Supercharger Pulley Size vs. Boost And My Response To Richard Holdener's Video.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 ноя 2023
- This is partially a response to Richard Holdener's video on supercharging a 4.8LS with an Eaton M90, but more of and explanation of how to calculate supercharger boost when using a Roots or Lysholm/Screw type.
Please support this channel:
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
Mr. Vizard's channel: / @davidvizard
Richard Holdener's video: • DIRT CHEAP, $100 4.8L ... 
Авто/Мото
![A Day To Remember: Feedback [OFFICIAL VIDEO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iXVnysmQ4e0/mqdefault.jpg)
Greg seems like the kind of guy that knows the part number for an o-ring that makes a superior hose washer.
The man has a favorite drop tank, just saying :D
What I hate about hoses is the ends. If they got messed up from any number of things you either have to buy a new hose or put on one of the Mickey Mouse repair ends. Wish you could just go to a hydraulic supplier and get a new end crimped on.
@@Anacronian super niche reference, but clearly this channel is full of niche lovers lol
He would know which guy was operating the machine that made a given spark plug from the years 1936 to 1976
More like the kind of guy that can find the manual that has the part number, and the procedure to replace the o -ring.
I just wanted to say that I don't fully understand a lot of what is talked about on this channel, but I find it fascinating, and try to learn as much as I can, and I love to listen to your videos, I find them very therapeutic. my father has been a Hydraulic engineer and mechanic for most of his life, he started working at Mack in the mid 1970s and worked with trucks up until about 10 years ago. we share a love of aircraft both vintage and modern, and have been watching your channel together, (where he often helps to explain a lot of what you talk about here), anyway I guess this is a roundabout way of saying thank you for your videos and your channel, they really mean a lot to me.
Thanks, I appreciate your kinds words.
I'm glad he is able to help explain the concepts. If you can try to get ahold of the documents he cited in the video. While the may seen nebulous after reading a couple times the information begins to be digestible and you are one piece of info smarter. The video he did on turbo compounding was so amazing to me. I had not fully understood it's function until then
I am with you there - and in some of Greg's other videos too - but that's my ignorance, not Greg's lack of knowledge or inability to explain things!!
Was I the only one NOT expecting Greg to look like that? Lolol you look great Greg, and smart as a whip. Keep it up.
Thank you.
From now on I will never be concerned wearing shirt over polo. Thank you Greg!
When I went to the lobby a flight attendant told me I shouldn't wear plaid on plaid.
Greg, I don't if you already do this or not, but I think you would not only be a fantastic Flight Gound School instructor, but also a terrific "motor school" instructor/teacher. Your methodical approach and detailed delivery are ideal, and IMO you have few peers in the online space. Thank for your excellent content and channel!
Thank you Greg. I work ten hour shifts 5 days a week in a special tool crib; by myself on a shipyard, (I see around 3 people a shift...). Your content is perfect for learning these concepts and broadening my knowledge about some of the things I sometimes get to see worked on, (it's not all boats we repair and maintain). It makes the time fly by, and I end up putting all that dead time to good use! It helps to better understand what the guys are talking about. Especially since I am not in any way a mechanic. I'm literally just a guy that knows where the tools are, and signs them in/out.
I may be a slow learner in this field, but with time on my side and enough notepads, it starts to sink in and stay! You are an inspiration, and I and so many others are grateful for you giving us your time.
Can I recommend to you a few other channels you might like. AvE, Vsauce, SloMoGuys, smarter every day.
I'm not deterring you from Greg, just more viewing options for slow nights.
damn your lucky i was an outside machinist and they worked me like a dog
The words you posted show your an honest, sincere reputable man.
I watch Greg’s channel because of the same above and I love the P-38, F4 U and 190. When Greg talks specifics which most of the time I have no concept of any prior knowledge too I try and learn also just for the love of learning more.
Holly mother of Santa Claus. Seeing you talk is like finding out what Jesus looks like.
Keep the content coming. As a military aircraft mechanic/aircrew turn military pilot turn legacy airline pilot... and side hustle car mechanic, I think you are CRUSHING IT!!
Thanks, but just to be clear I was never in the military.
33:06 Every time Greg goes to the face cam instead of stock photos ya' know the topic will be a good one! Appreciate the work you put in, my friend.
Love these deep dives Greg, they are appreciated. Best channel for these types of technical details on YT.
Nice to "see you in person" again. Usually what we see is stuff you talk about w/o you on camera. Thumbs up!
Hey, how about a video on the Jeep? From WWII to Vietnam, how the design evolved and whatnot
You would make one hell of an engineering lecturer, this is evident in the clear, consice and reasoned explanations in all your videos, thank you.
12:40 - Old enough to remember those days. The large displacement engines in those days had less HP than engines prior, and later. Polyester clothing wasn't the only down side of the 1970s.
