wow did this turn into a pissing match! Anywho, just wanted to mention that after the stupid GM "LT4 performance" chain chewed the waterpump gear up and sent metal shavings throughout my motor TWICE I decided to get rid of the mechanical driven waterpump. Have had a CSR electric pump on my 438rwhp motor ever since. ZERO promblems, and it is daily driven. I drive the think rain or shine, and it gets pretty damn hot up here in the middle of August, and stop and go traffic doesn't even phase the temp guage. I also drive her hard, and the warning system I installed has never gone off while driving. I say "while driving" because I have had it go off monkeying with the car in the garage and the motor was getting really hot as I forgot to plug the pump in after some work. Woops. At least I know the failsafe works!

Good luck!

 

Has anyone tried this pump?
http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS+Performan...50915/10002/-1

 

Just read this thread... I have a great question for Dwayne and Fred...

You guys say the power is only because the pump is moving less water, right?

So if the alternator is spun by the belt at the same RPM it should produce the same current correct?

By removing the water pump drive from the rotating assembly you free up power. But you guys are saying that gain is negated by the power now coming from the alternator correct?

BUT, if the alternator is spinning at the same RPM and now EASIER due to no parasitic loss from the mechanical water pump, how does the motor lose power since the RPMs on the alternator don't change?

Are you saying that the alternator is now somehow making more current at the same RPM!?!?

And therefore the motor is now somehow working harder to spin the alternator the same RPM?!

Please explain.

 

Current does not depend on alternator RPM... it depends on the demand on the system.

Not sure why you are over complicating this. The mechanically driven pump moves almost twice as much water at very high RPM (GM SAE paper). That takes twice as much HP for gear driven pump. The electric pump flows the same amount of water at all RPM, so the power required to drive it does not change with RPM.

The electric power consumption in watts is the voltage times the current. So at all times, the electric pump requires the same number of watts from the alternator. For the alternator to produce those watts has little to do with the RPM of the alternator. Its a function of the mechanical efficiency of the serpentine belt drive system, and the efficiency of the conversion of the mechanical energy supplied by the serpentine belt to electrical energy in the alternator coils. The inefficiency of the conversion is in the form of the heat rejected by the alternator coils.

The fact that you remove a mechanical load from the timing set does not magically make the alternator require less mechanical energy to spin it. Same mass, same inertia, same watts..... nothing changes.

 

I'm not complicating anything.

What you said is exactly what I'm saying. So because the same amount of power is being taken off the belt for the alternator in either situation with or without the EWP then parasitic loss from the mechanical pump is the reason for the hp increase, and this increases with RPM. As there is no additional energy needed to spin a pulley of the same size on the alternator, the alternator doesn't somehow require more force to spin it just because the EWP is pulling from it now. It is the same for all RPM in BOTH setups.

I don't see how if you were to spin the EWP at double speed effectively equaling flow at higher RPM that you'd dyno the same since the alternator still is spinning at the same speed regardless. This was put up as fact way back when this thread was new.

I'm honestly trying to learn. Educate me.

My main question from all of this is:
If the reason for the hp increase is due to the lower flow of the ewp, but the alternator takes the same power off the drive belt with or without the EWP how does such a statement make sense?

 

I had the electric water and it would only last a year at best before it started leaking. Got another one and it did the same thing, put a new stock one back on and hadn't had that problem for two years now.

Keep the stock one you won't be sorry.

 

Been running the same CSR water pump since 2004 without a single problem.

 

That last statement makes no sense.

The power saving it TOTALLY from the pump not doubling its power consumption at high RPM. It has virtually NOTHING to do with the alternator load. Yes, it takes power for the alternator to make the power to drive the electric pump, but that doesn't change.

 

It made perfect sense, you may be confusing the power I was speaking of. I was talking about horsepower. The water pump is part of the drivetrain power loss %. It doesn't go up just because the EWP is running off it. The crank still spins it the same speed with the same resistance.

