FD Adaptor Plate! YAY!
07-30-06, 10:39 PM
#26
Rotax?! WTF is a Rotax!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Icemark
I am not gonna search, that is something you should have done before hand.
How about this... did you discuss this with your prof??? does he understand anything about flow dynamics?? do you??? Oh hell it doesn't matter. It'll be a expensive learning experience for you both in time and money.
... I guess you and Rarson don't understand that either.
#1 Throttle body spacers do not increase performance on any engine.
#2 Throttle body spacers change the throttle plate position, in some vehicles this leads to changing the torque band. Many people confuse this with increased power, when it simply lowers or raises the torque curve. Lower torque seems like more power to some people because they seldom run a motor up into the upper RPMs where the torque curve falls off. Same torque band, just now now lower or higher up (but not both).
#3 that is why throttle body spacer manufactures can get away with CARB exhemption stickers... because it doesn't change emissions or power.
Doesn't matter what I am telling you. You need to see for yourself. I just hope you don't sucker other board members into this by selling them the thing to them. Then it would be like selling other members Tornados.
And when you are done; be a man, post your results! Then we can have another thread on this. I am done trying to save you and with this thread.
How about this... did you discuss this with your prof??? does he understand anything about flow dynamics?? do you??? Oh hell it doesn't matter. It'll be a expensive learning experience for you both in time and money.
... I guess you and Rarson don't understand that either.
#1 Throttle body spacers do not increase performance on any engine.
#2 Throttle body spacers change the throttle plate position, in some vehicles this leads to changing the torque band. Many people confuse this with increased power, when it simply lowers or raises the torque curve. Lower torque seems like more power to some people because they seldom run a motor up into the upper RPMs where the torque curve falls off. Same torque band, just now now lower or higher up (but not both).
#3 that is why throttle body spacer manufactures can get away with CARB exhemption stickers... because it doesn't change emissions or power.
Doesn't matter what I am telling you. You need to see for yourself. I just hope you don't sucker other board members into this by selling them the thing to them. Then it would be like selling other members Tornados.
And when you are done; be a man, post your results! Then we can have another thread on this. I am done trying to save you and with this thread.
Now about the throttlebody spacer, sure i didnt know that, but does it help educate me and make me understand some more, sure. Does it make me want to halt this, nope.
Yes, what your saying i have to see for myself, BECAUSE YOU HAVENT PROVIDED ANY PROOF, go figure. If other board members want me to make them this, so be it. Just you your trying to help me (at least thats what i figure given you last statement of your post), then i am just trying to help other members get something they want. If they want it, fine, i am not pointing a gun to anyones head telling them they need this, they have to buy it, if they want it, i'll sell it to them.
Telling me to be a man and post my results? When did i say i wasnt going to? Did i state anything otherwise? So wtf is your point? I was always gonna post them, i always implied i was going to, to prove that either me or you was right. I am not scared or worried of being wrong, i just want FACTS, none of which you have shown me by some sort of test/dyno, only what you have said and that really aint doing it for me. I searched, i didnt find it, you dont wanna post it, fine.
Last edited by StarScreaM2k1; 07-30-06 at 10:42 PM.
07-31-06, 12:24 AM
#27
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Originally Posted by StarScreaM2k1
Telling me to be a man and post my results? When did i say i wasnt going to? Did i state anything otherwise? So wtf is your point? I was always gonna post them, i always implied i was going to, to prove that either me or you was right. I am not scared or worried of being wrong, i just want FACTS, none of which you have shown me by some sort of test/dyno, only what you have said and that really aint doing it for me. I searched, i didnt find it, you dont wanna post it, fine.
Most people when something they spent time and money on, doesn't work (after making such a big deal about how it will here) generally forget all about posting that they failed.
Real men post their failures and their sucesses... just telling you to be a man.
07-31-06, 12:36 AM
#29
I live in the lounge...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: lathrup, MI
Posts: 2,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by classicauto
Why don't you tell the team of Mazda engineers who developed the FD manifold that they didn't "do it right".......
edit: don't forget the FD TPS is superior
(BTW starscream, did you buy Charn's FD manifold? is that where this is stemming from?)
edit: don't forget the FD TPS is superior
(BTW starscream, did you buy Charn's FD manifold? is that where this is stemming from?)
