Ellison throttle body

I would like to hear from anyone with experience with this unit, good or
bad. I would also like to know if their sizing as it is printed on their
website, is accurate. I don't know if engine efficiency is a factor in the
sizing, for instance, does a 180 hp Lycoming require the same size throttle
body as a 180 hp Subaru engine. They are both producing 180 hp, but with
grossly different displacements. I have written the company but they don't
seem to be interested in returning email.

Most throttle body/carbs mass airflow sensors are rated in CF,,.Cubic
feet per minute. In therory a 360 cu in motor at 2500 rpm will breath
the same amount of air as 180 cuin one at 5000.

I have an Ellison 4/5 on a modified O-360. Works fine. A very high quality
unit.

As for the difference between a 180 HP Lyc, and a 180 HP Sub...both are
ingesting about the same amount of air, to make the same horsepower numbers,
so the same size carb would be necessary. The Sub is smaller, running
faster, the Lyc is big and slow, but both pump about the same amount of air.





"ADK" wrote in message
news:hG4fg.1785$S61.588@edtnps90...
I would like to hear from anyone with experience with this unit, good or
bad. I would also like to know if their sizing as it is printed on their
website, is accurate. I don't know if engine efficiency is a factor in the
sizing, for instance, does a 180 hp Lycoming require the same size throttle
body as a 180 hp Subaru engine. They are both producing 180 hp, but with
grossly different displacements. I have written the company but they don't
seem to be interested in returning email.

On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:59:26 -0800, "Ron Webb"
wrote:

I have an Ellison 4/5 on a modified O-360. Works fine. A very high quality
unit.

As for the difference between a 180 HP Lyc, and a 180 HP Sub...both are
ingesting about the same amount of air, to make the same horsepower numbers,
so the same size carb would be necessary. The Sub is smaller, running
faster, the Lyc is big and slow, but both pump about the same amount of air.




In most cases you are right - and in this case likely close enough.
However, depending on the intake system, the big engine MAY require a
larger carb, as it "gulps" the air in larger slugs. Say you have a 4
liter 4 cyl, and a 2 liter 4 cyl engine. The 4 liter engine grabs a
liter at a time, while the 2 liter only grabs half a liter at a time,
so instantaneous (peak) airflow on the 4 liter is higher than on the 2
liter. On larger than 4 cyl engines, it is not an issue (practically)
because of the overlap, and on smaller (1, 2, or 3 cyl) engines it is
more noticeable because the flow drops off more between gulps.


"ADK" wrote in message
news:hG4fg.1785$S61.588@edtnps90...
I would like to hear from anyone with experience with this unit, good or
bad. I would also like to know if their sizing as it is printed on their
website, is accurate. I don't know if engine efficiency is a factor in the
sizing, for instance, does a 180 hp Lycoming require the same size throttle
body as a 180 hp Subaru engine. They are both producing 180 hp, but with
grossly different displacements. I have written the company but they don't
seem to be interested in returning email.




*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Yea...That's true. A big engine with low RPM and short, straight intake
runners can take air in gulps, instead of a smooth flow, and the flow at
peak gulp can be quite a bit higher than the average.

Now, a Lyc 0-360 is big and slow certainly, but the intake runners are not
straight, the air is gulped into a plenum, and drawn out of the plenum and
into the cylinders after much misdirection. I'd expect that is enough to
eliminate most of the "gulp effect".

But, I guess you already said that.

The point I was making stands, though. An Ellison throttle body designed for
180 horses works fine on an O-360. Actually, mine has 10:1 pistons and a few
other mods (including the Ellison throttle body itself) that make it around
220 HP.



clare at snyder.on.ca wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:59:26 -0800, "Ron Webb"
wrote:

I have an Ellison 4/5 on a modified O-360. Works fine. A very high quality
unit.

As for the difference between a 180 HP Lyc, and a 180 HP Sub...both are
ingesting about the same amount of air, to make the same horsepower
numbers,
so the same size carb would be necessary. The Sub is smaller, running
faster, the Lyc is big and slow, but both pump about the same amount of
air.




In most cases you are right - and in this case likely close enough.
However, depending on the intake system, the big engine MAY require a
larger carb, as it "gulps" the air in larger slugs. Say you have a 4
liter 4 cyl, and a 2 liter 4 cyl engine. The 4 liter engine grabs a
liter at a time, while the 2 liter only grabs half a liter at a time,
so instantaneous (peak) airflow on the 4 liter is higher than on the 2
liter. On larger than 4 cyl engines, it is not an issue (practically)
because of the overlap, and on smaller (1, 2, or 3 cyl) engines it is
more noticeable because the flow drops off more between gulps.


"ADK" wrote in message
news:hG4fg.1785$S61.588@edtnps90...
I would like to hear from anyone with experience with this unit, good or
bad. I would also like to know if their sizing as it is printed on their
website, is accurate. I don't know if engine efficiency is a factor in
the
sizing, for instance, does a 180 hp Lycoming require the same size
throttle
body as a 180 hp Subaru engine. They are both producing 180 hp, but with
grossly different displacements. I have written the company but they
don't
seem to be interested in returning email.




*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

stol wrote:
Most throttle body/carbs mass airflow sensors are rated in CF,,.Cubic
feet per minute. In therory a 360 cu in motor at 2500 rpm will breath
the same amount of air as 180 cuin one at 5000.