I enjoyed your article. I put a Procharger D1SC on a 4.6L Ford Mustang Cobra. This stock 97 (high compression) engine made 650 hp. at 17lbs of boost. I changed the engine to a 2003 Cobra engine (lower compression) and changed the 4 cams to a stage 3 cam designed for a supercharger. The surprise (to me) result was that horsepower increased to 700 (only 50 increase) and boost dropped to 12 lbs. (same pulleys). Now I understand why.
Some of our tractor guys are adding turbos to their Kubotas but the company specs different cam timing for the otherwise-same engine with or without the boost. Cam timing cannot be ignored when considering any mods that affect or influence true VE. Thanks for another example of how important that can be. Cheers.
Also, those 03/04 heads flow a bit better than the older "B" heads.
^under statement
@@jj4791 doesn't mean you can't make power with em. Mine had a 03/04 short block, with ported B heads and cut runners in the intake, reliably made 770hp to the tire for years till some knucklehead t-boned me.
Squirrel moment, back in the late 70's I had one of those Ford 400 high deck Cleveland engines. With a good cam, intake and some better heads I am pretty sure it was putting out close to 350HP. Now it was in a full size wagon with 2.73 gears but it embarrassed many in a 1/4 mile and was solid up to 135mph in a "controlled environment". That aside, this was a fantastic video!
One green 1994 ford f150 4X4 with 400m, someone rebuilt engine and all they did was match up intake gaskets to ports. That truck survived two of my brothers and was sold. 135 mph with 250 gal slip tank (used to be free fuel from rigs) coming home from rigs. One Brother drive that truck around square grid corners by throwing into reverse while in 4 wheel drive at 90 mph. That one truck had some power and was built tough.
The youtube beef I didn’t know I wanted 😂 I enjoy both you and Richard’s content. Thank you for expanding my brain’s envelope
I don't have a beef with Richard Holdener. I hope I didn't give that impression.
Very informative video Greg! I watch Richard's videos too, and find a great depth of knowledge with David Vizard's videos too. It would be interesting to see someone measuring air density numbers vs power and torque levels on the dyno for many of these supercharger and turbo systems, since ultimately that's what really matters - Hot boost will perform worse than cold boost at the same pressure level - at least as long as there is adequate fuel to match the air. By the way, again, you video presentation on the Wright Brothers are second to none, and I share them whenever they need to be shared to clear up misinformation regarding the foundation of manned powered flight.
It's pretty easy to calculate the air density. Either take boost and correct it for temperature at the manifold, or look at AFRs and injector duration and work it out from there. However first, you need to have boost, and to do that you have to figure out the pulley sizes, thus it's a good place to start. As a general rule, more boost means more density as long as you are not going above the supercharger's efficiency limits.
Thnx for the shout out-The slippage content was awesome. To help your discussion-A boost formula for blower vs engine displacement (similar to carb sizing for displacement) is not usually accurate. You need to take into the power output of the na motor vs pressure minus the power consumption of the blower. Since you can have a given displacement produce wildly different specific outputs (even oem motors are now approaching 2 hp per cubic inch), the boost supplied by the blower at any given speed will be different on different na power outputs of the same displacement. My plan is to get 600 hp from this M90 (in modified form) on the 4.8l, fingers crossed.
Thanks for commenting. In regards to the simple formula I used, you are of course correct about the issue of the power output of an NA motor. I'm not sure if you watched my entire video, but I did cover that. The formula works for engines that are around 1 horsepower (SAE net) per cubic inch, it won't work well for something with twice that, at least not at high RPM where that power is likely to be made. Best of luck in your quest for 600hp from that application. It's possible in theory, but I'm pretty sure that will be a record for an M90 and not by a small amount. I'm excited about watching it.
Whenever I see someone mentioning the use of an M series blower, I'm always baffled by that choice. They had their day and their purpose, but for a couple hundy more, you can get a TVS R1320 R1900, and Jaguar and Audi are usually the best source for these. Comparing maps, the TVS is just light years ahead of the M series and approaches efficiencies of modern turbochargers. And it's not like the 1900 is no slouch; I hear the CTS-V guys can make something like 700ish HP with them. Harrop is a retailer that sells TVS series head units if you need something bigger.
I agree, the TVS is much better.
Greg, I really enjoyed the video! I also enjoy math, physics and engineering. Which is probably the reasons I enjoy playing with cars, especially the Ford Ecoboost! I'm actually going to watch your video again, you always make the topic understandable!!
I wish you could do a similar video for those of us who are using centerfugal superchargers.
While I like centrifugals in some applications, I literally can't do that. The math involved there is simply beyond my ability. With a centrifugal I would have to start with some known safe ratio and then experiment from there.
Centrifugals, you have to figure out how much airflow the basic engine requires, based on displacement and efficiency. The horsepower desired, the density ratio required to achieve that power.
Then obtain compressor maps from blower mfg. to determine what compressor and impeller trim is required to flow that amount of airflow at the pressure ratio. Factoring in intercooler/ after cooler efficiency.