I am saying that power gains from the EWP are because the drivetrain no longer spins the water pump. And that the electricity pulled from the alternator in no way impedes power.

Dwayne said its because it's spinning the water pump slower at higher RPMs and this is why there's an increase in HORSEpower. But the drivetrain loses the same horsepower % vs rpm to the alternator in either situation. So how does the EWP have any effect on horsepower output since it is no longer in the drivetrain %?

What are you saying?

 

The water pump is not part of the drivetrain. I really can't follow what you are talking about. I've given you the simplest possible explanation. That's all I can do.

If you think the alternator can make electric power to power an EWP, without taking mechanical power off the crank via the serpentine belt, you are wrong.

I'm done.

 

Are you not reading what I'm typing?

That's not what I'm saying. How is an EWP and alternator pulling more hp off the belt than the same alternator that ISN'T powering an EWP?

I agree with everything you've said thus far, but I don't know if you are agreeing with Dwayne. And if you are, then explain WHY please. Don't just say they "it just does."

 

I would argue that "wrong" is far too mild a word, mentally deficient would be a better description. This guy can't comprehend elementary school science, he is arguing that perpetual motion exists.

Converting energy forms is inherently inefficient the mechanical pump uses rotation to turn the pump, the electric pump needs the engine to turn the alternator which then needs the electric motor of the pump to turn it back to rotation and this guy thinks you can do MORE work after converting energy forms TWICE. That is the definition of perpetual motion. Elementary school students understand that is not possible.

The electrics are FREEFLOW rated the posted flow numbers for the mechanical are as installed and restricted by the cooling system.

The electrical system runs off the engine. If you argue additional load on the alternator does not affect the engine then why on old carbed stuff did the idle slow when you hookup jumper cables to start a dead car? I specify carbed because the pcm on these cars pretty quickly compensates though you can still hear the load hit.

If you bother to research you can convert the electrical draw of the electric pump to a HP number too the electric pumps are rated at a 6-8amp draw. 8 amps at 13.5volts in like .1hp. This guy is arguing that a .1hp electric motor can move more water than the mechanical pump that draws 11hp as published in the SAE paper.

Sorry for the rant, I just don't know how to deal with a raging inability and flat out refusal to comprehend basic science. You do not want to learn, you want to blindly defend your opinion.

 

Ok, I see what the confusion is.

Alternators do NOT simply create power if spun.
Here's how an alternator works (not trying to be mean or anything but no, you apparently DON'T know how, so pay attention).

The field winding (the one that spins), is energized by a varying voltage (from the regulator) in an effort to create an electromagnet of varying strength. When this magnetic flux 'cuts' the windings of the stator, a voltage is induced into the load (power). By varying the field winding's voltage (and therefore magnetic strength), the output can be regulated at a constant desired voltage.

If no field voltage is supplied, the alternator is simply a spinning hunk of metal (which adds a bit to the parasitic 'drivetrain' losses, yes). If however you short the output and put full power to the field winding, the alternator will require around 5hp* and won't even be turnable by hand. As more electrical load is drawn the voltage will want to dip down, the regulator reacts by increaseing power to the field winding to regulate the output voltage. The alternator ONLY draws mechanical power from the engine when an electrical load is present (disregarding parasitic belt/rotational losses of course).

(* assuming a 60% conversion efficiency 140amp*14v=1960w *(1/.60)/746=4.4hp+parasitic alternator losses)

 

MY GOD THANK YOU!! this is what I wanted. A reason WHY, not the negative comments. Was that so hard dwayne?! Stop calling people stupid when they ask to be informed. I know nothing of electrical stuff. I wanted info not ******* remarks. It was quite simple a simple request to be educated.

 

If you actually read my initial post you would see that you are wrong. I was asking FROM THE BEGINNING to have it explained to me. Neither of you explained what effect the alternator has on the serpentine belt. You ignored it and went on about other things.

In fact every single post I've made asked the same question. And asked to be informed.