G35 1050 vs G42 1200 on a 13B - Best Choice for 600hp?
10-19-22, 12:18 AM
#101
only because you misread it that way, you assume too much and likely for the reason same reason you accuse by.
let me clarify it for you; I make plenty of the same mistakes over again; quite obviously, and not engaging further into the usual forum us vs them urinating contest in somebody else’s thread where it already went too far and doesn’t really belong is one of them.
We should both try to be wiser in that regard. If you believe it requires further discussion then I have pms enabled in my forum options. The same for anybody else too.
.
let me clarify it for you; I make plenty of the same mistakes over again; quite obviously, and not engaging further into the usual forum us vs them urinating contest in somebody else’s thread where it already went too far and doesn’t really belong is one of them.
We should both try to be wiser in that regard. If you believe it requires further discussion then I have pms enabled in my forum options. The same for anybody else too.
.
Last edited by TeamRX8; 10-19-22 at 12:49 AM.
10-19-22, 09:32 AM
#102
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,835
Received 2,603 Likes
on
1,847 Posts
Garretts maps are all in corrected numbers, which do matter, especially on the turbine side
https://www.conceptsnrec.com/blog/pe...ompressor-maps
https://www.conceptsnrec.com/blog/pe...ompressor-maps
The following users liked this post:
Howard Coleman (10-20-22)
10-19-22, 01:19 PM
#103
Garretts maps are all in corrected numbers, which do matter, especially on the turbine side
https://www.conceptsnrec.com/blog/pe...ompressor-maps
https://www.conceptsnrec.com/blog/pe...ompressor-maps
10-19-22, 06:51 PM
#104
Garretts maps are all in corrected numbers, which do matter, especially on the turbine side
https://www.conceptsnrec.com/blog/pe...ompressor-maps
https://www.conceptsnrec.com/blog/pe...ompressor-maps
there’s no need to assume anything, questions can be submitted directly to me and I’ll accommodate them all as best I can; the same as when I shared it openly on the forum in full disclosure and in complete contrast to subsequent claims.
However the OP of this thread has already had his patience tested and inquiries should be sent by pm. We should try to remember that it’s otherwise off topic here and let the thread come back on course to it’s original intent and subject matter. Thank you.
.
.
10-20-22, 10:35 AM
#105
Gentlemen, some very fair points made. I'm no expert when it comes to turbo sizing/13b engine efficiency. Perhaps i'm being over critical of what i am seeing in my own mapping setup. The weather here has been terrible so I haven't had the chance to test 18psi/higher!
The 13b in question is a large extend/street port and the engine builder assures me its the largest street port he would be comfortable building.
The car is going in for the 4" dp and exhaust system tomorrow. I'll retest from 12-17psi again to determine if there is a real world performance gain here.
Will push up to 20 to 22 psi soon and see what the 100-200kph times reflect. goal is to keep it reliable and see what the dragy gps results show. This to me means more than dyno numbers...needs to be reliable and repeatable in the real world rather than a specific power number.
Was hoping to get some 1/4 mile testing in as well. lets see how things go!
The 13b in question is a large extend/street port and the engine builder assures me its the largest street port he would be comfortable building.
The car is going in for the 4" dp and exhaust system tomorrow. I'll retest from 12-17psi again to determine if there is a real world performance gain here.
Will push up to 20 to 22 psi soon and see what the 100-200kph times reflect. goal is to keep it reliable and see what the dragy gps results show. This to me means more than dyno numbers...needs to be reliable and repeatable in the real world rather than a specific power number.
Was hoping to get some 1/4 mile testing in as well. lets see how things go!
The following users liked this post:
rx7srbad (10-20-22)
10-20-22, 05:57 PM
#106
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: U.K - Instagram - copyninja_fd
Posts: 312
Received 142 Likes
on
82 Posts
4" system installed and its back to the grind. Whatever the results maybe i'll retest from 12-17psi to see if there is any real world difference 100-200kph!
The following 5 users liked this post by rx7srbad:
estevan62274 (10-21-22),
j9fd3s (10-21-22),
KNONFS (10-24-22),
neit_jnf (10-21-22),
Slides (10-20-22)
10-21-22, 09:04 AM
#108
Looks nice! I bet it is loud, but with the resonated mid-pipe has to be manageable. My current 3" system has a straight pipe for the mid, and it is almost too much at times.
Please take some videos of the exhaust. Look forward to seeing the different in power.
Please take some videos of the exhaust. Look forward to seeing the different in power.
