Good point. I'll see what that would cost and how to package it. Id rather do that. I did a search for the ID 2000s and ID 1700s and found a lot of high power people use the 1000 and 1300's and go staged injection when they need more vs using larger injectors.

ID1700s are the "right" answer. Staged injection is a bandaid.

But do staged injection. I want to see you figure it out so I can try and run it will 2 sets of gt500 injectors :)

Pretty sure the 1700s are really new technology. Don't think much will be out there. Aren't they like $2k for 4?

I can't even find the 1700s for sale at any price. Not sure what that means....

Holy shit.

Call ID. I hear they are good people.

They are excellent people. The cust service I got from them each time has been exemplary.

One of the reasons I use them on all my cars and recommend them to every single car I work on/tune.

If you call them they will answer each of your questions, and then you can share with us, because there isn't too much info out there on big boy fuel setups, and every bit helps.

Staged is not a band-aid, it will deliver a much better idle than 1700cc/min injectors.

There's not much to figure out, really. You modify the manifold, install four more injectors and another fuel rail, run some fuel to it, and tell the ECU about them. If you're low on injector drivers you can run them in batch mode, because you're only going to use them at high boost.

At least, you could with the Hydra (I did), I assume the MS is at least that capable.

--Ian

You aren't getting as far on ID1000s because you're revving the motor higher. What is your fuel pulsewidth at ~7100rpm?

e: Just post your datalog.

With 18 PSI pulley, 7,100 RPMs = 12.7ms

With 22 PSI pulley, 6,700 RPMs = 15.5ms (didn't rev to 7,100 on this pulley)

Staged injection isn't a bandaid. Pretty much every fuel injected rotary engine has staged injection from the factory. On my 13b-REW I'm going to be running six ID1300's in three banks of two. Triple staged injection. Very easy to do with the Adaptronic at least in a rotary application.

Also a set of four ID1700's is definitely not $2k. See link below.



Well you didn't look very hard then. T1 Race Development is ID's main outlet for their products. They are selling faster than they can pump them out so you might want to call for a lead time.

90-05 Miata, 1.6L / 1.8L | ID1700 |injector Dynamics | 1700.11.02.60.11.4 - Mazda - ID1700 - Fuel Injectors - Fuel Delivery - Category

What are your gas-equivalent AFRs on E85? Anything richer than 12.0 is silly. Soviet was in the 12.5-12.6 range IIRC.

11.5 gas equivalent. I'm going to 12.0:1, I know 11.5 is too rich. I'm new to tuning on E85.

IIRC Theseus was in the low 12s. I wouldn't hesitate to park it at 12.3 or 12.4. Remember that we only run richer in boost to prevent detonation and reduce cylinder temperatures, and E85 solves both of those problems. You're basically looking for max power AFR, although that requires a dyno to determine :)

So then you tune gas AFRs to the point of det? Or do you keep them at a safe level? (And what level)

There is no "point of det" most of the time. You don't just keep going, you stop when you stop making power easily.

Duh. Stupid question.

So tune till you don't make power easily, unless you get det. Same as spark.

What AFRs do you target on CA gas? Don't you do most of your tuning off the dyno? Or do you use virtual dyno.

With E I've run out of spark before I saw det or stopped making power.
I use both when possible. Depends on what the car will be used for, but low 11's on 91 water.

I agree with Sav though, and even said the same thing in a PM response to Pat a while ago (the part about running 12afr)

Though I'm not sure how much headroom .5afr will provide to the injectors.

You lean it out until it stops making more power. There's (virtually) no fear of melting pistons or detonation, so no reason to run richer than max power.

Going from 11.5 to 12.3 would reduce DC% by ~6.5%

Yeah with full time closed loop you're fine, but make sure you have at least 5% EGO correction for those times you may get a crappy batch (or make sure your flex fuel is working properly)

I've seen a full point swing in AFR between different tanks of E without touching anything.

I'm at 11.5 right now, and TX the pumps say E70 minimum. I was hoping to see if a batch caused me to go lean, assuming I'd go from E85 to E70. Either way, I'd rather be on the richer side of safe, street car and all.

