What I have been doing? Gone back to Non Turbo
#27
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,203
Likes: 2,826
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Originally posted by Goodbar6
Wow, i am very impressed! Although i also feel that a good suspension setup could have solved some of your handling issues, i can see how a lighter car can be more fun at times!
Very cool, i want video .
Wow, i am very impressed! Although i also feel that a good suspension setup could have solved some of your handling issues, i can see how a lighter car can be more fun at times!
Very cool, i want video .
#29
Thread Starter
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 20
From: Rohnert Park CA
Originally posted by RarestRX
Yo,
Damn Mark, that's some serious power! Check my new thread, just dyno'ed the other day.
You're gonna make me get a streetport! Heh. I'm pretty happy with the dyno results, we could possibly squeeze a few more if we get agressive on the AF...but I'm stoked that the S-AFC did so much!
NA Powah!
Kevin
1989 GTUs "No turbo, no problem!"
Yo,
Damn Mark, that's some serious power! Check my new thread, just dyno'ed the other day.
You're gonna make me get a streetport! Heh. I'm pretty happy with the dyno results, we could possibly squeeze a few more if we get agressive on the AF...but I'm stoked that the S-AFC did so much!
NA Powah!
Kevin
1989 GTUs "No turbo, no problem!"
I am happy with the HP, but would like to bring the torque up. That just may not be possible without doing more porting work
#31
Thread Starter
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 20
From: Rohnert Park CA
Ah, I thought I mentioned that in the first post,
Non turbo S4 block and Rotors. Mazda seals (except oil) and gaskets.
I was considering using the S5 Turbo rotors, but it doesn't gain anything in RPM over the S4 non turbo rotors.
other mods:
13 lb Flywheel
S5 turbo Alt
Flow matched and calibrated injector pairs
timing slightly advanced
Slightly ported throttle body without secondary set of plates
K&N cone air filter and custom alum cold air box (which actually feeds cold air from the big ol' hole behind the passengers headlight left from when I had the FMIC and turbo motor)
knightsports knock off chip (next too useless, I am just to lazy to pull it back out) It is supposed to lean out in the upper RPM
left over boost/vac gauge (now I am just watching vac- but I had it on there when I had the turbo motor).
And redline superlight gear oil in the tranny and rear end (an honest 2 or 3 HP back, just there).
4.101 rear end with clutch type LSD
Non turbo S4 block and Rotors. Mazda seals (except oil) and gaskets.
I was considering using the S5 Turbo rotors, but it doesn't gain anything in RPM over the S4 non turbo rotors.
other mods:
13 lb Flywheel
S5 turbo Alt
Flow matched and calibrated injector pairs
timing slightly advanced
Slightly ported throttle body without secondary set of plates
K&N cone air filter and custom alum cold air box (which actually feeds cold air from the big ol' hole behind the passengers headlight left from when I had the FMIC and turbo motor)
knightsports knock off chip (next too useless, I am just to lazy to pull it back out) It is supposed to lean out in the upper RPM
left over boost/vac gauge (now I am just watching vac- but I had it on there when I had the turbo motor).
And redline superlight gear oil in the tranny and rear end (an honest 2 or 3 HP back, just there).
4.101 rear end with clutch type LSD
Last edited by Icemark; 01-16-04 at 06:30 PM.
#33
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,203
Likes: 2,826
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Originally posted by Icemark
Yeah, the S-AFC is probably next (although I have been also playing with a couple chips for the stock ECU). I keep hopeing that the people here working on chips can solve the run rich at high RPM problem that the stock ECU has.
I am happy with the HP, but would like to bring the torque up. That just may not be possible without doing more porting work
Yeah, the S-AFC is probably next (although I have been also playing with a couple chips for the stock ECU). I keep hopeing that the people here working on chips can solve the run rich at high RPM problem that the stock ECU has.
I am happy with the HP, but would like to bring the torque up. That just may not be possible without doing more porting work
do you have a header on there?
#34
Thread Starter
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 20
From: Rohnert Park CA
Originally posted by jreynish
you didn't do anything extra?
Race rotor barings... and / or the likes of that?
you didn't do anything extra?
Race rotor barings... and / or the likes of that?
The motor had been overheated (the previous owner had just blocked off the thottle body coolant feed instead of routing it back to the front, and then I guess drove the thing to death) but internally was in great condition once the plates were lapped.
#35
Thread Starter
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 20
From: Rohnert Park CA
Originally posted by j9fd3s
on our race car (e6x haltech in the stock ecu case with stock wiring/sensors) we were able to broaden out the power peak by a good 500rpm by playing with the timing
do you have a header on there?
on our race car (e6x haltech in the stock ecu case with stock wiring/sensors) we were able to broaden out the power peak by a good 500rpm by playing with the timing
do you have a header on there?
Looks like this :
And I have been considering the Haltech or another ECU, but have been concerned with passing emissions (and my wife is getting tired of me spending everything I make on this car).
Last edited by Icemark; 01-16-04 at 12:46 PM.
#37
Thread Starter
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 20
From: Rohnert Park CA
Originally posted by jreynish
I am currious as to why you didn't use s5 NA rotors, they would net you more torque and power, would they not?
I am currious as to why you didn't use s5 NA rotors, they would net you more torque and power, would they not?
I was concerned with detonation. Using the S4 ECU
and
I couldn't find anyone on the west coast that had a good set and didn't want an arm and leg for them.
The only big advantage I saw in using them would be the 8K redline. The HP increase from the extra compression really is pretty small. You are only jumping from 9.0:1 to 9.7:1
Its not like the jump you would get from a piston motor jumping from 8.6 to 10:1 (as I did back on my old RA64 Celica).
Last edited by Icemark; 01-16-04 at 12:41 PM.
#38
Wow, impressive numbers, congrats. Most people with similar mods (except for the extrude honed intake) make ~20-25 hp less. Would you attribute all that power difference to the extrude honing? If so, thats impressive and definitely something people should look into in the future. What kind of gains would you expect from a similarly extrude honed TII intake? Definitely seems worth the money, especially for you NA guys...
#39
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,203
Likes: 2,826
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
wow those are really nice #'s without a header!
um bascially the stock emissions system uses the air pump, acv and main cat, and 2 solenoids to control the acv. the haltech will run the 2 solenoids (relief and switching), and it is possible to put it in the stock ecu case and use the factory wire harness so nobody would know.
i like that you have kept it smog legal, that is setting the right example, i'm working on getting my 3 rotor to pass too
um bascially the stock emissions system uses the air pump, acv and main cat, and 2 solenoids to control the acv. the haltech will run the 2 solenoids (relief and switching), and it is possible to put it in the stock ecu case and use the factory wire harness so nobody would know.
i like that you have kept it smog legal, that is setting the right example, i'm working on getting my 3 rotor to pass too
Last edited by j9fd3s; 01-16-04 at 12:55 PM.
#40
Thread Starter
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 20
From: Rohnert Park CA
Originally posted by j9fd3s
wow those are really nice #'s without a header!
um bascially the stock emissions system uses the air pump, acv and main cat, and 2 solenoids to control the acv. the haltech will run the 2 solenoids (relief and switching), and it is possible to put it in the stock ecu case and use the factory wire harness so nobody would know.
i like that you have kept it smog legal, that is setting the right example, i'm working on getting my 3 rotor to pass too
wow those are really nice #'s without a header!
um bascially the stock emissions system uses the air pump, acv and main cat, and 2 solenoids to control the acv. the haltech will run the 2 solenoids (relief and switching), and it is possible to put it in the stock ecu case and use the factory wire harness so nobody would know.
i like that you have kept it smog legal, that is setting the right example, i'm working on getting my 3 rotor to pass too
I might have to run down to San Ramon and try it on the same dyno.
How much work is setting up the Haltech (or other aftermarket ECUs)? Dyno time at $125 an hour adds up real fast.
