Harv's Norman supercharger thread

Engine discussion.

Re: Harv's Norman supercharger thread

by Harv » Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:32 pm

Ladies and Gents,

Wanna see something cool 8-) ?

I have owned my Type 110 Norman for quite a while… pulled it apart, measured bits etc. In all that fiddling, I missed something until Fred pointed it out (many thanks Fred).
On the non-drive end of the Type 100, a fitting has been made that screws into the end of the rotor.

Image

The rotor non-drive end normally has a rotor keeper screwed into it (see my earlier posts). The fitting in my Type 110 replaces the rotor keeper, and has a bayonet fitting at the end. The bayonets protrude past the end of the casing.

Image

The purpose of the fitting is to provide a drive for a fuel pump (to suit mechanical fuel injection). Fuel pump drives are typically hex drive, as per the photo below (which I have borrowed from the HAMB):

Image

Older fuel pump drives however were tang drive, as per the photo below (again borrowed from the HAMB):

Image

The tang from the fuel pump engages the bayonet on the supercharger fitting. This allows you to bolt a fuel injection pump (eg Hilborn, Enderle, Crower) to the rear of the Norman. The crank drives the supercharger, and the supercharger drives the fuel pump. This saves having to drive the fuel pump from either the distributor/magneto, the camshaft end, or the crank.

Whose up for a Norman blown, injected grey :D ?

Cheers,
Harv
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 7:52 am

Re: Harv's Norman supercharger thread

by Harv » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:30 pm

The Victorian FE/FC Club auction has some rather cool Norman manifolds for sale:

http://forum.fefcholden.club/index.php? ... ic=26063.0

Not genuine, but it would save someone a hell of a lot of work to make them.

Cheers,
Harv
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 7:52 am

Re: Harv's Norman supercharger thread

by Harv » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:01 pm

Ladies and Gents,

Every now and then something unusual comes along. This was one of those weeks.

Some time ago Matt purchased a Type 65 Norman. He had weighed the bare supercharger, and came up with a very low number – 10.8kg. This sounded a bit funny to me, as Gary’s Type 65 was a hell of a lot heavier – 20.5kg with the carb hanging off it.

The Type 65's were made in four different formats:
a) Air-cooled Standard models, having a cast iron finned casing and a steel rotor.
b) Water-cooled Standard models, having a cast iron casing with a water jacket welded on, and a steel rotor.
c) Lightweight models (LW), which change to an aluminium casings (cast iron or steel lined), having an integral cast water jacket yet retained the steel rotor.
d) Super Lightweight (sometimes labelled as Super-Lite), having aluminium casings, tufftrided cast iron or steel liners and a lightened tufftrided steel rotor. The Super Light Weight rotors were made from steel, initially milled from a billet, then with steel flat bar electric stick welded in place with the whole assembly then machined… no small task! A kerosene-fired forge (with a Type 45 supercharger blowing air through it) was then used to heat treat (normalize) the rotors (I own that Type 45 forge blower :)). A Super Light Weight rotor, in an early Type 65 casing, is illustrated in Eldred's Supercharge! booklet:

Image

In an advertising brochure, Eldred listed the Type 65 Standard models as weighing 25kg, the Lightweight models as weighing 16kg, and the Super Lightweight as weighing 13kg.

Gary's Type 65 is a Lightweight model, and weighs 20.5kg with the carb and drive pulley on. Eldred reckoned it should weigh 16kg, not 20.5kg. There is perhaps a kilo or two in the carb and manifold, so close enough.

What caught my attention about Matt’s is that it weighs 10.8kg. Allow a few kilos (as per Gary's) would suggest that the machine may have be a Super Lightweight, with the funky rotor.

Some mechanical investigations by Matt shows something cool – his Norman has an aluminium rotor, with the bare rotor weighing in at 5.6kg. Ian’s standard steel Type 65 rotor weighs 9.6kg - 4kg more than Matt's.

