Could A Pp 13b Be Streetable?
07-23-2005, 06:40 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 1,345
[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 *** 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?
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 *** 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
[snapback]741799[/snapback]
[/quote]
what does anything youve said have anythign to do with what ive said?
07-23-2005, 11:33 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 564
[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..
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.
[snapback]741284[/snapback]
[/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..
07-24-2005, 03:27 AM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 1,345
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.
07-24-2005, 09:08 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,502
[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...
[snapback]741963[/snapback]
[/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...
07-24-2005, 09:37 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 564
[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..
[snapback]742084[/snapback]
[/quote]
In terms of a true peripheral port, it wont work with a pinch of **** to put it bluntly..
07-24-2005, 12:04 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 564
[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..
So still a 4-port essentially.. two centre side ports and two peripheral..
[snapback]742110[/snapback]
[/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..
07-24-2005, 12:37 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,502
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...
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...
07-24-2005, 02:02 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California
Posts: 22,465
[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...
[/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
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...
[snapback]742142[/snapback]
[/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