|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Is there any difference in engine durability between an intercooled and a non-intercooled FI setup, at the same horsepower?
Intuitively I would think that there'd be very little difference in pressure or temperature after ignition, which is when all the stress is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
non-intercooled "boost" is far more detonation prone than intercooled "boost" for a given pressure level on a given engine.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by Paul Kienitz:
Is there any difference in engine durability between an intercooled and a non-intercooled FI setup, at the same horsepower?
Intuitively I would think that there'd be very little difference in pressure or temperature after ignition, which is when all the stress is.
Ha!
Difference???? Absolutely none, nope no difference. I'd really know about that one.
 
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676 |
Tom ran around here in Texas with a non ic'ed 3Ltc for like 5 years before it gave him ANY trouble  hehe, just giving you a hard time, dude, Tom, there's someone from Kileen, TX looking for you in the southcentral forums, I told 'em you might be around for a bit. . .  Off the topic, are you still planning a July 4th weekend thing up there??? If it's fridayish, I might convince the misses to come up, or maybe I could convince her that I "need" to go to Kileen for a bit, check your baby out, now that's she's purrin' nice and sweet. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165 |
Originally posted by Paul Kienitz:
Intuitively I would think that there'd be very little difference in pressure or temperature after ignition, which is when all the stress is.
But colder intake temps will help you better control WHEN ignition happens. Hotter air (which happens when you compress it) will ignite easier. If it is igniting too soon, then you will have problems with detonation, which will definatly affect durability.
Contour--It will make a master mechanic out of you!
95 LX MTX Bolt-ons
95 Neon SOHC ATX
77 Dodge Powerwagon-more displacement than my Neon, Contour, and wife's Saturn---combined!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
On Friday night there is a Test-n-Tune and an import shootout. However, they wont let me race in the import shootout because I have a Ford So that means I have to race the tricked out mustangs, camaro's and firebirds...meaning I'll loose. They have a fun-n-grudge match on Saturday that I think is bracket racing, but I'm checking to make sure. If that is the case, anyone with consistent times could possibly win. That would work out well for me since Friday is the 4th and I don't think I'd get a big turnout because of it. I don't mind either night, but lets talk to people and see which night is preferable.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
So if I apply non-intercooled boost to an engine with a compression ratio of 11.5, I'll have to use 129 octane fuel.
Maybe a mix of methanol and diesel would work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
So how much does an intercooler add to the cost?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Depends on what it costs for you to buy it.  A streetflight unit will probably run you ~$800 for everything. It's worth it though, you could spend $800 on mods for your car and not get as much power as you would from the denser air provided by the intercooler. Ever drive your car on a cool morning and then drive it on a hot afternoon the same day? Notice how much more powerfull it was in the morning? Thats denser air, just what an intercooler will do for you. People will talk all the talk about bigger filters and MAF's and whatever, but ask anyone and they'll always agree that a cool morning probably yields better results than a warm day with all those mods.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
On Friday night there is a Test-n-Tune and an import shootout. However, they wont let me race in the import shootout because I have a Ford
So that means I have to race the tricked out mustangs, camaro's and firebirds...meaning I'll loose.
They have a fun-n-grudge match on Saturday that I think is bracket racing, but I'm checking to make sure. If that is the case, anyone with consistent times could possibly win.
That would work out well for me since Friday is the 4th and I don't think I'd get a big turnout because of it.
I don't mind either night, but lets talk to people and see which night is preferable.
Put a temporary Mondeo badge on it on race nights  .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
better yet, just badge it as some honda type-r Si TRD mungen that you imported.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
NOt a bad Idea, but I emailed the fools in charge of the track and they basically said all Jap car names. I hate it when people just can't think out of the box.  The perfect example is at Whataburger the other day: I wanted their new oreo cookie shake, but I also wanted their new Butterfinger flavored shake. Big Dilemma!  I also like them mixed, then I get the best of both worlds!  So I said, can you mix it for me. The lady said no, we can't do that.  I said, just use a half scoop from one and a half scoop from the other, then you aren't giving any away. She said, No, we can't do that sir. (She's the shift manager too!)  I made some comment about it's easy, take the scoop measure half, etc. then I grumbled a bit, ordered the Oreo flavored shake and sat down to wait. When my wife came in to meet me, I grumbled Loudly about narrow-mindedness. Nothing like good customer service to keep you coming back eh? The cool thing is when the young kid who was working behind the counter brought the shake he said, Don't worry about it sir, I made the shake and I just threw another scoop in and mixed it for you. I was thinking, Right On Dude! End of story.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 51
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 51 |
800 sounds really good for such a intercooler kit produced in such low volume. I paid that much for my Greedy, I mean Greddy intercooler, and I got a deal!
Peter
98 MTX V6 SE Sport
05 RSX-S
and a Turbo MR2
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
$800? It sounds soooo much cheaper to just add two more pounds of boost instead...  Okay I have another question. If one is going to lower one's compression ratio with a thick head gasket, is there a selection of thicknesses available so you can pick how much you want to lower it? Who sells them? Presumably lowering the CR would solve the detonation problem, no?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165 |
Originally posted by Paul Kienitz:
$800? It sounds soooo much cheaper to just add two more pounds of boost instead...
Boost (and power) cost money. It depends on how long you want your engine to last. An intercooler will help your engine last longer, and let you run more boost. Is it necessary? No, but it gives you a saftey window. The cheapest Zetec I've found around here is $600.
Originally posted by Paul Kienitz:
Okay I have another question. If one is going to lower one's compression ratio with a thick head gasket, is there a selection of thicknesses available so you can pick how much you want to lower it?
Who sells them?
Presumably lowering the CR would solve the detonation problem, no?
I don't know of any being sold, but I am sure your local machine shop will make one for you. As a ball park figure, I would make it 3x as thick as the stock head gasket, but don't quote me on that. Lower compression will help with detonation. The most important thing is proper tuning. You can get away with a lot of boost with few mods, or you can blow your $5000 engine up in 30mi. I have been casually researching turbos for a couple of years and the more I know, the more I realize I don't know. 
Contour--It will make a master mechanic out of you!
95 LX MTX Bolt-ons
95 Neon SOHC ATX
77 Dodge Powerwagon-more displacement than my Neon, Contour, and wife's Saturn---combined!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713 |
Do your research, Paul. Adding un-cooled boost will increase your risk of detonation. Unless you like rebuilding your engine all the time, I'd suggest getting the intercooler from the get-go.
My .02
Derek
Scion xB 5-spd
Previous: 2000 Silver Frost SVT
Please share the road with cyclists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by Derk2000:
Do your research, Paul. Adding un-cooled boost will increase your risk of detonation. Unless you like rebuilding your engine all the time, I'd suggest getting the intercooler from the get-go.
My .02
You can say that again!
Originally posted by Derk2000:
Do your research, Paul. Adding un-cooled boost will increase your risk of detonation. Unless you like rebuilding your engine all the time, I'd suggest getting the intercooler from the get-go.
My .02
You can say that again!
Originally posted by Derk2000:
Do your research, Paul. Adding un-cooled boost will increase your risk of detonation. Unless you like rebuilding your engine all the time, I'd suggest getting the intercooler from the get-go.
My .02
You can say that again!
Just so you get the point.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732 |
Russell
Oval Port 3L Nearly Done
MTX75 w/ Homebrew Zetec FD and Torsen Complete
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025 |
Originally posted by Russell:
can my stock motor hold up to 50 psi of non-intercooled boost?
haha, yeah that T-28 should provide more than enough. 
Jim Hahn
1996 T-Red Contour SE Reborn 4/6/04
3.0L swap and Arizona Dyno Chip Turbo Kit
364 whp, 410 wtq @ 4,700 rpm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732 |
Originally posted by beyondloadedSE:
Originally posted by Russell:
can my stock motor hold up to 50 psi of non-intercooled boost?
haha, yeah that T-28 should provide more than enough.
i was thinking a quad turbo setup, i can store the turbos in the passenger seat
Russell
Oval Port 3L Nearly Done
MTX75 w/ Homebrew Zetec FD and Torsen Complete
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 972
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 972 |
This is getting rediculous! To get 50psi, why don't you just get a 20mm throttle body?
How about twin turbos? Just hook the turbines up to the wheels. that way your speed would be dependent on rmps and you could get rid of the tranny all together. That would reduce weight too.
95 SE Modded - Gone
98 E0 Black SVT - Gone
98 se sport - Broken
00 T-Red SVT - Nice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 495
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 495 |
Non-Intercooled has more chance of detonation since the air going into the engine is hotter than on a intercooled setup. We're talking over 200F air temps going into your engine. Intercooled the air temps could be as low a 20F over ambient air temps.
So just upping the boost would be cheaper than getting an intercooler, you could only up it a few psi and dyno tune it to get the proper A/F and timing retard so the engine would survive.
On a stock Zetec you could only run around 8 psi non-interooled and even do that only with a properly tuned fuel and timing. Intercooled you could run up to 15 psi,I'm hoping anyway, and the air temps would be the same at 8psi all the way to 15. And you'll see more power at the same boost intercooled vs non intercooled.
Soon as I go to Streetflight, I'll let you know just how much a stock Zetec can take.
2000 Rio Red I4 Cougar
200whp & 210wtq at 9psi
254whp & 276wtq with NX 35shot
WRX TD04 Turbo, Cut Short Shifter, Strut Tower Bar, 17" ZN Wheels, Roush Springs, Starion Intercooler, NX 35 shot, HKS SS BOV, Full 3" exhaust,StreetFlight Chip
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by Oeneus:
Originally posted by Paul Kienitz:
$800? It sounds soooo much cheaper to just add two more pounds of boost instead...
Boost (and power) cost money. It depends on how long you want your engine to last. An intercooler will help your engine last longer, and let you run more boost.
"Let you run more boost"? How? What I'm getting from the other replies is that the only real difference it makes at a given power level (for a given total air mass packed into the cylinder, that is) is the detonation issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 495
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 495 |
More boost=more heat, more chance of it detonating and blowing up your engine. Exactly how much boost depends on your engine's compression ratio, gas octane, timing, etc...
Allows you to run more power cause the cooler air charge allows you to cram more air into a given volume at the same psi vs hot air. More air+more fuel=more power.
2000 Rio Red I4 Cougar
200whp & 210wtq at 9psi
254whp & 276wtq with NX 35shot
WRX TD04 Turbo, Cut Short Shifter, Strut Tower Bar, 17" ZN Wheels, Roush Springs, Starion Intercooler, NX 35 shot, HKS SS BOV, Full 3" exhaust,StreetFlight Chip
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732 |
Originally posted by The Ripper:
This is getting rediculous! To get 50psi, why don't you just get a 20mm throttle body?
How about twin turbos? Just hook the turbines up to the wheels. that way your speed would be dependent on rmps and you could get rid of the tranny all together. That would reduce weight too.
i was just kidding
Russell
Oval Port 3L Nearly Done
MTX75 w/ Homebrew Zetec FD and Torsen Complete
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
Too much boost = blown head gasket 
I was toying with a Honda on my way to work last Friday...it sounded something like this:
squeel, vroom, whoosh, shift, squeel, vroom, whoosh, POP!, sputter, shake, puke, silence.
