We obviously cannot force anyone to refrain from “diddling” with our superchargers, but we will not under any circumstances encourage or endorse ANYONE to “port” our products. So, let’s stop this right now, before it gets started and our customers waste a lot of money. First of all, “porting” will void the warranty and can create serious problems for our customers. We do not recommend changing ANYTHING on these superchargers. We perceive that to be our job. The Kenne Bell Twin Screw Superchargers are FAR more complex than porting Eatons, heads or throttle bodies, which are “child’s play” as compared to Twin Screw flow and temperature technology. What’s done to the Eaton’s or Lysholm’s is none of our business. Cast aluminum is rougher with MORE jagged edges than billet. Consider this: Our Twin Screws cannot be accurately tested for temperature, volumetric and adiabatic efficiency on a simple flow bench. Oops! Instead, testing and development requires a special 150HP flow bench with all the necessary monitoring sensors and the rotors SPINNING at 10,000-25,000 rpm UNDER FULL BOOST! Our Twin Screws can’t be accurately tested on a common static flow bench. The Twin Screw is an air compressor and not a “blower.” There IS a difference. One must fully understand the basic principles of the Twin Screw and the relationship between the rotating rotors under pressure and the inlet and outlet plates. For example: We use different CNC machined billet inlet and discharge passages for the various sized superchargers. And there are good reasons why part of the inlet plate opening is BLOCKED OFF and why we actually REDUCE the discharge openings on some models. “Rounding” certain areas will hurt efficiency, not help it. There is a before and after photo of a radiused discharge. Never do this to a KB - NEVER.Then there’s rotor length, helix angle, bore size, etc., etc. and how they affect flow AT DIFFERENT BOOST LEVELS and PRESSURE RATIOS. Simply stated, there is more to the Twin Screw than hogging out and rounding off openings and drilling some extra holes. We are perfectly capable of analyzing our own product modifications. We’ve “been there and done that” already. Our advice. Don’t let anyone screw with your Kenne Bell Twin Screw i.e. “porting” or “rebuilding.” We apologize for being so blunt, but our #1 concern at Kenne Bell remains our customers.
P.S. No, “the Twin Screw doesn’t move a large volume of air due to a high pitch rotor design.” That is not true. Also, ALL blowers “run hot (hotter) when boosted up” and porting our Twin Screw doesn’t “reduce the heat” and “increase performance” - nor does it “add life” to our Twin Screw. We may all like to think there is some magic undiscovered porting science here, but - the choice is yours.
Rebuilding? This requires special tools and fixtures. We use different rotor clearance depending on the kit. And your warranty isn’t affected.
The Kenne Bell is 100% CNC machined billet parts. Who in their right mind is going to have someone grind on these precision flow passages?
Do you really want someone grinding on your Kenne Bell billet Twin Screw?
[IMG][/IMG]
Great post James. I don't know what that dude (we all know who he is) is thinking. Oh wait, I know what he's thinking..... Make money and ruin KB's....LOL...
____________________________________ 2008 Black Toyota Tundra 4X4 DC Limited
____________________________________ 2003 Lightning 10.50 @ 128.50
AVT built & Tuned(843-365-6918/Conway, SC), Ford GT Block, 3.4 Whipple Supercharger, BTS Tranny, Detroit Truetrac, and QA-1's all around. New Motor Combo coming!!!
And there are good reasons why part of the inlet plate opening is BLOCKED OFF and why we actually REDUCE the discharge openings on some models.
This is interesting as JLP's inlet plenum for the 2.3 removes the inlet block off plate that comes with the blower. So James what your saying is that if we were to use one of these intake plenums we would be hurting the performance of the supercharger? And also what is the reason for the inlet block off plate?
____________________________________
Current Mods:
KB 2.6L, LFP Ported Heads, LFP Stage II Cams, True Track, PSP line lock, JLP VB, LFP 4# Lower Pulley, 55# Injectors, MAF.i.a., Predator - Tuned by RWTD, 170* Tstat, NGK TR6, AutoMeter Phantom Boost/Vac, Trans temp, Oil pressure, TA Performance Rear end Cover, Dynojet WBC, Metco lowers
Upcoming Mods:
Dual 255 Fuel Pumps, DS Loop, S/B T/B
I think they probably designed the 2.3L KB that way so JL could sell some plenums. Remember, JL did the first tests on this blower for KB. It's a win-win situation for KB and JLP. If people want to buy the blower and not the JLP Plenum, they can. If people want to buy the JLP Plenum, they can remove the plate and use one. If that was their intention, that would be very smart business.
That's the only reason I can see for the plate. Otherwise the top opening would be casted the same size as the stock plenum...
This is interesting as JLP's inlet plenum for the 2.3 removes the inlet block off plate that comes with the blower. So James what your saying is that if we were to use one of these intake plenums we would be hurting the performance of the supercharger? And also what is the reason for the inlet block off plate?
the JLP Upper adds 33rwhp...so its definitly not a bad thing to do...
Thats my point. So if removing the plate does not have any ill effects on the blower and actually helps its performance why wouldnt porting it help also?
Thats my point. So if removing the plate does not have any ill effects on the blower and actually helps its performance why wouldnt porting it help also?
So if a manufacturer says their product will produce 600HP at the wheels by adding it you would belive them and buy their product? Just because they "say so" doesnt mean anything most people on this board realize this already as so many manufacturers make emty clames of HP/TQ. This is no different you cant just take what a manufacturer says at face value.
Last edited by supragod98; 07-02-2006 at 11:20 PM.
I wasnt talking about warranties. And as for altering intake and outlet openings thats the point of porting something. If removing the inlet plate allows more air to flow into the compressor so would opening up the inlet on the supercharger itself. All I'm saying is what James posted in his first post is not entirely true so how can we take the entire post as gospel when there is a contradictory statement in it? I'm not knocking KB or supporting Steig I just want to know the whole story. As far as porting a KB unless I see diffinitive data that says it helps I would not do it myself. What I know though is that there is not product on the planet that is perfect and could not be improved upon. If porting a KB destroys it and hurts performance then so be it. But untill we actually get real world data on it I dont think anyone can really say. So if there is data please put it out there so we can have all the info to make our own judgment.
Last edited by supragod98; 07-03-2006 at 07:45 PM.
Kenne Bell and Whipple did not leave anything on the table, they went through trial and tribulations during research and development. This is the optimal and most efficient design, I think we can all be rest assured of this. Whipple saw an opportunity to improve the design and gave use the new W140ax, the only reason Whipple went with a bigger port opening is because they went with a larger compressor. There are tolerances that are set in place that should not be modified. Personally I think in a twin-screw application. Increasing clearance will increase operating temperature apically around the rotor blades.
I would assume that the plate is held on with screws for a reason. As someone else said KB and JL have worked together before and are now. They designed it so the plate could easily be removed to add a larger plenum. If they didn't want you to add a larger plenum they likely would have not had a plate. Unscrewing something is different than grinding on the blower case.
____________________________________
2002 Silver SVT Lightning
stock save a JLP intake (for now)
its simple people are going way to far to make some money. as soon as i read the thread stating they ported kbs i want to throw up... if you need more money get a second job, dont ruin someone elses work.
____________________________________
my rides
07 Acura KBP TL Type S... Baby hauler.(mods to come)
02 tru blue lightning, lfp heat exchange, jlp cai, jlp 5lb lower, ractive exhaust, and xcal 2 tune by performance evolution, on f1's and full weight 12.60 @ 109 with a 1.87 60' (sold)
red 05 r1 seat cowl, fender eliminator,frame sliders,two bros exhaust, flushmounts, and integrated turn signal. (sold)
Kenne Bell and Whipple did not leave anything on the table, they went through trial and tribulations during research and development. This is the optimal and most efficient design, I think we can all be rest assured of this. Whipple saw an opportunity to improve the design and gave use the new W140ax, the only reason Whipple went with a bigger port opening is because they went with a larger compressor. There are tolerances that are set in place that should not be modified. Personally I think in a twin-screw application. Increasing clearance will increase operating temperature apically around the rotor blades.
So does NASA on a mutli million dollar space shuttle and they still have problems and make improvments so whats your point? Any time something is mass produced they have to take some shortcuts in order to make it affordable enough to be a viable product on the market. There is always room for improvment. Like I stated in my previouse post I am neither supporting or bashing anyone. But untill I see some kind of test data proveing or disproveing the porting of a twin screw I will not doubt either side. Since no one has posted anything supporting either side I am not going to change my stance.
So does NASA on a mutli million dollar space shuttle and they still have problems and make improvments so whats your point? Any time something is mass produced they have to take some shortcuts in order to make it affordable enough to be a viable product on the market. There is always room for improvment. Like I stated in my previouse post I am neither supporting or bashing anyone. But untill I see some kind of test data proveing or disproveing the porting of a twin screw I will not doubt either side. Since no one has posted anything supporting either side I am not going to change my stance.
you are wrong on this one, As a mechanical engineer who specializes in fluid mechanics and heat transfer I can tell you that what james posted was entirely accurate.
twin screws and roots are 2 different ball games. Do some research and find out how a twin screw compresses air, then you'll realize that porting will do no good.
I do know how a twin screw compressor works as I have been in the HVAC design industry for the last 6 years dealing with twin screw, scroll, centrifugal, recip and other types of compressors. If you know about fluid dynamics then you do know that any reduction in pressure loss in any application will increase efficiency. Like I posted form the start I want to see test data. If KB did do testing they should have this test data lying around. If they don’t then how do they know or anyone else for that matter what porting will do. I am not looking at the porting voiding the warranty. I am looking at how this affects the performance of the supercharger. Since I have not heard any response from either vender it seems to me that both do not have any data to back up what they are claiming. So right now its all smoke and mirrors to me.
I will talk with Jim Bell to see what kind of data that we have that we can post up. There have been literally thousands of test done. There has been testing done to inlet and discharge openings. Not just smoothing out but different openings as well as shapes.
[/IMG]
Linear Mode