The following users liked this post:
rx7srbad (10-21-22)
10-21-22, 05:47 PM
#109
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: U.K - Instagram - copyninja_fd
Posts: 312
Received 142 Likes
on
82 Posts
My Initial first drive thoughts on cruise and idle areas are the new 4"system is actually quieter than the older system. This is genuinely surprising. It has a cleaner deeper tone.
I need to test how it is on full chat and wot. Guessing this is where it will be louder. Still haven't had the chance to test due to poor weather.
Will make a few videos of the cold start, engine warmed up at operating temp and some revs once the weather gets better and also a db test.
I need to test how it is on full chat and wot. Guessing this is where it will be louder. Still haven't had the chance to test due to poor weather.
Will make a few videos of the cold start, engine warmed up at operating temp and some revs once the weather gets better and also a db test.
The following users liked this post:
Slides (10-21-22)
10-21-22, 06:17 PM
#110
My experience with the 3.5" and 4" exhausts is you can get it fairly quiet, but that low frequency really travels far and rattles stuff in peoples houses and cars which pisses them off.
I found all the advantage in spool was in the downpipe/midpipe diameter on my car.
I could run 3" catback with no loss in spool/response which pitched the tone back up out of the subwoofer range.
But I really liked the way the low frequency exhaust tone sounded.
I found all the advantage in spool was in the downpipe/midpipe diameter on my car.
I could run 3" catback with no loss in spool/response which pitched the tone back up out of the subwoofer range.
But I really liked the way the low frequency exhaust tone sounded.
The following users liked this post:
rx7srbad (10-22-22)
10-22-22, 06:05 AM
#113
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: U.K - Instagram - copyninja_fd
Posts: 312
Received 142 Likes
on
82 Posts
That's a good point. I have a lot of testing to do once the weather allows. I'll put this on the list. Be good to see if it improves the 100-200kph.
10-22-22, 03:22 PM
#114
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: U.K - Instagram - copyninja_fd
Posts: 312
Received 142 Likes
on
82 Posts
Weather still sucks here...but got the exhaust video up. Not the same as when you hear it in person....but hope you guys enjoy! My phone potato cam/microphone sucks. Sounds thin and raspy in the vid. In person the tone is much fuller, deeper and cleaner.
The following users liked this post:
rx7srbad (10-22-22)
11-30-22, 05:21 PM
#116
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: U.K - Instagram - copyninja_fd
Posts: 312
Received 142 Likes
on
82 Posts
100-200 Midnight Club in Mexico 
Mega cold night and perfect boost weather. Unfortunately neither of us could hook up for a clean run.
Gtr smashed a 100-200kph in 3.9s! That thing is ridiculous. Makes my 6s runs feel slow
Its been mega wet since....so havent had any more chances to test/try...but i can feel that 5s run calling my name.
Mega cold night and perfect boost weather. Unfortunately neither of us could hook up for a clean run.
Gtr smashed a 100-200kph in 3.9s! That thing is ridiculous. Makes my 6s runs feel slow
Its been mega wet since....so havent had any more chances to test/try...but i can feel that 5s run calling my name.
The following 2 users liked this post by rx7srbad:
estevan62274 (11-30-22),
Slides (12-01-22)
11-30-22, 06:11 PM
#117
I was wondering about you. So I was taking a stroll down memory lane recently 
and came across this for comparison:
Customer Ride - RX7 Spirit R Type A
you may be doing better than I gave you credit for if 675 hp does in 5.67 seconds. Could be some variables between you though. 33°C is likely a higher ambient temp than you were running at.
of course an F40 is setup for top end, so not really a fair comparison, not to mention quite old technology as well from the late 80’s …
.
and came across this for comparison:Customer Ride - RX7 Spirit R Type A
you may be doing better than I gave you credit for if 675 hp does in 5.67 seconds. Could be some variables between you though. 33°C is likely a higher ambient temp than you were running at.
of course an F40 is setup for top end, so not really a fair comparison, not to mention quite old technology as well from the late 80’s …
.
Last edited by TeamRX8; 11-30-22 at 06:14 PM.