Something to muddy the waters, a carburettor's cfm rating is basically
how much air is able to flow through it for a given pressure difference.
The problem is that given pressure difference is different, ISTR, for
4 barrel carburettors than 1 and 2 barrel, I don't really know what the
convention is for throttle bodies, and I don't really know if the
convention is different for aircraft engines.

Sorry, I'm not much help

ADK wrote:
I would like to hear from anyone with experience with this unit, good or
bad. I would also like to know if their sizing as it is printed on their
website, is accurate. I don't know if engine efficiency is a factor in the
sizing, for instance, does a 180 hp Lycoming require the same size throttle
body as a 180 hp Subaru engine. They are both producing 180 hp, but with
grossly different displacements. I have written the company but they don't
seem to be interested in returning email.


I have one on my O-320 E series.
I have never seen anything else that starts as consistently or as well
as this engine with the Ellison. Temperature seems to have absolutely no
bearing on it... 3rd blade every time for me.
Throttle response is excellent for me as well.

I never got the idle mixture set the way I wanted it. (maybe it is just
too weather sensitive) I ended up setting it too rich and leaning it
manually.
The only other gripes are the purchase cost and the rebuild cost (there
is nothing to it, and it was still 600 bucks 8 years ago)

I have a friend who has a lower cost slide carb, and he has had to make
modifications to it multiple times, and seems like he is adjusting it a
lot (which is an annoying process)
My more expensive one just works.


Mike

What model Ellison are you using?

"Ron Webb" wrote in message
...
Yea...That's true. A big engine with low RPM and short, straight intake
runners can take air in gulps, instead of a smooth flow, and the flow at
peak gulp can be quite a bit higher than the average.

Now, a Lyc 0-360 is big and slow certainly, but the intake runners are not
straight, the air is gulped into a plenum, and drawn out of the plenum and
into the cylinders after much misdirection. I'd expect that is enough to
eliminate most of the "gulp effect".

But, I guess you already said that.

The point I was making stands, though. An Ellison throttle body designed
for 180 horses works fine on an O-360. Actually, mine has 10:1 pistons and
a few other mods (including the Ellison throttle body itself) that make it
around 220 HP.



clare at snyder.on.ca wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:59:26 -0800, "Ron Webb"
wrote:

I have an Ellison 4/5 on a modified O-360. Works fine. A very high
quality
unit.

As for the difference between a 180 HP Lyc, and a 180 HP Sub...both are
ingesting about the same amount of air, to make the same horsepower
numbers,
so the same size carb would be necessary. The Sub is smaller, running
faster, the Lyc is big and slow, but both pump about the same amount of
air.




In most cases you are right - and in this case likely close enough.
However, depending on the intake system, the big engine MAY require a
larger carb, as it "gulps" the air in larger slugs. Say you have a 4
liter 4 cyl, and a 2 liter 4 cyl engine. The 4 liter engine grabs a
liter at a time, while the 2 liter only grabs half a liter at a time,
so instantaneous (peak) airflow on the 4 liter is higher than on the 2
liter. On larger than 4 cyl engines, it is not an issue (practically)
because of the overlap, and on smaller (1, 2, or 3 cyl) engines it is
more noticeable because the flow drops off more between gulps.


"ADK" wrote in message
news:hG4fg.1785$S61.588@edtnps90...
I would like to hear from anyone with experience with this unit, good or
bad. I would also like to know if their sizing as it is printed on their
website, is accurate. I don't know if engine efficiency is a factor in
the
sizing, for instance, does a 180 hp Lycoming require the same size
throttle
body as a 180 hp Subaru engine. They are both producing 180 hp, but with
grossly different displacements. I have written the company but they
don't
seem to be interested in returning email.




*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

ADK wrote:
I would like to hear from anyone with experience with this unit, good or
bad. I would also like to know if their sizing as it is printed on their
website, is accurate. I don't know if engine efficiency is a factor in the
sizing, for instance, does a 180 hp Lycoming require the same size throttle
body as a 180 hp Subaru engine. They are both producing 180 hp, but with
grossly different displacements. I have written the company but they don't
seem to be interested in returning email.

Ours has worked great... we have the mixture stops adjusted so that
pulling full lean leaves enough power for taxi and clearing the plugs
after a flight, instead of cutting the engine off. Never had any
problems at all, though we do run into cylinder 3 running leaner than
the others.

Also (and putting flame-proof suit on), we have never used carb heat
with it--the system is installed (and IIRC we had to sign a waiver
saying we would install such a system) but I think we've turned it on
twice in 450 hours, just to see if there was a noticable difference.
Don't take my advice though. This should not be interpreted in any way
as an endorsement of not using carb heat.

ADK wrote:
I would like to hear from anyone with experience with this unit, good or
bad. I would also like to know if their sizing as it is printed on their
website, is accurate. I don't know if engine efficiency is a factor in the
sizing, for instance, does a 180 hp Lycoming require the same size throttle
body as a 180 hp Subaru engine. They are both producing 180 hp, but with
grossly different displacements. I have written the company but they don't
seem to be interested in returning email.

Ours has worked great... we have the mixture stops adjusted so that
pulling full lean leaves enough power for taxi and clearing the plugs
after a flight, instead of cutting the engine off. Never had any
problems at all, though we do run into cylinder 3 running leaner than
the others.

Also (and putting flame-proof suit on), we have never used carb heat
with it--the system is installed (and IIRC we had to sign a waiver
saying we would install such a system) but I think we've turned it on
twice in 450 hours, just to see if there was a noticable difference.
Don't take my advice though. This should not be interpreted in any way
as an endorsement of not using carb heat.