RJC Power Plate!
- Thread starter Orion231
- Start date
Welcome!
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Steve Wood
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2001
- Messages
- 2,338
Originally posted by elevensecgn
Just as a point of info, Jason Cramer broke into the 9s, (9.96 I believe) with his car at the Nats setting the first sub 10 sec ET and new record for TSM. BTW he was running a power plate
Guess that should pretty much blow holes in any theorys that it may be a restriction
Congrats Jason!!!
Dwight Hayden
Wow! Oh, well, the eyeball engineers will be able to figure it out! I am glad to see it happen. Nice guys do set records!
C
Chris Taylor
Guest
I talked to Jason about the PP while I was at BG, and he is a nice guy. I was glad to see him running so fast with the PP. He did not try to sell me a PP, just answered my questions. Then I purchased one. Cool people at RJC Racing!!
Steve Wood
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2001
- Messages
- 2,338
That bolt has been broken on one of my cars since about 1988...it is not a problem
Restriction?
I don't see why Jace's times "blow holes in the theory that the plate is a restriction". It's not a theory, it's a fact. Look at the thing. It restricts the flow to the rear cylinders, preventing overboost, and allowing the front cylinders to do their "fair share". Without the restriction, the engine is limited by the max boost the number 5 and number 6 cylinders will stand, and the other four cylinders must get less boost than optimum. Without the plate, the boost to ALL cylinders must be "restricted" by boost control. By using the plate as a restriction, at the correct point in the flow path, the engine can use LESS restriction farther upstream. Here's an example, to make it easier to understand. Without the plate, knock limits boost to 17 pounds. Knock occurs on cylinder 6, which is lean, because of bad air flow distribution. Put in plate, and restrict air flow to cylinder 6. Increase boost to 19 pounds. More power! With the restriction, cylinder 6 gets same flow at 19 pounds it used to get at 17 pounds, but cylinders 1, 2, 3, etc., get more. Hope this helps.
I don't see why Jace's times "blow holes in the theory that the plate is a restriction". It's not a theory, it's a fact. Look at the thing. It restricts the flow to the rear cylinders, preventing overboost, and allowing the front cylinders to do their "fair share". Without the restriction, the engine is limited by the max boost the number 5 and number 6 cylinders will stand, and the other four cylinders must get less boost than optimum. Without the plate, the boost to ALL cylinders must be "restricted" by boost control. By using the plate as a restriction, at the correct point in the flow path, the engine can use LESS restriction farther upstream. Here's an example, to make it easier to understand. Without the plate, knock limits boost to 17 pounds. Knock occurs on cylinder 6, which is lean, because of bad air flow distribution. Put in plate, and restrict air flow to cylinder 6. Increase boost to 19 pounds. More power! With the restriction, cylinder 6 gets same flow at 19 pounds it used to get at 17 pounds, but cylinders 1, 2, 3, etc., get more. Hope this helps.
elevensecgn
New Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
- Messages
- 62
I was referring to the various post that the "internet engineers" were saying that it was a "over all" restriction in the system. Yes, it does distribute the air evenly to all cylinders--- by redirecting airflow, not restricting it. , that is the purpose it was designed for. but the total volume of the holes in the plate is MORE than a 70 MM throttle body, therefore it is NOT a restriction and will NOT be detrimental in any way. Just the opposite. By Jace running in the 9s with it on his car , I think this PROVES beyond a doubt that there is no way it will be a restriction to the average GN/TR owner. My point is that it's a damn good product, and it works well, even down to the 9s. Who knows, maybe even faster, time will tell.
Dwight
Dwight
Steve Wood
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2001
- Messages
- 2,338
Re: Restriction?
No, I don't think it helps. If you had read some of the discussions by Jason and looked at some of the tests, you would have noticed that, in some cases, total air flow actually increased out the valve openings over what was measured without the plate in place. (Total air flow from all six valves) Air flow has been redirected, not reduced. To use the term restrictor is an over simplifying the science that makes it work. It is a case of the eyeball refusing to accept empirical evidence. It may be a case of semantics but when total air flow does not suffer, and sometimes, increases, it is deceptive to call the plate a restrictor.
No, I don't think it helps. If you had read some of the discussions by Jason and looked at some of the tests, you would have noticed that, in some cases, total air flow actually increased out the valve openings over what was measured without the plate in place. (Total air flow from all six valves) Air flow has been redirected, not reduced. To use the term restrictor is an over simplifying the science that makes it work. It is a case of the eyeball refusing to accept empirical evidence. It may be a case of semantics but when total air flow does not suffer, and sometimes, increases, it is deceptive to call the plate a restrictor.
strikeeagle
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,326
"Eyeball engineers" and "Internet Engineers."