Good thing is I've gotten good at changing head gaskets. Took me about 4 hours to do the whole job .
Running at 21psi, I was just asking for trouble. It was way out of the stock turbo's effiency and was just super-heating the air. Turned it down to 18psi after the head gasket and it feels just as fast if not faster.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by Seawulf:
Allows you to run more power cause the cooler air charge allows you to cram more air into a given volume at the same psi vs hot air. More air+more fuel=more power.
I know, that's why I specified at the same power, or the same air mass, not at the same PSI.
For context, I should mention that I'm only thinking about moderate boost levels, as I have no intention of indulging in new engine internals or a stronger tranny.
I'm still not convinced that spending $800 on an intercooler is the most cost-effective way to handle detonation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
There really isn't a more effective way.
What do you think really?
Water injection? Its a bandaid mostly and the water takes up room in the combustion chamber that could be filled with air and fuel. Combustion temps are also down and that helps to a large degree for detonation but less temp means less power. It still doesn't really increase the density of the air charge that much either. Less power, but safer than stock.
Well I can always pull more timing...
well yes you can but that causes exhaust temps to go up which heat the compressor side more which causes you to pull more timing...etc. Vicious little circle and it LOSES power everytime you pull it. Whats the gain there? Better to run less boost and more timing for a more responsive, powerful and fuel efficient motor.
Here's the secret to power -> MAX air and FUEL!!!
That leaves you with only two options:
1.) raise the boost to force more in -> Good if you intercool it to keep charge density up and detonation down.
2.) raise the amount of air going in at the same pressure -> this basically means to open up the size of the intake passages and exhaust; raise displacement or a combination of all three.
#2 is the best way but costs the most. Much more than an $800+ intecooler system.
#1 is good if the efficiency range of the turbo is observed.
#1 and #2 is great if you observe all factors.
So how is $800 too expensive? With a turbo it can net you anywhere from 20 to 50 more HP! That is the best bang for the buck mod if you are already turbocharged. Hell, a good set of headers and exhaust on our cars MIGHT make 20-30HP or so... For about the same price if not more, + labor is more for the headers.
Ok, I've said my piece.
Tom
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
There really isn't a more effective way.
There are a few options you haven't discussed here, like compression ratio, and for that matter fuel octane.
Originally posted by warmonger:
Well I can always pull more timing...
well yes you can but that causes exhaust temps to go up which heat the compressor side more which causes you to pull more timing...etc.
This assumes that I'm planning to use a turbo. I'm not.
Originally posted by warmonger:
So how is $800 too expensive? With a turbo it can net you anywhere from 20 to 50 more HP!
20 to 50 more than what? If I'm sticking with stock internals and tranny, the upper limit on power is already set in advance. If an intercooled turbo can get 250 HP and a non-intercooled compressor can only give me 200, what does it matter if I'm limited to 200 anyway by the tranny? My only concern is with what's the affordable way to get to around 200. Lots of people run single-digit amounts of boost without intercoolers and don't die of detonation, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Quote:
There are a few options you haven't discussed here, like compression ratio, and for that matter fuel octane.
Compression ratio? YOu think changing compression ratio is cost effective? Do you think its a little dial on the dash? COme on, besides, you said:
Quote:
as I have no intention of indulging in new engine internals or a stronger tranny.
Continuing
Quote:
This assumes that I'm planning to use a turbo. I'm not.
And what do you plan on using? a bag of day old muffins? Any otto cycle combustion engine (among others), will run higher exhaust temps as you decrease engine timing, more of the combustion is happening later in the cycle, this can actually get bad enough to "burn" an exhaust valve, or even melt a header in extreme cases. On the high dynamic compression ratio of a forced induction engine, proper timing becomes critical, too much brings detonation, too little brings EGT's to hotter than the flames of hell.
Quote:
20 to 50 more than what? If I'm sticking with stock internals and tranny, the upper limit on power is already set in advance.
If you are honestly that concerned about a given power level, you really shouldn't consider increasing the power level over stock. No, I am NOT kidding. The stock powertrain components are designed to handle the, gasp, stock, power levels, not ones from a boosted application. Now, by the grace of god, and the existence of design factor of safety, we can get away with some power increases on stock components, for awhile. Increased power over stock, by any amount, will increase loading and wear on all critical and non-critical components leading to failure earlier than originally designed for. This is the EXACT reason why increasing power on a vehicle by any more than a very small amount (say 10% or so) WILL get your powertrain warranty voided rather quickly, and sometimes other parts of the warranty as well.
Quote:
If an intercooled turbo can get 250 HP and a non-intercooled compressor can only give me 200, what does it matter if I'm limited to 200 anyway by the tranny?
Intercooling will decrease temperatures in the intake charge, ultimately reducing exhaust temps by the same amount, allowing for a better tune, including more optimized fuel maps (read better fuel economy for the same power, and better emissions) and timing maps (smoother running, less prone to detonation without increasing exhaust temps further) For someone so concerned about durability of your trans, you don't seem to care about the life of your engine very much.
Quote:
My only concern is with what's the affordable way to get to around 200.
If you wanna play, you gotta pay. In all honesty, if what you want is more, and reliable power, sell your car and buy one that has more power stock. Your priorities are out of whack, you are terribly concerned about the amount of hp to go through your trans, and are ready to sacrifice the life of your motor to do it.
Quote:
Lots of people run single-digit amounts of boost without intercoolers and don't die of detonation, right?
Yup, and most of those throw in copius amounts of excess fuel to cool the intake charge (sort of like water injection). Most OEM's lean on this one heavily for factory forced induction vehicles; you should see the A/F curve for an 03 Cobra at WOT, its pretty fat, and that car even HAS an intercooler. But you can rest assured they are addressing the issue in some manner, even if it isn't the right way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by Rara:
Compression ratio? YOu think changing compression ratio is cost effective? Do you think its a little dial on the dash?
My compression ratio has already been changed once, I half expect to have to do something about it anyway even if I don't go FI. Is a gasket such a big deal??
Octane must come into this somewhere.
Originally posted by Rara:
On the high dynamic compression ratio of a forced induction engine, proper timing becomes critical, too much brings detonation, too little brings EGT's to hotter than the flames of hell.
And the degree of this problem is proportional to how much excess you're stuffing into it, right? So the more ambitious you are with your power goals, the tighter that squeeze would be, not so?
Originally posted by Rara:
If you are honestly that concerned about a given power level, you really shouldn't consider increasing the power level over stock. No, I am NOT kidding.
Great, you just invalidated most of the serious NA modders on CEG. Who limits themselves to 10% gains around here?
Originally posted by Rara:
For someone so concerned about durability of your trans, you don't seem to care about the life of your engine very much.
All I know is that people keep telling me that a tour ATX is way more at risk above 200 HP than a tour engine or tour MTX is. Are they wrong?
(I believe there was a recent article somewhere about a Focus project where they put on more and more boost with stock zetec internals until it finally blew up, and it got well up into the three hundreds.)
Besides, I just don't foresee wanting any more than 200. I might well be happy with 175, for that matter. Which means that this project is not going to justify the kinds of expense associated with a full balls-out turbo job.
Originally posted by Rara:
In all honesty, if what you want is more, and reliable power, sell your car and buy one that has more power stock. Your priorities are out of whack,
You don't know what my priorities actually are, or what my overall purpose with this is. You seem to be saying it's something nobody should even be interested in pursuing. That's not your call to make.
Originally posted by Rara:
...you are terribly concerned about the amount of hp to go through your trans, and are ready to sacrifice the life of your motor to do it.
Um, you just said I'm messing up my motor by LOWERING its power. That makes lots of sense.
It sounds like you would argue that there is no such thing as a legitimate forced-induction product that isn't intercooled. Nobody should ever use, say, an Eaton supercharger, or a non-cooled factory turbo. Is that your position?
Originally posted by Rara:
Quote:
Lots of people run single-digit amounts of boost without intercoolers and don't die of detonation, right?
Yup, and most of those throw in copius amounts of excess fuel to cool the intake charge (sort of like water injection). Most OEM's lean on this one heavily for factory forced induction vehicles; you should see the A/F curve for an 03 Cobra at WOT, its pretty fat, and that car even HAS an intercooler. But you can rest assured they are addressing the issue in some manner, even if it isn't the right way.
Well, this is genuine new information. Do factory turbos really run super-rich? They must pollute like hell if that's so...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
Originally posted by Paul Kienitz:
Well, this is genuine new information. Do factory turbos really run super-rich? They must pollute like hell if that's so...
My thunderbird peggs my A/F rich on WOT at 18psi...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Geez Paul, I hardly know where to start on this, you seem to have a kernel of knowledge that is fouled up in misunderstanding and misinformation. I'll try . . . Quote:
My compression ratio has already been changed once, I half expect to have to do something about it anyway even if I don't go FI. Is a gasket such a big deal??
And how much, dare I ask, was your CR changed by changing the gasket? Not too much I would venture. Further, changing gasket thickness enough to alter CR an appreciable amount is so the wrong way to do things its not even funny. On a forced induction engine, the HG often acts sort of like a fuse, when you go to a thicker gasket to reduce CR, you've just dropped the rating on your fuse, often to far below where it should be. Its begging for a blown head gasket. The proper way to change CR is typically with new pistons, and sometimes is acceptable to modify the head deck thickness or the combustion chamber to alter the CR, but such changes should only be even attempted by someone knowledgable, or someone willing to risk the entire engine for the sake of learning by trial and error.
Quote:
Octane must come into this somewhere.
Yeah, a little, but are YOU going to swing by the airport for AvGas every time you need a fillup? I think not. Depending on where you are in the country the max available octane at your local gas station is 91, 93 or 94. Even on 94, on my bone stock 5.0L the difference between stock timing and knocking can be as little as 5 degrees initial advance (10 deg base timing vs. 15 deg base timing) and becomes more critical on forced induction, and even more so on a non-intercooled setup.
You also seem to be completely missing the point that air charge temp plays just as important of a role as octane, if not more so.
Quote:
nd the degree of this problem is proportional to how much excess you're stuffing into it, right? So the more ambitious you are with your power goals, the tighter that squeeze would be, not so?
True, in some sense, but it really isn't the power goals its how you reach the power goals, and what steps you take to ensure things run correctly.
Quote:
Great, you just invalidated most of the serious NA modders on CEG. Who limits themselves to 10% gains around here?
Who exceeds 10% gains? not too many, and certainly none that don't make significant mods across the entire engine system. For the most part, the contour engines are not bottlenecked anywhere and require significant mods throughout the ENTIRE system to see major power gains. Its designed that way on purpose from the factory . . .
Quote:
All I know is that people keep telling me that a tour ATX is way more at risk above 200 HP than a tour engine or tour MTX is. Are they wrong?
So, what you are telling me, is you want to half-ass your upgrades? You are willing to pay to upgrade the engine, but not the transmission? And because you aren't willing to upgrade the transmission, you are willing to accept a poorly conceived forced induction system? Just because you can buy something, and it fits, doesn't mean its a good idea to use it.
Quote:
(I believe there was a recent article somewhere about a Focus project where they put on more and more boost with stock zetec internals until it finally blew up, and it got well up into the three hundreds.)
