Kenne Bell/D1SC cam difference (For C5)
07-03-2007, 04:08 AM
#1
Kenne Bell/D1SC cam difference (For C5) I have decided to sell the D1SC/A&A FMIC kit and go ahead and buy a Kenne Bell 2.8L for the Z06. The question is how does a screw type blower differ from a centrifugal type blower. I know the screw will build boost lower then the centrifugal but how will cam selection be affected as far as bleed off and power? I had bought a 225/233 .585 115lsa cam and was wondering if I should switch cams? This is a 346 that is going to be driven on the street but would like to get as much as possible out of it and still be driveable. Thanks for any input given.
07-03-2007, 04:20 AM
#2
Well no one has done extensive testing on the Kennybell setup over here that I have seen, but I would go out on a limb and say I think the cam will work well, but when using the magies I like a strait pattern cam just my preference though. Should be a car with little or no traction LOL!
07-03-2007, 06:46 AM
#4
Originally Posted by PREDATOR-Z
You are taking a step backwards. D1SC has much more potential for power.
Chris.
07-03-2007, 08:13 AM
#5
8 Second Club
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chuntington101
i dont know if thats true. the 2.8KB has made over 800rwbhp and over 800lbsft on a 402 ls2! that was with a stock z06 cam and pump fuel!
Chris.
Chris.
It's a big step back-that 402 didn't have a z06 cam and the owner pulled the whole motor back out to redo it. FWIW I made 920 rwhp and 820 rwtq out of 347 with a F1R, stock ported heads on pumpgas and meth-oh ans that was at 5900 rpm-ran out fuel. That's more torque than a 402-go figure.
07-03-2007, 08:41 AM
#6
That cam is pretty big for a 347. It is going to affect the amount of boost made in the entire RPM range. The advantage of going with the KB for lower RPM boost generation will be lessened a bit because of the cam. I feel the KB will be a little better in the lower RPM band ,more in the middle RPM band, and less in the upper RPM band than the D1. Since the car will not be a strip one, the KB might be a little better for you than the D1.
Keith
Keith
07-03-2007, 01:35 PM
#7
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chuntington101
i dont know if thats true. the 2.8KB has made over 800rwbhp and over 800lbsft on a 402 ls2! that was with a stock z06 cam and pump fuel!
Chris.
Chris.
I nice linear curve is much easier to handle at these power levels.
Trending Topics
07-03-2007, 04:19 PM
#11
FormerVendor
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: "Sin City" Las Vegas
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an un-informed statement.
I have owned numerous setups in the same car
P1-SC
D1-SC
F1-R
KB 2.6
KB 2.8H
The HIGHEST hp I have pulled out of my car was with the KB 2.8H.
My cam was a 230/234 585.585 114lsa
Personally, the KB is much more driveable, predictable, and fun to drive.
I wouldnt go back to a centrifugal if you paid me.
I have owned numerous setups in the same car
P1-SC
D1-SC
F1-R
KB 2.6
KB 2.8H
The HIGHEST hp I have pulled out of my car was with the KB 2.8H.
My cam was a 230/234 585.585 114lsa
Personally, the KB is much more driveable, predictable, and fun to drive.
I wouldnt go back to a centrifugal if you paid me.
Originally Posted by PREDATOR-Z
You are taking a step backwards. D1SC has much more potential for power.
07-03-2007, 04:27 PM
#12
FormerVendor
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: "Sin City" Las Vegas
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your right, it did not have a Z06 cam in it. It was a 230/234....
Yes, I puled the motor. But it ran and drove. I didnt feel comfortable with the way the motor was built. It was a preventative measure, not a necessity.
Your car was a MAX effort run at high boost (wasnt it like 20psi)
Mine made 855rwtq at 15.5 psi, and a damn near stock fuel system.
We did run it at 18psi, but I had them shut the run down at 4500rpm. We exceeded 875rwtq and the power was still coming on hard. I would have exceeded 900+ if I didnt chicken out.
I have since swapped motor configs. Now I'm running 9.0:1cr, and completely different cam specs. I havent run it yet, so I dont know where it stands.
Yes, I puled the motor. But it ran and drove. I didnt feel comfortable with the way the motor was built. It was a preventative measure, not a necessity.
Your car was a MAX effort run at high boost (wasnt it like 20psi)
Mine made 855rwtq at 15.5 psi, and a damn near stock fuel system.
