Removing the water pump... yes? no? - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-06-2006, 08:38 AM   #21
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
An Australian company called Davies Craig makes electric pumps. Their smaller version pumps 80 L / min and is suited for engines up to 5L displacement.

According to their brochure, its max current draw is 7.5 A @ 13.5 V.

http://www.daviescraig.com.au/docume...0_Brochure.pdf

Let's do some really rough assumptions:

- assuming the electric pump energy requirement is comparable to the stock belt driven pump...

- our lightly driven, small displacement engines may only require, say, 1/3 of the pump's max output (that's a generous assumption, considering the EWP's max rating is likely for a 5L engine at max load/ cooling demands)

- = 2.5 A

- I think I figured my normal alternator load to be around 7-10 A

- so you could expect to improve FE roughly 3% by driving the water pump electrically (based on my 10% savings found from removing the 7-10A load from the engine by unbelting the alternator)...

BUT ... you get these savings only if you offload the power requirement to a battery which isn't being charged by the alternator. If you're driving the EWP off the alternator, the FE difference is probably negligible, and possibly worse, since you're going from direct mechanical energy transfer (belt driven pump) to mechanical/electrical through the alternator, with associated conversion losses.

Really messy assumptions & calcs, but better than nothing.
__________________

MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 08:56 AM   #22
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 682
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG
EDIT: can we estimate this? How could we figure out what the energy requirement is for running a pump at various engine speeds? We could start by looking at the energy requirement spec'd for the electric racing pump, but it likely applies to a V8 application (higher displacement pump than most of us are running).
Any (water) pumped system's power can be calculated by:

Flow (gpm) x head (ft of water column) / 3960 / efficiency.

Pump power is proportional to the cube of the engine rpm. (This is a pump "affinity law".):

HP used = K x rpm x rpm x rpm.

The cubic factor is why racers with high RPM race engines use an electric pump instead of an engine-driven pump. Drag racers don't use ANY cooling pump for the same reason.
__________________

__________________
Capitalism: The cream rises. Socialism: The scum rises.
Sludgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 09:06 AM   #23
Driving on E
 
Matt Timion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,110
Country: United States
I think it's safe to say then that for a fuel conscious driver (like most of us are) removing the water pump and replacing it with an electric one will have no real marginal benefit. The benefits seem to be for the high RPM people.
Matt Timion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 09:30 AM   #24
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
The only opportunity for savings that I can see from an electric water pump (powered by the charging system) would be through a microprocessor controlled unit that carefully regulates the pump motor to move only the minimum amount of coolant necessary to keep the engine at the desired temp (and not have hot spots).

For example, the pump would run little, or not at all, when the engine is started cold, until it starts to warm up.

So the role of controlling coolant temp shifts from the OEM mechanical thermostat to the EWP electronic motor controller. (That kind of controller is available from Davies Craig, and their site states you need to remove the OEM thermostat for that application.)

But the savings would be so small as to be not worth the cost of the system from a financial perspective.
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 10:38 AM   #25
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 682
Country: United States
http://superchevy.com/technical/engi...mp/index1.html

This link discusses normal belt driven water pumps, pumps with an underdrive pulley, and electric pumps. Replacing the belt driven pump with an electric pump saves power.

If a thermostat is used to control the electric water pump, there would be even greater HP and FE gains, especially in short trips. The electric pump might not even come on during a short trip.
__________________
Capitalism: The cream rises. Socialism: The scum rises.
Sludgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 10:45 AM   #26
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
Cool. Interesting article.

Of note to us low RPM inhabitants:

Quote:
You'll also note that we started all tests at 3,000 rpm. That's because (coolant) pumping losses below that speed were minimal.
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 10:45 AM   #27
Driving on E
 
Matt Timion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,110
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sludgy
http://superchevy.com/technical/engi...mp/index1.html

This link discusses normal belt driven water pumps, pumps with an underdrive pulley, and electric pumps. Replacing the belt driven pump with an electric pump saves power.

If a thermostat is used to control the electric water pump, there would be even greater HP and FE gains, especially in short trips. The electric pump might not even come on during a short trip.
Excellent find Sludgy. I wonder though if this is worth persuing considering "pumping losses below 3000rpm are minimal".
Matt Timion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 10:57 AM   #28
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Timion
I wonder though if this is worth persuing considering "pumping losses below 3000rpm are minimal".
The answer to that question is in the table at the end: average gains (HP) were less than 1% going from OD to UD and from UD to Electric.

My only other comment on their testing is they don't show the OEM figures. They jump right in with the over driven setup. Considering the average HP gain between OD to UD was under 1%, the gain would have presumably been even less from OEM to UD.
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 01:15 PM   #29
Registered Member
 
JanGeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,442
Country: United States
Send a message via Yahoo to JanGeo
DOn't look at it as a % because that is a big V8 390hp engine think in terms of the 4hp gain which is about what it takes to move your typical small car at 40-50 mph!
JanGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 01:30 PM   #30
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
True, I take your point. But then again, your typical small engine won't require nearly as much power to run its water pump, compared to the pump on the giant V8.

Its rotating parts will be smaller, lighter and won't have to move nearly as much fluid.

It's still safe to conclude there's little or nothing to be gained from going to an EWP on a small engine driven at low RPM.
__________________

MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More detail josh434 General Fuel Topics 2 06-28-2009 03:39 AM
Fuel Economy and Lease Mileage RespecttheT Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 08-14-2008 07:42 AM
San Jose Police overinflate tires to 50 PSI to improve performance and have realized significant cost savings..... krousdb General Fuel Topics 10 04-23-2006 05:15 PM
"active" aero grille slats on 06 civic concept MetroMPG General Fuel Topics 21 01-03-2006 01:02 PM
Crazy Spark Plugs Claim Increase of 50% in Gas Mileage SVOboy General Fuel Topics 13 12-29-2005 06:36 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.