#41
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,203
Likes: 2,826
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Originally posted by Icemark
After seeing Kevins numbers though, I am beginning to think my numbers are still optimistic.
I might have to run down to San Ramon and try it on the same dyno.
How much work is setting up the Haltech (or other aftermarket ECUs)? Dyno time at $125 an hour adds up real fast.
After seeing Kevins numbers though, I am beginning to think my numbers are still optimistic.
I might have to run down to San Ramon and try it on the same dyno.
How much work is setting up the Haltech (or other aftermarket ECUs)? Dyno time at $125 an hour adds up real fast.
once you have a decent map, then you can go back to the dyno and attack certain rpm ranges. the dyno can be hard, because its loud,hot and smelly. you get tired quick. so its best to show up with a plan
#42
Wow. I can't believe that you hit over 170 RWHP with the stock exhaust manifold, a cat, and stock emissions. Mazda has been trying to do this for years!!! Hell, your numbers are very close to the RX-8!?!?! ACTUALLY, with your 7000 RPM redline, YOU ARE MAKING MORE THAN THE RX-8 at 7000 RPM! WTF!
Icemark, you are by far one of the most trusted members on this list. If anyone else had made this claim, I would have said Bulls@it because I just can't see how it can be done. I'm just having a hard time believing it. (Maybe I'm jealous? :P )
If your numbers are right, then Mazda should have never wasted millions of dollars developing the RENESIS... All they needed to do was port the engine and intake of the S5 engine.
Icemark, you are by far one of the most trusted members on this list. If anyone else had made this claim, I would have said Bulls@it because I just can't see how it can be done. I'm just having a hard time believing it. (Maybe I'm jealous? :P )
If your numbers are right, then Mazda should have never wasted millions of dollars developing the RENESIS... All they needed to do was port the engine and intake of the S5 engine.
#43
Originally posted by Icemark
After seeing Kevins numbers though, I am beginning to think my numbers are still optimistic.
I might have to run down to San Ramon and try it on the same dyno. *snip*
After seeing Kevins numbers though, I am beginning to think my numbers are still optimistic.
I might have to run down to San Ramon and try it on the same dyno. *snip*
Kevin's GTUs has
The benefit of 8000 RPM Redline
A modified fuel map via the S-AFC
Ported intake manifold
Ported throttle body
Intake
A true dual exhaust with no restrictions.
BUT a stock block...
If I'm understanding your setup, you have:
a ported S4 motor with 7000 RPM redline
Stock ECU running a rich fuel map
Bumped timing
Ported Throttle body
Intake
Lightened flywheel
Full emissions and a cat!
You still made 15-16 more HP!
#45
Thread Starter
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 20
From: Rohnert Park CA
Originally posted by wozzoom
A verification run may be in order... I'm not calling you a liar by any means. I'd just love to see a run on the same dyno Kevin had his car on.
Kevin's GTUs has
The benefit of 8000 RPM Redline
A modified fuel map via the S-AFC
Ported intake manifold
Ported throttle body
Intake
A true dual exhaust with no restrictions.
BUT a stock block...
If I'm understanding your setup, you have:
a ported S4 motor with 7000 RPM redline
Stock ECU running a rich fuel map
Bumped timing
Ported Throttle body
Intake
Lightened flywheel
Full emissions and a cat!
You still made 15-16 more HP!
A verification run may be in order... I'm not calling you a liar by any means. I'd just love to see a run on the same dyno Kevin had his car on.
Kevin's GTUs has
The benefit of 8000 RPM Redline
A modified fuel map via the S-AFC
Ported intake manifold
Ported throttle body
Intake
A true dual exhaust with no restrictions.
BUT a stock block...
If I'm understanding your setup, you have:
a ported S4 motor with 7000 RPM redline
Stock ECU running a rich fuel map
Bumped timing
Ported Throttle body
Intake
Lightened flywheel
Full emissions and a cat!
You still made 15-16 more HP!
And, The first dyno run of that day I only did about 163 RWHP, which would be online with Kevins (like I am gonna post the low numbers when I am bragging).