07-31-06, 12:42 AM
#30
well technically flow rates are developed for each engine to create torque curves, modifying the intake and exhaust of each engine throws off the tuning of each of those torque curves tuned from each manifold.
now telling people that an FD manifold flows the same as an S4 or S5 is not really true, not because no one has dynoed them but simply by looking at the port diameters you couldn't argue with this.
have you lined up a RE/REW intake port next to a TII? yep there is a slight difference.
on a stock TII an FD manifold may actually result in a loss, in a modded TII it may produce an increase overall over the stock intake manifolds. this is where dynoing before and after is necessary but really there is a difference between the 2 manifolds but which is better for what setup is for the dyno to decide.
the throttle body was never the restriction on the 2nd gen manifolds it was the UIM but it never needed to flow more until the TT was introduced.
not sure if it was covered or not though since i skimmed the thread but the TPS is an upgrade? it won't work unless you run a standalone, then it is rather pointless since you can run any TPS on the 2nd gen manifolds as well that the EMS supports.
now telling people that an FD manifold flows the same as an S4 or S5 is not really true, not because no one has dynoed them but simply by looking at the port diameters you couldn't argue with this.
have you lined up a RE/REW intake port next to a TII? yep there is a slight difference.
on a stock TII an FD manifold may actually result in a loss, in a modded TII it may produce an increase overall over the stock intake manifolds. this is where dynoing before and after is necessary but really there is a difference between the 2 manifolds but which is better for what setup is for the dyno to decide.
the throttle body was never the restriction on the 2nd gen manifolds it was the UIM but it never needed to flow more until the TT was introduced.
not sure if it was covered or not though since i skimmed the thread but the TPS is an upgrade? it won't work unless you run a standalone, then it is rather pointless since you can run any TPS on the 2nd gen manifolds as well that the EMS supports.
Last edited by RotaryEvolution; 07-31-06 at 12:53 AM.
07-31-06, 02:52 AM
#32
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Karack
...the TPS is an upgrade? it won't work unless you run a standalone, then it is rather pointless since you can run any TPS on the 2nd gen manifolds as well that the EMS supports.
Last edited by NZConvertible; 07-31-06 at 03:02 AM.
07-31-06, 08:04 AM
#33
My opinion on this is that although I can see how changing the manifold to the FD's longer runners may affect the torque cruve and peak power point on the motor.....it may allow a higher peak power point as well as a more useable one.
Perhaps.
But I have always been interested in this swap and contemplated it a few times.
I will be reserving judgement until I peep the dyno runs starscream makes with this afterwards.
At which point I will decide wether living close to he guy making the adaptor plates is a good or bad thing
hehehe
Perhaps.
But I have always been interested in this swap and contemplated it a few times.
I will be reserving judgement until I peep the dyno runs starscream makes with this afterwards.
At which point I will decide wether living close to he guy making the adaptor plates is a good or bad thing
hehehe
07-31-06, 01:34 PM
#34
Rotax?! WTF is a Rotax!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i am scared now! LOL thanks tho Classic, i forsure wanna post em up. Get some hard fact up.
Also, NZ would this work for a S4, it was posted on this board before...
"heres how you wire it if you have a s4
fd tps with tab up
prong 1 is ground=black and brown
prong 2 is (narrow)signal= green/red
prong 3 is 5 volts= brown/white
**** 4 is (full range) signal= leave unplugged because you dont have full range (s5 does)"
Also, NZ would this work for a S4, it was posted on this board before...
"heres how you wire it if you have a s4
fd tps with tab up
prong 1 is ground=black and brown
prong 2 is (narrow)signal= green/red
prong 3 is 5 volts= brown/white
**** 4 is (full range) signal= leave unplugged because you dont have full range (s5 does)"
Last edited by StarScreaM2k1; 07-31-06 at 01:38 PM.
07-31-06, 02:27 PM
#35
Originally Posted by NZConvertible
The FD TPS is superior to the FC one and is easily adapted to the FC's harness with a few simply wiring connections. Why would you need a standalone?
S4 is a 1/3 sweep sensor, a full sweep would not work on an S4. S5 is a 1/3 and full sweep sensor, i was not aware the FD TPS had 2 circuits for full sweep and 1/3 sweep.
07-31-06, 06:11 PM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fallston, MD
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Icemark
... I guess you and Rarson don't understand that either.
#1 Throttle body spacers do not increase performance on any engine.
#2 Throttle body spacers change the throttle plate position, in some vehicles this leads to changing the torque band. Many people confuse this with increased power, when it simply lowers or raises the torque curve. Lower torque seems like more power to some people because they seldom run a motor up into the upper RPMs where the torque curve falls off. Same torque band, just now now lower or higher up (but not both).
