thoughts on removing oil injectors?
09-16-2010, 02:20 PM
#21
You're negativity is kind of irritating me. Do some research on who this guy is, and then tell me he is dumb after. He chooses to run "dangerous" that's fine. AFAIK he also has build the highest HP 1.9L N/A in N. America just chooses not to flog it all over the internet. 
Here, have a read.
http://clubroadster.net/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=18582
Here, have a read.
http://clubroadster.net/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=18582
Relax.
No need to get your panties in a bunch.
If I hear a good explanation with proof of it being beneficial and not dangerous I might change my mind..
Reply
0
0
. The 1.9L is in his personal car and is running 13:1 compression pistons. And that 150whp is on a dynapack.
09-16-2010, 02:25 PM
#24
Ya I know... lol I didn't realize that until after I posted. But it gives you an idea on how much of a perfectionist he is.
The whole NA vs. Turbo thing will never die, and that's not what this thread was about. But if you every have a chance to ride in a 180+whp N/A Miata... do it. It's a completly different feel from a turbo car, and one of the reasons I decided to go Rotrex instead of turbo.
The whole NA vs. Turbo thing will never die, and that's not what this thread was about. But if you every have a chance to ride in a 180+whp N/A Miata... do it. It's a completly different feel from a turbo car, and one of the reasons I decided to go Rotrex instead of turbo.
Reply
0
0
09-16-2010, 02:29 PM
#25
Ya I know... lol I didn't realize that until after I posted. But it gives you an idea on how much of a perfectionist he is.
The whole NA vs. Turbo thing will never die, and that's not what this thread was about. But if you every have a chance to ride in a 180+whp N/A Miata... do it. It's a completly different feel from a turbo car, and one of the reasons I decided to go Rotrex instead of turbo.
The whole NA vs. Turbo thing will never die, and that's not what this thread was about. But if you every have a chance to ride in a 180+whp N/A Miata... do it. It's a completly different feel from a turbo car, and one of the reasons I decided to go Rotrex instead of turbo.
I had an almost 200whp NA car... I like my turbo car just fine. Better powerband than I've seen from the charts on those miata motors also... the bonus of it being a Honda
.
Reply
0
0
09-16-2010, 02:31 PM
#27
Ya hondas don't count...lol
And yes, he is "just another engine builder" but the reason I am using him is I know he has lots of experience with the engine and is very precise and I know it will be done right the first time
. I'm not having a full build done, just bottom end and a valve/spring job. I am doing the rest.
And yes, he is "just another engine builder" but the reason I am using him is I know he has lots of experience with the engine and is very precise and I know it will be done right the first time
. I'm not having a full build done, just bottom end and a valve/spring job. I am doing the rest.
Reply
0
0
09-16-2010, 02:32 PM
#28
Power loss due to pumping losses from the oil squirters? That's got to be some of the craziest BS I've heard, unless I'm completely missing something. If you remove the oil squirters, your oil pressure should be increased. An increase in oil pressure means that the engine is working harder to pump that oil through the engine. This would translate to less wheel power available if you *removed* the oil squirters.
But maybe I'm missing something?
But maybe I'm missing something?
Reply
0
0
09-16-2010, 02:32 PM
#29
Ya hondas don't count...lol
And yes, he is "just another engine builder" but the reason I am using him is I know he has lots of experience with the engine and is very precise and I know it will be done right the first time. I'm not having a full build done, just bottom end and a valve/spring job. I am doing the rest.
And yes, he is "just another engine builder" but the reason I am using him is I know he has lots of experience with the engine and is very precise and I know it will be done right the first time
. I'm not having a full build done, just bottom end and a valve/spring job. I am doing the rest.I've seen lots of arguments over the years to running them and not (on forged piston motors). Everyone had their own soapbox... no real data.
Reply
0
0
09-16-2010, 02:35 PM
#31
Ouch.
For the record though, I can't rip on that car. It gets the JayL stamp of approval for being bad as ****. I'm simply comparing output.
Reply
0
0
09-16-2010, 05:24 PM
#36
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,650
Total Cats: 3,011
If having oil squirters makes your oil hotter then they are doing their job by removing heat from the piston. Removing heat from the piston is far more important for reducing detonation in a forced induction engine than in a naturally aspirated one.
In a naturally aspirated engine that is sucking wind and fighting it's builder for every fraction of a horsepower I can see where a builder would want to lighten the fractions of ounces of oil present on the bottoms of the pistons or clinging to the cylinder walls needing to be removed by the oil control rings. But we are not those people. We have the benefit of technological advances made in the 1940s to force more air mass into our engines to overcome inefficiencies in engine design.
We have had enough threads regarding the uneven cooling and detonation issues in our engines to cause me not to desire the removal of items that may be beneficial to the cooling of my pistons when given the choice. Why tempt fate and take the chance? Is there a proven benefit that makes it equivalent or greater than the risk?
Did Mazda add unnecessary parts into our engines because they enjoy throwing away money? Aren't those longevity enhancing parts even more necessary when you demand more than twice the intended output from the same engine?
How many horsepower are you supposedly gaining from rolling the dice with your engine? One horsepower? One quarter horsepower? Why would that be worthwhile?
But it seems from your comments to other skeptics that you have made up your mind, so enjoy your squirterless engine and let us know how that works out.
In a naturally aspirated engine that is sucking wind and fighting it's builder for every fraction of a horsepower I can see where a builder would want to lighten the fractions of ounces of oil present on the bottoms of the pistons or clinging to the cylinder walls needing to be removed by the oil control rings. But we are not those people. We have the benefit of technological advances made in the 1940s to force more air mass into our engines to overcome inefficiencies in engine design.
We have had enough threads regarding the uneven cooling and detonation issues in our engines to cause me not to desire the removal of items that may be beneficial to the cooling of my pistons when given the choice. Why tempt fate and take the chance? Is there a proven benefit that makes it equivalent or greater than the risk?
Did Mazda add unnecessary parts into our engines because they enjoy throwing away money? Aren't those longevity enhancing parts even more necessary when you demand more than twice the intended output from the same engine?
How many horsepower are you supposedly gaining from rolling the dice with your engine? One horsepower? One quarter horsepower? Why would that be worthwhile?
But it seems from your comments to other skeptics that you have made up your mind, so enjoy your squirterless engine and let us know how that works out.
Reply
0
0
