I'm sure people have asked before....but can a Peripheral Port 13B, fuel injection, managed by a Microtech, be able to be street driven? Like I mean start up in the morning and be able to drive it through the Coffe Time drive thru https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...>/rolleyes.gif



So who thinks it can be done.....I'm going to use S5 N/A rotors and I have a 12lbs flywheel for it. and I'm going to put it in my daily driven FC....maybe after I get the motor together, it might not be a daily driven then https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...R#>/tongue.png



This is just a thought that crossed my mind.....I'm board lol

define streetable. can you make it so it idles and is drivable on the street? yes. will it be fun everyday? maybe not, that depends on your drive, and you, you big animal

[quote name='R.P.M.' date='Jul 20 2005, 07:13 PM']I'm sure people have asked before....but can a Peripheral Port 13B, fuel injection, managed by a Microtech, be able to be street driven? Like I mean start up in the morning and be able to drive it through the Coffe Time drive thru https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...>/rolleyes.gif



So who thinks it can be done.....I'm going to use S5 N/A rotors and I have a 12lbs flywheel for it. and I'm going to put it in my daily driven FC....maybe after I get the motor together, it might not be a daily driven then https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...R#>/tongue.png



This is just a thought that crossed my mind.....I'm board lol


[/quote]



Streetable is all in the eye of the beholder.



One of my customers drives his Camaro around semi-daily all the time. This being a high compression, 5 inches of vacuum at a very ragged idle, 4000rpm stall converter, full roll cage, 18" wide cheater slicks attached to a spool differential Camaro. Not exactly your sister's V6 model.



Meanwhile, I find anything with an automatic to be horrible to drive on the street, and wouldn't consider any fully-automatic, low stall speed car to be "streetable". Yet somehow the majority of people in the US seem to get along just fine.



You won't know until you step up to the plate and give it a swing, you know?

[quote name='heretic' date='Jul 20 2005, 07:56 PM']Streetable is all in the eye of the beholder.



One of my customers drives his Camaro around semi-daily all the time. This being a high compression, 5 inches of vacuum at a very ragged idle, 4000rpm stall converter, full roll cage, 18" wide cheater slicks attached to a spool differential Camaro. Not exactly your sister's V6 model.



Meanwhile, I find anything with an automatic to be horrible to drive on the street, and wouldn't consider any fully-automatic, low stall speed car to be "streetable". Yet somehow the majority of people in the US seem to get along just fine.



You won't know until you step up to the plate and give it a swing, you know?


[/quote]

I wouldnt be concerned with the p-port on the street, with a decent ems..Quite streetable, but I dont think the microtech is the ems to use.. You need alot of load points and injector resolution to get good streetability.. I havent use the latest microtech, but the last one i played with, reminded me of tuning a carb with a 5 step metering rod, rather than efi...I know the motec does a fine job on a p-port, but it also does a fine job on your wallet to..

I have a Microtech LT8s right now....

Also, what size of injectors would I be looking for?

i know a guy who streets and cruises his pp 13b....nothing special to speak of. he says there's not a lot of difference between that and a streetport in terms of drivability.



i'd suggest getting a chambered muffler to keep the noise down and a cutout for when you want to stomp on it.

I'll have mine done soon, you can come down to London and check it out.



I don't know about the Coffee Time drive thru though, they use pretty crappy speakers and mikes, I can barely understand them even in the Intrepid. https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...#>/biggrin.png

[quote name='TYSON' date='Jul 21 2005, 07:27 AM']I'll have mine done soon, you can come down to London and check it out.



I don't know about the Coffee Time drive thru though, they use pretty crappy speakers and mikes, I can barely understand them even in the Intrepid. https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...#>/biggrin.png


[/quote]



Can I come and see too?

i'LL FIND OUT.......................................SOMEDAY

I'm gonna make a streetable one!



I need about a year though I'm still building



Not looking to turn this into an EMS discussion but I'm using www.msefi.com EFI controller



pport engine, smaller pports, and still uses centre iron sideports from a 6 port.. custom LIM, bolt on FD UIM and TB..