Two points:
Where (oh, where) is the cylinder to cylinder, before and after, EGT data?
You people who claim that there's no restriction because the sum of the open areas of the PP exceeds the open area of a given TB -please, GETTTTTTTTTTTT OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF ITTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!
On a separate note, Jason, congratulations to you on running a 9 - that's a helluva fast car!!!
Two points:
Where (oh, where) is the cylinder to cylinder, before and after, EGT data?
You people who claim that there's no restriction because the sum of the open areas of the PP exceeds the open area of a given TB -please, GETTTTTTTTTTTT OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF ITTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!
On a separate note, Jason, congratulations to you on running a 9 - that's a helluva fast car!!!
Buickz
New Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2001
- Messages
- 22
I put one on my car with a stock plenum and the EGT's went from 1600 to 1450 just be bolting it on. Same boost, same fuel pressure setting, same everything except the plate. Seems like it does something.
Steve Wood
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2001
- Messages
- 2,338
The proof is in the flow tests and in the pudd'n.
Two tenths on a base test car in front of thousands by Nick Micale at the Nats plus the testimonies of numerous satisfied users will suffice for all but the eyeball engineers including the ones that may have five years of experience repeate three times
I am sure one of them will spend $50 bucks for one to prove it does not work pretty soon!
Two tenths on a base test car in front of thousands by Nick Micale at the Nats plus the testimonies of numerous satisfied users will suffice for all but the eyeball engineers including the ones that may have five years of experience repeate three times
I am sure one of them will spend $50 bucks for one to prove it does not work pretty soon!
strikeeagle
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,326
Who said it doesn't work?
Steve Wood
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2001
- Messages
- 2,338
I believe we said it does not restrict because the total flow, in some cases, exceeds the flow without it in place. Total flow being the sum of the flow measured at the six valve pockets.
In other cases it was the same.
In other cases it was the same.
elevensecgn
New Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
- Messages
- 62
Originally posted by strikeeagle
"Eyeball engineers" and "Internet Engineers."
<
<Two points:
<Where (oh, where) is the cylinder to cylinder, before and after,
I believe that has been on Jace's website for months.
<EGT data?
Unless someone is running six probes , one in each port, and recording the data both before and after, that would not be a conclusive test.
<You people who claim that there's no restriction because the sum of the open areas of the PP exceeds the open area of a given TB -please, GETTTTTTTTTTTT OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF ITTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!
If you have a given orfrice in a line (say 70 MM) and that is the smallest spot for air to pass through the system, then after it you have a number of areas that total MORE than that 70 MM ofrice, they are NOT going to restrict the airflow going through that line- period. They may "redirect it" but not restrict total airflow.
<On a separate note, Jason, congratulations to you on running a 9 - that's a helluva fast car!!!
Strikeagle, in your estimation, would Jace's car have ran faster if he had removed his power plate?? just curious-------
Dwight (you can lead a horse to water, but---) Hayden
strikeeagle
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,326
Dwight,
You are correct. What I meant by cylinder-to-cylinder EGTs is just that - 6 EGTs before, 6 EGTs after, with no changes other than the PP.
So far as your orifice theory goes, you are not correct. The system downstream of the smallest opening, whatever it is, still imposes pressure loss, and that loss impacts directly on compressor discharge pressure, and therefore temperature. Whether we like it or not, this is an inviolate law of fluid dynamics.
Am I saying Jason's car would have run faster without the plate? No, absolutely not. I would have no way of knowing whether it would or wouldn't.
Again, there is a growing body of evidence, if not a preponderance of evidence, that these plates work. It is the engineer in me that would like to know, and I believe given the nature of the product and it's influence on safe operation it's very important to know, exactly how well. Although clearly, no one is under any obligation to me to demonstrate it. I'm just tired of reading, "It's only 50 bucks" and "My car felt faster." These are irrelevant.
You are correct. What I meant by cylinder-to-cylinder EGTs is just that - 6 EGTs before, 6 EGTs after, with no changes other than the PP.
So far as your orifice theory goes, you are not correct. The system downstream of the smallest opening, whatever it is, still imposes pressure loss, and that loss impacts directly on compressor discharge pressure, and therefore temperature. Whether we like it or not, this is an inviolate law of fluid dynamics.
Am I saying Jason's car would have run faster without the plate? No, absolutely not. I would have no way of knowing whether it would or wouldn't.
