W.O.M.P. Supercharger for 2.0L proteges
April-19th-2005, 08:15 AM
#751
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by Roddimus Prime
200whp is a safe bet I'd say...I wont be dissappointed with 180-190whp though...would you?
Last edited by Rism; April-19th-2005 at 08:26 AM.
April-19th-2005, 08:30 AM
#752
The man behind the mask
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 11,572
i guess you've missed all the posts about hp vs torque and what causes problems in trannys.
torque is the problem and this blower produces very little torque (in comparison)
torque is the problem and this blower produces very little torque (in comparison)
April-19th-2005, 08:32 AM
#753
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by Roddimus Prime
i guess you've missed all the posts about hp vs torque and what causes problems in trannys.
torque is the problem and this blower produces very little torque (in comparison)
torque is the problem and this blower produces very little torque (in comparison)
Just woke up, forgot about that
April-19th-2005, 04:31 PM
#754
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 661
Haha, out partying hard last night? Just woke up at 1pm? I wish I could do that.
I won't be dissapointed with 190, cause I'll still tell people it's 200. And the drivetrain loss on our trannies (manual) is about 25-30%, so that's about 250 crank, which is plenty to brag about on a stock 130 hp car
I won't be dissapointed with 190, cause I'll still tell people it's 200. And the drivetrain loss on our trannies (manual) is about 25-30%, so that's about 250 crank, which is plenty to brag about on a stock 130 hp car
April-19th-2005, 04:41 PM
#755
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 143
Power loss through the drivetrain is about 30hp.
April-19th-2005, 05:03 PM
#756
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 661
30 hp from 130 at the crank. It's a percentage loss, not a constant number. If that were true than 800 hp mustangs would have 760 whp instead of 550 whp. Think about it.
April-19th-2005, 07:27 PM
#757
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lincroft, NJ
Posts: 1,105
200WHP at 4.5psi sounds DAMN good to me! Have you thought of looking into different pulleys to sell for more psi? I know your going to have different ones for manual and automatic but I'm talking ones for people with forged motors and such to run BIG numbers? J/W because im curious to see how far these numbers can go.
April-19th-2005, 07:46 PM
#758
The man behind the mask
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 11,572
oh I can have any pulley you want made. Thats not the problem...the problem is finding someone who wants to push the limits of the blower. I've said ti before but I'll provide as much air as you guys think you can support with fuel and engine strength.
April-19th-2005, 07:52 PM
#759
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 143
1 question:
Does the PSI increase with a smaller diameter or larger diameter pulley?
Does the PSI increase with a smaller diameter or larger diameter pulley?
April-19th-2005, 08:09 PM
#760
The man behind the mask
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 11,572
smaller pulley = more boost
April-20th-2005, 07:59 AM
#761
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 1,099
Originally Posted by Anarchistchiken
30 hp from 130 at the crank. It's a percentage loss, not a constant number. If that were true than 800 hp mustangs would have 760 whp instead of 550 whp. Think about it.
Just in case you didn't know rear wheel drive cars have a greater loss because it has farther to go to get to the ground. But if he has 550 whp then he doesn't have 760 crank, more like 600-620.
April-20th-2005, 08:13 AM
#762
The man behind the mask
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 11,572
If I'm not mistaken I believe I did the math and we 5spd proteges have about 23% loss through the drivetrain. So if you add that 23% back to my 158whp figure you get 194bhp
April-22nd-2005, 12:43 PM
#763
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ft. Sill, Oklahoma
Posts: 687
Actually, no...
I think you added 23% of 158...
you should've been subtracting 23% of X (where x is fwhp)
or
158=x-.23x
158=.77x
X=205.19...
I think you added 23% of 158...
you should've been subtracting 23% of X (where x is fwhp)
or
158=x-.23x
158=.77x
X=205.19...
April-22nd-2005, 01:04 PM
#764
The man behind the mask
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 11,572
ah, you're right...my math is t3h sUx0r$.
April-22nd-2005, 01:06 PM
#765
Protegéphile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,037
I don't know if the "percentage" loss remains constant, but even so, 200+ at the crank sounds pretty nice