Eaton.. Ported vs. Non ***SPLIT FROM OTHER THREAD***
03-18-2006, 09:03 PM
#11
TECH Addict
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by joebob450r
That's a good point, BlownChevy. But I didn't do it to be pretty. I did it because I would rather have the teflon off now, and lose a little efficiency, then have it clog up my I/C.
03-19-2006, 08:36 AM
#12
On The Tree
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spring, Tx.
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MR BC,
"I wish I still had access to the information that would prove that wrong" - I usually equate those kind of statements in the same genre as the "My brother has a friend who's cousin has a 9 sec Camaro/Cuda/Cobra that can blow you away", but I will grant that there is validity to what you say as I've seen many of the tests that you refer to.
"Sorry to say that the information that Stiegemeier is providing you is wrong....." - so, actual tests that you've participated in are 'right' and yet documented, back to back dyno tests by someone else are 'wrong' ? When I see data that is opposite to what I've been going by previously, I usually try to look at it with an analytical mind instead of just flat out denying it. Thankfully, mosts scientists, doctors, researchers and developers are willing to investigate / rationalize opposing theories instead of denying them - we'd still be in the dark ages otherwise. (Gosh, where would we be if Chris Columbus had listened to those who were 'absolutely right' in their beliefs/proofs/testament of a 'flat earth'?)
Personally, I don't think we're on the edge of performance to where we could even discern the difference in any efficiency losses through whatever changes in these systems - there's other factors that would affect these superchargers also that no one has addressed either.
"Rotor Flake" is not the leading cause of blower damage....I have not seen ONE EATON supercharger come in due to failure by "ROTOR FLAKE" - funny, I don't remember seeing it mentioned as a cause of damage - just flaking off and causing some blockage of the intercooler (but making statements like this does draw attention away from the 'efficiency issue').
Thank you and good day, sir.
Bird
"I wish I still had access to the information that would prove that wrong" - I usually equate those kind of statements in the same genre as the "My brother has a friend who's cousin has a 9 sec Camaro/Cuda/Cobra that can blow you away", but I will grant that there is validity to what you say as I've seen many of the tests that you refer to.
"Sorry to say that the information that Stiegemeier is providing you is wrong....." - so, actual tests that you've participated in are 'right' and yet documented, back to back dyno tests by someone else are 'wrong' ? When I see data that is opposite to what I've been going by previously, I usually try to look at it with an analytical mind instead of just flat out denying it. Thankfully, mosts scientists, doctors, researchers and developers are willing to investigate / rationalize opposing theories instead of denying them - we'd still be in the dark ages otherwise. (Gosh, where would we be if Chris Columbus had listened to those who were 'absolutely right' in their beliefs/proofs/testament of a 'flat earth'?)
Personally, I don't think we're on the edge of performance to where we could even discern the difference in any efficiency losses through whatever changes in these systems - there's other factors that would affect these superchargers also that no one has addressed either.
"Rotor Flake" is not the leading cause of blower damage....I have not seen ONE EATON supercharger come in due to failure by "ROTOR FLAKE" - funny, I don't remember seeing it mentioned as a cause of damage - just flaking off and causing some blockage of the intercooler (but making statements like this does draw attention away from the 'efficiency issue').
Thank you and good day, sir.
Bird
03-19-2006, 11:33 AM
#13
Originally Posted by Bird
MR BC,
"I wish I still had access to the information that would prove that wrong" - I usually equate those kind of statements in the same genre as the "My brother has a friend who's cousin has a 9 sec Camaro/Cuda/Cobra that can blow you away", but I will grant that there is validity to what you say as I've seen many of the tests that you refer to.
"Sorry to say that the information that Stiegemeier is providing you is wrong....." - so, actual tests that you've participated in are 'right' and yet documented, back to back dyno tests by someone else are 'wrong' ? When I see data that is opposite to what I've been going by previously, I usually try to look at it with an analytical mind instead of just flat out denying it. Thankfully, mosts scientists, doctors, researchers and developers are willing to investigate / rationalize opposing theories instead of denying them - we'd still be in the dark ages otherwise. (Gosh, where would we be if Chris Columbus had listened to those who were 'absolutely right' in their beliefs/proofs/testament of a 'flat earth'?)
