My M62 E85 car will wax the floor vs most TVS cars on gasoline...
10-07-2009, 04:10 PM
#102
Rotor weight has nothing to do with it any more than belt ribs or fuel velocity do. I could make a statement of "peak fuel velocity changes atomization relative to cfm consumed" or "belt drag is inversely proportional to acceleration resistance" or "supercharger air is in a transitional state". None of those non-sense statements mean anything. Just because you can link some words together to make a gramatical sentence, doesn't mean they make sense. Therefore many things cannot even be responded to without guessing what the posters intent in saying them was. Much like associating peak torque with rotor weight.
10-07-2009, 04:52 PM
#106
Rent me! per hour
Join Date: 03-22-07
Location: Still fixing others mistakes.
Posts: 24,185
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes
on
14 Posts
Because the combination of cam duration, head flow, engine dynamics (such as runner length), and blower efficiency make that happen. A perfect example of this happened was explained by me and the pulley example. The larger the pulley, the higher in the rpm band peak torque will be hit.
Rotor weight has nothing to do with it any more than belt ribs or fuel velocity do. I could make a statement of "peak fuel velocity changes atomization relative to cfm consumed" or "belt drag is inversely proportional to acceleration resistance" or "supercharger air is in a transitional state". None of those non-sense statements mean anything. Just because you can link some words together to make a gramatical sentence, doesn't mean they make sense. Therefore many things cannot even be responded to without guessing what the posters intent in saying them was. Much like associating peak torque with rotor weight.
Rotor weight has nothing to do with it any more than belt ribs or fuel velocity do. I could make a statement of "peak fuel velocity changes atomization relative to cfm consumed" or "belt drag is inversely proportional to acceleration resistance" or "supercharger air is in a transitional state". None of those non-sense statements mean anything. Just because you can link some words together to make a gramatical sentence, doesn't mean they make sense. Therefore many things cannot even be responded to without guessing what the posters intent in saying them was. Much like associating peak torque with rotor weight.
you're trying to make something out to be that it is not.
should i start posting STD too
10-07-2009, 05:21 PM
#115
does anyone else remember when zooomer was arguing about bernoulli's principal in a fueling system and had to go on a physics forum to ask? 
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=325093
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=325093
10-07-2009, 05:26 PM
#118
Rent me! per hour
Join Date: 03-22-07
Location: Still fixing others mistakes.
Posts: 24,185
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes
on
14 Posts
does anyone else remember when zooomer was arguing about bernoulli's principal in a fueling system and had to go on a physics forum to ask?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=325093
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=325093
10-07-2009, 05:26 PM
#119
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-16-08
Location: Boynton Beach, Fl
Posts: 5,610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does anyone else remember when zooomer was arguing about bernoulli's principal in a fueling system and had to go on a physics forum to ask?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=325093
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=325093
10-07-2009, 10:17 PM
#121
GRABBER BLUE MUSTANG GT
Join Date: 02-13-07
Location: Kissimmee,Florida
Posts: 2,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does anyone else remember when zooomer was arguing about bernoulli's principal in a fueling system and had to go on a physics forum to ask?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=325093
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=325093
LMFAO
10-08-2009, 08:29 AM
#124
when no one believed me, I went to a physics forum to add credibility to my point. Look at the dates on the posts. I made all my claims before posting there and stated that I would have 3rd party input since a few bashers didn't believe me. They confirmed I was correct and then some. What's really sad is that on CSS, you get mocked for being smart, mocked for going to a physics forum to confirm data and constantly called out for being right. around here, it's whoever gets the most 'powned' responses rather than who was right. And unfortunately, this means that most never learn or get faster. Just bitch about how their tune needs to be updated, the dyno operator sucked, a clamp came off, and one of 100 other excuses until you see the demod thread or talk about buying a supra, GTO or something else 'easier' to mod. GM gave us one of the most modable platforms ever created and this market took it and ruined it's potential by posts like I'm responding to.
What's sad is that people still refuse to listen or research it, so they are paying double the money for a return style fuel system that in many ways is giving you less than the BRFS. So the progress of the forum is slowed. In some years, people will probably get it but sadly I'm not sure this market will ever listen and learn enough to be competitive. Too many ******** thread jacking, liars making up things about what works and doesn't, and too many people who don't understand and refuse to learn how and what works, Barely any good discussion.
Yes, after ZZP helped him with some E85 questions, he dyno'd those numbers using E85.
Imagine that, raising octane on a TVS and making decent power??? Getting rid of meth and putting good fuel right in the tank?? Who would have ever thought of that...
This information was out a year ago with people like Area ripping on ZZP about it, and the entire forum fighting me about meth when I was telling them to put the good stuff in the tank, people fighting me about what to expect from the TVS and how to get over 300. Had the good information been allowed to flourish and the bad weeded out, these #'s would have been made a long time ago and right now we'd be knocking on 400 instead of low to mid 300's.
The other items I mentioned are all items that factor peak torque. When you only change the blower, I see the point of saying those don't matter. However, my point remains the same. The efficiency of the TVS doesn't fall off like the M62. That is why it makes more power and why peak torque is later in the rpm band.
I do thank you for providing some good laughs with the guys at lunch time tho.
Most people understand that cams operate best in a certain rpm range. Engines make peak torque or power in a certain spot based on a number a factors I brought up, which you correctly stated are staying the same from blower to blower.
imagine an M62 and a TVS installed on a car with a pulley size that yeilded 100 cfm of air at 1k rpm (would be a larger pulley on the TVS). Since the belt directly ties blower rpm to engine rpm, we would say (for this discussion) that at 2k rpm each blower was putting out 200 cfm (double what it did at 1k, makes sense). At 3000 rpm both blowers put out 300 cfm and the power output of the engine is very similar. What great is that the OP did this for us:
Notice how the power output is identical up to ~3200 rpm? This is because both blowers are putting out more air exactly relative to engine rpm.
But when the M62 hits a certain boost level, it starts dropping off. Now instead of hitting 400cfm at 4000 rpm, it's doing maybe 350 while the TVS with superior ability to operate at higher boost levels is still doing the 1:1 ratio, in other words 400cfm. As the rpms go up, this difference gets worse and it's why peak torque happens lower with the M62. It's also why the M62 doesn't make as much power.
having said that, it is also a limitation of the TVS. As it's putting out more cfm at higher rpms (per example above), the boost level rises becaues it has to in order for th engine to injest the additional cfm. This increase in boost raises outlet temps and the octane requirement. This is why TVS cars do not make their potential power over the M62 until you raise octane.
This is also where increasing the engine displacement helps. As in example above the blower can still only put out a fixed cfm because it's tied to engine rpm. But at 3500 rpm in above graph the setup will be making 3 psi less boost which allows the M62 to not drop off so fast. Since the TVS isn't dropping off anyway the relative gains with an M62 in this area will be larger than with a TVS. So say at 4k with the M62 on a 2.3, the M62 is now going to put out 380 cfm. The TVS would still be at ~400 as it wasn't falling off anyway.
Last edited by Zooomer; 10-08-2009 at 12:58 PM.
