walight01

your probably right, but in his dyno results he just said it seems that you need all the pieces to make it work, but he didn't explain how in gr8 detail

ZoomZoomH

here read this, this is his actual install write-up of the FS-ZE intake manifold.

http://www.protegeclub.com/forum/sho...=fsze+manifold

btw this is a great example of how to write a thorough how-to page of a mod, everyone that has something useful to contribute should follow the same way edwin documented his modifications

Installshield

Justin can you post the time slips?

It could be a slew of problems. Clutch hasn't seated yet, bad tires for the weather and that the track itself is colder...Or worse, your port and polish is poorly done and cuased you to loose power with the current engine setup...

I don't see a big issue though...I know it sucks when you spend a lot of money and get worse performance, but the only thing that is going to give you initial power over your first runs would be the cams...The port/polish would give 1 or 2whp on a stock FS I would think. the valve springs will only perfrom there function better which is only lift the valves back into their seats. The biggest benefit I would think would be reduced valve float, which is not a problem on a stock FS. So the valve springs wouldn't give you much in terms of power. So that won't blow your times into sub 16's (or 17's for that matter) and a estimate on the pair of cams would be around 10whp...

The conditions were completely different between the before and after runs...If you can take the car to a chassis dyno and compare it to a stock MP3 it would give you a much better idea on whether it is track/condition/driving related or power related...

Also what were your 60ft times? I have seen people on more than one occasion gut their quarter mile times after installing a clutch and flywheel. If you are not used to luanching with it, the lighter flywheel and crazy clutch just burn the tires longer than you think, resulting in longer 60ft times despite feeling ultra powerful compared to stock...

Finally where are you getting the extra torque? what does it feel like? All of your mods -flywheel are more benefitial to high end power...The cams help bump the power band up a little, even without the manifold though not as much...Are you launching at a higher rpm?

TheMAN

part of the issue is more drag/rotational force required to actuate the valvetrain now because of the stiffer valve springs... they are UNNECESSARY for the jspec cams AND stock redline... basically, you lose power trying to turn the cams... also it doesn't matter what intake manifold you have... since you didn't port your IM, they are NOT port matched, which causes for unoptimal flow rates

b_real45

I agree that there could be many many things going on. Try posting all of your timeslips (old and new). I agree with "TheMAN" in that stiffer springs might actually have a negative effect on a basically stock car. But, I don't think not portmatching the intake manifold would have a negative effect because the ports on the head would be larger than the runners on the intake manifold.. no restriction since air is flowing from small (runners) to big (port on head).

I would definitely get it dyno'd just to see what your hp and tq curves look like. Also might want to see if the lines are smooth and don't give any hint of pings. Are you running on the highest octane gas to eliminate bad gas as a problem?

JustinMP3

my intake manafold is port matched so thats not an issue. Maybe i feel like there is more tourque becuase of the lighter fly wheel. I am sorry i cant find my old time slip but my new 60 foots where about 2.6 to 2.7 my brother got the best 60 ft at 2.5 but also had the worst 1/4 time at 18.3 missed second. The port and pollish looked real good and felt nice but the valve holes look stock size is that right??? the springs are costom from a turbo toyota of some sorts. at about 5000 to 6000 rpms i feel like she spits a bit real quick like there is a flat spot in the curve (understand???) and i have been on 93 octain for about 2 weeks now. so this should be everything. and it feels like it pulls lots harder in the higher rpms than it used to.

b_real45

Wow... those 2.5-2.7 60' times are just terrible! You should be able to pull 2.2-2.3 on street tires. My best in my old Saturn was a 2.34 and it was my second time at the track.

Maxx Mazda

I agree with Edwin (for once!) You're losing SO much power trying to move the valvetrain, and it's unnessicary! Get NOS and maybe you'll be back to where you were before...

paulmp3

You said you have been on 93 octane for 3 weeks, i think i remeber reading that if you go to a lower octane the ecu resets the advanced timing with the MP3. So when going from 87 to 93 octane you need to reset your ECU to get the advanced timming of the MP3.

turbo8765

It's virtually impossible to make a usefull comparison without knowing 60ft, E.T., and MPH in the context of temp, humidity, and barometric pressure. Losing or gaining a few tenths in the first 60ft can make a suprising difference at the end of the run.

Comparing MPH before and after the mods will elimanate some of the driver/launch related issues associated with E.T. Did you gain MPH? How much? MPH is a somewhat better indicator of HP.

If you're running 2.6-2.7 60's, you need to learn how to launch the car. I've run a variety of different FWDs I've never run that slow. Suspension setup can have a huge effect on 60ft and therefore ET.

Clearly, stiffer valve springs, in the absence of any other mods, will result in a loss of power. Why were the valve springs upgraded? Do you plan on shifting a much higher RPMs where valve float would be likely with stock springs? Are the J-spec cams that agreesive? Do you know the specs of the stock vs J-spec cams?

Head work is truly an art. It is quite possible that the work that was done may have resulted in a loss of power.

Installshield

they simply have longer duration...So they are no more aggressive, as far as lift, compared to stock...

Maxx Mazda

I thought the lift was a little higher...

walight01

they are SLIGHTLY more aggressive than stock, but not much

Maxx Mazda

Thought so...

P5Mike

Something to think about. With all other things being equal, a lighten flywheel will cause you to lose torque. It will allow the engine to spin up faster and will show some top end HP gains, torque is what gets the car moving. Since the Protege's don't have a lot of torque (135 ft lbs. IIRC), decreasing this is going to make you overall 1/4 mile time slower. You may be making more HP at the end of the 1/4 but not enough to over come the loss at the beginning. Now if you had 250 ft lbs to start with, losing 10 or 15 may not show that much difference but with 135 to start with, losing that much makes a noticable difference.

Here is an example of torque. I had the following cars and ran 1/8 mile drags with both of them.

92 Z28 Camaro with 5.7L
Rated 245 HP, 345 Ft Lbs TQ
Weight = approx 3600#'s

00 BMW M Coupe
Rated 240 HP, 235 Ft Lbs TQ
Weight = approx 3100#'s

1/8 mile info:
Camaro 60'= 2.3 to 2.4, 9.4 to 9.5 @ approx 79 mph
M Coupe 60' 2.3 to 2.4, 9.6 to 9.7 @ approx 82 mph

As you can see, even though the Camaro weight was approx 500#'s more with the extra 110 Ft Lbs, it ran quicker. The M Coupe ran quicker through the top end due to less weight when torque is not a critical.

I hope this helps explain TQ versus HP. Remember this old saying, "Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races!" L8R