Magnuson 2650 - Realistic Numbers? - LS1TECH - Camaro and Firebird Forum Discussion

Notices
Gen 5 Camaro Power-Adder Tech Supercharger, Turbo, Nitrous

Magnuson 2650 - Realistic Numbers?

Old 11-08-2018, 11:09 PM
  #1  
Teching In
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 12
Default Magnuson 2650 - Realistic Numbers?

Anybody familiar with this ghost product? It’s advertised (apparently for quite a while) but not available for purchase. I considered waiting for it instead of buying a competitor’s product, because if it is what is claimed, there’s nothing like it on the market, but....do the numbers make sense to you guys?

Before I go into it, let me explain my situation, and hopefully that will explain some of what my concerns are. I’ve got a forged 409 LSX, Jake’s Performance Stage 5 4L80E trans, upgraded drive shaft, rear end, meth, and other goodies like exhaust, suspension, fuel pumps, injectors, pulleys, braces, ZL1 hood, etc. I have an Edelbrock e-force which is fine but really intended for less capable setups, which it was until I upgraded many things. I’m making around 650whp. I could double that with a better blower. It’s a street car only as tracks want this convertible to have a cage to run (and at least in MI, any coup at this power level as well. Not sure if same in TX at all tracks yet as I just moved). I won’t do that. It’s 5,000+lbs. It’s comfortable. I’m not looking to make a track car out of it. I do use all of it often and could use much more. Judge me if you will. I don’t even really street race (unless something happens to pull up). I’m just an addict who needs more and more and gets it, on the street. I try not to be an ******* about it.

So what do I want? Little maintenance and a long engine life so no turbos with dirt and heat. (I know they’re all the rage, and everybody thinks the ultimate is a twin turbo setup, and I’ll likely take some heat for poo pooing them, if anybody bothers to reply at all. To each, his own). A relatively normal looking street car, so no massive through the hood tower with a giant Whipple, blocking my vision. I really want to limit the belt issues. Already had several issues with that, so no cog. I’ve learned to go big from the start so I don’t want any chance that I’ll want to replace it later either because I got cheap and bought junk that breaks (more expensive in the long run) or because I didn’t satisfy myself and wanted more, so a more powerful unit than “probably” enough. Oh, and though the e-force is lower output, it is roots, so it has no delay or drag in the delivery, and that would be nice. I think I’d be happy with 1,000rwhp. That’s a tall list. I want what everybody wants - everything, with no issues. Good luck, right

So a Procharger is not perfect but the right model would cover several of the bases. Remember, I’d rather overkill than under do it. I don’t have to stress it to it’s max. Hell it would probably live longer with less issues if I did get more blower than I need and worked it at 3/4 capacity. So an F-1X would be nice....except my research revealed that they break entirely too much. The cure, the F-1X-12. It’s been much more dependable, oh and more powerful, oh and spins less to deliver more, so more efficient, which would also help on the slower delivery of power (as compared to a roots blower) as well as make it easier on the belt. There’s been bracket issues but apparently Steve Morris has brackets that resolve those issues. Done, right? Not quite.

Someone in the know (I don’t want to potentially endorse a product in his name)points out if I wait (who knows how long), there might be something even more made for my needs: A new Magnuson - the 2650. It’s a bolt on, over the engine, low profile roots blower (just like my eforce), but with real power. I wouldn’t have to modify the engine bay to fit it (like I would to fit the PC) I’d get that instant on power, and it’s billed to provide 1,000 - 1,500Whp. What?! Hell yes! So I do a little research on it.

I went to the Magnuson website and could not find a way to navigate to it. Being the new, bad ***, best blower they ever made, you’d figure it would be front and center, so that’s weird - hmm. I search engined it and found shortcuts to the Magnuson web site pages that talk about it. https://www.magnusonsuperchargers.co...-62-xxx-xx.htm it says:

”Unleash the true potential of your LT1/LT4 with the Magnuson TVS 2650™ Supercharger System! This is the largest Supercharger Magnuson has ever developed and it's expected to produce horsepower numbers for LT1/LT4's well over 1000 RWHP with boost levels over 20 psi. This is a full kit supercharger system designed to deliver maximum performance while retaining factory-like drivability and reliability. Inside of the supercharger manifold, our new charge air cooler is larger than the OE, keeping your Intake Air Temperatures well in check and providing consistent and repeatable performance. One of the most impressive aspects of this latest generation supercharger system is that it can outflow the competition, using less power and provides significantly cooler discharge temperatures. The price of this kit will be determined soon.”

So great. If it will take an LT1/LT4 to “well over 1K rwhp”, surely it could take my forged LSX there or beyond.

I’m new to the site and apparently making the post too long because it’s giving me a fight to write any more onto it so I’ll post this part and continue on a reply to myself.

