i heard the atkins have softer material and the ra have harder material....wondering if this comes into play on redlining and longevity of seals at hard use (not necessarily constant redlining, since this is a street car) redlining i mean like 7500 rpm in my s4 n/a

 

Considering that the owner's manual for our cars state to redline the car once a day (after break in of course) I don't think there would be a big difference in either. Although the RA seals are suppose to be stronger.

 

once a day ? im sure people redline more than just once a day...

 

stock Mazda 2mm 2pc

 

any. doesnt make any difference. however, if you want to run high (>9k) rpms for long periods of time, RA are not recommended.

 

Why are you so obsessed with redlining the engine?
Occasional spurts to redline is fine.
HOLDING it up there for any significant amount of time is just abuse.
The engine does NOT make power up there.
You're just adding excessive wear and tear to your engine.


-Ted

 

From what I've heard from others rx7s are made to redline, and its not bad for the engine to hit 7500 rpm... if u have the proper mods i think it will make power up top if it has enough flow... why wouldnt it...? Rotary are made to get all their power/torque at high rpm... im not saying your wrong , im just saying that in my opinion thats what i think..but im no expert.

 

Find me a dyno of a stock 13B 6-port that keeps making power all the way up to redline...
At the very least, the engine will need to be ported (and rebuilt) to do this extended power.
Even with a street port, power will still tend to decline at redline.

Do you know the relationship between torque and horsepower is?
Torque is what accelerated the vehicle, not horsepower.
Horsepower is a fictitious force derived from torque.
Torque can be measured.
Horsepower cannot.

So, it all comes down to bragging rights about being able to redline.

The stock auxiliary components cannot take sustained redline trips.
You're going to end up blowing the water pump and alternator bearings.
The water pump tends to cavitate at sustained revs that high.
So what does that all mean?
It means you keep revving it that high (sustained), you're going to kill your engine.

Sure, the "ENGINE" is designed to rev no problem - it's the other stuff that can't handle it.

So are we going to start recommending everyone to run underdrive pulleys on the street???



-Ted

 

So having an underdrive pulley would completely eliminate those problems ?

Im also considering running premix...that is if it will make my engine last longer than if using the stock omp system...what are your opinions, or anyone elses on engine longevity using premix opposed to the stock omp system ?

edit - i dont plan on doing sustained redlining, i only mean for like a race or something .. if its takinga while for the rpms to go up im not gonna want to keep it in gear if its overheating my engine and going to cause my waterpump and alternator to break... i really dont understand the cavitating thing really, does it get worse (cavitate more) as the rpms go higher ? from my understanding cavitation is when there is a gap where the water goes thru the water pump so its not all water going thru so not being 100% efficient, the alternator thing i really dont know anything about at all...

As far as the engine, i am getting my engine rebuilt and getting it streetported, also getting a dual friction centerforce clutch and lighweight flywheel put on, no exhaust yet that will be stock until i get $ for it later on

 

And for all of you that don't believe him, check this out http://auto.howstuffworks.com/horsepower1.htm

1HP= 33,000 foot-pounds a minute. Foot-pound is a measurement of torque, from which, power is derived.

 

ok, so watts, joules, BTUs, and calories are all fictitious too?

you guys are full of ****.

horsepower is a unit of power, torque is force. power= F.V (dot product of force and velocity) in other words, power is derived from force, but not necessarily linearly related to it.

pat

 

some reading if youre interested:

http://www.yawpower.com/tqvshp.html

a really complete article, although a little hard to understand, and not perfect.

 

If I remember my EE 101 class...
Watts is derived from potential (voltage) multiplied by current - both voltage and current can be measured; wattage cannot, therefore "watts" is a calculated value.

Joules is work.
BTU's is energy potential.
"calories" (lowercase "c") is also energy potential.
All of them can be measured.


Maybe "fictitious" is the wrong word...
"Fictitious" is most used to describe "centrifugal" force, which we all know is fictitious.
Horsepower is a "calculated" value which cannot be measured.
Does that work for you?


-Ted

 

I don't consider Paul Yaw to be a solid, undeniable reference, in my book...
His theories on flow benches and rotary engines I do not agree with.