We did run it at 18psi, but I had them shut the run down at 4500rpm. We exceeded 875rwtq and the power was still coming on hard. I would have exceeded 900+ if I didnt chicken out.
I have since swapped motor configs. Now I'm running 9.0:1cr, and completely different cam specs. I havent run it yet, so I dont know where it stands.
Originally Posted by eb02z06
It's a big step back-that 402 didn't have a z06 cam and the owner pulled the whole motor back out to redo it. FWIW I made 920 rwhp and 820 rwtq out of 347 with a F1R, stock ported heads on pumpgas and meth-oh ans that was at 5900 rpm-ran out fuel. That's more torque than a 402-go figure.
07-03-2007, 05:28 PM
#13
8 Second Club
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AMERICAN_HP
Your right, it did not have a Z06 cam in it. It was a 230/234....
Yes, I puled the motor. But it ran and drove. I didnt feel comfortable with the way the motor was built. It was a preventative measure, not a necessity.
Your car was a MAX effort run at high boost (wasnt it like 20psi)
Mine made 855rwtq at 15.5 psi, and a damn near stock fuel system.
We did run it at 18psi, but I had them shut the run down at 4500rpm. We exceeded 875rwtq and the power was still coming on hard. I would have exceeded 900+ if I didnt chicken out.
I have since swapped motor configs. Now I'm running 9.0:1cr, and completely different cam specs. I havent run it yet, so I dont know where it stands.
Yes, I puled the motor. But it ran and drove. I didnt feel comfortable with the way the motor was built. It was a preventative measure, not a necessity.
Your car was a MAX effort run at high boost (wasnt it like 20psi)
Mine made 855rwtq at 15.5 psi, and a damn near stock fuel system.
We did run it at 18psi, but I had them shut the run down at 4500rpm. We exceeded 875rwtq and the power was still coming on hard. I would have exceeded 900+ if I didnt chicken out.
I have since swapped motor configs. Now I'm running 9.0:1cr, and completely different cam specs. I havent run it yet, so I dont know where it stands.
Your right-it was 20 psi but max effort-not-it that was with a 4.13 pulley and a 8 crank so that gives you 67000 blower rpm at 7000 rpm-still shy of the 74000 rated rpm. Also that 920 rwhp was only at 5900 when my fuel system gave out-now that the fuel issue is sorted and Procharger called to inform me my unit should be back next week-we will really get to see what it will do.
This debate can go on and on-i'm biased towards the centri units. Before ditching it i would really take a closer look into seeing what can be done to make more power sooner-it will save you alot of money in the long run.
But in the end the choice is yours.
07-03-2007, 06:05 PM
#15
Administrator
Originally Posted by 2002/Black/SS
how exactly can u use 800LBS at 2500 rpm on the street? thats only good for a drag setup.
I'm with you on this one...traction is going to very difficult to find.
07-03-2007, 06:58 PM
#17
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: san marcos, TX
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My buddy is running the D1SC/A&A FMIC in his 99' vette. Making 750rwhp at 6000rpm at 14psi running the 3.85" pulley on the standard 6 rib setup and a small 224/228 .581 lift 114LSA cam on his forged 346ci motor. No traction what so ever on the street until the top of third gear...Why would you want to change...
07-03-2007, 10:15 PM
#19
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: san marcos, TX
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its peter pan on the CF. Only chuncked 1 belt in 5K miles of hard driving and that was from a failed water pump. He does alot of weekend back hill runs without problems. Usually 300-400 miles on a Sat. cruise...
07-03-2007, 10:22 PM
#20
Hey Unit what is your traction like on the street and are you ever going to spray that thing? 
After driving the Z06 in comparison to the Camaro it just feels more planted then the Camaro did. I am under no illusion however that I will not have traction problems at 600-700 h.p. but maybe I still have a little Cobra envy in me. I almost bought one instead of the Camaro years back and I really like the look and simplicity of the KB setup. Plus my car will go to the track so it can't be all bad.
After driving the Z06 in comparison to the Camaro it just feels more planted then the Camaro did. I am under no illusion however that I will not have traction problems at 600-700 h.p. but maybe I still have a little Cobra envy in me. I almost bought one instead of the Camaro years back and I really like the look and simplicity of the KB setup. Plus my car will go to the track so it can't be all bad.