| Slant Six Forum https://www.slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| HP at lower tach points ? https://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15692 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Old6rodder [ Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | HP at lower tach points ? |
Howdy all, For those who don't know (or care) I'm construction chair for the Sierra Madre Rose Float Association. The float committee's ready to pop in a larger animation engine than the A-12 Datsun we've been limping along with for several years now. Coincidentally I have a decent peanut head 225 without plans at the moment, and thus I'm giving thought to that possibility. It'd be a bit cool to have one in the float. The set up is this; we have to govern the engine somewhere between 1500 and 1800 rpm to get the 120v generator to sing a good song for the sound equipment's power conditioner (which demands a 150 rev max spread). That's also a good range for the hydro pump as well, as most reference ratings are given at 1800. The problem is this; though the A-12 is rated at 69 hp it doesn't make it 'til 6000 rpm. It makes about 25 hp at 1600, not enough for both the pump and the generator when we're putting up the amount of animation our new hydro systems can handle. The questions are these; what does a typical one barrel peanut 225 in factory trim minus smog (no smog equipment beyond pcv's are allowed in the parade) deliver from 1500 to 1800 on the tach ? How responsive are the various factory one barrels in the flow ranges at these revs? The ignorance is thus; while I've been a seat of the pants street rodder (inline 6s and a few bugs) and putter (limeys and looped beemers) for {mumble} decades, both the concept of industrial application engines and having to figure out the numbers in advance are reasonably new to me. Having run a few slants over the years and with two more that'll be loose on the public highways this summer (one within the month) I've always loved the tractor engine feel of a good six and think it'd be applicable to our animation needs. I'm hoping one or more of you who are better at the numbers than I am will be kind enough to help me sell the committee on a slant for our float hydro. Thanks. |
|
| Author: | sandy in BC [ Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Comment: 1500-1800 RPM is where most slants with a slack timing chain make big torque. Perhaps a cam timing change might be part of the plan. Question: Do you have a governor in mind ? (no not him,,,,a rev/power type) I would think a BBS would be good for this application. An option would be the little Holley/Weber 2 barrel. It would seem to be an application for an EI distributor with fixed advance.....mebbe a Lean Burn? I admire your wrk on this. |
|
| Author: | Dart270 [ Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My guess is you would make at least 50HP in that RPM range, and gobs of torque (100-150ft lbs?). I agree that a cam timing advance (4-8 deg) would help in that range. The junkyard motor I put in Project V originally had an advanced stock cam, and made crazy power off the line (big burnouts), but fell flat above 3500, which you don't care about. Stock 70s cam would be best/easiest cam. Lou |
|
| Author: | skidderdriver [ Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hey Dick,I was curious if You had mulled over the thought of using a larger alternator and a pure sign wave inverter instead to give yourself a broader RPM range to work with?That way you wouldnt have to fuss with a gov. What type of hydraulic pump do you use? Ive always enjoyed your float photos,and a slant would be cool. Doug |
|
| Author: | Old6rodder [ Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thank you gentlemen, I'll take this info with me to the next meeting. It looks like we'd be at least doubling our hp and gaining considerably more usable torque in the bargain. I'll let you know how it went. Sandy, our governor's an older electro-mech unit with a potted "brain". Not very exotic but both trim and button remotely adjustable, and fairly bullet proof. Easily holds a 20 rev spread (0 to full load) when it's balanced right with the carb linkage, never moves more than one LED on the conditioner. Skidder, professional type sine wave inverters in the 40 amp range we'd need are hideously expensive and would require an alternator from the Queen Mary. We'd still need to govern for the hydro pump anyway, though the spread could be wider. Our pump's an old first series iron case Parker 33. It's a five barrel piston type (plate valved) with a swash plate like an anvil. Control's pressure feedback to flow with a screw adjust before the swash piston's spool. Very basic, very strong and very reliable. By the looks of the innards it still has well over 80% of its life left. Thanks again guys. |
|
| Author: | Rust collector [ Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
170 carbs are supposed to be a bit smaller, don´t they? |
|
| Author: | Jeb [ Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: 170 carbs are supposed to be a bit smaller, don´t they?
Yes, from the factory the 170 used a smaller BBS Carburetor than the 225. Swapping on a larger 225 carb would give you more power. (Holley 1945's don't count, they suck in all shapes and sizes). 
|
|
| Author: | emsvitil [ Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Quote: 170 carbs are supposed to be a bit smaller, don´t they?
Yes, from the factory the 170 used a smaller BBS Carburetor than the 225. Swapping on a larger 225 carb would give you more power. (Holley 1945's don't count, they suck in all shapes and sizes). Not at 1500-1800 rpm........... At that low rpm, you're better off with the smaller carb. |
|
| Author: | Charrlie_S [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: 170 carbs are supposed to be a bit smaller, don´t they?
Actually only the 170 manual trans engine had the smaller carb. The 170 auto, had the same size carb as the 225 stick and auto.
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC-07:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|