Should be able to set idle using the side ports with that setup, and then WOT will be alot of fun..

i believe that mr. judge ito did something like that not too long ago, colin. It was a tubeframe drag car though. An old friend of my fathers drove a PPort rx3 on the street for a few years with a 48ida on it. Looking quickly at a spec sheet i googled, the lt8s has the resolution (every 500rpm) and its table is a 16x16 blockset. Upgrade to the 32x32 block set and the motor will be as smooth as glass. 16x16 isnt the BEST for streetability.







my 2 cents, feel free to tell me im wrong

when an engien is ported a lot it doesnt use pull a lot of vacuum and with little throttle opening the map sensor sees full atmosphere already, so tuning the engien vie a map sensor becomes pretty useless. with a pport and i am asummign individual throttle body set up that one woudl run this would bring it even further.

engien load will have to be tuned with a tps instead of a map sensor. the actual resolution of the ecus is not very important since it interpolates between the values and most standalones are adjustable enouf to suit pretty much any need.

you could run some sort of airflow meter too.

[quote name='TYSON' date='Jul 21 2005, 04:27 AM']I'll have mine done soon, you can come down to London and check it out.



I don't know about the Coffee Time drive thru though, they use pretty crappy speakers and mikes, I can barely understand them even in the Intrepid. https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...#>/biggrin.png


[/quote]



Yeah Tyson, I will be coming to London on Monday for the meet, I'd love to see your progress and ask you some questions

The MS EFI controller is flexible enough to work with this type of setup..





FYI anyone looked at the FD3S UIM + TB setup closely?



for my application the PPort runners are individual from the primary side port runners, and each pport would have it's own throttle plate essentially. The idle and cruise settings would be part throttle which is mainly just the primary throttle plate, thus saving a bit of fuel and not having such drastic intake timing..



What do you think

The roughness at part throttle is due to the port allowing exhaut gases to be pulled up into the preceding chamber due to the vacuum in there at part throttle. Doing idle and part throttle through side ports will not be doing much good, the "internal vacuum leak" still exists. I am thinking that half-side/half-peripheral may actually make things worse in this regard, since the peripheral part would still be under "high" vacuum even at part throttle, before the secondary throttles open up. Might as well eliminate that other pair of side ports, too.



All rotaries that I am aware of have been peripheral port, except for Mazda and a few air cooled models such as you would find in a lawnmower or chainsaw. Made it easier to pull intake air from the "crankcase" 2-stroke style, donchaknow.

[quote name='kahren' date='Jul 21 2005, 04:30 PM']when an engien is ported a lot it doesnt use pull a lot of vacuum and with little throttle opening the map sensor sees full atmosphere already, so tuning the engien vie a map sensor becomes pretty useless. with a pport and i am asummign individual throttle body set up that one woudl run this would bring it even further.

engien load will have to be tuned with a tps instead of a map sensor. the actual resolution of the ecus is not very important since it interpolates between the values and most standalones are adjustable enouf to suit pretty much any need.


[/quote]



Load points are load points, no matter how they are derived.Interpolation on fuels maps is a large problem, and always leads to a compromise in tuning, ask anyone that ever ran a wolf 3d in high boost mode...Resolution is everything, especially when running one large injector on a N/a with single throttlebodies. Not to many ems's will handle something like a 120 or 160 lb/hr injector at idle, and give you enough control over it, to maintain accurate stable idle, sharp throttle transition, and stable air fuels, all of which are important on something like a p=port motor. What made people term p-ports and bridgeports unstreetable in the past, was the fueling characteristics of carbs, what makes it streetable is good efi..Alot of p-ports used to idle on the low speed circuit...

After playing with a microtech with 720's , getting it to idle a p-port with a 1200 cc njecotor would probably be not better than running a sidedraft.. The reason stuff like the motech is so popular, is the features like fuel map magnification which let you split fueling ranges in order to achieve more load points in specific areas, an ass saver on p-port. The more porting the engine has, the more picky it becomes on fueling at lower rpms, often a fine line between fouling and running lean..

From my observations of p-port cars, I know the motec is expensive but its very good at what it does. I think the autronic would also be a very good candidate for running a p-port on the street, Hks fcon has been used with moderate success.. I cant speak for the newer haltechs, but the e6k wouldnt be a great choice either, its control of large injecotors on ported engines is limited..

