FWIW I went with the Meziere EWP on my old Formula. Back to back dyno testing showed a solid 9rwhp gain across the entire tested rpm range. My car was/is a true street car that I drove everywhere and never had any issues with reliability with the pump. I noticed a slight bump in water temps at cruise, but it did run much cooler in traffic, and it was nice to be able to turn on the fans and run the EWP in the pits and staging lanes at the track to help with cool downs. The new owner is still running 11.20s @ 122 and has whittled the 60's into the 1.48 range and its been dead nuts reliable still.

And also FWIW I stuck with the stock timing set which is plenty strong for most applications, imho. When I changed cams in 2005 I just replaced the chain with a new stocker.

--Alan

 

1963 you are neglecting the FREEFLOW rating on the electrics, it is NOT moving 55gpm as installed.

Alan's experience of raised coolant temps at cruise supports that it is not moving 35gpm at say a 2400rpm cruise like the stocker does.

Again I am not trying to say electrics are bad, just want the junk science arguments for their use to end. It serves everyone well for us to actually understand how things work.

I will say that IMO there is an "efficiency gain" with the electrics in having the water accelerated in the system. When racing the stock pump is not just pumping 66gpm at 4800 engine rpm it is accelerating that water from say 20gpm to 66gpm.
Sure the electrics have a nicer impeller but these guys are suggesting an efficiency gain of an under .2hp pump doing more work than an 11hp pump despite two inefficient energy form changes from rotation to electricity back to rotation. IMO the efficiency of not having to accelerate the water is greater then the impeller difference.
I don't know if anyone can test the rpm of an electric as it is turned on but it would be interesting to know how long it takes to come up to steady speed and how long it takes for flow to actually peak, not that any of that matters performance wise, not like it is going to take minutes and affect cooling. Just again I like to understand things.

 

I love all the feedback from non users, they have no clue. I wouldn't hesitate to drive my car across the country. I've ran an EWP for over 8 years along with the ASP underdrive dampner set without issue except the gains. As long as you're not running NASCAR, electric is the way to go. A B-body running 11.5x is impressive, but 11.4x from a couple extra mods would be better and not affect daily driving at all. In the 70's Mopar used a silicone filled fan clutch instead of a thermal clutch like everyone else. It slipped under high rpm load,,, on purpose. Maybe that's why they ruled.

 

I have experience with the electrics, how do you think I know they run hotter at cruise? Even in 40degree weather. and AGAIN the argument here is not about if they work it is against all the retards who believe they are magical and use perpetual motion as a "reason" to recommend them.

 

Maybe what I wrote wasn't clear, so lets try this again. I wasn't talking about some theoretical system. The context is a running LT1 engine which is already turning an alternator - The rotational energy is already at work here. It's essentially "free" in this scenario because you're going to turn the alternator to provide electricity to all the other systems anyway. You can factor in the parasitic HP loss from the +6/7 amp draw, which is negligible for a 140 amp alternator. So there is no notion of perpetual motion or violation of conservation of energy laws in anything I was suggesting. I wasn't referring to an electric pump with the same flow characteristics of the factory pump either. I was talking about the available pumps for the LT1 engine, which do not have the peak GPH flow as the factory pump, which, yes, means they "move less water". Your comment simply suggested to me (read:IMO) that it would be impossible to build an EWP to flow the same as the factory using the mechanical/electrical power that is available in this system. Your research of other types of electric pumps, among other things, leads you to believe otherwise. That's fine. Maybe I read into it too much. Maybe it's just semantics, but I do not agree with that (and that is still NOT some kind of belief in perpetual motion). Given the 140amp alternator that is available in this system, a highly efficient electric motor, optimized impeller design (and that may be the key), and maybe a different housing, it seems plausible. Not necessarily practical. Could it be done with today's technology? Could it be done at a reasonable amperage level? Going from 7 to 30? to 50? to 100? And still be less HP than the factory? Could it even fit in our vehicles without standing the radiator upright (f-bodies)? I don't have the answers for that, and your response that it will always flow less water can't be definitively answered either, and that is the point of contention based on the mechanical-to-electrical-to-mechanical argument once again. It all depends on how efficient the pump can be made for the energy it consumes at the GPH that it is flowing. This theoretical EWP would obviously have to be more efficient than the mechanical PLUS the energy it takes to convert mechanical into electrical to power it (once again, in this system, the alternator is already spinning). We can mull over the empirical data we have, but the pumps that are available do their job adequately, so there is really not much of a reason to pursue it. Anyway, I simply replied with my statement because it made sense to me, and possibly others, to focus on where the +9-10 dyno proven HP is coming from and that is the removal of the parasitic drag it takes to drive the factory pump. I know you don't like that statement in itself - You want people to know that it comes at the cost of GPM and that is good too. I should not have discounted your statement because of semantics. The more information people have the better.

 

I am going to just say that 4.5 horsepower gain comes from moving less water...And 4.5 horsepower is gained from getting rid of the mechanical drag. LOL ok guys dont tear me up now!

 

**** ewps

 

the load the alternator puts on the belt VARIES with load placed on it. You seem to be saying that "it is already spinning".
As I said before idles change when you hookup to a dead vehicle to jump it there is practical proof any of us should have experienced of varying load to the belt.

 

That was good for a chuckle, thanks

 

That load is pulling the 12v - 600 amps your battery has to start the other car, far far from the little 6 amp draw of the ewp.

 

I recently received an electric water pump from a friend of mine for my build. I also have a fan switch, larger stainless air dampener, A/C deleted (condenser), and a 3” cowl hood. Now all of this in mind, Do you think my cruising temperatures (30-45 mins @ 70-75mph@ 2200-2400rpm) would be affected that much with the more air-flowing mods I have done with the electric water pump? If so, would it be enough to cause any damage?

 

I have everything you mentioned... I routinely take the car out on little trips ~2 hours or so non stop, no issues, with the 160* thermostat the car doesnt even get past the second tick on the dummy dash gauge.

 

I have a half filled block, big radiator mounted trans coolers, and 13ish:1 compression. I cruise at 3500+ rpm on the freeway and I creep up to 210 or so water temp with my CSR EWP. Heater and oil cooler are deleted, along with the fill I'm probably only at 50% water capacity of stock. This is in 70 degree weather, I'm sure I'll need to stay off the freeway during the summer.

 

I have ran an electric pump on my car since 2007. It was a DD up until a few months back. Only overheated one time, and that was when the cheap plastic connector that CSR uses on the end of their wiring fried. I spliced it in with some butt connectors and have had no issues since. I live in DFW, where it does get pretty damn warm during the summer. I have driven the car all over DFW, to Austin and back, and in 100+ and never had an issue. The car would run about 185 with the AC blasting as hard as it could, driving down the highway, and in 100+ weather. Never popped a fuse or anything, it comes down to good wiring and proper install IMO.

 

what is everyone's opinion of me switching to the "HD" Meziere pump over my little CSR? IIRC it only took 2 gallons to fill the cooling system which originally is like ~15 quarts, seems like i'd already be circulating the coolant pretty quick?

 

1996SS & jb442 said it well. Dwayne has his own opinions but unfortunately his posts are often reduced to just name calling.

Some may chose a EWP because they feel it "flows" more than a mechanical pump. As discussed it may at some or most of the capable RPM range of a LT1.

I would argue the majority do it for increased HP. Removing the WP from "mechanically" being driven by the motor is just like droping the belt while running down the 1/4 mile. You will go faster because the motor is not "mechanically" aka parasidic drag (jb442 said it best)running the accessories (power steering, AC, alternator). Yes a EWP does draw power from the alternator thus increasing it's load on the motor BUT that "load" is a very small fraction of HP a mechanical pump draws.

I only know from real world expierience. Have a EWP (Meziere 55 gph)on for 12+ years on my B-body with about 80k miles on the pump now. For me mechanical pumps failed and killed Optis and when the car went out of warrenty I swapped to EWP. No warning lights or buzzer, just monitor my gauge just like I do on all my cars. Have a spare EWP I bought used in the trunk. I keep a basic tool kit in the trunk all the time and a swap would take 20 min tops. A quick bleeder and small tube to run into over flow tank and bleeding is plug & play either in the garage or stranded on the road somewhere.

I would not, and have not, hesitated in taking the car on any long drive

So...based on the many replies there are "multiple" reasons to use a EWP. All by choice and just like shoes....one size does not fil all :-)

 

Choices are 1: meziere 55 gph 2: csr 35 gph (dont know if they have a 55) 3: cvr 55 gph based on reliability instalation and carving up fan shroud and maybe cost... Put them in order please.

 

the CVR is and I say again 35 GPM... it's the cheap summit brand that I use with good success...

 

I had a little CSR it had a shaft seal failure and left me on the side of the road. I replaced it with a JEGS since it was the quickest to ship. I also picked up a Meziere, its built very well pretty similar to the JEGS just a little better built

 

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/CVS-6551/

This ^ it?

Says 55gpm and it seems to have a nice price, also it says that it has a 10,000 hour life expectancy. Couple other ones were around 2000-3,000 hour life expectancy that I remember. Maybe yours is older and they now make them 55gpm.