This requires three different online calculators. Hpwizards has as least one of them. Stealth316 another. A better way is Dynomation6 or similar.
Great Stuff Sir! You have a great way of explaining the topic of concern
Andy
Thanks so much Andy.
The face behind the voice of all the videos I enjoy watching
This is a multiple watch video. Just so I can take notes. Your videos are top notch Sir. Greatly appreciated.
Who dares to doubt the impeccable credentials of Greetings, this is Greg? What foolhardiness motivates a person to challenge such an articulate and well referenced source?
was not expecting Antonio Banderes brother to be Greg. neat.
I have two identical engines with identical transmissions and rear gears. One is dual quad, other is supercharged with appropriate less compression and cam ground for the pump. Both are pretty much maxed for 91 octane. The supercharged car is 250 lbs heavier and much faster but takes a bit to develop big power, the dual quad car is much more fun because it jumps off the ground. An important bit is the super charged car gets double the MPG. Both were tire dyno tuned which I consider super critical when maxing old tech engines. Its all about yer goals.
Ahh, dual quads :) I haven't seen a nice dual quad set up in real life in a while. It seems like everyone is going with one big carb, or injection, but I do really like the dual quad set ups.
A friend who's owned and professionally built several hundred performance cars taunted me that a single carb can make the same power so I built otherwise identical single and dual carb machines. The dual carb dyno'd 16HP more than the single which could have been taken farther to get that so I conceded. However the dual carbs have a lot more up front power... and no other way to get that gut shaking sound. Now 70, been driving that machine for near 25 years and continue to add stable mates. Also an aircraft fan so thank you for your work. In these scary times we surely do need diversion. @@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
ruclips.net/video/tMsp7w5gJEk/видео.html
Always enjoy the videos even when they don’t really apply to me or my vehicle. A version of the make and model vehicle I drive did come with a turbo option though. Go ahead and laugh but I drive a 1994 Plymouth Voyager SE. A youngster with under 115k but I can fix it when it breaks :o) Like leaf springs, front bearing, cv axle to get ABS back last year when she failed inspection. I’m either sentimental about my van or semi-mental.
Since you brought up the ford 400s I have a 351m which is a shorter stroke 400. And the biggest gain on that engine was swapping out the cam. I went with a pretty hot cam that didn’t start picking up power until 1750-2000 rpm but that engine will sing when it goes above those rpm’s. That engine doesn’t have a lot of aftermarket support nor does it have a lot of desire in the high performance world and I don’t know why. It has been one tough motor that has on more occasions than I would like to admit went past 7000 rpm on a stock rotating assembly, pushrod/rocker and valve springs. Quite honestly the perfect budget build engine. Low price in the junkyards/fairly high availability due to a lot of them in pickup trucks. A few dollars on an intake, 4 barrel carb, gnarly cam and some headers and dollar per horsepower plus that toughness makes a good beginner build in my opinion.
I had a 2004 SVT Mustang. Pulley, intake, exhaust and tune turned that car into a beast. I was destroying Ferrari's and Z06's. Traded it in for an Enclave because my ex wife wanted an suv because we had so many kids. I almost cried when the dealership guy drove away with it. That was so dumb of me
1+1+1 arhhh I think I'll get my bang with Nitroxide 🤣🤣 Jokes aside thankyou for your time We late 60 yr olds and further are getting few and far between !I hope there are young ones out these using all this wonderful information both their and my home in Australia ! Thanks Greg ))
I'm not against Nitrous, but it's really expensive to run, and not at all practical for a street car.
This is the first time I’ve seen Greg’s face and the man is a legend and he has made some of my favorite videos on this website
I really appreciate your videos. I also watch David and Richard channels . Steven Morris tech and others . The information you give along with the math behind the explanation is very helpful behind why things happen as they do .
Greg is my favorite nerd!
Love both Greg and Richard's channels, cool stuff.
One problem this discussion overlooks is the temperature that's generated from the compression. Banks has good discussions about Manifold Air Density that covers this (see the banks power videos about 'the boost gauge is dead to me' and similar where Dale Banks gets on his hobby horse on this topic.
I don't overlook that, it's just not the subject of this video. This is a video about pulley sizes. Air density is mostly a function of boost, supercharger efficiency and intercooling. Actually I did touch very slightly on supercharger efficiency and in regards to a factor you probably haven't heard from Gale Banks. Also, saying the boost gauge is dead is just a click bait title. Nearly every OEM ECU out there references boost. Yes density is a big deal, but an increase in boost WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS will increase density.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yep, you touched on it with compressor efficiency , and Dale Banks is both doing some clickbaiting, and marketing (pushing his sensor/data collection) but his various videos do a fairly good job of talking about the problem, especially those talking about the Pikes Peak race.
