Yes, the full bridge will make more power and make the car go faster. You can have peak power at 7k-10k, like my motor, but you have to have the gearing in able to use that power. For example, look at the F1 motors, are they not fast. Yes, an engine with peak hp and torque will always be faster given the setup of the gears, drivetrain, exhaust, tune, etc is correctly designed to use it.

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever ported and built your own rotary engines and raced them in a circuit race, drag race or any kind of race competetively?

Also, if you think larger
porting will not make a car go faster, why do you think they ban bridgeports and pport in race classes?


Turbo1- If I were you I would put the engine together and run it. It will make a little more power than a streetport and driveability and sound will be up to you. Like I said before, many poeple have different tolerances on what is steetable.
Just make sure the ports have a nice radius on the closing edges. This will ensure seal life. Good luck

 

I at my prime ordered five 13bre, CNC cut 5 sets of housings with different size/shape exhaust, and did the same with the plates. I built and dyno tested over 45 combinations *my whole block HATED me. they made me take apart the dyno QQ*, I did my mechanical engineering thesis on my own design rotary and machined it out of Invar. I know a few things about what I'm talking about . And yes I did SCCA for a few seasons.

AGAIN im not saying a bridge of some kind is not as good as stock ports. I am however saying port shape is more important than just getting as much port area as you can!!! A well set up half bridge will run the pants off a "I just buy bolt on parts" full bridge. that said, changing the shape of a bridge can shift the power band or make the power band larger, the combo i kept had strong power from 5.1k-9.6k my peak power was 240rwhp and as an added bonus i still got about 24 MPG highway.

 

Thats funny, I thought we were argueing half bridge vs full bridge. You said that no one can make you believe that a full bridge would be "faster than a half bridge" did you not? Anyone with little rotary porting and building experience would know that the full bridge would out perform the half bridge with setups being optimal.

I'll put it down nice and simple for you- stockport<streetport<half bridge<full bridge<Jbridge<pport. It's that plain and simple and there's nothing more to argue. You can't argue plain physics! More air and fuel=more power=faster car! I'm done.

Good luck Turbo1

 

No. infact i did not. I said "there is no way you can make me believe a "full bridge car will always be faster than a half bridge" with how you handle words and arguments you would make an incredible politician.

again, out perform in some aspects but not in all.

No... you can't argue physics, but you can understand it. physics says a car with 800hp peak but 12hp average will be slower than a car with 500hp peak and 400 average, this is.... and has been my argument.

 

So you're saying that a well set up half bridge can out run a poorly set up full bridge? That's a pretty weak argument. There have been peripheral port motors that put down less power than stock port IT cars. That doesn't make it logical to say that you can't convince me that a peripheral port car will always be faster than a stock port car.

 

+1, at least someone here knows what they're talking about.

It's just a dumb statement to begin with.

It's like me saying, a Bugatti veron will not always be faster than my Yugo..... like when it runs out of gas. Just stupid

 

..... omfgwtfbbq
so lets recap on this thread.
1) OP wants to know the out put his half bridge engine will deliver.
2) I tell him there is to much that will change output of his engine to say.
3) You call him a bitch and start an argument *cuz your a real man*
4) I make a simple logical statement about how he can get more power out of his half bridge than most of the street only BP cars on the forum that just use bolt on parts.
5) I'm a dumbass once you figure out this argument was over a simple concept you can't understand then take to a retarded level, again to show my stupidity and you're a hippy compensating for a small dick and will not trade 5% peak power for 10% more average power.
...
...
8) Profit
did i miss something?
I now know how Sheldon from Big Bang Theory feels. I'm done, I feel my intelligence level dropping from this argument. It would be different if you had any real data to share but this is just a pissing match and I just no longer give a damn.

Turbo1. I'm sorry for the behavior of Ultimatejay and my self, I wish you the best with you're endeavor.

 

Nice try in recover from your stupid statement. Go back to your computer and run some more flow programs because you obviously didn't learn anything. Better yet, toss that stupid program in the garbage and get some real world results. No program in the world will give you real life results.

Turbo1, like I said two times before. I recommend you build the motor. BDC looks like he does nice work on his porting that I have seen. If the N/A motor does not turn out like you want, you can always save up some money and turbo it. Good luck.

 

No apologies needed, I'm just reading to learn

 

Turbo1, I'm late to this discussion. I've been here on and off over the last year or two, learning about the RX engine. I spend most of my time on the LocostUSA site. I am building a S5 N/A powered locost myself. Mine is a stock engine with, of course custom intake and exhaust manifolds, powered by a MSII EFI system. I'm hoping to get close to the original 160 HP. Your sub-2000 lb goal is not very agressive. Most Locosts run in the 1200-1300lb range with no weight saving effort at all. If you really try hard, you might get sub-1100 lb with a N/A rotary. Some bike engined cars are sub 1000 lbs. I assure you that even 150HP in a 1200 lb car will cause you to have a permanent smile. I don't know what HP you expect out of the ported engine you have but it should be great in a Locost as an N/A. Trying to fit the Turbo will add complexity and be a tight fit in a "book" chassis. This may cause you to increase the size of the chassis and the weight slightly. And keeping the tires hooked at an Autocross event may cause a bit of a drivability issue. One of the nice parts of the Locost, at least for me, is simplicity. The turbo adds complexity and weight. Not my personal style but some are using the turbo. Colin Chapman gained his reputation for "adding lightness".

Good luck whichever way you decide to go. Either NA or Turbo should be a great Locost project. Come on over and say hi. There are a fair number of RX powered Locosts being built.