Its actually 3 starter motors The electric motors are rewound for high performance and continuous run time driving a gear reduction uint, to quote the manufacturer "The electric motors have a 1000-hour life expectancy; " As for the little 105 horsepower engine. "Our completely stock Nissan Altima four-cylinder outfitted with an automatic transmission jumped from 105 whp to 184 whp with the ESC-400 at only 5 psi boost." They blew the original engine in the car due to too much boost when the cranked it up to 10psi so they "Replaced engine with a low-mileage stock engine......The dyno run at a safer 8 psi gave us more than 208 wheel hp." But the systems still have their drawbacks, they are designed for cars/trucks that conventional supercharger/turbo setups wont work. They are more expensive then conventional superchargers and there is allot more work required to install them then conventional superchargers, still kind of a cool design but I think the rotrex electric superchargers have more performance potential.
Okay, 60 pounds of starter motors. Talk about a zero sum gain. They added 200-300 pounds to the car to gain 80 hp.
it seems like someone has in insecurity about small engines.... most 4 bangers now days, import or not produce over 170hp natural aspirated, and turbo push over 260 from the factory... look up speed3, evo, sti, str4, etc...if its not you then fine, but don't bash other people for being different and doing something that no one else is trying, if those people didnt exist we'd all still be driving carburated push rod motors... oh wait..... does this constitute as down south "rice"?
I have this issue of Hot Rod magazine. http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_1105_leaf_blower_supercharger/viewall.html
Sonds like someone's overly insecure about having a rice burner. Hp is one thing, torque is altogether something else in the picture. Ok, so you have 260 HP at 7000 rpms. What's the torque output at 2000 ? I've watched drags of these cars. The funniest thing to watch was those with rear wheel drive rev up to 6 grand and dump the clutch, only to have the engine choke on the available traction the tires had on the pavement. A stock Explorer 5.0 has 260 hp (despite what the advertised HP is) But it's also got 200+ ft/lbs of torque at 2000 rpms with a peak of 300+ at a point not much higher in the rpm band (of which is a total figure that's considered on the "low side" for a V8) And last I checked lots of us ARE still driving pushrod V8's, maybe not Fords, but other makes are still using this technoogy to actuate the valves. Take the GM 5.3 (out of a junkyard)that's installed in pickups, add an "elcheapo" chinese turbo and it'll put out 500+ hp. Ford mod motors are putting out 1000 hp with turbos now. Where's that leave your lawnboy 4 banger ? :bananaman
It leaves my "lawnboy" 4 banger still getting 38mpgs where ever i go I love the LS motor but its still a relic, even in zr1's which is one of the best cars i've ever driven. talking about torque... 2012 mazdaspeed 3, 280 lb-ft at 3k, 263hp at 5500, i think thats pretty impressive from a 2.3litter that will last you over 150k miles... cobalt ss turbo, 260 lb-ft at 2k and 260hp at 5300... all other small "lawnboys" are simular, I'd use the european focus st but it I can't find what rpms the max torque is at, its about 250hp/lb-ft so all these cars are getting its torque when you can use it... and I would never take any of these cars to the drags, its not what they meant for.
Those are numbers comparable to the 302's in the 79-81 Mustangs. And we all know what powerhouses those were.
your direct quote all the cars i have listed have been making those power figures since early to mid 2000's
Makes no difference. The Explorer motor, carbed with 1.7 rockers will run rings around those ricer motors, more than enough torque to boil the hides on a posi traction rear no matter whose tires you have on it. Those little motors are fine for 1500 lb cars, but double the weight and you need far more torque and HP to move things along. Put one of those ricer motors in a Cobra kit car, then run it against a mild 302 in the same car. There's no comparison.
Ha Ha Ha Ha what 1500 lb cars are you talking about a smart car... hey wait that doesnt work even the smart car weighs 1808 lbs.... Heck when you look at the dry weight of say the little 2010 mazda 3/ Ford Focus it weighs more then most of the members mavericks on here... A good comparison is the 2010 Mazda 3 with an 2.5L I4 and an AT has a curb weight of 3064 LBs. Or the 2011 Subaru WRX at 3028 LBs with a turbocharged 2.5L boxer 4 cylinder the standard version only puts out 265 horsepower and 244 lb-ft of torque now if you get the STi version that one puts out 305 horsepower and 290 lb-ft of torque. Now why are they so heavy.. lets see sound deadening, electronics, crash protection equipment, ect ect..... To put it in direct perspective the best Maverick I can compare these nubers too is the 74 and up large bumper 302 4 door with a curb weight of......3075 LBs.... My 72 2 door LDO came from the factory with a V8 and a C4 and it had a massive dry weight of.....2736 LBs.. So what would happen if you put one of those little mazda 3/focus engines or a wrx STi engine in a 1500LBs fiberglass cobra shell you know those little engines that came from the factory pushing around a car heavier then most mavericks, while getting both better performance and better fuel economy and then lets see how good some of those motors compare too the mild 302 you are talking about... And dont worry I dont own any foreign cars just 2 Fords and an AMC
Ok looking at your question there are three basic words that you used Cheap... Easy.... Work.... Pick two of those words and throw the third one out and that is your standard horsepower equation. Or in other words you cant have all three words in one sentance defining horsepower additions, if you want something cheap and easy usually it doesnt work, if you want something easy that works... well chances are its not cheap. Of course if you wanted something that is cheap that works we all know thats not easy.
