KB 2.8H vs TVS dyno tests

[Kenne Bell]

KB2.8H VS. TVS DYNO TESTS 5.0 MUSTANG & SUPER FORDS MAGAZINE

The June ‘09 issue of 5.0 Mustang & Fast Fords Magazine features a great in depth back to back no variable Dynojet comparisons on a 725HP Shelby Super Snake with the same tune, same dyno etc.
No driver’s weight, drag strip, “Tune” (Conservative or aggressive), header, dyno, temp, altitude etc. variables. Both kits were tested with the same AFR, timing and pulley size by Tech Editor Richard Holdener. So there were no tuning variables to skew the test results.

This is the same car that ran 10.84@134mph on pump gas!

Here's the link!
Mustang GT500 Supercharger Tests - 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords Magazine

[SpdPilot]

Wow! You know I like you guys and all, but clearly from a Technical persons perspective, you obviously had a significant hand in that article.

I just got to say something here. I do think the Twin Screw is a "slightly" better design then the TVS and much better then the standard roots, BUT that article was mostly a infomercial with many facts lost in the depth of numbers tossed around.

I don't blame you for posting it or using it. You would be fools not too. If I were Joe consumer, the first thing I would want to do is to put KB on my GT500, as that article makes you think you are nobody until you do. These are the same guys I meet at the track when I race my GT500 who don't even own the same car and will quote facts from articles like that. They drive me crazy.

The fact is, you know (and the magazine editor) that people on a regular basis are pushing the factory Eaton to much greater numbers on the cheap. No one pushing up the boost on a Eaton is going to leave the factory intake track? And TVS when pushed does way better then those numbers. But the only Supercharger in article pushed hard was the KB, making it look even that much better. And oddly enough, the whipple is missing from the article. Put the blowers in real world conditions and push them, the KB and Whipple would certainly end up on top, but the TVS wouldn't be that far behind and the factory Eaton might even seem like a keeper for some who want only a certain amount of HP. To me, its more about justifying the cost of such an upgrade.

Every manufacturer is doing it. And many performance shops who also build cars with these kits. But in my opinion, its cloudy numbers are getting out of hand. I love your guys products, but come on, enough already. How about some clear real world bolt on the kit AND needed supporting mods numbers.

[JustinTime]

Neat article. Kinda. You guys should've slowed down your 2.8H to where it was making the same boost as the TVS. Those results would've been interesting and more powerful of a message of how great your Twin Screw is over the TVS. That is unless the Twin Screw wouldn't have come out the victor. Asking you to slow down the twin screw to the same boost level as you did during your boost bash part 1 and 2 listed on your website isn't an unreasonable request. You did that in previous tests to show a true efficiency difference between the M112 and the 2.2L KB. It isn't a big deal for any blower to make more power than another when more boost is applied. Of course your blower making 5.5 more psi will make more power. Your data logging is what makes me respect you guys. To be quite honest...I'm disapointed with the article too.

[Nathan'sTsi]

I think comparing blowers with the same pulley size is sort of ....crappy. People don't set out to run "x" size pulley, they order the pulley need for them to run "y" psi. Therefore, the testing should have been done with the boost at a constant number, not the pulley size.
Gee, the bigger blower makes more boost with the same size pulley. Who would have predicted that?

[GT500R]

I agree with the above. Why not test the Whipple 2.9 vs the KB 2.8, see who comes out on top then

[Kenne Bell]

The results may not be what you would have liked to see but we offer this for consideration.

1. Richard Holdener is probably the most qualified Tech writers in the business. He tells it like it is-like it or not.

2. This was a comparison between 50 state legal kits. That’s what enthusiast buy. The reason there are test’s like this between TVS and KB is to illustrate the differences in the kits with the same pulley size. Remember when many believed that a TVS 2.3 could actually out perform a Kenne Bell 2.8H? We do. This article clearly proves the 2.3 TVS cannot match the KB 2.8H in airflow and HP.

3.”Real word” is that same 100% stock Ford Shelby GT500 engine with a KB2.8H on a Shelby SuperSnake turning 10.87/134 with a 3" pulley and 94 octane with the editor of MM&FF Magazine driving the car. This same engine made 809HP on an engine dyno for MM&FF and over 900HP with the 2.8" pulley.

These tests would lead one to believe that the KB2.8H is far more then “slightly” better than a TVS. Tests on our own cars and dyno’s match the mm&FF test data. I don’t know how much more “real world” this can be.
Granted the Eaton TVS kit didn’t use a larger throttle body. But it if it did, the supercharger inlet manifold cannot be upgraded as it’s an integral part of the supercharger. You’re stuck with a lower flowing manifold that WILL restrict the flow of any and all larger components such as throttle body, meter, CAK, etc. The KB and the Whipple use manifolds that will clearly support larger HP inlet components. This can be easily proven on a flow bench. There’s a lot of factual accurate flow bench data, tech and dyno tests on our Shelby GT 500 site under Mammoth kits that may help you better understand air flow and how it relates to HP.

4. We know exactly how much HP the Eaton, KB and Whipple produce at “low” and “high” boost. And we agree that the Eaton is much closer at the OEM 8psi rating.
It’s all about how much HP and boost you need. If you’re happy with the potential HP of a TVS, it’s a great supercharger. But let there be no doubt about this- It’s a butter knife at a gun fight with the Kenne Bell or Whipple. As the old saying goes......

When would you need 809HP?
When someone pulls along side you with 700HP!

[JustinTime]

Originally Posted by Kenne Bell

The results may not be what you would have liked to see but we offer this for consideration.

1. Richard Holdener is probably the most qualified Tech writers in the business. He tells it like it is-like it or not.

2. This was a comparison between 50 state legal kits. That’s what enthusiast buy. The reason there are test’s like this between TVS and KB is to illustrate the differences in the kits with the same pulley size. Remember when many believed that a TVS 2.3 could actually out perform a Kenne Bell 2.8H? We do. This article clearly proves the 2.3 TVS cannot match the KB 2.8H in airflow and HP.

3.”Real word” is that same 100% stock Ford Shelby GT500 engine with a KB2.8H on a Shelby SuperSnake turning 10.87/134 with a 3" pulley and 94 octane with the editor of MM&FF Magazine driving the car. This same engine made 809HP on an engine dyno for MM&FF and over 900HP with the 2.8" pulley.

These tests would lead one to believe that the KB2.8H is far more then “slightly” better than a TVS. Tests on our own cars and dyno’s match the mm&FF test data. I don’t know how much more “real world” this can be.
Granted the Eaton TVS kit didn’t use a larger throttle body. But it if it did, the supercharger inlet manifold cannot be upgraded as it’s an integral part of the supercharger. You’re stuck with a lower flowing manifold that WILL restrict the flow of any and all larger components such as throttle body, meter, CAK, etc. The KB and the Whipple use manifolds that will clearly support larger HP inlet components. This can be easily proven on a flow bench. There’s a lot of factual accurate flow bench data, tech and dyno tests on our Shelby GT 500 site under Mammoth kits that may help you better understand air flow and how it relates to HP.

4. We know exactly how much HP the Eaton, KB and Whipple produce at “low” and “high” boost. And we agree that the Eaton is much closer at the OEM 8psi rating.
It’s all about how much HP and boost you need. If you’re happy with the potential HP of a TVS, it’s a great supercharger. But let there be no doubt about this- It’s a butter knife at a gun fight with the Kenne Bell or Whipple. As the old saying goes......

When would you need 809HP?
When someone pulls along side you with 700HP!

^^^What you say is reasonable and I certainly respect your expertise and knowledge. I only say I wish you adjusted which ever blower the TVS or the KB to the same boost pressure reguardless of what pulley needed to be used to achieve that level of boost. That would've been a much better comparison. Then you could've spun the idea of how much harder the TVS had to be driven to match the desired boos level of the 2.8H.

[Nathan'sTsi]

Originally Posted by JustinTime

^^^What you say is reasonable and I certainly respect your expertise and knowledge. I only say I wish you adjusted which ever blower the TVS or the KB to the same boost pressure reguardless of what pulley needed to be used to achieve that level of boost. That would've been a much better comparison. Then you could've spun the idea of how much harder the TVS had to be driven to match the desired boos level of the 2.8H.

Exactly. Running them both at 15-16psi would have gone a lot farther to disprove the the TVS's superiority. Even if the TVS does have better adiabatic efficiency at that level,(that is the theory anyways) it is smaller and also less mechanically efficient, and would still make less power than the KB (i think anyways). However, just running the KB at a boost level that the TVS struggles to maintain just proves the KB has a higher power potential.

It certainbly is not a bad write up; it;'s just that it should be a foregone conclusion to most of us

[JustinTime]

It certainbly is not a bad write up; it;'s just that it should be a foregone conclusion to most of us

Yup.

[big reg]

I am willing to bet the TVS compared to any 2.3L or similiar TS blower will be very similiar in HP and make more trq. Once again given the same boost level and similiar blower displacement. There is a developmental kit for the Terminator in the works right now using the TVS R2300. 20 psi yielded 630/630 rwhp and trq.

[JustinTime]

Originally Posted by big reg

I am willing to bet the TVS compared to any 2.3L or similiar TS blower will be very similiar in HP and make more trq. Once again given the same boost level and similiar blower displacement. There is a developmental kit for the Terminator in the works right now using the TVS R2300. 20 psi yielded 630/630 rwhp and trq.

I know what your talking about. I am diligently following that car/setup as well. Dyno numbers are only half of it though. To be honest; I am not that impressed with the mph that car turned in the quarter mile. KB 2.2 cars with roughly the same horsepower and less torque are in the 130's which is a huge jump from 126mph. I'm just gonna have to see.

[big reg]

Originally Posted by JustinTime

I know what your talking about. I am diligently following that car/setup as well. Dyno numbers are only half of it though. To be honest; I am not that impressed with the mph that car turned in the quarter mile. KB 2.2 cars with roughly the same horsepower and less torque are in the 130's which is a huge jump from 126mph. I'm just gonna have to see.

He hit 127 with it and keep in mind it is a heavy ass full weight vert as well.

[JustinTime]

Originally Posted by big reg

He hit 127 with it and keep in mind it is a heavy ass full weight vert as well.

Very true about the weight of a Vert. I had taken that into consideration. Now that I have a Twin screw I don't think I'll trade over to the TVS. I don't see much of a difference in way of performance either way provided both blowers are the same size. The TVS may produce more power on a dyno than a twin screw but obviously as some people know...how the power is laid down is equally/more important than the number. I'd be interested in knowing how stock or modified Senkak's car is as far as supporting modifications. My 2.2kb made 609/590 at the wheels with one pound less boost and a completely stock inlet system.