The following users liked this post:
rx7srbad (12-01-22)
12-01-22, 09:23 AM
#118
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,835
Received 2,603 Likes
on
1,847 Posts
I was wondering about you. So I was taking a stroll down memory lane recently and came across this for comparison:
Customer Ride - RX7 Spirit R Type A
you may be doing better than I gave you credit for if 675 hp does in 5.67 seconds. Could be some variables between you though. 33°C is likely a higher ambient temp than you were running at.
of course an F40 is setup for top end, so not really a fair comparison, not to mention quite old technology as well from the late 80’s …
.
and came across this for comparison:Customer Ride - RX7 Spirit R Type A
you may be doing better than I gave you credit for if 675 hp does in 5.67 seconds. Could be some variables between you though. 33°C is likely a higher ambient temp than you were running at.
of course an F40 is setup for top end, so not really a fair comparison, not to mention quite old technology as well from the late 80’s …
.
12-01-22, 10:55 AM
#119
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: U.K - Instagram - copyninja_fd
Posts: 312
Received 142 Likes
on
82 Posts
I was wondering about you. So I was taking a stroll down memory lane recently and came across this for comparison:
Customer Ride - RX7 Spirit R Type A
you may be doing better than I gave you credit for if 675 hp does in 5.67 seconds. Could be some variables between you though. 33°C is likely a higher ambient temp than you were running at.
of course an F40 is setup for top end, so not really a fair comparison, not to mention quite old technology as well from the late 80’s …
.
and came across this for comparison:Customer Ride - RX7 Spirit R Type A
you may be doing better than I gave you credit for if 675 hp does in 5.67 seconds. Could be some variables between you though. 33°C is likely a higher ambient temp than you were running at.
of course an F40 is setup for top end, so not really a fair comparison, not to mention quite old technology as well from the late 80’s …
.
I've got a lot of testing to do between 18-22psi. Hopefully have some dragy gps data to prove what the 100-200 runs reflect. Hopefully can break into the 5s range. mid 5s with full reliability and i'll call it a day there.
So the F40 is doing the 100-200 in 6.4s claimed and the stock fd in 19.2s. Big difference in raw performance between the stock fd and the F40. Its amazing that the older F40 is still faster than mine by a few tenths ha!
12-01-22, 11:21 AM
#121
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,835
Received 2,603 Likes
on
1,847 Posts
i guess, i remember reading in the car magazines that there were a couple different specs for the F40, there was an early one, and then when they retuned it to add emissions controls they found some power too. then there is the US version, which would have the better tune/injectors or whatever it was, and converters, so its probably lower.
The following users liked this post:
rx7srbad (12-01-22)
12-01-22, 11:58 AM
#122
the turbo from the link back back then doesn’t compare with what you have, plus all the factors involved from the intake filter to exhaust tailpipe exit
but my “memory lane” mention had more to do with the person making the website commentary; RiceRacer, who was quite the character …
the F40 was something like $1.5 million USD originally? That was a lot of money 35 years ago compared to now.
.
but my “memory lane” mention had more to do with the person making the website commentary; RiceRacer, who was quite the character …
the F40 was something like $1.5 million USD originally? That was a lot of money 35 years ago compared to now.
.
Last edited by TeamRX8; 12-01-22 at 12:09 PM.
12-02-22, 04:57 AM
#123
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: U.K - Instagram - copyninja_fd
Posts: 312
Received 142 Likes
on
82 Posts
the turbo from the link back back then doesn’t compare with what you have, plus all the factors involved from the intake filter to exhaust tailpipe exit
but my “memory lane” mention had more to do with the person making the website commentary; RiceRacer, who was quite the character …
the F40 was something like $1.5 million USD originally? That was a lot of money 35 years ago compared to now.
.
but my “memory lane” mention had more to do with the person making the website commentary; RiceRacer, who was quite the character …
the F40 was something like $1.5 million USD originally? That was a lot of money 35 years ago compared to now.
.
No idea who that is.
Think they started around 400k usd but not sure if any of the rarer spec ones sold for more? They def worth a couple mil now. Incredible that a 520-530hp rx7 can also run similar 100-200kph.
12-02-22, 09:49 AM
#124
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,835
Received 2,603 Likes
on
1,847 Posts
the F40 is one of those cars that seems big in pictures, but in real life its tiny
Rice actually picked a good comparison
the FD and F40 have the same wheel base, the Ferrari is wider
they weigh about the same (1100kg vs 1200-1300kg for the FD), both come in red, lol
doubling the 13B displacement is close to the 3 liter V8 Ferrari used.... and then the Ferrari uses bigger brakes, and tires...
Rice actually picked a good comparison
the FD and F40 have the same wheel base, the Ferrari is wider
they weigh about the same (1100kg vs 1200-1300kg for the FD), both come in red, lol
doubling the 13B displacement is close to the 3 liter V8 Ferrari used.... and then the Ferrari uses bigger brakes, and tires...