Edit<After talking with Dale Clark this afternoon, I am more convinced that my numbers are pretty close. He said he himself had seen a non-turbo hitting 160-165 RWHP with no porting, but otherwise simular setup while using a high flow cat and a N1 (catback) exhaust. He and I both are convinced that the condition of the motor (new, rebuilt, 100K miles, 200K miles) really affects the power output more than anything. That would follow R&T's testing of their long term RX-7 where after 30K miles the car had 15 more HP than when brand new.
Remember Kevins motor has about 70K miles more than mine and his is 10psi lower across the board on compression as well.
You know I think it really was the Fake Mazdaspeed titanium oil cap...:
That has to be worth 50 HP right there... Right?
.
Last edited by Icemark; 01-16-04 at 07:46 PM.
#46
Thread Starter
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 20
From: Rohnert Park CA
Originally posted by wozzoom
Wow. I can't believe that you hit over 170 RWHP with the stock exhaust manifold, a cat, and stock emissions. Mazda has been trying to do this for years!!! Hell, your numbers are very close to the RX-8!?!?! ACTUALLY, with your 7000 RPM redline, YOU ARE MAKING MORE THAN THE RX-8 at 7000 RPM! WTF!
Icemark, you are by far one of the most trusted members on this list. If anyone else had made this claim, I would have said Bulls@it because I just can't see how it can be done. I'm just having a hard time believing it. (Maybe I'm jealous? :P )
If your numbers are right, then Mazda should have never wasted millions of dollars developing the RENESIS... All they needed to do was port the engine and intake of the S5 engine.
Wow. I can't believe that you hit over 170 RWHP with the stock exhaust manifold, a cat, and stock emissions. Mazda has been trying to do this for years!!! Hell, your numbers are very close to the RX-8!?!?! ACTUALLY, with your 7000 RPM redline, YOU ARE MAKING MORE THAN THE RX-8 at 7000 RPM! WTF!
Icemark, you are by far one of the most trusted members on this list. If anyone else had made this claim, I would have said Bulls@it because I just can't see how it can be done. I'm just having a hard time believing it. (Maybe I'm jealous? :P )
If your numbers are right, then Mazda should have never wasted millions of dollars developing the RENESIS... All they needed to do was port the engine and intake of the S5 engine.
Driving an manual tranny RX-8 it does feel about the same power until around 6500 RPM, but then the RX-8 is noticeably faster (think of if the VDI kicked in again at 6500-7000) at/above that (where my motor is starting to loose power and die). Plus the reni is much more smooth at 6500 than I could ever hope for on my 'vert.
And the Reni is about 1000% cleaner. In theory my 'vert should pass 86-91 emissions, but there is no way in hell it would even pass 96 model year emission standards well alone 2004 year ULEV standards that the reni does.
#48
Originally posted by wozzoom
If your numbers are right, then Mazda should have never wasted millions of dollars developing the RENESIS... All they needed to do was port the engine and intake of the S5 engine.
If your numbers are right, then Mazda should have never wasted millions of dollars developing the RENESIS... All they needed to do was port the engine and intake of the S5 engine.
Noise and emissions standards are far stricter now than they were in the mid-80's when the S5 was developed, and yet the Renesis is still far more powerful. Compared to the Renesis the FC engines are archaic donkeys that wouldn't have a chance of being able to be used in a modern car.
#50
Headers, to me, just aren't worth anything.. might gain a HP or two... but it's amazingly louder.
Those are definately impresive numbers, especialy considering you don't have an S-AFC or anything.. though the knightsports chip is probably a pretty close substitute for it.
Curious- why didn't you go for the S5 NA rotors?? Lighter weight and higher compression- that a guaranteed increase in HP however you slice it.
Those are definately impresive numbers, especialy considering you don't have an S-AFC or anything.. though the knightsports chip is probably a pretty close substitute for it.
Curious- why didn't you go for the S5 NA rotors?? Lighter weight and higher compression- that a guaranteed increase in HP however you slice it.