A way around this would be to run staged injection, but it means double fuel rails, etc etc, p-ports are about simplicity..Max

the nsu motor has 2 pp's, one teeny port with moderate timing, and the big one. its hooked to a 2 barrel carb. it still idles like poop, although it is a 1 rotor engine.



the white and green 79 factory imsa gtu car runs great. it fires right up and idles nicely at around 900rpms, with a 48ida, they spent lots of time tuning it though.

Heretic and Max



As far as the idle situation goes, back to my side/pport idea (sorry to sidetrack and centre myself out, but we are talking about a streetable pport)



The centre iron has the injector bungs already, I understand what you mean by this "internal vacuum leak", but fact remains the sideports and there and so is the stock primary fuel rail, is it really going to make that much of a difference with the pport pulses hitting the closed throttle plates?



Also, yes, with the custom LIM will have it's own fuel rail, so there is a set of primary and secondary fuel injectors, and it will be staged.. Essentially, to think outside the box for a minute, the basic idea was to replace the secondary side ports with peripheral ports. Each pport has its own injector just as if it was the stock LIM going to the secondary side port. Each pport has it's own throttle plate, just as if it was the stock secondary side port. Motor still uses the primary ports for the idle and BAC circuit, etc...



How well have people set up secondary side port bridgeports on N/A engines for idle (no primary bridge)? Considering they are using bolt on stock manifolds and still have staged injection with fuel rails for primary and secondary?



Results have been pretty good no?



Now substitute the secondary intake circuit of a bridgeport(sideport) with smaller pports......







Curious about input, I may flake on my decision and go straight up pport (no side port), but to me, my idea is just a different way to run a bridgeport N/A engine...

The side ports' injectors are already there and and fuel rail is already there and that means less fabricating required. Nothing at all wrong with that in the big picture. Good enough and on the road beats perfect and never completed.



Don't even think of the vacuum column in the secondary port runners (runner: the length of tract between the port window and throttle blade!) in terms of pulses. The same vacuum that the rotor generates against the side ports will be acting against the peripheral port, and for the last few dozen degrees of travel before the side port closes, that "other" intake port will be exposed to the next chamber in the midst of its exhaust cycle.





Should be better in a way because of the greatly reduced port timing with a peripheral compared to a bridge, so the time exposed is much lessened. On the flip side, there's more exposed area with a peripheral port compared to just the bridge part of a BP, so you get more potential flow per time.



Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Probably the best thing is to not worry about the idle and part throttle so much as where you want your powerband.

the later mazda cosmo had a side port/ pp setup. they did it to get better low end out of the pp or more top end out of the side port, i forget. notice that they have never used it since?

[quote name='Maxt' date='Jul 23 2005, 08:03 AM']Load points are load points, no matter how they are derived.Interpolation on fuels maps is a large problem, and always leads to a compromise in tuning, ask anyone that ever ran a wolf 3d in high boost mode...Resolution is everything, especially when running one large injector on a N/a with single throttlebodies. Not to many ems's will handle something like a 120 or 160 lb/hr injector at idle, and give you enough control over it, to maintain accurate stable idle, sharp throttle transition, and stable air fuels, all of which are important on something like a p=port motor. What made people term p-ports and bridgeports unstreetable in the past, was the fueling characteristics of carbs, what makes it streetable is good efi..Alot of p-ports used to idle on the low speed circuit...

After playing with a microtech with 720's , getting it to idle a p-port with a 1200 cc njecotor would probably be not better than running a sidedraft.. The reason stuff like the motech is so popular, is the features like fuel map magnification which let you split fueling ranges in order to achieve more load points in specific areas, an ass saver on p-port. The more porting the engine has, the more picky it becomes on fueling at lower rpms, often a fine line between fouling and running lean..

From my observations of p-port cars, I know the motec is expensive but its very good at what it does. I think the autronic would also be a very good candidate for running a p-port on the street, Hks fcon has been used with moderate success.. I cant speak for the newer haltechs, but the e6k wouldnt be a great choice either, its control of large injecotors on ported engines is limited..