#3 that is why throttle body spacer manufactures can get away with CARB exhemption stickers... because it doesn't change emissions or power.
#1 Throttle body spacers do not increase performance on any engine.
#2 Throttle body spacers change the throttle plate position, in some vehicles this leads to changing the torque band. Many people confuse this with increased power, when it simply lowers or raises the torque curve. Lower torque seems like more power to some people because they seldom run a motor up into the upper RPMs where the torque curve falls off. Same torque band, just now now lower or higher up (but not both).
#3 that is why throttle body spacer manufactures can get away with CARB exhemption stickers... because it doesn't change emissions or power.
With regards to fluid flow, I'm not going to pretend I know it all, because honestly it's been a long time since I sat down with the book (I'm referring to the T-10 Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow manual written by Naval Reactors, since that's where I learned most of it in a formal setting). All I said, or rather meant to convey, is that with the intake manifold at pressure, which will be most of the time that power is important, the "opposite venturi" (my made-up way to describe it) spot where the LIM and UIM manifolds meet will likely not make a difference. Granted, at the highest level of power production, it would be ideal to get rid of this area increase but I still doubt the difference would be at all dramatic. The reality is that the runner design, and lack of a plenum, of the FD manifold will be the primary contributor to any change in power.
Actually, if you ask me, I'd leave the FD manifold runners small, and just port the LIM to have an even "step" where the manifolds meet. Then again, this is a piston engine idea, based off the intake reversion due to closed valves. I know that rotaries also have reversion, but I don't fully understand any potential differences in the characteristics of such reversion to quantitatively ascertain the potential benefits of such a design.
Going along kind of with what Karack was saying, I think that potential power gains in the upper rpms could be seen due to the lack of a plenum. I would certainly think that a plenum would be advantageous at lower rpms and less at higher rpms. It seems that for piston engines, manifolds made for higher rpms typically use smaller plenums and shorter runners. It seems as though mating up an FD manifold would be mixing a lot of different attributes: smaller runners (low rpms), longer runner length (low rpms), no plenum (high rpms), larger TB (high rpms), etc. Thus the reason it is so hotly debated, as there are numerous points on either side. Still, I don't really see a reason why it should be considered a negative thing, other than if the results aren't satisfying for the individual and in the event that the install isn't straight-forward (ie, if you can't use the TPS with your choice of EMS).
08-01-06, 03:01 AM
#37
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by rarson
...if you can't use the TPS with your choice of EMS
Here's how to use the FD TPS on an FC (I've previously posted this info in another thread):
The S4 single TPS has three wires at the plug; Vref, ground and narrow-range signal. The S5 dual TPS has four wires in the harness; Vref, ground, narrow-range signal and full-range signal, with the Vref and ground wires splitting in two (one each per sensor) for a total of three wires at each sensor and six at the plug. The FD TPS has the same four wires at the plug; they don't split as the two sensors are combined into one unit.
You need to cut the TPS plug off the FC harness and connect up the FD TPS. The best way to do this is to cut the TPS plug off an FD harness and match the wires colours up. The wire colours are:
Vref -- brown/white (all models)
Ground -- black (S4) or brown/black (S5 & FD)
Narrow-range signal -- green/red (all models)
Full-range signal -- black/green (S5 & FD only)
If you can't get hold of an FD TPS plug, terminate the wires with narrow insulated male spade crimp connectors and plug them into the FD TPS.
The TPS pin layout from left to right (clip on top) is:
| Ground | Narrow-range signal | Vref | Full-range signal |
Or by colour...
S4: | B | G/R | Br/W | -- |
S5: | Br/B (x2) | G/R | Br/W (x2) | B/G |
For S4's the TPS's full-range signal pin is not connected to the harness, but it could be used for other purposes; an S-AFC throttle signal for example. For S5's the two Vref (brown/white) wires are joined together and two ground (brown/black) wires are joined together.
Disclaimer: I haven't done this myself, all I've done is match up info taken directly from the online copies of the 88, 89 and 94 Factory Service Manuals. It's a shame more people don't read them and figure this stuff out for themselves. It was very easy.
08-01-06, 07:52 AM
#39
Originally Posted by My5ABaby
And the gain would be...?
Plus (although in the case of a 91 vs 93 its only 2 years) in many cases (say 87 to 95) you are getting a TPS with that much less age, kms, abuse with the FD one.
