Mk1 1.8

105 rwhp stock plus Magnex exhaust

109 rwhp '94 1.8 with no mods except a K&N panel filter in the OE airbox @;

110 rwhp - removed the filter and left the airbox open and it was on the following run

102 rwhp/97 lbft stock '94.

102 rwhp/98 lbft 14 btdc, made same hp, 1 lb/ft more torque

107.2/100.4 14 btdc + Added thermal exhaust,
107.5/102.5 14 btdc + Added thermal exhaust + FM cat

115.5/107.9 14 btdc + Added thermal exhaust + FM cat + FM ecu, K&N on end of cross pipe

149.5 rwhp @ 7000 rpm 125.8 ft/lbs @ 5200 rpm ‘92 1.8 TEC-II IRTB, Motorola Cup cams, Borspeed header, FM Turbo exhaust,10.1:1 pistons

Mk2 1.8

114-116rwhp Mk2 in stock form .

116.5rwhp Stock 49 state '99 w/ 30,000 miles:

118rwhp add RSpeed Intake:
126rwhp add Brainstorm header:
124rwhp add Brainstorm rear muffler section: (above on 87 octane)
120rwhp As above tested on the SCC Dynojet running 92 octane:

127rwhp as above.. plus TEC-II ECU:
156rwhp @ 6900rpm Mk2 JR Sebring stock 4-5psi (stock ECU with passive JR fuel/ignition devices) and Brainstorm header

165.2rwhp @ 7100rpm …as above but TEC-II ECU (MAF left in place): …. Shiv Patak
150rwhp/123ftlbs with a Sebring, stock otherwise, even the exhaust

Mk2.5

110rwhp "post-production '01 with 2000 miles .. torque curve is essentially identical to the non VVT M2s. The VVT looks to be more of a method to meet stricter emissions standards while not loosing power. The 155hp claim seems, right now at least, to be bogus." Shiv Patak

To get more power...

This route is at least twice the cost of comparable boosted power/weight gains but retains good throttle response.

1.6 Mk1 with lots of mods 140-145 hp. Does 135mph…on Autobahns.

JR CAI, header, free flow cat, Thermal exhaust. Timing at 14 BTDC, Magnecore 10 mm ignition wires, NGK extended reach spark plugs, and lots of attention to small details like synthetic oil in engine, gearbox and diff, closing all the gaps around the radiator to increase the chance for pressurized air in the relocated intake area, distilled water and less than 30% antifreeze in the coolant, a cooler thermostat.

Also power boost valve; fuel pressure control valve that Moss sell .. someone got 0.5sec off their 30-70mph times with this.

Can be hard to insure in UK (with a turbo too J )

There are a few types of N02 systems..

1. Dry; this is where the NO2 is injected on it’s own and the extra fuel is added by tricking the ECU/injectors into adding fuel .. it is generally not as good as if there is a fault with the extra fuel .. you eat your engine very quickly. The extra fuel is in general stimulated by adding NO2 pressure to stock FPR so in effect making it like a turbo/super AFPR.
2. Wet; this is where the N02 and fuel are mixed before you inject them into the intake system .. generally safer as if there is a fault both parts of the mix are removed and no engine death occurs. Also the mixture is less likely to separate .. with the dry systems the back no. 4 cylinder gets NO2 while all the fuel ends up in N0.1..

Then there are a couple of delivery systems;

1. Direct ported .. this adds an injector per cylinder just before the existing fuel injectors .. the best as it ensure fuel distribution but because of the injector sizes you need to be adding over 75 hp to do this.. so not that likely but it has been done.
2. Spray bars .. common V8 solution where they put a plate between the intake manifold and the throttle body .. this plate has a couple of hollow tubes with jets in it .. these inject the mixture.. or the one for each
3. Indirect porting is just like 5^th injector system .. a general injector(s) on the air filter side of the throttle body .. as you only use it with WOT there is no problem.

Problems;

Number 4 cylinder (one at the back) always runs hot/lean on these cars .. it does not get the water cooling it should as stock .. this can get worse with indirect porting .. and more than a couple of pistons have been melted because of this.

You need a big blue bottle in the boot.

You need an arming switch, and a WOT switch

You may need to heat the NO2 bottle to maintain the pressure .. as it gives off gas it cools and has less pressure.. this gets more out of the bottle.

"NOS is not an oxidizer until it reaches 572 degrees when it releases it's oxygen. While being sprayed or any other time other than during the combustion stroke it is a non-flammable gas. Of course the fuel is still flammable, but the Nitrous isn't." Ashton Smith

Highpower in UK;

start at 25hp, maximister is NOx Powermax at £389, minimax basic start 50% go to 100% £150
Bottle adapter £21, Filler kit with filter (Linde) £46, Ecoblaster 100i comes with 5 lbs bottles in either size
costs £48 to upgrade to 11lbs bottle full of gas, 0-1500 psi in hot countries, 7-900 psi in UK, bottles tested to 3 times operating pressure, Progressive on throttle control is now under testing.

5lbs long = 4"Dx20L+3" valve
5lbs short = 4.5"x15L+3" valve
11lbs = 6"D+23L+3" valve
NOx express bottles;
5lbs 16.5"x5.25"D
10lbs 19"x7D
15lbs 25.5"x7D
20lbs 25.75"x8"D

NO2 lasts 5hp on 11lbs gives 60 mins = 5hp for 327 sec/lbs 1lbs=1635 hp.sec
100hp on 2 lbs gives 30 sec = 100hp for 15 sec/lb 1lbs=1500 hp.sec
but minimax = 100% more time ..
5lbs@50hp = 150 sec/300sec = 12/24 1/4 miles
5lbs@25hp = 5/10 mins = 24/48 1/4 miles
200 miles with 27 overtakes at 3 sec a time = 81sec, so 400-800 miles driving like a loony

Fit micro switch inside – more vibrations and failures on throttle body.

Typical figures

1. 1.8 Stock plus Magnex exhaust 105rwhp (UK figure from John Dakin ‘95 1.8 22kmiles)
2. 1.6 Greddy at 4.5psi - 125.5 ft-lbs & 127.8 HP 6 PSI - 135 ft-lbs & 138 HP
3. 1.6 BEGI 1 140 rwhp ? ftlbs (6 psi, stock, quote from DA)
4. 1.6 BEGI 1 161 rwhp 146 ftlbs (7psi, no I/C, FM exhaust, ER plugs)
5. 1.6 Sebring with many mods 185 rwHP (FM ecu, ported blower, Bell i/c, V.small pulley)
6. 1.8 Sebring Mk1 140 rwhp
7. 1.8 Sebring Mk1 155rwhp @ 8 degrees
8. 1.8 Sebring Mk1 149 rwhp 130 ftlbs (MSD)
9. 1.8 Sebring Mk2 at Jackson Racing

BEFORE: Temp 94.9 F, 29.76-0.34 in Hg, 0 ft, CF=1.01, rpm/mph=89, power = 114.6, torque =109.6 (all stock)

AFTER: Temp 83.1 F, 29.81-0.50 in Hg, 0 ft, CF=1.00, rpm/mph =90, power =155.8, Torque=138.8 (with supercharger + water injection)

99 M2 with a basic Sebring setup that pulled 149 rwhp and 129 torque

10. 1.6 Aerodyne 186 rwhp 165 ftlbs (9psi, FM exhaust, FM ECU, no cat, BEGI racer I/C
11. 1.8 FM2 238 rwhp 221 ftlbs (14,5 psi, not redlined)
12. 1.8 FM2 260rwhp at 6210 rpm and 240 ft/lb at 4000 with 15 psi and straight exhaust pipe 49 hp at 2000, 105 at 3000, 180 at 4000 125 ft/lb at 2000, 185 at 3000 and 240.5 at 4000.
13. 1.8 Mk2 BEGI 4 170 rwhp

Extreme powers…

1. 304,3rwhp at 24psi. from a 1.6L (Espen Tandberg)
2. 320 rwhp at 18 psi from Jennifer off Powerlist
3. 399 rwhp with T4/T3 hybrid and race gas (Ric Stephens)
   

¼ mile times (sec@mph);

11.2@ 123 Kenneth Richards; wankel engine is an 87 Turbo II 13b. 410hp at 15psi and 478hp at 22psi.

12.86@115.13 Scott Loercher.10psi GReddy w/ 75 NOS (VLSD) Nitto street tires, 'stock' car

13.44 @ 106.77 Mark A. Painter '90 with a '94 1.8L and FM II running 15 PSI, Toyo 205/55-14 RA-1 tires

14.2@103 Todd Paciorek FMII 14psi with a 1.6.

There are several types out there;

For Mk2 cars (‘99-’01)

1. Sebring supercharger with piggy back engine management – only one adjustment on timing available.
2. PBC Aerodyne System Stage II – variable vane turbo with BEGI 4.2 piggy back engine management
3. AVO Aussie turbo
4. BEGI 4.2 with fuel only piggy back engine management – 5.5-6 psi, maybe 8psi on cold day
5. FM2 – similar to old one but with piggy back engine management. Small (10-12psi max) and big turbos as option. Max boost is 14 psi due to high compression ratio of engine but similar power here to a 17psi Mk1

You have to decide what your ultimate power requirements are - it is much easier to buy an upgradable system if you want to go that way. If you want bolt on then go for Sebring or BEGI/FM products.

Supercharger = low down torque, limited top end power, relatively simple fitting, questionable fuel and ignition solutions (as supplied). It heats the intake air more than an intercooled boost solution so pre-ignition/pinking can be a problem. Most people go for the readily available Sebring. See below for more.

Aerodyne = can be adjusted for lower speed torque, but still removing the exhaust manifold. There has been some history of unreliability and cracking engine heads; see below for more. Discontiued.

Turbo = great for high end power (above 5,000 rpm) where the supercharger starts to run out of power relatively. It will give the highest specific power output but a more peaky power output which means it needs to be driven by changing down a gear for the power; the supercharger could be quicker due to the low rpm torque benefit in the average driver who does not change down a gear to overtake. Remember there is power and torque; the new Honda S2000 makes 220 hp but only 157 ftlbs of torque; an engine with 200 hp and 200 ftlbs of torque would be faster in most situations - torque is what accelerates you.

Of course now you have power you need to;

1. Learn how to use it - driver training!
2. Go around corners and be more stable = add anti roll bars as a minimum, if the car has more than 30,000 miles add shock absorbers. Lower springs are in my experience a bit of a waste of time, more pose than useful and most are very poorly engineered – better to lower on stock springs with Koni shockers.
3. Stop - if a 1.6 change over to 1.8 front brakes (discs, pads and caliper mounts). If already 1.8 then UK wise you are limited – EBC Greenstuff is the most effective but they do not last, after that you are into drilled/grooved discs... can be crack prone or else big brake kits at $1000..
4. Add synthetic oil to gearbox and differential to improve their life and performance
5. Consider Limited Slip Differential at the rear ... on 1.6 this means upgrading to 1.8 differential with a Torsen (the best but never sold in UK). The original 1.6 had a Viscous LSD – only survives about 30,000 miles normally and even less under boosted power.
6. Consider your tyres; 195 width best for non boosted, maybe 205 for a supercharger, (I have 215/40-16 on my FM2 but that is 260 hp v. the 180 hp of a supercharger).
7. Get a new Clutch; 1.8 does not last long under boosted power

Additional you need to understand how the fueling and ignition adjustments are carried out;

you have more power so you need to add more fuel to get this, it may also cause pinking/pre-ignition which is countered by retarding the ignition.

