quad rotor

[Unchained]

SuperDave, When you get around to firing up the beast I have a good source for heat shielding material that you will need. It's cheap and easy to bend around.
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/...C02018-med.JPG
The first few times I went boating with my turbo setup I was amazed at the heat that radiated from the pipes and turbo's.
Even traveling along at 40 mph you could still feel the heat on the back of your neck that radiated from the turbo's that were over 5' away.
It's like having a woodburner in the back seat.
A little heat shielding does wonders though. It's just the radiant heat that you need to block.

[superdave013]

Originally posted by Unchained
SuperDave, When you get around to firing up the beast I have a good source for heat shielding material that you will need. It's cheap and easy to bend around.
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/...C02018-med.JPG
The first few times I went boating with my turbo setup I was amazed at the heat that radiated from the pipes and turbo's.
Even traveling along at 40 mph you could still feel the heat on the back of your neck that radiated from the turbo's that were over 5' away.
It's like having a woodburner in the back seat.
A little heat shielding does wonders though. It's just the radiant heat that you need to block.
Marc, everything on mine will have water jackets. I'm even making a jacketed cover for the turbos.

[superdave013]

Originally posted by Havasu47
They looked like CMI'S, good idea. I am well aware of Lee's headers. Nice product but fasten your seat belt when you get the bill. Also the CMI'S will be less prone to cracking because of the material and processing. I have a set of Lee's that are cracked internally. Expensive paper weights. We can weld your cooler together. Where are you located?
I'm in Anaheim. When I get to that point I'll let you know.

[HEAVYBOAT]

Originally posted by Blown 472
If you know the weight of your car (with you in it) and have a quarter mile time slip this calculation will estimate the rear wheel HP of your car based on the trap speed in MPH.
Vehicle Weight
(including driver) (lbs)
Trap Speed
(mph)
Drivetrain loss
(%)
You Entered:
Vehicle Weight - 4060 (lbs)
Trap Speed - 135.6 (mph)
Drivetrain Loss - 20 (%)
Results:
Rear Wheel HP - 687.4
Crankshaft HP - 859.3
Power to Weight (rwhp) - 5.9 (lower is better)
Power to Weight (crank hp) - 4.7 (lower is better)
How accurate is this result? At SMOKEmUP.com we believe this HP calculator is the best on the web bar none. Check out what other people have to say about it. If you have chassis dyno'd your car, have a timeslip, and know the race weight of your car please post your results here.
That is humping nice work.
Ya, Ive used that calculator before.. I log in there as Blownfairlane.
I dont know why someone would go through the effort and make a calculator, ask us for our MPH and not have a elavation varible. How can they tell me how much hp I make if they dont know where I'm running the car. I guess its simple, I could do the ALTITUDE CORRECTION fomula and enter my modifed mph. The problem here is... a lot of people dont know about the missing input and it throws them way off.
http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
I race at 3500 feet. The correction for that elavation is mph * 1.0315 So my car runs 135.6 * 1.0315= 139.9 corrected mph
Lets do the math now with accurate inputs.
You Entered:
Vehicle Weight - 4060 (lbs)
Trap Speed - 139 (mph)
Drivetrain Loss - 20 (%)
Results:
Rear Wheel HP - 740.4
Crankshaft HP - 925.5
Power to Weight (rwhp) - 5.5 (lower is better)
Power to Weight (crank hp) - 4.4 (lower is better)
This shows the differance that elavation can make, a guy running the same car,same weight ect that lives close to sea level can make 70 hp less and we both(me at 3500ft) will run the same mph. But at least now the calculator stats looks a little closer with using the corrected mph numbers. The crank hp is close to what we saw on dyno, but the rwhp is a little high.
I chassis dynoed the Heavy boat and we made 704 wrhp. But drive train loss can obviously vary from combo to combo. For an example, I run a C6 power-sucking auto in the fairlane, and people say they eat 25 more hp then a turbo 400.
Rick

[Whipple Charged]

Heavyboat, your still missing it. It's not at "higher boost", it's pretty much at all boost levels, some vary so thats not true in all apps such as the Eaton roots, but on all the marine roots, it's simply no comparison in boost. You understand, at 1 psi, that is a positive pressure that is trying to leak back through the rotors. A NA motor will never compete with a screw supercharged engine so 13.5 compression can be a complete waste. You can make the same power but with pump gas, less rpm and certainly not as high dollar internals. Your talking about others not being able to take advantage of the boost levels? Thats insane. On stock engines, we run 6-7psi and that will almost always make 6-10% more hp than a standard roots. Anybody building engines, since your buying new internals, you can use low compression pistons, run higher boost levels and the motor will last longer and is far easier on parts. A 7.5:1 compression motor running 10lbs of boost vs. a 9:1 compression motor running 4lbs is far more reliable. At virtually almost all rpm points, during all cruising, mid throttle and up to WOT, the cylinder temp and pressure will be lower. High compression engines can be very hard on parts. So all can take full advantage of the screw compressor. NA motors need big CI and RPM to make power, RPM is the hardest, most detremental factor of engine detoriation. Did you know, on a GM540ci @ 5000rpm, 15psi of boost, there is less rod stress or deflection than at 6500rpm at 1" of vacuum (NA motor)? The single greatest stress on the rods is the changing of direction and this becomes exponetial at higher rpms. We never have stock rod problems, in all of our years of SC'ing stock engines, cast rods, forged rods, etc, it's never been a problem. Most think just the opposite but it's simply not true.
What in the world does SFI certification have to do with marine motors? We don't need to SFI to sale in the marine, that is only for Drag Racing which we stopped doing so we didn't have to spin test the race SC every 2 years (cost $20,000). We stopped racing in NHRA because of all the BS and I'm not going to spend a lot of time explaining that, but trust me, theres more BS and politics than the white house.
As for the Airloc system, who has run the triangle discharge ports in various applications? Kuhl, SSI, Kobelco and Eaton. Check out the SSI's and PSI's (roots) that there running on the top fuel cars, they now have a 10" drive snout because the SC is moved so far back to get the discharge port more towards the center, this helped with air distribution. The airloc is simple, there trying to maximize airflow through the sc will minimizing the leakage back through the casing. But because it does not have internal compression, it only works better in certain applications and is far more difficult to get to work properly at various air flow and manifold PSI levels.
Thanks,
Dustin

[Rexone]

Originally posted by Havasu47
They looked like CMI'S, good idea. I am well aware of Lee's headers. Nice product but fasten your seat belt when you get the bill. Also the CMI'S will be less prone to cracking because of the material and processing. I have a set of Lee's that are cracked internally. Expensive paper weights. We can weld your cooler together. Where are you located?
You're right on the money on the CMI's being better. I too have some Lee paperweights as well as countless others from the ski racing world. I have the very first set of CMI turbo headers they ever built. Roughly 10 years ago. Sent them my very broken Lees and they duplicated them precisely (without the cracks). Never had one more ounce of cracking or leaking once I changed to the CMI's. We were welding on the Lee's consistantly, patches and crap all over them. Looked like sprinkler heads out the exhaust a couple times with the Lees. The CMI Turbo header product is superior in construction and material.