Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Dude names snakebit over at m.newt recently resurrected an old thread entitled "Has anybody ever dealt with FFS" to say:
(my emphasis)

Without passing judgment on Tom, the PcPro, or his Supercharger kits, how does adding parasitic drag improve efficiency?

magnamx-5

iTrader: (7)

It doesn't turbos have been known to improve this but not SC's

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

It's no use posting such threads here Joe, there's too much resistance to new ideas. Such arrogance and ignorance seem to be prevalent. These attitudes regarding product superiority (or inferiority) resulted in failure of the American auto industry in the 70's, failure of IBM and mainframe computers in the 80's, as well as the meltdown of Apple in the 90's ... the list goes on.

Hopefully, newbies looking for an SC will find Tom's site and explore this forum for information.
I for one would hate to see FFS lose business or restrict service because of lost market share. It might be worthwhile for FFS' satisfied customers to start a network to welcome interested parties. I already take interested parties for rides and they are mostly amazed at what an SC does to the normally anemic Miata. I'm putting out between 170-190whp from my modified JRSC and I can't wait to see what's possible with a FFS Hotside.

The only real downside of the FFS kit is that the power delivery is so smooth that it FEELS different from a comparable turbocharged car, less capable even though it has similar max power output. You can post dyno plots all day long but you'll never sell the low-end torque delivery as an asset (the turbo crowd wants the boost-response at the mid-range, they think it's "cool").

Unfortunately, the last is similar to the problem that Mazda faced with the FD RX-7 in 1993 - even though the power-to-weight ratio and performance were better than the other sports cars, it couldn't win the marketing wars. In other words, why would anyone buy a 250bhp RX-7 when Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi all offered 320+ horsepower cars.

patsmx5

iTrader: (16)

FWIW it is 'possible' to add a SC to increase fuel efficiency. A miller cycle motor uses a positive displacement SC to push the air into the engine. It has late intake valve timing to cut pumping losses at the beggining of the intake stroke, when the crank has little leverage. Usually 35-40* delayed valve timing. Mazda is the only car manufacturer to ever use a miller cycle, they used it on the millenia S. Anywho, adding an SC to a stock engine isn't gonna boost fuel efficiency obviously. Just thought I would mention the one case that it does.

j_man

Hahaha, someone's shilling for FFS ...

The better than stock fuel mileage thing because of the supercharger is not true. (And I have a sc)
It doesn't add that much drag when not in boost, but at best the fuel mileage could be like stock not better ...

spike

Is Tom so desperate for customers,he needs people to "shill" for him?

j_man

Dunno. Tom himself posted that request to his customers to shill at mnet for him since he is no longer a sponsor. So, it is either that or he just likes seeing his name at the top of the mnet forum ... Ask him

j_man

Do you have one of them magic AEM widebands with self darkening?

Zabac

iTrader: (39)

scott, who did you copy paste now? lol

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

I was wondering the same thing..

JasonC SBB

There's an uncommon German centri supercharger kit for the BMW E36 M3 that uses a clutch to disengage the s/c. I got to drive one and it's very transparent. User reports show MPG similar to the turbo guys. In contrast, people like me with a Dinan or other non-clutched centri s/c report significantly lower MPG.

JasonC SBB

I believe the resulting Millenia S MPG is no better than a Camry with the same HP and weight.

JasonC SBB

BTW is there anything wrong with a FFS supercharger with a Greddy EM?

patsmx5

iTrader: (16)

Uh, the millenia 2.3 was putting out 220 hp back in 95'. Not sure what a 2.3 camry made back then, but I kinda doubt it was more than 220hp. Plus the millenia produced it's peak power earlier in the power band than a typical NA motor, due to the valve timing. Camry's and Mazda's are two different vehicles built to do different things anyway and that's not relevant. IIRC, the 2.3 millenia got 28mpg on the highway with 220 hp on tap.

Stealth97

iTrader: (5)

Seems to me the camry and millena would cater to the exact same buyer.

eunos1800

Bit half and half here.

I log ALL my fill up's for claiming fuel expenses from work, so i've got every fill up from the last 5 years.

In 2004 to 2006 when i fitted the MP62 hotside i was averaging 22.65 miles per uk gallon.
Pretty ***** really, but i live in a major city where which ever direction i go in i've got at least a 30min traffic jam, plus my Miata is a Automatic, plus i drive with the top down everyday unless it's raining or above 40c.

That's also including trackdays, touring etc.

When i fitted the SC in 06 my mpg went from 22.65 to 23.87 even though i was booting it more.


Thing is this is nothing to do with the SC and more to do with the fact that i fitted a EMU at the same time and tuned my car to a AFR of 12.5 at WOT rather than off the scale 10 as it came from Mazda.

From what i've seen of the PC though, it tends to run even richer so unless it's been tweaked via a wideband O2 to get the AFR's better i can't honestly see how the MPG improved?


Cheers
Mark

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

i see a lot of validity here. but ive never seen a stock miata go richer than 12:1 itself. But even so, going 12:1 at 100hp is highly inefficient.

paul

iTrader: (21)

i've seen my completely stock(exceptAEM WBO2) 94 down in the 10:1 range at WOT over 4k

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

well that's silly.

j_man

LOL. The shills have this thread scheduled 1 shill per day

http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread...=258701&page=2