1. BEGI or similar FPR (Fuel Pressure Regulator) - this adds the boost pressure to the fuel pressure so that the fuel injectors inject more fuel (same hole + more pressure = more flow where the injectors are the hole). Drawback is that it is crude and the fuel pressure gets higher which is a questionable safety issue - standard is 60 psi - it can be taken up to 110 psi for 10 psi systems, ultimately limited by this fuel pressure.
2. Resistors can be added into the water temperature so that the car thinks it is cold and makes it run richer .. this takes time and requires a boost switch to actuate.
3. Interceptor 2000 by BBR - piggy back system that tricks the ECU into giving more fuel
4. Another piggy back system - there are a few out there - needs your input as no many others have been done yet.
5. Link piggy back ECU – intercepts ECU signals and hence plays with fuel/timing while keeping original ECU in the dark and happy – only options on Mk2 due to US emmissions laws requiring the maintaining of error codes at MOT time (OBDII is the error code system).
6. Link ECU - self programming ECU that uses the oxygen sensor to set fuel levels, needs some understanding of engines to use effectively, a tuner could do it. It puts more fuel in on over 10 psi cars by replacing the fuel injectors with bigger ones. Option of boost control to make a 10 psi car a 14 psi one (as FM2). 34.8 mpg possible (UK gall)
7. TECII, Haltech or similar = fully programmable ECU by lap top PC, real hard work but the best. E.g. Simple Digital Systems (sdsefi.com)

My feelings on this is that anything below a Link ECU is a compromise that is not good for the engine; it will either run way to rich part of the time or it will melt the engine down in extremes of pinking. The systems below a Link are actually far more common so you could argue that in the real world they work; how long are you actually in WOT (wide open throttle) mode - not very long so the compromises are not a real world problem. But I am just being pernickety by insisting on a Link, so go with the others just be aware of the problems and limitations.

"It seems water injection knocks the peak off the pressure spike. The pressure plateaus instead of peaking. This is if I was looking at a graph of the cyl. pressure. The burning will be extended so advancing the timing while injecting the water should be done to compensate for the slower burn. As the engine revs the water injected will stay the same while the air flow increases. In other words, the water will 'lean out' at higher rpm. Don't drown the engine by using too large of nozzle. The water can be used to increase boost or timing. I like to think of water injection as "artificial octane". If you spray the water before the throttle you must use some alcohol as an antifreeze as the throttle could freeze open. Because of the suppressed boost spike, I believe the water injection will be easier on the head gasket than without it. Also, I saw a pic of a disassembled Miata motor that used water injection. It was free of carbon! Another battle won against detonation.

The BBR did come with an auxiliary ECU, it's located next to the MAZDA ECU. The electrical couplers have to be disconnected from the original and plugged in the BBR ECU. The trailing leads from the auxiliary ECU have to go into the original control unit. The ECU could probably be replaced with an FPR for fuel requirements and
MSD or J&S for the timing. It has an external switch to select the octane grade of the fuel

The interceptor 2000 was introduced later AFAIK. I read in Performance Car recently that BBR now sells something called the Interceptor 2000 which may be a programmable ECU. I don't know much about it but they said that it sold for about $370 (UK) or about $600 (US). If you have the questions you have why not contact BBR directly at: Phone - 011 44 1 280 702 389; FAX 011 44 1 280 705 339. The 011 is to dial outside of the US and the 44 is the country code. Ask for Ken Brittain.

"I'll put in my $0.02 worth, since I drive a much modified 1.6 Greddy-ized Miata.

First, everyone who mentioned the poor customer service from Greddy and/or its distributors is right on the mark. When installing my kit, the oil-return fitting that screws into the block sheared in half (!!!) without any large degree of torque being applied. Numerous phone calls to the vendor yielded exactly no response. I had to have one custom made.

Second, the kit has a few fundamental flaws:

[1] The manifold will eventually crack, unless modified before installation.
[2] The stock plastic crossover pipe will chronically slip off the throttle body under boost.
[3] The fuel pressure regulator is, for all intents and purposes, unadjustable. Doesn't help that it runs WAY too rich right out of the box.
[4] The Greddy downpipe is restrictive and stands a good chance of eventually cracking.
[5] As delivered, it is designed to run without any timing retard control. This means that stock timing has to be retarded to the point that the car is just about undriveable off-boost.
[6] The air filter supplied is pretty crappy.
[7] The installation directions are terrible.

That being said, here are some positives:

[i] It is relatively easy to install, despite the poor directions.
[ii] The Mitsubishi TD-04H turbo is a fairly decent unit that has the POTENTIAL to spool-up fairly quickly and still make decent high-end boost.
[iii] It can be upgraded, although at greater expense and more bother than with the BEGI kits.

I installed a J&S knock sensor at the same time to allow stock timing and good driveability off-boost, which only came on well over 3000 rpm (peak of 5.5 psi is at about 4500 rpm). Heat soak also tended to set-in when driving around town, which made the car more lethargic to drive.

