Mammoth vs Crusher dyno comparisons

[Juiced46]

This weekend I posted the #s of a 3.4 Whipple Cobra I did a build on. Today another car I did a 2.8 Mammoth build on hit the dyno. Figured I would post up an overlay of the 2 for comparisons sake. Theses cars were dynoed within a few days of each other by the same tuner on the same dyno using a loaded Mustang Dyno, with very similar conditions. Both days in the 50s.

Here are the specs on the cars.

Crusher car-
Stock Longblock
3.4L Crusher. max boost was 25.8, lets say 26psi.
Stock headers
MAC O/R H
Flowmaster catback
Fore Triple pump fuel system with 80# injectors.

Mammoth car-
Stock Longblock
2.8 Mammoth. 26.9psi, lets say 27psi.
Bassani Mids
Bassani O/R X
Magnaflowcatback
Fore Triple pump fuel system with 80# injectors.

I believe both cars are running around 17* of timing.

3.4 Crusher- 728rwhp 649rwtq @ 26psi
2.8 Mammoth- 727rwhp 624rwtq @ 27psi

Blue is the 3.4 Crusher
Red is the 2.8 Mammoth

As you can see from the graph below. The crusher even though its making 1 psi less makes more HP and TQ across the board with peak HP being about the same and TQ slightly higher. The Mammoth if pulled to 7k would have made slightly more as HP was still climbing. The mammoth is still making power and not falling because boost starts to rise alot around 5500 and keeps climbing. This sucker can breathe at high RPMs. Where as boost with the Whipple flat lines. Im not sure of IATs on the KB, but the Whipple was in the mid 120s @ the top of the pull. I will get the KB data soon. I think if the whipple car uncorked its exhaust, did some LTs and a better catback there is another good 20+ rwhp left in it.

***NOTE-I DO NOT WORK FOR EFILOGICS OR ADVERTISING FOR THEM. THEY ARE JUST THE TUNER THAT I USE***

 

[1320 Junkie]

Thats a solid ass comparison Dave..3.4 l vs 2.8 2.8 can hang pretty well being the smaller of the 2. 9 second cars if they have autos.

 

[SVT GI]

Not bad for a 2.8 vs. 3.4. And the Mammoth would of kept climbing! Can you tell I'm a little partial? LOL

No...both blowers are great and anybody would be happy with either IMO. Thanks for posting up the comparisons.

 

[1BIGMOFO]

great #'s!! Thanks for the write up!! next winter I know which route im going

 

[03mgtermi]

excellent. been waiting for a comparison as close to identical as this one. only way to improve the comparo would be to install both kits on the same car....pita.

i agree on opening the whipples exhaust would help the high RPM breathing.

any idea what would happen if cams were thrown in?? at this point i'm assuming they wouldn't really do much.

 

[98 Saleen Cobra]

the exhaust mods helped the KB keep climbing i'm sure.. pushing that much air through a small exhaust isn't that good lol.

 

[TRIPLEBLK03]

the 03 cobras still amaze me to this day factory longblock and 728rwhp! now just gota get me a KB:beer:

 

[yosemiddysam]

Thanks for the comparison.

 

[Jefe]

E85?

 

[Quicktime_GT]

Good info !I bet 700 feels insane

 

[MoKo_03SVT]

sick numbers....from both blowers!

*SiGh*

...i want 700hp...

 

[NVR_LFT]

Just a question don't want to start a yelling match with everyone.... Is this to say the KB is more efficient due to the fact it is .5 litres smaller than the whipple? or am I talkin outta my ass here... I am not partial to either blower, in fact I just bought a 2.3 whipple cause I feel I got a good deal on it, and it is right in the wheel house of the power I want to put down at the wheels...

 

[CobraBob]

That is some great information Dave. The Mammoth surprised me a bit based on your findings. I agree, though, that it would be interesting to see what happens with the Crusher and long tubes. Then again, it would be just as interesting to replace the Bassani mid-length headers with long tubes. Thanks for taking the time to do this Dave. Interesting.

 

[evil04svtcobra]

great post!

i 100% agree that long tubes on the crusher would help get 20 to 25rwhp.

what fuel was used in both cars? with higher octane and more timing what hp and tq levels do you think each car would make?

 

[Comp281]

Thanks for the comparison. Great info.

 

[97desertCobra]

Like others have stated the Whipple would have perfomed even better with a set of headers. Hell the KB car was pushing more boost and had better exhaust flow and was just a tad behind the Whipple. Considering its common to see a slight boost drop when you swap to long tubes............

Great comparison OP. That is the closest I've seen so far with the mods being very close with both cars main difference being the brand of superchargers. Thanks for sharing! :thumbsup:

 

[zinc]

Thats just flat out amazing to see. At this point really I dont think you could go wrong with either of these kits. If i ever do it again i will try the other side of the fence with a whipple

 

[younggun04]

Cool comparison, That Flowmaster catback isn't helping much either on that 3.4 car...

 

[serper3]

this is kind of an irrelevant, yet still same topic... if the 2.8 is so close to the 3.4, would the 2.6 be pretty close to the 2.8 since its only .2 difference in displacement? it seems like that would be the way to go for me because i could retain 50 state cali smog bs, as well as not be so restricted in the future.. i have read that the 2.3 is really great for stock short blcok and heads, were the 2.6, can work better with a motor that maybe has a mild build, with cams and maybe ported heads?
is this kinda true guys? or is something else 2.6 vs 2.8 that makes the 2.8 push similar to 3.4 power?

 

[evil04svtcobra]

would really love to know what octane was used