And your point is? Its not power loads that usually kill your motor. With a proper fuel and timing tune, you might be very surprised at how much power a particular engine can withstand for a short period of time. BFD, its the day to day stuff that's hard. if you don't design your street car system with some sort of cushion in its design for unexpected events, like a particularly hot day, or a mislabeled gas pump, or whatever, you will kill your engine, due to detonation or to high exhaust temps.
Quote:
Besides, I just don't foresee wanting any more than 200. I might well be happy with 175, for that matter. Which means that this project is not going to justify the kinds of expense associated with a full balls-out turbo job.
Who said anything about a balls-out turbo system? I'm talking about a properly designed one.
Quote:
You don't know what my priorities actually are, or what my overall purpose with this is. You seem to be saying it's something nobody should even be interested in pursuing. That's not your call to make.
No, I'm saying you are trying to do things backwards.
Quote:
Um, you just said I'm messing up my motor by LOWERING its power. That makes lots of sense.
No, I didn't, you apparently aren't paying very close attention. You are jumping all over the map with your comments, and none of them really tie together, except that you apparently want 200hp because you think yur transmission will explode the instant you exceed that, and you don't want to pay for an intercooler to get to that power level. I'm saying that an intercooler, even at a given power level, will make things much healthier for your engine, with increased cushion against detonation, and lower overall temps in the engine. Unless you are running ~5psi or less, which is almost pointless to go through the effort and money on a small displacement engine to setup up a turbo for that.
Quote:
It sounds like you would argue that there is no such thing as a legitimate forced-induction product that isn't intercooled. Nobody should ever use, say, an Eaton supercharger, or a non-cooled factory turbo. Is that your position?
Can you name any recent (and decent) OEM forced induction vehicle that doesn't use any form of intercooling? The last one I can think of went out of production in 1989 and was the Merkur XR4Ti, and at that was in desperate need of an intercooler, especially considering the other two applications of the same motor in fords line-up got one (the SVO mustang and the T-bird turbocoupe). IMHO, anything over 6psi in boost should seriously consider some form of charge cooling, and further, should require it, except in extreme cases with other mitigating circumstances.
Quote:
Well, this is genuine new information. Do factory turbos really run super-rich? They must pollute like hell if that's so...
Now, see, this sums up most of your posts and comments on this subject; This isn't new information. It is common knowledge amongst anyone with some reasonable familiarity of forced induction systems on internal combustion engines. Granted, some of the details and particular numbers, etc. may be up for debate, but the principles are sound and proven.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by Rara:
And how much, dare I ask, was your CR changed by changing the gasket? Not too much I would venture. Further, changing gasket thickness enough to alter CR an appreciable amount is so the wrong way to do things its not even funny.
My CR was changed by a warped head, which was shaved. I had understood that it was commonplace to lower it back down with a thick gasket. If this is a bad idea, maybe I should check further into this. Question: if a thick gasket is a likely failure point, does this apply even to no or low boost, or is it mainly a high boost problem?
Originally posted by Rara:
You also seem to be completely missing the point that air charge temp plays just as important of a role as octane, if not more so.
Where do you get that I missed it? I acknowledged it. I am just wondering if it is so important for low boost levels. A natural thing to wonder, since there are lots of low boost cars that don't do much about the issue.
Originally posted by Rara:
Who exceeds 10% gains? not too many, and certainly none that don't make significant mods across the entire engine system.
Not too many, perhaps, but enough. And all the ones in the zetec forums are still using stock internals. Are they wrong?
Originally posted by Rara:
So, what you are telling me, is you want to half-ass your upgrades?
Well I guess you could call any smaller upgrade "half-ass". That does not mean there's anything wrong with it. Yes, I want "half-ass" power upgrades, rather than a $10,000 drag racing setup.
Originally posted by Rara:
You are willing to pay to upgrade the engine, but not the transmission? And because you aren't willing to upgrade the transmission, you are willing to accept a poorly conceived forced induction system?
Well, if every un-intercooled compressor on the market is "poorly conceived", I guess I'm hardly alone in being "willing to accept" that.
Originally posted by Rara:
Just because you can buy something, and it fits, doesn't mean its a good idea to use it.
I'm not buying something that fits, but never mind, I'm not here to explain myself to your satisfaction.
Originally posted by Rara:
You are jumping all over the map with your comments, and none of them really tie together, except that you apparently want 200hp because you think yur transmission will explode the instant you exceed that,
Don't put words in my mouth.
Originally posted by Rara:
and you don't want to pay for an intercooler to get to that power level. I'm saying that an intercooler, even at a given power level, will make things much healthier for your engine, with increased cushion against detonation, and lower overall temps in the engine.
Yes, that's what you're saying, and I've heard you, and I'm sure it's true, and I don't think it has to be said any more times.
Let me put it this way. There exists one range of power, or of air charge density, at which it is perfectly safe to not worry about cooling. All NA engines should be in this range. There exists a higher range of power or density in which it is not safe to disregard cooling. Somewhere between the two is a transition from safe to unsafe. The location of this transition can presumably be expressed as a level of boost. The one point I'm not satisfied on -- on everything else I have no dispute with anything you've told me -- is whether this transition falls above or below the level of boost I'm interested in, which I estimate to be somewhere between 5 and 8 psi. You seem to be saying, so far, that any real-world boost application is always above that line. But lots of people drive such cars, so I have to wonder if there isn't a reasonably safe zone I can work in.
Originally posted by Rara:
Unless you are running ~5psi or less, which is almost pointless to go through the effort and money on a small displacement engine to setup up a turbo for that.
I think I mentioned that this is not a turbo. (And it'll probably be next year before I can start on it, so this is all preliminary.)
At this point you seem to be suggesting that the 5 PSI level might well be safe. That's helpful information if it's solid. I'm just speculating that maybe I can stretch it to 7-ish. Is that so unreasonable an idea? It seems to be right where you'd estimate the iffy area to be. So why not just give it a try, and if it won't tune into a good state, settle for a pound less.
Originally posted by Rara:
Quote:
Well, this is genuine new information. Do factory turbos really run super-rich? They must pollute like hell if that's so...
Now, see, this sums up most of your posts and comments on this subject; This isn't new information. It is common knowledge amongst anyone with some reasonable familiarity of forced induction systems on internal combustion engines.
I meant new in this discussion, Einstein. As in somebody finally said something that contributed a useful point instead of repeating what had already been said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165 |
Ok, so you are going to supercharge your engine and you plan on running around 5-8 psi. Sounds like a fun car . So lets say you build your system, set it at 8psi and you dyno 175 whp. Good for you. What if it is only at 165? 155? 145? Could happen. Then what? You need to run higher psi with a supercharger to reach your hp goals compared to a turbo. It could very well be possible with proper tuning. So how do you plan on tuning it? Standalone? Too expensive. Custom Superchip? If it works, awesome. You also need to beef up your fuel system a lot. Let's say you make it to 175. You do all your maintenence ahead of schedule, you baby your tranny. Then one day your friend (wife, kid, co-worker, fellow CEG'er) borrows your car, puts in some 87 octane... Or you are trying to impress some chick next to you at the light... It's 120 in AZ and you need to fill up at "Joe's Discount Gazz" 100mi from the next station... "8psi seems ok, let's try 9..." That $800 you saved just went to replacing your blown motor. And you still have no intercooler. There is a difference between saving money and cutting corners. Saving money is good. Cutting corners is bad. If money is so tight, that you can't buy a intercooler, what happens when you blow the engine? I will build my first FI system when I can afford to build the system and buy a new motor. There is a reason that factory turbos have low compression AND intercoolers. And don't say "But it's not a turbo" because from the throttle body back, its all the same to your engine. Or just build the darn thing and see who's right. Can you afford to take that chance?
Contour--It will make a master mechanic out of you!
95 LX MTX Bolt-ons
95 Neon SOHC ATX
77 Dodge Powerwagon-more displacement than my Neon, Contour, and wife's Saturn---combined!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by Oeneus:
Ok, so you are going to supercharge your engine and you plan on running around 5-8 psi. Sounds like a fun car . So lets say you build your system, set it at 8psi and you dyno 175 whp. Good for you. What if it is only at 165? 155? 145? Could happen.
Actually, 165 at the wheels would be quite decent if I've only got like 6 PSI. If it's only 145 I'll figure something might be wrong, or lame, and I'll have plenty of tinkering to keep me occupied. I probably won't go as high as 8 PSI.
Originally posted by Oeneus:
Then what? You need to run higher psi with a supercharger to reach your hp goals compared to a turbo.
I don't really have a goal of a specific horsepower level. I suspect that 175 is about the most I can shoot for, unless I do head work or other expensive things of that sort, which I doubt I will; the danger of ever reaching 200 is probably nonexistent.
My purpose is to test out an unconventional approach to forced induction. This approach does not involve the large power penalty of a belt-driven supercharger, so the gains per HP would be similar to a turbo.
Originally posted by Oeneus:
It could very well be possible with proper tuning. So how do you plan on tuning it? Standalone? Too expensive. Custom Superchip? If it works, awesome. You also need to beef up your fuel system a lot.
I am planning on a custom chip, because it's something I'd probably buy anyway even if I didn't do this project. And the other conversations here seem to indicate to me that the stock fuel system will work at this level.
Originally posted by Oeneus:
Let's say you make it to 175. You do all your maintenence ahead of schedule, you baby your tranny. Then one day your friend (wife, kid, co-worker, fellow CEG'er) borrows your car, puts in some 87 octane...
Or you are trying to impress some chick next to you at the light...
It's 120 in AZ and you need to fill up at "Joe's Discount Gazz" 100mi from the next station...
"8psi seems ok, let's try 9..."
That $800 you saved just went to replacing your blown motor. And you still have no intercooler.
Most of these situations are ones I feel comfortable being responsible for avoiding. And an intercooler might help these situations, but I bet even with an intercooler these situations would still be risky.
I do have to sometimes deal with remote 87-only gas stations... I've carried octane booser juice sometimes, but this doesn't do enough, maybe I need to stash a couple gallons of methanol or something.
Originally posted by Oeneus:
There is a difference between saving money and cutting corners. Saving money is good. Cutting corners is bad. If money is so tight, that you can't buy a intercooler, what happens when you blow the engine?
Actually, this engine has already blown once, stock. That's how I got into modding in the first place, in fact; I found CEG when looking for repair help, and got the infection. That particular failure shouldn't recur, the way we fixed it.
I know there's a risk, but it's something enough people successfully do that I don't think the risk is unacceptable. One has to be willing to take some risk to consider any FI project, right?
Originally posted by Oeneus:
I will build my first FI system when I can afford to build the system and buy a new motor. There is a reason that factory turbos have low compression AND intercoolers. And don't say "But it's not a turbo" because from the throttle body back, its all the same to your engine.
Or just build the darn thing and see who's right. Can you afford to take that chance?
Yes, I can.
Or maybe I'll monkey up some kinda simple air-to-air cooler that will do a partial job.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Quote:
My purpose is to test out an unconventional approach to forced induction. This approach does not involve the large power penalty of a belt-driven supercharger, so the gains per HP would be similar to a turbo.
This is what I want to hear about, lol. I'm guessing you are referring to an electrically driven compressor, but I'll let you speak for yourself. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165 |
Regardless of what you do, if you give yourself a large enough margin of error, then you will be fine . You should be able to find a good, cheap intercooler at the junkyard or on ebay. If you pipe it well and place it well, it should do a good job. Of course now you have to go through with your project so we can all see what happens  .
Contour--It will make a master mechanic out of you!
95 LX MTX Bolt-ons
95 Neon SOHC ATX
77 Dodge Powerwagon-more displacement than my Neon, Contour, and wife's Saturn---combined!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,325
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,325 |
Originally posted by Rara:
Quote:
My purpose is to test out an unconventional approach to forced induction. This approach does not involve the large power penalty of a belt-driven supercharger, so the gains per HP would be similar to a turbo.
This is what I want to hear about, lol. I'm guessing you are referring to an electrically driven compressor, but I'll let you speak for yourself. . .
Well, if I just mount one of these in the trunk and run a shaft to the front of the car...
http://www.tukantrikestoreinc.com/f3615hp.htm
http://www.tukantrikestoreinc.com/f332530hp.htm
What sort of boost could you get with a 15hp or 25hp motor anyway
Hey, if you ripped off the little gas tank and cooling fins you could even put it where the battery was, it even weighs less -lol-
97 Contour SE MTX
K&N 3530, UR UDP, 19# Injectors, mystery mod, FMS wires, Fordchip.com chip, SVT: TB, Flywheel, clutch, exhaust
04 Grand Caravan SXT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
You guys are killing me with the post-quote-post format!
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
What sort of boost could you get with a 15hp or 25hp motor anyway
Hey, if you ripped off the little gas tank and cooling fins you could even put it where the battery was, it even weighs less -lol-
Oh god man, you had me worried for a second, I didn't read who had posted it, and sort of assumed it was Paul, lmao.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 495
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 495 |
This was my first intercooler. Cost me $ 25 at a pick and pull. It was the only one my dad could find. It's off some kind of turbo dodge.  It was origionally mounted inside the engine bay in a poor location but the car did 146whp at 5/6psi with no audible detonation on the stock ECU. I eventually mounted the intercooler in the front bumper for better cooling. This is my current intercooler. It cost me around $200 to buy it and modify it. It's off a mitsubishi starion.  It's also mounted in the front bumper. There have been times I've come back from a drive and felt the end tanks of the new cooler and the intake side is hot and the outlet side is cool too the touch. Here's both side by side.  Both these kinds of intercoolers can be had fairly cheaply if you know where to look, but I wouldn't recommend the dodge one unless you bought several of them and welded them together. Still the new one is smaller than I'd like but it will take me too the power I want and for more power I'm thinking of a homemade N-ter Cooler setup. So, in conclusion you don't have to spend $800 for a intercooling solution. And if your compression is as high as you say it is, I wouldn't go FI even with intercooling unless you get some low comp pistons and forged rods. Cause your fuel& timing managment will be the biggest sticking point and you'll wind up spending well over $800 just on that. There's a guy on the Focus forums running 8psi non-intercooled on the stock block and he autocrosses regularly with no problems but he's using a $2000 pectel unit for engine managment. My 2 cents. This is from somebody with the only daily driven Zetec turbo, designed and built from scratch, on the CDW27 platform, that I know of.
2000 Rio Red I4 Cougar
200whp & 210wtq at 9psi
254whp & 276wtq with NX 35shot
WRX TD04 Turbo, Cut Short Shifter, Strut Tower Bar, 17" ZN Wheels, Roush Springs, Starion Intercooler, NX 35 shot, HKS SS BOV, Full 3" exhaust,StreetFlight Chip
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Well if there really are simple coolers I can get in the under-$200 range, then I suppose I'll go ahead and include one. It just wasn't making sense to me to have the cooler be the most expensive single part in the system. (The compressor itself looks like it might be around $650, though I haven't really pinned down a source yet.)
Originally posted by Seawulf:
And if your compression is as high as you say it is, I wouldn't go FI even with intercooling unless you get some low comp pistons and forged rods.
I kind of figure I'll have to do something about the compression. Bring it down to stock at least. Ever since it was raised the thing has actually had less power than stock, though I don't know if that's the reason. Maybe I should try a thick gasket, just as an experiment, before I start on any other major mods. It doesn't have to stay in all that many miles, so even if thick gaskets are not durable over the long term, it might be worth trying.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 495
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 495 |
No way I'd spend $800 on an intercooler. Most I'd spend is $400 new. My original turbo cost me $100 shipped. My new one cost me $250 shipped. Both used from Ebay. You can find a lot of good bargains there.
The Air/Water intercooler is overkill in my opinion, but with the higher compression ratio of the SVT V6 it makes sense on that application.
As for thicker gasket, the guys on the Focus forums say it's not a good idea cause it get's rid of the "squish area" or "quench area". Not sure what that means, but they say that a thicker gasket will actually cause it to detonate easier.
2000 Rio Red I4 Cougar
200whp & 210wtq at 9psi
254whp & 276wtq with NX 35shot
WRX TD04 Turbo, Cut Short Shifter, Strut Tower Bar, 17" ZN Wheels, Roush Springs, Starion Intercooler, NX 35 shot, HKS SS BOV, Full 3" exhaust,StreetFlight Chip
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Dude, there are some things that you obviously aren't aware of. I said approximately $800 as I am not for sure on the price, but its close. Anyway, that $ will buy you the air-water intercooler, the heat exchanger, the reservoir and all the hose, fittings and clamps.
On our cars there is literally no room to put it anywhere but in the currently used location, right in front of the throttle body. This requires special angles on the tanks and you can't just go and buy one. It will always be custom made for our cars. There is no room for an air-air intercooler on the SVT, period unless you have a different front bumper setup and probably hood setup as well; but stock there is no room for anything else. Several of us tried it and this was the only reasonable way to do it.
Taking all that into consideration, the price is about right for the the security and performance that this intercooler gives on a boosted 10:1 motor.
warmonger
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
The zetec doesn't have the same room problems that a SVT does. Like, I could probably put an air-air intercooler down low between the tranny and the firewall, and get fairly cool air when moving. (Of course, I'd have to watch out for loose rocks.) I do wish I knew what a "squish area" was... I wonder what would happen if you put a steel shim between two stock head gaskets. I mean, if one stock head gasket is good, two must be even better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Paul, No offense, but our serious lack of understanding the dynamics of combustion and how the various factors affect it, would lead me to say that you should trust someone more knowledgable than yourself to work on your forced induction setup. Unless you really want to blow up several engines in a very expensive trial and error process. Or at the very least multiple headgasket failures (heck, multiple even at the same time!  )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
If you learn about boost the hard way (like I did  ), you might as well buy a five or six headgaskets right off the bat...eventually you will get quick enough to where a head gasket swap becomes like an oil change.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165 |
First thing I learned about cars: working on them is fun, being productive is fun, redoing something is a PITA!
Contour--It will make a master mechanic out of you!
95 LX MTX Bolt-ons
95 Neon SOHC ATX
77 Dodge Powerwagon-more displacement than my Neon, Contour, and wife's Saturn---combined!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 976
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 976 |
Originally posted by Oeneus:
First thing I learned about cars: working on them is fun, being productive is fun, redoing something is a PITA!
I love that quote!!!
I offer PnP Heads for all durtec's details at PnPheads.com or jesse@pnpheads.com for details.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Dude, these cracks about "serious lack of understanding" are based solely on your MISREADING what we were disagreeing about. Like I said before, I had no argument with 90% of what you were telling me, and kept repeating because you convinced yourself I was arguing against it. So I'm sorry, but I do take offense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Originally posted by Paul Kienitz:
Dude, these cracks about "serious lack of understanding" are based solely on your MISREADING what we were disagreeing about. Like I said before, I had no argument with 90% of what you were telling me, and kept repeating because you convinced yourself I was arguing against it. So I'm sorry, but I do take offense.
Maybe I was a bit harsh, I was in a bad mood when I wrote that; but, I still feel from many of your statements that your understanding is incomplete, and would recommend doing a good bit more learning of how the engine and a forced induction setup works as a system, not just seperately. In fairness to me, all I have to go on is what you type, as I don't know you personally, and voice inflection doesn't transfer to the typed word as well as we all would like, so sarcasm is often missed, as are other things that are affected by inflection or tone.
Btw, I'm still waiting to hear about your "alternative" forced induction to a mechanically driven supercharger or an exhaust driven turbo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
Originally posted by Rara:
Btw, I'm still waiting to hear about your "alternative" forced induction to a mechanically driven supercharger or an exhaust driven turbo.
[Dropping Hand Grenade in Outhouse]
I think there is some stuff in a bottle that counts as well.
[/Dropping Hand Grenade in Outhouse]
TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Originally posted by BOFH:
Originally posted by Rara:
Btw, I'm still waiting to hear about your "alternative" forced induction to a mechanically driven supercharger or an exhaust driven turbo.
[Dropping Hand Grenade in Outhouse]
I think there is some stuff in a bottle that counts as well.
[/Dropping Hand Grenade in Outhouse]
TB
Nitrous Oxide is not forced induction, so it isn't included in this discussion. Call it a power adder or chemical induction or whatever you want, its not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
I could argue it either way, but so could you. You and know, correctly or incorrectly many call Nitrous Oxide forced induction. I'll even refer you to a board you may moderate Forced Induction: Superchargers, Turbos, Nitrous Ok, enough crap disturbing for one day, I really don't want to argue semantics or religion. I'm game for politics, however. TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
I don't disagree that there is much to learn before really attempting the project. But I think I do understand enough that what I was saying was reasonable. And I probably shouldn't have gotten my hackles up, I'll apologize for getting uptight.
Your earlier guess was correct, I'm thinking of an electrically powered centrifugal compressor. Done right, this would have less drain on the engine than either a turbo or a belt supercharger, therefore yielding more gains per PSI of boost. But electric motor choice being what it is, it will have to be limited to low boost. Parts might be not much more than $1000. This doesn't count all the overhead that comes from dealing with other engine issues that have to be looked at, but it's still likely to be cheaper than other FI setups (other than those made of used parts).
Another advantage is that since the boost pressure would be regulated electronically (ouch, a motor controller is one of the most expensive parts), there is no dependency whatever on engine speed. The boost can ramp up while you're pushing the pedal down.
A system like this would be most ideal for a hybrid-electric car, which already has a beefed up higher voltage electrical system. Such a car would get even better mileage than it does now, if it used an exhaust turbine to power its generator. Then you'd have an electrically decoupled turbocharger, with mileage better than anything in existence today, yet lots of power on demand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Paul,
just a hint, but have you looked into the power requirements to drive an electric fan to sufficiently supply enough air to run any sort appreciable boost pressure on a given engine? Have you compared those power requirements to the additional drive loads for an appropriately sized alternator? I believe you will be in for an unpleasant surprise. Even more so when you consider the extra weight associated with that large of an electric motor as well as any additional batteries.