I'm currently running about 12 psi with my kit (you won't want to stay long with the stock power increase - trust me on this point). What this took:

[a] Spearco intercooler (large), with associated cooling mods since it blocks most of the airflow to the rad
[b] Custom IC piping
[c] Blow-off valve
[d] Larger 250 cc injectors
[e] Auxiliary fuel pump
[f] BEGI rising rate fuel pressure regulator
[g] FM kevlar clutch and 1.8 flywheel
[h] Custom large downpipe
[i] Test-pipe in place of the cat
[j] Custom 2.5" exhaust

Results: Significant boost occurs at just below 2000 rpm, with peak boost at just over 3K. Driveability is as good as stock. Much depleted pocketbook.

This is about as far as you can take this system without a programmable ECU like the LINK. Horsepower is approx. 185-190 at the rear wheels. I haven't dynoed the car yet, but I run neck and neck with Richard Dekker's BEGI System III+ (12 psi), which was dynoed at similar numbers by its previous owner, Barry Birdwell.

Conclusion: I'm fairly happy with my set-up now, but knowing then what I know now, I could have eliminated a lot of frustration by going with a BEGI system, and following an easy, well-travelled upgrade path. Probably would have saved some money as well. Again, believe me when I say that you won't want to remain at the "stock" power levels the Greddy affords you."
Steven Searle, Edmonton, Alberta

"It's been suggested that I'm too biased in favor of the AERO-Max system because I'm involved with it. Hmmmm... I can think of a couple people who also contribute to this list that either design, produce or sell F/I products. I assume then that since I'm to be taken with a grain of salt whenever I mention the word Aerodyne, that those individuals should be as well when they talk about a product they're involved with. Doesn't make much sense to me. In short, suggesting that I'm withholding bad information regarding Aerodyne's product is accusing me of being dishonest. I guess I don't take too kindly to that since I consider myself to be totally honest and straight forward about this product as I know the other individuals on here are about the products that they sell.

And frankly, I'm tired of defending it to a few individuals who refuse to believe anything but their own narrow views about the product. No matter how many people on here say nice things about this product, myself included, it just won't sink in thanks to a few horror stories that refuse to go away about older versions of the product that are no longer offered for sale AND one of the new units that only "drove for 1 mile."

I'm sure you all are tired of this subject matter as well, but as long as the product continues to be bashed, those of us who believe in it will continue to beat our collective heads against the wall trying to convince the non-believers.

So again, for the thousandth time, here I go again. Feel free to jump in at any time. I think the following is accurate. Corky will straighten me out if I'm wrong about any of these facts.

Over the years, Aerodyne kits have been offered in at least three different configurations with three different versions of the AEROCHARGER turbo. The first ones had a long nose and held 120cc of oil, had the air filter in a black metal box behind the driver's side headlight, and had the actuator for the turbo sticking straight down. The second version kept the same turbo version but moved the air filter to a K&N round type that pointed down behind the radiator. Version 3 has the air filter located above and behind the radiator in the CAI or "dustpan" but moved to a new version of the turbo which had a short nose, held 65cc of oil, and had the actuator pointing straight up for easy access. Version 4 now has the same air filter design but offers the new version of AEROCHARGER which has a new actuator which needs no user installed vacuum lines attached to it to control vane movement/boost, has a billet aluminum backplate, has a ceramic coated rear section (looks sharp), and consumes 50% less oil than the older design. The new actuator also makes the turbo respond quicker and feel much smoother than the older version.

Problems occurred in the older units when the vacuum lines to the actuator got cut, dried out and broke, or in some way leaked air. Since the actuator relies on a boost signal in order to know how much to open or close the vanes, any hole in the vacuum line causes a loss of pressure to the actuator. The less pressure the actuator sees, the farther closed the vanes move in order for the turbo produce the level of boost it is set for. As this happens, turbo rpm increases. If the leak is too severe, turbo rpm exceeds design bearing redline and bearing failure is the result. We replaced two units for a customer before his installer found a broken vacuum line. Since Aerodyne didn't actually see the installation and since all they were told was that the turbo failed, they replaced two units under warranty. Ok, so it really was a design flaw as I see it. There's no way a $1200 turbo should be destroyed because of a .50 cent piece of hose. In my research into these failures, I found more than a few cases where the owner admitted that he'd found broken vacuum lines after a turbo failure. New AEROCHARGERS have no user installed vacuum lines so this problem area has been eliminated.

Other failures were traced to the turbo overspeeding due to being adjusted improperly. If you back the boost onset screw out too far, the turbo WILL overspeed. This has happened in several cases and was the result of the owner not knowing what he was doing. Should a $1200 turbo have been able to be destroyed by the turn of a screw? Probably not and again this is a design flaw in my opinion. The lowest common denominator (LCD FACTOR) needs to be taken into consideration when designing a product for the masses. New AEROCHARGERS are sold with the explicit warning that any breaking of the anti-tamper paint will void the warranty. In short, you can't play with it anymore without being financially responsible for your actions.

Still other failures were traced to the owner attempting to increase the boost level without knowing what they were doing. For example, trying to shim a 6psi Aerodyne to 12psi without changing the spring results in not enough spring travel and possible dire side effects. An inaccurate boost gauge led to a turbo putting out more than 15psi (it's design limit due to bearing rpm) and subsequent failure. The turbo is rated to put out a continuous 15psi. However, in a small quick revving engine, it seems that the turbo can spike a pound or two higher than it should if you snap the throttle wide open. I suppose continuous overboosting would lead to failure in that type of a case. Again, new AEROCHARGERS are not to be adjusted by their owner unless their owner wants to void the warranty.

And then we have the unknown reason failures. Bearing failures, poor quality control, wrong bearings, casting flash left inside the turbo, whatever. Yes, they did fail and I expect some still will. Is any product perfect? This is a complex, tight tolerance, precision piece of engineering that works in incredibly harsh conditions. It's far more complex than a standard turbo and as such I'd expect a higher failure rate.

