electric water pump?
You are assuming that the work needed to spin the alternator is proportional to that needed to move water. If your claim is true then at speeds where the electric waterpump and mechanical waterpump move the same amount of water there should be no gain in horsepower because the mechanical loss on the cam is replaced by the mechanical loss of spinning the alternator. There should only be a gain in horsepower where the electric flows less water. IIRC there is a gain across the whole RPM band when dyno'd before/after of approx. 10hp/10tq. Maybe someone can post the chart. I have one, but I did an intake and waterpump at the same time.
http://www.projecttransam.com/images/MezeireDyno.jpg
We can all agree that cars gain about 10rwhp from the mod
and most of us have found that there do not appear to be any drawbacks
to running the EWP (as far as the ability to cool under DD or racing condition).
I'm inclined to believe, that much like the radiator fans, any additional flow
gained at high RPM from the mechanical pump is unnecessary.
Thanks for posting the graphs. It appears that at no time does the mechanical result in more horsepower over an electric so that alone disproves 96's theory. With the two different graphs though one shows no gain until higher RPM's which helps support 96's theory, but it isn't accompanied by the opposite of more HP in the lower RPM's where the reverse is true that the mechanical flows less. The other graph of course discounts 96's theory all together because there is a gain across the board with the electric not just in the higher RPM's.
I believe the whole point of the ewp is to reduce rotational mass on the engine. Just as underdrive pullies supposedly do, or going from mechanical fans to electric. If the engine has to work less to run, it's going to increase efficiency. Ever notice how much less responsive a car feels when you kick it down with the ac on, and gas mileage suffers a bit too. For the guy lookin to get every last hp out of his combo and has done every other mod, the ewp is not a bad idea! For the guy that just has a few bolton's and it's a daily driver, the 200.00 could be better spent elsewhere!
Which is true. But we're not seeing as much HP loss with the EWP.
(see my previous note)
Ok this is where I am confused with the discussion on this. Does the drag on alternator variate based on consumption? I thought it was just producing an available amount of power regardless of whether is used or not.
Amps are "pulled"
Thus, the additional 6-8A pulled by the EWP increases drag by the alt.
(Note Dwayne's jumpstart example above)
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-CAE5Vhy...ech/kb233.html
Yes it does vary based on consumption, which is much of the reason why people are supposed to turn off every light and electrical power source when jumping a car, you'll also notice that when jumping a car the car providing the juice is working harder b/c of the extra strain on the alternator.
To take it a step further, HP consumption on most GM alternators is about 1HP/25amps, so a 140 amp alt. can use up to approx. 5-6 HP to generate that. Of course that is at max load, which the alt. isn't running at all the time.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
9 Second Club
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
From: ringgold,ga
with a good fully charged battery, you can remove the belt at the dragstrip. even with an ewp. i've seen removing the belt alone, pick an lt1 up .15 in the 8th mile and get atleast 3 passes in before needing charged.
I'm not sure I'd do 3 passes LOL ... I've seen 1 or 2 done.
.15 seems a little much ... but I suppose it's possible on some cars. .007-.010 seems to be the norm.
...The fact that is, in my case, the mechanicals were all failing due to leaking. They still "worked" in terms of cooling the car but killed Opti's.
My reason for going with the Meizere was to put a WP in that would not leak on the Opti. Any performance or cooling gains were just a bonus.
...
My reason for going with the Meizere was to put a WP in that would not leak on the Opti. Any performance or cooling gains were just a bonus.
...
ulaovic22 you need to go back to science class.
You are claiming more work can be done by converting the rotation to electricity and then back to rotation. That is the definition of a perpetual motion machine.
I would argue it is hard to see the low speed difference between the pumps on the dyno because the mechanical surpasses the electrics flow a LOT sooner than you guys want to believe. I know I keep harping on it but the electrics are freeflow and as I said a simple impeller not positive displacement so they are easily restricted.
The WS6.com graph shows them too close to call till up around 2500-3000rpms which is pretty much what I would expect. Thank you James for posting both graphs.
If the tiny rotating mass on a small diameter of the WP drive was meaningful then skinnies would be worth seconds, granted it is not spinning as fast but it is a LOT more weight reduction on a lot larger diameter. Anyone found a gain like that from skinnies?? I don't know never used them.
You are claiming more work can be done by converting the rotation to electricity and then back to rotation. That is the definition of a perpetual motion machine.
I would argue it is hard to see the low speed difference between the pumps on the dyno because the mechanical surpasses the electrics flow a LOT sooner than you guys want to believe. I know I keep harping on it but the electrics are freeflow and as I said a simple impeller not positive displacement so they are easily restricted.
The WS6.com graph shows them too close to call till up around 2500-3000rpms which is pretty much what I would expect. Thank you James for posting both graphs.
If the tiny rotating mass on a small diameter of the WP drive was meaningful then skinnies would be worth seconds, granted it is not spinning as fast but it is a LOT more weight reduction on a lot larger diameter. Anyone found a gain like that from skinnies?? I don't know never used them.
ulaovic22 you need to go back to science class.
You are claiming more work can be done by converting the rotation to electricity and then back to rotation. That is the definition of a perpetual motion machine.
I would argue it is hard to see the low speed difference between the pumps on the dyno because the mechanical surpasses the electrics flow a LOT sooner than you guys want to believe. I know I keep harping on it but the electrics are freeflow and as I said a simple impeller not positive displacement so they are easily restricted.
The WS6.com graph shows them too close to call till up around 2500-3000rpms which is pretty much what I would expect. Thank you James for posting both graphs.
If the tiny rotating mass on a small diameter of the WP drive was meaningful then skinnies would be worth seconds, granted it is not spinning as fast but it is a LOT more weight reduction on a lot larger diameter. Anyone found a gain like that from skinnies?? I don't know never used them.
You are claiming more work can be done by converting the rotation to electricity and then back to rotation. That is the definition of a perpetual motion machine.
I would argue it is hard to see the low speed difference between the pumps on the dyno because the mechanical surpasses the electrics flow a LOT sooner than you guys want to believe. I know I keep harping on it but the electrics are freeflow and as I said a simple impeller not positive displacement so they are easily restricted.
The WS6.com graph shows them too close to call till up around 2500-3000rpms which is pretty much what I would expect. Thank you James for posting both graphs.
If the tiny rotating mass on a small diameter of the WP drive was meaningful then skinnies would be worth seconds, granted it is not spinning as fast but it is a LOT more weight reduction on a lot larger diameter. Anyone found a gain like that from skinnies?? I don't know never used them.
The small fraction of a hp(6-8 amps, so around 1/4 of a hp maybe?) it takes the alt to power an EWP is a lot less then what is being wasted by the factory pump working overtime at WOT.
Sure, its no miricle mod - and the money could be better spent on something else on a mild bolt on car...but for the more serious builds the gains are real and the negatives are a lot less serious then you seem to be trying to make people believe
Doesn't the stock wp not work well at higher then factory rpms anyway due to fumbling in its own turbulence??? I remember some interesting discussions on that quite some time ago. That may be a benefit to those spinning 6500+ that has not been brought up yet either 
Launching!
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
From: Henderson NV
96 gets into things more far then they really need be. It's kinda ridiculous, sorry man . I realize you have more smarts when it comes to E=Mc2 but seriously man. FACT IS, the pump makes more power over the stock and 90% of people have had good luck with them as a aftermarket replacement pump...PERIOD. End this debate over non sense!
. I realize you have more smarts when it comes to E=Mc2 but seriously man. FACT IS, the pump makes more power over the stock and 90% of people have had good luck with them as a aftermarket replacement pump...PERIOD. End this debate over non sense! 
Care to explain why?
I'm not claiming anything, you said that electric frees up more horsepower because it moves less water. That is complete bullshit that isn't backed up by any facts. I even went so far as to explain why and someone posted up graphs that supported it.
I know you would argue because your bullshit theory got disproved. It's hard to see the low speed benefit of a mechanical, seriously? You said a mechanical outflows at approx. 2500 RPM, now that the graph doesn't support that you change your answer to say you believe it is A LOT sooner. What is A LOT sooner, idle? If that's the case then why do electric pumps keep the engine cooler in stop and go traffic and only begin to creep up when cruising at higher RPMs on the highway like all the "bright" people have reported?
No one is disagreeing with you on that, I even said it supported your theory although it doesn't show the mechanical advantage below your magic number of 2500 RPM.....oh wait, I forgot that number has now changed to A LOT sooner.
Another thing that you should consider is that for a given change in RPM you need to calculate the power needed to accelerate the impeller as well. Much like calculating parasitic drivetrain losses on a given engine. If you have two engines one making 1,000 and the other making 500 they both lose 15%, why does the 1,000hp engine lose more overall horsepower than the 500hp engine. It's because of the work needed to accelerate the rotating assembly faster. That's why the hp difference between the electric and mechanical gets bigger as RPM increases, it takes more work/power to accelerate the impeller where as on the electric it spins at a constant RPM using a constant draw so there is virtually no parasitic loss.
I would argue it is hard to see the low speed difference between the pumps on the dyno because the mechanical surpasses the electrics flow a LOT sooner than you guys want to believe. I know I keep harping on it but the electrics are freeflow and as I said a simple impeller not positive displacement so they are easily restricted.
Another thing that you should consider is that for a given change in RPM you need to calculate the power needed to accelerate the impeller as well. Much like calculating parasitic drivetrain losses on a given engine. If you have two engines one making 1,000 and the other making 500 they both lose 15%, why does the 1,000hp engine lose more overall horsepower than the 500hp engine. It's because of the work needed to accelerate the rotating assembly faster. That's why the hp difference between the electric and mechanical gets bigger as RPM increases, it takes more work/power to accelerate the impeller where as on the electric it spins at a constant RPM using a constant draw so there is virtually no parasitic loss.