-Ted

 

dude.... ted is right....
horsepower is a number that you dont really measure...
its made up from a equation...
(tqxrpm)/5252

 

yes, i realize that horsepower is a calculated value. the thing is, power is a very real quantity, and useful in determining lots of things. I just took issue with calling it fictitious. in case you guys havent noticed, most aspects of performance cars are based on horespower, not torque. this is because torque is an instantaneous measurement, whereas power is torque*distance/time. so if you want to know how much fuel you need, for instance, HP is the number you want, not torque. anyway, i forgot why we are even argueing, so i'll shut up

pat

 

If the fact that its derived makes it fictitious, then anything outside of the "fundamental" units is fictitious, including torque. The only fundamental units of measurement are distance, time, mass and charge.

Even torque is derived from a Mass being accelerated over a distance. Everyone remember F=M*A? Look at the simple dimensional breakdown of "Newton Meters"
If Newtons (a force) is comprised of Mass and Acceleration, then a Newton Meter would be D*M*A (distance times mass times acceleration)

Therefore, from my simple understanding, horsepower is (simply put) a measurement of the application of torque over time. Thats why the equation to derive it from torque is RPM based, since a revolution of your motor is relative to a revolution of your tires, and these revolutions are divided by time: "per minute"

The fictitious part about any measurement is the constant that so-and-so used to derive it. These constants are only used to set standards for measurement so that they can be replicated; thats where we get that 33,000 number in deriving "Horse Power" Some guy in history decided that 1 horse can do that much work.

EDIT: spelling and word choice

 

good explanation, better than mine

 

thank you

going further with the dimensional analysis, if HP = Newtons * Meters / Minutes, then

HP = Force * distance / Time

Force = Mass * acceleration

HP = M*A*D/T

MAD T YO!

hahaa..

Well i guess the bottom line is that, torque and horsepower are different things. I think they are both equally important to consider, since the tell you two things about the behavior of the motor.

 

Isn't "distance / time" = velocity?
So, your equation HP = M * A * D / T...
HP = M * A * V
Acceleration is V / time, so...
HP = M * V^2 / T?


-Ted

 

If you want to break down Acceleration into its dimensional components, you get V/T... but Velocity isnt fundamental yet. you get D/T^2 when you break it down farther.

Since we were talking about cars and going fast i guess we were concerned about acceleration (dynamic speed; increasing it over time.)

We can break it down to its fundamentals though

HP = M*A*D/T
A=V/T
V=D/T
therefore:
A=D/T^2 (Thats where you get the true force equation of F=(MD/T^2)

So pluggin that back into the original and simplifying via order of operations:

HP = M*(D/T^2)*D/T = M*D^2/T^3

woah, time cubed, haha i didnt expect that. Yeah you are correct about the equation, since V^2 = D^2/T^2

ok so, in spoken terms, horsepower is equal to a mass times a distance squared over time cubed.

This tells us relatively little in the cognitive process, thinking about what makes the car faster, which is why i left in "acceleration" in my "final" equation.

Maybe i made a mistake? i dont think so it all seems correct. If i did just point it out, sometimes i go a little too fast

EDIT: Id also like to say that all this junk im spouting, i think has very little application in making a car go faster. I just like doing physics problems :P

maybe i should have spent my time learning how to rebuild and port a motor rofl

 

there are two forulae for power: work/time and force*distance

 

Force times distance is the formula for work.
So you are correct about power being work over time. Not the other though
Look in my above post too, it corroborates this fact. You just have to go up a few steps.

HP (power) = M*A*D / T
well M*A = F so there you have it, F*D/T. There is no real way to have 2 formulas for the same thing, unless you are combining fundamental dimensions. Even then, when broken down, the formulas are the same.

Ok look, im sure all this physics junk is way off topic, although tons of fun Lemme re-hash:
I disagreed with ted when he said:
" Torque is what accelerated the vehicle, not horsepower."
because torque only accounts for "acceleration" once in its dimension. Power is the measure of applied torque.

Take for example, a waterwheel. It could be exerting 400 ft lbs of torque; a force applied over a distance.

Although, it could only be producing 60 horsepower, because it is not applying this torque very fast. Simply put, you can have a very slow moving object exerting a load of torque.

A slow moving car that can tow a house isnt going to win you any races :P

Wait a minute, wasnt this thread originally about apex seals? Oops! we been bad

 

oops sorry...i meant force*velocity

 

but just as ted stated, velocity = distance / time

so again you have force * distance / time, or like you said, work/time

there is only one equation for anything man