Also, on older Aerodyne kits, the owner was allowed to adjust boost onset and change boost levels on his own. For the reasons stated above, that was probably a bad idea for a few individuals. Of all the applications the AEROCHARGER is used on, I'm told that only the Miata kits allows the warranty to remain intact if the user breaks the anti-tamper paint seals on the actuator. Along with that, I'm told that no other application has a failure rate even remotely close to that of the Miata. Is there a correlation? I'll bet there is!

Again, no product is perfect. I freely admit that there have been problems and there very well may continue to be some. But with the new design turbo the problem areas have been addressed for the most part and we fully expect to see reliability problems become a thing of the past. If this proves not to be the case, I'll be the first one to come on the list, admit defeat, and tell you all that we're no longer selling the product.

In the mean time, this is a great kit. It is the best product out there for the Miata owner who wants more power but wants it with simplicity and a minimum of expense. In addition to the 6psi Stage 1 and 8 psi Stage 2 kits, we are selling a new version we call the "EC" kit. 5psi, no boost gauge, no MSD, no surge valve, no fuel pump. Cars go like the wind with 5psi and people are just amazed at how much performance is contained in that first 4 to 6 psi. This kit sells for $2295 and while we aren't officially advertising it yet, we've sold a few of them already. See Keith Maxwell's review on Miata.net. The only drawback to the EC kit is that it will cost more to upgrade than the Stage 1 kit due to the lack of the above mentioned parts. But hey, for $2295 you'll get the power of a 6.5psi Sebring for $300 less. (and when someone shows this to MOSS, I'm NOT bashing their product, so stop it.)

There, I'm done. If this isn't an honest description of the AEROCHARGER then I don't know what is.

Thanks for reading."

Kurt Selbert

Performance Buyers Club

AERO-Max Technical Support

"Is there any 45 ci Autorotor failures at lower boost? I think you provided three pulleys, 8 psi, 10 psi and 12 psi. The Autorotor system was intercooled so I equate that to 10psi, 12 psi and 14 psi in an unICed Sebring system. (1.6)

Of all the Sebrings sold I know of only two Eaton failures and both were over 100,000 miles and never had their oil changed or checked. There may be more Eaton failures, these are the two I know.
I come to two conclusions, admitted guesses.
(1)The Eaton is more robust than the Autorotor since they mount in the same position.
(2)Your customers would always buy the 12 psi pulley and spin the bejesus outta their little Autorotor.
Moss has been damned for NOT providing easy boost upgrades for the Sebring. They force safety onto their customers. Your customers don't have that problem, yet they are able to tread too deeply sometimes. The BEGI Autorotor would surely be less trouble for you if it was locked at 6 psi. (note, this isn't a suggestion only observation) " Tom Graham

Why the Autorotors are not sold anymore;
"A variety of reasons: Bad design. Putting a supercharger on top of an exhaust manifold is one of my dumber stunts. Attaching it to cylinder head wasn't all that bright either. We also found that pulleys were a severe durability problem. Could have done better there too. The thing was very expensive to make and margins were slim. Nothing really wrong with the twin screw SC. Clearly, it is the highest science supercharger in the world. Dealing with Opcon Autorotor was a novel experience. Summary: It could be entirely satisfactory, but it needs to be done better. " Corky Bell

"For the most part the Sebring is an install and forget deal. For every person on the SSCOR list (me included) there are ten others who don't want to talk incessantly about their cars and have no problems. I believe that if the install is done by a shop with experience then you can pretty much forget about that supercharger once installed.

Here are some of the problems associated with the Sebring, excuse me, Jackson Racing Supercharger. A lot of them are just nuisances rather than true disasters.

- Shearing of mounting bolts/stripped head threads on mounting bolts on cars without AC and PS.
- Poor idle quality.
- Hesitation/stumbling when you jump on the gas especially under 4k rpm.
- Belt slippage/dust.
- Poor low end performance due to reducing timing to 6 or 8 dBTDC.
- Hood clearance issues.
- Wearing or self-destruction of idler pulleys.
- No way to monitor air/fuel mixture. Rely on factory set AFPR for 1.6 or resistor trick for 1.8.
- Poor electrical connection with supplied electrical connectors. "

Chris Erber – who has lived with and developed a Sebring

"For a 1.6, 12 psi the compressor was spinning under redline at the Miata's redline (1.6). Not too many people ran it at 12 psi on a 1.8, IIRC its redline was reached somewhere around 6.5k rpm" Beau Randall

BBR (who did original 1.6 turbo for Mazda UK) will fit Sebring with their interceptor management;
Supercharger Conversion with software mods (Approx gains: Upto 40% Bhp)
Fitted Price Only -: 3595.00+ V.A.T.
Fitting time : Approximately 7 days

"It was the regular M2 JR kit with standard intake. I even left the MAF in place when toggling over to the TEC-II. But truthfully, I don't think the basic kit is poorly tuned. Considering the limitations of stock ECU tuning, I'm surprised it made such good power with good driveability and didn't knock. It also comes equipped with an ignition trim knob that you can adjust for hot days, traffic, track, etc,. At 4-5psi, stock injectors will operates up to 85-90% duty cycle. There is no additional tuning involved. Just install it and go. It's really quite impressive that JR's sensor manipulation is so transparent. I'm sure it came from a good deal of tweaking and tuning on Oscar's part. Of course, 155rhwp may not be enough for some people ;)"

Tuning with TECII ECU ;

"I found that I need to lean out the mixture above 5700rpm in order to squeeze out the extra power up top. As expected the air/fuel ratio targets had to be leaned out as the revs went up-- no doubt a result of EGT influence. Torque curve was essentially flat from 2500rpm to 7000rpm. I was surprised to see it pull so hard so far up into the revs. With all a/f targets set equal at full boost, the torque curve would fall off early. As for intake temps, they are hot. WOT third gear run would yield 180+F temps. Even at cruise on a 70F night, intake temps never went below 130F. The SC kit is begging for some sort of cold air ducting which would bring intake temps down by at least 50F. But for only 4-5psi, the car is really quite fun. I'm surprised by the amount of timing I can run without knock.

