Independant tuners who modified the Procharger Kit by using a Procharger HU made a better unit but saying procharger set the bar is questionable. Its a good unit but its all relitive to the individual setup.

 

i'm confused in post 8 u state that ur teaming up w/ forced induction experts at magnuson, yet they dont have a twinscrew or make one. then u state u will have a twinscrew? TVS is not a twinscrew, its till a roots.

 

cough whipple makes a twin screw cough
http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/...sp?ProdID=1230
scroll down to the bottom of the page.

 

doesnt fit the f-body, its for ls1 engine for f-body accesory drive pullies thats it, read it says for ls1 sand rails.

 

Yup I agree.

 

its a twin screw. what keeps you guys from using a kenne bell for a corvette on your cars?

 

we have alot less room then a corvette. The cowl is in the way. thats why it took 10 years for a maggie kit to finaly be developed. and a twin screw, kenne bell or whipple is alot bigger then the mp112 so alot of modification to the cowl would be needed. possibly removal of wind shield whipper.

 

i know KB and whipples are bigger then M112s. why not use an engine drop K-member or soild motor mounts thats how terminators fit 3.4 whipples under the stock hood.

btw i have a lightning clearance problems whats that.

 

the mp112 already uses a 1/4" k-member drop, and its still a tight fit, so a larger kb or whipple would need some more modding to the cowl. i hear someone is making a kb kit, but who knows. i'd just love to see one. ultimate dream is a 402 w/ a twin screw.

 

even a 1.5 or 1.7 KB is still far more efficient then a M112. im telling twin screw is where its at. i hope to be goin to a 3.4 whipple on my lightning.

 

a whipple should fit just fine in the new camaro, it might stick up some but that's alright cause you can get a cool hood then. =)

 

thats not enough to feed a 5.7L. hell i'm looking at trying to swap a whipple 1.6L into my cobalt ss, get rid of the m62 and get a twin screw.

 

I did a math comparison a while back on a post where a vender used a KB and Maggie on the same LSx motor. From the math the KB under 11lbs of boost makes less power then a Maggie under 11lbs, the KB started to gain in HP though once you got above 13lbs of boost. So depending on your setup one could be prefered over the other.

 

Looks like Trickflow is going to come in, drop a bomb and leave. I'll bet it's going to be one of the new TVS/MP series. It's not any bigger than the MP112 and if you go to Magnuson's website, there's a video of Duttweiler making 950HP on a 434 with one. If that's the case. You guys are in for a real treat!!!

 

Here's that I found that comparison I am not an engineer but I was able to figure it out. If anyone disagree's please feel free to check what i did. It made sense to me when I did it.

"Originally Posted by GrnDragon
I was looking at Kenne Bells website and saw this comparison of there 2.8H and the TVS 2.3L on supposed exact same setups...

Take that for what you will, but it "seems" like a fair head to head comparison between the two.
"

"Originally Posted by BadMonkey"
There is actually some good info in there. You can get a pretty good picture as to what is going on if they used the same car and same setup with each comparison. Like what I did below, all thsoe numbers look like this:

KB 16.5#'s 687/601 = 41.6HP/36.4TQ per# of boost
TVS 11.5#'s 573/540 = 49.8HP/46.9TQ per # of boost

KB 23.5#'s 801/738 = 34HP/31.4TQ per # of boost
TVS 14.5#'s 609/513 = 42HP/35.3TQ per # of boost

Per # of boost as boost increases figured form the variables above:
KB losses 1.08HP/1.4TQ per # of boost
TVS Losses 2.6HP/3.8TQ per # of boost

With that being the case if both ran at 11.5#'s then:
KB = 529HP/460TQ @ 11.5#'s
TVS = 573HP/540TQ @ 11.5#'s

IF you could get the TVS to spin past 14.5lbs to 16.5 this is how it would look based on loss per # progressively (as to the formula i created)

KB = 687HP/601TQ @16.5#'s
TVS = 607.2HP/452.1TQ @ 16.5#'s

Here is the kicker on that below 12#'s of boost the TVS has more umph per # of boost. At
10.5#'s of boost i calculate the (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER)
KB = 48/41
TVS = 52/51

Pulley sizes where equal, but my 2.9"pulley on my MP112 gets me 10#'s imagine what a 2.9" pulley from a Procharger would do so I equalled out the pulley sizes for you:

TVS 16.5#'s = ~2.49"
KB 11.5#'s = ~3.35"
Average for KB was .07" per lbs of boost in the 16.5 to 23.5 area.
Average for TVS was 0.56 per lbs of boost. If I knew exact RPM these things ran we could really get these figured.


That being all said efficient wise the TVS is more efficiant in the lower boost levels and the KB is in the upper. So they both meet up around 14#'s of boost are about equal it seems when working all of this out. Most of my variables are within +/-1 and about +/- .1 with the pulley size. Just figured this sitting here, I am sure its not 100% but from what I can tell it seems that the difference really is in how much boost you want to make. Reliable under 15#'s my money is on the TVS, want to really get her moving run 15+ go with the KB. DO not flame me on this I just figured this by what info was given by the Dyno's above from KB. You can see though that from that formula I figured that the Eaton's loose steam after 12 lbs, but to say they are unefficiant is not 100% true depending on your varibles with your particular build.

 

twin screws like to be spun to crazy rpms but out of the twin screws KB makes the least HP. whipple is far more efficient. the tvs is a roots blower. ths got that 4 lobe 160 degree twist rotor

 

Buddy.... You are soooooooo sadly mistaken..

Exactly how would you like the data??

LAST WEEK, we tested all of the blowers the KB was the most efficient in all areas of the tests we made. Then the whipple, then the eaton.

Although the info up top is close, the math is off due to a few variables which actually scew the numbers quite a lot.. I'll try and bust out the actual test data tomorrow. Not just the data above, but the adiabatic efficiency tables, parasitic loss graphing, IAT vs PSI tests, rotor speed tests, inlet and outlet air charge and density tests, as well as I/C efficiency tests.

WE (KB and TPE) know our competition very very well. We have EVERY one of their blowers and manifolds. We have tested them in ever way known to man..To include disassembling them and documenting their internals.

YES, in some areas the KB is not as efficient, but its so minimal, and the other areas are so great, its not even a competition.

That being said, whipple is very close.

Hell, would you like blueprints??

 

KB 2.8H with a LS2 402...Here you go..

YES, there will be a twin screw blower for the F-body. Its just taking time. Te 2.6KB is structuraly no bigger than the maggie mp112. What **** us all up is the inlet tube, and the bypass valve. But we are trying a few little things to correct thos obsticles.

BTW, we tested the whipple 3.3L against the KB2.8H. same motor, same boost, same RPM. The whpple made LESS power.

Its simple physics. The rotors need to spin at a certain speed to get within the relm of optimal efficiency. The 3.3L blower (Which KB has as well, its just a prototype) is just to big for the current motors. You cant get the rotor speeds high enough, and alow the motor to breath well enough to make any significant change.

We wont even go into the structural integrity on the cast case with rotos spinning at 15,000rpm's..LOL




Is that an F-Body setup??????

 

Thats hot, guess it pays to stay up late.

 

thats a nice piece. whats your max boost?