Last edited by Vanishing Point; 11-09-2018 at 10:34 AM.
Vanishing Point is offline  
Old 11-08-2018, 11:37 PM
  #2  
Teching In
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 12
Default

Here’s the photo they show on that page:
[img]blob:https://ls1tech.com/b52393e1-8a7c-4b...4-6d08d6d54efd
So it says “boost levels over 20lbs”. I’m curious, because that could mean 21 or 100. I dig further. I find this page:
https://www.musclecardefinition.com/...ith-1150-rwhp/

This page says:
”On top there is a Magnuson TVS 2650 Supercharger with twin 90mm throttle bodies that can produce 23psi. This Camaro also it is equipped with a 8-speed automatic transmission, skinnies at front and Mickey Thompson drag radial tires in the back. Whit this configuration, and running only at 14-15 psi and 955RWHP, this Camaro achieved a 1/4 mile time of 9.64 seconds @ 151.6 MPH.”

So 23lbs is stated as what “it can produce”. But is that only with those throttle bodies breaking through the hood? They didn’t show it with those on the Magnuson website previously mentioned above. Also, 955Rwhp with only 14-15lbs.? That’s eforce pressure. How is Magnuson 15lbs. of pressure so much different than Edelbrock’s 15lbs. of pressure?
Here’s the photo provided with this 23lbs. statement:

[img]blob:https://ls1tech.com/11f38b5e-d4b2-40...8-c1ed7ca27913

I will admit this setup is low profile enough and pretty enough, I maybe could be convinced to bust through my hood.

Then to further confuse things, I found this page about it on a Hellcat:
https://www.dragzine.com/features/se...superchargers/
with this photo:
[img]blob:https://ls1tech.com/71c68dd0-92bd-47...a-23b5acc8d971
Oddly enough, once again, it looks like a completely different unit than the other two links showed.

This page also compares and contrasts it to what it sees as its nearest competitor, a Whipple 2.9. That’s not a 1K rwhp unit, so which is it, similar to that smallish Whipple or a 1,000 - we’ll beyond, blower. Seems it couldn’t be both.

But here’s my real concern. Can this low of pressure really create that kind of power? It offers just a little more pressure than my e-force, but claims to practically double my rwhp. Can that be true? Should I wait for this? Will they make it to fit the LSX? Will I have to cut through my hood? ...and when will this thing be available for purchase?

Like I said, I’m not a racer, I’m no mechanic either. I’m really pretty ignorant about a lot of this stuff. That’s why I’m here. I have, however, been around nearly a half century and so my bs meter goes off pretty easily. Surely you real racing/mechanic guys, and not just a lead foot fanatic like myself, will know more about this. I really thank you if you do, because if true, this is worth quite a wait, but if it’s over billed bs that will never deliver its promises, I’d like to move on with something else now.

Thanks,
Jim

Last edited by Vanishing Point; 11-09-2018 at 03:45 PM.
Vanishing Point is offline  
Old 11-08-2018, 11:40 PM
  #3  
Teching In
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 12
Default

My apologies. Apparently I can’t get the photos to show. Noob.
They were straight from the links provided anyway.

i just found it odd that every time it was shown it looked like a completely different unit.
——————————————————————————————————————
A reply to my posts which was later removed, which leaves my replies making no sense, was saved by me, now pasted here (without the posters name) by me:

“They have the 2650's on Chrysler products now making 1000. You have to have the fuel system to support it. I believe they are quoting GM 2650's early next year. The prototype on the Magnuson Camaro was the twin throttle body unit. the new ones are going to be low profile like the Heartbeat with newly designed heat exchangers for cooler iat's.”



Last edited by Vanishing Point; 11-22-2018 at 12:14 AM.
Vanishing Point is offline  
Old 11-09-2018, 04:40 PM
  #4  
Teching In
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 12
Default

Thanks for sharing. That’s two solid answers, one vague answer that could use some clarifying, and one (the most important one) unaddressed by anybody yet.

I’m willing to wait up to 7 months or so. That would be the latest we could possibly consider “early next year”. - Thank you

That makes sense, prototype. They’re always flashier than the final product. It’s a dramatic presentation in that form. I guess it’s harder to market a completely under the hood, lidded product without using a little artistic creativity. It was certainly the focal point of that car. Like I said, hell it damn near changed my mind to cutting a hole in my hood. Job well done by both the marketing department and you. - Thank you

So if you would please, what did you mean by, “the fuel system to support it”? Of course one must have higher capacity fuel pumps and injectors to make big power. But the same would apply if you want that power out of any other blower. Is that what you were referring to, or is there something more to consider specifically with this blower?

Please believe me when I say I’m sure you know ten times more than me on builds and tunes. So I honestly, humbly, respectfully ask for clarification. What you said sounds like to me if we were comparing Pirelli vs. Goodyear and you said, the Goodyear performs so well because it requires proper air be put into it. Almost as if the reason the Maggie does so well is because the tuner was smart enough to give it enough gas to balance the air, which would then imply that I wasn’t giving the Edelbrock the gas it needed, and/or that other blowers aren’t given proper fuel like the Maggie is. If that’s the variable, that’s just crazy. I did upgrade my fuel system and could give the engine with the eforce more fuel than it was tuned at, but that would just make it too rich. I need more air to use more fuel. As we should assume with the tire tests, that the tester was smart enough to supply proper air in each tire and not let that be the weak variable in the evaluation of either tire, we should too assume any comparison between the two or more blowers was given enough fuel to properly test them. I feel embarrassed to make these statements because I know you know what I just said. Maybe you just spoke too quickly. Maybe I didn’t read what I thought I did. Maybe you thought it worthwhile to point out because there are many people even more ignorant about this stuff than me, and they needed to know that. Or maybe I just completely am missing some special fuel requirement which makes sense out of those unbelievable Maggie numbers. - Please Clarify

On a personal note, I upgraded my fuel system just prior to the flex fuel products which are now on the market and I didn’t want to be stuck requiring E85 only, but now I’m strongly considering replacing them with E85 flex capability. Perhaps I should just sit tight until the GM 2650 version comes out, to take it all into consideration at the same time.

Do those numbers make sense to you? 15lbs = 955rwhp? If so, what’s so magical about Maggie 15lbs as opposed to competition 15lbs? Anybody out there making Close to 1K rwhp at that pressure? - Still Hoping For Input From Anyone On If The Numbers Making Sense

I suppose if you built an engine making 900rwhp prior to being blown, you can claim your blower got you to 1,000rwhp (but so would almost any other blower at that point). The numbers wouldn’t be lying, but the devil’s in the details, if you leave that little “900 starting point” fact out, and just hope everybody thinks the engine was 500 bhp to start with, you get a lot more perceived credit for your blower than may be due. I’m not saying that’s the case here. I’m saying it’s a possibility until they provide more information. Nobody can say what portion of that power was supercharger and how much was baseline.

If they really wanted to tell us what this blower could do they would tell us what that same setup dyno’d at prior to the install. Giving half of an equation seems suspect to me. I get that it has better cooling, but is it so radically different it could result in hundreds more hp? I am fairly mechanically ignorant, so I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think ice cold air would take you from 650 rwhp (Edelbrock 15lbs) to 955 rwhp (Maggie 15lbs). I’m still doubtful this blower performs as implied, but still wanting to believe. - Thoughts On That...Anyone....Beuller?

Last edited by Vanishing Point; 11-10-2018 at 12:36 PM.
Vanishing Point is offline  
Old 11-10-2018, 10:37 AM
  #5  
Teching In
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 12
Default

So here’s what I mean about partial equations.

First, let’s look at the “musclecardefinition” link I provided above. They say, “This is the latest Magnuson Superchargers creation, and as a base, they have chosen the 2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS.”
Now that says they chose the 2016 Camaro SS to put it onto. It doesn’t say the engine it sits on is an unmodified stock 2016 Camaro SS engine (besides the ability to pump more fuel). Neither does it tell you the horsepower of engine they used without the 2650 on it. So the unfinished equation here would look like this:

(unknown base hp of the engine used in the 2016 SS Camaro) X + (Maggie @15lbs.) = 955 rwhp


Second, let’s look at dw456post’s statement. “They have 2650’s on Chrysler products now making 1000”. What Chrysler products? Are those Chrysler products unmodified (besides of course the ability to pump more fuel)? What’s the rwhp of the specific Chrysler product prior to the Maggie being installed onto it? I haven’t found that yet so I call that an unknown variable, X. So the unfinished equation here would look like this:

(unknown base rwhp of the engine used in the Chrysler product) X + (Maggie at unknown lbs.) = 1000


Third, let’s look at the dragzine link and the Magnuson link I provided above. Dragzine says, “At 707 horsepower in stock form, an outsider might see the Dodge Challenger Hellcat as potent and powerful enough already. But this isn’t a hobby that’s about settling for “just enough,” and certainly not whatever power numbers are delivered from the factory. Keeping a vehicle in factory form and not pushing the envelope just a little would defy the very essence of the high performance car culture. And so, for those fortunate owners out there of Chrysler’s menacing muscle car, Magnuson Superchargers has just the ticket with their all-new Vengeance TVS 2650 supercharger system, a 2.65-liter supercharger with a rotating group from Eaton for the Hellcat that’s intended for Chrysler’s 5.7, 6.2, and 6.4-liter engines.”

This statement, nor any other statement on that page provides any resulting hp number after adding the Maggie, so there isn’t even a partial, unfinished equation to write from this information.

That’s very similar to the Magnuson website statement, “This is the largest Supercharger Magnuson has ever developed and it's expected to produce horsepower numbers for LT1/LT4's well over 1000 RWHP with boost levels over 20 psi”.
It doesn’t say what else you might have to do to those engines to get the combination to get to the “well over 1000” mark. (and that’s with me just assuming upgraded fuel supply, exhaust and belt upgrade). I still think there might be something more needed.


