Hello Guest
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Volumetric Efficiency?

  • 24 Replies
  • 5178 Views

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Fity

  • 49
  • 0
  • Gender: Male
Volumetric Efficiency?
« on: October 04, 2005, 11:21:48 PM »
Does anyone know the VE (Volumetric efficiency) of a Suzuki 1.6l 16v single cam head?  I am trying to do some calculations for a up coming supercharger project.  Or is there an easy way to calculate it?
Logged
*

Shilly

Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2005, 02:29:44 AM »
Ummm, if you tell us what volumetric efficiency is we'll tell you everything we know about it   ;D
« Last Edit: October 05, 2005, 02:31:26 AM by Shilly »
Logged
*

Offline Rhinoman

  • 4502
  • 36
  • Gender: Male
  • Bend it, Break it, Fix it
    • Rhinoman
Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2005, 04:42:04 AM »
You need to clarify what you mean. The VE is relative to how much air the engine as a whole can flow (head, cams exhausts etc...). Its a measure of how much air ends up in the cylinder compared to its size. For example a 200cc cylinder with a max. VE of 50% will end up with 100cc of air in it, but it changes with rpm. Do you mean the flowrate of the head? Wildgoody  or Zaggy if you can contact them may have some figures.
Logged
2000 Vitara 1.6, 3+3 Lift, 33"MTs, 5:83s, LWB brakes, Winch, Snorkel, Safari Rack
1986 SJ413K PickUp, 1.6L conversion.

OBD1 - Full diagnostics on a PC/Laptop: http://www.rhinopower.org
*

Offline wildgoody

  • *
  • 8134
  • 67
  • Gender: Male
  • Turbocharged 150HP 1.6L 8V 93MPH 1/4 mile
Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2005, 08:36:32 AM »
I'll have to dig in, I just can't remember
the figures, but the VE can be figured
from the HP output and Displacement of
an engine.

The VE of the 1.6L 8V engine, is lower than
the 16V engine, and it's basicly the head that
improves it.

I'll see what I can get for VE

BTW what SC are you working with ???

I saw a 3800 SSE Pontiac with a SC on top,
I was tempted to get it, but I need to finish
my new engine first, still they only wanted
$80 for it  :'(  Why must I have so many things
that want my $$

Wild
Logged
Real Trucks Are Built, Not Bought,
And Chrome Don't Get Ya Home.  

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
*

Offline wildgoody

  • *
  • 8134
  • 67
  • Gender: Male
  • Turbocharged 150HP 1.6L 8V 93MPH 1/4 mile
Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2005, 09:01:32 AM »
OK, best I can get right now is

Overhead cam twin valve 65% to 80%,
four valves per cylinder 75% to 90%.

BTW, a Turbo or SC makes a huge difference,
and the N/A VE will change by 50-60% with them
Logged
Real Trucks Are Built, Not Bought,
And Chrome Don't Get Ya Home.  

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
*

Offline mapmaker

  • 2
  • 0
  • I Love ZUKIWORLD!
Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2005, 09:20:52 AM »
Your VE is x.  Any improvement to pack more air/fuel mix is x+.  2 intake valves allow the mix to arrive more efficiently (bigger holes/lower resistance).  Turbo/Super pack it in, increasing the efficiency. / Head flowing work at given valve(s) opening |removethispart|@x Kpa to increase mass flow is one of the cheapest Kw/Hp gains there is.  Remember, smooth is not always better.
Logged
*

Offline Bobzooki

  • 1754
  • 2
  • Gender: Male
  • Web Wheeler
Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2005, 11:19:49 AM »
Six.

I'm sure that must be the right answer.

If you put six drunks in the back of a 4-door sidekick, you have an 80% chance of getting them home without any of them puking.  The 80% "break-point" of course is the key.

If you drop it to 5, you have a 95% chance, but you also have to make two trips.
If you raise it to 7, it drops to just 35% chance - clearly not worth it.

Of course, if you've got six drunks in the back, and ONE of them hurls, more than likely ALL of them will, because of the close quarters.  This is the reason there are drain-plugs in the body.
Logged
Bob

Tahoe 24' Fish-N-Fun Tritoon
115 HP Mercury outboard
*

Offline Fity

  • 49
  • 0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2005, 04:29:16 PM »
Thanks Wildgoody.  :)  I was guessing around 70%.

I am going to use a SC14 (Toyota 1GGZE) as I bought it years ago for the job and now 3 zooks later I am finally going to use it. :)

From what I have calculated the crank to SC ratio will be around 0.76:1 knowing that the swept volume of the SC14 is 1.4l and the engine capacity is 1.6l using this formula.

((14.7+Boost) / 14.7) x (engine litres / 2)) / Supercharger Size litres = Theoretical Pulley Ratio
 
((14.7+5psi) / 14.7) x (1.6litres/2)) / 1.4litres = 0.76:1

This doesn't take into account for the 10 - 25% loss with VE.  It's a good starting point.

I have also read that for every 10psi boost your double the horse power as a rule of thumb, not allowing for inefficiencies and power used to rotate the SC at 10 psi.

I am aiming for 5-7psi giving me up to 50% more HP.   ;D

Any thoughts on my calcs?  ???
Logged
*

Offline wildgoody

  • *
  • 8134
  • 67
  • Gender: Male
  • Turbocharged 150HP 1.6L 8V 93MPH 1/4 mile
Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2005, 04:37:05 PM »
Quote
I am aiming for 5-7psi giving me up to 50% more HP.

That's about right, I just glossed over your
math, but it seems you have a good working
knowlege of what you got going.

Keep in mind, a street going SuperCharger is
not able to boost more than 5-7 PSI and maintain
reliability, over that the rotors get too hot and
life is shorter than you would like.

In contrast a TurboCharger can make 5 to 20 PSI
and remain reliable, tho I don't recommend anything
over 15 PSI, once you get over 15 PSI things get
a little squirrelly, best to keep around 10 max for a
street engine, with an adjustable waste gate for
stomping on ricers   
Logged
Real Trucks Are Built, Not Bought,
And Chrome Don't Get Ya Home.  

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
*

Shilly

Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2005, 04:58:07 PM »
I liked Bobzuki's answer better...ROFL   ::)
Logged
*

Offline Fity

  • 49
  • 0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2005, 06:25:32 PM »
I am thinking of water / Metho injection pre SC.  This should keep the SC temp down and also compustion temps. I have read of many people using this method with the Toyota SC with great benefits, it makes the SC last longer.  They even inject fuel and even 100% water through the SC without any detrimental effects.  Once I get it all going, then I may look an intercooler as well.

The SC14 SC comes off a 2l engine and gives 5psi boost, so on my 1.6l it will be spinning slower and doing the same, so reliabilty shouldn't be an issue......well not to much.  ;)

Bobzuki were you in the front or back seat of the kick?  :P
Logged
*

Offline wildgoody

  • *
  • 8134
  • 67
  • Gender: Male
  • Turbocharged 150HP 1.6L 8V 93MPH 1/4 mile
Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2005, 11:21:17 PM »
I was wondering how he got 6 people
into the back of the 4 door ???
Logged
Real Trucks Are Built, Not Bought,
And Chrome Don't Get Ya Home.  

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
*

Offline zaggy

  • 1134
  • 2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2005, 10:17:55 AM »
According to my old Power Mechanics and technology book.......

Flathead........................................ .52
Non Cross flow 2 valve.................. .62
Cross flow 2 valve......................... .67
Cross Flow 4 valve........................ .74

This is pretty old stuff and quite genric, hope it helps.

As far as power outputs.......old racing rule of thumb
(on equally prepared engines)

Normally aspirated                         1.0Xhp
1/2 atmosphere boost (7.4psi)      1.5Xhp
1 atmosphere boost    (14.8psi)     2.0Xhp

Made sense to me

etc.........but I bow to Wilds experience...real world beats rule of thumb

Zag
Logged
92 Sidekick 4dr, Suzuki Powered Airplane
*

Offline wildgoody

  • *
  • 8134
  • 67
  • Gender: Male
  • Turbocharged 150HP 1.6L 8V 93MPH 1/4 mile
Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2005, 02:18:47 PM »
We all know X size engine produces Y HP,
now there has to be a simple way to say
a 1.6L engine produces 80 HP, therefore
the VE for that engine is 70% or some such
other # that makes sence

In relation the 16V engine produces 95HP
therfore the VE is higher, say 80%

These VE #s were pulled out of thin air, and
are in no way meant to be used as real figures

Wild
Logged
Real Trucks Are Built, Not Bought,
And Chrome Don't Get Ya Home.  

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
*

Offline Rhinoman

  • 4502
  • 36
  • Gender: Male
  • Bend it, Break it, Fix it
    • Rhinoman
Re: Volumetric Efficiency?
« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2005, 02:46:45 PM »
Quote from: wildgoody on October 06, 2005, 02:18:47 PM
We all know X size engine produces Y HP,
now there has to be a simple way to say
a 1.6L engine produces 80 HP, therefore
the VE for that engine is 70% or some such
other # that makes sence

Wandering off thread for a moment but I have that defined as specific power (the power produced per piston area). Is that definition of VE a US thing?  Sometimes i get a little confused here  ???

Edit: Now you've got me thinking that it probably works out pretty much the same as the only real difference is rpm. Darn, I'm going to have to work it out now.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2005, 02:57:41 PM by Rhinoman »
Logged
2000 Vitara 1.6, 3+3 Lift, 33"MTs, 5:83s, LWB brakes, Winch, Snorkel, Safari Rack
1986 SJ413K PickUp, 1.6L conversion.

OBD1 - Full diagnostics on a PC/Laptop: http://www.rhinopower.org
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »