I did a quick calculation on this and figure that the HD-8 has 2.56
times the flow area of an H/HS/HD-2, so 1.28 times that of dual H-2.
Now the pressure drop available to flow mixture must be similar,
(atmospheric to whatever the Supercharger will pull, vs atmospheric to
whatever the engine can pull) at most maybe atmospheric. Noting that
this is feeding a 6-cylinder engine with about 1.5 times the
displacement of a 1300, the carb needs to flow at least 3 times the
H-2 rate for the same power per displacement. Anyway, just for power,
triple H/HS/HD-2 should deliver better (with greater simplicity, too.)
(Just comparing a 2L TR6 to a 1.3L Spit.)
I suspect the real advantage is at lower revs, where great gobs of
torque can be generated with the supercharger flowing that mixture
faster than the the engine could at the same revs. Whew. I think I
just convinced myself that this could be an interesting upgrade, as
long as the mechanicals are up to the task.
Donald.
> From: " Philip Smith" <smith007@mindspring.com>
> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:04:39 -0500
>
>
> Unbelievable, Would you please describe the performance of your car?
> Phil Smith
> Regular TR6
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joseph J Burlein <tr6guy@juno.com>
> To: <triumphs@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 9:49 PM
> Subject: Supercharger Pictures
>
>
> >
> > Hello to all,
> >
> > Sorry I took so long to get the pictures of the supercharger taken and
> > put on the web. My access to a digital camera didn't match up to a time
> > I could use it, so, took a little longer than expected. I also have not
> > set her up to run on the G-tech yet. I ran into a fuel leak and fan
> > wobble! (Old hoses under the car and who knows what with the fan.) Of
> > course this means that I will have to take the radiator out. Which means
> > I might as well paint it... If I can make some time to fix them, then
> > I'll run the car!
|