He also has a few where he goes through an intake system, showing the losses each step of the way (including intake filter)
Wow! A face to the hypnotic voice 😎
Wish I had had a powerplant instructor in A&P school(Spartan '83) that was as good as you are at 'splainin things :) I watch Richards channel, so I guess that is how your channel came up in my feed.....excellent information and the nuts and blots ;) of it all.
Thanks for your kind words. I'm a big fan or Richard's channel. He is doing great work over there.
Great discussion, fits in when your talk about aircraft power increases by manifold pressure , aircraft use inches of mercury.
Hey Greg, I know you probably have a large backlog of videos to make, but I was wondering if you could squeeze in a “primer” video explaining terms and concepts you frequently use in more detail for us laymen. I know your explanations of them are sometimes scattered throughout your videos, but it would be nice if they were put into a single package. Of course, I could google them but I like hearing them explained by you, you have a knack for it.
thank you. very interesting. I have watched R. Holdener and he is interesting too. D Vizard's book on modifying your Mini is also great. Your hotel room looks like an IBIS Hotel I stayed at in Germany.
Thanks for another great informative video, your videos are the best! For some reason I always pictured you as Ward Carroll when you speak off camera but now I know you look like Jon Bernthal lol.
Greg, you tell 'em !
I'm sorry Greg, but the only thing I got from this was remembering Jeremy Clarkson driving the Mustang and he says, _"And this gauge shows me my In-Hugs, I've got SEVENTEEN of those!"_ I'm sure the people meant to understand this understood it perfectly well. See you on the next one.
Greetings from Germany to Germany . Always interesting stuff!
Great video Greg, not a subject I would normally be interested in but knowing the quality of your other content I had to watch this one to the very end. Yet again I have learned something - Thank you. Hope you had a pleasant and peaceful stop-over our side of the Pond. Looking forward to your next video even if it's on the common can opener. 👍
The best way to calculate your supercharger ratio and/or choose a supercharger is to find the s/c map. This is a complex graph of flowrate on the x axis, pressure ratio on the y, rpm and efficiency lines. If you do it that way, you will also be able to calculate the power consumption of the s/c. Your internal leakage etc etc will be automatically calculated since the creation of the map was done experimentally. I would assume 90 % engine volumetric efficiency around the peak torque and 75 % at the peak power for a pushrod V8. It will take a few iterations to get your numbers to converge. Obviously you will make the calculations for a mid range rpm and upper range and try to get a good compromise. You will get much more accurate numbers in boost, flowrate, adiabatic efficiency, and (if you convert adiabatic efficiency and boost into) power loss. Calculating the power benefit to the engine is a different matter, because it is hard to predict the spark retard needed and/or the reduced compression ratio effect.
Please post a link to the S/C map for the Kenne Bell 2.8.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles It looks like they have a tech support team. They should be able to provide you with a map. I have been able to get maps for Eaton s/c in the internet. I also used an Ogura s/c for a project, they provided me with maps for all their positive displacement blowers.
I think you missed the point. You will not be able to get a map for the Kenne Bell 2.8. Nor will you be able to get one for a big Roots blower from "The Blower Shop". They make a 192ci Roots type which is very close to the theoretical example I used early in this video. You can get them for some blowers, but VERY often you can't. Even when you can, the method I showed hear is the way to start, and then plot it on the chart. That's why Jerry Magnuson used this formula. It's a good starting place.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles If the blower you want to buy does not have a published map, and the manufacturer refuses to provide you with one, I would stay away from it. It is poorly engineered. That is why they are not showing you the map. BTW, with the proper method I showed, I forgot to mention that you calculate flowrate based on the mass volumetric efficiency and density of the air downstream the s/c. The pressure comes from the map, the temperature comes from the adiabatic efficiency that is also provided by the map. Another option you have is to use a centrifugal blower. They have much better adiabatic efficiency, but they will not give you much boost (if any) at low rpm. They always have maps.
Very interesting. DR= OD crank / OD blower ; PR=DR*Vblower/(.5*Veng); Pboost = Patm*PR-Patm.
O-rings are a fantastic improvement over RTV or other schmoos.
You were speaking directly to me when describing the hot rod path. I commented on Holdener's video. I have an Eaton m112 on a Ford 3.8 v6, enhanced to 4.3 liters. It works, but maybe not as well as it could. Using the ideal gas law, & some assumptions, I swagged somewhere between 1.64 and 1.85 PR. Per opening math would be 1.73. It's netted 350 whp with conservative ignition timing and water injection.
The Ideal Gas Law was useful in converting from Vol to Mass. The engine pumps air. The combustion is reacting mass. I am biased as I have MAF engine management.
Geg, I would be very keen on a deeper dive into supercharging a car engine. Such information might change what I do or continue doing.
Knowing nothing about superchargers it seems intuitive that higher speeds will reach a point of diminishing returns with increased friction, turbulence inside the supercharger, horsepower load on the engine, and at some point, the temperature of the compressed air, along with leaks made worse by the higher pressures. The setup in Holdener's video shows the supercharger feeding a very nice and curvy intake manifold through about an 8x10 rectangle that sits over the front four engine inlets (so that the pulleys line up). Surely that will affect flow to the rear cylinders.
