Hennessey C7 Corvette Stingray to feature up to 1000HP twin-turbo - Page 4

occar · 10-08-2013, 05:33 PM

Wow. There are no words.

All I can say is perhaps if you believe what you posted, you probably need a little education on the product you're trying to sell. OK. A *lot* of education.

Perhaps have someone within your organization that *does* understand things explain to you how you are mistaken. You'd also probably look better if you didn't try to imply that individuals don't know what they're talking about, and then at the same time exhibit such a misunderstanding of superchargers, etc.

Mike@HennesseyPerformance · 10-09-2013, 08:13 AM

Occar,

Thank you for your post! Very enlightening! I've only been building cars for around 10 years before I took a desk job over here, and my cars and cars I've had a hand in have only been in and on several television networks, SEMA, and about 20-30 magazines.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I truly believe that when you say ''there are no words'' you possibly meant to implicate that you don't have a response worth posting, so you shared with the community, claiming I need to be more educated.

I never said you didn't know what you're talking about, again as stated in my first post, it's very clear you have an overwhelming resume with decades of experience, please share your first-hand knowledge! I believe it will be an immeasurably value to the online community here at C7.com!

kalimus · 10-09-2013, 09:02 AM

I'm guessing that occar's response to you, Mike, had a bit to do with this comment...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike@HennesseyPerformance

b) It takes 1/3 of a horsepower to spin the rotors on a supercharger. I feel with your experience and wisdom you made a very good point, that is an incredible amount of effort, and think of the incredible stresses a rubber belt puts on the crank shaft too.*

I read that as (paraphrasing) "the parasitic loss from the supercharger is only 1/3 of a HP total". I don't believe I've seen a supercharger with that kind of adiabatic efficiency.

That's also what he was referring to when saying that your 700bhp package was "875-ish". Assuming that the 700bhp was post-loss.

occar · 10-09-2013, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalimus

I'm guessing that occar's response to you, Mike, had a bit to do with this comment...

I read that as (paraphrasing) "the parasitic loss from the supercharger is only 1/3 of a HP total". I don't believe I've seen a supercharger with that kind of adiabatic efficiency.

That's also what he was referring to when saying that your 700bhp package was "875-ish". Assuming that the 700bhp was post-loss.

You understand the stresses the rotating assembly is under

. That same 2.3L tvs is in the gt 500 making 15 psi with a 9:1 compression ratio engine. The parasitic loss has been quoted around 150 HP (by ford engineers, not a random internet marketing person trying to troll me, poorly). Assuming similar compression ratio, boost level etc, that's where I arrived at the 850-875 HP stresses on the rotating assembly estimate.

kalimus · 10-09-2013, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by occar

You understand the stresses the rotating assembly is under

.

Wat are a rotayting assembuly?

To be honest though... I don't know that it can be truly looked at it like that or not. I don't have the engineering know-how. I mean... that's HP is never "really there", and I assume it's probably not linear. But again, I really don't know. No sarcasm. But I DO know the point you were trying to make.

I assume probably some miscommunication between you and mike about the topic though.

occar · 10-09-2013, 07:09 PM

It is "there" in so far as the engine is making that power (and thus under the same stress as if something else were consuming the power (the driveline for example)), but the blower is consuming the power to run (in order to make the engine capable of putting out more extra power than the SC consumes). Turbochargers take power too, but not nearly the amount of power that a supercharger takes.

If the concept is hard, just think of the supercharger in the same way you think of the alternator, AC compressor, etc. Obviously these things require power to run, as does a supercharger. It's just in the supercharger's case, it causes the engine to make more extra power than it takes to run. If somehow you were able to remove the SC, and feed the engine with air compressed exactly like the SC would, you would get far more power out of the engine. Obviously though, you can't really do this.

10-08-2013, 05:33 PM	#43
occar Drives: n/a Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: n/a Posts: 69	Wow. There are no words. All I can say is perhaps if you believe what you posted, you probably need a little education on the product you're trying to sell. OK. A lot of education. Perhaps have someone within your organization that does understand things explain to you how you are mistaken. You'd also probably look better if you didn't try to imply that individuals don't know what they're talking about, and then at the same time exhibit such a misunderstanding of superchargers, etc. Last edited by occar; 10-08-2013 at 05:54 PM.

10-09-2013, 08:13 AM	#44
Mike@HennesseyPerformance Drives: 70 Camaro Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Katy, TX Posts: 120	Occar, Thank you for your post! Very enlightening! I've only been building cars for around 10 years before I took a desk job over here, and my cars and cars I've had a hand in have only been in and on several television networks, SEMA, and about 20-30 magazines. Correct me if I am wrong, but I truly believe that when you say ''there are no words'' you possibly meant to implicate that you don't have a response worth posting, so you shared with the community, claiming I need to be more educated. I never said you didn't know what you're talking about, again as stated in my first post, it's very clear you have an overwhelming resume with decades of experience, please share your first-hand knowledge! I believe it will be an immeasurably value to the online community here at C7.com!

10-09-2013, 07:09 PM	#48
occar Drives: n/a Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: n/a Posts: 69	It is "there" in so far as the engine is making that power (and thus under the same stress as if something else were consuming the power (the driveline for example)), but the blower is consuming the power to run (in order to make the engine capable of putting out more extra power than the SC consumes). Turbochargers take power too, but not nearly the amount of power that a supercharger takes. If the concept is hard, just think of the supercharger in the same way you think of the alternator, AC compressor, etc. Obviously these things require power to run, as does a supercharger. It's just in the supercharger's case, it causes the engine to make more extra power than it takes to run. If somehow you were able to remove the SC, and feed the engine with air compressed exactly like the SC would, you would get far more power out of the engine. Obviously though, you can't really do this.