The ground cables work!

Foof · Mar 21st, 2003, 08:23 PM

Thanks goes out to Sr20kidD for this post of the DYI ground cable job.

"you guys can make them yourself...it will work the same.."

http://www.sr20deforum.com/showthre...&threadid=36381

I have a 30 minute drive to work at a university. At the end of the drive the radio gets filled with static, which would go away after stopping the engine. So I figured I had a good reason to try this out. I was highly skeptical (as it is my job to be a skeptic.) I just completed the last step (read the instructions, hehe) and, WOW, what a difference!

I used ordinary 3 strand household wire that was laying around the house. Just say no to overly expensive audio cables! The only question I have about the wire I used is longevity. But it was so easy that I can just replace them in two years if they corrode. I did clean with a wire brush all contacts the wire made. (And any old grounding cables that come with the car.)

I'm thinking this should be a different thread, but I do have a question for the technical/experienced folks out there.

First, yes, I've searched, and read all relevant threads. The idea of an electronic supercharger seems like a reasonably good idea. There was this "turbo zet" thing that was completely ridiculous. It amounted to a couple of computer fans--something that could never provide enough cfm and psi to even substantiate the restriction it causes. But the e-ram has a real motor in it, that draws real current. Here's the link.

http://www.electricsupercharger.com/

Yes, the website is pretty MTV. No, I don't really believe that it would provide as much as .5 psi boost above regular air pressure. But it might remove the vacuum that the engine works to provide. In one fell swoop MikeK dismissed all of these as snake oil. I was wondering if anyone has any experience with this particular item.

There was a company out there providing really-truly centrifugal superchargers to auto manufacturers for testing perposes. I never heard much more than specs. And that was about 3 years ago.

Oh, yeah. Thanks to all those on sentra net for providing seemingly endless information for this lurker, 4 years running. (I know what the engine guide looked like before its last update.)

toolapcfan · Mar 22nd, 2003, 08:20 PM

Oh no not the Electric Supercharger again! Long story short, I swore something like that would work, BUT, it doesn't. In fact, something like that could make your car run funny. People have tried putting ram air intakes on their cars and it screwed with them, that thing would probably do so as well.

Foof · Mar 23rd, 2003, 06:37 AM

Maybe we should remove the "electronic" part from this discussion. So let's just talk theory for the moment. My rational goes like this: a standard turbo or a supercharger system produces a certain amount of volume (cfm) and pressure (psi or bar) and we get a corresponding increase in horsepower. Almost all of all the “electronic superchargers” on the market are a couple of computer cooling fans. Optimistically, a computer fan(really good ones) will make 60 cfm and not have enough power to make any noticeable pressure. So these things are just toys. If turbos were a brand new idea, and 10 of them showed up on e-bay that produced the same volume and pressure as the “turbo zet,” people would be quick to dismiss turbos as well.

There are power adders for the 1.6 that get you to about 110 horsepower. Then there is one that will jump you up to the 160 range. (We have yet to see what MikeK and MikeY (KY? I see a bad joke coming) can do with all the other tweaks.) Unfortunately, 3-4K is a lot of money. It would be nice to find a way to get the car to, say, 130 hp, or 120 hp for under 1000.

With the right amount of boost, this is of coarse possible. The question is how much is needed to gain about 10hp?

It seems to me that much of the complexity of a turbo or supercharger is getting the damn thing to spool, i.e. the manifold or thing that attaches to the belts. If you could just use a motor at the site of the boost, much of the installation and hardware would go away. It would be cheaper.

The motor in the e-ram is not from some flimsy computer cooling fan. It is from a model airplane. Is it over the threshold of measurable performance gains? If not how much more motor is needed? Is it even possible with a standard fan-blade, or would it need to be designed more like a standard supercharger?

It would be really cool to see a see a series of dyno graphs showing the gains for the 1.6 under variable amounts of boost in about 1psi increments. This would tell me almost everything I would be looking for.

toolapcfan, thanks for only rolling your eyes at me, and not flaming!

SRV1 · Mar 23rd, 2003, 08:27 AM

The only way an "electrical" fan would work is if it can produce the mac CFM your engine can breath plus that to achieve some relative means of boost. Example. The 1.6 at WOT breath the maximum of 300 CFM's(just an example). So this electrical fan has to produce at least 350 CFM's to achieve some sort of boost. Just with 350 CFM's, that wouldn't work.

The idea is cool, but a couple of things you have to think about. How big is the fan going to be? Our current electrical system in cars is 12 volts. How much amperage is this electrical device going to take? I agree that electrical is more efficient, but to make something that creates that much CFM with be big and consume alot of electricity. I dont think our conventional electrical systems can handle the demand for such a device. You could put a high output altenator that they use for competition stereos, but even then you have to modify that. I will stick to the turbo, since that is more effient than the S/C.

If anyone hears of anything that would work and its not from some toy, PM me cause i would love to see it.

James

SRV1 · Mar 23rd, 2003, 08:34 AM

Oops! Sorry i got sidetracked and never mentioned the grounds.

What i would do Foof is go down to your parts store and pick up a couple of universak ground straps, not cables. Their is a difference. Get rid of that household crap!! Also, if you clean painted surfaces to make a ground, make sure you put some paint back over it so corrosion doesn't set in.

Just to let others know, you never can "over ground" a car. Just dont go too crazy. a couple of braided ground straps will do the job suffeciently additonal to the factory ones. Also if you want to make a greater difference, update your battery cables to a higher gauge. I suggest a HIGH QUALITY cables. Yes you will have to cut the ends off the stock cables, but you will notice a difference.

James

Nostrodomas · Mar 23rd, 2003, 10:29 AM

Even with the electronic turbo, you are drawing something from your car. Take away from hp to gain more hp.
With a Turbo, its free power, but you have the problem of lagg. that can most of the time be fixed with proper tuning.
With a super charger, its belt driven, so in turn robbing power to boost power. But you get instant power, no lagg.
I understand what you are trying to explain about the electronic turbo, but you would need a large amount of power to produce the amount of pressure you would need.

Foof · Mar 23rd, 2003, 10:45 AM

The e-ram produces 750cfm, according to the manufacturer. Even half of that would be good enough. This is more than sufficient for a 1.6L engine. To figure:

1.6L * 0.0353cf/L * 7000RPM *0.5 (4-stroke) = 197.7CFM @ 7000 RPM. A household fan will get this, no problem. The problem with this analysis is pressure. Making an analogy to electricity, you have the measurement for amperage without voltage.

Of coarse, to provide boost, you need more air than that. You can figure it out with the ideal gas laws, but it isn't that much more for a psi of boost.

I agree with you on the turbo vs. supercharger thing. It appeals to my desire to steal from wasted energy (hot expanding gases vented to atmosphere. It really is the way to go if you are a mechanic and have the bucks. I am not, and have not.

As for the grounding thing: I didn't really believe it would work. It was a free Friday night with no plans and some wire laying around. I was shocked with the results. Makes me wonder why Nissan didn't do a better job grounding the car in the first place. It was essentially free and kinda fun to do.

Any of you folks with a turbo ever dyno run it with just a few pounds of boost? I figure data like this would be hard to find outside of a manufacturer. After all, who buys a turbo and runs it at 1-4psi?

Get me my leafblower, SRV1, and I'll take out that 'stang! Gerr! (Read: sarcasm.)

Foof · Mar 23rd, 2003, 10:58 AM

To address parasitic losses:

Let's suppose that the ESC (electronic super charger) is used sparingly. After all, how often are you at WOT? The power is stolen from when you are just cruising. A supercharger/turbo steals from “real time.” There is no battery. Assume that my battery can provide all the power needed. (And if it can't, suppose that a have a generator in the trunk, just for the hell of theory.)

Thanks for the input, Nostrodomas. BTW, do you foresee an ESC in my future?

SRV1 · Mar 25th, 2003, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Foof
The e-ram produces 750cfm, according to the manufacturer. Even half of that would be good enough. This is more than sufficient for a 1.6L engine. To figure:

1.6L * 0.0353cf/L * 7000RPM *0.5 (4-stroke) = 197.7CFM @ 7000 RPM. A household fan will get this, no problem. The problem with this analysis is pressure. Making an analogy to electricity, you have the measurement for amperage without voltage.

Of coarse, to provide boost, you need more air than that. You can figure it out with the ideal gas laws, but it isn't that much more for a psi of boost.

I agree with you on the turbo vs. supercharger thing. It appeals to my desire to steal from wasted energy (hot expanding gases vented to atmosphere. It really is the way to go if you are a mechanic and have the bucks. I am not, and have not.

As for the grounding thing: I didn't really believe it would work. It was a free Friday night with no plans and some wire laying around. I was shocked with the results. Makes me wonder why Nissan didn't do a better job grounding the car in the first place. It was essentially free and kinda fun to do.

Any of you folks with a turbo ever dyno run it with just a few pounds of boost? I figure data like this would be hard to find outside of a manufacturer. After all, who buys a turbo and runs it at 1-4psi?

Get me my leafblower, SRV1, and I'll take out that 'stang! Gerr! (Read: sarcasm.)

Just to let you know Foof, your car can breathe way more than 197 cfm at WOT. I believe its more like 350. That is just a guess based on what my 2.4 22R Toyota breathes. This definelty not a fact, rather an educated guess from different engine sizes of what i know compared to the engine size currently at hand. Example, my 5.0 at WOT with the stock engine, breathes a little over 500 cfm's. Its effiency is very poor. Now the 1.6 is very effient in breathing for the displacement size of the motor and the design.

Sorry Foof, that leafblower just wont cut it.

Foof · Mar 26th, 2003, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Just to let you know Foof, your car can breathe way more than 197 cfm at WOT. I believe its more like 350. That is just a guess based on what my 2.4 22R Toyota breathes.

Surely, you jest? Each two revolutions of the crank causes 1.6L of air to move through the engine. From the conversion factor above, we see that at 7000RPM the highest theoretical amount of air to ENTER the engine is about 200cfm.

Your 2.2L Toyota would be about 275cfm @ 7000RPM, and that five-0 breathes about 625cfm (!!).

The exiting volume would admittedly be quite a bit more do to expansion by heat and solvents (water vapor, unburnt fuel, etc.) Maybe this is what we differ on?

johnnykomac · Mar 26th, 2003, 12:56 PM

Surely, you jest? Each two revolutions of the crank causes 1.6L of air to move through the engine. From the conversion factor above, we see that at 7000RPM the highest theoretical amount of air to ENTER the engine is about 200cfm.

and if it was turbo how many cfm would it ingest every two revolutions?

Foof · Mar 26th, 2003, 04:09 PM

Quote:

and if it was turbo how many cfm would it ingest every two revolutions?

Well, actually, going through the engine is exactly the same VOLUME (The engine doesn't get bigger or spin quicker.). But since it is compressed, (turbo = pressure) it sucks in from the outside even more. One can find it (a good approximation anyway) using the ideal gas laws. Unless you have Kojoma style boost, it still won't even be what SRV's 'stang sucks up.

The change should be linear with pressure. I think one atmosphere is about 14.5psi. So 14.5psi of boost should be double the intake cfm. (400cfm) This assumes that you cool the air back down after compression.

Really the answer to your question is a function of two variables. The maximum cfm for our engine is a function of two variables (temp and how much boost.)

Whoops, I just realized what you asked. How much per two rev's with turbo. 1.6L in the engine, but less than double for any amount of boost you or I will do anytime soon. (For a couple psi it's really marginal. Maybe 220cfm.)

I gotta eat.

MontyCrabApple · Mar 27th, 2003, 11:39 AM

So, what kind of grounding cables should I use in a cars engine bay?

Where's the best place to go and buy suitable ground cable for a car?

sethwas · Mar 27th, 2003, 01:02 PM

Well,
Any decent guage cable will work. It doesn't have to be gold plated platinum either. Plain copper is fine. You don't nees 2 guage wiring either. 14 guage to 10 guage is fine for the little stuff (wires that are being replaced (normally engine harnesses are made up of lots of 22-18 guage wires) try to replace with 2 guage bigger). If you want to daisy chain you engine pieces then use your discretion. Just find good wire, and stuff that is good for bad environments (home theater cable will crap out in the underhood conditions since it is designes for inside house walls, not engine compartments).

Seth

toolapcfan · Mar 28th, 2003, 04:21 PM

I'm pretty sure that most electric fans capable of producing enough CFM at the right pressure would consume far too much electricity that the parasitic loss would be greater than any hp gains. This issue has been discussed at length many times before and it still remains that nobody has shown any proof that it works at all.