Nice work, thank you.
The Rolls Royce Heritage Trust sell a comprehensive paper on calculating supercharged engine performance . Its good because Stanley Hooker wrote it with his staff! Definitely worth a read for the mathematically competent. The maths isn’t deep, just a bit convoluted. And it helps the trust and is very inexpensive.
That's with a centrifugal, very different from the Roots or Lysholms.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Plus the centrifugal need to be spun way up.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Plus the centrifugal need to be spun way up.
True, of course, but what was established was the relationship between engine power and charge consumption, and the importance of matching the supercharger (of whatever type )output to the engine charge consumption. I agree totally that the calculation of s/c performance in that paper relates to centrifugal types. But there is the similar direct linking of engine rpm to s/c rpm inherent in non turbo superchargers.
we have seen the Greg and the Greg is Greg
Greg is going to Greg after all.
Great stuff Greg! 👍
Hey Greg, super interesting video! I was wondering if you know how effective the turbos on the p47 and p38 are compared to the P51s dual stage supercharger. What I mean specifically is, how much horsepower do the engines lose at their planes max speed altitudes compared to on the deck? Thank you for making these videos!
Love GAA and RH both!
Hi Greg. I have been wondering something since I have started watching your video's on SC. I have not worked on a SC engine so forgive me on my ignorance. Has there been a SC run with pressure sensing to a computer with the SC run by an electric motor. The computer is reading the numbers like rpm, pressure on inlet and outlet, fuel etc and then turning the electricmotor to the SC accordingly? Really enjoy your video's!!!!! Also left message in community section. Rock on!!!!!
Yes, there are electrically driven superchargers that do exactly that, but they are quite new and rare.
people think boost is a measure that matters ... it kinda doesnt. mass air flow is the metric that engines care about. boost most often is a measure of resistance, not power.
MANY engine management systems calculate mass air flow by correcting boost for temperature and factoring in RPM as well as other things. Boost is a primary measurement. It's not the only one, but it's a big deal. ALL OEM turbo cars look at boost.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles only because its something easy to measure. not because it matters when making comparisons in terms of power and troque between engines etc.
like your example of how a misized supercharger can lead to more boost, and less power ... boost is largely a measure of restriction on the engine, not a measure of torque generation.
ie, a more efficient engine will make the same power, with less boost. because it actually has a higher mass air flow. it will also make significantly more power, with the same boost.
Can't believe John berenthal actually runs this channel
I don't see it, but you're not the first to say it, so maybe. I'll ask my wife.
but with a dash of antonio banderas
Greg any thoughts about ever doing some videos on old race engines? Like the Cosworth DFV or the 80’s F1 turbo era engines? Some of the old indycar engines are quite interesting as well like the Miller V16
That's a great idea! There are so many great engines to cover, e. g. the Miller-Offenhausers.
Hmm, maybe.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobilesthe bmw M12 is an great engine and there's a lot of good anecdotal stories that come out of the development and employment of that powerplant. Any 1500cc engine putting out ~1400 hp for any length of time is pretty hilarious
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
IMO (for what that's worth) the two most successful racing engine types are the Cosworth DF and the Drake Offy. Both because they dominated the series they were used in for pretty much the competitive life of the engine. I am leaving out drag racing engines because it's a specific application over a short distance.
One engine designed and built for one race that always impressed me was the Ilmor OHV V-8 designed and built for Indianapolis. Ilmor took the rule book and wrung out every single loophole they could find.
The Cosworth DFV was a major leap forward in engine design. Kevin Cameron covers the Cosworth in his book on motorcycle racing engines, because every subsequent racing engine was affected. To oversimplify, previous racing engines typically used large included angles between the intake and exhaust valve, and provided mixing and turbulence of the intake mixture by inducing rotational flow around the axis of the cylinder. The major issue was that with high compression ratios, the resulting combustion chamber was very "thin", producing poor flame propagation and requiring large ignition advance. Costin and Duckworth used shallow valve angles which resulted in a compact combustion chamber for good combustion, and depended on a tumbling rotation of the intake flow perpendicular to the cylinder axis for mixing turbulence. The result was an engine that made all other racing engines obsolete.
Hey would you do a video about deriving horsepower. From what I understand horsepower is torque*rpm divided by a constant. However, while reading rpm is simple enough deriving torque from my limited understanding is quite difficult. How does adding a geared supercharger alter this equation? I've heard some say that high rpm causes higher acceleration and better climb while high manifold causes higher and more effecient crusing speed. I've also heard some say to always have the throttle maxed and simply adjust rpm for power as long as you require a decent amount of it. In manuals specific engine modes are usually specified at the maximum possible rpm allowed for that mode. Which one of these is correct for a given situation is non-obvious and having an understandable equation would certainly help me understand the relationship between the various factors.