I think electrically driven forced induction has a good potential for short-term transient conditions, but to say that it take less power to drive is short sighted at best. It will take the same mechanical energy (probably more, due to conversion inefficiences) from the engine to drive the alternator to make the required electrical energy as it will to drive a mechanical supercharger. Granted, the electrical system does allow you to spread out the time when the power is generated, but only so much. Further, a turbocharger is driven by mostly wasted energy (outgoing heat and flow velocity in the exhaust system) and really only costs power in that it eliminates any exhaust scavenging effects. If ever there was such a thing as free power, the turbo is about as close as you can get.
Also, as far as component cost, I think you are grossly underestimating the costs associated with electric motors and thier controllers at the required power levels. Keep in mind the power levels required to provide the required flow at the desired pressure. A good example is on a typical Ford 5.0L engine with a centrifugal supercharger and a power output in the 400hp range, it takes somewhere in the neighborhood of another 70hp to drive that supercharger (ie, engine would be putting out 470hp in the exact same setup if it didn't have to drive the blower). Even if you cut that in half for the 200hp range you are looking at, that is still ~35hp.
Don't get me wrong, I would be overjoyed to see a functional electrically driven supercharger, but the current level of technology doesn't allow it to be anywhere near competitive with other methods of driving a compressor. The closest I have seen to a succesful system design was the "dynapac" I believe it was called. And even then, its benefits were quite limited and very expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
Rara makes good points about weight and power requirements. I believe 50HP electric motors weigh hundreds of pounds. (I was dreaming about a car the produced electricity in the engine compartment, and instead of a transmission had computer controlled motors at each corner. Put a 50HP electrical motor at each wheel, with very little driveline loss however, I think I had over a half ton of motors before you added anything to the car such as the engine and generator  Anything that weighed less probably costs a lot more. Of course we know that power (electrically speaking) is equal to (current x voltage) so you have to increase one of them to produce large quantities of power. 1HP = ~745W (rounded down even) At 12V to produce 745W you need 62A of current. You can quickly see that the 12V system in today's cars can't supply that for long. Heck even the proposed 48V systems will still need nearly 16A of current to make 1HP. Higher voltages provide different challenges as you need better insulation and isolation to prevent arcing and to protect the humans that would ride around in the vehicle. If you had a 240V generator like you might find running off a 8+HP gasoline engine, you would need about 3A of power to produce a single HP and most of those generators are only rated for say 10A of 220V power (or 20A of 110V) depending on the engine. So you are going to need a BAG (Big A.. Generator) to produce sufficient electricity for a sustained period of time. I wish it were easier, as I'm far more comfortable with electricity than I am with mechanicals TB I do have a EE degree, but so much has changed since I graduated
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by Rara:
Paul,
just a hint, but have you looked into the power requirements to drive an electric fan to sufficiently supply enough air to run any sort appreciable boost pressure on a given engine? Have you compared those power requirements to the additional drive loads for an appropriately sized alternator?
Yes, I have. The power requirements are a reasonable match with larger starter motors, I think.
Alternator capacity is not an issue unless you use boost semi-constantly. One might even want to use an alternator cutoff.
Originally posted by Rara:
I believe you will be in for an unpleasant surprise. Even more so when you consider the extra weight associated with that large of an electric motor as well as any additional batteries.
There may have to be a second battery, or a single red-top might do fine. They'd have to be moved to the trunk, I'm sure. One possibility I'm considering is to run the motor on 24 volts, if I can think of a way to make a suitable charger for the second battery that doesn't create safety risks.
Originally posted by Rara:
I think electrically driven forced induction has a good potential for short-term transient conditions, but to say that it take less power to drive is short sighted at best. It will take the same mechanical energy (probably more, due to conversion inefficiences) from the engine to drive the alternator to make the required electrical energy as it will to drive a mechanical supercharger.
Actually, I suspect that most mechanical superchargers waste more energy than an electrical setup would... except maybe for Vortech type setups that only work at high revs. Positive displacement pumps are less efficient, right?
Originally posted by Rara:
Granted, the electrical system does allow you to spread out the time when the power is generated, but only so much.
"Only so much" in that you're limited in how long the blower can run before you have to fill the battery back up, but the key thing for performance is that during WOT, it allows you to defer all of the load until later.
Originally posted by Rara:
Further, a turbocharger is driven by mostly wasted energy (outgoing heat and flow velocity in the exhaust system) and really only costs power in that it eliminates any exhaust scavenging effects. If ever there was such a thing as free power, the turbo is about as close as you can get.
That's why I had the idea that hybrid-electric cars should use turbine-powered generators. It's been demonstrated that exhaust energy can significantly help hybrid cars... by a guy who augmented a diesel engine with an exhaust-heat-powered steam engine.
The turbo does impose some exhaust restriction when taking power out of there, so it will impose minor costs when operating, like maybe comparable to using a non-performance exhaust system.
Originally posted by Rara:
Also, as far as component cost, I think you are grossly underestimating the costs associated with electric motors and thier controllers at the required power levels. Keep in mind the power levels required to provide the required flow at the desired pressure. A good example is on a typical Ford 5.0L engine with a centrifugal supercharger and a power output in the 400hp range, it takes somewhere in the neighborhood of another 70hp to drive that supercharger (ie, engine would be putting out 470hp in the exact same setup if it didn't have to drive the blower). Even if you cut that in half for the 200hp range you are looking at, that is still ~35hp.
My previous estimate had been that it should require 10 horsepower or less. Have I missed something?
This is a key point... if 10 horsepower can do the job, then the project can be done with affordable components. If it requires 25 horsepower, then it's completely infeasible on a budget.
Anyway, there's some wiggle room there because that maximum power demand occurs only at top revs, and there are worse fates in life than having your boost pressure droop lower as you go above 5000 rpm.
Let's calculate the actual work that needs to be done on the airstream by an ideal compressor... if we want to make a Zetec have an volumetric efficiency of 133% above normal, that makes a maximum consumption of about 0.15 cubic meters per second at top revs, and the pressure would be at least 5 psi, or 35000 Pa, so the minimum work required to compress the air is, if we call the cross sectional area of the intake A, the force (35000 * A) times the distance (0.15/A per second), making the minimum ideal power need about 5200 watts, or 7 horsepower. (Damn, I think it came out smaller last time I calculated it!) The compressor inefficiency pushes that to about 9 horsepower, I think, and heat losses etc mean that you have to push more than 5 lbs, making the demand 11 or more... it looks to me like a 10 HP motor should be able to do a useful job of boosting through at least a large part of the powerband, if not perhaps at the tip top.
Originally posted by Rara:
Don't get me wrong, I would be overjoyed to see a functional electrically driven supercharger, but the current level of technology doesn't allow it to be anywhere near competitive with other methods of driving a compressor. The closest I have seen to a succesful system design was the "dynapac" I believe it was called. And even then, its benefits were quite limited and very expensive.
The only Dynapac I could find on the web is something to do with earthmoving equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
hey, before you waste your money, Starter motors are not capable of sustained use. The duty cycle on them sucks! More like 10% If you crank for 15-20 seconds you have to wait 1-2 minutes to cool it down. Remember, that is even with a cold start condition with it being bolted to a giant heat sink (the engine)!
You'd be better off using an exhaust driven turbine to be honest. The cost will end up less once you have paid for a motor that can sustain the boost-on-demand as well as the electrical system and cabling upgrades.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Quote:
My previous estimate had been that it should require 10 horsepower or less. Have I missed something?
Yup, your calculations are extremely simplistic. You don't take into account the flow. What you think is taking into account the flow is just taking the volume of air every second seperately, and compressing it to 5psig and then moving on to the next volume of air, and compressing it.
You are not actually taking the account the continual flow. Imagine if you will you have your ordinary shop compressor that is controlled by a variable speed (and hence power) compressor. The tank connected to it is a given volume (the actual # doesn't really matter). Now, say you have the tank pressurized to 5 psig, and you open the outlet valve just a little bit, and the compressor turns on to regulate things inside to 5 psig. Say the pump turns using just enough power to continuously maintain that 5psig. It won't take much power to keep the pressure up while the leak is small. Now, double the size of the leak, how much more power is required? A lot more. Ok, then try opening up the leak to 50% of the end area of the storage tank, now you are talking supercharger like pressurized flow.
Your calcs don't even assume there is a small leak, just that it keeps filling up new tanks every second . . .
The actual calculations are far from trivial, and far more than I even want to be reminded of this late at night (I hated fluids . . .)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
hey, before you waste your money, Starter motors are not capable of sustained use. The duty cycle on them sucks! More like 10% If you crank for 15-20 seconds you have to wait 1-2 minutes to cool it down.
That's about as much as I would plan to use it, generally. And if a starter blows, replacements are cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by Rara:
Quote:
My previous estimate had been that it should require 10 horsepower or less. Have I missed something?
Yup, your calculations are extremely simplistic. You don't take into account the flow. What you think is taking into account the flow is just taking the volume of air every second seperately, and compressing it to 5psig and then moving on to the next volume of air, and compressing it.
You are not actually taking the account the continual flow.
Yes I am. The math I used is for a continuous situation, the kind you can do calculus on. It's similar to the basic equation for air drag on a moving body, in that the faster the air flows through the intake pipe, the more power it takes to apply a given pressure to it.
Originally posted by Rara:
Imagine if you will you have your ordinary shop compressor ... Your calcs don't even assume there is a small leak, just that it keeps filling up new tanks every second . . .
Yes they do. You're mistaken. If it weren't for the rate of flow being accounted for, the power consumption over time would average out to zero.
Originally posted by Rara:
The actual calculations are far from trivial, and far more than I even want to be reminded of this late at night (I hated fluids . . .)
Calculating it exactly is complicated, but it is simple enough to calculate the minimum amount of power that must be consumed regardless of the details of a particular design -- namely, the amount corresponding to the true work done on the fluid itself in compressing it. It's the number below which the compressor would have to be a perpetual motion machine. And since compressor makers advertise an efficiency figure which is measured relative to that ideal minimum (at least, I hope that's what they're doing if they're honest)... then just dividing by that efficiency figure gives you a shortcut to the genuine power consumption. Centrifugal devices seem to claim numbers in the range of 70 to 80 percent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 38
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 38 |
Paul,
You calculated that you need 0.15m^3 of air at 5psi every second. Lets assume you have an intake system that actually has two 0.15m^3 tanks with a valve that seals either one tank or the other from the intake, and that the system switches between them every second. So the first second, your compressor fills tank A to 5psi, then the compressor switches to tank B and fills that to 5psi. While the compressor was filling tank B, the engine took the air out of the tank A, then while the compressor is filling tank A, the engine takes the air out of tank B, which was just filled to 5psi. The cycle constantly repeats like this, as long as the engine is running. Sounds like a great system. Except that the engine will only be fed air at 5psi from tank A the instant that the valve on tank A opens. After the valve opens, the pressure gradually decreases as the air leaves the tank. So you may have 5psi of boost at the start of each second, at the 0.5 second mark you'll be at 2.5psi of boost, at the end of each second you are NA.
This is why, as Rara stated, your calculations for power are much lower than they should be. You were calculating how much power is required to pressurise 0.15m^3 of air to 5psi every second, not how much power is required to keep a flow of air of 0.15m^3/sec at 5psi.
Hopefully this makes sense,
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by Cougar Bob:
Paul,
You calculated that you need 0.15m^3 of air at 5psi every second. Lets assume you have an intake system that actually has two 0.15m^3 tanks with a valve that seals either one tank or the other from the intake, and that the system switches between them every second.
Why should we assume that? It has nothing at all to do with anything previously discussed.
Originally posted by Cougar Bob:
So the first second, your compressor fills tank A to 5psi, then the compressor switches to tank B and fills that to 5psi. While the compressor was filling tank B, the engine took the air out of the tank A, then while the compressor is filling tank A, the engine takes the air out of tank B, which was just filled to 5psi. The cycle constantly repeats like this, as long as the engine is running. Sounds like a great system. Except that the engine will only be fed air at 5psi from tank A the instant that the valve on tank A opens. After the valve opens, the pressure gradually decreases as the air leaves the tank. So you may have 5psi of boost at the start of each second, at the 0.5 second mark you'll be at 2.5psi of boost, at the end of each second you are NA.
That's true, if that were the kind of system under discussion. But none of the math discussed so far has anything to do with this bizarre setup, which actually has much more complicated math than the continuous situation does.
Originally posted by Cougar Bob:
This is why, as Rara stated, your calculations for power are much lower than they should be. You were calculating how much power is required to pressurise 0.15m^3 of air to 5psi every second, not how much power is required to keep a flow of air of 0.15m^3/sec at 5psi.
Hopefully this makes sense,
Bob
That is not why at all. If you can point to any reason at all why this applies to anything I said, and explain it to me with a mathematical equation that means something, go ahead.
Now let us review the calculation I used, and what it's based on: It presumes a continuous flow which travels at a given constant rate -- though actually the math works fine for a variable rate, if you're willing to do a little calculus. That rate can be expressed as a volume per unit of time, which by the engine displacement and max revs I took as 0.15 m^3/s on the upstream side of the compressor. (It's less at lower RPMs.) Now to pass through an intake tube, that volume of fluid has to pass through a specified cross sectional area. Passing a volume through a given area at a given rate determines a linear velocity for how fast it is flowing through. We are attempting to produce a given pressure in that stream of air. Multiplying the desired pressure by the cross sectional area gives us a given force that has to be constantly applied to the fluid.
Now when you apply force to a stationary object, you don't have to consume any power to do so. But if you apply force to an object moving away from you, it requires continuous expenditure of energy. This is why an accelerating car produces less and less G's of acceleration, the faster it goes: because it takes more and more power to maintain the same force against the road, as the difference in speed between the car and the road increases.
Note that this has nothing to do specifically with compression -- it is a generality about any case of applying force to something in motion.
The way to calculate the energy expenditure is with "work = force times distance". If you push something with 90 N of force for 6 meters, you've expended 540 J of energy. If you keep pushing it constantly, the energy expended in a given span of time is the force times the distance traveled in that same span of time. This span can be a long average, or it can be an instantaneous differential of a constantly varying situation -- the same rule applies.
The distance per second equals the volume per second over the cross section. The force equals the desired pressure times the cross section. The cross section cancels out, leaving us with power consumption equal to pressure times volume per second. It really is that simple. This is not a formula for the work of filling a tank, but for how power consumption relates to the current rate of flow at each instant.
Of course in a real compressor, the total power consumption will be significantly higher due to inefficiencies, but that extra will be some fairly constant fraction of this basic amount. Whatever the actual consumption, it will rise and fall the same as this ideal figure does. The ratio of that difference is the efficiency of the compressor.
Now how does this apply specifically to compressing air? Well, there's one factor that isn't accounted for, and that is that the volume decreases after it's pressurized. I took my figure of 0.15 m^3/s from the upstream side, but the force figures apply more to the downstream side, which means that the flow rate is lower than what I used, meaning that I actually overestimated the minimal necessary power consumption.
I'm sorry to go on at such length to lay this out, but if the short form doesn't get the job done, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 155
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 155 |
I have done some work on automotive power electronics. Cant say much, but if you are serious, look into power conversion. You will achieve much higher efficiency at higher voltages. Most automotive power engineers agree high power systems cannot be run on less than a 42v core. FYI the next gen Toyota hybrid will be running a 42v battery to a sealed voltage converter to a 300-500v core ISA.
Now I would love to see it when its done, but every application of e-turbos I've seen is supplimental. Turbos alone are very very efficent, however they tend to have lag. E-turbos have no lag, but use lots of power. Once combined the system works very well, the e gets the engine to speed and starts the turbo, which then takes over. Some systems are even so advanced that the e-turbo can extract power and prevent over-boost without a bov.
Geoff C. Turner
99 Black SVT -mine
99 Blue SE V6 ATX -mom's
96 Black SE MTX -sister's
All with 278mm front rotors
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by geoffct:
Cant say much, but if you are serious, look into power conversion. You will achieve much higher efficiency at higher voltages.
Yes, that option is definitely in my mind as something to look into. It's hard to argue with the inexpensiveness of an ordinary starter motor, though...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Paul, you are still missing the point between continously compressing a given amount of air, and compressing a continuous flow. It sounds like its the same thing, but the difference is huge. If you don't believe me, try it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by Rara:
Paul, you are still missing the point between continously compressing a given amount of air, and compressing a continuous flow. It sounds like its the same thing, but the difference is huge. If you don't believe me, try it.
If you think I've got it wrong, show me where with math.
I think you're more confused than me on this point... come on, if you read through what I laid out, how can that even be STRETCHED to apply to "continuously compressing a given amount of air" as opposed to working on a flow? There's no way that stuff could even be used that way, without running it through a fancy integration first. What I stated applies only to flow. Compression as such (change of volume) is not even in there! Whether you're filling a tank, squirting through a nozzle, or pushing through a thick filter, the work done on the fluid will equal the flow rate times the back-pressure.
So to me, the criticism that I didn't consider flow sounds so backwards that I can only assume you didn't follow the reasoning at all. If anything, a valid criticism would be completely opposite: that I considered only flow and disregarded actual compression.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 652
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 652 |
I have a fairly decent grasp on the laws of physics, and
all I can see from all these posts is that Rara has a
pretty good grasp too. You maybe need to study this stuff
better before you waste alot of money on your prototypes.
First of all, a starter motor doesn't come anywhere near
even close to 10 hp. The only reason it can turn an engine
over is because it is gear reducted (ie. big flywheel vs.
tiny starter gear). If you were to gear it the other way
to try and turn a compressor impeller the speed necessary
to feed an engine running at 5000rpms with 4psi say, I
don't even think the starter would barely turn over (the
vacuum from the engine's intake across the impeller would
probably help the starter turn a little). I don't even think
you could get .001 psi at 5000rpm with a typical starter motor
off a car. A guy I know has slow-acting hydralics on his
Impala (not even fast acting mind you), and he requires 6
Optima batteries in the trunk to run just 2 motors and they
don't last very long at all. You are going to find that
electricity is not very efficient for trying to run
compressors. Do you know how hard it is to even turn a
compressor by hand? I have a customer that we put a Paxton
supercharger kit on his truck a while back, and when you
take the belt off it and try to turn the pulley with your
hand, it is VERY hard to turn. You cannot even make it
spin by it self (you'd have to mount a huge flywheel to it to
make it do that). You are going to find that you are
trying to accomplish the unsolvable task doing this on a
backyard budget. Believe that Ford, Chevy, Chrysler,
Kenworth, Peterbuilt, John Deere, Case, Caterpillar, and
others have experimented with this idea for years, and
who knows,
maybe in 10-20 years they will be able to make this
workable, but don't hold your breathe. I'm not trying to
discourage you, I'm only trying to save you $$$. You don't
think people have tried this crap for years? People have
tried every way to convert the engine's byproduct energy or
other engine energy into power and so far, turbo and
blower is the best that's out.
Here, read this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2426797798&category=33742
and this: http://www.bamaclassifieds.com/ebay/warning.htm
And check this out: eBay search page
and
http://www.electricsupercharger.com (haha)
Those are all the current scams out because this topic of
electric superchargers is such an easily convincible
subject, because at first quick thought it
sounds 'feasible' but if it REALLY was then don't you
suppose the professional racers (with millions of dollars in
sponser money mind you) and the automakers would be in on this too? Trust
me, this is not just some well kept secret. There's just
too much efficiency loss, and high-powered electric motors
are really HEAVY. Why not just use a pulley/belt and a
shaft (ie. Vortec) to get the power directly and avoid all the heat losses from
electron movement (not to mention the weight from motors and batteries)
, or use the 'free' exhaust gases (heat energy) that the
motor just throws away anyways and convert that to usable
energy (ie. conventional methods)??
By the way, I had your same idea when I was like 18-19 years
old and it DOES sure sound like a good idea on paper, but it just can't
work with today's technology. Wouldn't you just rather work
extra hard for a summer and then just buy the complete turbo
kit? Sounds much easier to me than trying to defy the laws of physics
'95 CONTOUR SE
-Enkei 16s
-SVT wannabe
-Dual escapes w/ 2 1/2" stainless tips
-True LED taillight conversion
- Audi Xenon Projector Retrofit
-Mp3 deck, dual 10s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by Josch:
I have a fairly decent grasp on the laws of physics, and all I can see from all these posts is that Rara has a pretty good grasp too.
Maybe so, but in this case, nobody has come up with a coherent way to back up this criticism of "you've disregarded flow".
Originally posted by Josch:
You maybe need to study this stuff better before you waste alot of money on your prototypes.
First of all, a starter motor doesn't come anywhere near even close to 10 hp.
The larger ones do.
Originally posted by Josch:
The only reason it can turn an engine over is because it is gear reducted (ie. big flywheel vs. tiny starter gear).
That's torque, not horsepower. Gearing doesn't change horsepower demand.
Originally posted by Josch:
If you were to gear it the other way to try and turn a compressor impeller the speed necessary to feed an engine running at 5000rpms with 4psi say, I don't even think the starter would barely turn over (the vacuum from the engine's intake across the impeller would probably help the starter turn a little). I don't even think you could get .001 psi at 5000rpm with a typical starter motor off a car.
The e-RAM product delivers about .5 PSI with a motor one tenth the size and current draw of a starter motor -- it's small enough to hide in your hand -- and that's with a poor kind of compressor. That would not be possible if this speculation of yours were valid. And also, it's in line with what the flow times backpressure calculation predicts.
Since I have measured this myself and know it's true, this speculative naysaying of yours goes right out the window. All you have to offer is guesses.
Originally posted by Josch:
Here, read this:
[....]
and
http://www.electricsupercharger.com (haha)
The ebay stuff is scams using tiny weak motors. The latter product was dynoed with an authentic 9 HP gain by Brad Noon, one of the most respected CEGers. That's the one I measured the boost on myself.
Originally posted by Josch:
Why not just use a pulley/belt and a shaft (ie. Vortec) to get the power directly and avoid all the heat losses from electron movement (not to mention the weight from motors and batteries),
Because belt-driven superchargers, both centrifugal and positive-displacement, put a demand on the driveshaft that is not moderated in proportion to the need for power, and that demand is greatest when you're working the engine the hardest. An electric blower, on the other hand, draws power from the driveshaft at a later time, when the engine is not under a high load.
Originally posted by Josch:
or use the 'free' exhaust gases (heat energy) that the motor just throws away anyways and convert that to usable energy (ie. conventional methods)??
Well ideally, that's what you'd do even with an electrical system. I think that hybrid-electric cars are going to be pretty much the norm by 2010 or so, and when they are, it will make a lot of sense for the makers to put the generator on an exhaust turbine instead of on the drive shaft. It could boost mileage significantly, and there will be plenty of pressure to boost mileage. I am not using exhaust power for the simple reason that I'm doing this cheap. If I was going all-out, of course I would use exhaust power.
Originally posted by Josch:
By the way, I had your same idea when I was like 18-19 years old and it DOES sure sound like a good idea on paper, but it just can't work with today's technology. Wouldn't you just rather work extra hard for a summer and then just buy the complete turbo kit?
Where's the fun in that? I'm not a racer, I don't spend my weekends at the track trying to shave tenths off my ET... if I'm going to invest in a big engine project, I'm going to do it because it's interesting and original. If I fail, I'm out a smallish amount of money and some absorbing hobby time, and if I succeed, I open a pathway that people didn't have available before. That means more to me than just having a faster car. If I just want a faster car I'll buy one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676 |
i can't believe this inane thread is still alive, dammit, there's no way to do FI without a tc or sc, end of story. . .no electric this or that. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,196
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,196 |
What about that kewl leaf blower I saw on here though? That looked like it would work
2004 Evolution VIII cams-exhaust-tune
315whp 12.7@109
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,616
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,616 |
Originally posted by ssmumich00:
i can't believe this inane thread is still alive, dammit, there's no way to do FI without a tc or sc, end of story. . .no electric this or that. . .
You'd be surprised at the out-put of 2 gerbils on a wheel near a loud sound source...vrooooooooooom baby!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676 |
Originally posted by mcgainer:
Originally posted by ssmumich00:
i can't believe this inane thread is still alive, dammit, there's no way to do FI without a tc or sc, end of story. . .no electric this or that. . .
You'd be surprised at the out-put of 2 gerbils on a wheel near a loud sound source...vrooooooooooom baby!
!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by ssmumich00:
Originally posted by mcgainer:
Originally posted by ssmumich00:
i can't believe this inane thread is still alive, dammit, there's no way to do FI without a tc or sc, end of story. . .no electric this or that. . .
You'd be surprised at the out-put of 2 gerbils on a wheel near a loud sound source...vrooooooooooom baby!
!!!!!
Especially if you give them steroids and oatmeal!
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 652
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 652 |
Originally posted by Paul Kienitz:
Originally posted by Josch:
First of all, a starter motor doesn't come anywhere near even close to 10 hp.
The larger ones do.
Yeah ok, let just go salvage a Caterpillar starter off a D-12 Earthmover, and then you can put 2 big batteries in your trunk to spin it up and create your boost, and the instant you floor it (and your WOT switch engages the motor's solenoid) and your batteries rapidly drop in voltage as your motor spins up to speed, then your alternator (if sized correctly) will put your same 10hp load on your crankshaft thru the alternator belt as it tries to keep the batteries charged. If your alternator is too small (like stock amperage), it will just full-field your alternator for a long time to try and charge your batteries and will overheat and likely fry the diodes in it.... Ok, (you think) why not just rig up a simple WOT switch to shut off the field current to the alternator (shutting it down) for while you get on it?.... so then after you put that on, you floor it and watch your voltmeter drop down to 10 volts as the boost kicks in and your ignition system gets very weak and combustion becomes less complete (especially at the higher rpms when you need the hottest spark under those boost conditions). You don't believe me? Try it and see....on a backyard budget even? Even more impossible. Automakers couldn't even do it. Big diesel engine companies really could profit from this method if workable. They still can't figure it out either. And you hope to acheive this on a shoestring budjet?
Sometimes I wonder why I bother trying so hard to reason with the unreasonable
But if you DO do it and succeed, then you can market it, sell it to all the automakers and big diesel companies, get rich, and then come back here and laugh at all of us here and you can tell the world how wrong us stupid skeptics were
'95 CONTOUR SE
-Enkei 16s
-SVT wannabe
-Dual escapes w/ 2 1/2" stainless tips
-True LED taillight conversion
- Audi Xenon Projector Retrofit
-Mp3 deck, dual 10s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
First, on the flow question, I guess the best way to describe it, is volumetric efficiency flow losses; the engine is sucking air in, not just letting it flow in, hence a less than atmospheric pressure reading on an NA intake manifold. Granted, not a major deal (its the whole system that makes this not feasible, not just this) but still some percentage loss on the total.
Let's revisit the math, since you are so keen on that.
First we will start with the actual equaiton for determining the power required for continuous compression (note you still weren't that far off on this one, but enough)
Pt= Theoretical power required to compress the air continuously.
Ps= Shaft power required due to adiabatic efficiency losses in the compressor.
k= ratio of specific heat at const. pressure and const. volume, assumed to = 1.4 for air.
Q= air flow rate
p1=equivalent NA pressure at intake valve(s)
p2=desired boost pressure at intake valve(s)
Pt= (k/(k-1))*Q*p1*[((p2/p1)^((k-1)/k)-1]
For the Zetec, I've used the following specs.
Bore = 84.8mm
Stroke = 88.0mm
peak rpm = 6000
Ambient air temp = 20* C
Vol. Eff. = 85%
Stock power = 93kW = 125hp
and boost, first I used 35kPa (~5psi) and later I used 70kPa (~10psi) and no intercooler, because of Paul's apparent disdain for them.
Typical turbocharger sizing calculations come up with the following:
Flow @ 35kPa = ~0.101m^3/s but output is only ~122kW or 165hp (at the engine, not the wheels)
Flow @ 70kPa = ~0.116m^3/s with output ~140kW ~188hp
Note that the eqautions I've used for this stuff are notable optimistic as far as power output #'s. You can find calculators that use the same equations at Ray Hall's website: http://www.turbofast.com.au/ if you wish to check for yourself.
Now, to get back to the power equation. The only caveat here, is that rather than use the std. atmospheric pressure of 100kPa, I multiply that by the volumetric efficiency we have assumed for the engine (which at 85% is pretty optimistic for high rpm) and get 85kPa.
So, for Paul's assumed 35kPa boost pressure we get the following.
Pt = 5.00kW
Now, typical centrifugal compressor efficiency is something like 65% so:
Ps = 5kW/.65 = 7.69 kW at the electric motor shaft. This is roughly 10.3 hp required from the motor.
Now, assuming your 12V system, this is roughly 650Amps running ANY TIME you wish to have boost, assuming of course, the motor is 100% efficient, though, as you all know, there aren't any of those around . . . Note also, this is only to make ~165 hp at the flywheel, or what is actually slightly less than a stock duratec. Even on a 24V system, it is still ~325Amps.
Now, Paul was looking for ~200hp w/ his 5psi, and that ain't gonna happen, so let's see what happens when we double the boost pressure to 70kPa. We know from above that the power is much closer (188hp) so this should be a reasonable amount.
Now, checking for required power:
Pt = 7.57kW
Ps = 7.57kW/.65 = 11.65kW ~ 15.6hp from the electric motor.
Again, at 12V, this would require in excess of 970 Amps, even assuming a perfectly efficient motor. and even at 24V would require ~485 Amps minimum.
I don't know about you guys, but this seems to me like its requiring a DAMN BIG electrical system, even for very short bursts on a very low duty cycle. This is even aside from finding a suitable motor, and finding a place to put it. Oh, I also failed to mention, that your typical centrifugal compressor will be spinning well over 100k rpm to meet these flow requirements, and whatever magical wonder motor paul chooses to run will need to be even bigger to account for the additional losses due to the required gearing to run the compressor at the appropriate speed.
Paul,
its not like this is a new idea. Every freshman engineering student in every school across the nation (and even world) has jumped on this at one time or another, only to find it isn't feasible (or at least worthwhile) with present technology. You have been whining about the cost of an intercooler becuase you want to do your project cheaply, but really, do you think even a version of this that doesn't even work well is going to be cheap? An intercooler, even a new one from spearco, will be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the required componentry for this sort of a setup. High current motors, custom compressors and gearing, much larger alternator, 2nd battery, high current electrical distribution and control components, most all needing to be custom made. All for the same amount of hp that could be had in the other motor offered in the car stock, and all the time, not just for extremely short bursts of time. And to top it all off, you still wouldn't be legal to drive the car in california. Though, you could anyway, and really piss off all your neighbors over in Berkeley.
On Edit - I can't spell . . .
Last edited by Rara; 08/09/03 03:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Very nice, summed up simply and supported with a little math. war....
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165 |
This thread is like crack: >I have better things to do with my time >I am incapeable of doing anything else while reading >This is probably killing brain cells somehow >I keep coming back for more Disclamer: I have never tried crack, and if I have offended those of you who do crack, I apologize.
Contour--It will make a master mechanic out of you!
95 LX MTX Bolt-ons
95 Neon SOHC ATX
77 Dodge Powerwagon-more displacement than my Neon, Contour, and wife's Saturn---combined!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by Josch:
Yeah ok, let just go salvage a Caterpillar starter off a D-12 Earthmover, and then you can put 2 big batteries in your trunk to spin it up and create your boost, and the instant you floor it (and your WOT switch engages the motor's solenoid) and your batteries rapidly drop in voltage as your motor spins up to speed, then your alternator (if sized correctly) will put your same 10hp load on your crankshaft thru the alternator belt as it tries to keep the batteries charged.
The whole point of using electricity instead of a belt is that you avoid putting that load on the engine... I've never heard of any car having a ten horsepower alternator. Ours is two horsepower.
Originally posted by Josch:
If your alternator is too small (like stock amperage), it will just full-field your alternator for a long time to try and charge your batteries and will overheat and likely fry the diodes in it....
It's simple enough to protect against that, if it's a real risk.
Originally posted by Josch:
Ok, (you think) why not just rig up a simple WOT switch to shut off the field current to the alternator (shutting it down) for while you get on it?.... so then after you put that on, you floor it and watch your voltmeter drop down to 10 volts as the boost kicks in and your ignition system gets very weak and combustion becomes less complete (especially at the higher rpms when you need the hottest spark under those boost conditions). You don't believe me? Try it and see....on a backyard budget even?
A simple matter of sizing your batteries to the job. A single Optima red-top can put out something like 15 horsepower, and if I use two, I doubt you'll see enough voltage drop to worry about. Or, I could isolate one battery at activation time, keeping the rest of the car at 14V. I'm also considering possible 24V arrangements (though this might require finding a way to reconfigure the coils inside the motor), which would reduce the need for a ten pound thyristor. There are all kinds of options.
These are all issues that are quite manageable with a little care and foresight. I don't know why you make such a big deal out of them. You already posted some really unrealistically pessimistic stuff before, and I don't see you revisiting those ideas once the mistakes were pointed out...
Originally posted by Josch:
Even more impossible. Automakers couldn't even do it.
What do you mean, couldn't? When did they try? It's not that they couldn't, it's just that they didn't. For probably very reasonable economic reasons.
Originally posted by Josch:
Big diesel engine companies really could profit from this method if workable.
Your thought processes are pretty confusing here. Big diesel? This is a technique for small engines. Two liters is about the most I'd want to try this with.
Originally posted by Josch:
They still can't figure it out either. And you hope to acheive this on a shoestring budjet?
Sometimes I wonder why I bother trying so hard to reason with the unreasonable
Which one of the two of us is doing any actual reasoning here? Like, where in any of your, cough, reasoning have you come up with a single number that means anything?
Originally posted by Josch:
But if you DO do it and succeed, then you can market it, sell it to all the automakers and big diesel companies, get rich, and then come back here and laugh at all of us here and you can tell the world how wrong us stupid skeptics were
No, I'll simply tell owners of small engine cars that they now have another choice. For anyone who thinks bolt-on NA performance is not enough but a multi-kilobuck turbo setup is too much, this is a nice option in the middle, where we currently don't have much of anything.
Perhaps I should also mention that I half intend to get me an actual electric car some time in the next five years, and a project like this is good practice in that direction. It's like a miniature model of an electric drive train.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 682 |
You know, this business of defending an experimental idea was exactly what I did not want this conversation to turn into, when I first asked about the value of intercoolers. Originally posted by Rara:
So, for Paul's assumed 35kPa boost pressure we get the following.
Pt = 5.00kW
Now, typical centrifugal compressor efficiency is something like 65% so:
Ps = 5kW/.65 = 7.69 kW at the electric motor shaft. This is roughly 10.3 hp required from the motor.
That's just about the same number I came up with by taking a rough guess at the inefficiencies. In summary, with either your figures or mine, it's at the difficult end, but certainly not impossible.
Originally posted by Rara:
Now, assuming your 12V system, this is roughly 650Amps running ANY TIME you wish to have boost,
Correction, not ANY time you have boost, but any time you have maximum boost at high RPMs. 90% of the time the demand is lower. (One advantage of electric boost is you can regulate the demand to exactly fit the need, instead of taking too much and throwing away the part you don't want, as all mechanical boosters do in some parts of the powerband.) And note also that if the system fails to give you this much power, that only affects the high end; you might have 6 psi at 4000 rpm and 4 psi at 6000. Since the car's present behavior is that you really feel an increase in pull as you go above 4000, that could still help quite a bit.
Originally posted by Rara:
Now, Paul was looking for ~200hp w/ his 5psi, and that ain't gonna happen,
Of course it's not. I never said I expected 200 hp, I only said I had no interest in anything beyond that.
So never mind the second, higher boost scenario.
Originally posted by Rara:
Oh, I also failed to mention, that your typical centrifugal compressor will be spinning well over 100k rpm to meet these flow requirements, and whatever magical wonder motor paul chooses to run will need to be even bigger to account for the additional losses due to the required gearing to run the compressor at the appropriate speed.
I was figuring on using a belt. Is that bad? And I thought it was only like 30k rpm... If it's 100k, that means gears, which would be more difficult and annoying.
Originally posted by Rara:
You have been whining about the cost of an intercooler becuase you want to do your project cheaply, but really, do you think even a version of this that doesn't even work well is going to be cheap? An intercooler, even a new one from spearco, will be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the required componentry for this sort of a setup.
I thought we settled the intercooler issue a month ago. I already told you I'd use a basic air-air cooler. If you're going to talk down to people, it helps to listen first.
Originally posted by Rara:
High current motors, custom compressors and gearing, much larger alternator, 2nd battery, high current electrical distribution and control components, most all needing to be custom made.
Depending on how much I use it, there may not be that much need for a larger alternator. Other users might want one.
As for the custom making, that's just hobby value. There's not much I'd have to farm out to anyone.
Originally posted by Rara:
All for the same amount of hp that could be had in the other motor offered in the car stock, and all the time, not just for extremely short bursts of time. And to top it all off, you still wouldn't be legal to drive the car in california. Though, you could anyway, and really piss off all your neighbors over in Berkeley.
I guess your suggestion is to buy a different car.
Hell, my CTA intake isn't legal in California, and this system could pass the same way the CTA did last time: unlike a turbocharger, it can be easily dismounted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 80
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 80 |
Thanks everyone! I now know less about tcs and scs than before by reading this section of the forum. I now plan to reread the entire thing minus Paul's random babblings. Paul, it does not take 9 pages of posts to prove you're right if you are, in fact, right. Quoting everyone's counters and picking apart their advice is not agreeing with 90% of what they're saying. It's trying to prove you're right. These guys know more about forced induction than you do. IT'S A FACT. Instead of trying to prove them wrong, LISTEN TO THEM!! In the short term, yes, it isn't cost effective to use an intercooler. However, 3 months down the road when you've replaced your head gasket 4 times, it will seem really cost-effective. There are some good ideas when it comes to using electric motors, but not for turbos. It is best to go mechanically driven for turbos, since so much power is required to drive the electric motor. If you're really itching to stick an electric motor in your car, go with the electrically-driven water pump from batinc. And please, please don't quote this post. Last thing I need to see is a little box inside one of your posts with my words in it
I ran a search already!
99 Ford Contour SVT - SOLD!! 
'90 CRX Si, '98 Explorer V8, '98 Acura ITRally Co-Driver
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by imnotted:
Thanks everyone! I now know less about tcs and scs than before by reading this section of the forum. I now plan to reread the entire thing minus Paul's random babblings. Paul, it does not take 9 pages of posts to prove you're right if you are, in fact, right. Quoting everyone's counters and picking apart their advice is not agreeing with 90% of what they're saying. It's trying to prove you're right. These guys know more about forced induction than you do. IT'S A FACT. Instead of trying to prove them wrong, LISTEN TO THEM!! In the short term, yes, it isn't cost effective to use an intercooler. However, 3 months down the road when you've replaced your head gasket 4 times, it will seem really cost-effective. There are some good ideas when it comes to using electric motors, but not for turbos. It is best to go mechanically driven for turbos, since so much power is required to drive the electric motor. If you're really itching to stick an electric motor in your car, go with the electrically-driven water pump from batinc. And please, please don't quote this post. Last thing I need to see is a little box inside one of your posts with my words in it
Too late!
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165 |
takes another hit from this post... In the morning my wife likes to cuddle, and this morning, as I was lying in bed, wide awake, I was thinking, what if we could use Paul's idea to supplement a conventional turbocharger? Use it to "preload" the system until full boost is being provided by the regular turbo? Use a stored electrical charge to run the compressor, and when it is no longer needed, it shuts off, and recharges. It could be recharged by alternator, when the car breaks (like hybrids), or someother use of existing kinetic energy, or a combination of all of those. takes another hit from this post... I really need to get some professional help
Contour--It will make a master mechanic out of you!
95 LX MTX Bolt-ons
95 Neon SOHC ATX
77 Dodge Powerwagon-more displacement than my Neon, Contour, and wife's Saturn---combined!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Originally posted by Oeneus:
takes another hit from this post...
In the morning my wife likes to cuddle, and this morning, as I was lying in bed, wide awake, I was thinking, what if we could use Paul's idea to supplement a conventional turbocharger? Use it to "preload" the system until full boost is being provided by the regular turbo? Use a stored electrical charge to run the compressor, and when it is no longer needed, it shuts off, and recharges. It could be recharged by alternator, when the car breaks (like hybrids), or someother use of existing kinetic energy, or a combination of all of those.
takes another hit from this post...
I really need to get some professional help
better yet, rather than a seperate setup, why not directly couple the electric motor to the turbo charger to simply help it get up to operating speed faster?
In fact, there are companies doing just that right now. Though I can't say that I know of any in production. While in theory it is a great idea, in practical application there are a lot of things that hinder it. To steal a german proverb "The Devil is in the details."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Perhaps a magnetic field coupling since the turbine is so light? That way it wouldn't actually be in contact with the turbine.
war...
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 23
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 23 |
Water injection will cool the intake air, but water is non-condensable so it will increase compression ratio.If you want to see the difference between your engine running with cool air and hot (ie boosted) loose a water pump and wait to see how your engine runs at the higher compreesion created by the high temp.I lost the water pump in my 84 Mustang GT and the comprssion got so high that it would'nt even crank when the key was turned. High intake air temps will kill any motor unless it is designed for it.get an inter-cooler if your going to run boost.
2000 Contour SE,All stock and lots a fun,But I have plans
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
Perhaps a magnetic field coupling since the turbine is so light? That way it wouldn't actually be in contact with the turbine.
war...
So in layman's terms, use a magnet to spin the turbine at low engine rpms? I am assuming an electro-magnet, or could it work only using the polar characteristics of the magnets?
Contour--It will make a master mechanic out of you!
95 LX MTX Bolt-ons
95 Neon SOHC ATX
77 Dodge Powerwagon-more displacement than my Neon, Contour, and wife's Saturn---combined!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by Oeneus:
Originally posted by warmonger:
Perhaps a magnetic field coupling since the turbine is so light? That way it wouldn't actually be in contact with the turbine.
war...
So in layman's terms, use a magnet to spin the turbine at low engine rpms? I am assuming an electro-magnet, or could it work only using the polar characteristics of the magnets?
You would have to have some permanent magnetic areas on your compressor wheel, then use electromagnetic field coils surrounding the compressor housing. These would be swithed on to spool the compressor/tubine up to speed rapidly but would have to be shut off to prevent them from actually slowing the compressor wheel down at very high turbo speeds.
You could just use a conventional electric motor armature located centrally...between the turbine and compressor, sort of where the bearings are now and then shut off the motor as the exahust volume goes up. However, the turbo has enough mass already and would be VERY massive with that kind of armature in the middle. That is why I was thinking permanetly magnetic blades on the compressor with the actual compressor housing having field coils all through it. Exhaust side is too hot.
Still, it would probably be smarter to continue working on Lighter Mass components for the turbine/compressor wheels so that less exhaust would be required to spool the compressor RATHER than adding more energy to turn an already massive turbine.
war...
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 652
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 652 |
Or a mechanical means (?possibly a much simpler/cheaper way?) could be to just use an overrunning one-way roller clutch that would allow the turbine shaft to overspeed and run faster than the driving unit at any time it wants? But yeah, I agree that this idea could turn out to be a potentially good way to help minimize conventional turbo lag as we know it (or you guys with turbos know it anyways) By the way, anybody who believes that electric superchargers work , needs to go HERE to take this free IQ test, and then go to some type of specialist and get your logic circuits tested for obvious reasons
'95 CONTOUR SE
-Enkei 16s
-SVT wannabe
-Dual escapes w/ 2 1/2" stainless tips
-True LED taillight conversion
- Audi Xenon Projector Retrofit
-Mp3 deck, dual 10s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 80
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 80 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
Too late!
Very funny war. Hey, I've seen these jet engine kits on eBay. Teaches you how to build a jet engine out of a turbo. Maybe if you took half a dozen and stuck them to the back of a 'tour.....
I ran a search already!
99 Ford Contour SVT - SOLD!!
'90 CRX Si, '98 Explorer V8, '98 Acura ITRally Co-Driver
|
|
|
|
|