I didn't have much time to do on-the-road TEC tuning. All I did was swap in the 2bar MAP sensor, toggle over to the TEC and run up and down the street (in from of Jackson Racing) a few times. 20 minutes later, we strapped it
on the dyno. First run (with -3 deg of across the board advance) yielded 155rwhp. Next run 160 (added the 3 deg. back in). Next with some top end fuel adjustments, 165rwhp. Nice and rich throughout the entire range. Much
more stable air/fuel control than the stock ECU set up (according to the Dynojet a/f unit). Similar torque curves between the stock ECU set up and the TEC-II. The latter was just higher, a little bit smoother and held up longer into the revs. I did notice that I had to make some adjustments to keep the injectors from going static above 5500rpm. When they did, fuel delivery essentially went from 85% to 100% in a heartbeat, over fueling and
lowering torque in the process. So I had to taper back fuel up top to keep this from happening. Still, if I wasn't injector limited, I would have fattened it up a little more (but less than going static) and bumped up ignition advance a few more degrees. I'm quite sure that it is possible to squeeze out 170rwhp will the low boost JR set up with some good tuning. A free flow exhaust/cat is bound to help as well" Shiv Patak

The early history – it has moved on from here - John and Shirley Pizzuto =J&S Electronics
"Dear Ross:

My name is John Pizzuto. I am the designer of the J&S SafeGuard knock control unit. I finally got internet access last month and started reading the posts on the Miata forum. I see that some people are having trouble
adjusting the sensitivity on the unit. We have been selling to the Miata market since late 1994. I'm distressed that some have apparently disconnected the unit. These are my babies. They are all "designer built" (I solder them
myself). I also read about the "Bipes" mod to the MSD. Since the SafeGuard uses a Motorola 68HC11 micro controller with EEprom, it allows for program modifications.

1) Customer can now specifiy minimum RPM to begin listening. It is presently set at 1250 RPM. I saw in a post from Bill Cardell at Dealer Alternative that 3800 RPM would be his minimum.

2) Help out the knock sensor by taking out some timing before the engine starts knocking. Apparently, it takes more retard to make the ping go away than it does to prevent it in the first place. This phenomenon is called knock hysteresis.

Beginning at 4500 RPM, the new software retards one degree per hundred RPM until a maximum of six degrees is achieved at 5100 RPM if the Mass Air Flow voltage >TBD on a 1.8L, or <TBD on a 1.6L. (TBD means to be determined). This could be specified by the customer, or we could use the existing enable voltages of >2.75 volts for a 1.8L or <0.8 volts for a 1.6L.

The beta version of this was designed for a Subaru Imprezza. I used the throttle position sensor instead of the mass airflow meter. The TPS RPM Retard Enable has a soft turn on. It interpolates the RPM retard amount as the throttle moves between 2.3 volts and 2.5 volts.

case 1: RPM>4500 and TPS<2.3 volts = no RPM retard
case 2: RPM=4600 and TPS>2.5 volts = 1° retard
case 3: RPM=4700 and TPS>2.5 volts = 2° retard
case 4: RPM=4800 and TPS>2.5 volts = 3° retard
case 5: RPM=4900 and TPS>2.5 volts = 4° retard
case 6: RPM=5000 and TPS>2.5 volts = 5° retard
case 7: RPM=5100 and TPS>2.5 volts = 6° retard (max)
case 8: RPM>5100 and 2.3 volts<TPS<2.5 volts = retard varies with throttle from 1° to 6°

3) To prevent over retarding, we can reduce the maximum retard amount per ping from three increments to two increments. In the ten degree range mode, each increment is one degree. In the twenty degree mode, each
increment is two degrees.

If we set aside the specific trip points for now, what do you think of these additions? If you like the idea, what settings would you like to see on your unit?

This should allow users to delete the MSD with Bipes mod, and hopefully smooth out the power curve on the dyno.

"The car was finished only a couple of weeks before R&T showed up and the engineers did not have time to sort out the suspension to bring it back to normal handling. The modified car, with aluminum engine, only weighs 148lbs more than original. The balance was only shifted 1%, from 51/49 to 52/48. The weights were taken by 4 corner weighting with driver and 3/4 tank of gas, before and after. The hood is a good hunk of that weight, it felt like something I would use as a door to a bomb shelter. The car is an engineering demonstration, not a styling exercise. The hood was only done so that they could use the stock LS intake and not have to change the ECU calibration. With some thought, a special intake, and a custom/re-tuned ECU you could go back to the stock hood and maybe use the current little bulge. The only major fabricated parts were (I think I remember) the exhaust, a one inch adapter ring to mate the engine and transmission, a bracket to hold the RX7 differential, and the suspension uprights. The suspension uprights were fabricated because they used the RX7 brakes and half shafts with bearings and they wanted the same wheels all around. With re-splined half shafts I think you could use the stock Miata bits. The RX7 Twin Turbo model transmission was used instead of the Lincoln transmission because the Lincoln gearing was wrong for the rear end and wheels. The RX7 transmission is also longer than the Lincoln unit, which slides some weight rearward. The body was not cut, and the stock stiffening braces were used. The sheet metal by the A/C and P/S pumps was rolled, but they did not have to, as there was enough room. The engine could not be moved back even with cutting the body because of something on the back of one of the heads. Even the radiator was off the shelf, but not Ford's shelf. The radiator came from Flying Miata and fit in the stock location. The tires are 245/35/17 and fit at the stock ride height. The original stock springs, A-arms, and shocks were used. I did not ask if the car started out with the sport suspension or not. Even with the RX7 parts and oversized wheels the front suspension has the same un-sprung weight as stock, and the rear is only 1lb over stock. When I noticed that there was no room on the sides for turbochargers, the driver mentioned that if the intake was reworked a supercharger might fit into the V between the cylinder banks. The engineer was thinking Eaton, I mentioned Lysholm, like the Mazda Millennia or MB AMG C-class. Are you listening Corky? Now the gossip, conjecture, and/or unsubstantiated opinion: The engineer indicated that he and the other engineers were very unhappy with the R&T article because R&T did not use most of the information they provided and weighted the article space to the Japanese car. Rumors circulating in the lower Ford engineering echelons think that Mazda management was unhappy with the American Ford effort. Either because it was stealing thunder from the Mazda factory effort or Mazda management has a "not invented here" mentality. I do not have any sources higher up in either Ford or Mazda to substantiate the cold shoulder this project has suddenly received. I my opinion, R&T may have just editorially cut the article to fit the magazine. I think R&T could have saved the travel money to Japan and just gone to visit Bill Cardell to see an IRTB engine. The Japanese engine looks like a bored out 1.8L with hotter cams and the same crappy cooling system flow that the current car has. The V6 Miata could easily be produced as a low volume model. Maybe Ford could re-badge it as a Lincoln, I think they need another image booster for that line. Or Mazda could follow the Porsche route and drop the power steering, A/C, power windows, etc. and sell it as a special sports model for the same price, or higher, as a fully loaded Miata special edition. This is first Miata engine swap that I have seen that I would want to do. If there are any Ford engineers who want to correct me on anything I have stated, contact me off list and I will provide a correction. I do not want to get anyone in trouble by identifying my source. Or just email me if you know what is going to happen to the car when Ford is done with it."

..and more

The Ford Advanced Powertrain Development V6 Miata came to Waterford Hills Race Course last Friday (08/24/01) as part of the continuing development of the car. I had an opportunity to discuss the car in more detail with the two development engineers who built the project and inspected the car during its brief driver rest stops. I have been corrected that the front to rear balance I stated originally as 51/49 to 52/48 with a 3/4 tank and driver was really taken with only ¼ tank and no driver. The balance of the original car was 50.5/49.5 with a full tank of gas, so it helps your balance to have a full tank (duh). The latest balance numbers, after some additional weight savings made in the last couple of weeks, are 50.9/49.1 also with a full tank. The weight saving changes in the last few weeks included an aluminum driveshaft and some simplification of the cooling system and underhood area. The current car weights about 2650, including the test and calibration equipment.

The wheels on the car for R&T were 17X7.5 Borbets with 215/40 tires. They were replaced by 17X8 SSR Integrals with 225/35 front and 245/35 rear P7000's. The current combination is worth about 10lbs per corner, which with the aluminum uprights and aluminum RX-7 calipers, is how the un-sprung weight got back to stock. The objective of this Advanced Powertrain Development project was to provide Ford/Mazda with a working prototype that could be put into production using as many parts from existing Ford/Mazda parts bins as possible. The Ford 3.0L Duratec engine was chosen over the 2.5L K-Series Mazda because it is smaller, more powerful, and lighter. The Duratec engine is currently used in both FWD and RWD cars so issues of oil drainage and coolant routing were avoided. In its current configuration the engine uses a dual tract intake giving it two torque peaks.

In the hands of some people the stock transmission and differential has held up in turbo applications with more than the 200 to 220hp of the stock Duratec engine. However, it has also broken at these elevated horsepower and torque amounts, in the hands of others, and the Duratec engine does have

plenty of torque. The RX-7 Twin Turbo (TT) transmission and differential were chosen, because in this application they are well within their strength. Options like the Borg-Warner T5 transmission and T-Bird rear end were rejected because they are not in the current production Mazda parts bin

and the TT stuff is. After all the LHD RX-7 is still sold in Japan, and maybe in a few other LHD countries. The only part that Mazda would have to get from outside is the engine, and considering the engines that Mazda sells to Ford, it might do a little to help the US balance of trade. And after all, it is still in the same family. The car was on the track most of the day. The car went out with every group and must have put 100+ laps on it. I did not get an idea how many miles were put on the odometer. Waterford Hills is a short tight track with only two short straights. It is a major workout on suspension, brakes, and handling without giving an advantage to fast cars. Since this event was a drivers' training day, passing was allowed only on the straights after being waved by. Nobody was timing laps. Only Ford engineers got to drive the car, however a couple of things were evident from watching. The V6 Miata could easily manage most of the track in third gear using the wide torque band of its dual tract intake. I am sure the car is capable of more, however it was being held in check since this was not a race, the car was on its first extended testing, and the drivers wanted to return the car whole. The car had no problem keeping up with any of the other cars. The car does not have much understeer on turn-in, but that is hard to tell without a steering wheel in your hands. The car does have plenty of power-on oversteer when dropped into second gear in a corner. The exhaust note sounds great from its dual exhaust. I understand it took four iterations to get the exhaust to sound right. The car did suffer a couple of minor problems. A loose front A-arm cam bolt, that may have caused heavy steering when braking, and a dead starter. I understand the starter is only about 1/2in from an exhaust header and it may require a heat shield. The only down side to having this engine in the Miata is that the other current uses of the 3.0L engine (Taurus, Lincoln LS, and Jaguar Type-S) do not have any after-market support. Of course, how many of the go fast parts of the Mazda 323GTX carried over to the Miata when it was first introduced. The owners (and markets) of those other cars might benefit from having a Miata lead the way. Now a tuner Lincoln LS with a manual transmission might attract someone younger than 70. A real upside would be a car that starts at a higher level of performance than now. I can settle for 200+hp and wait until the after-market catches up. After all, I had my '91 for 6 years before I put a turbocharger into it and the improvements have not stopped since." Richard Murray

