Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Overdrive Balancer
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bad Company" data-source="post: 15367888" data-attributes="member: 141815"><p>Yes it is an issue. Yes it would be better to change the belt tensionor. But the real problem comes into play with people trying to use a 2.4" or smaller upper on a TVS, versus adding a larger diameter lower</p><p></p><p>But here is what the OP is truly trying to understand. Why does the larger diameter lower add torque? Well then another poster asked if pulley drive ratios stayed exactly the same why would there be a difference? My answer never deviled in the OP question</p><p></p><p>The only difference in this second question is truly the amount of circumference area on the belt as it travels around each components pulleys. The drive ratio determines SC RPM, which determines airflow.</p><p></p><p>If drive ratios are equal regardless of pulley size then SC speeds are equal throughout the complete RPM range of the engine. If SC speeds are equal then ariflow exiting the SC at all RPM of engine speed are equal. The only variable left is belt slippage.</p><p></p><p>As the engine's RPM rate of acceleration increases, so does the chance for the belt to slip.</p><p></p><p>An engine accelerating at a rate of 1000 RPM per second versus and engine accelerating at 5000 RPM per second. Which would be more prone to slip the belt of a supercharger?</p><p></p><p>Remember the SC has mass that must be accelerated in the exact same drive ratio versus engine RPM for the belt not to slip. I did a math calculation based off of a Kenne Bell 3.6L LC SC using their own parasitic Hp losses to determine Hp usage. If my memory serves me correctly, the Hp draw to turn that SC was 271Hp at 6500 engine RPM. That is a huge amount of power for the 10 rib SC belt to transfer from the crankshaft to the SC input shaft without slippage. The bigger the pulley diameter, the less chance of belt slippage. No matter what SC you're trying to spin up, as engine RPM increases at a fast rate of speed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bad Company, post: 15367888, member: 141815"] Yes it is an issue. Yes it would be better to change the belt tensionor. But the real problem comes into play with people trying to use a 2.4" or smaller upper on a TVS, versus adding a larger diameter lower But here is what the OP is truly trying to understand. Why does the larger diameter lower add torque? Well then another poster asked if pulley drive ratios stayed exactly the same why would there be a difference? My answer never deviled in the OP question The only difference in this second question is truly the amount of circumference area on the belt as it travels around each components pulleys. The drive ratio determines SC RPM, which determines airflow. If drive ratios are equal regardless of pulley size then SC speeds are equal throughout the complete RPM range of the engine. If SC speeds are equal then ariflow exiting the SC at all RPM of engine speed are equal. The only variable left is belt slippage. As the engine's RPM rate of acceleration increases, so does the chance for the belt to slip. An engine accelerating at a rate of 1000 RPM per second versus and engine accelerating at 5000 RPM per second. Which would be more prone to slip the belt of a supercharger? Remember the SC has mass that must be accelerated in the exact same drive ratio versus engine RPM for the belt not to slip. I did a math calculation based off of a Kenne Bell 3.6L LC SC using their own parasitic Hp losses to determine Hp usage. If my memory serves me correctly, the Hp draw to turn that SC was 271Hp at 6500 engine RPM. That is a huge amount of power for the 10 rib SC belt to transfer from the crankshaft to the SC input shaft without slippage. The bigger the pulley diameter, the less chance of belt slippage. No matter what SC you're trying to spin up, as engine RPM increases at a fast rate of speed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Overdrive Balancer
Top