|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 611
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 611 |
The piping in this kit looks fairly small would this restrict the power output? What size piping would be optimal for a 3L setup? It looks like 2-2.5" piping and if you went larger I doubt it would even fit around the back of the engine.
1999 3.0L Cougar: 220fwhp and 200tq
2003 VW Passat W8 with 4 Motion AWD
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/300644
PM for intrest in 3L SVT Contours, 3L swaps into your current car, Prepped 3L engines, or anything 3L related.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,336
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,336 |
2.5" is plenty large ... optimal would probably be 2.25"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by fastcougar:
2.5" is plenty large ... optimal would probably be 2.25"
You are absolutely correct. This is yet another great example of the bigger is rarely better philosophy. The larger the piping the more "lag" time and psi drop because the compressor has to pressurize a significantly greater volume of air PER INCH of piping.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,695
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,695 |
2.5" according to most of what i've read is good for about 450hp or so worth of air.
Another things to consider are your transitions for your tubing... you should always have as gradual a transition if you can (within reason) when changing tubing size... or going from your compressor outlet to the proper inlet tract tubing size.
04 Subaru WRX "Eurosport bling bling fast and furious tokyo drift"
"They have diarrhea of the mouth, and constipation of thought"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,860
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,860 |
450hp at what temperature?
2001 Lincoln LS8
1994 Lexus GS300
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,695
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,695 |
Originally posted by Keyser:
450hp at what temperature?
Sure... now you're gonna make me look crap up and question my memory...
04 Subaru WRX "Eurosport bling bling fast and furious tokyo drift"
"They have diarrhea of the mouth, and constipation of thought"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,860
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,860 |
Well this is a non intercooled system and you are relating hp to the diameter of the pipe. I just think that temperature is relevant to conversation. It goes back to 2.25 being large enough. Large enough for how many cfm at the 190 temperature that blower will put out? We would need a mad scientist like Warmonger to figure it out.
2001 Lincoln LS8
1994 Lexus GS300
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,695
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,695 |
Well using the general calculation of 1.5 x hp for cfm for the engine and using corky bells thoughts that you don't want the air velocity to be great than mach .4 as since at that point, according to bell, the drag and flow losses increase greatly.
So if we do some math.. again with the 1.5x hp which will be a little low actually since you'd need more volume of a less dense air... anyway.
So if we go to the limit with 450 hp worth of air you're looking at around a 2.25" OD tube at 450 f/s (Mach .4). So to give yourself a little breathing room 2.5 should easily flow fine for 450hp.
Now say we are using this kit on a decent 2.5L and say we're making about 275 at the crank. For a velocity of 450 f/s you're looking at about a 1.75" OD tube (say 16 gauge wall).
So now let's look at a temp of 190 for outlet temp and an ambient temp of 78 for the 1.5 x hp rule (I figure that's close to what they're thinking and i'm too lazy to check). So say the density ratio of the outlet to what we'd consider ambient is 1.18. So using that let's say that instead of 1.5 x 275 we use 1.5x275x1.18 for cfm. If we do that we're looking at only about a 2" OD tube (16 gauge again).
So anyway.. rough math... with this non-intercooled system i'd say 2" OD should be fine although 2.25" would give you a little breathing room and shouldn't kill you with "lag".
Now I hope someone appreciates this... and I used 275 for crank because I didn't feel like looking up what the original post said for power and 275 seemed like a good number.
04 Subaru WRX "Eurosport bling bling fast and furious tokyo drift"
"They have diarrhea of the mouth, and constipation of thought"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 79
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 79 |
Originally posted by WRX Barge:
Well using the general calculation of 1.5 x hp for cfm for the engine and using corky bells thoughts that you don't want the air velocity to be great than mach .4 as since at that point, according to bell, the drag and flow losses increase greatly.
So if we do some math.. again with the 1.5x hp which will be a little low actually since you'd need more volume of a less dense air... anyway.
So if we go to the limit with 450 hp worth of air you're looking at around a 2.25" OD tube at 450 f/s (Mach .4). So to give yourself a little breathing room 2.5 should easily flow fine for 450hp.
Now say we are using this kit on a decent 2.5L and say we're making about 275 at the crank. For a velocity of 450 f/s you're looking at about a 1.75" OD tube (say 16 gauge wall).
So now let's look at a temp of 190 for outlet temp and an ambient temp of 78 for the 1.5 x hp rule (I figure that's close to what they're thinking and i'm too lazy to check). So say the density ratio of the outlet to what we'd consider ambient is 1.18. So using that let's say that instead of 1.5 x 275 we use 1.5x275x1.18 for cfm. If we do that we're looking at only about a 2" OD tube (16 gauge again).
So anyway.. rough math... with this non-intercooled system i'd say 2" OD should be fine although 2.25" would give you a little breathing room and shouldn't kill you with "lag".
Now I hope someone appreciates this... and I used 275 for crank because I didn't feel like looking up what the original post said for power and 275 seemed like a good number.
Dim be sum big werdz feller
Maybe if I understood you it would make more sense. But from a "I don't know [censored] stand point" that was a very good post and informative to us all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
