Iv been wanting to try this new type of port, It may even have been done befor. My plan is to bridge port the plates and periphial port the housings. Ill need to make a custom inlet manifold, seperate carberators ect. does anyone no if this has been done is can be done. iv put alot of thought into it and i think it could work. Any thoughts??

 

Just street port the plates and peri port the housing and it will make plenty of power. PLus you can open and close the peri ports when you want if you set up your intake mani properly. This will allow you to have low end and then rip it up top. Just my .02. Hope you have some good fab skills.

 

just remember for all that goes in its got to come out. if too much air goes in it cant get it out it makes no power

 

^^ ummm no comment^^

As for the semi PP port and or street port or bridged, its been done.
Do a search in this and the other forum (nopistons). Heres just a quick search, I'm sure theres more info on it if you searched more.

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...&highlight=ito

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...&highlight=ito


~Mike..............

 

The Mazda Factory racing team tried that in the '60s, and they abandoned that idea. Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it

 

Done the streetport/little D PP port for a customer for 4 years ago! Garret T-51 Haltech E6K engine made 520@18 psi boost.

/Lasse

 

Technology has come a long way since the 60's (especially aftermarket EFI). A lot of guys are making power levels and reliability that even the factory would never have thought to be possible even a decade ago. Obviously you didn't read any of the links I posted of ITO's car, 310hp and 170 torque AT THE WHEELS, or spend much time in any technical forums. More on the factory tech....... early on MAZDA made a side port intake AND exhaust engine (sound familiar) to eliminate overlap and have a more "piston like" power band (read: torque) with less emissions. The project was abandoned due to the exhaust ports getting carboned and gummed up from the burning oil the rotary needs to lubricate the seals and gooped associated with running rich and/or inefficient combustion (CARBS). Fast forward a couple decades, now the rotary as more efficient lubrication and fuel systems (read: electronic controlled oil metering, Fuel and spark), uses less oil and more efficient combustion so the side port exhaust came back for R&D resulting in the Renesis. Thats just one example.


~Mike...........

 

Moreover on the subject, you may want to search for SCOOT out of Japan. Hes been running bridge and street ported side plates with PP as well for some time (I first saw his work over the net and magazines probly close to a decade ago). Recently (well, its been probly over 4 years now) he build a 4 rotor PP engine based on 12a rotors and housings.

~Mike.............

 

Hey thats interesting....check out this thread....

https://www.rx7club.com/rotary-car-performance-77/mineral-vs-synthetic-new-bulletin-mazda-588321/

 

is that the car thats a fd and looks like a mercedes. that was sick

 

ah I see thought it must have been done at some stage, Im going to give it ago, We trying to put a 13b into a s14 silvia, I think you would have them over in usa, exelent wheel base good for drifting should be plenty of power to pull out out the drift. As for fabrication my flatty is an engineer he has done some serious engine transplatns befor and I have the engine's as i brought a container of them over to new zealand from japan. So we have a fair bit to play with.. If it works out I may try the turbo setup in my fc..

 

If combined side and peripheral ports are such a good idea, then why did the Mazda factory stick with plain peripheral ports for the LeMans winning 787? Why were Jim Downing's World Sportscars and prototypes always peripheral ports?

If the combined side and peripheral ports are so good, then name some major road races won with them - post the link to the results sheets please. Winning races it what counts.

 

If it can't get out then some of it gets carried back into the intake side. If this happens there is less room for air to come in and it won't. You can't have more air coming into an engine than have going out. That's a physics violation.

More port is not always better and many times is worse! There is a balancing act to it all.

 

Who said it was "such a good idea"? No one here is touting that its the port of all porting. It works for some, and if you pay attention to what the heck your reading and use a little logic (although I highly doubt you've read anything, just being a sceptic for no good reason), you'd see the engine that was built in question (Judge Ito) is a DRAG RACE ENGINE. So, when exactly did MAZDA EVER enter a drag race with the rotary? (Don't bother thinking too hard or searching, they didn't). 787, Jim Downing's engines... ahh all required a BROAD TORQUE CURVE and were built for particular racing types (road race) which requires totally different power bands then going in a straight line with a close ratio gear box.

I don't know why you’re such a cynic or bitter person, (perhaps my rebuttal of your ignorant statement of "The Mazda Factory racing team tried that in the '60s, and they abandoned that idea. Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it"?), there’s different engine builds for different applications. MAZDA though introduced the rotary in large numbers with reliability, is and never will be spending huge amounts of time in R&D to make these engines faster like most gear heads. And one company (MAZDA) though huge, can't beat thousands of gear heads building these things and experimenting with different set ups. Were talking about decades of engine builders and THOUSANDS of engines being built across the globe. No way could one company ever touch that amount of R&D in time or money OR results. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are a fool and obviously has never seen the crap and red tape that go on in companies R&D and engineering departments.

~Mike...........

 

RacerXtreme7 : I do more than just read - I build and race and win with PP engines since 1997. If something better comes along, I will try it.
Yes, R&D is terribly expensive. I make my living in R&D, testing engines. I guess I am cynical because I see and hear so many inflated claims that do not produce results; that is why I asked you to post links to race results showing wins by the combined side/pp engine over a well built strickly pp engines. I didn't see any photos or drawings of the combined side port/pp motor in the links you posted. I am not going to dig thru the zillions of posts on this website looking - if you have specific, detailed hard info then post it.

I have 3 sayings on my wall:

One good test is worth 1000 expert opinions.

Without data you are just another opinion.

There is no sadder sight in the world than to see a beautiful theory killed by a brutal fact.

wupwup wanted to know what people thought of his idea, and I told him what I thought of his idea. If you want to encourage him to go down the combined side/pp path, that is your right to do so.

 

well this whole thing depends on your goals doesnt it? the factory tried the semi PP engines, and then decided that they didnt need the extra low end for road racing and from then on have only used full PP engines.

they didnt need it, so it went away.

the street engine development has gone in a totally different direction, they have the think about emissions, idle quality, durability etc etc

for almost every idea someone thinks up, mazda has tried it. but that doesnt mean to say every idea is a good one or they all worked either.

what did mazda do when they wanted xy and z out of the engine?

if you're looking at turbo charged RACE cars, they went twin turbo bridge port, why?

 

speedturn,

I looked through previous post and saw how you are indeed are do-er and racer. That in itself deserves respect, so kudos to you for being a do-er and not internet hero (cynical aside). As for the combined PP and side port, I'm not a fan nessesarily of it, in particular Ito's engine. Bigger is not better. Personally, a staged intake of side and p-port i think would be great (in theory at least, as I havent seen any results from it). But the results one person (Ito) had does say something about his combo. 310hp and 170tq at the wheels all engine is impressive (typical MFR 13b P ports dyno 300~350 AT THE CRANK/FLY), and his power band works for drag racing (granted the gear ratios are correct). I'll dig up some more of his post about it. He shows his actual porting of the side and p ports not to mention a dyno graph. But it all has to be dug up and most of it is on a different forum (nopiston). If I have the time, I'll cross post it here for you and anyone else interested in more details of Ito's engine. As for other people who did this simular port, only 1 comes to mind and that was SCOOT out of japan. Hes done several engines using this config. One in particular was a street ported primary, the secondaries were blocked off and p-ports added (I don't recall the ID size of the P Ports). This was a turbo engine running a rather large T51 turbo system and made over 800 hp at the wheels at low boost pressures (again, i don't recall actual numbers). I also recall another engine were it was bridged and P-ported, but i just remember seeing the port work and not any type of results (most of his stuff is in Japaniese, and i can't read it lol). Like I said, if I have time, I'll post more on Ito's and SCOOT engines.

~Mike............

 

I do not have a clear view of wupwup's intended goals (I am not sure if he has clearly defined his own goals yet and his plan to get there.) I tend to make the mistake of viewing things through my goals and experiences and hard learned lessons. My goal is to win the few road races that I can afford to enter each year. My successful plan has been to take a proven package like the 13B PP, refine it razor sharp, make sure it is well prepared so that there are few failures, and then prove who's best on the battlefield of the race track against other men and the machines their teams built. My 13B simple pp dynoed at 320 rwhp at 8800 rpm, and produces 200 ft-lbf torque (more torque and lower rpms than the numbers by Ito w/o N2O). To me, from my viewpoint, simple has a better chance of being reliable, and being reliable means you have a better chance of winning a 50 mile long road race.
I admit I am very ignorant about drag racing. I have a lot of respect for Ito's accomplishments. I visit the Tech & Performance section of this website daily, hoping to learn something new, and also to share my lessons learned with others.

 

I have heard that if the port timing of the primaries (IE - streetported part) overlaps with the port timing of the secondaries (IE - P-ported part) your engine will idle as if the engine were fully ported to the largest extremes of the two port timings (IE - idle like a p-port). This is because the intake will comunicate with the exhaust on overlap through the path connecting the ports to the chamber regardless of how you close off the secondary port for low speed operation.

 

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...=1#post6234278

 

Different strokes for different folks. You're 100% correct about application too.
Well in dragracing since power plays an important part in being a leader it tends to lead to innovations and ways to make those same innovations work sucessfull. Sometimes 'bigger' is not better but how can you argue with a PP 13B motor making 360rwhp/200rwtq. Remember that's wheel power and torque through a very heavy component transmission and a huge ring and pinion and axle equipped car. So no matter what conversion factor you use to convert to flywheel horsepower that's what it takes to make a 2050lbs 'All Motor' drag car go down the track in the 9 second range. You can't argue or doubt those numbers!
Here's another dragracing secret. Ever heard of a side fed peripheral port?
Yep there it is! First time mention on this thread or might even be on this forum!
That idea actually came from a 'bending the rules' road racer too!
Remember what I said about innovations leading to success.
There are always leaders and the rest are followers.

 

is this what it looks like?

 

^^ but would the side port flow enough air to make any significant hp/tq increase? i guess this would be used in applications where a PP is prohibited ie. in some road racings classes....u guys are pretty sneeky hehe, i like...

 

Seems like it could be a better idea than a bridgeport since it does not cut into the water seal and still uses the standard intakes.

Might be nice to port the factory ports and add a smaller side PP to replace the area cut for a bridgport. No more cornerseal problems either.

Might also work well on the 5th & 6th ports of a 6port.

 

That's definitely creative. Although it makes a couple of sharp bends, I like the ingenuity of it.