New pump stats and other related info..
12-26-2001, 02:25 PM
#1
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hainesport N.J.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New pump stats and other related info.. I am going to make an attempt at trying to set the facts straight and to clear up any misunderstandings. It's going to be long.
(1) First, I read through almost all of these pump related thread replies, and to be honest with you, I'm even confused at this point. I guess a good place to start is to mention that 7-8 months ago on the other .Com, members there were privy to the building, design and Tech info as the pump was in various stages of development. Due to the huge interest expressed, the members there were kept informed weekly if not daily on its R&D progress. I spent alot of time and energy sometimes to the wee hours of the morning fielding questions and adding any interesting info for that day and tried to answer at least 90 % of polled questions and answered them to the best of my ability. I really didn't have to do that and I don't want to hear that we are on an SLP-ish advertising campaign" if that were true, everybody would have been given the "mushroom treatment" from the first day. In respect to this product, and it's R&D testing. Like Thomas Edison said, "inventing is 90% perspiration and 10 % inspiration" Which means, you will find what doesn't work more often than finding what does, I found what works = accomplishment.
Okay, in the beginning of my R&D process, the first car tested was my Camaro, mainly getting housing fitment issues addressed and hose routings taken care of. Once we had a real life working manifold/pump assembly that was functional, (not running too cold on the highway) there was extensive temp split (heads, block) testing done to find the "best power" temp splits. Then highway and dyno testing came afterwards, over this evolution of changes, the pump and housing was removed and replaced no less than 7 times from my car alone and temp adjustments and other fitment refinements were made. My Camaro at this testing stage had all of my engine mods already done at that point including the programming that was never touched during the testing process. (JS has my data files saved from our late night temp testing before the dyno sessions and he can confirm the gear ratio, fuel/spark tables that were unmodified during the EWP testing to clear up any doubts/rumors that I advanced or modded the PCM tables to reflect a more preferable curve.) I tossed around that idea of more advance and more preferable S/F tables but never did the modification in fear of a non repeatable back to back comparisons to us and the end user and would skew any further data testing from that point on. Anyway, my base line pulls were saved in Julio's Dyno Jet computer files previous to the install of the EWP, which can be viewed at jayfisherpontiac.com. Then, when I felt the EWP was road worthy and the temp splits were fine, I drove it up to Cartek for another dyno session to see exactly what this unit was worth in power. The dyno showed a substantial RWH gain with the stock 2000 stat and I was more than pleased with the performance although may have been skewed from a non same day R&R scenario, but encouraging nonetheless. With the mods that I already had, my A4 went from 327 RWH to 353 RWH. It was a great jump in the hp and torque and was hardly what I expected for being in such a mild state of performance mods, but it was what it was for that day.
After that stage of data gathering, I installed it on my stock TA, (lid & filter) SOP reflected basically the same increase that was found with the Camaro, but was then removed to be installed on "Talon's" (Tom McKegney) Trans Am for further road testing. Tom's car was baselined a week previous to EWP install and was returned for pump dyno testing at Cartek. Again, initial SOP on the street reflected a power increase but felt a little peakier than a strong mid range found on the other examples, so it was then taken to Julio to see what the dyno reflected. Our suspicions were correct, it only made 13 to 14 additional RWH over his original MWP dyno test, but it now reflected a screwy WB 02-fuel table that did not exist there on the initial dyno base line. So, I knew there was more latitude in the RWH department if it had a translator on it that day with a click of (5%) base put in it but wasn't. It was taken off the dyno and we went straight to the race track that night, (talk about trying to cram in alot of R&D in one day!) The track reflected 1.4 tenths off and 1.5 MPH improvement with the EWP. Cartek then borrowed the only functional prototype at the time to try on a car that was a repeat offender of overheating and with a history of lifting heads/blown gaskets. It was track tested and for the most part, stayed together till the end of the day, results were inconclusive, TEKTRANSAM (Mark) knows more about that session than I do. Don C. was the next to have the new version of pump/manifold installed on his 1999 stock TA, he went to the track and recorded 2 tenths and 2 MPH improvement over his previous bests from running the stock manual pump with no other changes made. Then the new revised pump/housing was installed back on my TA again. Now my TA only has a lid/filter/Vortex muffler. With the EWP installed, it went straight into 12.80 @ 111.44 at the ¼ mark and 88.12 at the 1/8 exactly right out of the box on a 2.05 60' mark when this car would never pull over 85.34 MPH in the 1/8 or over 108.32 at the ¼. So I summed up these compared runs as 2.2 tenths 2.2 MPH gain CONSERVATIVLY on MY car. My TA has run the best of a 12.98 @ 108.XX in a -2,100 DA (best conditions) on a 1.97 60' mark with the stock water pump, lid/filter/Vortex muffler on drag radials. On average back to back, the TA was a 13.10-17 @ 108.xx all day with the MWP. With the addition of the EWP racing on the F1's in a worse DA, it still improved over 2 MPH at both 1/8 – ¼ data points even over a preferable weather condition. With more quarter testing done and reflecting about the same average track improvements, it was then stated "To be worth about a 20 horsepower improvement" By me. Now, with that said, I do agree that there should be more testing done, I'm not arguing that fact at all but I am under unusual financial constraints that prohibit ME from sending testers to the 4 corners of the globe for "independent look see". Bottom line for me is that I started this project without the idea of even marketing this product. I personally didn't care if it was billet or braided lines with $212.00 worth of AN fittings to boot. It was just an exercise in thermo dynamics for me and something to have some fun with. If it worked to my expectations, I was going to keep it for myself with maybe a couple special exceptions to some close friends, BUT, this is business, production = build quality and Pride, so the final production price went 2 fold. I decided to see just where I could go with this great idea. I was responsible for all the R&D, pump/manifold testing design/function, track/dyno testing U.S. Pat. office work and lawyers fees. I am the most knowledgeable source for Technical and Proprietary data in regards to this product, and it has taken up to 3 spread sheets worth of data in Microsoft Word where I have been documenting the progression and design of this unit from day 1. Needless to say, I have $20,000 plus out of pocket at this point to bring a High quality standard along with great performance to this market place, not to mention what Jay Fisher has put into it. The way the final production pics are viewed is the way Jay and I wanted our product to be represented to the discriminating consumer, although, we now offer a lower quality and less “attractive looking” hose and fitments. But if that’s what it takes for price sensitive enthusiasts to enjoy this product, it's available with those hoses.
(2) Now, on to the total weight of this product. It will come in "as viewed" at a total estimated 10 lbs tops due to the use of billet construction, but this will be weighed exactly and then I will re-post for accuracy. I have weighed individual parts but not accumulative in a box.
(3) The overall track performance/dyno testing has been done at steady temps for accuracy sake. Just to clear up another repeated inconsistency, I have found the best temp to run the heads and block split. Just like trying to get in your best run for the night, you let the motor cool down or to aid that process, some people might even ice down there motors to achieve a new best. :clue: heat rises, reverse cooling negates that effect.
(4) A couple other attributes to this pump is that it can have a manual override switch installed to aid pit cool down time or can be used in conjunction with the primary fan.
(5) On those cold track days, KOEO function will effectively provide you with 1/2 hour of cabin heat parked. (Pump functions as if the engine is running)
(6) EWP can be used with stock fan settings with a 160 stat to keep perfect highway temps. We suggest the use of your stock 180 stat if you have enhanced fan controls for the correct head/block temp.
(7) With the use of the stock stat/fan settings, it WILL pass LEV testing, but not with enhanced fans or a lower 160 stat. That’s where the "off road use" comes into play, not to imply that it's not streetable.
(8) This, like all other bolt on goodies, may not respond out of the box as expected, very close though. Reason being, if you have a perfect fuel table previous to the install of our EWP product, re-check your tables after the install and allow ample time for learn in. ie fuel load tables in the PCM are effected, or a possible tweak with a translator/edit in the base for best results.
(9) We and others have seen up to 85,000+ trouble free miles from this electric CSI motor that we have employed going back to the LT series electric water pumps. I have 30,000 miles on my electric motor to date on the LS1 reversed cooled pump without any problems.