Now, yes you can use a NEW TPS with say, your haltech, but the FD one is a great other option - plus as stated IT CAN BE USED IN THE FC WITH ITS OEM ECU.
There aren't typical "gains" as in now I have Xhp......but its a reliabilty mod in my mind....since having a slightly more reliable TPS would make it that much easier to troubleshoot when you run into problems like idle. (granted i'd still probably check the TPS then too
)
08-01-06, 07:55 AM
#40
Originally Posted by classicauto
Well, the FD's TPS(s) is a bit more resiliant to losing its place then the FC one(s)
Plus (although in the case of a 91 vs 93 its only 2 years) in many cases (say 87 to 95) you are getting a TPS with that much less age, kms, abuse with the FD one.
Now, yes you can use a NEW TPS with say, your haltech, but the FD one is a great other option - plus as stated IT CAN BE USED IN THE FC WITH ITS OEM ECU.
There aren't typical "gains" as in now I have Xhp......but its a reliabilty mod in my mind....since having a slightly more reliable TPS would make it that much easier to troubleshoot when you run into problems like idle. (granted i'd still probably check the TPS then too)
Plus (although in the case of a 91 vs 93 its only 2 years) in many cases (say 87 to 95) you are getting a TPS with that much less age, kms, abuse with the FD one.
Now, yes you can use a NEW TPS with say, your haltech, but the FD one is a great other option - plus as stated IT CAN BE USED IN THE FC WITH ITS OEM ECU.
There aren't typical "gains" as in now I have Xhp......but its a reliabilty mod in my mind....since having a slightly more reliable TPS would make it that much easier to troubleshoot when you run into problems like idle. (granted i'd still probably check the TPS then too
)
08-01-06, 09:29 AM
#41
Starscream:
What would be the price of a full adaptor set? Meaning, bolts/studs/nuts, and the adaptor? There may be some interest in these....
Im thinking though a whole kit simply because its easier (even if you make a couple bucks on the hardware) to send it with it then have to go out and source them all afterwards.....
But whats a projected figure?
What would be the price of a full adaptor set? Meaning, bolts/studs/nuts, and the adaptor? There may be some interest in these....
Im thinking though a whole kit simply because its easier (even if you make a couple bucks on the hardware) to send it with it then have to go out and source them all afterwards.....
But whats a projected figure?
08-01-06, 11:35 AM
#42
Rotax?! WTF is a Rotax!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i am thinking... with studs, nuts, and the adaptor plate.. ~200. I would also include instructions on how to install (FD TPS wiring ****) and that. I know that can all be found on the board, some some ppl may be lazy, dont wanna search,or wanna have a copy handy when they do it...
08-01-06, 06:05 PM
#43
DGRRX
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 2,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to chime in.
Putting the FD UIM on the FC LIM also gives you an assload more room to work with under the manifold. You could just about but your forearm under it and touch the firewall.
I am planning on doing this once I get the rest of my parts together and knock out a whole build up in one shot.
Putting the FD UIM on the FC LIM also gives you an assload more room to work with under the manifold. You could just about but your forearm under it and touch the firewall.
I am planning on doing this once I get the rest of my parts together and knock out a whole build up in one shot.
08-01-06, 09:44 PM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fallston, MD
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NZConvertible
You can use the FD TPS with any EMS, including the stock FC one.
08-01-06, 09:48 PM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fallston, MD
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by djmtsu
Just to chime in.
Putting the FD UIM on the FC LIM also gives you an assload more room to work with under the manifold. You could just about but your forearm under it and touch the firewall.
Putting the FD UIM on the FC LIM also gives you an assload more room to work with under the manifold. You could just about but your forearm under it and touch the firewall.
09-27-06, 11:59 AM
#48
Rotax?! WTF is a Rotax!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i had just got the adaptor back last week (i didnt pick it up for like a month), uni just started and bro got married. BUt i have it now. i gotta pickup a T2 s4 LIM this week somehow (anyone wanna donate?) and get the studs out and figure out how its all gonna fit and see if i have to adjust, after that i can present it to the community again. Also the fact that my shifter bushings are gone and mazdatrix sent them but canada post is being a **** i cant even drive.. BASTARDS!
09-27-06, 05:44 PM
#50
Originally Posted by Icemark
actually I think people lame enough to switch S5 tail lights onto a S4; ricer too.
The universal term for ricer used on this board is for modifications that are purly for cosmetic purposes and serve no performance increase.
The universal term for ricer used on this board is for modifications that are purly for cosmetic purposes and serve no performance increase.