Need some Boost #'s
#1
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bonney Lake/Ellensburg, Washington- WCBF '04, '05, '06, '07 Survivor-
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need some Boost #'*
I have a friend that is interested in some boost numbers,both stock and with the 2.2".
What are the numbers for 92-95?
Please correct the following is bad info:
2.2 '92-93 - 10-11 PSI
2.2. '94-95 = 12-13 PSI
Thanks!
What are the numbers for 92-95?
Please correct the following is bad info:
2.2 '92-93 - 10-11 PSI
2.2. '94-95 = 12-13 PSI
Thanks!
#3
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bonney Lake/Ellensburg, Washington- WCBF '04, '05, '06, '07 Survivor-
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by willwren
92/93 2.55" stock should be 8-9psi.
92/93 2.2" should be 9-11psi. Depends on alot of stuff like intake efficiency, MAP sensor, exhaust stacking, etc.
92/93 2.2" should be 9-11psi. Depends on alot of stuff like intake efficiency, MAP sensor, exhaust stacking, etc.
Got any #'* for the 94-95?
#5
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
My gut tells me it should be close to exactly that of the 92/93, but produced at lower Supercharger RPM'*. The above post seems to confirm that.
Again, don't lose sight of the fact that where the air comes from, and how it gets out of the engine both have effects on boost numbers. The PSI of boost is actually not as important as the actual flow in CFM'*. You can actually increase your boost levels by simply restricting your exhaust. On the same note, is a car with headers any worse off because their indicated boost decreased? No. Their pressure is indicated lower, but they're actually flowing more CFM'*.
Again, don't lose sight of the fact that where the air comes from, and how it gets out of the engine both have effects on boost numbers. The PSI of boost is actually not as important as the actual flow in CFM'*. You can actually increase your boost levels by simply restricting your exhaust. On the same note, is a car with headers any worse off because their indicated boost decreased? No. Their pressure is indicated lower, but they're actually flowing more CFM'*.
#7
Senior Member
Certified GM nut
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok I've been working on my math skills, which are still severly lacking. But here'* a figuring:
6.875" crank pulley with a 2.2" supercharger pulley spins it 18,750rpm at a 6000rpm engine speed. The supercharger is 62ci and figuring a healthy 95% VE it pushes 58.9 CI each rotation. 58.9CI spinning at 18,750rpm comes to 1,104,375 Cubic Inches a Minute
Convert inches to Feet and we get 639.11CFM.
6.875" crank pulley with a 2.55" supercharger pulley spins it 16,140rpm at a 6000rpm engine speed. The supercharger is 62ci and figuring a healthy 95% VE it pushes 58.9 CI each rotation. 58.9CI spinning at 16,140rpm comes to 950,646 Cubic Inches a Minute
Convert inches to Feet and we get 550.14CFM.
So here'* where I'm getting retarded. Assuming this works like this:
550.14cfm divided by 9(psi) comes to 61.1cfm per PSI. Since everything but the cfm stays the same we could assume that adding or taking away 61.1cfm would result in a 1psi gain or loss. Assuming that'll work in la-la land, the 2.2" pulley should put you at about 10.4psi. Which since it seems to fit where it should, maybe I'm not as retarded as I think...or maybe I am and its all a coincidence...either way I'm gonna run with it.
6.875" crank pulley with a 2.2" supercharger pulley spins it 18,750rpm at a 6000rpm engine speed. The supercharger is 62ci and figuring a healthy 95% VE it pushes 58.9 CI each rotation. 58.9CI spinning at 18,750rpm comes to 1,104,375 Cubic Inches a Minute
Convert inches to Feet and we get 639.11CFM.
6.875" crank pulley with a 2.55" supercharger pulley spins it 16,140rpm at a 6000rpm engine speed. The supercharger is 62ci and figuring a healthy 95% VE it pushes 58.9 CI each rotation. 58.9CI spinning at 16,140rpm comes to 950,646 Cubic Inches a Minute
Convert inches to Feet and we get 550.14CFM.
So here'* where I'm getting retarded. Assuming this works like this:
550.14cfm divided by 9(psi) comes to 61.1cfm per PSI. Since everything but the cfm stays the same we could assume that adding or taking away 61.1cfm would result in a 1psi gain or loss. Assuming that'll work in la-la land, the 2.2" pulley should put you at about 10.4psi. Which since it seems to fit where it should, maybe I'm not as retarded as I think...or maybe I am and its all a coincidence...either way I'm gonna run with it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Toddster
Trouble shooting + Test Procedures
0
03-21-2009 06:24 PM
DanCulkin
Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning
14
07-02-2007 11:02 AM
2000SilverBullet
Your Other Rides: Pics & Videos
6
07-02-2006 02:44 AM
hvactech
Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning
12
05-10-2005 10:14 PM