Fourth, let’s look at my ride. Forged 409 LSX. I’m going to revert back prior to meth and last pulley change, and prior to the tranny/driveshaft/rear end swaps. So from tranny back (including the tranny) it was stock. The Edelbrock e-force was making 15 lbs. It dyno’d at 636 rwhp. Yeah, it had the basics to allow that power such as upgraded fuel pump and injectors and 3” Magnaflow, bigger belt. I don’t consider those engine modifications, just the standard support peripherals to allow the supercharger to make more power. You put more air in so you can put more fuel in, so you can burn more gas to make more spin and exhaust. You really can’t leave any of that out. It’s all part of a supercharger add on, not what I would call engine modifications. I’m assuming that much is being added to the other two cars above, from whatever their base rwhp was.
A problem with my car in making an equation is I don’t know what my engine would dyno’d at without the Edelbrock. So my unfinished equation here would look like this:

(409 LSX w/ Edelbrock @15lbs.) = 636 rwhp. - Edelbrock SC = (unknown rwhp) X + (Maggie at 15lbs.) = Y

I guess I have a hard time believing I should complete the equation like this:

(409 LSX w/ Edelbrock @15lbs.) = 636 rwhp - 15lbs +15lbs (Maggie) = 955 rwhp.
Like they said the Maggie at 15lbs. obtained for the 2016 Camaro SS. Either that (Maggie) is a magical 15lbs. or the Edelbrock 15lbs. is a horribly substandard 15lbs. or my engine is horribly substandard to a 2016 SS stock engine. Or that SS engine had some incredible work done to it to take it well beyond stock and well beyond my 409.


Or what I really want to know is:

(409 LSX w/ Edelbrock @15lbs.) = 636 rwhp. - Edelbrock SC = (unknown rwhp) X + (Maggie at 23lbs.) = Z
If Z will get me to 1000rwhp.

If either of the the first two equations were complete, it would help me complete my unknown equation to a much more accurate guess. But I’ve not yet seen a completed 2650 equation. I’ve seen a lot of (we hope you fill in a number here that makes this thing look amazing). I’ve seen a lot of “just assume” the engine is completely stock besides allowing for the ability to supply more fuel, more air in and out, and a belt to hold the spin.

What is conspicuously missing everywhere is a statement such as, we took a stock SS engine (or Hellcat engine) making xxx rwhp and added X,Y, and Z and made 1000 rwhp. That is what the guy on the street wants to know. Why do you think they don’t explicitly state that in no uncertain terms? I don’t know, but I find it suspect. I guess I’ll wait a while to see when it finally releases, when somebody out there completes an equation.

But I’m not sure how long I can hold my breath since the dragzine website article said, “According to Mernone, Magnuson hopes to have the Chevrolet product lineup ready for production in the latter part of Q1 next year.”
And that article was dated November 3, 2016.

———————- Edit. Add on. ——————-


Ok, so only after writing all of this dead I realize our very own website put this product front and center as soon as you bring up the homepage, as I was in the forums and hadn’t restarted the site. That’s truly coincidental. Anyway, nothing’s changed. Here’s the quote relating to the closest thing they have to an honest equation. “Fed by a big red blower, Magnuson’s 2016 Camaro SS no longer produces 455 horses, but a bonkers 1,150 at the rear set of Mickey Thompsons at 23 pounds of boost.”

Let’s break that down. It says the 2016 Camaro SS is no longer 455 horses. It says it is now at 1,150. It says it’s fed by a big red blower at 23 lbs. This is still not saying 455 + X, Y, Z = 1,150. All of the statements can be true but it still doesn’t exclude some other unnamed factors, such as major engine work also having been done.

Now I may sound like a cynical *******, but come on, don’t we all live in the same world where the need to be cynical is beyond a need to prove why? I still go back to why don’t they give a simple equation showing stock to 1,150 rwhp? That would remove all question. It didn’t cross their minds? Or there’s a good reason not to divulge that? I have my doubts in them because they know what we’d like to see and withhold it, and because the numbers just don’t make sense. I truly hope, my suspicions are unwarranted and this is the product I hope it is, that they imply it is.

Oh, and our own article says, “As for when you’ll be able to get our hands on Magnuson’s new masterpiece, the company says you’ll have to wait until March 2019 at the earliest.”
See, that right there speaks to the techniques I’ve been suspecting with cynicism all along. What does that statement say? You won’t be able to get one up to March 2019. It doesn’t say you will be able to get one come March 2019. That statement can be true, along with the truth that they won’t be released for the next 5 years. But we, eager to be excited about this, tend to ignore the last few words and hear only March 2019. They state things in such a way as to let you fill in the blanks that you wish to be true. Maybe it will be out in March of 2019, but they certainly didn’t say that.

We wont know **** until whenever it comes out, and until somebody provides a real baseline +X+Y+Z = ? rwhp. I know if I wait for it and it’s not what it’s been implied to be, I’d never listen to anything Magnuson has to say again. And if it is what has been implied, I’ll be happy about it, and still my speculation was warranted by the way they avoided clear statements.

Last edited by Vanishing Point; 11-10-2018 at 10:24 PM.
Vanishing Point is offline  
Old 11-14-2018, 11:35 PM
  #6  
Teching In
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 12
Default

A reply to my posts which was later removed, which leaves my replies making no sense, was saved by me, now pasted here (without the poster’s name) by me.