Personally, I don't think we're on the edge of performance to where we could even discern the difference in any efficiency losses through whatever changes in these systems - there's other factors that would affect these superchargers also that no one has addressed either.
"Rotor Flake" is not the leading cause of blower damage....I have not seen ONE EATON supercharger come in due to failure by "ROTOR FLAKE" - funny, I don't remember seeing it mentioned as a cause of damage - just flaking off and causing some blockage of the intercooler (but making statements like this does draw attention away from the 'efficiency issue').
Thank you and good day, sir.
Bird
"I wish I still had access to the information that would prove that wrong" - I usually equate those kind of statements in the same genre as the "My brother has a friend who's cousin has a 9 sec Camaro/Cuda/Cobra that can blow you away", but I will grant that there is validity to what you say as I've seen many of the tests that you refer to.
"Sorry to say that the information that Stiegemeier is providing you is wrong....." - so, actual tests that you've participated in are 'right' and yet documented, back to back dyno tests by someone else are 'wrong' ? When I see data that is opposite to what I've been going by previously, I usually try to look at it with an analytical mind instead of just flat out denying it. Thankfully, mosts scientists, doctors, researchers and developers are willing to investigate / rationalize opposing theories instead of denying them - we'd still be in the dark ages otherwise. (Gosh, where would we be if Chris Columbus had listened to those who were 'absolutely right' in their beliefs/proofs/testament of a 'flat earth'?)
Personally, I don't think we're on the edge of performance to where we could even discern the difference in any efficiency losses through whatever changes in these systems - there's other factors that would affect these superchargers also that no one has addressed either.
"Rotor Flake" is not the leading cause of blower damage....I have not seen ONE EATON supercharger come in due to failure by "ROTOR FLAKE" - funny, I don't remember seeing it mentioned as a cause of damage - just flaking off and causing some blockage of the intercooler (but making statements like this does draw attention away from the 'efficiency issue').
Thank you and good day, sir.
Bird
Mr. B,
Thank you so much for the well wishes on my day, it is a beautiful day here in Sunny So Cal........
Now onto the rebuttal:
Well the information is available directly from EATON, I will do my best to provide it if possible.....I am no longer an employee so I would not expect them to provide me with the test data. But, yes I was there and in the test room observing the test in the air management facility.
Actually we are on the edge of performance, this is rocket science......Show me some proof from Mr. Stiegemeier that proves there is no adverse effects from stripping the coating off of the rotor ( I guess Eaton went thought this process for the heck of it), granted I have not provided the opposite information...but I am sure that his test data is more readily available. I want to see flow charts, discharge temps, island flow, etc.....
As for the rotor flake comment, sorry Mr. B it’s in writing on the link you provided:
Graph showing no difference in Rotor Stripping.
This graph shows stripped rotors-dynorun .054 and coated rotors-dynorun .057. As seen there are no performance losses here, only extended blower life with the stripped rotors. Rotor Flake is the leading cause of supercharger damage.
Cost of Rotor Stripping $45.00 threw 2005.
This graph shows stripped rotors-dynorun .054 and coated rotors-dynorun .057. As seen there are no performance losses here, only extended blower life with the stripped rotors. Rotor Flake is the leading cause of supercharger damage.
Cost of Rotor Stripping $45.00 threw 2005.
I honestly will attempt to pull some strings and obtain the test data you are asking for, but the O.E. has a funny thing about releasing this stuff to the public.
You sir have a lovely day!
03-19-2006, 02:49 PM
#14
On The Tree
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spring, Tx.
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlownChevy
Mr. B,
Thank you so much for the well wishes on my day, it is a beautiful day here in Sunny So Cal........
Now onto the rebuttal:
Well the information is available directly from EATON, I will do my best to provide it if possible.....I am no longer an employee so I would not expect them to provide me with the test data. But, yes I was there and in the test room observing the test in the air management facility.
Actually we are on the edge of performance, this is rocket science......Show me some proof from Mr. Stiegemeier that proves there is no adverse effects from stripping the coating off of the rotor ( I guess Eaton went thought this process for the heck of it), granted I have not provided the opposite information...but I am sure that his test data is more readily available. I want to see flow charts, discharge temps, island flow, etc.....
As for the rotor flake comment, sorry Mr. B it’s in writing on the link you provided:
Translation: Give me 45.00 for something that does not help.
I honestly will attempt to pull some strings and obtain the test data you are asking for, but the O.E. has a funny thing about releasing this stuff to the public.
You sir have a lovely day!
Thank you so much for the well wishes on my day, it is a beautiful day here in Sunny So Cal........
Now onto the rebuttal:
Well the information is available directly from EATON, I will do my best to provide it if possible.....I am no longer an employee so I would not expect them to provide me with the test data. But, yes I was there and in the test room observing the test in the air management facility.
Actually we are on the edge of performance, this is rocket science......Show me some proof from Mr. Stiegemeier that proves there is no adverse effects from stripping the coating off of the rotor ( I guess Eaton went thought this process for the heck of it), granted I have not provided the opposite information...but I am sure that his test data is more readily available. I want to see flow charts, discharge temps, island flow, etc.....
As for the rotor flake comment, sorry Mr. B it’s in writing on the link you provided:
Translation: Give me 45.00 for something that does not help.
I honestly will attempt to pull some strings and obtain the test data you are asking for, but the O.E. has a funny thing about releasing this stuff to the public.
You sir have a lovely day!
Wow, must be difficult in your life to always have to try and prove you're right all the time - you look at dyno graphs of stripped vs. non-stripped rotors and yet you deny the results. Funny thing about performance enthusiasts is that they like to judge the value of improvements by hp readings and track times instead of 'theoretical losses, etc'.
Eatons are DEFINITELY not on the leading edge of science - actually they are dinosaurs in the scheme of air management - there are much better systems out there, but you are more than welcome to live in the past. I was referring to the common users of the this technology not having the engines to be able to use every last bit of theoretical 'efficiency'.
I don't necessarily agree that rotor flaking actually damages the superchargers either - my comment was directed to say that this 'damage' was not an issue in this current thread. I would say that given all this marvelous testing and technology that Eaton invested in all this testing, you would think they could have developed a coating that would at least stick to the rotors and not flake off and cause intercoolers to be partially clogged (wouldn't that reduce the efficiency also?) Here we have a technology for efficiency CAUSING an inefficiency..............amazing !!!!! And by your own admission in a previous posting in this thread, stripping the rotors is a valid reason to prevent flakes from clogging the intercooler, so that $45 spent for stripping would actually 'help' the situation (reversing yourself are you?).
You don't have to try and pull strings to get test data for me - like I previously said - I've already seen most of it, but if you feel you must to try and impress everyone else here on the site - go ahead. I will keep my ability to see more than one viewpoint.
I have already been having a 'lovely day', but you've been providing a great deal of humor for it as well...............thank you.
Bird
04-01-2006, 06:21 PM
#15
Got Some Results
Here is the proof you were looking for. I was not able to obtain the information from EATON as I thought I could so I took it upon myself to do the test.
2001 Lighting
Stiegemeier Stage two Ported blower w/ Stripped rotors
4 Pound Lower
Exhaust
Dyno Tuned
and a few other misc bolt ons.
First Three runs were on the Stiegemeier blower.
Second Three were with a STOCK EATON supercharger.
I challenge you to question hard data, here is what you were asking for. Notice the almost 70 ft pounds more from the stock EATON at 3500 rpm and about 30 rwhp at 3500 rpm. Guess I was right.
2001 Lighting
Stiegemeier Stage two Ported blower w/ Stripped rotors
4 Pound Lower
Exhaust
Dyno Tuned
and a few other misc bolt ons.
First Three runs were on the Stiegemeier blower.
Second Three were with a STOCK EATON supercharger.
I challenge you to question hard data, here is what you were asking for. Notice the almost 70 ft pounds more from the stock EATON at 3500 rpm and about 30 rwhp at 3500 rpm. Guess I was right.
Last edited by BlownChevy; 04-01-2006 at 06:37 PM.
04-01-2006, 08:20 PM
#16
On The Tree
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spring, Tx.
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlownChevy
Here is the proof you were looking for. I was not able to obtain the information from EATON as I thought I could so I took it upon myself to do the test.
2001 Lighting
Stiegemeier Stage two Ported blower w/ Stripped rotors
4 Pound Lower
Exhaust
Dyno Tuned
and a few other misc bolt ons.
First Three runs were on the Stiegemeier blower.
Second Three were with a STOCK EATON supercharger.
I challenge you to question hard data, here is what you were asking for. Notice the almost 70 ft pounds more from the stock EATON at 3500 rpm and about 30 rwhp at 3500 rpm. Guess I was right.
2001 Lighting
Stiegemeier Stage two Ported blower w/ Stripped rotors
4 Pound Lower
Exhaust
Dyno Tuned
and a few other misc bolt ons.
First Three runs were on the Stiegemeier blower.
Second Three were with a STOCK EATON supercharger.
I challenge you to question hard data, here is what you were asking for. Notice the almost 70 ft pounds more from the stock EATON at 3500 rpm and about 30 rwhp at 3500 rpm. Guess I was right.
Same as adding a KB - if it's not tuned for it, it's no better than what it replaced. Would you add a better blower to your's with out properly tuning it?
Bird
04-01-2006, 08:26 PM
#17
Originally Posted by Bird
Kinda figured you wouldn't be able to come up with the 'official data' - as far as your own tests - nice picture - if the combo wasn't tuned for the added airflow - your tests are worthless. Even Stieg says you need to retune for the added airflow.....................
Same as adding a KB - if it's not tuned for it, it's no better than what it replaced.
Bird
Same as adding a KB - if it's not tuned for it, it's no better than what it replaced.
Bird
It was tuned for the added airflow, infact it was maxed out. Sorry bird man, this is the data and proof you asked for.....This is hard data, just like the data that was provided my Stieg. There was another L there that showed 6 rwhp gain with the "ported" blower. I am sure they will be on later to back up what I have posted. Dont know how much more "official" you want than a dyno run with before and after results within the same day and conditions on the same dyno.
04-01-2006, 08:41 PM
#18
On The Tree
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spring, Tx.
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlownChevy
You are somthing....
It was tuned for the added airflow, infact it was maxed out. Sorry bird man, this is the data and proof you asked for.....This is hard data, just like the data that was provided my Stieg. There was another L there that showed 6 rwhp gain with the "ported" blower. I am sure they will be on later to back up what I have posted. Dont know how much more "official" you want than a dyno run with before and after results within the same day and conditions on the same dyno.
It was tuned for the added airflow, infact it was maxed out. Sorry bird man, this is the data and proof you asked for.....This is hard data, just like the data that was provided my Stieg. There was another L there that showed 6 rwhp gain with the "ported" blower. I am sure they will be on later to back up what I have posted. Dont know how much more "official" you want than a dyno run with before and after results within the same day and conditions on the same dyno.
If it was 'maxed out' it wasn't set up and tuned - all you showed was a tune that was optimized more for a stock Eaton (great way to skew the numbers to make yourself look good), When I added my ported blower, I maxed out the MAF and had to upgrade - put in a BA2400, retuned and 35 hp / 25 tq more (but then, I'm willing to do more than just throw parts on something and then complain that they don't work).
Nice try BC..........................like I said before - you're good for humor.
Bird
04-01-2006, 08:45 PM
#19
Originally Posted by Bird
If it was 'maxed out' it wasn't set up and tuned - all you showed was a tune that was optimized more for a stock Eaton (great way to skew the numbers to make yourself look good), When I added my ported blower, I maxed out the MAF and had to upgrade - put in a BA2400, retuned and 35 hp / 25 tq more (but then, I'm willing to do more than just throw parts on something and then complain that they don't work).
Nice try BC..........................like I said before - you're good for humor.
Bird
Nice try BC..........................like I said before - you're good for humor.
Bird
No tune was changed....The Eaton was tested on the same tune as the ported blower. Dude, I gave you what you asked for.....Guess the data is just disappointing to you, and I can understand that. This was done on a 3rd party dyno by an un interested party....Sorry man, the proof is in the data that you asked for.