How Gearing Effects HP from 1-3rd in 727's

-
yellow rose said:
No way on this flat earth do you eat up 35% of your power through the drive train. No borking way. I can tell you most sticks eat 17-18%, while some if using a OD will be about 20%. An automatic, starts at about 20-21% and goes up from there.

If you actually want to know exact engine HP from a chassis dyno, you need an operator who knows how to use his dyno. Then make your test pulls in your 1:1 gear. Then do a coast down to calculate drive train losses. It damn sure won't be 35%.
Click to expand...

No, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I ran a chassis dyno test before, without the prototype. Then I ran a chassis dyno test with the prototype, both in 3rd gear. The test results on the "after the proto was installed" was 35% greater HP and Torque with all other factors being the same.

After the previous discussions, I gathered that the 35% gain is what the engine produced and was produced at the rear wheels in third. Also that the 35% increase would be the same in 1st and 2nd gears, though they are at differing ratios. The 35% increase remains the same.

Does that make sense?

Thanks,
Bob
 
Yes it will make the same hp no matter what gear ratios you use. Now torque at the tire will be different depending on gear but at the engine torque it will be the same no matter which gear you run.

In my example the engine made 149.5 hp
and made 149.5 hp at the tires no matter the gear ratio (my example didn't account for drivetrain loss but that doesn't matter for this discussion) but look at the torque each gear will put a vastly different amount of torque to the ground and have a different rpm at the tire even though the engine rpm and torque (300 lbs-ft)at the engine would be the same.

Problem is people confuse torque and hp.
An engine only makes power which is the combined effort of rpm and torque. You can never separate torque and rpm (hp) and these are the two things a dyno measures. But as you can see by my example an engine will always put the same hp at engine rpm to ground no matter torque and wheel speed.
 
Get it on an engine dyno. Too many variables with a chassis dyno . At that low an rpm(2600) the torque converter will have a tremendous influence, especially in high gear. Can you verify that the temperatures of all lubricants ( engine oil, trans fluid , rear end lube) were the same between tests? Were the tests with and without prototype performed on the same day?
 
273 said:
Hp at the wheels will be the same.

Torque doesn't move your car it's hp.

Say you make 300 lbs-ft at 2600 rpm which is 149.5 hp.

So say you got a 1st gear of 2.45 and 4.10 in the back with a 24 inch tires (24 inch tire gives you a 1 foot radius so it don't increase or decrease torque to the ground).

So 1st gear with 4.10 at about 18 mph would rev about 2600 rpm and 4.10 in 3rd will rev 2600 rpm at about 45 mph.

Now let's see how much hp at the tire both situation give.

4.10 in 1st give you about 10.05 overall gear ratio. So 10.05 x 300 lbs-ft = 3015 lbs-ft to the tires and 1507.5 lbs-ft to each.
2600 rpm at the engine will be 259 rpm at the wheel so let's put it in the hp formula 259 x 1507.5 = 390572
390572 ÷ 5252 = 74.25 hp per tire or 149.5 hp overall.

4.10 in 3rd will be 4.10 x 300 lbs-ft will give you 1230 lbs-ft to the tires or 615 lbs-ft per tire. And 2600 rpm at the engine will be 635 rpm at the tires. And let calculate the hp at the tires. 635 x 615 = 390572
390572 ÷ 5252 = 74.25 per tire or again 149.5 hp overall.
Click to expand...






There is so much truth in this post, that I am going to go out and party like a $2.00 ***** on Coke. One of the single best posts on any forum I've been to.

Very nice. Math and fact with zero bullshit.
OUTSTANDING TO 273.
 
70DusterBob said:
I will have to research this deeper because it is critical to have realistic numbers.
Click to expand...

If this is indeed the case, you are using the wrong testing tool. You need an engine dyno, not a chassis dyno . When/if you develop this widget let you marketing guy translate the data into catch phrases like "35% increase at 2600!". To be scientific you need to eliminate the variables of anything downstream of the crank hub, and control atmosphere, etc for accuracy. Of course, R&D ona chassis dyno is cheap compared to a real engine dyno cell - so maybe that's also impacting the usage. But if that's it, you can bet someone will toss it on a much better dyno and call you out because your figures are way off. I agree with YR - no way, no how.
 
I think some of you are missing the point.
Forget about the gearing for a second. The OP is saying his device caused a very measureable increase in SOMETHING at 2600/WOT, over and above what it was before adding the device. That is very significant. Can anyone think of anything,short of supercharging, that can do that?
 
AJ/FormS said:
I think some of you are missing the point.
Forget about the gearing for a second. The OP is saying his device caused a very measureable increase in SOMETHING at 2600/WOT, over and above what it was before adding the device. That is very significant. Can anyone think of anything,short of supercharging, that can do that?
Click to expand...


You are correct is your assertion. The problem is he is claiming a gain in HP by an erroneous use of a perfectly usable tool.

Gears are levers. Been saying that since about 1976. Why guys give up gears to add crank length will never understand.

That said, he didn't gain HP. He made it easier for the engine to move (accelerate) a load. That's why people who think torque is the do all, be all, end all, need to use a direct drive and see how fast they go slow.


The flaming can now commence.
 
You also are correct.
But IMO, the OP is just on another page with his terminology.I think he'll get to it shortly,as he is struggling a bit.
I tell you what tho; If I could get 35% more energy out of the same fuel to propel my vehicle at 2600 rpm, say at cruising speed, and it didn't involve gears or supercharging, AND I could justify the expense, AND it didn't add significant weight nor complexity, nor shorten the life of my powerplant, now, THAT would be something.
And no I'm not interested in putting magnets on my fuel-line or water in my gas, or a turbine in my tailpipe,lol
AND if it worked at higher rpms, well, now you got my attention. Let's see what is 35% of 400................
 
AJ/FormS said:
You also are correct.
But IMO, the OP is just on another page with his terminology.I think he'll get to it shortly,as he is struggling a bit.
I tell you what tho; If I could get 35% more energy out of the same fuel to propel my vehicle at 2600 rpm, say at cruising speed, and it didn't involve gears or supercharging, AND I could justify the expense, AND it didn't add significant weight nor complexity, nor shorten the life of my powerplant, now, THAT would be something.
And no I'm not interested in putting magnets on my fuel-line or water in my gas, or a turbine in my tailpipe,lol
AND if it worked at higher rpms, well, now you got my attention. Let's see what is 35% of 400................
Click to expand...
 
Hey,

Thanks for all the replies. Mixed bag, but I am not as clear in my communication as I would like to be sometimes.

Base run was 156.95 With Proto was 241.06. That is about 35% more HP. Torque was at 77.75 for the Base run. With Proto it was 119.41, 35% more Torque, or 41.66 Ft Lb Increase.

400HP x .35 = 215 If I did the calculation right, that is 615 HP after device. Yes that is a HUGE increase, but with a Holley DP which shoots a huge pump shot upon acceleration. I need R&D on TBFI, and yes it would be best to test on an engine dyno. BUT! At a 35% increase, there is no way it wouldn't make a very significant increase in HP and Torque between 2000 RPM and 2750 RPM according to my data sheet.

I have a couple hot rod builders that are interested in my Patent Pending device. I know only basic information about testing on Dynos. That is a science all in its own right. Vaporizing Fuel is a science in its own right. I have been working at this for 30 years now, and believe I found something very worth while. I don't want to say something stupid, because I am pretty ignorant of dyno results. I was told earlier that there is a difference in the HP and Torque being put out at the rear wheels in different gears. 1st gear moves the car with more G-Force at low Speeds, and 3rd moves the car with less of a G-Force than in 1st at higher speeds so it really makes sense to me that there is a huge difference in output "at the rear wheels due to gearing".

I don't know if it is because of the wind resistance + the friction of the tires + the power train loss + whatever else, or where ever the HP and Torque are going, but the engine will not put your pants in the seat of the car in 3rd like it does in 1st. If it is not a gear ratio increase in 1st gear doing that, then what is it? If it is a gear ratio difference doing that, then what would a 84 HP, or 50 Ft Lbs of Torque in third gear, measured at the rear wheels, in first gear behind a 727 w/3:55 Rear Gears do, Tires approx 2 ft diameter?

I would have to sell my hot rod to get more R&D done on an Engine Dyno, the right way, and even then, it probably wouldn't be enough for me to get complete or indisputable data. My plan is, once the Patent is issued, to give the investors the prototype and ask them to test it on their equipment, on their engines, with their money for a contracted percentage of the Royalties which the Patent will make once contracted to lease for manufacture to someone like Holly or Edlebrock. I only have enough to pay a business atty to write up a contract between me and an investor or couple investors.

You have heard of a starving artist, I am a starving inventor. It works, no doubt. It isn't expensive to mfg, won't kill your engine, bolts on with minor modifications, and would retail probably under $150, unless the mfg raised the price unnecessarily.

If this were your baby, and you didn't have the $ to finance anything more than a few chassis dyno runs, what would you do? How would you present it to a potential investor is I guess what I'm asking here, really.

Thanks,
Bob
 
35% power increase for $150.00??? I got some land in Florida for sale and a fuel heater too...

Let me guess, you'll start a "gofundme" for developmental costs next.
 
I'll listen to most anything. Even looked very close at a valve in a valve concept.

The OP's problem is he is wanting confirmation but he has to keep his lips tight so he don't give away a fortune.

There is nothing new under the sun. That don't mean you can't take something that didn't work at some point and make it work now.
 
T-N-T said:
35% power increase for $150.00??? I got some land in Florida for sale and a fuel heater too...

Let me guess, you'll start a "gofundme" for developmental costs next.
Click to expand...

Well like I said, it is only because the fuel pump shot that is being vaporized that I'm getting the 35%. The huge increase is only when the pump shot of a Holley DP is being vaporized completely, or close to it. You have to admit, that is a LOT of fuel being dumped in there. The increase at top end is only 8hp, but it never goes below an 8hp increase all the way from 3200-4500 RPM. But to a drag racer, or someone wanting to "take off fast" the low end is where you need the Torque and where this thing increases it.

Man tried to fly for hundreds if not thousands of years before the Wright Bros figured it out. Well. I may have, and I believe I did, figure out how to vaporize fuel inexpensively, without restriction. Bigger miracles happen all around us with Technology all the time. We used to also be lucky to get 12mpg in a V8, now cars get 25, or even more with comparable HP/Torque using a 6 cyl.

But basically that is why they call them breakthroughs. I broke through the "restriction creation barrier" when it comes to vaporizing large amounts of fuel very quickly.

I can't do a "gofundme" page, nor a "kickstarter" page because they want you to spill the beans in the page so people know your not pulling their leg. Seeing how some of you think this is completely impossible encourages me, but also lets me know how difficult it may be to convince someone without letting them try my proto on their engine on their test equipment. Well, all I can say is you "were" right, it "was" impossible but not any longer.

And the post that said I can't tell you how I do it is right. This device will work with FI, even Port FI, but it will be more expensive to install it. However, the increase will not be 35% because FI does vaporize fuel more completely to begin with. But for someone like Holley who is still selling carbs, this is a great product for them, and I could stand to make some decent money on it.

Thanks for replying, even though your doubt is obvious. I understand it "IS" hard to believe. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the dyno data print out for the first time either. I am going for a second set of before and after tests, to verify it wasn't a mis-calculation.

Thanks,
Bob
 
Last edited:
yellow rose said:
I'll listen to most anything. Even looked very close at a valve in a valve concept.

The OP's problem is he is wanting confirmation but he has to keep his lips tight so he don't give away a fortune.

There is nothing new under the sun. That don't mean you can't take something that didn't work at some point and make it work now.
Click to expand...

Thank you. And your right. This isn't "New Technology". I am just using something that wasn't used to vaporize fuel before and adapted it to fit under a carb, I designed it specifically for carburetors, but it will help FI, just not increase HP/Torque by 35%. It would, in my guestimation increase it by maybe 10%. But then again, I'm not familiar enough with TBFI to make even that assertion. I do know I'm not lying. And I really do appreciate your optimism. The Pat App has been in the Pat Off since March 29th. If I get it, I will be happy to post the dyno data, and give a general explanation on how it works. (Hint: I am applying for Patent on a new "Process" for vaporizing fuel, not a specific device)

I would love for this to be an honest world where I could share my info, but that is just not the case...

I guess I'm just going to have to give the investors a working proto and ask them to test it on their equip to remove all doubt of trickery.

Thanks Yellow Rose,
Bob
 
Let me try to use a different angle.....

When you see a dyno chart of HP and torque...it doesn't say anything about gearing.

That's because it's irrelevant.

The OP needs to make his claim the same way.

"my product offers up to a 35% increase in HP in the 2K-3K usable RPM range"

Period.

No need to involve gears at all.
 
YY1 said:
Let me try to use a different angle.....

When you see a dyno chart of HP and torque...it doesn't say anything about gearing.

That's because it's irrelevant.

The OP needs to make his claim the same way.

"my product offers up to a 35% increase in HP in the 2K-3K usable RPM range"

Period.

No need to involve gears at all.
Click to expand...


Excellent...

That makes sense...

Still going to do another set of runs, before and after, just to verify results. But thanks. I appreciate it.

Bob
 
400 x .35 (35%) is 140. Basic math is wrong. Just think about how bad the rest of the data collection and conclusions are.
Carbureted OHV V8 engines with "modern" 4bbls are around 61 years old (give or take). All major US auto manufacturers employed engineers with much higher intelligence and degrees than I, for decades, trying to find any miniscule increase in efficiency and power. So you're saying this widget with no other changes has the potential to make 400hp at the crank make 540. But you're using the least accurate measuring tool, with no controls over any variables. Sorry for the way this sounds, but I can't possibly believe the results.

Get it into a dyno test cell. Test & measure the air going in, the fuel going in, the temperatures of the parts, the temperatures of the exhaust cylinder to cylinder, and do this on a selection of engines. Then see how it goes.
 
In 1990, I designed a tail cone for semi-trailers (mind you , I was 22).

My inspiration was the space shuttle in 747 transport mode, which I had seen as a child.

Got hung up renting a truck, finding a driver, financing several tanks of fuel to do multiple controlled MPG trials, and making mounts that would allow the rear doors to open.


...(sob), it could have been beautiful...(sob)....

...it could have been me!


Semi Truck TrailerTail® Fuel Savings Technology | STEMCO

First patent issued in 2005.

I get a little sick every time I see one.
 
.....oh and finding a lawyer.
 
...and then there's the "it costs $250,000 to make the first one, the second one costs a dollar" rule.
 
moper said:
400 x .35 (35%) is 140. Basic math is wrong. Just think about how bad the rest of the data collection and conclusions are.
Carbureted OHV V8 engines with "modern" 4bbls are around 61 years old (give or take). All major US auto manufacturers employed engineers with much higher intelligence and degrees than I, for decades, trying to find any miniscule increase in efficiency and power. So you're saying this widget with no other changes has the potential to make 400hp at the crank make 540. But you're using the least accurate measuring tool, with no controls over any variables. Sorry for the way this sounds, but I can't possibly believe the results.

Get it into a dyno test cell. Test & measure the air going in, the fuel going in, the temperatures of the parts, the temperatures of the exhaust cylinder to cylinder, and do this on a selection of engines. Then see how it goes.
Click to expand...

I can explain the math miscalculation. I have dyslexia. I calculated 400 x 0.53... Sorry...

I know what you are talking about with the thorough testing. There is a research firm here that wants $30,000 to do it.

I know it sounds crazy. And yeah, whomever said $150 for that much would be a hell of a deal is right, the Mfg would probably want more, but it is not that hard to make. The first one, yes, it would be expensive for the tooling and setting up a line, but I was simply asking how to word the increase to an investor in a good way because I realize it is pretty amazing. I got that question answered and more answers than I was expecting really, but some of them are good, like this one.

As far as being able to change it with a minor tweak it goes, not really. I mean it could technically be possible to change something, but I thought long and hard about this for quite some time. And yet, anything is possible. But I considered that in designing it and writing the claims.

I am also referring to a device for a carburetor that increased the HP by 35%. But that was the pump shot from the Holley DP. The results dropped off to 8HP at top end. But the HP never went below a 10% increase until it reached about 4000 RPM.

I do appreciate your input and replies. I'm sorry I can't explain how it works. It must be frustrating for you to not know, but I do appreciate your replies and the information you have provided as most of it is rather helpful.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top