I've read you say here before you've seen a full point swing in AFR on E85 between batches. That's 1/2 the reason I was waiting to touch my AFRs, just to see if they move a lot this winter. So far, they have stayed the same every fill up since I did the conversion this summer.

Yep, happened multiple times. I think it's when people have residual pump gas or when they go to different stations and one has min e70 and one min 85, which can swing the ethanol content by as much as 10-20%. I also hear that in other states the blend changes pretty significantly between summer/winter

Just set up EGO corr table to allow room for it and you should be fine.

On some of the OEM ecu's we tune we don't have closed loop in boost luxury, which is why many stay on the rich side

Are you running flex fuel pat?

No, E85 only. With lots of boost it runs like crap on pump gas to get it to not knock, so E85 only.

Might help with winter blends though.

Yeah I googled it a while back and legally, E85 can go down to E51 I think it was.... Though in TX the sticker on the pump is E70 min where I buy fuel, thus I assume that's the minimum I'll get.

EGO is setup and working.

Like I said, new to E85, so taking things slow and learning. Thanks for the advice everyone, I do appreciate it.

In for supercharged ALLOFIT :party:

It will be ALL of it, I promise. Maybe more. ;)

Implementing flex fuel is still a very good idea for a car that will be using pump E85 that can change without notice. Having the ECU be able to make adjustments for even the differences between E70 and E85 is definitely a good thing. Not to mention there's always a chance of getting a really low concentration batch. People/gas stations make mistakes.

Its relatively cheap with an MS3. I bet you could get it done for less than ~100. And it works well from what I've heard from @yank. I plan on implementing it soonish.

Sorry this took forever, but here's a VD finally.

AFRs are plotted in the VD, but they varied from 11.0 to 12.0 between the various runs as I got the fuel dialed in from 11.0 to 12.0. VD seems to vary enough run to run that it didn't really show much difference. In the 1/8 mile, I gained a few MPH going from 11.0 to 12.0 AFRs though, so I know it helps. I got a feeling I need to add timing now. At 10.5-11.0 AFRs, the plugs and knock sensor both showed knock with any more timing than I have it running now. I suspect it will take more timing now, will test in the near future. Only 18 degrees at 7,000 right now...

Fuel on this log is at 85% duty cycle at 7,700 RPMs.

Attachment 183842

Attachment 183843

Vid at the track, had a boost leak so only 17 PSI but it's something.


Thoughts? I think it should be making more power.

It's timing related for sure, though there could also be something else that's a bottle neck too.

I swapped pulleys and got the boost up to 26 PSI at 6,900 now.

Then I started messing with the timing a bit, and adding 1.5* of timing at 5,000 RPMs showed a 30 ft*lb gain in torque. :idea: Pretty safe to say I'm not a MBT yet. I'll throw some new plugs in it and try to get the timing dialed in next.

Oh yeah, 259 ft*lbs of torque at 4,800 :party:

IF it likes the timing, keep feeding it in. I'd agree you definitely should make more power.
More boost + less revs IMO is another thing to keep in mind to keep those idc's in check

Yeah with the smaller pulley I get more boost and less revs, so I think that's good for engine reliability and idc's.

The problem is the oil case is running 160*F hotter than ambient with this 2.59:1 pulley, vs 100*F over ambient with the 2:1 pulley. I'm going to try removing some of the oil from the oil case and retesting to see if less oil drops the oil case temps. That's about the only thing I haven't tried that might help.

If I can get the SC happy, then I'll plan to keep the pulley for now and get back to working on the timing. The car is silly in 1st/2nd with this pulley and sticky tires.

Why would dumping the same heat energy into a smaller quantity of case oil result in lower case oil temps?

oil case as in supercharger itself?
perhaps oil cooler like the brotrex is in order?

This geartrain is splash lubricated. At low RPM, you need a high oil level to ensure adequate lubrication. At high RPM, that extra oil is just getting pumped around and heated up with no benefit.

For reference, I found a document from KenneBell (I have a whipple though) and they require (not recommend) dropping a 1/4 to 3/8" off the oil level for high boost/race applications to lower oil case temps. Whipple does not, but I think they should and thus plan to test this.

