Sween makes some good points:
sweendogg said:
something to think about.. is the hose outlet out of the machine a true 2 inch interior diamater like a coolcuff hook up or is a hose barb with a 1.75 inch interior diameter. If its the latter, you will still see benefit out of the two inch hose, but you you may not see an improvement from 1.75 inch diamater wands to a 2 inch tube wand.
And I know it's not wanted by many , but I'm gonna chime in anyways.
First off, understand yor machine, even though you have more efficient 230v vacs, they are still low amp draw, mid range vacs.
Which means, they only pull so hard against resistance, read this as moderate but not high Waterlift. I point this out because if you look at vacuum performance charts your 110 cfm vac might pull (60%) 66 cfm under load, and possibly as low as (50%) 55 cfm. You will have to look to verify as i'm not sure of the exact motor used.
So...you may actually have a 165 real cfm you are trying to cram through a 1.5" barb with an inside dia. of 1.2".
If this is the case, you will see your greatest gain by switching to a 2" connection, it will be significant.
This holds true with the wand, no MATTER what ANYONE tells you, ALL centrifugal vac motors are more efficient with a 2" bore, than a 1.5" bore.
True, the wand diameter isn't nearly as important as the hose diameter because there is 10X the length of hose as wand, but if you are looking at maximizing your system a 12" wand with 2" bore is the answer.
And yes, a 1.75" wand (with a 12" HEAD) Is a good second best.