Dressed dry engine mass/weight for the Ford 3.0L Duratec engine is 164.3kg/362.28lbs as used in the Lincoln LS. The same for the K-Series is 215kg/474lbs as used in the Ford Probe. The K-Series engine does not have a RWD application." Richard Murray

One in Australia

"The block and head are made of aluminum alloy. Pictures of SR20DE can be found on www.sr20de.net. It's basically the NA version of SR20DET. Block is the same from outside, but internals are different. 8.5:1 CR, and the valve cover comes in either red or black -- as compared to non-painted valve cover on NA engines. As a side note, SR20DET is such a strong engine. However, it is prone to spun bearings. I would highly recommend replacing the rod bearings before anything else. 250lbs for engine and box?

Initially I got quite a lot of variance between cylinders and so I was worried.

#1 110psi

#2 120 psi

#3 150 psi

#4 100 psi

After adding oil to the crankcase and turning the engine over for 60 seconds or so I got

#1 140psi

#2 148 psi

#3 148 psi

#4 135 psi

I got these figures repeatedly (4 or 5 times). I don't know how high a reading you should get with an 8.5CR, but these are close enough together to make me quit worrying about a problem.

Thanks to all who helped set me straight. This is the SR20DET engine. Richard noticed that the throttle body is lower than the Miata and we surmise there will not be a lot of clearance between it and the "shelf" that protrudes on the passenger side of the engine compartment. Took another look at the Silvia 6 speed. Yes it is the same tranny, BUT there is a different bell housing and tail piece. Theirs does not have a provision for a PPF. So if you were to use the bell housing off the Silvia on your Miata 6 speed you could retain the PPF.

Ashton Smith, Richard Murray and I put an SR20DET in a 91(?) Miata Tuesday evening. The engine is an all alloy, 2.0 liter, turbo'd Nissan 205 hp 4 cylinder and you can buy them for under $2,000 with engine, tranny, complete wiring harness, ecu, shipping, etc. It had a shipping weight of 250 pounds (I still haven't had time to take it down and get a better weight) I must say the engine went in a little easier than I expected and all the areas we expected to be big problems weren't. The throttle body cleared. The larger bell housing wasn't an issue. The turbo fit well and the sub frame wasn't as big a prob as expected. The throttle body sits lower than the Miata's so we thought the "shelf" than runs around the engine compartment would hit. It was close, but there was still plenty of room. There was also plenty of room for the slightly larger bell housing. The "shelf" on the driver's side wasn't even close to the turbo, but it would interfere with the O2 sensor if you used the stock cast iron down pipe. Since the stock DP has a very wicked almost 90 degree bend you would want to replace it with a nice S shaped down pipe for a few more horsepower and a relocated O2.

The "shelf" would probably need to be slightly notched on the passenger side firewall about 4" from the end to clear the back of the intake manifold. The sway bar was in the way, but I'm told the 94 and up bar sits about 1/2 inch further forward so should clear. If we had had the room and the time a much simpler way to put it in would have been to drop the sub frame a few inches, put the engine in and then tighten the sub frame back. It did appear that the front of the engine might create clearance issues with the hood. We couldn't be sure because we couldn't get the engine all the way into the engine compartment without a modified sub frame. The engine could have easily sat 2-3" (maybe more) lower with a modified sub frame. You would need to modify the sub frame somewhat, but Ashton said it wouldn't be that big of an issue. The oil pan would also need to be worked on. The stock pan has the deep reservoir in the front of the engine not the rear as the Miata engine. Amazingly enough it appeared that with only a slight modification of the shape of the rear of the reservoir it would allow the oil pan to sit right in front of the steering rack. Since the reservoir is only 2" deep it might could just be flattened out without any major issues. I haven't had the time to pull the oil pan yet either to see what kind of issues you would have with the pick up system, but it doesn't appear to be a major operation. The oil pan is a 2 piece unit. I am sure there is more info I have forgotten. Ask questions and surely one of us will remember. All in all it appears to be a viable alternative and doesn't appear to require major fabrication. I think most people could do it in the garage in a couple of weekends. You would keep the Miata ecu and use the Nissan ecu just for the engine. Then you'd have one of those fancy parallel processor situations that Shiv is so enamored of. : ) Jim Wolf has a performance chip for the ecu. Except for the work, the engine & tranny is cheaper than a turbo kit and since you would use the factory ecu and a chip it wouldn't require constant fiddling to produce reliable power. Even if you had a third party install the engine I think you could come out for no more than the price of a turbo and install. Of course if you decided you wanted serious power you are back to the fiddling process. This engine has a lot of after market support. I have the S14 version, but there is an S15 version of this engine that comes with a BB turbo, 20 more hp and the same 6 speed as the Miata. All you would have to do is swap out the tails shaft and the PPF would hook right up." David Bennet