A way around this would be to run staged injection, but it means double fuel rails, etc etc, p-ports are about simplicity..Max


[/quote]



what does anything youve said have anythign to do with what ive said?

[quote name='kahren' date='Jul 21 2005, 04:30 PM']when an engien is ported a lot it doesnt use pull a lot of vacuum and with little throttle opening the map sensor sees full atmosphere already, so tuning the engien vie a map sensor becomes pretty useless. with a pport and i am asummign individual throttle body set up that one woudl run this would bring it even further.

engien load will have to be tuned with a tps instead of a map sensor. the actual resolution of the ecus is not very important since it interpolates between the values and most standalones are adjustable enouf to suit pretty much any need.


[/quote]



If I read Colin Rx7s post right, he is looking at doing what is reffered to as a "cross port" port engine, its got all the side ports, and 2 small peripheral ports where the coolant feed for the turbos is on the s4/s5 housings and where its blanked out on s6's...I met the guy this last spring who pioneered that concept...It works very well on turbo motors, however when running n/a full out P port is preferable due to being able to tune the intake tract specifically for the port timing..On the FD its a nice way to get the port timing of a bridge without the bridge, they have even cast a LIM to match so the stock UIM fits in the stock position..IIRC the cross port housings with matching LIM is about 1600.00 US..

yea, and what is wrong with that statement? are u claiming it wont work on a "cross port"? or are you telling me that the its better to have an ecu with more resolution. i am not tryign to compare a megasquirt where it has 2 injector drievers and .1 ms inj resolution i fi remmber correctly which would corrolate to about .2 afr diffrence vs an e6k which is not even that great.

[quote name='j9fd3s' date='Jul 23 2005, 07:18 PM']the later mazda cosmo had a side port/ pp setup. they did it to get better low end out of the pp or more top end out of the side port, i forget. notice that they have never used it since?


[/quote]



I was thinking the opposite..



smaller pport for a lower peak power band, but the pport is for the high rpms, side port for idle/bac circuit, cruise, better low end...

FYI not all side ports still exist, just the centre iron side ports, epoxy shut the end plate side ports.



So still a 4-port essentially.. two centre side ports and two peripheral..

[quote name='kahren' date='Jul 24 2005, 12:27 AM']yea, and what is wrong with that statement? are u claiming it wont work on a "cross port"? or are you telling me that the its better to have an ecu with more resolution. i am not tryign to compare a megasquirt where it has 2 injector drievers and .1 ms inj resolution i fi remmber correctly which would corrolate to about .2 afr diffrence vs an e6k which is not even that great.


[/quote]

In terms of a true peripheral port, it wont work with a pinch of **** to put it bluntly..

[quote name='ColinRX7' date='Jul 24 2005, 06:09 AM']FYI not all side ports still exist, just the centre iron side ports, epoxy shut the end plate side ports.



So still a 4-port essentially.. two centre side ports and two peripheral..


[/quote]

Ok, I know which one you are talking about now, it also has the LIM that fits the FD upper intake, its a full blown p-port on the rotor housings with the stock primaries.. Thats not the "streetable" version, its got all the nastiness of a regular p-port since they are full size and mini's like the "cross port".. I think its scoot that came up with that...

They sell the cross port to retain all the streetable goodness and a power FC/stock harness will still worth with it..

I run a half bridge motor like you mentioned ealier in the thread.. The idle is ok, but still gets lumpy with larger injectors, and its hard to control, I have done 4x1600's with the haltech, but its not the best setup for a street driver, I am currently back to 720's/1600's, it becomes where you idle speed is more dependent on what the minimum resolution and injecotor opening time your ems can handle with a give size injecotr, rather than what vacuum idle speed the motor wants.. For example, with the 4x1600's the half bridge had to idle at 1600 rpm , since any rpm below that required injector timing the haltech could just not control with a 1600 cc injecotor. Where as I sat in awe watching a motech take a full bridge down to a nice 1100 rpm idle with 1200 cc injectors..

YOu can run 550/1600 staged on something like that to use a crappier ems, but the question is , with the airflow of a stock primary + P-port motor, is that enough? maybe on n/a but not turbo, which is the only appplication that port should use on anyway..

N/a go straight p-port and run a decent ems..

Yeah that's the type of setup I'm talking about.. But I'm having my own rotor housings done... And building my own LIM...



So essentially, yes, it's that scoot style but no nasty large pports.. This engine will be run natually aspirated..



I was speaking with Adam and he calculated for a good lower peak powerband, I should look into pports about 1.5" in diameter.. Since I'm retaining side ports, I might use the 1.5" as the machining basis then press in the sleeve, so it will be about 1.25" diameter peipheral ports..



Trying to keep a smaller port for lower peak power band



Should I compensate for the velocity of the centre side ports or no?



I want a streetable pport that has more of a decent applied powerband...



If I'm way off track though... https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...IR#>/dunno.gif

[quote name='ColinRX7' date='Jul 24 2005, 09:37 AM']Yeah that's the type of setup I'm talking about.. But I'm having my own rotor housings done... And building my own LIM...



So essentially, yes, it's that scoot style but no nasty large pports.. This engine will be run natually aspirated..



I was speaking with Adam and he calculated for a good lower peak powerband, I should look into pports about 1.5" in diameter.. Since I'm retaining side ports, I might use the 1.5" as the machining basis then press in the sleeve, so it will be about 1.25" diameter peipheral ports..



Trying to keep a smaller port for lower peak power band



Should I compensate for the velocity of the centre side ports or no?



I want a streetable pport that has more of a decent applied powerband...



If I'm way off track though... https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...IR#>/dunno.gif


[/quote]



keep in mind the mazda race p port motors are designed for maximum power, there are other motors, like the mercedes, with the port timing setup to make power in a more "streetable" power band/rpm range. if you make the port timing more "sane" then its gonna run better at lower rpms, although i doubt its gonna idle as well as a side port no matter what you do. the nsu primary is maybe 10mm and the car idles like poop

[quote name='Maxt' date='Jul 24 2005, 09:37 AM']In terms of a true peripheral port, it wont work with a pinch of **** to put it bluntly..


[/quote]



i dont think its the ems, it dpeends what the porting is and what rpm you are tryign to target the idle at with what size injectors. if the injectors are way big u just cant time them well enouf to idle sometimes no matter what ems. there is more to a steady idle then just injector timing.

[quote name='j9fd3s' date='Jul 24 2005, 03:02 PM']keep in mind the mazda race p port motors are designed for maximum power, there are other motors, like the mercedes, with the port timing setup to make power in a more "streetable" power band/rpm range. if you make the port timing more "sane" then its gonna run better at lower rpms, although i doubt its gonna idle as well as a side port no matter what you do. the nsu primary is maybe 10mm and the car idles like poop


[/quote]





10mm? That's awful tiny...



A brappy idle is still streetable IMO... What's "idles like poop".. hardly runs at all or just idle bounces annoyingly?







I'm not looking for maximum power, I'm looking for a solution to the bridgeport.. It's been proven (obviously) already how much power is to be had N/A from a bridgeport, and still run around on the street without too much drama.. My question is why can't this be done with a peripheral port..

Oh yeah and does anyone have any comments on the 10a pport motor?



I heard something a while ago about a factory p port motor called the 10a from like eons ago...

If you want a cross port motor that is very streetable I think you should make a smaller peripheral port primary w/ conservative timing and a BIG early opening streetport 2ndary port and a beveled rotor.



You can set up the smaller higher velocity p-port primary to blow accross the larger streetport and speed its flow in the way a siphon works.



Added benifit is better mileage as your high velocity primary blows the charge over the rotor top to the rear of the chamber reducing fuel condensation on engine surfaces.



You can also close the big sideport effectively w/ a throttle body for low rpm power and throttle response.



Mazda made an experimental motor that used this crossport technique and semi direct injection (where oil metering hole is) to make very lean burn motors. Problem is rotaries running lean produce lots of oxides of nitrogen that are hard to reduce and were later added to emmisions standards.



Sideports can flow very well, they just usually lack the early opening that you need for high rpm power. When the P-ports were outlawed from competition Mazda responded with the bridgeport motor the next year that was only down 10hp and hp continued to rise w/ its development the next year.



What sideports usually lack is early enough opening this can be remedied in a streetport by cutting into the cornerseal track enough to drop the top sideseal but not the lower (~25 deg opening) and making the top of the ports sideseal friendly so it lasts and then beveling the edge of the rotor (~5 deg opening now).

Rotarygod PMed me and I intend on replying to him here shortly when I have time (I am at work currently and don't have time to make a lengthy reply)



But before I do I encourage him to post his reply publically, and that nopistons is a much more laid back and open minded community than the other communities out there..



He has some great ideas, and we are suffering a bit if we don't involve the other gurus around here with their thoughts on it..



Just a thought while I'm rushing to click "add reply" while I'm at work.. lol..

[quote name='ColinRX7' date='Jul 25 2005, 04:44 PM']10mm? That's awful tiny...



A brappy idle is still streetable IMO... What's "idles like poop".. hardly runs at all or just idle bounces annoyingly?

I'm not looking for maximum power, I'm looking for a solution to the bridgeport.. It's been proven (obviously) already how much power is to be had N/A from a bridgeport, and still run around on the street without too much drama.. My question is why can't this be done with a peripheral port..


[/quote]



it has a tinny, brap miss miss brap brap brap miss miss kinda idle. i should take some fresh pics, the nsu has 2 ports per rotor, one teeny primary port and one decent sized primary, thru a 2 barrel progressive carburator.

The 10A was just a smaller 12A. Or, correctly, the 12A was a larger 10A, and the 13B is a still-larger 10A.



All production 10As were four side intake ports just like all other Mazdas from the late 60's and the 70's.



We in the US only ever got the 10A in the R-100, but in many countries they were also put in RX-2s and RX-3s, and the 12A was an up-option.



The NSU primary ports *were* tiny. They were about 10mm... the secondary ports were quite a bit larger. Primary and secondary peripehral ports, stacked over/under. Very interesting. The Ro80's engine was the size of a 10A, which is where your confusion may lie.

Oh yeah and does anyone have any comments on the 10a pport motor?



I heard something a while ago about a factory p port motor called the 10a from like eons ago...



Mazda sold a "sports kit" over the counter to customers that converted the production 10A to a 200hp p-port race motor. This allowed them to use the P-port in production class racing untill it was banned for power reasons.



They got by using the aluminum sidehousings in the factory R100 race cars from the Cosmo Sports 10A instead of the cast iron units (like all later Mazdas) that came in the R100. Perhaps you could buy those over the counter as well at the time???



Would have been a nice dealer option to get a R100 w/ sports kit! Wonder if that was ever done.



Edit- Mazda did try cross/combo ports in the preproduction Cosmo Sport 10A, but there were no real gains over sideport in production trim (legal exhaust ect.).

[quote name='kahren' date='Jul 24 2005, 04:46 PM']i dont think its the ems, it dpeends what the porting is and what rpm you are tryign to target the idle at with what size injectors. if the injectors are way big u just cant time them well enouf to idle sometimes no matter what ems. there is more to a steady idle then just injector timing.


[/quote]

Ummmmmmm. not really... thats about all of it... https://www.nopistons.com/forums/pub...IR#>/smile.png

[quote name='BLUE TII' date='Jul 28 2005, 11:53 AM']Oh yeah and does anyone have any comments on the 10a pport motor?



I heard something a while ago about a factory p port motor called the 10a from like eons ago...



Mazda sold a "sports kit" over the counter to customers that converted the production 10A to a 200hp p-port race motor. This allowed them to use the P-port in production class racing untill it was banned for power reasons.



They got by using the aluminum sidehousings in the factory R100 race cars from the Cosmo Sports 10A instead of the cast iron units (like all later Mazdas) that came in the R100. Perhaps you could buy those over the counter as well at the time???



Would have been a nice dealer option to get a R100 w/ sports kit! Wonder if that was ever done.



Edit- Mazda did try cross/combo ports in the preproduction Cosmo Sport 10A, but there were no real gains over sideport in production trim (legal exhaust ect.).


[/quote]



ive seen the competition prep manual for the r100, its neat goes thru the whole car. slot this, beef this up add flares here.