(10) There are NO aeration problems with this EWP design. There was alot of concerns and speculations raised about 6-7 months ago about this potential problem and it never came to life. IE, there are head coolant feed back pipes from the factory.
(11) I have enjoyed the advantages of reverse cooling for months now, and I want to share this technology with the masses especially the FI large cube crowd.
Sorry so long, but I had to get that all out.
Joe Prince.
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Prince ]
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Prince ]</p>
(1) First, I read through almost all of these pump related thread replies, and to be honest with you, I'm even confused at this point. I guess a good place to start is to mention that 7-8 months ago on the other .Com, members there were privy to the building, design and Tech info as the pump was in various stages of development. Due to the huge interest expressed, the members there were kept informed weekly if not daily on its R&D progress. I spent alot of time and energy sometimes to the wee hours of the morning fielding questions and adding any interesting info for that day and tried to answer at least 90 % of polled questions and answered them to the best of my ability. I really didn't have to do that and I don't want to hear that we are on an SLP-ish advertising campaign" if that were true, everybody would have been given the "mushroom treatment" from the first day. In respect to this product, and it's R&D testing. Like Thomas Edison said, "inventing is 90% perspiration and 10 % inspiration" Which means, you will find what doesn't work more often than finding what does, I found what works = accomplishment.
Okay, in the beginning of my R&D process, the first car tested was my Camaro, mainly getting housing fitment issues addressed and hose routings taken care of. Once we had a real life working manifold/pump assembly that was functional, (not running too cold on the highway) there was extensive temp split (heads, block) testing done to find the "best power" temp splits. Then highway and dyno testing came afterwards, over this evolution of changes, the pump and housing was removed and replaced no less than 7 times from my car alone and temp adjustments and other fitment refinements were made. My Camaro at this testing stage had all of my engine mods already done at that point including the programming that was never touched during the testing process. (JS has my data files saved from our late night temp testing before the dyno sessions and he can confirm the gear ratio, fuel/spark tables that were unmodified during the EWP testing to clear up any doubts/rumors that I advanced or modded the PCM tables to reflect a more preferable curve.) I tossed around that idea of more advance and more preferable S/F tables but never did the modification in fear of a non repeatable back to back comparisons to us and the end user and would skew any further data testing from that point on. Anyway, my base line pulls were saved in Julio's Dyno Jet computer files previous to the install of the EWP, which can be viewed at jayfisherpontiac.com. Then, when I felt the EWP was road worthy and the temp splits were fine, I drove it up to Cartek for another dyno session to see exactly what this unit was worth in power. The dyno showed a substantial RWH gain with the stock 2000 stat and I was more than pleased with the performance although may have been skewed from a non same day R&R scenario, but encouraging nonetheless. With the mods that I already had, my A4 went from 327 RWH to 353 RWH. It was a great jump in the hp and torque and was hardly what I expected for being in such a mild state of performance mods, but it was what it was for that day.
After that stage of data gathering, I installed it on my stock TA, (lid & filter) SOP reflected basically the same increase that was found with the Camaro, but was then removed to be installed on "Talon's" (Tom McKegney) Trans Am for further road testing. Tom's car was baselined a week previous to EWP install and was returned for pump dyno testing at Cartek. Again, initial SOP on the street reflected a power increase but felt a little peakier than a strong mid range found on the other examples, so it was then taken to Julio to see what the dyno reflected. Our suspicions were correct, it only made 13 to 14 additional RWH over his original MWP dyno test, but it now reflected a screwy WB 02-fuel table that did not exist there on the initial dyno base line. So, I knew there was more latitude in the RWH department if it had a translator on it that day with a click of (5%) base put in it but wasn't. It was taken off the dyno and we went straight to the race track that night, (talk about trying to cram in alot of R&D in one day!) The track reflected 1.4 tenths off and 1.5 MPH improvement with the EWP. Cartek then borrowed the only functional prototype at the time to try on a car that was a repeat offender of overheating and with a history of lifting heads/blown gaskets. It was track tested and for the most part, stayed together till the end of the day, results were inconclusive, TEKTRANSAM (Mark) knows more about that session than I do. Don C. was the next to have the new version of pump/manifold installed on his 1999 stock TA, he went to the track and recorded 2 tenths and 2 MPH improvement over his previous bests from running the stock manual pump with no other changes made. Then the new revised pump/housing was installed back on my TA again. Now my TA only has a lid/filter/Vortex muffler. With the EWP installed, it went straight into 12.80 @ 111.44 at the ¼ mark and 88.12 at the 1/8 exactly right out of the box on a 2.05 60' mark when this car would never pull over 85.34 MPH in the 1/8 or over 108.32 at the ¼. So I summed up these compared runs as 2.2 tenths 2.2 MPH gain CONSERVATIVLY on MY car. My TA has run the best of a 12.98 @ 108.XX in a -2,100 DA (best conditions) on a 1.97 60' mark with the stock water pump, lid/filter/Vortex muffler on drag radials. On average back to back, the TA was a 13.10-17 @ 108.xx all day with the MWP. With the addition of the EWP racing on the F1's in a worse DA, it still improved over 2 MPH at both 1/8 – ¼ data points even over a preferable weather condition. With more quarter testing done and reflecting about the same average track improvements, it was then stated "To be worth about a 20 horsepower improvement" By me. Now, with that said, I do agree that there should be more testing done, I'm not arguing that fact at all but I am under unusual financial constraints that prohibit ME from sending testers to the 4 corners of the globe for "independent look see". Bottom line for me is that I started this project without the idea of even marketing this product. I personally didn't care if it was billet or braided lines with $212.00 worth of AN fittings to boot. It was just an exercise in thermo dynamics for me and something to have some fun with. If it worked to my expectations, I was going to keep it for myself with maybe a couple special exceptions to some close friends, BUT, this is business, production = build quality and Pride, so the final production price went 2 fold. I decided to see just where I could go with this great idea. I was responsible for all the R&D, pump/manifold testing design/function, track/dyno testing U.S. Pat. office work and lawyers fees. I am the most knowledgeable source for Technical and Proprietary data in regards to this product, and it has taken up to 3 spread sheets worth of data in Microsoft Word where I have been documenting the progression and design of this unit from day 1. Needless to say, I have $20,000 plus out of pocket at this point to bring a High quality standard along with great performance to this market place, not to mention what Jay Fisher has put into it. The way the final production pics are viewed is the way Jay and I wanted our product to be represented to the discriminating consumer, although, we now offer a lower quality and less “attractive looking” hose and fitments. But if that’s what it takes for price sensitive enthusiasts to enjoy this product, it's available with those hoses.
(2) Now, on to the total weight of this product. It will come in "as viewed" at a total estimated 10 lbs tops due to the use of billet construction, but this will be weighed exactly and then I will re-post for accuracy. I have weighed individual parts but not accumulative in a box.
(3) The overall track performance/dyno testing has been done at steady temps for accuracy sake. Just to clear up another repeated inconsistency, I have found the best temp to run the heads and block split. Just like trying to get in your best run for the night, you let the motor cool down or to aid that process, some people might even ice down there motors to achieve a new best. :clue: heat rises, reverse cooling negates that effect.
(4) A couple other attributes to this pump is that it can have a manual override switch installed to aid pit cool down time or can be used in conjunction with the primary fan.
(5) On those cold track days, KOEO function will effectively provide you with 1/2 hour of cabin heat parked. (Pump functions as if the engine is running)
(6) EWP can be used with stock fan settings with a 160 stat to keep perfect highway temps. We suggest the use of your stock 180 stat if you have enhanced fan controls for the correct head/block temp.
(7) With the use of the stock stat/fan settings, it WILL pass LEV testing, but not with enhanced fans or a lower 160 stat. That’s where the "off road use" comes into play, not to imply that it's not streetable.
(8) This, like all other bolt on goodies, may not respond out of the box as expected, very close though. Reason being, if you have a perfect fuel table previous to the install of our EWP product, re-check your tables after the install and allow ample time for learn in. ie fuel load tables in the PCM are effected, or a possible tweak with a translator/edit in the base for best results.
(9) We and others have seen up to 85,000+ trouble free miles from this electric CSI motor that we have employed going back to the LT series electric water pumps. I have 30,000 miles on my electric motor to date on the LS1 reversed cooled pump without any problems.
(10) There are NO aeration problems with this EWP design. There was alot of concerns and speculations raised about 6-7 months ago about this potential problem and it never came to life. IE, there are head coolant feed back pipes from the factory.
(11) I have enjoyed the advantages of reverse cooling for months now, and I want to share this technology with the masses especially the FI large cube crowd.
Sorry so long, but I had to get that all out.
Joe Prince.
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Prince ]
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Prince ]</p>
12-26-2001, 03:05 PM
#4
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hainesport N.J.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. PSJ, it takes 5-7 amps to run the unit. I have installed a DC current snubber too so there is no DC feed back into any on board computers when the key is turned off, you know, like air bags and stupid stuff like that! LOL!
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Prince ]</p>
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Prince ]</p>
12-26-2001, 03:23 PM
#5
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 4,712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. Thanks for the info Joe! Like I said before I'm looking forward to seeing some test results. I hate to ask but how did you manage to spend so much in development? Are you including your time at $275/hr or something? <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">
12-26-2001, 03:36 PM
#6
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 4,712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. Again I hate to ask but I've had a few people email me and I wanted to give you a chance to directly address their concern.
My heads/cam LS1 car with a reverse flow electric water pump (11.2:1 CR, 25-26 degrees timing) showed very minimal gains on the dyno (around 4-5rwhp from 5000rpm up). The water temperature was around 170 at the heads consistently during that test.
I guess people are a little confused. My explanation is that the water pump is one of those mods that will show better at the track than the dyno (the faster you rev the engine the more engine inertial drag comes in to play). I also feel that with more timing I might see a couple more HP. It's just hard to rationalize 14-24rwhp gains when you see a similar product put out 4-5rwhp gains. I've simply been telling people <shrug>. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">
My heads/cam LS1 car with a reverse flow electric water pump (11.2:1 CR, 25-26 degrees timing) showed very minimal gains on the dyno (around 4-5rwhp from 5000rpm up). The water temperature was around 170 at the heads consistently during that test.
I guess people are a little confused. My explanation is that the water pump is one of those mods that will show better at the track than the dyno (the faster you rev the engine the more engine inertial drag comes in to play). I also feel that with more timing I might see a couple more HP. It's just hard to rationalize 14-24rwhp gains when you see a similar product put out 4-5rwhp gains. I've simply been telling people <shrug>. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">
12-26-2001, 03:43 PM
#7
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NJ
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. terry
if your combination can support 31 degrees of timing you would get similar results. Also there is a large design difference between our pumps that allows ours to be more efficient in heat dissapation,and hence better performance. Lastly just because you flow the water backwards doesn't mean you're reverse cooled, just changed the direction of flow.
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Jay 95WS6 ]</p>
if your combination can support 31 degrees of timing you would get similar results. Also there is a large design difference between our pumps that allows ours to be more efficient in heat dissapation,and hence better performance. Lastly just because you flow the water backwards doesn't mean you're reverse cooled, just changed the direction of flow.
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Jay 95WS6 ]</p>
Trending Topics
12-26-2001, 04:29 PM
#9
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hainesport N.J.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. Qutoe from terry..
"I guess people are a little confused. My explanation is that the water pump is one of those mods that will show better at the track than the dyno (the faster you rev the engine the more engine inertial drag comes in to play). I also feel that with more timing I might see a couple more HP. It's just hard to rationalize 14-24rwhp gains when you see a similar product put out 4-5rwhp gains. I've simply been telling people <shrug>."
I guess first of all, what is the similar product? Mezeri? We have to compare apples to apples here. The Mezeri pump is conventionally cooled with no heater/LEV provisions and that is the only other LS1 aftermarket pump that I am aware of. Now, there is another one that Iv'e heard of, but the testing has been inconclusive and it hasen't been tested past 80 MPH as far as I know. We have tested our pump up to 145 MPH and works fine.
Quote from Terry.
Thanks for the info Joe! Like I said before I'm looking forward to seeing some test results. I hate to ask but how did you manage to spend so much in development? Are you including your time at $275/hr or something?
Well Terry, Call or E-mail GM, and ask them how much they spent on there pump manufacturing and R&D. With that said, I think we got away pretty cheap for a fully functional LS1 LS6 waterpump unit.
Dean,
The constant temp is 184 F that will be seen on the highway monitored at the back of the pass side head at a steady 75 MPH.
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Prince ]</p>
"I guess people are a little confused. My explanation is that the water pump is one of those mods that will show better at the track than the dyno (the faster you rev the engine the more engine inertial drag comes in to play). I also feel that with more timing I might see a couple more HP. It's just hard to rationalize 14-24rwhp gains when you see a similar product put out 4-5rwhp gains. I've simply been telling people <shrug>."
I guess first of all, what is the similar product? Mezeri? We have to compare apples to apples here. The Mezeri pump is conventionally cooled with no heater/LEV provisions and that is the only other LS1 aftermarket pump that I am aware of. Now, there is another one that Iv'e heard of, but the testing has been inconclusive and it hasen't been tested past 80 MPH as far as I know. We have tested our pump up to 145 MPH and works fine.
Quote from Terry.
Thanks for the info Joe! Like I said before I'm looking forward to seeing some test results. I hate to ask but how did you manage to spend so much in development? Are you including your time at $275/hr or something?
Well Terry, Call or E-mail GM, and ask them how much they spent on there pump manufacturing and R&D. With that said, I think we got away pretty cheap for a fully functional LS1 LS6 waterpump unit.
Dean,
The constant temp is 184 F that will be seen on the highway monitored at the back of the pass side head at a steady 75 MPH.
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Prince ]</p>
12-26-2001, 04:54 PM
#11
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 4,712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. [quote]
I guess first of all, what is the similar product? Mezeri? We have to compare apples to apples here. The Mezeri pump is conventionally cooled with no heater/LEV provisions and that is the only other LS1 aftermarket pump that I am aware of. Now, there is another one that Iv'e heard of, but the testing has been inconclusive and it hasen't been tested past 80 MPH as far as I know. We have tested our pump up to 145 MPH and works fine.
<hr></blockquote>
The one people were asking me about was the one I made, using a stock housing and CSI pump. I put about 250 miles on it, and didn't have any major problems. How it ran on the highway is beside the point, because people were only asking me about how it ran on the dyno, and why it only made 4-5rwhp above 5000rpm when yours is supposed to make 14-24rwhp across the power band. Like I said I told them I don't know, and I wanted to give you an opportunity to address it. I figure that is better than everyone "secretly" emailing me questions. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">
I guess first of all, what is the similar product? Mezeri? We have to compare apples to apples here. The Mezeri pump is conventionally cooled with no heater/LEV provisions and that is the only other LS1 aftermarket pump that I am aware of. Now, there is another one that Iv'e heard of, but the testing has been inconclusive and it hasen't been tested past 80 MPH as far as I know. We have tested our pump up to 145 MPH and works fine.
<hr></blockquote>
The one people were asking me about was the one I made, using a stock housing and CSI pump. I put about 250 miles on it, and didn't have any major problems. How it ran on the highway is beside the point, because people were only asking me about how it ran on the dyno, and why it only made 4-5rwhp above 5000rpm when yours is supposed to make 14-24rwhp across the power band. Like I said I told them I don't know, and I wanted to give you an opportunity to address it. I figure that is better than everyone "secretly" emailing me questions. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">
12-26-2001, 06:20 PM
#12
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. [quote]Originally posted by Joe Prince:
<strong>:clue: heat rises, reverse cooling negates that effect.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to be a bonehead... I just want to clear somethign up as a physics kinda guy...
Heat does not rise. A hot liquid or gas will expand to be less dense (p1v1/t1=p2v2/t2). The less dense portion of the gas or liquid will rise due to the heavier gas/liquid around it. Heat in a solid conductor will radiate isotropically. (equally in all directions). Results are probably good anyways.
Otherwise...A very good explanation. Thank you for the explanation. It has cleared up for anyone willing to read, where the results you post came from. Thanks again for taking the time.
chris
<strong>:clue: heat rises, reverse cooling negates that effect.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to be a bonehead... I just want to clear somethign up as a physics kinda guy...
Heat does not rise. A hot liquid or gas will expand to be less dense (p1v1/t1=p2v2/t2). The less dense portion of the gas or liquid will rise due to the heavier gas/liquid around it. Heat in a solid conductor will radiate isotropically. (equally in all directions). Results are probably good anyways.
Otherwise...A very good explanation. Thank you for the explanation. It has cleared up for anyone willing to read, where the results you post came from. Thanks again for taking the time.
chris
12-26-2001, 07:21 PM
#13
Staging Lane
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Farmingdale NJ
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. Joe Prince,
Thanks for taking the time to clear up peoples questions. Now you mentioned that a unit would be available with basic hose and worm clamps, at a reduced price for the budget minded. In another thread (the other .com) Jay mentioned that the "budget piece" would carry no guarrantee as far as performance gains etc..... <img src="images/icons/confused.gif" border="0"> Will this still be the case? Please clarify that I had not mistakenly read or interpreted this statement. I DO understand all the R&D and the costs involved in bringing a new product to market and salute you for all the hard work and out of pocket expenses. Hopefully everything will work out, and I myself am very interested in installing this EWP on my car. <img src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" border="0">
Thanks,
Mike
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Mikie C ]</p>
Thanks for taking the time to clear up peoples questions. Now you mentioned that a unit would be available with basic hose and worm clamps, at a reduced price for the budget minded. In another thread (the other .com) Jay mentioned that the "budget piece" would carry no guarrantee as far as performance gains etc..... <img src="images/icons/confused.gif" border="0"> Will this still be the case? Please clarify that I had not mistakenly read or interpreted this statement. I DO understand all the R&D and the costs involved in bringing a new product to market and salute you for all the hard work and out of pocket expenses. Hopefully everything will work out, and I myself am very interested in installing this EWP on my car. <img src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" border="0">
Thanks,
Mike
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Mikie C ]</p>
12-26-2001, 08:01 PM
#14
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hainesport N.J.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. "Heat does not rise. A hot liquid or gas will expand to be less dense (p1v1/t1=p2v2/t2). The less dense portion of the gas or liquid will rise due to the heavier gas/liquid around it. Heat in a solid conductor will radiate isotropically. (equally in all directions). Results are probably good anyways"
I guess the one point that I was trying to make is that when you turn the engine off, the motor goes into what is called "heat soak",( I didn't clarify but it was stated "ice/cool down engine off") this is the point where the head temps raise by 13-18 degrees higher than when the motor was running. Uncirculated coolant and the block it's self is going through it's cool down period and even the intake manifold gets warm to the touch at that point. If you run the electric pump motor while the engine is off after a hot lap, there is only 1-3 degrees of heat soak, then the core engine temp gets stabilized within 3-5 mins and then the temp starts to drop at that point even without turning a fan on to speed the process. If a stock waterpumped motor is turned off hot and left alone, it will go threw heat soak for the first 15 mins, then will stabilize and begin to start dropping core temp within 20 mins. I guess I was on the right track about the engine off ice thing but I didn't go into this pump running engine off heat soak detail.
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Prince ]</p>
I guess the one point that I was trying to make is that when you turn the engine off, the motor goes into what is called "heat soak",( I didn't clarify but it was stated "ice/cool down engine off") this is the point where the head temps raise by 13-18 degrees higher than when the motor was running. Uncirculated coolant and the block it's self is going through it's cool down period and even the intake manifold gets warm to the touch at that point. If you run the electric pump motor while the engine is off after a hot lap, there is only 1-3 degrees of heat soak, then the core engine temp gets stabilized within 3-5 mins and then the temp starts to drop at that point even without turning a fan on to speed the process. If a stock waterpumped motor is turned off hot and left alone, it will go threw heat soak for the first 15 mins, then will stabilize and begin to start dropping core temp within 20 mins. I guess I was on the right track about the engine off ice thing but I didn't go into this pump running engine off heat soak detail.
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Prince ]</p>
12-26-2001, 08:36 PM
#15
Staging Lane
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Farmingdale NJ
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. Hey Joe, Did you happen to read my post above??
Just curious for an answer. Let me know.
Thanks,
Mike <img src="graemlins/gr_angel.gif" border="0" alt="[angel]" />
Just curious for an answer. Let me know.
Thanks,
Mike <img src="graemlins/gr_angel.gif" border="0" alt="[angel]" />
12-26-2001, 09:21 PM
#16
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hainesport N.J.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. Sorry Mike, I over looked your post. I think the reason why Jay mentioned that is because we don't know how the end user is going to employ hoses to the unit ie welding aluminum nipples to the housings? We have a suggested line # to use but, we have no control over the line diameter the customer chooses to use once they have our pump. For example, say the customer wants to use the AN style fittings like we use or the socketless type, there IS a potential pit fall the customer could run into when installing these fittings in the hose. The fittings are two piece and must be screwed together while attatched to the hose, I have even made the mistake of accidentally cutting into the inner diameter of the hose with the tightly fitting sharp AN end that gets inserted . I accidently made a one way check valve j/k inside the hose because it was inserted a little bit on an angle and sustained inner liner damage. I did know there was damage until I noticed that the motor was running a little hotter and the only change I made was the hose length. Upon removal and disasembly inspection of the hoses and fittings, I found the 90 degree fittting line insert end had cut into the inner liner of the hose and blocked the hose from flow. On the 90 degree fitting especially, you cannot see through it to inspect for damage after it has been installed unless you run a thin wire in the hose end and feel for and internal inconsistancys? Point is that we have no control over how the final assebly will be carried out. Aeroquip is the company that we use for our lines/fittings, if you need more detailed input into the question you have, call Jay Fisher and sure he can fill you in with more info.
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Prince ]</p>
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Joe Prince ]</p>
12-26-2001, 11:19 PM
#17
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NJ
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. well said Joe, but i'm still not decided on doing it yet, but the point is if we can't control quality we're not going to warrant it either. I don't think that is anything outrageous to say,and i don't think anyone will disagree with me either
Jay
Jay
12-26-2001, 11:21 PM
#18
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NJ
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. well said Joe, but i'm still not decided on doing it yet, but the point is if we can't control quality we're not going to warrant it either. I don't think that is anything outrageous to say,and i don't think anyone will disagree with me either
Jay
Jay
12-26-2001, 11:26 PM
#19
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Posts: 4,712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. I hate to be master of the obvious, but why don't YOU guys provide a pump complete with heater hose, screw clamps, and brass nipples?
You've stated that the customer will be putting the fittings on the lines anyway, so I fail to see how that would be an issue.
You've stated that the customer will be putting the fittings on the lines anyway, so I fail to see how that would be an issue.
12-27-2001, 06:51 AM
#20
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New pump stats and other related info.. So how many have yall sold yet, and when will those people be posting their dyno/track results? I think if that turns out good you guys will sell boatloads of the stuff.
Also, for the cheaper version, you should throw the rubber hoses and hose clamps in the box and provide it ready to run. A $600 pump with no guaruntees isnt likely to be much more of a hit than an $850 one WITH guaruntees. I know it'd take a bit more legwork to come up with a version that uses the cheaper fittings, but peeps be poor, thats why we own chevy's and not porsches/ferraris.
Also, for the cheaper version, you should throw the rubber hoses and hose clamps in the box and provide it ready to run. A $600 pump with no guaruntees isnt likely to be much more of a hit than an $850 one WITH guaruntees. I know it'd take a bit more legwork to come up with a version that uses the cheaper fittings, but peeps be poor, thats why we own chevy's and not porsches/ferraris.