You're in germany, nice. Greetings from Poland :)
Thanks, I was in Poland yesterday. Poland might be the best country in Europe.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles What were you doing in Poland? if we could know
thanks for the excellent breakdown on this. Can you explain turbos similarly? I'm kind of an outlier in making boost, if you will. I have a 1948 Willys with a "Go-Devil" L134 flathead 4 cylinder original _style_ motor - not the original motor to the jeep, but the same engine out of a different vehicle. I have a limited budget and I'm _hoping_ to use a very small turbo to duplicate the boost of a system developed for this engine in the early 1950s. Back in the day, McCullouch (spelling?), who later became Paxton, developed a two-speed belt driven supercharger for this engine, delivering 2 and 5psi respective to gear.
When you can find these supercharger kits they're almost never complete and are often priced between $3000 and $5000 just for the supercharger itself with no brackets, hoses or anything else, and are typically not in running/usable condition.
I'm hoping to use a turbo to achieve similar results. Not for '"ultimate performance", but partly to help it keep up with traffic on local roads and partly to help it maintain power at high elevations. The Go-Devil redlines at 4000rpm and has a nominal 7:1 compression ratio.
I would go with a supercharger and not a turbo on that engine. That way you don't need to tap into the oil system or add a lot of underhood heat. A 45 cubic inch supercharger set up for about 6 pounds of boost will give you 1/3 more power with minimal complexity.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles outstanding! Thank you!
One thing that the top fuel quarter mile guys found out the hard way is that roots blower backfires were more common when the blowers were mounted ahead of the power-plant and piped into the manifold with the resulting volume of space between the two. It's why Weiand came out with the top mount manifold for the Detroit 6-71 rotors and outer case initially for the first generation Chrysler Hemis made from 1951 through '59. Weiand had already made the kits to use the 71 series rotor and outer case with their over-drives and rear rotor support plate for a front mount setup. Art Chrisman used the new top mount setup to be the first to clock over 180 mph and beat Don Garlits naturally aspirated Chrysler dragster in the eliminations of the first Bakersfield Fuel Championship "March Meet" in 1959 as sponsored by the "Smokers Car Club" . Garlits had the same setup on the very next weekend at Riverside. The roots setup seems best for standing start drag racing for power on the lower RPMs and up. Seemed about right as well for moderate street driving on my '97 Riviera.
The Roots type supercharger is very effective. I might talk about them more in another video. I understand the reasoning for the top mount, but I'm not a big fan of it for my applications. A top fuel car is another thing.
Thanks for all your great videos Greg!!!
I really wished you hadn’t revealed what you look like. It’s never been the same watching you videos since - not because there is anything wrong with your appearance but because the mystery is all gone now.
Hi, yes I was surprised, for some reason I thought he would be somewhat older, mainly because of the aircraft side of his channel interest.
Why? Greg is being Greg - and it's always great :) He's a very knowledgeable person - and I'm glad I could see his face - because it's the faces of truly valuable people who actually have something to say, that I want to remember.
@@call_me_stan5887 because my imagine of him is busted now.
I can't wait to tell my grandkids that you said I look young. One of them is in highschool and think I'm ancient.
I also imagined a much older, fatter bold gentleman, professor like figure. With glasses like the NASA officials in Apollo 13.
Hey. Its Greg ! 🐿
Dumb question from an electrical engineer with an amateur enthusiasm for classic cars. (helped my dad rebuild 65 Plymouth sport fury and 52 Nash.)
Would it be possible to get a net gain out of a system that had a CVT on the supercharger so that it always operated in its optimal range?
That's a good question, and the answer is yes, and it has been done in aircraft. The problem is cost and complexity vs. benefits. In other words, the cost:benefit ratio just isn't there on a car.
Also, didn't expect Greg to be the Punisher.
This is a long shot but, would you care to mention any of the NACA source material briefly referred to in this video or that helped inform your understanding of the nature of engines with respect to supercharging? I would really like to look into what they cover. Any help is greatly appreciated.
It's not a long shot. I covered quite a bit of it here: ruclips.net/video/ULLsIo1VzTw/видео.htmlsi=kg52JSxYeBf5mCAb
My Jaguar uses the Eaton M112 supercharger, it's not a very stressed out engine, I think the supercharger is a 1.8l and the engine is 4.2l and making 400hp.
How would you like to do a video about 1960s Honda racing motors,
2 and later 4 wheels
Magic in miniature
Engineering pushing the boundaries
Rpm up to 22k
Thanks
I really enjoy your work
I thought he would have a cigarette smoldering in one hand hunched over some stale coffee, and some dim light illuminating a hangar full of old charts.
He's a commercial pilot, i would imagine it's almost impossible to smoke if you're one nowadays.
Greg: your family doesn’t necessarily understand your videos, but we totally love our family. We are the Jews of airplanes & automobiles.
This is not the mental image I had formed of Greg. I pictured a much larger bald headed guy to go with this voice!
Question: You divide by 2 due to the 4-stroke engine, fine. Do you ever get into unstable boost pressure with high cylinder count engines, like a V8, that have cross-plane cranks? I should actually just draw out the degrees of cylinder intake stroke for said engine but I´m feeling lazy. I imagine it would be stable due to half the cylinders still filling in one revolution albeit at different degree points during said revolution. Any thoughts on the issue would be appreciated.
P.S. Or, along the same line, using a 5 cylinder engine.
If you put a manifold pressure gauge on a cross-plane crank V8 is will be pretty darn stable when at full throttle. It's the same when on boost. Yes there are some fluctuations, but they are generally minor with the types of engine's I'm talking about here, meaning stuff around 1hp per cubic inch.
Wait is this the official face reveal?!
He showed his face before years ago. He was in a hotel room in some asian country
There have been other videos previously, but recently there have been more with face/relevant background
Nah, he's done it at least once before on one of the other car oriented ones.
Honestly, I was being lazy here. I didn't feel like putting together the usual slide show type video for this topic.
What a handsome fellow
Greg, 14 yrs ago I submitted a patent to my employer (Navistar) for a throttling loss recovery device. Unfortunately they got into serious financial problems and abandoned all none essential patents, so it became public domain. Basically it uses a CVT, or electric motor/generator to drive a positive displacement supercharger. In this configuration, the engines air flow at part loads will be governed by the speed of the supercharger, and not the throttle. The difference in pressure between the intake manifold and atmospheric would produce work from the supercharger which would be returned back to the crank. The vast majority of people couldn't see how this could work, but a few thought it was genius. Coupled with the Atkinson cycle, I've estimated that this would produce about a 15% reduction in real world fuel consumption. What are your thoughts?
Throttling losses are big deal. Fiat's Multiair system is designed specifically to deal with it. So obviously they thought it mattered. As for the idea of using an electric supercharger to do it, I don't know, I would have to think it through, but in principle maybe.
Thinking of the positive displacement device as a throttling loss recovery device, can significantly reduce the drive and or absorption loads since you're not building much if any boost. To recover the power loss due to the Atkinson cycle you may only need about 3 lbs of boost, no intercooler would be required. @@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Could a Constantly Variable drive work for this application?
Yes.
is it diameter or number of teeth? or are they effectively the same thing?
If the teeth are the same size, which they are in a supercharger drive, then going by the relative number of teeth is fine.
Hey Greg, you’re a mechanically minded individual, do you know of a drive pulley system that could be variable like a CVT trans? That’d be neat
google says they do (i doubt they're commercially available), i say what's the point if you can have a turbo with electronic boost control, which seems like it's more efficient?
CVT on a supercharger would be smart. But like Greg said in other videos, superchargers don't like to be throttled. It roughly takes 25% of the total engine power to run the compressor.
On the other hand, a turbocharger uses wasted energy to run compressor. If you learn how to drive a turbocharged car, the lag is minimal.
Well, someone needs to make a center counter weighted crankshaft pulley, where at low rpm the pulley is big and faster makes it smaller. DCT system comes to mind.
Stupid question - why half for a four stroke and not a quarter? Those valves are closed?
Because half of the cylinders had an intake stroke, during that time the intake valves for those cylinders were open.
have you ever flown into MCO?
Yes, but not in a long time. I mostly do international stuff these days.
Plaid on plaid !
exactly! A flight attendant told me I shouldn't do that. I'm not convinced.
I just wanna know whether my supercharger can pull 200 kW.
404 on the link to Mr.Vizard's channel
Thanks, I fixed it, and here it is: www.youtube.com/@DavidVizard
I suggested Richard look into turbine recover after you video on them I doubt he will look into it
Showed up for the planes... stayed for the boost lesson.
Definitely NOT building a turbo 6.0 liter...
how many cfm do u need for 302 cubic inch lets get greedy and blow it up
A Ford Cleveland 400 is square at 4x4. Probably not going to do 8500 rpm. I have one in an LTD convertible.
Probably not. That would be a lot of RPM, a 351C probably could.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
On a street car. Not for long. Probably the OHV V-8s that run the longest amount of time at high RPMs are those used in Nascar. Lap after lap.
I agree.
Heat?
Get em Greg u know how many mechanics argue with me that 91 octane gas gives u more horsepower .we r talking regular sedans and they say it makes the engine run hotter .and it’s hard to argue with them cause they don’t even understand thermodynamics if a car runs at say 200degrees inside a engine and u put car one a planet that’s 200degrees but say engine can run theoretically it would produce any power so for more horsepower u want ur engine to run at lower temps to stave off knock to get higher mp pressure that’s where higher octane fuel comes in.then I use there logic and say water injection would produce power which they deny
Would you care to go into the history of the AN fitting, and why it's one of the greatest pieces of logistics in the last century?