Again, there is a growing body of evidence, if not a preponderance of evidence, that these plates work. It is the engineer in me that would like to know, and I believe given the nature of the product and it's influence on safe operation it's very important to know, exactly how well. Although clearly, no one is under any obligation to me to demonstrate it. I'm just tired of reading, "It's only 50 bucks" and "My car felt faster." These are irrelevant.
BoostKillsStres
TIRE-FRYER VIA HAIR-DRYER
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,678
While at BG I saw a SMC flyer that had a new 8 channel egt product but it was $799. Maybe in the future we'll see data from this for the PP. I already have a plate and it cleared up a lot of roll on throttle knock for me and I'm running 17psi in 1/2 which I've never been able to do. Once I get my wide band O2 running I plan to tune for a good A/F ratio then remove the plate and see if any knock returns. I also plan to try this at the track depending on results but it will be a while.
Originally posted by Steve Wood
The proof is in the flow tests and in the pudd'n.
Two tenths on a base test car in front of thousands by Nick Micale at the Nats plus the testimonies of numerous satisfied users will suffice for all but the eyeball engineers including the ones that may have five years of experience repeate three times
Ok, 2 tenths? But that does not tell the whole story, what were the MPH and 60 FT's of these runs? Lets see where the 2 tenths came from, were these back to back under the same conditions, was anything else changed like FP? the numerous satisfied testimonies have ranged from "it feels faster"? to "it idles better" just curious what it really does.
It would also be great if we could build a replica of the intake in a clear plastic so we could actually watch how the air flow moves inside the plenum.
I believe my earlier comparison to the air flow in a pick-up box holds valid. We continue to argue about there being a pressure reduction to the rear valves when there is an overall flow increase for the valves in total. We can have both happening in the intake.
As the air travels through the intake, not all is used and we have pressure held back. But as the new flow enters, it strikes the lower rear of the intake in the area of the 5&6 intake runners and is forced to make the turn toward the front. What happens when you have a constant flow which strikes a barrier? You have an area of increased pressure.
If we ever get an intake set up to test pressures at each port this is what I believe we will find: At a given pressure we should see 1&2 are less, 3&4 are the closest to the rated pressure, and 5&6 will read higher than the rated pressure. Some of our really good tuners adjust for this with injector flow to match the imballance of air flow. Leaner jets in the front and richer to the rear.
So is the plate blocking, or restricting, or redirecting, (call it what you want), air from the rear cylinders? In my theory it is and it needs to. But this is a system we are working with, not individual cylinders. And we are trying to make the system make as much power as possible. For example: If we are tuning for 15PSI in the system, we want 15 PSI at all the ports. Not 13 PSI at 1&2; 15 PSI at 3&4; and 17 PSI at 5&6. I also am suggesting as you increase the boost, the differences would grow between the cylinders.
So if this plate brings the pressure of the rear ports down to an equal level with the other ports, is this a bad thing? If it allows the system as a whole to flow more air and use more fuel, isn't that a good thing?
And if all this leads to some new ideas for intake design, isn't that a good thing too?
I believe my earlier comparison to the air flow in a pick-up box holds valid. We continue to argue about there being a pressure reduction to the rear valves when there is an overall flow increase for the valves in total. We can have both happening in the intake.
As the air travels through the intake, not all is used and we have pressure held back. But as the new flow enters, it strikes the lower rear of the intake in the area of the 5&6 intake runners and is forced to make the turn toward the front. What happens when you have a constant flow which strikes a barrier? You have an area of increased pressure.
If we ever get an intake set up to test pressures at each port this is what I believe we will find: At a given pressure we should see 1&2 are less, 3&4 are the closest to the rated pressure, and 5&6 will read higher than the rated pressure. Some of our really good tuners adjust for this with injector flow to match the imballance of air flow. Leaner jets in the front and richer to the rear.
So is the plate blocking, or restricting, or redirecting, (call it what you want), air from the rear cylinders? In my theory it is and it needs to. But this is a system we are working with, not individual cylinders. And we are trying to make the system make as much power as possible. For example: If we are tuning for 15PSI in the system, we want 15 PSI at all the ports. Not 13 PSI at 1&2; 15 PSI at 3&4; and 17 PSI at 5&6. I also am suggesting as you increase the boost, the differences would grow between the cylinders.
So if this plate brings the pressure of the rear ports down to an equal level with the other ports, is this a bad thing? If it allows the system as a whole to flow more air and use more fuel, isn't that a good thing?
And if all this leads to some new ideas for intake design, isn't that a good thing too?