“Magnuson's Camaro has Lingenfelter30% over-- hi pressure pump. Ling 30% oversize LT4 injectors and a Fore triple pump. 16 injectors. 8 direct injected, 8 port injected. 9.14 @153 on stock trans and 416 stroker.”

———————————————————————————————————
Thanks dw,
It was in your last two “words”: 419 Stroker. Except you left out heads and cam shaft.
I finally found the build sheet once you drop the arrow down on the YouTube run

Build is as follows:
2016 6th Gen Camaro 2SS A8
Manley Products 416 Stroker Kit
Livernois Performance ported heads and cam
Magnuson TVS 2650 Supercharger at 15psi
TWIN 90mm throttle bodies
TWIN 105mm MAF meters
MAF Fusion controller for MAFs and additional injectors
American Racing Headers (2" pri, 3.5" coll) Full System Quad Tips
LT4 HP fuel pump
LT4 fuel injectors
8 additional 65lb/hr port injectors
Weldon 1100 in-line booster pump with ZL1 in-tank fuel pump
Carlyle Racing 15" rear conversion kit

As I’ve said several times before, if you know even as little as I do, you know you have to support the supercharger with additional air/exhaust, fuel, and belts. Also the stock transmission and rear end will not hold up at 1000hp, so you ought to change them instead of waiting until they break (like mine did at 636rwhp. First the tranny, then later the rear end). I accept ALL of that as a given, necessary support just to allow and support the supercharger to make that extra hp out of the engine. If it wasn’t mentioned, I’d assume all that anyway.

The part that I don’t count as honest and upfront is turning the 376 stock engine into a 416 Stroker, and swapping cam and heads to make the engine itself make much more hp, then not mentioning that, then stating just the part about adding the supercharger to a 2016 Camaro SS and mentioning the combined hp from both supercharger AND engine transformation, in a way to imply it all came from the supercharger. That’s intentionally misleading. I don’t know how many would admit it, but I’m sure there’s many out there who were thinking this supercharger could get 1000rwhp out of their Camaro engine (with the expected peripheral support). But they don’t have this 416 Stroker engine, only the block.

Finding a build list answers the question of why the numbers didn’t make sense. Major engine work was done to the stock engine, until the only thing stock about it is the block. Unfortunately, what it doesn’t do is give us a real baseline. I’d love to know what everything in that build list above, minus the Maggie, would make rwhp. Then we could know exactly what effect (how much rwhp) just the Maggie made, so we could compare it to other superchargers. Then potential buyers like me could have a reasonable guess what it would do for our own builds. But they don’t want to isolate that. They’d rather hide the blower‘s numbers in with the engine transformation numbers.

Thanks again for jumping in. I appreciate that at least somebody chimed in on this. As for me, I’ll wait a while. After it comes out, I’ll see what others’ builds quote as baseline and then Maggie net gain and then guess where it will take mine. My guess is, the reason for all this three card Monty game playing bs is, I need to get the ProCharger to get the power I’m looking for.

Last edited by Vanishing Point; 11-22-2018 at 12:13 AM.
Vanishing Point is offline  
Old 11-18-2018, 02:34 PM
  #7  
Teching In
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 12
Default

A reply to my posts which was later removed, which leaves my replies making no sense, was saved by me, now pasted here (without the poster’s name) by me.

“This Camaro has gone thru a bunch of changes. First it was bone stock with a 2.3 heartbeat. They took it to the limit of the stock parts and had to start updating. When the first 2650 was made, it was installed, run and they found out a bunch of more changes were needed just to use the extra airflow. It's just like any other build that you have to keep adding parts as the power goes up. The stock engine will only go to a certain power level with the components it has from the factory. The stock engine is not capable of using all the power the 2650 will make, so how do you create a baseline. Keep adding boost until it blows up? Same thing with a Procharger or turbo's.”

————————————————————————————————————-

Quote dw456post;
”...so how do you create a baseline. Keep adding boost until it blows up?”

I already answered that. Quote myself:
“...what it doesn’t do is give us a real baseline. I’d love to know what everything in that build list above, minus the Maggie, would make rwhp.”

So if that’s not crystal clear, they could unbolt the Maggie, get a shorter belt, retune, then dyno test again. That would be a baseline that would tell us how much rwhp the Maggie is adding to that set up, as I said, “...so we could compare it to other superchargers. Then potential buyers like me could have a reasonable guess what it would do for our own builds.” As far as I’m concerned, any baseline that finishes an equation will help to narrow the guesswork down. We have none so far. The more the better. That one (416 Stroker) would probably be much more useful to me than a stock engine equation.

Besides that, we have a stock engine baseline; 455hp (at the crank) from the factory. Various shops dyno’d getting 409 - 425rwhp. What you’re suggesting (blowing up the engine) would not be a baseline. It would be the stock engine after the Maggie was bolted on pushing big air (for a stock engine) into it. That’s effect (result). But it is the missing half of the equation that we’d need with that set up to know anything about how much power the Maggie would add. See they’ve even confused their supporters. I know it’s confusing. They give the baseline on stock, but not the result. They give the result on the 416 Stroker, but not the baseline. They just give random numbers on all other set ups.

As to your statement: “The stock engine is not capable of using all of the power the 2650 will make,...”:

Well then that’s even more misleading isn’t it? You just changed the issue from bullshit numbers to complete incompatibility. If you can’t (fully) use this thing on a 2016 Camaro SS engine, why don’t they ever say that? Why don’t they say it would be overkill unless you transformed that engine into some other engine? Why don’t they tell potential buyers, if you are not willing to rebuild this engine from the block up, you might as well not consider this unit, and just buy something less powerful instead of wasting your money on power potential you’ll never use?

I’m not sure, but I bet Magnuson is not onboard with using the defensive angle that implies that all of the stock owners (that I feel they’ve been targeting with this thing) shouldn’t consider it, because it’s overkill if they don’t plan on a different engine. In my opinion, that hasn’t been their message at all. In my opinion, the marketing suggests usage on stock engines. It was 455, we bolted this on, now it’s 1150. You are saying what they have avoided saying, and though I bet they wouldn’t like it, I agree with you. It is 455, if you put this on at full power you’ll soon seriously damage your engine, so buy something with less power.

And as far as that goes, that stock transmission won’t live under that power either, but they left that in. My builder told me my 2011 tranny was good to about 800hp. We kept my tune under that. I quickly burned it up anyway. Magnuson doesn’t know that they had to change that transmission for any semblance of a realistic build? That it won’t live at 1200hp plus? Or is it more likely that they knew if they put a 4L80E in theirs like I did (you did, and many others have), they’d actually experience a reduction in rwhp because that bigger, stronger tranny sucks more power to turn? (I had to rebuild that power with meth and a faster pulley).

So they left the stock tranny on to maximize numbers, knowing it’s probably only good for a few runs. I don’t see why they couldn’t or wouldn’t do the same thing with a stock engine, just to build an unrealistic number about it as well. I know you made that sound crazy (and I agree with you), but it’s no more crazy than knowingly doing that with the transmission. It all depends on your goals. If the point is to build unrealistically to get unrealistic numbers, why not?

I believe the answer is, they weren’t trying to give unrealistic engine numbers. They aren’t selling engines. They were focused on unrealistic blower numbers. If toasting a stock engine would have accomplished that, and they were willing to toast a tranny to accomplish that, why wouldn’t they be willing to toast a stock engine? Because a stock engine (even when pushed well beyond sustainability) still wouldn’t reach those power level numbers they wanted to post, and they could practically hide the engine work anyway by mentioning the engine transformation under a drop down area on a different site, and then still implying all over the rest of the internet that it was a stock engine. No benefit in leaving the engine stock under those circumstances, like there was in leaving the tranny stock. Perhaps that’s why they ran it at 14-15 lbs first, to hopefully get at least one run out of it before they might destroy that tranny at 23lbs.

Last edited by Vanishing Point; 11-22-2018 at 12:18 AM.
Vanishing Point is offline  
Old 11-22-2018, 12:39 AM
  #8  
Teching In
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 12
Default

I half expected to have this thread removed because it speaks truthful, negative opinions about a big player in the business (sponsor?). I copied it all to repost elsewhere if need be. I’m an honest potential customer who was suggested to consider this product. I did. What precedes are my honest consumer findings. I was careful to state throughout that the opinions were my opinions (as opposed to facts), which I’m entitled to voice. I’m impressed and thankful this site has the integrity to let an opinion like this stand.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Last edited by Vanishing Point; 11-22-2018 at 01:11 AM.
Vanishing Point is offline  
Old 11-22-2018, 02:10 AM
  #9  
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,099
Default

Originally Posted by Vanishing Point View Post

Do those numbers make sense to you? 15lbs = 955rwhp? If so, what’s so magical about Maggie 15lbs as opposed to competition 15lbs? Anybody out there making Close to 1K rwhp at that pressure? - Still Hoping For Input From Anyone On If The Numbers Making Sense
Sorry I'm not reading all that crap you posted but will answer the question above.
Yes, those numbers make sense if you have the right combination, I have a 408 running an old school GM style roots blower that made well over 900hp on 15psi, The Magnuson is a more efficient blower than the old GM style so it makes the same boost with less parasitic loss. So on a dyno my engine would show more crankshaft HP with the same boost number with the Magnuson and would even make more power yet with a properly matched turbo.
My engine is a low compression large cam combination built for boost and would be a complete dog without it. Before you ask why my engine can make that number on only 15lbs, It's a combination of good parts built for a specific purpose and it starts with the cnc ported AFR heads and custom FTI camshaft.

As far as the mythical supercharger is concerned ( Remember I didn't read the diary you posted) Did you call Magnuson and ask them when/if the supercharger will be available?
LLLosingit is offline  
Old 11-22-2018, 02:55 PM
  #10  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
99 Black Bird T/A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,777
Default

Forged LSX 409 or Forged LTX 409?

I would imagine some of the Magnuson 2650 excellent efficiency quoted in Gen V LT applications is related to being installed on a Direct Injection Gen V LT engine.

DI is typically capable of running more compression and more efficient combustion in most applications.

If your engine is an LS type engine I doubt it would make the same power with the Mag 2650 as a direct injection LT type engine with everything else equal.
99 Black Bird T/A is offline  
Old 11-23-2018, 10:15 PM
  #11  
Teching In
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 12
Default

Quote (keyboard warrior)
“Sorry I’m not going to read all that crap you posted”

Nobody’s making you read ****. Don’t want to read it, don’t read it. Apparently you wanted to. And apparently you need to deny reading the parts of it you can’t deal with. I don’t need your apology for exceeding your reading level. Anybody with any intelligence listens (in this case reads) before opening their mouth (in this case typing a reply). You brag about not doing that as if it makes you superior. Generally if you want to reply, you should read what your replying to. But you’re free to do and show what you like. The internet is full of people who don’t read an article or post, but then show their ignorance by giving their input on what was just said, and asking questions that were answered in what they refused to read. And of course, expect others to point out again, what they skipped. But I don’t think that’s what we’re dealing with here. Funny how you know what I wrote is “crap” but you didn’t read it. Also funny how you picked different issues to address from different parts of my posts, somehow jumping to just the parts you wanted to reply to without reading the in between. Seems more likely you did read it and though you don’t like what I wrote, you just don’t have the ability to argue against it.

As for the bulk of what you wrote:

As I said in my posts, I am ignorant to a lot of build and tuner knowledge so as I said, I was honestly and humbly asking. And had you not come off like an ******* for no reason, I would have very much thanked you for your input. I stated more than once that some of the vague assertions about this unit could be true, and that I hope they are. That tells you I don’t know and I’m honestly asking. That said, there’s very little useful detail in your post. Instead of a baseline, we’re given, “would be a complete dog without it”. That’s not the kind of factual documentation that means much to me. I’m not any more inclined to accept your vague descriptions than Magnuson’s. There’s a big difference between ignorance and stupidity. Though I may not have accumulated the knowledge I would like to have in this area, I am smart enough to know when somebody’s pissing on my boots and telling me it’s a rain storm. And I’m smart enough to know that “believe me you buddy” is not a fact.

As for “As far as the mythical supercharger is concerned ( Remember I didn’t read the diary you posted). Did you call Magnuson and ask them when/if the supercharger will be available?”

Well again, if you did read before speaking (I know, you’re too superior for that, so I’ll spoon feed it to you) you would have seen these quotes from me:
“But I’m not sure how long I can hold my breath since the Dragzine website article said, “According to Mernone, Magnuson to have the Chevrolet product lineup ready for production in the latter part of Q1 next year.”
And that article was dated November 3, 2016”

”Oh, and our own article says, “As for when you’ll be able to get our hands on Magnuson’s new masterpiece, the company says you’ll have to wait until March 2019, at the earliest.”


So in the first case Magnuson said two years ago it would be out in the first quarter of the next year. It wasn’t, so I don’t see a purpose in getting words from them if their words can’t be counted on to within 2 years accuracy. And in the second case this website had an article up on the homepage as I typed this post, quoting Magnuson on what they had to say about a release date. That’s as recent as an answer as could be given, and to a bigger entity than myself. I have no expectation that they were going to give me different information than they gave ls1tech, or that it would be any more credible than what they told Dragzine.
Vanishing Point is offline  
Old 11-23-2018, 10:24 PM
  #12  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (26)
 
ddnspider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 7,941
Default

Since you're saying you're humbly asking ....the reason people are irritated is you wrote a bound volume of information under the guise of asking a question. When people come into a car forum thread and they have to scroll multiple times for a single post, especially since many use their cell phones these days, it gets tiring and you end up with short and typically sarcastic replies.

Anyways, another member on here has been looking at the large Magnuson like you and I think Harrop was working on something too but never heard about anything materializing.
ddnspider is online now  
Old 11-23-2018, 10:46 PM
  #13  
Teching In
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 12
Default

Quote 99 Blackbird T/A: “Forged LSX 409 or forged LTX 409?“ “If your engine is an LS type engine...”

I’m not sure if you’re trying to say I’m too stupid to know what engine is in my car or if you’re suggesting I might be lying about it. Either way, I think that says more about you than me.

So since we’re questioning engine identification, Quote 99 Blackbird T/A: “I would imagine some of the Magnuson 2650 excellent efficiency quoted in Gen V LT applications...”

I thought 2016 was Gen VI?

Otherwise, besides the insults and inaccuracies, it seems like you might have a good point. Thank you.

Last edited by Vanishing Point; 11-23-2018 at 11:47 PM.
Vanishing Point is offline  
Old 11-23-2018, 10:52 PM
  #14  
Teching In
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 12
Default

Originally Posted by ddnspider View Post
Since you're saying you're humbly asking ....the reason people are irritated is you wrote a bound volume of information under the guise of asking a question. When people come into a car forum thread and they have to scroll multiple times for a single post, especially since many use their cell phones these days, it gets tiring and you end up with short and typically sarcastic replies.

Anyways, another member on here has been looking at the large Magnuson like you and I think Harrop was working on something too but never heard about anything materializing.
So now I didn’t ask a question, it was a “guise”. Ok. See what you want. I asked a question which was no small thing. It was a confessed ignorant to tuning novice questioning an industry major player on their accuracy. I feel such an audacious question deserves a background of why I would even ask it.

And if people are frustrated using their phones, that’s not my concern. They don’t have to read it. They don’t have to reply to it. If it’s a problem for them, they could just move on to the next thread. Reading it, and being upset with others that they did is childish. God forbid they get a tool that fits the internet better, when you can just get mad at everything on the internet for not dumbing down to conform to your 3” screen. Man up and take some personal responsibility for your choices.

Thanks for your product input.

It’s obvious I touched a nerve with many. I’m not a social media guy, and just plain not very social. I don’t have a Facebook page nor have I been a member of any site like this in the past. The world has many ******** and I’d just rather not. Just look at the mentality it breeds. Still, my passion for speed led me to this. The suggestion I look at this product started with the question and led to a bit of an expose. I’ll admit that. But all that was revealed to me just by looking was all pertinent to the original question, and the credibility of their claims. Your point, though given with an inaccurate accusation and insult, is valid. The internet is known for shortening people’s attention spans. I exceeded that average span, but their addiction wouldn’t let them ignore it. I forced them to read it all, and to reply. They had no choice. That makes me worthy of keyboard warrior attacks I suppose.

But it just may be that the new guy saw what you look at daily, under a fresh light that maybe you don’t see it as. Maybe the truth hurts, especially if you support that company (and I’m sure they’re not the only one) or were ignorant to the insulting tactics used on us, or believed that there was any “journalism” out there, rather than just promotional sites printing whatever Magnuson tells them to print without question. Or maybe the worse sin of all, destroying the enjoyment of being so excited about potentially false hype. Truth hurts. Kill the messenger.

And yes, seeing all that in my research, I still had the question if it could be real numbers. I want to believe the hype as much as the next guy. I was hoping somebody would prove my suspicions wrong. I guess that’s why I felt it pertinent to state them and support them.

Don’t worry. I’ve learned my lesson. I’m done.

Last edited by Vanishing Point; 11-24-2018 at 02:49 AM.
Vanishing Point is offline  
Old 11-24-2018, 03:48 AM
  #15  
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,099
Default

Edited: lol

Last edited by LLLosingit; 11-24-2018 at 10:50 AM.
LLLosingit is offline  
Old 11-24-2018, 08:29 AM
  #16  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (26)
 
ddnspider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 7,941
Default

OP is completely correct, none of other people's issues are his concern....then again you did get on a forum to ask for input.....but your arrogance is not our concern either....hence no input is being given due to your lack of curtesy and immediately being defensive to any constructive criticism.
ddnspider is online now  
Old 11-24-2018, 09:34 AM
  #17  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
99 Black Bird T/A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,777
Default

Originally Posted by Vanishing Point View Post
Quote 99 Blackbird T/A: “Forged LSX 409 or forged LTX 409?“ “If your engine is an LS type engine...”

I’m not sure if you’re trying to say I’m too stupid to know what engine is in my car or if you’re suggesting I might be lying about it. Either way, I think that says more about you than me.

So since we’re questioning engine identification, Quote 99 Blackbird T/A: “I would imagine some of the Magnuson 2650 excellent efficiency quoted in Gen V LT applications...”

I thought 2016 was Gen VI?

Otherwise, besides the insults and inaccuracies, it seems like you might have a good point. Thank you.

Here are more good point to consider.

This the 2010-2015 Camaro section which is for vehicles with L99/LS3/LS7 Gen IV engines. From your completely incoherent ramblings it wasn't at all clear you have a 2016 Camaro with a Gen V.
​​​​​
Here are links to 6th Gen 2016+ Camaro, Gen V engine and forced induction. They might prove helpful. Picking up the phone and calling Maggie will probably get you the most information.

2016+ Camaro

and

Gen V Engine

and

Forced Induction


Given your failed communications posted above that others referenced there was no reason to assume anything so I asked for clarification. Takes a hypersensitive snowflake on a online forum to find insult where none was intended. I've seen folks like that in the past online and it usually indicates a host of quirks. Going forward writing in a semi coherent concise manner with a less pompous arrogant hyperbole would also be beneficial.
​​​
Have a nice day & good luck with everything


.

Last edited by 99 Black Bird T/A; 11-24-2018 at 09:45 AM.
99 Black Bird T/A is offline  
Old 11-24-2018, 09:18 PM
  #18  
9 Second Club
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norn Iron
Posts: 12,006
Default

Was there a question in here ? lol
stevieturbo is offline  


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: