Like Tree0Likes

Eat your hearts out turbo's!

Reply
Old 09-24-2010, 01:37 PM
  #161
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Whipple Charged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fresno, CA, 93722, USA
My Boats: Engine, speed, powerboats, Outerlimits SV43 with Whipple 1375SCI's
Posts: 1,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HaxbySpeed View Post
I think you're taking the cheerleading a bit too far Rob. No one is bagging on Dusty, or saying whipples are junk. I've put them on customers boats and have them on my own boat, they're awesome. The thread title didn't say "Check out the new whipple project". It took a friendly poke at turbo's, and turbo guys are going to poke back. To be honest that kind of power on race gas, with exotic CNC'd big chief heads and valve train to match is not overly impressive. As Dusty said earlier you can't argue with science.. and the way a turbo or centrifugal engine bulids boost is much easier on engine parts. If you want to focus on the fuel management system or something else, that's cool, but when it comes to HP a turbo will win every time. There must be some reason Merc, Sterling, Chief, etc. are going turbo..
Centrifugals actually take more hp to operate then screw's, thats been proven for years. They have slightly less heat, but takes more power when sized equally. There boost is therefore not "easier" on an engine.

Also, there not all going turbo. There's also a reason why many OEM's are actually going away from turbo. Many have exhausted there efforts to get the low end drive-ability you get from a PD style SC. Where are all those OEM centrifugal applications? In 5-10 years, there will be almost a 50/50 mix of new vehicles using PD sc's vs turbo's.

Heads are also not exotic, there very nice big chief style heads and a reasonable camshaft. I'm just not posting that info. Will the motor make over 2000hp? Yup, sure will, since it only took 15psi and Merc's race setup and others are running over 20psi to get near 2000 HP level.

I've never said turbo's won't make more power, thats never been the argument, but centrifugals, sorry, rather have the turbo's.

Furthermore, how many water cooled housings are out there that can produce 2000hp? How's the low end torque on those?
Whipple Charged is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2010, 01:41 PM
  #162
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Whipple Charged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fresno, CA, 93722, USA
My Boats: Engine, speed, powerboats, Outerlimits SV43 with Whipple 1375SCI's
Posts: 1,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAWN DAVIS View Post
You cant beat a turbo at the drag strip. Trust me I know I race turbo cars and sell turbos and turbos related parts.


WRONG
you cant beat a psi at the drag strip
We'll see about that
Whipple Charged is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2010, 02:15 PM
  #163
Correspondent
Correspondent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whipple Charged View Post
We'll see about that
Cool stuff, Dustin, as always.

My only question: How long will it live? Obviously, a lot of that depends on the operator. (The are other throttle positions than wide open, right?)

What kind of service intervals are you looking at?

Sorry is that already been asked.
Matt Trulio is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2010, 02:18 PM
  #164
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Whipple Charged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fresno, CA, 93722, USA
My Boats: Engine, speed, powerboats, Outerlimits SV43 with Whipple 1375SCI's
Posts: 1,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kap328 View Post
Great Thread:

A lot of great questions and answers from Whipplecharged.

I also agree the thread title could have focused more on the Whipple product. The results of the engine performance speaks for itself why bring in any mention of turbos.

I had some follow up questions:

1. What is the cost of this engine as it sits? If that is not something you want to discuss how about the cost of the Whipple 4.0l quad w/MOAC complete kit.

2. Have you tried any other types of heads with this set-up?

3. If you have 4.0 litres X 2= 8.0 litres versus a 8.3 litre single unit it seems on the surface that a single unit is still pushing more volume? Can you elaborate on this issue.

4. A lot of questions on longevity (hours) on the service life of this engine have not been answered (err maybe I missed it) can you give us an estiimate. Also what are the tuning challenges if any on this motor?

5. The belts at high RPM on the 8.3 in the ribbed version were not surviving. I run a 8mm belt versus a ribbed belt and run up to 6400RPM and never had an issue. I know of some boaters wherein this was or still is a problem. Is this a solution or rationale for going to a quad rotor set-up. Can you explain?

Thanks for the follow up on a lot of great questions asked and answered most of which have been on point for most of us.

KAP

P.S. I went from a 3.3/205 to a 8.3 and I have been extremely happy with the 8.3 it runs like a swiss watch perfect every time. The 8.3 is so hard to beat IMO.... so I am having a hard time justifying the return to a quad rotor not to mention the cost benefit analysis.
1. Motors are roughly $80k.
2. Sorta, a different style big chief but only on pump gas. Running in 3 weeks on Dart 380 Pro 2's.
3. Your correct on the volume, but because of size/weight, the 8.3L is limited in RPM to normally 11,000 where the 4.0's can turn up to 18,000.
4. Don't know engine life yet, it will be run at 11psi for poker runs and therefore I feel confident the valve train will be good for 75hrs of normal boating. Lower end will not have an issue.
5. 16-rib wasn't surviving because of the weight of the weight of the belt and centrifugal forces. 12-rib worked but slipped under accel/decel. We also had some issues with how we made the guards to close to the edge, which caused some issues. Once we got it all figured out, it did work, but we decided it was easier to go with 8mm. Quads are taking less hp to operate at this power level, and are working just fine with 12-rib.

Trust me, I know what you mean about the 8.3 vs quad, but I will not even sell the 4.0L quad for below 1350hp, the 8.3L still works best in this area. We did make a new TB setup for the quad, which will make it easier to work with in the future, but did not run them on this engine. At this power level, they will be worth 50hp if my calculations are correct.
Whipple Charged is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2010, 02:19 PM
  #165
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Whipple Charged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fresno, CA, 93722, USA
My Boats: Engine, speed, powerboats, Outerlimits SV43 with Whipple 1375SCI's
Posts: 1,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saxman View Post
Just for you Dustin!
LMAO
Whipple Charged is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2010, 02:22 PM
  #166
Registered
Trade Score: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Lake of the ozarks
My Boats: 40 Skater 607Ci 14:71 TF Kobelco
Posts: 1,234
Default Car Motor

Forget the turbo, blower/supercharger/ whipple Psi whatever

JUST PUSH THE DAM BUTTON
How is that for a boat motor!
Attached Thumbnails
Eat your hearts out turbo's!-img_0027.jpg.jpg   Eat your hearts out turbo's!-chris-67-promod.jpg   Eat your hearts out turbo's!-chris-67-pro-mod-1.jpg  

thumper038 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2010, 02:30 PM
  #167
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Whipple Charged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fresno, CA, 93722, USA
My Boats: Engine, speed, powerboats, Outerlimits SV43 with Whipple 1375SCI's
Posts: 1,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saxman View Post
On screw blowers, one would traditionally measure the output of the blower while spinning the smaller rotor. The whipple 5.0l is rated when spinning the small rotor. If you spin the big rotor on the 5.0l, it is then 8.3l per rev. In essence, they are pretty much the same blower.
Actually, all screw compressor mfg's rate the DRIVEN rotor. Very few have "smaller" rotors. They have different lobe combination, there's 2/3, 3/4, 3/5, 4/6, 4/5, 5/6 and so on. The 5.0 and 8.3 have identical diameter and length rotors. With this being said, the one you drive is how the volume of air per rev is calculated. With a 8.3L, were driving the female rotor, which has 5 lobes. When that makes 1 full rev, the male rotor, which has 3 lobes will rotate 1.66 times. So its just vice versa when you drive the male rotor. When you drive the female rotor, its therotical air flow at 1 rev is 8.3, as it increases because the male rotor made more than 1 rev, which carries the bulk of displacement. When you drive the male, its 1 rev is 5.0, because it didn't turn the 1.66 rev.
Whipple Charged is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2010, 03:16 PM
  #168
Registered
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Casa De Kappy
My Boats: Doug Wright X-Cat, Howard
Posts: 349
Default

Whipplecharged:

Thank you for your prompt reply. This has been a very informative thread with great questions from everyone and candid to the point answers on your part.

Lastly, given the power output for this motor [which is a bargain in terms of price] what drive will deliver the power to the water. It does you no good to have power if it cannot be transferred to the water without breaking.

Can you comment on this topic? It would definitely complete the entire package for me to know what drive to put on this power plant. As this would be a frequently asked question if not the second question in the equation.

Thanks again, and this is great stuff/useful info.

KAP
kap328 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2010, 03:17 PM
  #169
Registered
 
tomcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,484
Default

I wasn't going to comment on this thread, because the choice of supercharger argument has been done many times on OSO. But I would like to say that the rumors of my disappearance are greatly exaggerated!

Since I'm here, I have to say that the problem is not which supercharger to use to make 1800 HP. The problem is how to keep the engine together at 1500 HP. I was told this years ago by a respected engine builder, but I didn't appreciate the fact until we spent a lot more time and money on the twin blower system. Then the light bulb went on. You just can't keep pushing more and more HP out of the same eight holes. Eventually you run into four major obstacles:

too much valve lift
too much piston speed
too much boost pressure, heat, drive loss etc.
too much cylinder pressure

As a result of this "revelation", we started working on our own engine program. This, of course, turned out to be a huge job and that's why you haven't heard from us for a while.

And although I don't post much anymore, I do enjoy poking my head up once in a whle to see what's happening on OSO.

Thanks,

Tom

Last edited by tomcat; 09-24-2010 at 06:47 PM. Reason: too long
tomcat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2010, 04:50 PM
  #170
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 538
Default

what would an e-85 tune up do? i am having a small engine built now and my engine builder has convinced me to tune it on e-85....I finally concluded with the extra hp gained that keeping a barrel around was no harder than a barrel of c-16???? great job on the motors
Jesse James is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 AM.


Copyright 2011 OffShoreOnly. All rights reserved.