Not MY opinion. Fact. Sorry you can't wrap your head around that. Your opinion is different from fact, you think your opinion is fact, it is not.

One day you'll think back to this thread, when you are all grown up, and think "wow, that HRC guy was really trying to help me understand something I knew nothing about". But you're probably to proud a person to ever admit that.

 

Are you going to post why or dance around it like all of your other responses? Please don't talk about tow trucks again, my rips are a little sore from laughing so hard. Actually, **** it. Its monday, I could use a good laugh

One day, when you get your head out of your ***, you'll realize you were looking at the world upside down and then, and only then, will you differentiate my facts from your opinions.

 

Why won't mods lock this so these 2 can take their bickering into PM's? lol Only first 2 pages are worth reading from a maintenance/technical standpoint.

 

Mods? We don't need no stinkin' mods!

(not like they exist anyways, this is LT1 land lulz)

 

Im pretty sure we could start posting pictures of girls having 8 ropers shot all over their faces in the LTx section and nobody would lock it.

 

As long as you don't start an LS1 vs LT1 debate, its all good in the hood

 

Not dancing around anything. I've answered all of your questions (addressed to other people in this thread, you'll actually have to read, not skim it over).


Speaking of which. LST1=WIN!!!

 

Shooting for 50 pages here, don't jinx it!

 

Sometimes being the red headed step child has its advantages. Waiting on those pics now. ....

 

skeet skeet skeet

 

My car overheats on teh highway, gonna pull the thermostat and voltage boost my EWP to 16v!!!

 

Yeah man! That won't hurt anything either cause electricity is free energy!

 

Ain't nothing in life free.

Solar panels doe, cause the sun is tax free!

 

OMG....my alternator just overheated due to me turning on EWP, radio, and headlights at the same time!

 

Dual alternator time!

IDK efficiency of OEM alternator, but I can make a ~95% efficient generator which is bettaa than mechanical losses in LT1 coolant pump mechanisms.

 

IIRC, GM went to the alternator because it's efficiency is over 90%. Then the rest of the manufacturers followed.

The losses in the LT1 mechanical pump are at the impeller. The EWP has a better impeller. The dyno differences are from accelerating the coolant mass when revving the engine, something the EWP doesn't do (which is a good thing for the EWP).

 

Please, describe in detail how a mechanical water pump on an lt1 is simpler than an electric water pump on an lt1. Please stay on topic, keep it factual, and leave the poor tow truck driver out of it!

 

Alternator/generator its all the same to me. Wiki says 70-80% efficiency

I was getting at the fact that at a given RPM, the alternator is more efficient at using the power imparted to it than the mechanical water pump. Furthermore, the faster you spin an alternator, the more efficient it becomes. (Usually) When compared to the mechanical water pump which prob noses over in efficiency well before the usual 6.5k rpm

/logic

 

The reason they are named differently is because they are different. Alternators are AC and they are more efficient than their DC counter parts.

An alternator is more efficient at converting mechanical energy to electrical energy than a mechanical shaft is at spinning? No. An alternator is more efficient at converting mechanical energy to electrical than some (LT1 included) MWP's are at pumping coolant? Yes.

The efficiency difference is at the impeller. As you stated earlier, the EWP runs steady state so the impeller design can be designed for that condition. The MWP varies rpms so it's impeller design is inherently less efficient to avoid high rpm cavitation.

That is comparing ONLY the EWP and MWP in the act of pumping coolant at the impeller. The MWP will spin the impeller with significantly greater efficiency than any EWP can. The losses for the MWP to spin the impeller is less than 2% (the drag of the bearings and the spinning of the mass of the shaft).

The losses of the EWP start there (it still has to spin the impeller shaft and it to has bearings to hold said shaft) then add in the efficiency of the electric DC motor, the efficiency of the alternator driving it, and that alternator also has a shaft and bearings to work against, plus the belt driving it and all the pulleys and bearings involved with that. The system efficiency of an EWP is far worse than a mechanical set up.

BMX, THAT is the complexity in am talking about. That is not an opinion, it is a matter of fact. Using mechanical energy to turn a belt to spin a shaft to convert it to AC power to correct that to DC power to convert that back to mechanical energy to spin a shaft to spin an impeller to move coolant is more complex than using mechanical energy to spin a shaft to spin an impeller to move coolant.

What you're saying is akin to saying a Chevy Volt is less complex than its platform twin the Chevy Cruze. Not even close to accurate.

Here's some math.

A small impeller is 50-70% efficient (larger ones go higher, but we are working with small ones here). A small DC motor can reach 90% efficiency (larger ones exceed this -up to 97%-, but we are working with a small one here -less than 10HP). A car alternator reaches 96% efficiency (high end). If the EWP pulls 5.8A of load to spin the impeller, we can see that it's using about 80W of power (at 13.8V). 80*.9=72W to spin the actual impeller. With an impeller efficiency at the high end of 70%, we have 50.4W of actual mechanical pumping energy in the coolant. This comes out to 16 GPM (using the 6PSI of head pressure Meziere claimed) for their free flow rated 55GPM (big difference huh?)- that's just under the MWP at 2K RPMs (GM rated in the engine at 20GPM). Now if the DC motor is asking for 80W, that means the alternator must supply that power. The alternator would be pulling that power from it's drive belt, so at the belt it's pulling 83W (at 96% efficiency). What are the losses of spinning the belt off the crank to drive the alternator? Likely more than it is to spin the shaft off the cam sprocket considering the mass involved and it's frictional surfaces are significantly higher. But I have no references for that efficiency so it's left out.

We end up with having an alternator pulling 83W into the system to do 50.4W worth of work. That's 60.7% system efficiency from the belt.

Honestly, it could be more efficient at low rpms than a MWP set up (like idle). But system efficiency would favor the MWP after so many RPMs. But without test equipment, none of us really know where that point is.

Here's a decent article on the matter.

At that flow, head pressure will be only 4.7PSI (not a good thing), or AMPs at 13.8V will be at 8.2A (using Meziere's claimed 6 PSI of head pressure).

 

Lol....lovin the new avatar!