FFS 1.6 actually a success
 

http://www.fastforwardsuperchargers....2684#post12684
Cliffs with a JR BTC and mp62 elepha put down at 9 psi

http://www.boostedmiata.com/dynos/1_6L_FFS.jpg

153 whp and 130 lb/ft with a very healthy torque curve maybe this will wake up all those m45 people to get a real blower.


dont hot link from ffs.

post the damn plot so i dont have to register.



but 150 at 9psi is nothing to jump for joy over. base greddy kits at negative 2psi were making that.

didn't elphaba's "3.5 cylinder" or whatever do 170+ ?

At a dyno day a couple of years ago two 1.6 M45 cars with stock pully and no I/C or WI were making about 130-135 @ 5-6psi.

I'd be asking for a refund.

yeah, that doesn't seem like an accomplishment to me :confused:

here's what a comparable GReddy would look like against it at 7psi:

http://www.boostedmiata.com/dynos/1_..._vs_greddy.jpg

It isn't about the numbers, but about the mad throttle response and an excuse to buy a new motor when it goes KABOOOM.

It looks a lot like my M45 dynojet runs at 8.4 psi.
Of course I was running e-85 and water injection.
http://www.systemstrategies.com/miat...no9_8_2007.jpg

Doesnt excite me!

Yeah but look how much more power and torque it's making before 3100 and after 6700rpm. Nice of you to not mention that. :nono:

I must say I'm quite a bit dissapointed with those numbers...

How many whp do you think are possible by going coldside with a slightly bigger pulley ratio, intercooling, rpm/load based timing table and E85?

Can I scrape the 170-180whp ?

its possible, but the same was possible with both hotsides. I'm sure its harder to route a proper IC with the coldside.

I dont think they are done yet, I was mostly posting to the fact that Elepha finally has his product and we will now see if it is up to the standards and performance we want. You guys are so frigin negative geez. :p More FI is a good thing.

yes, it always starts with some interesting FFS dyno and most likely ends with a cracked engine few months later ... :rofl:

just ask jmann, a customer of his from miataforum with two blown engines. someone had posted links to his miataforum quotes in the B/S section here. i've heard he is not alone though, but there is a solid number of FFS Coldsides in his area with popped engines gathering for a mourning ...

yes there is a very solid number in his area that have blown

My M45 coldside only dyno'd at 162, that was the Bipes and AFPR running the smaller pulley (~10 psi).

I ditched the Bipes and AFPR, added MS and re-engineered the pulley setup (it now will hit and hold 12psi) There was a ton of slip with the original setup.

On the CS setup, the blower just sits on a plenum (looks like a ghetto turbo manifold) the only way to use an IC would be to re-engineer the manifold...
Of course there's always twincharged...

The car runs smoother, but my butt dyno still thinks it's about the same HP wise.

a fresh example that a yo-yo wacko shouldn't be let touch engines. not even with a ten foot pole:

http://www.fastforwardsuperchargers....6&postcount=14

what?? bollocks! different weight wheels, some heavy baggage in the boot, different road slope all change the engine load in a similar way. either his fueling computer has eyes and reacts differently to same load changes depending on the sight just to make your life harder. or he has to retune it every time he starts climbing a mountain or puts baggage in the boot because it can't handle load changes right ...

yes, load changes when you drive around. that is why when you tune engine on the dyno, you drive the dyno to cause the engine/computer to go through all the load rows in the tables and tune the cells one by one. then when you're done and the engine is running properly, for a particular load change it uses the same cell from the table, regardless if that load change was caused by a slipping transmission, transmission change or the car driving downhill - engine runs the same because the only thing it experiences is the load amount, not what caused it ...

seems at FFS there is always an excuse generator running 24/7, generating B/S excuses to every situation

that yo-yo chap is some special case

next time he should spend some time generating more sophisticated excuses which don't reveal his lack of engine tuning knowledge ...

I was really hoping to see more from a MP62 setup. I really see no reason why a 1.6 S/C setup couldn't be making 165-175 HP.

:bowrofl:

So any news?

hold on let me consult the Tom Excuse Generator.

Is it like one of those magic 8 balls that you shake and wait for a answer?

Or do you simply grab Tom by the throat and shake violently and eventually some bullshit excuse will come out.

I think the machine is jammed on "waiting for supplier"

whoa whoa whoa, a torque converter changes air/fuel ratio? hahahahaha

just curious, but how many engines have blown with FFS coldsides?

This would be a better question for a m.net (if they would even allow it).. there aren't too may folks here with a SC.

I think the parasitic loss of a supercharger prevents any low boost unit from generating decent numbers. Atleast that's how it appears. Mp45, mp62, doesn't seem to matter - run under 10 psi and you just aren't making up enough for the drag. I know a couple guys personally with niiiice SC setups - one in the 250 whp range and another close to 300. But the levels of boost they are running is astronomical, and the amount of dough tied up in the car makes me weep... I think SC guys just have to admit that if they want to keep things to a budget and run low boost levels they won't be making any new waves with HP numbers. Regardless of how much technology they want to throw at it, they are using the wrong mechanical device for hp per psi...

Parasitic drag is a factor, though I don't believe it's the biggest one. Positive-displacement, external-compression superchargers simply tend to have very low thermal efficiency as compared to turbochargers. Put simply, they produce more heat. Hot air is less dense than cold air, so at any given level of boost, an inefficient blower will be moving less mass than one which is more efficient.

It's the same old argument the turbo guys get into- "10PSI from turbo X is not the same as 10 PSI from turbo Y." The reason being that at a given pressure ratio and flow rate, turbo Y is more efficient than turbo X- it's producing a cooler, denser charge.