Advantages/Disadvantages over 2.6???
Senior Member
Joined: 09-17-05
Posts: 5,844
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Okay I have first hand experience in seeing what a 2.5" setup will do with a Ported Blower and full cooling mods/meth and full bolt-ons. Can you say 280whp/280wtq, this is a tune for a 2.8 setup. Car ******* pulled like crazy....It would have easily made 300whp safe if it would have been tuned in time, the car blew because it was running to RICH!. Also another car here in st.louis was running close to 300whp with a 2.5 setup, ran 12.9'S@110-111 on street tires. 
Smaller pulleys make better numbers but you have to pay the price to make bigger numbers.....
alot of us in the Missouri area know this.
Smaller pulleys make better numbers but you have to pay the price to make bigger numbers..... alot of us in the Missouri area know this.
Senior Member
Joined: 08-13-05
Posts: 5,733
Likes: 1
From: the glove
The $1000 isn't going to ride on a variable like driver or launch. That doesn't even make sense. We're debating on the addition of power, not the winner of a 1/4 mile race that changes every time you run the car.
i wish i could claim that post as mine as it makes things just that much simpler for all to see. your just getting nit-picky, and thats fine. more fun for me.
ok....
This very educated person failed to tell you that:
air flow only equals power if you're getting more oxygen in the motor and the airflow doesn't come at a penalty and you have something to mix with the air to ignite.
1)air flow creates power by adding pressure cross the head. a larger delta-p, air always has oxygen in it....if you've found some that doesn't, you let us know.
thus added pressure will bump flow until the limit of the compressor is found, we have yet to reach that level. close, sure. there an NO dyno graphs of people going from a larger pulley to a smaller unit making less power, thus the limit is still out there.
2) if we arnt to the point of thinking that you have a fuel system capable of keeping up with your pulley aspirations, then let that assumption be clear from here on out.
they also didn't tell you that blower rpm doesn't always equal cfm and that at some point, cfm and drop with increase blower rpm on a roots blower which is running a higher and higher psi as the cfm increases.
unless you change the system limits at this point in the test.
let me un-jumble that English of yours here.
RPM always equals CFM until you reach a X-PR and that causes a stalemate across the compressor. once again, that limit has not been found, thus proving that a smaller pulley moves more air.
more air=more power.
however higher blower RPM would never deliver less cfm, as you would have to decrease the delta-P to accomplish that.(i hope your "engineering type people" (as you phrased it zzp) can keep up here, i know there internet forum engineering degrees arnt worth much when things go technical, i however have mine...ohh, and a masters on the way!) and create more load on the intake side, to lower the air flow, and with things now being equal and on the limit of the compressor that wont happen.
they also failed to tell you that as blower rpm increase, the power to drive it increases exponentially when pushing into a fixed displacement engine. This means that eventually it requires more power to spin the blower than you can get from the additional air.
read above. such a function of the compressor would be considered one of its limits per SAE test spec (i'm vary good at quoteing real documents here, leave your web-site quoted stuff at home)
I'm not sure who this 'very educated' person was but they don't seem very educated to me.
i wouldn't expect so, apparently a real degree defies your logical fallacies and "happy place thoughts". I'd be angry if i was you too.
Actually it's both and ZZP has a supercharger dyno that gives us exact numbers on that but you can also read about it on Magnuson's site: http://www.magnusonproducts.com/mp62.htm
i wish i could claim that post as mine as it makes things just that much simpler for all to see. your just getting nit-picky, and thats fine. more fun for me.
ok....
This very educated person failed to tell you that:
air flow only equals power if you're getting more oxygen in the motor and the airflow doesn't come at a penalty and you have something to mix with the air to ignite.
1)air flow creates power by adding pressure cross the head. a larger delta-p, air always has oxygen in it....if you've found some that doesn't, you let us know.
thus added pressure will bump flow until the limit of the compressor is found, we have yet to reach that level. close, sure. there an NO dyno graphs of people going from a larger pulley to a smaller unit making less power, thus the limit is still out there.
2) if we arnt to the point of thinking that you have a fuel system capable of keeping up with your pulley aspirations, then let that assumption be clear from here on out.
they also didn't tell you that blower rpm doesn't always equal cfm and that at some point, cfm and drop with increase blower rpm on a roots blower which is running a higher and higher psi as the cfm increases.
unless you change the system limits at this point in the test.
let me un-jumble that English of yours here.
RPM always equals CFM until you reach a X-PR and that causes a stalemate across the compressor. once again, that limit has not been found, thus proving that a smaller pulley moves more air.
more air=more power.
however higher blower RPM would never deliver less cfm, as you would have to decrease the delta-P to accomplish that.(i hope your "engineering type people" (as you phrased it zzp) can keep up here, i know there internet forum engineering degrees arnt worth much when things go technical, i however have mine...ohh, and a masters on the way!) and create more load on the intake side, to lower the air flow, and with things now being equal and on the limit of the compressor that wont happen.
they also failed to tell you that as blower rpm increase, the power to drive it increases exponentially when pushing into a fixed displacement engine. This means that eventually it requires more power to spin the blower than you can get from the additional air.
read above. such a function of the compressor would be considered one of its limits per SAE test spec (i'm vary good at quoteing real documents here, leave your web-site quoted stuff at home)
I'm not sure who this 'very educated' person was but they don't seem very educated to me.
i wouldn't expect so, apparently a real degree defies your logical fallacies and "happy place thoughts". I'd be angry if i was you too.
Actually it's both and ZZP has a supercharger dyno that gives us exact numbers on that but you can also read about it on Magnuson's site: http://www.magnusonproducts.com/mp62.htm
above^^
also, a snip-it from a smart man who's else ware.
"In 1963 GM produced a turbo charged Buick Skylark with production water injection from the wind shield washer bottle to counteract detonation"
i cant even tell you how many engine set ups i've seen with meth/water injection on them for the specific reason of an octane boost and KR controller.
multiple development engines both "in chassis" and "on stand", even for pre-lim durability cycles.
big turbo race cars, most of all the turbo Buick guys, and even plenty of your ohh-so beloved 3800 crowed.
Gr8racinfool, and a few other of my 3800 friends (work friends as well) say Hi, there having a bigger laugh at this then I.
we (myself included) used to have a good relationship with you, i had never thought you guys were this outta touch untill the past few threads you've all jumped into.
its sad to see, but every one self-implodes when one gets off track with no control.
ps-
just as a disclaimer for this, i do not use, nor will i ever use a water/meth kit on my car.
i stick with old reliable, torco 110.
i've seen to many bad things happen when the kits stop working at random and unfortunate times, thus KR runs rampant. but according to your logic this stuff doesn't effect octane thus the KR that occurs off meth must be caused by some form of black magic.
Last edited by 06black; Jan 23, 2009 at 01:41 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
[/COLOR]
above^^
also, a snip-it from a smart man who's else ware.
"In 1963 GM produced a turbo charged Buick Skylark with production water injection from the wind shield washer bottle to counteract detonation"
i cant even tell you how many engine set ups i've seen with meth/water injection on them for the specific reason of an octane boost and KR controller.
multiple development engines both "in chassis" and "on stand", even for pre-lim durability cycles.
big turbo race cars, most of all the turbo Buick guys, and even plenty of your ohh-so beloved 3800 crowed.
Gr8racinfool, and a few other of my 3800 friends (work friends as well) say Hi, there having a bigger laugh at this then I.
we (myself included) used to have a good relationship with you, i had never thought you guys were this outta touch untill the past few threads you've all jumped into.
its sad to see, but every one self-implodes when one gets off track with no control.
ps-
just as a disclaimer for this, i do not use, nor will i ever use a water/meth kit on my car.
i stick with old reliable, torco 110.
i've seen to many bad things happen when the kits stop working at random and unfortunate times, thus KR runs rampant. but according to your logic this stuff doesn't effect octane thus the KR that occurs off meth must be caused by some form of black magic.
above^^
also, a snip-it from a smart man who's else ware.
"In 1963 GM produced a turbo charged Buick Skylark with production water injection from the wind shield washer bottle to counteract detonation"
i cant even tell you how many engine set ups i've seen with meth/water injection on them for the specific reason of an octane boost and KR controller.
multiple development engines both "in chassis" and "on stand", even for pre-lim durability cycles.
big turbo race cars, most of all the turbo Buick guys, and even plenty of your ohh-so beloved 3800 crowed.
Gr8racinfool, and a few other of my 3800 friends (work friends as well) say Hi, there having a bigger laugh at this then I.
we (myself included) used to have a good relationship with you, i had never thought you guys were this outta touch untill the past few threads you've all jumped into.
its sad to see, but every one self-implodes when one gets off track with no control.
ps-
just as a disclaimer for this, i do not use, nor will i ever use a water/meth kit on my car.
i stick with old reliable, torco 110.
i've seen to many bad things happen when the kits stop working at random and unfortunate times, thus KR runs rampant. but according to your logic this stuff doesn't effect octane thus the KR that occurs off meth must be caused by some form of black magic.
http://www.saab99turbo.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_99
Senior Member
Joined: 02-03-08
Posts: 3,454
Likes: 1
From: Port Perry Ontario
Also the Saab 99 offered a factory water injection kit to boost the engines output from 145 to 160-170ish
http://www.saab99turbo.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_99
http://www.saab99turbo.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_99
Senior Member
Joined: 07-16-08
Posts: 5,610
Likes: 0
From: Boynton Beach, Fl
Senior Member
Joined: 08-14-08
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
From: st.louis
In your example, lets say the guy was running 14's. Clearly he had some mods because no one runs these water injection kits without mods. HE SHOULDN"T BE RUNNING 14's! something is wrong!!! So he slaps on the kit and runs 13.8. Woohoo! the kit worked.
Well, not really. He could have gone up 2 pulley sizes, retuned and run 13.7 or 13.6.
1. What octane? With VP 109 I stated that smaller pulleys will net gains.
2. With what shift points? Average HP determines performance of the car at the track. If you shifted at 3k rpm a 2.0" pulley may be optimal. Does that mean we should run 2" pulleys? Of course not.
Yes, it does. Next time you're at the dyno put some in your tank and tell me if your HP changes. Head here and you can use ours for free to watch.
Why is no one willing to explain why cars are slower on humid days and why dynos have a humidity correction factor?
Senior Member
Joined: 08-13-05
Posts: 5,733
Likes: 1
From: the glove
This is false science. If a car is running high 14's then something is wrong with the car to begin with. Adding a mod and lowering the track time to a time that's not impressive doesn't prove the mod works. This was also covered and either not understood or ignored pages ago. If you have too small a pulley performance will suffer and you can make gains running washer fluid. However these gains are not as large as the gains that woulkd be made with a larger pulley and tune for it.
In your example, lets say the guy was running 14's. Clearly he had some mods because no one runs these water injection kits without mods. HE SHOULDN"T BE RUNNING 14's! something is wrong!!! So he slaps on the kit and runs 13.8. Woohoo! the kit worked.
Well, not really. He could have gone up 2 pulley sizes, retuned and run 13.7 or 13.6.
Very incomplete statement. The question you quickly jump to answer has a different answer depending on variables you are not disclosing.
1. What octane? With VP 109 I stated that smaller pulleys will net gains.
2. With what shift points? Average HP determines performance of the car at the track. If you shifted at 3k rpm a 2.0" pulley may be optimal. Does that mean we should run 2" pulleys? Of course not.
Again as stated over and over, water than methanol have nothing in common. The term "meth/water" is a misnomer in itself.
Yet suprisingly hardly anyone running a 2.6, which is hundreds of people, ever hits that number....
In your example, lets say the guy was running 14's. Clearly he had some mods because no one runs these water injection kits without mods. HE SHOULDN"T BE RUNNING 14's! something is wrong!!! So he slaps on the kit and runs 13.8. Woohoo! the kit worked.
Well, not really. He could have gone up 2 pulley sizes, retuned and run 13.7 or 13.6.
Very incomplete statement. The question you quickly jump to answer has a different answer depending on variables you are not disclosing.
1. What octane? With VP 109 I stated that smaller pulleys will net gains.
2. With what shift points? Average HP determines performance of the car at the track. If you shifted at 3k rpm a 2.0" pulley may be optimal. Does that mean we should run 2" pulleys? Of course not.
Again as stated over and over, water than methanol have nothing in common. The term "meth/water" is a misnomer in itself.
Yet suprisingly hardly anyone running a 2.6, which is hundreds of people, ever hits that number....
are you that nieve?
any who, have fun ya'll.
Also the Saab 99 offered a factory water injection kit to boost the engines output from 145 to 160-170ish
http://www.saab99turbo.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_99
http://www.saab99turbo.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_99
Furthermore, a post in wikipedia claiming that some engine made an extra 20HP with WI means very little. We're discussing (or trying to) science here. Without more data on an example, it's no different than me grabbing a random notation on google and citing it as 'evidence'
Last edited by Zooomer; Jan 23, 2009 at 03:39 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Senior Member
Joined: 07-16-08
Posts: 5,610
Likes: 0
From: Boynton Beach, Fl
there could have been a problem NOT with the pulleys.. just saying....
doesnt mean it had anything to do with the pulley... infact... he could have already been running a 3" pulley... thats why his times were so shitty.
doesnt mean it had anything to do with the pulley... infact... he could have already been running a 3" pulley... thats why his times were so shitty.
What are you saying exactly? Are you saying that some guy running 14's with no problems to his car sprayed blue washer fluid in it and dropped a 1/2 second? Same timing, same boost, no issues with KR or anything else? Just spray in the blue and drop half a second? WOW!
Senior Member
Joined: 08-13-05
Posts: 5,733
Likes: 1
From: the glove
that's crazy.
Senior Member
Joined: 07-16-08
Posts: 5,610
Likes: 0
From: Boynton Beach, Fl
I didnt say there wasnt a problem... im just saying you have no way of saying it was the pulley.. unless you know for sure...
If you want to find out more information about his car, ask him...
You and me assuming what was wrong with the car is going to get us no where.
If you want to find out more information about his car, ask him...
You and me assuming what was wrong with the car is going to get us no where.
Last edited by ShortStack; Jan 23, 2009 at 03:44 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Senior Member
Joined: 08-13-05
Posts: 5,733
Likes: 1
From: the glove
Blue washer fluid as discussed in this thread is 80% water.
I don't need to know the mod list. You provided enough information to answer the question. If he was running 14's and dropped to 13's with the change you listed then there was a problem.
You're quoting an 86HP 1.7 liter turbo engine made in 1965 as evidence in this thread?
Furthermore, a post in wikipedia claiming that some engine made an extra 20HP with WI means very little. We're discussing (or trying to) science here. Without more data on an example, it's no different than me grabbing a random notation on google and citing it as 'evidence'
I don't need to know the mod list. You provided enough information to answer the question. If he was running 14's and dropped to 13's with the change you listed then there was a problem.
You're quoting an 86HP 1.7 liter turbo engine made in 1965 as evidence in this thread?
Furthermore, a post in wikipedia claiming that some engine made an extra 20HP with WI means very little. We're discussing (or trying to) science here. Without more data on an example, it's no different than me grabbing a random notation on google and citing it as 'evidence'
that's still a far cry 100%.
polar molecule reactions....do some reading. 20% of a mixture is a huge differance maker.
the meth in there is key, 20% is a clutch figure as its plenty to bump octane while the water once atomized will rock egt's downward.
Rent me! per hour
Joined: 03-22-07
Posts: 24,161
Likes: 20
From: Still fixing others mistakes.
regardless of pulley on a stock m62, stock head, stock cams and stock cam gears the power falls off at the same point. which pulley produces more torque. 3.06 or a 2.7/2.6/2.5
????????
now. with that question. which car will be faster?
it is a simple question. it shouldn't need a huge mind boggling response.
????????
now. with that question. which car will be faster?
it is a simple question. it shouldn't need a huge mind boggling response.
at worst its 80% water. with the pre-made mix's people run, and other washer fluids hitting 70% and less water, the meth count jumps. along with a touch of a few oil's
that's still a far cry 100%.
polar molecule reactions....do some reading. 20% of a mixture is a huge differance maker.
the meth in there is key, 20% is a clutch figure as its plenty to bump octane while the water once atomized will rock egt's downward.
that's still a far cry 100%.
polar molecule reactions....do some reading. 20% of a mixture is a huge differance maker.
the meth in there is key, 20% is a clutch figure as its plenty to bump octane while the water once atomized will rock egt's downward.
regardless of pulley on a stock m62, stock head, stock cams and stock cam gears the power falls off at the same point. which pulley produces more torque. 3.06 or a 2.7/2.6/2.5
????????
now. with that question. which car will be faster?
it is a simple question. it shouldn't need a huge mind boggling response.
????????
now. with that question. which car will be faster?
it is a simple question. it shouldn't need a huge mind boggling response.
The torque only makes the car faster in the 1/4 mile if the average HP of the powerband is higher, after all high torque simply means more HP at lower rpm. Torque isn't a measure of work being done, HP is. If the larger pulley makes more HP, I would use that HP, shift the car higher and presumably have more average HP in the powerband.
We've already established and I believe agreed that water in your fuel raises the effective octane of the solution. If what you were saying was true, the entire country could just mix water in the tanks at the gas station and we could have a federal mandate of 14:1 compression vehicles. Then according to you, there would be "no loss in power" from the water and we could gain a bunch from the increased compression. Sadly, we cannot and thus the search for solving the world's energy problems continue...
Last edited by Zooomer; Jan 23, 2009 at 04:25 PM.
