Small Blower Problems?

[fullwood]

Has anyboay had any problems with the weiand 177 or equivalent blowers. I don't want to get to wild with my motor and my builder said to run one of these because they are pretty reliable!! any info would be apprciated!!

[Liberator TJ1984]

I ran one for a couple of seasons on a Mercury 7.4 Marine Block 454 all stock. It will make a difference out of the hole with pulleys supplied ... but I only had the "Peanut " port heads and still had to spin the sh*t out of it to make any significant boost 5-6#
2" top Pulley x 6" Lower pulley 3:1 ratio
6000 rpm x 3 = 18,000 Blower RPM's Max.Recommened RPM of blower was like 12,000
My suggestion would be a 6/71 they are almost the same price as the smaller 177 & 256 Blowers
Gopherrr

[mud duck]

I have the 250 (one size bigger). My stock 330 hp 454 ci could only take it for three months. The pistons and crank gave way to only 5 lbs of boost. Be careful. I was told the 177 was a bit milder but if the engine is all stock you could still do some damage. :frown:

[bonesfab]

i had bnm 177 on a 454 in a blazer for 10 yrs had it rebuilt once to try and quiet it up but didnt change. ran real good. ran 5-6 lbs most of the time. suprised the s#@t out of many unsuspecting souls

[gnarley]

Originally posted by mud duck
I have the 250 (one size bigger). My stock 330 hp 454 ci could only take it for three months. The pistons and crank gave way to only 5 lbs of boost. Be careful. I was told the 177 was a bit milder but if the engine is all stock you could still do some damage. :frown:
So what was worse the pistons (cast) or the crank? What happened to the crank & why?

[Liberator TJ1984]

Gnarly, can't speak for the others ...
mine had 4bolt mains, steel crank,good rods and unfortunately CAST Pistons:confused:
thats what let go in mine...only thing holding them together were the rings:D
could not figure out why all of a sudden I had lots of Blowby????:rolleyes:
Lucky it did not hurt the Block
Gopherrr

[Havasu47]

The smaller blowers create so much intake heat that they often create more problems than help. Go with a larger blower and spin it slower.

[MAXIMUS]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[gnarley]

Originally posted by Havasu47
The smaller blowers create so much intake heat that they often create more problems than help. Go with a larger blower and spin it slower.
So if you don't have room for an intercooler how would water injection do for cooling the charge?

[mud duck]

Sorry, I did not check in here often enough.
Two pistons cracked, the crank broak once inbetween two rods, shrapnel was in the oil pan. It was a mess! I posted pictures here when it happen last September, but I don't remember the subject or topic line I used. It was not correctly set up, I believe. If I took more time and money in the beginning it could have been prevented. I have learned a lot this winter and am about ready to move forward on building something that will last a bit longer than only three months. :(

[gnarley]

Originally posted by Havasu47
The smaller blowers create so much intake heat that they often create more problems than help. Go with a larger blower and spin it slower.
What is considered so much, as in heat? What is the range of low to high & what is considered safe?

[Havasu47]

Originally posted by gnarley
So if you don't have room for an intercooler how would water injection do for cooling the charge?
Water injection was popular 20 years ago to cool the cylinder temperatures and help with pre ignition (detination). The introduction of water into the cylinder is NOT a good idea. Even though it is a much smaller amount, everyone here has heard the word "reversion". Death to the exhaust valves among other problems.
Water injection is a band aid for a tuning or combination problem. Size the blower properly for the application, put on the proper amount of carburation, forged pistons, good head gaskets, good rod bolts, good rings, good valves, etc., etc.
It costs more initially, but usually only once.

[MAXIMUS]

Originally posted by Havasu47
Water injection was popular 20 years ago to cool the cylinder temperatures and help with pre ignition (detination). The introduction of water into the cylinder is NOT a good idea. Even though it is a much smaller amount, everyone here has heard the word "reversion". Death to the exhaust valves among other problems.
Water injection is a band aid for a tuning or combination problem. Size the blower properly for the application, put on the proper amount of carburation, forged pistons, good head gaskets, good rod bolts, good rings, good valves, etc., etc.
It costs more initially, but usually only once. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D

[gnarley]

Havasu47, still didn't answer the questions?
What is considered so much, as in heat? What is the range of low to high & what is considered safe?
Has anyone measured the temperature inside the intake with a super chiller on and without a super chiller? Has anyone measured intake temps with small blowers @ 6 PSI as compared to larger blowers @ 6 PSI? It would be very interesting to see the difference. It would also be interesting to see what the initial air temp is entering the motor and what ducted fresh air would do, kind of like ram air into an air inlet or air box that is sealed off from the heat of the motor.

[Havasu47]

Originally posted by MAXIMUS
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D
:yuk: :yuk: :sleeping: :pigfly: :argue:

[gnarley]

Havasu47, I can see you don't have much to share or backup your statements, and I can't buy what you are preeching :rolleyes:
I think I will to side with Info on this point about water on the exhaust valves, How could water survive the heat generated in the combustion process and still come into contact with an exhaust valve and cause it harm? And I can state that water injection has been around for more than 20 years. It has been around since WWII, thats more than 60 years and used by people who had the money to build things right. I also seem to remember it being used on F1 cars at some time also.
This is not about building things right, it's about getting all you can out of what you have, built right ;)
Originally posted by Infomaniac
Yea the water will cool the charge.
Anytime a liquid is turned into a vapor it will absorb some heat in the process. Same as carb ice. When the gas vaporizes it can freeze any available moisture in the air.
It does not spray directly on the exhaust valve so it is not a problem.
I have not used it on anything other than an aircraft engine but it will work.

[Havasu47]

Originally posted by gnarley
Havasu47, I can see you don't have much to share or backup your statements, and I can't buy what you are preeching :rolleyes:
I think I will to side with Info on this point about water on the exhaust valves, How could water survive the heat generated in the combustion process and still come into contact with an exhaust valve and cause it harm? And I can state that water injection has been around for more than 20 years. It has been around since WWII, thats more than 60 years and used by people who had the money to build things right. I also seem to remember it being used on F1 cars at some time also.
This is not about building things right, it's about getting all you can out of what you have, built right ;)
Yeah that's right, technology has not advanced in the last 60 years. I was refering to automotive type applications when I said 20 years ago. After all this is a boat related forum. When was the last time water injection was used in aviation? They also used NOS.
Getting all you can out of an engine built right would not be by adding water to cool excessive cylinder temperatures. It would be using the correct combination of parts to manage the cyl temp.
You can side with whomever you want. This is not a debate, only advise. Do what you want.
I have plenty to share and I can back up everything I state. This is what I do for a living. But it became obvious that you have formed an opinion that if not agreed with, would get a reaction similar to the statement from you above.:rolleyes:
Intake temperatures, cooled by an inner cooler, vary depending upon the blower size, boost level, carburetor size, etc.
People on these forums that are in the business of building boats and or engines try to help answer questions the best they can. Your questions, answered in complete detail would require much more space and time than we can use here.
Rude responses have caused many people to stop trying to help.
On second thought, you're right. I think you should put water injection on your engine. The more the better!:D

[gnarley]

Originally posted by Havasu47
When was the last time water injection was used in aviation?
I don’t know, I haven’t been around aviation in about 20 years. The point is it has been used in internal combustion engines at many different applications in 60 years, there must be a reason why.
Getting all you can out of an engine built right would not be by adding water to cool excessive cylinder temperatures. It would be using the correct combination of parts to manage the cyl temp.
You can side with whomever you want. This is not a debate, only advise. Do what you want. [/QUOTE]
I agree it would also be using the correct parts, I am only asking for information, if someone takes a stance, as you have, it sounds like rhetoric, anyone can talk rhetoric without supplying any facts. Anyone can give advise but what credentials do you have to back up your advise?
I have plenty to share and I can back up everything I state. This is what I do for a living. [/QUOTE]
If that is what you do share it with those who come here to share, stating it as you have so far only comes across as your opinion, not fact
You’ve only been on this forum for 3 months, you have not demonstrated any reasons to trust what you state, yet. If you can I will be a loyal listener and you'll have my undivided attention.
Also as of yet I have not decided to use water injection but I am doing my diligence and researching all I can to make an informed decision that I could share and state why I made that decision.
Sometimes you can only spend so much and have only so much to work with in a given set of parameters in a given space and in those cases you need to look outside the box of standard answers.

[gnarley]

Also Havasu47 in case your interested read this from Aquamist's website, I just found it.
By 1992 mainstream car-makers were waking up to the benefits of water-injection: first Volvo contacted us, and we designed and made a system to enable their engineers to explore the enormous cooling effect of introducing water into a relatively high-compression turbo-charged engine. Rolls Royce was next to get in touch: we designed them an advanced learning/self-programming unit, which enabled their engineers to extract more power and torque from their existing 6.7 litre turbo-charged engines (their Bentley Malsanne turbo broke the 0-60MPH sprint in under 6 seconds). During this era ERL came up with the world's most intelligent water-injection system, listening for engine-knock and programming its own water-map, using flash memory in the ECU.
About the same time, the Ford Motor Company 'phoned unexpectedly. "Can you supply 3,000 water jets yesterday?" "Yes of course: if you had called yesterday, you would have had them on your desk today..." we replied. That was our first major encounter with a real life-and-death situation: we shipped the lot in six weeks with only a few minutes to spare! The first of the new Cosworth Escorts rolled off the German production line in January 1993. Each car was fitted with our specially-developed water jet. To date over 5,000 jets have been delivered, and we are still shipping them out every month.
Common Scepticism
22. Is water injection really necessary or it is just a new gimmick?
Well, yes and no. For the old fashioned traditional engine tuners with fixed ideas and blinkered outlook, water injection is regarded as an utter nonsense and a complete waste of time. Engines are designed to consume FUEL and not WATER.
On the other side of the coin, engineers such as Sir Harry Ricardo (1930s) and bunch of aeronautic engineers (German, English and American) during the WWII (1940s) has found the positive side of injecting water into their supercharged fighter-plane engines. So the traditional has begun, Formula 1 engines (1980s) used it. SAAB 9-5 supplied as an OE part and now World Rally cars use it (1995 onwards). We leave you to decide ...
Whenever a problem is discovered, there is always a tendency to solving it, that is human nature. Old problems just keep re-surfacing, detonation, fuel quality, harmful emissions etc just won't go away, despite the advancement of Electronics and Engineering materials available.
http://www.aquamist.co.uk/rescr/faq/airmass/airmass.html

[Havasu47]

Gnarley,
I have used water injection extensively on turbocharged engines in the past. I have also used methanol injection. There are many reasons why it I prefer to not use it any more. It is not really practical for use in a family recreational boating application. Water tanks, hoses, electric pumps with activation, or pressure type systems that are boost referenced, etc. A high boost, large CI engine uses a fair amount of water necesitating a large tank or refilling often when the boat is run hard for long periods of time. Something very common these days. Also if the engine is creating cylinder temps that require water injection to keep the engine from self destructing, think what will happen durring a hard run if what ever you are using to inject the water fails? The water in itself does not increase horsepower. The ability to run higher cylinder pressures (more boost, etc) is where the increase comes from.
One example, (this is from experience not speculation) would be a 468 CI turbocharged engine that runs 15 lbs boost. With a good innercooloer and 110 octane this engine will live fine. Put in 91 octane and water injection, tune it for this aplication and it will also live.... until the water pump failed at 6000 rpm,s and 15 lbs boost. 4 pistons (JE's) with holes the size of baseballs. The cylinder temps with the 110 was in the 1300 deg range. With 91 and water injection they would climb over 1500 and and would have to back off the throttle. This was with the best results from extensive time adjusting the amount of water and when it was injected. One more thing, on the dyno the engine produced 890 HP with 110 and 800 with 91 and water injection.
The technology with camshaft design, cylinder head flow, inner coolers, ignition options, blower designs, etc, has allowed us to produce higher levels of horsepower than the drive systems can withstand, (for the most part) with out the need for water injection.
How could water survive the heat generated in the combustion process and still come into contact with an exhaust valve and cause it harm?
Remeber, the water enters the cylinder before combustion occurs. Durring overlap the exhaust valve and intake valve are open at the same time.
My point is, that today, in recreational boating you can build a 1200 HP engine that will run on 91 octane without the need for water injection.
Yes, water injection will cool cylinder temperatures. I, as well as all the engine builders I know in the area of HP recreational boating, prefer setup over water.
There are MANY points in my response that can be expalined in much more detail but my fingers are done typing and I have to get some work done.
Hope this sheds some light on my reasons.

[gnarley]

Havasu47, Thanks for sharing a real example. What you used as an example I was expecting. Up here in northern CA it is hard to find and justify using racing gas on the water. I fully believe what you said but maybe in my case or some others the benefit of a denser charge and cooler chamber temperatures achieved via water injection is a way to run crappy gas when that is all that there is around. I can't afford to pay 400 dollars a weekend to go play for several hours in the water 8 or 10 weekends a year. I still disagree though on water on the exhaust valve and feel it is vaporized before it even gets past the intake valve, several papers I have read also state this.
I understand why you would have negative feelings about water injection, but if you had a carb problem or a sudden fuel line restriction you might have melted all 8 pistons. I hate it when that happens, and any parts failure can cause a catastrophic failure so I also understand the logic in removing as many pieces as possible to limit the chances of that occurring.
Sometimes the benefit outweighs the risk and sometimes the risk outweighs the benefit. So ya gota say “do you feel lucky?
We can agree to disagree and I respect your position.
No hard feelings :)