 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chevrolet / Chevrolet Corvette / January 2004Electronic or electric forced air induction system
Does anyone have or heard of any experiences with these? They supposedly provide anywhere 150cfm to 240cfm and run off of the battery. Appreciated. The only problem is that a 350 consumes about 500 CFM of air at 5000 rpm so these "forced air" systems actually impose a vacuum or restriction. And in a carbureted system, the air flow in the venturi must be smooth and even so the venturi will work correctly to pull fuel out of the bowls and mix correctly. Forced air systems like blowers and turbos work better under the carb than over it. A fuel injection system with long ram tubes before the injectors are not affected as much by this turbulence. however, a TBI is as much carb as injection and can also be disturbed with turbulent air flow. > Does anyone have or heard of any experiences with these? They > supposedly provide anywhere 150cfm to 240cfm and run off of the > battery. > Appreciated. If this is true how can these companies claim a 15 to 35 boost in hp? Even the Tornado claims this and it has no kind of power assisted drive. Do you mean they are just making false claims? all bogus claims. They are just in it to make alot of $$$$. If all those gimmicks were so revolutionary & simple, they would already be on every production car made. I think it should be illegal to make a false horsepower gain claim. >If this is true how can these companies claim a 15 to 35 boost in hp? By hiring a copy writer, and paying for the printing costs. >Even the Tornado claims this and it has no kind of power assisted >drive. Do you mean they are just making false claims? Beats the hell out of me Colonel, I'm not the crew chief on that critter. But, ain't nothing for free. For example: A claim for some gadget might be substantiated by a 'baseline' dyno run made with a hair dryer or CO2 stream pointed at the intake. The gadget is then added and the hair dryer taken away. There's a net horsepower gain. Careful to not show the actual HP for each run, just the difference achieved by adding the gadget. Voila, "we added gadget X and got 12 more HP." Or, don't bother with the hair dryer. Make a "stock" dyno run without bothering about full throttle. Add the gadget and make another run, WOT. Or, have a vacuum leak during run #1... etc. Not saying that this gadget might have been part of that sort of test but one has to take "HP gains" with a grain of salt. However, if you've got some spare cash, I've got this.............. Regards, "Mike" -- mikeellison3xxxatzzzyahoo.com -- What about the 27 MPG gain fom installing the gas line "ionizer"? Haven't you been getting that spam day in and day out? You don't believe that one, do you?  Signature-|>|- Diode -|<|- 68 L79 Coupe 79 Triumph Bonneville > If this is true how can these companies claim a 15 to 35 boost in hp? > Even the Tornado claims this and it has no kind of power assisted > drive. Do you mean they are just making false claims? >What about the 27 MPG gain fom installing the gas line "ionizer"? Haven't >you been getting that spam day in and day out? You don't believe that one, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Even the Tornado claims this and it has no kind of power assisted >> drive. Do you mean they are just making false claims? Same way, run upwind on the first run, add the ionizer and run it downwind (or downhill) on the second run. Regards, "Mike" -- mikeellison3xxxatzzzyahoo.com -- 350 cubic inches For each revolution, four cylinders pump air. The other four compress it. So you have: 350 cid / 2 per rev = 175 cid per rev. 5000 rpm * 175 cid = 875,000 ci/min convert to cubic feet 875,000 / (12 * 12 * 12) = 875,000 / 1728 = 506.36574074074074074074074074074 cfm at 5000 RPM. That is what gets pumped through the engine. That is why you see carburetors with flow ratings of 600 cfm, 700 cfm, and so on. It isn't for looks of some bragging game, it is the amount of air that that particular carb will flow. And carb rated flow much be matched somewhat to the engine demands, or else performance suffers. Too small and you choke the engine. Too big and it stumbles because it doesn't have sufficient airflow to draw and mix gas. The Tornado should be a good idea, aiding the mixing of air and gas, BUT ... In real life, the inside of a carburetor throat is not smooth or unobstructed. It has metering passages where gas comes out. It has vacuum ports. It has a venturi inside the venturi shape. As such, air flows best straight down the throat! Swirling it around over the top means air rams into things, gets deflected, and then causes turbulence. The reason for the neat spun aluminum velocity stacks on drag engines long ago was to get the air to enter at a distance, then give it time to straighten and smooth out so when it got to the throat, it was going straight down the throat, not turning, spinning, or moving in any way but the most efficient. The Tornado is exactly the opposite. If you add all the "horsepower boost" you can get for a dozen bolt-on items, you should double your horsepower. But no one ever does. Don't you ever wonder why? > If this is true how can these companies claim a 15 to 35 boost in hp? > Even the Tornado claims this and it has no kind of power assisted > drive. Do you mean they are just making false claims? Tom: I always thought that the primary purpose of the velocity stack was to do just that...add velocity to the air. That's why it also has the venturi shape, to compress and "speed up" the air flow, essentially providing more air...no? Signature-|>|- Diode -|<|- 68 L79 Coupe 79 Triumph Bonneville > 350 cubic inches > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Even the Tornado claims this and it has no kind of power assisted > > drive. Do you mean they are just making false claims? > I always thought that the primary purpose of the velocity stack was > to do just that...add velocity to the air. That's why it also has > the venturi shape, to compress and "speed up" the air flow, > essentially providing more air...no? http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/0304_ram/ SignaturePatriots 63, Pantards 0. * * in Houston! ________________________________ Klecko's Komrades. All the way in 2003 I'm confused here...what does an article on an intake manifold have to do with velocity stacks (that sit on TOP of the carbs)? What did I miss in that tiny, tiny print... Signature-|>- Diode -<|- '68 L79 Coupe '79 Triumph Bonneville > > I always thought that the primary purpose of the velocity stack was > > to do just that...add velocity to the air. That's why it also has > > the venturi shape, to compress and "speed up" the air flow, > > essentially providing more air...no? > > http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/0304_ram/ > I'm confused here...what does an article on an intake manifold have > to do with velocity stacks (that sit on TOP of the carbs)? What did > I miss in that tiny, tiny print... It talked about trying to get the air an fuel to pick up downward momentum in the tunnel ram. That's why I gave you that link. Those tunnel rams sit 18" or so high, and they produce more HP than a regular single plenum manifold. The downward momentum most cause more gas/fuel mixture into the chamber. The designers had to be shooting for a way to simulate more atmospheric pressure without using a blower (which robs energy from the crankshaft) or a turbo (which causes undue back pressure on the exhaust valves and can restrict air intake before it spools up). I had Mr. Gasket velocity stacks on top of my Holley carbs, which sat on an 18" Offenhauser Turbothrust 360. This all fed an Olds 455 on an Olds 442. I swear, when I got rid of that setup and went to an Edelbrock dual plenum and a single carb; the engine ran *way* better. Not sure what was wrong with the original setup I tried, but I suspect the carbs were not set up as well as they could have been. Looking back at it 20 years later; I bet I had the wrong jets and wrong bowl float levels. SignaturePatriots 63, Pantards 0. * * in Houston! ________________________________ Klecko's Komrades. All the way in 2003 > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >crankshaft) or a turbo (which causes undue back pressure on the exhaust >valves and can restrict air intake before it spools up). Incoming air going through an intake manifold (nat aspirated) goes in wave pulses, from the intake valve slamming open and shut. The trick is to get the stack height matched to the pressure wave. Changing the stack height changes the timing of the pressure wave. And intake designs, head intake port design change the timing of the pressure wave. You want the stack height adjusted to make the pressure wave hit the back of the intake valve right at the time it's opening. Doing this you actually get a positive cylinder charge. Remember the Hilborn Injector stacks on the Drag Cars of the 60's? That's why different engines had different height stacks. And depending on the intake design, they had different height stacks on the same engine. >I had Mr. Gasket velocity stacks on top of my Holley carbs, which sat on >an 18" Offenhauser Turbothrust 360. This all fed an Olds 455 on an Olds [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > SignatureRic Seyler Online Racing: RicSeyler GPL Handicap 6.35 ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler remove -SPAM- from email address -------------------------------------- "Homer no function beer well without." - H.J. Simpson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.