3 sec 0-60 RX-8? Meet Electrocharger™

Jan 22, 2006 | 02:04 PM

#26

brillo

Go Texas Longhorns!

Joined: Apr 2003

Posts: 1,818

Likes: 1

From: Houston, Texas

a sub 4 sec 0-60 requires more than power. It also requires a prefect setup of tires, suspension setup and drivetrain design. I've seen 500whp cars that can't do a sub 4 sec 0-60. at some point, the design and balance of the whole car becomes an issue.

Look at the Ferarri F430. its faster to 60 than a Z06, with less power and torque.

Jan 22, 2006 | 02:59 PM

#27

Spin9k

Thread Starter

Momentum Keeps Me Going

Joined: Sep 2002

Posts: 5,036

Likes: 5

From: Colorado

Quote:

Originally Posted by globi

If the electric motor would drive a supercharger instead of the crank you'd might get 120 HP from that 30 HP motor, which is probably still not enough to reduce the 1/4 mile time by 3 seconds.

Skipping the ElectrochargerTM, but considering the Knight product - he says they use:

- Drive System consists of one 8HP electric motor
- The core of our ESC™ 350c is a centrifugal type supercharger
- Max Recommended PSI 5 PSI on a stock engine
- Maximum 455 CFM

So how much HP could this produce for us? I'm lost in the calculations. Thanks.

Last edited by Spin9k; Jan 22, 2006 at 03:03 PM.

Jan 22, 2006 | 04:52 PM

#28

Richard Paul

Registered

iTrader: (5)

Joined: May 2004

Posts: 2,438

Likes: 20

From: Chatsworth Ca

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spin9k

227 HP at the flywheel
For a good piston engine 300+
Figure 1.5 cfm per HP on a piston engine
The rotary is less efficient and needs 2 cfm per HP.

Now what will happen with his blower is that it will flow more CFM at a lower pressure. That is if he is quoting 455 at 5 psi
If he is saying it will free flow 455 then it will just do 0psi on our engine.
You need the whole compressor map for these things.

If he is saying the former then some power could come from it but again I don't know what he is quoting.
Either way it is not the right compressor for your needs.

Jan 22, 2006 | 07:24 PM

#29

TeamRX8

Registered

iTrader: (25)

Joined: Apr 2005

Posts: 26,936

Likes: 2,140

Quote:

Originally Posted by globi

TeamRX8 I hate to be nitpicking, but since you asked for it; this is what guy321 wrote:
3 seconds is 1.5 second less than 4.5 seconds, or is it not?.

Well I hate to be nitpicky right back at you but the thread title says "3 Sec 0-60 RX-8" and the thread I was replying to didn't quote the same one you used, so how did you expect me to know WTF some off the cuff comment was directed at

Jan 22, 2006 | 08:59 PM

#30

Hornet

Wut da F Y'all lookin' @!

Joined: Dec 2003

Posts: 414

Likes: 1

From: Germany

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

I take it that this aux power producing module drives back through the crank pulley? What sort of belt drive will it take to deliver this power to the pulley.

Next problem is that the power has to go through a crank (e-shaft for u) to the flywheel. Therefore that shaft has to hold torque that it was never designed for. You might get away with it on a 500 inch Chevy or a Chrysler Hemi but not with much less. Just for one spot you can relate to think of the flange that the flywheel bolts to can it live without shearing off?

How about on a piston engine there is little overlap on the throw to the mains. When you get to the last throw all the power has to pass through that part of the structure. Add a lot of power to the front of the crank and if it doesn't twist the crank snout off ot still has to go throgh all the other arms.

Now with the small block Chevy the newest custom race cranks have a big block snout on them. This is just because they drive the power steering and the drysump pump along with the water pump and alt. So if the stock snout has problems with that what will happen here. Oh, we are talking billet steel custom cranks having this problem not cast iron factory ones.

Think what would happen putting this on a Honda?
Those are my instant thought on this. They need to get more practical.

Got a question!

If the Electrocharger thing were to kick in when things are already spinning or if power were to come on in a linear increase would it be less stressful on those parts?

I'm thinking along the lines of (imagine if you will that you are in a very fast car), when you take off from a standstill your head might snap back more violently than if you were already rolling when you start accelerating. I'm still curious myself about the complete workings of this thing.

On another aspect of this thing I saw people mentioning the amount of time this thing would provide it's boost for. In their F.A.Q. section they mentioned it can provide boost for as long as a continuous 2 minutes.

http://www.sigmaautomotive.com/elect...rocharger2.php

Jan 22, 2006 | 09:15 PM

#31

Spin9k

Thread Starter

Momentum Keeps Me Going

Joined: Sep 2002

Posts: 5,036

Likes: 5

From: Colorado

I hadn't seen this FAQ. Certainly they confront the bearing load and stress item directly in their FAQ and this was created by a bunch of engineering students... it is tempting to believe ... they can't be spouting all this detail without some basis in fact ... can they?

If only there was a real product .. and the gap from 2004 to now is troubling...

Jan 22, 2006 | 09:50 PM

#32

globi

Registered

Joined: Aug 2004

Posts: 664

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spin9K

- Drive System consists of one 8HP electric motor
- The core of our ESC™ 350c is a centrifugal type supercharger
- Max Recommended PSI 5 PSI on a stock engine
- Maximum 455 CFM

As Richard already mentioned it probably doesn't deliver enough max flow to increase HP at max rpm, but probably would deliver some nice extra low end power.
Also, since its only powered by a 8HP electric motor you probably can't expect that it will deliver more than 30 extra HP even if the supercharger perfectly suits the engine.