I'm not sure I want to do that, but I do like AN fittings.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I've tried to explain it to a couple people before, but they get this glazed look in their eyes.
Well, that was very informative. I am however, guessing you are pretty bored over there in Germany, lol.
No, I'm having a good time here.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles glad to hear it. Lots of cool castles in Germany, my mom's from Germany, been there to visit relatives a couple of time, enjoy the old country.
I stopped watching him very much when his responses to my remarks betrayed that he misread and misunderstood what I said, which I would proffer to be very well-thought-out points
I did watch his video though, the one this is a response to, and was really non-plussed that he didn't have intercoolers on both setups (let alone boost & temperature numbers), and also didn't try to match the blower speeds, which then could have allowed us to have a serious and meaningful conversation on how inefficient Roots blowers are at compressing air and why it made more power on a bigger V8
I understand you're point, and it is valid, but I'm going to stick up for Holdener a bit here. I really don't think his goal was to show how inefficient the M90 is (Roots in general are another matter because they vary A LOT). I really think he was just trying to show a way to get near 500hp on not only junkyard parts, but the non desirable throw away junk yard parts. Also, in the video I'm talking about he ONLY tested the 4.8 liter V8, you might be thinking of another video.
As for supercharger and or turbo efficiencies, I could make a video about that, but I'm not sure anyone would watch it.
I. Might. Need. To. Watch. This. Again... your. Calculations.... on. Pully. Size..brought. back. Memories...of. figuring. Differential. Ratio.s. and. The. Effects. Of. .10. Increases... up. To. They. Won.t. fit. In. The. Housing... the. Only. Supercharger. Or. Blower. I. Was. Ever. Around.. was. The. B...n...m. and. the. Weiland. On. Street. App.s... and. The. Pullies. Were. External... so. Housing. Clearance. Was. Not. The. Issue. Adding. A. Tooth. To. A. Belt. Drive... pully...rather. than. A. Internally. Functioning. Gear..... making. The. Tightest. Of. Fits. At. Times.. in. Fact. You. Might. Enjoy.. looking. Up. The. 4.20. Unit. For. The. G...m.. 10. Bolt... why..... the. Ten. Bolt. Is. A. Lighter. Housing. Helping. With. Over all. Weight. Trimming.. good. Video. Have. A. Nice. Day...
The whole aftermarket talks about this this wrong way. We need to be discussing mass airflow before anything else. Charge pressure is secondary just like how the OEs do it.
I'm afraid that's a supercharging 101 comment, everybody knows it's the weight of air that matters. However you still measure pressure, and it's still relevant data. All OEM boosted cars look at manifold pressure, all of them.
If everyone knew it's the weight of the air (mass airflow) that matter's this video would have been 1/3 the length. You spent your time explaining roundabout volumetric efficiency touching on low efficiency 70's v8s and whatnot principally because people don't understand this.
By continuing to talk about things in "boost" you're falling into the same trap. OE dyno and cal engineers only speak in g/S. The ECU is only looking at charge air pressure as an upper safety limit. Everything it's asking for is a torque request. You darn well know this.
3 minutes 25 seconds in 3 ads already thats an ad a minute, give or take. YT is really pushing us to move for prime. Not just your channel seems all subs are like this. Is This why yt is blocking channels if you use ad blockers? I hope your revenue is in creasing and not just yt's. Still watching good info here. Not moving to prime now its a principle thing. No offense to your channel I know you have no control over yt.
Hi Bob, I agree, youtube is getting a bit out of control with ads. I fear they will shoot themselves in the foot and ruin the platform. Time will tell.
Ugh! This volumetric efficiency math is just as brain-wrecking as weights and balances
Greg: It seems like the circumference, rather than the diameter, of the crankshaft drive and the supercharger drive to get the drive ratio.
If you multiply diameter by something, the circumference will get bigger by the same factor. C=Pi*D.
exactly, either way works fine.
G'day Bubba,
Well, you're
Almost
Not wrong,
With that there
Observation...
But if one were to use your
Method...;
It would be identical to the
Sheepfarmer at the
Saleyards, observed on his hands & knees,
Staring in through the rails at a big mob of
Merinos, muttering and frowning, swearing as the
Sheep milled around in the
Pen...
When asked what he was up to, he said that he was trying to count the Sheep....; and upon further enquiry, he explained that his method was to
"Firstly, count the
Hooves on the ground, and then
Divide by four, to discover
How many Head of Sheep are there in
The Pen,
To be sold..."
You and that Sheepfarmer are apparently running on
Parallel
Tracks...
R-1 / r-2 = D-1/d-2 = C-1/c-2...
For
ANY given
Pair of
Circles....
2:1 = 2:1 = 2:1....
Wherever on the
Circles the two
Comparable
Measurements are
Observed, on those two
Circles....(!).
I hope this better
Illuminates your
Perspective...;
If so, it should save you some
Unnecessary &
Unweildy
Calculations...(?).
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !