1050 ccs of fuel!

[Hammer]

So Kat tell us all now,,Did you have your pillow fluffed on the starting line when you were leaving or what???,,Guys like you (3. 0and greater reaction times)are what we bracket racers call snoozers or easy pickins,,Man love to get a whole group of guys that leave like you it would make going into deep rounds around here alot easier,,I could even see the starting line officials beginning to yawn as you roll in... ...

 

[Power Wagon]

Most pump specs are given in cubic millimeters per stroke... That is, 1/1000 of a CC/stroke.



Normal 215 HP engine specs reach around 175 or so mm3/stroke if memory serves, so that's 175 CC / 1000 strokes, or 2000 engine revolutions. Some of the early pumps had trouble getting past 250 mm3/stroke on the test stand.



In order to make over 1000 CC/1000 strokes, that means the pump has to shove 1 liter of fuel through the injectors in 60 seconds at 2000 engine rpm.



That is a tremendous amount of fuel. I don't know how you do it without using the "start fuel" part of the helix... and the timing for that part of the helix is... ahem... not real good.



You also have to have a heck of a test stand to spin that pump. Normal P7100 operation causes most test stands to grunt a bit, I can't imagine trying to pump start fuel amounts at 1500 pump rpm. It is amazing that the barrells don't ballon or the rollers fly out the side of the pump.

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by Strick-9

What's wild is this. At 3000 rpm, 1050 cc's per stroke is 2. 5 GPM of fuel flow! My kitchen sink flows just over 2. 0 GPM.



No wonder I had to add an auxillary fuel supply system to keep supply pressure from falling off the gauge under full throttle.







-Chris

1050 CC's is 1. 05 liters.



1050 CC/min means 1 liter a min, which means 1 liter / min at 2000 engine rpm.



it means roughly 1. 5 liter/min at 3000 engine rpm.



The supply pump is supposed to be able to exceed 80 gallons per hour (correct me if I'm wrong), or in other words, at least 3 times the fuel you are using.



note the operative word "supposed".



Apparently your stock fuel pump isn't anywhere near that?

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by Hammer

So Kat tell us all now,,Did you have your pillow fluffed on the starting line when you were leaving or what???,,Guys like you (3. 0and greater reaction times)are what we bracket racers call snoozers or easy pickins,,Man love to get a whole group of guys that leave like you it would make going into deep rounds around here alot easier,,I could even see the starting line officials beginning to yawn as you roll in... ...

Somethign is entirely wrong with Kat's printout. Note the 60 foot time is less than . 02 seconds, a physical impossibility, unless he was a bullet shot out of a gun.



I guess that's just an example of how timeslips aren't proof of anything.

 

[Don M]

Originally posted by Power Wagon

Most pump specs are given in cubic millimeters per stroke... That is, 1/1000 of a CC/stroke.



Normal 215 HP engine specs reach around 175 or so mm3/stroke if memory serves, so that's 175 CC / 1000 strokes, or 2000 engine revolutions. Some of the early pumps had trouble getting past 250 mm3/stroke on the test stand.



In order to make over 1000 CC/1000 strokes, that means the pump has to shove 1 liter of fuel through the injectors in 60 seconds at 2000 engine rpm.



That is a tremendous amount of fuel. I don't know how you do it without using the "start fuel" part of the helix... and the timing for that part of the helix is... ahem... not real good.



You also have to have a heck of a test stand to spin that pump. Normal P7100 operation causes most test stands to grunt a bit, I can't imagine trying to pump start fuel amounts at 1500 pump rpm. It is amazing that the barrells don't ballon or the rollers fly out the side of the pump.

PW,



Thats great info and all spot-on. The 215 stock is about 177 with a tolerance of about 2 cm3/1000, of course rack travel is limited to about 14mm with the stock cam plates,etc.



Your dead right about the pump stand needng a ton of HP to turn the thing at the high RPM as well. The little stands are hatin' life to get it done and some just cant do it.



Its also more difficult to pump that much fuel at say the 2500rpm range and have it inject at the proper time in the proper amounts. The crank pump time is about 30degrees or so and at 2500RPM the time in milliseconds is very small. Part of the reason you see the engines lean out up top is more than just boost cleaning the smoke up. Its not getting the time needed to inject the fuel.



I suspect as you do the rollers are having a tough time at the high rpm speeds staying on the cam lobes. Say anything over 3500rpm.



Don~

 

[Power Wagon]

I just had it pointed out to me that I forgot to finish my math...



there ARE six cylinders, ergo, 6 times that flow, cumulative.



I promise, I promise, I promise... from now on, no more starting posts and finishing them later... One forgets too much

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by Sled Puller



How many Horsepower was the motor on the pump stand?

Reckon I was on that ahead of the two Oldsters.

 

[HEMI®Dart]

Where did I go wrong. I double checked the article.

Originally posted by HEMI®Dart

Something's wrong.



Jim Leonard (TDR issue 24, p 72) has his stock pump calibrated. It averaged 174. 4 c. c per 25 strokes.



At 1000 strokes it would be 6970 c. c. ?



Chris,



Could it be 1050 c. c @ 100 strokes?



This would give you a healthy 262. 5 c. c @ 25 strokes vs. a Stock pump at 174. 4 c. c @ 25 strokes.

 

[KatDiesel]

Originally posted by Hammer

So Kat tell us all now,,Did you have your pillow fluffed on the starting line when you were leaving or what???,,Guys like you (3. 0and greater reaction times)are what we bracket racers call snoozers or easy pickins,,Man love to get a whole group of guys that leave like you it would make going into deep rounds around here alot easier,,I could even see the starting line officials beginning to yawn as you roll in... ...

Huh the whole slip is screwed up. Other then MPH. The slip on the right was against an 01 Mustang GT, I left before him and he never caught me, he said I had him by at least 3 car lengths at the finish line. Even if I was worried bout reaction time, I don't bracket race. My general r/ts are . 8xx to . 9xx, I'm still experementing with how much boost to leave at, when to leave etc. R/T don't mean didly squat to me.

 

[KatDiesel]

Originally posted by Power Wagon





Somethign is entirely wrong with Kat's printout. Note the 60 foot time is less than . 02 seconds, a physical impossibility, unless he was a bullet shot out of a gun.



I guess that's just an example of how timeslips aren't proof of anything.

How bout the blank 60ft time..... I was pretty fast on that one too

 

[R.ebel]

1050 cc

I'm going to side with HEMI®Dart, All these number that are being tossed around don't make sense



I'll throw out my numbers just for comparison sake. Piers massaged my pump and it's set to 300HP specs which is 227. 5cc's per 1000 strokes at 1250 rpm according to the spec sheet that came with the pump.



Strick-9, If you are getting 1050cc's out of one barrel My hats of to you!!! MAN... . THATS A LOT OF FUEL! Just curious though, at what RPM were you getting the 1050cc's?

 

[Cummins Corvette]

Ya, I think something is a miss here. Someone has the wrong info here. Fact: the stock rating for my 180 motor is 88 mm^3 per stroke. Another fact: the 210 hp motor in the work truck is rated at 99 mm^3 per stroke. A pretty damn good guess: No one is getting 1000 mm^3 per stroke (or 1000 cc per 1000 strokes). Now, even at 50% of the efficiency of a stock motor, that is well over enough fuel for 1000 hp. That is at half the efficiency of the stock motor, which is a very conservative estimate. So where is the power, eh? Something is wrong here. 600 hp is a joke with that much fuel.

 

[Joseph Donnelly]

My little pump isn't flowing that much, at least it didn't on the Bosch test stand. It still is stock in the fueling section (the only work is in the governor). There is a lot more to the story, but before I tell it lets see someone out there match that 600 hp "joke. " Chris A. seems to think it is trivial to get there with that much fuel and on #2 only, so why hasn't anyone done so at all the dyno days? Come to May Madness and show us how it's done If there is an easy way, I want to know it. Chris S. is trying hard and "deserves" some more hp

 

[Pthomas]

can you say RATIO?

Fuel fuel fuel, AIR AIR AIR.

How much and most of all WHEN!

when do you want how much fuel little cummins 360

efficiency is power at its PEAK.

without drugs that is.....

p. s The automatic trans drag racers are able to reach boost before launch and in doing so you can create ALOT of smoke. if it lingers or blows in the staging beams youll have all kinds of funny ET's and RT's

 

[Boldt's Wagon]

The 1050 cc/stroke "left 150 cc on the table". Or 1200 cc per stroke might mean 200 cc/1000 strokes/cylinder. The "work truck of 99 or 100 cc/1000 strokes/cylinder is 600 cc or 0. 6 liter or 0. 158 gal per 1000 strokes for 6 cylinders per minute. One hour is 9. 51 gal per hour per 1000 strokes/min. 1000 strokes per minute is 2000 rpm. 9. 51 gal per hour will produce 190 hp (20 hp-hr per gal). 2400 rpm will give 228 hp at 99 cc/1000 strokes/cylinder.



The original 1050 cc/1000 strokes/6 cylinders would give 400 hp at 2400 rpm. Left on the table was another 57 to 76 hp at 2400 rpm (150 to 200 cc).

 

[Joseph Donnelly]

Geez, guys Don't be so hard on Chris S. He ain't lying.



The big P7100s like the 215 hp version can flow 1050 cc/1000 strokes out of each barrel. The barrel will hold over 1 cc of fuel and can deliver it if everything else is right. Getting the injector to deliver that much during the time specified (number of crankshaft degrees of rotation) is another matter. Some pullers use 5 or 6 hole nozzles with holes up to 0. 025" to get in a lot of fuel.



Getting 600 hp is another thing, too. Especially in the 2000-2600 rpm range. torque x rpm = hp, so if you can get the fuel in at 6000, obviously you can make a lot more hp. Not very driveable, imho, but if all you care about is the number, or competition like sled pulling that is one way to get there.

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by Joseph Donnelly

Geez, guys Don't be so hard on Chris S. He ain't lying.

Quoteing Joe JUST IN CASE this is an Aprils Fool joke!LOL.



Chris tell us what you DID with all that fuel?

And did you find out what HP the motor was on the pump stand?

 

[Cummins Corvette]

I still don't believe that putting in over ten times the fuel only results in 2. 5 times the power. I have proof that a cummins b5. 9/210 with a 865 p7100 pump uses 99 mm^3 per stroke. With the added air from twice the boost, and the larger turbo, the A/F ratio isn't far enough out of wack to make the efficiency that poor. I don't buy it. Somebody explain things. :-{}

 

[Pthomas]

i think just because you have the boost and mucho fuel doesnt mean the reqired air/fuel ratio is getting thru. In AND out!

thats why the camshaft profiles are in view now for more power. along with the WHEN factor. . timing, governor operation etc. theres alot of dyno time and pump stand time and trial and error to find a best efficiency. and many more factors that you can tinker with, spray patterns, air intake temps ,volume of air. , not just pressure ,and even the high swirl head results in cylinder fill. etc. :--)

think and tink!

thank you very much Joe D. and Piers and all of you TST,DD,etc. . who spend the $ and time... ive learned alot and hope to never stop.

 

[Joseph Donnelly]

I gave the answer above, but I guess no one paid attention :{ Will it help to say it again? Just because the pump makes 1050 cc fuel/1000 strokes AVAILABLE to the injector for a period of time, doesn't mean the injector can pass that much fuel in the time available Persist not in your unbelief, but believe



For a bit of philosophy, just because you can disbelieve and persist with doubt does not mean you must be given an answer that you will accept, or that you will understand

No insult intended to the unbelievers