ecoboost engine and turbo cfm?

[Dspec_S550]

I have already contemplated and worked out the price of a v8 swap, but the subject of the post was the cfm requirements of the ecoboost engine...

Corkys book is old, but the math and physics of the problem, are still relevant in 2017..

Do you think that the "old" m90, somehow due to is age, would decide not to move 90 cubes of air, now that its 20 years old? I was pointing out that my "goal" of 400hp/400tq, could be sustained by a blower of that size.

It doesnt matter that an engine wasnt "made" for a blower.. Most were not. They were added on by hotrodders, and ingenious old men that came up with engineering solutions, not excuses.

You knuckle dragging types that keep nay-saying, keep on it. This thread was discussing how much air an EBM injests, and what other power adders could work on it, so keep the relevant comments coming!

Hope you all had a great weekend as well!

Sponsored

 

[Dspec_S550]

Oh and turbos are old, old, old too...

TURBO:

The turbocharger was invented by Swiss engineer Alfred Büchi (1879–1959), the head of diesel engine research at Gebrüder Sulzer (now called Sulzer), engine manufacturing company in Winterthur,[5] who received a patent in 1905 for using a compressor driven by exhaust gases to force air into an internal combustion engine to increase power output, but it took another 20 years for the idea to come to fruition.


SUPERCHARGER:

The world's first functional, actually tested[3] engine supercharger was made by Dugald Clerk, who used it for the first[4] two-stroke engine in 1878. Gottlieb Daimler received a German patent for supercharging an internal combustion engine in 1885. Louis Renault patented a centrifugal supercharger in France in 1902

Source:wikipedia

 

[Dspec_S550]

Heres are two dyno sheet to better support my claim. 2.0L ecotec, with mods, on the m62 charger

 

[arghx7]

the math and physics of Corky's book are relevant like F=ma is relevant. Yeah, it still applies, but you have to move beyond fixed cam port injected engines because there are a lot of important differences in the 2.3 Ecoboost due to scavenging capability of continuously variable valve timing + direct injection. It has a huge effect.

why don't you get an old car with an old engine if you're going to put a very old blower on it. sell the Mustang.

the math doesn't work--the $ math. If you like old Eaton blowers so much, go get a Pontiac Grand Prix. Or if you like new Eaton blowers, get a previous gen GT500. Either way you come out on top.

 

[Dspec_S550]

books are old and dumb, so is math. I am an idiot for calculating if another turbo or supercharger could replace the stock one. just like all these other 'tards on the board, looking at turbo replacements.

dude look, you obviously didnt come here to contribute to the cfm requirement math of the ecoboost engine. Your comments are even less relevant to this conversation, than corky's book.

 

[arghx7]

I don't know why I'm arguing on the internet, but I already made a huge contribution. I told you that you can't pull a VE number out of thin air, because it depends on the VVT position (among many other things) and the engine speed itself. Those old books assume a fixed cam, and thus fixed overlap and fixed intake valve closing timing, which are among the biggest aspects that determine VE.

And I told you that the pressure ratio is NOT the boost pressure! It is the ratio of compressor inlet pressure to compressor outlet pressure, and is thus sensitive to the restriction of the air induction system. You have to account for that in some way.

 

[Dspec_S550]

and I will. I dont know why your arguing on the internet either. thats on you buddy. your contribution was appretiated.

 

[Dspec_S550]

linking to a whitepaper like this, regarding the actual engineering and physics associated with roots blowers, would be a "huge" contribution.

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1318&context=icec

Sponsored