Yes, oil case of the supercharger where the gears are. I could do an oil cooler, but it would be very expensive to do. Minimum I'd need some fittings, hose, heat exchanger, pump, and oil. The oil the Whipple takes cost 26 dollars/4 oz = 208 dollars/qt.

shouldn't revving to 7 vs 8 help alleviate much of the extra heat?

The SC gets the hottest while at sustained highway cruise. At 3,100 RPMs, the oil case is 100*F over ambient with the 2:1 pulley, 150-160*F over ambient with the 2.59:1 pulley. Sustained highway speeds get the SC the hottest as it's spinning fast, but very little mass flow of air is going through it to cool it. When you open the throttle, it sucks in tons of cool air and temps drop.

I only dropped the redline of the motor to 6,900 because the new pulley ration puts the SC at 18,000, it's max continuous RPM rating with the 2.59 pulley. The 2:1 pulley would let me rev to 9,000 before hitting the 18,000 limit.

So what is it about superchargers that requires super expensive, unobatanium oil?

--Ian

Im guessing cause they don't cool it, just sits there and bakes

Regarding the twin screw, the oil has to hold up at really high temperatures with not a lot of cooling. My SC is sending about 100hp through the gears with an oil capacity of 5.5 oz. And it's designed to have a 100k mile oil change interval.

Also, I dropped the oil level 1/4", the oil temp delta-T over ambient dropped a solid 20*F. The compressor was actually 40*F hotter on the second test, yet oil temps were STILL 20*F lower. So less oil definitely helped. Had the compressor been the same temp as before, the oil case delta-T would have likely been even better.

EDIT: Oh yeah, 267 ft*lbs at 4,200 RPMs now. :)

So if you cooled it, would you still need the unicorn tear oil? Or could you just use normal engine oil at that point?

--Ian

I don't know to be honest. My guess is you're on to something/right, with cooling it wouldn't be needed. Not something I had thought about. Good point!

You was right. I did some testing today, found two big problems with the setup that explains both the low power and high duty cycles. Sucks cause I gotta do some redesigning to fix it, but should help get the power up.

Do tell :)

My SC inlet is too small restricting airflow into the SC at high RPM, and my idea of installing a second intercooler to knock down air temps (which it did do very well) turned out to be a huge restriction when I swapped to the 2.59:1 pulley ratio. Now trying to figure out how to put a pair of 75mm throttle bodies on the back of this thing and still be able to shut the hood. I was showing 37.4 PSI boost at the outlet of the SC despite the vacuum it's pulling on the 3" throttle setup.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1448521434

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1448521434

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1448521434

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1448521434

Basically I'm thinking about doing this, which would require me to remote mount the resevoir for the brake master cylinder to gain the needed clearance. And of course more damn sheet metal fab, which I don't like at all.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1448522002

Get a wilwood dual master with the remote mount reservoirs. Or dual masters like @Madjak.

Link? Are you talking about a bolt-in solution, or something totally custom?

Bolt in wilwood: Miata Race Master Cylinder kit

Non bolt in Madjak style: https://www.miataturbo.net/suspensio...-delete-86683/

Ex. Install

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1448524094

I'm just finishing the dual master setup tonight so I can give you some feedback on it soon. If you ran the wilwood short masters you'd have heaps of room even without remote reservoirs.

I'm also making a booster delete mounting plate that keeps the stock tandem master, but looses the booster. It would move the master back enough for you to clear the ducting. The idea is to lift the master cylinder up 20-30mm so you can run a 6:1 pedal ratio instead of the stock 4:1. I haven't tested it but if you are keen I could send you the CAD if want to give it a shot. There are far less mods to the stock pedal box than my dual master setup, it just needs some material removed so the master cylinder doesn't hit the frame and a new hole in the pedal. It will also need a lengthened pushrod but that's pretty easy.

This is a street car though so I'm not 100% sure if removing the booster is a great idea. On the track no booster is fine, but when in traffic I could see it being too hard to live with. I'm also not sure if moving to a 6:1 pedal will induce too much travel... I run Ferodo pads which are like rocks so I have very little pedal travel as it is.

Awesome car btw...

I'm not sure how you are running out of fuel. I'm making close to 100 more HP than you are with a Whipple supercharger, 1000cc injectors, one intercooler, one 75mm throttle body and a single fuel pump.

I have said it before and I will continue to say it, you need to get the car on a dyno. You have spent thousands of dollars which could have been saved by spending a few hundred dollars on a real dyno.

And this is the Supercharger oil you should be running (if you aren't already)

JB Performance Supercharger Oil with Tribodyn, 8 ounces JB Performance Supercharger Oil with Tribodyn [JBP SCO-8] - $19.99 : Jon Bond Performance, The Worlds Premier Supercharger Rebuilder and Parts Store

Overfilling a Whipple with oil is one of the top 3 causes of bearing and seal failure due to the excess heat.

I saw close to a 60 degree reduction in SC case temps when I switched from Whipple oil to Jon Bond's oil.

The car may be choking and that may be killing power, but it still doesn't explain the fueling issue, because if anything that should be causing you to use a lot less fuel. flow = power = fuel
.....unless the choking is putting so much more drag onto the sc/pulley system that it's robbing like 200hp from the crank

and I kinda agree with TNTuba - this setup is becoming tremendously overcomplicated when the whole point (if I remember your 1st sc build post) of this setup was simplicity and reliability. stuff is just just not adding up.

the testing of new stuff is kinda interesting to read/watch though

Eric, I'm going to get it on a dyno. But you and I can both agree, if I'm 100hp shy of where I should be, that's pretty obvious that something is way off. I believe I now know what the problem(s) were, and am working on fixing it right now. Remaking the cold side intercooler pipe right now, should be driving it tonight.

I believe I have my SC pullied up higher than you do, I'm running a 2.59:1 ratio.

If you'd be willing to answer a few tuning questions I'd love to ask you a few.

Eric, thanks A TON for mentioning that. I will order some for sure. I've heard of it, but wasn't sure if it was really better or not. What are your oil case temps now over ambient? How high do you fill your SC on the sight glass?


Like I said, I measured 37 PSI boost at the SC outlet when it made 25-26 PSI at the plenum, while at 84 kPa on the SC inlet. No doubt the SC was taking huge power to do that, that's a 4.something pressure ratio... Fixing the intercooler stuff right now.

I don't think it's tremendously overcomplicated just yet. The second IC was complicated, but it's laying on the carport now as that was a failure. Otherwise I don't think anything on the SC setup is really complicated? But yes I do want simple/reliable, that makes the car fun to drive when you can actually drive it. :)

I'll gladly help you.

I run a ATI lower pulley and a 67mm upper pulley, I spin my motor 8,000 RPM. I use a single Walbro 255lph HP pump and ID 1000cc injectors. Up until this week I was running the stock 5/16ths Fuel line.

Here's my timing Map:
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1448584592

Here's my VE Table
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1448584592

And since everything is getting changed for next year. I'll do something I have NEVER done before.

Here is an old dyno graph....

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1448585079

Wow that is really cool of you to share since you've been keeping it such a strict secret for so long.

Wish I can +prop those posts :)

Well.....it is an outdated dyno graph.....but still :)

Eric,

Thanks for the info and help! One thing, I believe you are on C16, right? I'm on E85, so I think I'm gonna be spraying more of it to make the same power since E85's takes more of it. Do you know what duty cycle you are at on your setup? And what fuel pressure? I run ID 1000's at 60 PSI with a 1:1 regulator.


I got rid of the mess that was intercooler 2, and now have a 1 piece pipe that goes from the intercooler exit to the dummy TB.

Attachment 183840


Attachment 183841

I honestly have no idea on the pressure. I was actually still using the stock NA Fuel pressure regulator. So what ever that worked out to.

I'll need to search through my email but I should have the data log from the dyno pull I posted earlier.

Yea, I am on C16 but David made similar power to my setup on E85 with basically the same fuel system I have.

It is important to note that the dyno graph I posted was from DIYAutoTune's dyno which has shown to read @ 11% - 13% more conservative than a "EgoJet" with the same car on the same day.