See, I do good
| || |
See, I do good
that utility is useless to me
i use old school extrapolation/interpolation gets me close enough
...while i'm here ill ask about crankcase vacuum, and it's general horsepower benifit.
Looks like a SBC running at 600hp and 6000rpm should blowby about 4scfm...never measured it, but seems reasonable, if not, on the high side.
If i keep the crankcase at about 10-12"Hg can i gain anything but better oil return?...like a little horsepower? Neglect the parasitic drag of the machine required to do the job...is there a horsepower gain?...im looking for 20 or so.
I should be able to do it for about 15-20 seconds at a time with no/little drag on the engine with about 10lbs extra weight, and some innovation.
I have the calculations based on compressor theory with 1.4 loss at about 1/2 hp.
Total cost is going to be around $300. Designed for intermittant use (WOT/WOTNO2).
In working out the oil control problems in the mouse i did gain 30hp and lost oil temperature, not to mention the advantage of running more than 25lbs WOT and 3 quarts in the pan. It was bad, and really a simple fix, but it got me thinking about the oil...and the much mentioned dry sump.
"l'll do that" i says but upon looking at the hardware and expense (being the cheep SOB i am) i chose not to...
...the crancase evacuation, nevertheless, got me interested. I seen them 'pan evac' header things...nope, not for me, not enough vacuum...i worked out a way to do it scavengin the pump pressure, but that seemed counterproductive.
I looked at the belt drive ones but i dont want a belt. Aint got one now, and dont want one.
I did come up with a way, i think...just have no realtime experience. I think i know WHY it would make more power....seems right.
anyway if someone would lend their experience, or even their 'WTF it cant work because'...
In principle they should move a lot of air, just not too much vacuum...but while i have seen many, never used one...kind of poo-pood them...and they wont work on my exhaust anyway, (which is another thing aint NOBODY seen).
I did find that any restriction in the blowby caused problems. I supposed it to be velocity thru small ports carrying the 'mist' out...could have been just the little pressure that was produced by not letting it all out easily. Dont know.
i use tall vertical corrugated tube/screen seperators now (one facing forward, one backward) and did not have a single sign of oil from the 'system' and felt i got good ventilation. Works kind of like the old flathead six ventilation.
ok i give up: how much vacuum have you seen them get? (properly installed in a fairly ring tight engine)
im not against them. Just cant use one. I know they create vacuum...but dont create the positive part of the PVC i was always looking for (replacing the nasty stuff with air)....
now...as far as HP gains...without doing anything else but pulling 10-12" vacuum...do you think can i expect a gain (worth $300 and 10lbs extra weight and 10 hours construction) of hp...i need 20hp to do this. Only active at WOT 450hp at 5500rpm and 600hp at 6100rpm. Wet sump.
overthink...possibly viewed as such, but i must say this aint no rocket science. Takes experience. I aint got it. Experience rules over any theory...even if misinterpreted as to the reason things happen. Understanding of the reason things happen is key to progress, but you got to experience them happening to get the understanding. (i can hear WET now: 'WTF DID HE JUST SAY')
Love it when people call torque power. Guess i overthink that too.
anyway about the PVC/PCV thing:
It could be because the corrugated tubing i am using as an oil seperator/pcv is bilge pump tube. It is probably LDPE, about an 18" piece on either side with brass screen seperator at the bottom, and kaowool at the top. One facing forward and one backward. If i was worried about ugly i would have to put a bag over my head too. So there.
Seems like i wont get an answer to the HP thing...could be because there are so many variables that it is not known until one tries...could be because nobody really knows, or it is a secret and no one will say. The result is the same as measured: no answer.
I been holding off on this next one. Is this overthinking? Is it Genius? Or am i a fool. I am willing to accept any, lean toward the latter, and learn.
Fuel system. I use two holley reds in parallel. They are each valved both inlet and outlet. Internal regulators at 7psi is just about right for my NA engine. I could see no single failure that would leave me 30miles from the ramp. Plenty of volume for the no2. best of all: dirt cheep. Built me a little bracket that hangs both of them low by the stock mechanical fuel pump boss(in the 'wasted' space by/under the front of the pan).
I did learn you got to keep them pumps below the tank
I did learn you got to wire and fuse them separately
(i got experience from failure to do these things, and suffering the consequence)
This setup seems to be 'da shit' but i dont know anybody who has done this. Might be a reason i aint overthought yet. Might be because most people cant get their boats 30 miles from the ramp every weekend for years on end. Brother Hammer is working on it, if for no other reason to make me jealous. SOAKER runs one pump and is right there with me, if not in front.
Can you point me to the kids room on the sight? I thought i was here already.
Just wanted out local analytical genius to sart using the proper term for Positive Crankcase Ventilation instead of Poly Vinyl Cloride. Thats all. Makes you look less bright tham you really are. And thats not good. And besides, your confuses me.
100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3