Let's see how far a thread like this can go. Discussion topics may include, but not limited too:

Adiabatic efficiency
Equivalent Compression Ratio
Mass flow calculation
Volumetric efficiency
Intercooler efficiency
Drive power
and anything else you can think of concerning engines from a scientific standpoint...like graphite-foam as a material in heat exchangers...

 

How about NO!

 

Lol

 

You have to start with a question like, "So what makes a turbocharger so much more efficient than a supercharger" or something like that. Then smart people reply and debate. Then all you have to do is sit back and watch

 

That would be a short discussion anyway. How about high-helix roots type superchargers vs. screw-type?

 

What's a turbocharger??


I'd like to know just how much more efficent a ported Eaton is compared to a stock eaton that seems to max out at about 16,000rpms. I'm contemplating writing Stiegemeier for their input.

I want to know if there is a power level limit on our motors or just a matter of taking the right precautions to prevent the big boom.

And why people still refer to limits, levels and increases in PSI and not rpm.

And why people can't refer to pulley increases in inches or ratio instead of "2lb pulley".

Just things I always think about..

 

I always wondered why they call it "taking a dump" and not "leaving a dump". Afterall you aren't taking it anywhere...?

As far as the Eaton porting I found this thread:

https://www.f150online.com/forums/ar.../t-167255.html

With all of the testing and design that Eaton does on a continual basis I don't think there is much to be gained from porting the blower in terms of compressor efficiency. If it was that easy I would think Eaton would have jumped on this years ago. It does seem to have application specific benefits e.g. the Lightnings.

 

I never said that was a great question, hence the something like that; don't make me think harder than I have to.
Go Knights!!

 

I agree that PSI is not the best number. But rpm's alone won't tell you anything.
So, we use max s/c rpms along with max s/c cfm, along with pulley ratios to come up with different cfm numbers at different engine rpms? This may be as good as it gets for us, but it won't be very accurate. Trial and error, using the best second hand knowledge we can find is all we have to work with. I have a collection of pulleys to prove it!:o

Trying to apply compilcated formulae to these questions is just an exercise if we don't have the facility, equipment, and expertise to test and confirm what we think.

 

Actually a $600 wideband datalogger is all you need. If you know your AFR, fuel psi, and injector size then you can find the CFM the engine is using at any RPM. It's actually a very simple set of equations I'll post later when I can find my notes.

 

I agree, psi is just a measure of resistance. Which is why you loose boost when you port your heads etc. It allows less resistance, hence more HP and lower boost levels.

As far as compression ratio, some like high compression low boost while others like low compression with high boost.

Personally I like the low compression High boost route. With a low compression motor you have alot room in the combustion chamber, this will actually equate into a larger displacement motor when adding boost since there is more room.

 

thats something i can definitely relate to

 

Keeping w/ the scientific theme of this thread,I beleive the correct term is
"Dropping ***".

 

I believe a better terms would be "colonic mass explusion"....



Ok..lets find something else to discuss.


Here...ponder the difference between a Eaton M112 and the new M122H from the GT500.

 

Bigger always looks better