Matt’s ally rotor, shown below, is the only ally Norman rotor I have seen (other than the later 3-vane ones made by Mike), as almost all Eldred’s are steel.
Image


The ally rotors are noted in a number of places:
From the Blow! For Go article, Australian Hot Rod November 1966:
“Eldred has made up several in forged aluminium on special requests but says that a considerable amount of research has proved conclusively that the steel rotor has up to eight times the life of it’s alumium counterpart, so steel it is”.
From the Blowers for Holdens! article, The Australian Hot Rodding Review January 1967:
"The new series has steel vanes rather than the previous alloy, to cut down the wear factor"
From the GO! With Safety brochure:
"The steel rotor is used in preference to an aluminium one as it's wearing qualities are very much superior. Naturally, it is heavier, but because of its comparatively small diameter the additional weight is of little disadvantage when accelerating."
From a Pricelist, June 30th 1968:
Owing to the poor wearing qualities aluminium rotors will not be supplied with any of these units. The 'Tufftrided' steel rotor is only fractionally heavier than aluminium and has at least 12 times the life".
From Eldred's Supercharge!:
"This type of supercharger has also got a bad name as many of them are made with aluminium rotors, both for reasons of lightness and of cost. Unfortunately this material has very poor wearing qualities as well as causing high frictional loads. The steel rotor has almost eight times the life of its aluminium counterpart and involves much less friction. Also the steel rotor can be nitrided by a new low temperature process which more than doubles the life again, as well as increasing the resistance to fatigue stresses. The steel rotor can be made almost as light as aluminium by a rather complex machining process."

All up Matt has a pretty unique, very early rotor.

Cheers,
Harv (deputy apprentice Norman supercharger fiddler).
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 7:52 am

Re: Harv's Norman supercharger thread

by Harv » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:49 pm

Ladies and Gents,

Looks like another aluminium rotor Type 65 has turned up. Ted’s air cooled cast iron Type 65 (serial number 513, which I have posted previously) also has an alloy rotor, and weighs in at 15kg for the bare supercharger.

Image


Eldred’s weight for the cast-iron casing steel rotored Type 65 was 25kg, though this is probably the water cooled variant (the water jacket adding a few kilos, let alone the steel rotor).

Cheers,
Harv
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 7:52 am

Re: Harv's Norman supercharger thread

by Harv » Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:00 am

Ladies and gents,

Attached below a Youtube video (audio only) of recent talkback radio discussion of Eldred Norman (with thanks to Paul for editing and uploading).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6223hO ... e=youtu.be

Cheers,
Harv
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 7:52 am

Re: Harv's Norman supercharger thread

by Harv » Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:43 pm

Ladies and gents,

As part of my meth-monster project, I decided that I would fit an aftermarket camshaft to the Norman-blown grey. Whilst the bog-stock grey motor cam is fine for normal street use, the intent for the meth-monster is to flog the living hell out of the motor at the drags. After some digging around, I had a conversation with Clive from Clive Cams. The intent was to custom re-grind the cam to maximise valve lift, and increase exhaust duration whilst minimising overlap where possible. The grind that Clive came up with is shown below - the standard grey motor camshaft specs are in black, whilst those for the meth-monster cam are in red:

Image

As we can see, Clive has held both the exhaust and inlet valves open longer. For our inlet valve, we get the diagram below (using the Advertised numbers), with the bog-stock grey motor shown in dark blue and the meth-monster cam shown in pale blue:

Image

For our exhaust inlet valve, we get the diagram below (again using Advertised values), with the bog-stock grey motor shown in dark green and the meth-monster cam shown in pale green:

Image

The increased durations will help the motor breathe, as will the increased valve lift. The only drama here is the increased duration, as per the diagram below:

Image

In a supercharged engine with high overlap, what tends to happen is that the pressurized inlet charge blows into the cylinder and straight out the open exhaust valve. This will give poor economy and poor emissions performance, and can lead to a loss of performance at low engine speed where boost is low. It will also have an increased tendency to bang the blower… my meth-monster relief valve will get a bit of a workout.

Additionally, increasing overlap will also reduce the boost pressure. Imagine that I started the meth monster with 10psi of boost pressure and the standard GMH cam. Fitting the Clive cam will drop boost pressure down to about 5psi of boost.

Image

This will then become a balance - the overlap may be of help at high RPM (like the meth-monster on the drag strip), but will lead to a low boost, sluggish vehicle at low RPM. Will the boost loss be outweighed by the increased duration? Hard to tell without putting the vehicle on the long black dyno.

The table below weighs up the meth-monster cam (in red) against some commercially available grey motor (naturally aspirated) performance cams:

Image

Interestingly, for the same meth-monster service Camtech recommends the Part Number 609 camshaft shown in the table above in blue. Whilst this is very similar in duration to the Clive cam, Camtech’s overlap is larger (64º compared to the 50º for the Clive cam), indicating that Clive has got clever in minimising overlap (targeting earlier exhaust opening and later inlet closing, rather than later exhaust closing and earlier inlet opening). Even with Clive’s magic, 50º is a lot of overlap for a blown motor. Compare for example the supercharger camshafts available from Lunati for small block Chevrolets – the advertised overlap is reduced from a typical factory SBC value of 35º to nil, with even their all-out blower cam only having 25º of overlap.

So what did I end up with? A cam that is going to help with the top end, though is likely to be sluggish down low and lift the relief valve a fair bit. The plan at this stage is to screw the engine together with a stock grey cam, have a play, then fit the Clive cam later. I’ll share the results as they come in.

Cheers,
Harv (deputy apprentice Norman supercharger fiddler).
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 7:52 am

Re: Harv's Norman supercharger thread

by Harv » Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:42 am

Ladies and gents,

Sometimes a real gem shows up in the most unexpected places. While Fred was looking through some of the original Wray supercharger paperwork, he found the document below, stapled into an Arnott supercharger instruction book:

Image

It’s a tune-up and dyno card for Mike McInerny’s Wray-blown FJ Holden ute, which I covered in my Wray anecdote. The car was dyno-checked by Mike and John Wray as the vehicle ran the prototype Wray supercharger, and it was somewhat of a guess as to what was going on in terms of output, etc. At the time, Mike and the Wray team were discovering issues with cracking liners, breaking liners, oil lubrication, timing of ignition, blower pressures… often learning and improving the supercharger the hard way.

BP Marleston those days was run by Stan Keen, who had the only workshop on the south side of Adelaide with a dyno. The workshop was only some two miles from Garrie Cooper and Elfins at Edwardstown. Stan would go on to run Stan Keen Dyno from 1968, which later became Turbotune. Turbotune closed in the middle of this year, to be replaced by the High Performance Diesel Service Centre. During the run on the rolling road Mike’s FJ managed to wheelspin the rollers, despite running a big set of Dunlop L section racing tyres on the rear. The factory grey delivers around 70hp at the crank, so the 70hp at the rear wheels of Mike’s ute is perhaps 30% more power (driveline loss). Interestingly, the increase in torque is minimal - the factory grey motor 110ftlb has decreased slightly to 103ftlb (400ftlb at the rear wheels, though multiplied by the diff at 3.894:1).

As Mike points out, any new car would make the efforts on the FJ laughable. But at the time, it was a scourge to many… albeit an absolute slug alongside Wray-blown Robby's Cooper S brick.

Cheers,
Harv
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 7:52 am

Re: Harv's Norman supercharger thread

by EJSedan63 » Sun May 21, 2017 5:18 pm

One for sale on GumTree:
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:33 am

Re: Harv's Norman supercharger thread

by Harv » Tue May 23, 2017 7:37 am

Steel-cased water-cooled Type 65.

I know this Norman well. It lived in a storage unit in the ACT for many years. Owner contacted me, and had some emails over about 5 years. It got onsold to the current owner in NSW, who also contacted me. I loaned an engine-to-supercharger manifold to the owner to use as a template to make up the manifold he is selling.

Cheers,
Harv
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 7:52 am

Re: Harv's Norman supercharger thread

by Harv » Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:24 am

Ladies and Gents,

An interesting machine has appeared in recent weeks – one of Eldred’s Type 265 Normans. The machine was purchased by Peter from a mate in the late 70’s. The mate in turn had purchased the machine from a gentlemen west of Toowoomba, Queensland. The machine has seen some use, having wear on the belt tensioner pulley and some minor marking inside. The Type 265 has since sat idle, though Peter has been taking a look at it over recent weeks.

The Type 265 was manufactured by Eldred by bolting together two Type 65s. Peter’s machine is mounted on a red motor supercharger to cylinder head manifold. The carburetor to cylinder head manifolds are cast in two piece, and then welded together. The manifolds have bosses that can be milled/tapped to suit different carburetor combinations, either twin carbs or triples. It is possible that the configurations were
a) manifolds run separately (no welding), with one downdraught carburettor per supercharger bank, and
b) manifolds welded together, with three sidedraught carburetors into a common plenum.
Peter’s Type 265 is a water cooled unit, with the standard “Casting Number 22” cast into it. The serial number (535) is stamped under the front of the unit. This is the highest serial number I have seen on a Type 65. The supercharger weighs 118.4 pounds (less carburettors). The rotor is solid steel, weighing near 50 pounds on its own. The rotors bear two-piece vanes, 9.921" long (standard Type 65 vanes are 10”). The Norman is fitted with triple H6 SU carbies, though these were not on the unit when purchased. The unit has no relief valve.

This is a pretty unique unit - I know of only one other survivor (a Type 270), owned by Mike Norman.

Got some photos of the unit, though having trouble uploading now that PhotoBucket doesn't want to play with me.

Cheers,
Harv
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 7:52 am

PreviousNext

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest