Vmp gen 2r or Whipple 2.9?

lexustech48 said:

For your goals and future goals, invest in the Gen 3 Whipple. Spend the extra $500 and get the 3.4L Gen 3. Should be out now. You can pulley up or down as you need to should you decide to run race gas or even decide on E85 in the future. The extra .5L gives you a better top end power ability for race fuels, but pulley down to pump gas safe boost and still have a more efficient blower. Bigger blower= spin slower for same boost=cooler IAT2.

Downside is you need to clearance with motor mounts or K-member spacers. Gains would be pretty good for the cost and effort. I still personally want a Whipple 4.0L lmao!

Click to expand...

A Whipple 3.4 is not a good blower for a stock engine. By the time you pulley it up enough to be responsive and efficient you have moved outside the capabilities on the stock short block. A Whipple 3.4 making less than 20 psi on a stock engine will run worse than the dyno number suggests versus a smaller blower, such as the TVS 2300. Bad advice.

4VandHemiKiller said:

A Whipple 3.4 is not a good blower for a stock engine. By the time you pulley it up enough to be responsive and efficient you have moved outside the capabilities on the stock short block. A Whipple 3.4 making less than 20 psi on a stock engine will run worse than the dyno number suggests versus a smaller blower, such as the TVS 2300. Bad advice.

Click to expand...

OP stated he will be building his motor in the future. Assuming a built motor means rods, pistons and cams the TVS 2300 will not be able to provide the steam the newly built engine will need. There are plenty of guys who are running built long blocks who are seeing boost drops at the top end of a pull with a 2.3L TVS.

Im not trying to claim the TVS 2.3L or its VMP variants arent good superchargers. They are some of the best blowers to make our GT500s go faster! For a stock long block that's intent on STAYING stock, Id agree with you, 2.3L TVS variant all day long. Built long block with cams? Needs more steam, and a built combo will need more aggressive fueling and a higher octane fuel source than pump 91 or 93. So the boost pressure a 3.4L or a 4.0L makes isn't much of a concern at that point.

I firmly believe the Eaton 2650 rotor pack is a damn MONSTER. I was a huge cheerleader for the VMP TVS Gen 3 2650 before it was released. So far, VMP is the only provider for the 2650 in a GT500 specific package. Spec'ing a larger mono blade solution (VMP only TB's at this point) is shooting them in the foot. Their new TBs aren't reliable, and they have a crude plate adapter system to run the more common standard GT500 pattern TBs. Until they come out with a bullet proof TB or a case that has a normal GT500 TB pattern, its hard to recommend it at the moment.

lexustech48 said:

OP stated he will be building his motor in the future. Assuming a built motor means rods, pistons and cams the TVS 2300 will not be able to provide the steam the newly built engine will need. There are plenty of guys who are running built long blocks who are seeing boost drops at the top end of a pull with a 2.3L TVS.

Click to expand...

You do understand that is desirable, right? You want to achieve peak power several hundred RPMs before shift point/rev limit.
A combo that achieves peak power at the rev limit will be an underperformer, with poor average power.

Simply put, take a Whipple 3.4 that's spinning under 15000 rpm rotor speed making 780 rw @ 7000+ rpm, and it will lose to a TVS 2300 spinning 23,000 rpm making 750 rwp peak power @ 6700 with a 7200 rpm shift point. Why? Because the average horsepower, area under the curve, will be drastically better on the 2.3 combo. It’s just a matter of maximizing a combo, and large underspun blowers consistently leave power under the curve on the table.

I'm not pushing one brand or another, I'm just stating a given supercharger must be properly spun to have a usable power band within the working RPM range of the engine. With a GT500 that retains a stock (or CJ) crankshaft, that's 7200 rpm or less. A Whipple 3.4 with a 2.75 upper and 5% (ATI) lower still makes peaks @ 7100-7200. The same Whipple 3.4 with less pulley/slower rotor speed will shift that peak upwards in RPM, and sacrifices average, usable power within the confines of a stock crankshaft engine and PCM.

I went with the 3.4L whipple, have yet finished the install but I know on stock long block the larger blower will leave some power on the table at stock longblock power levels even though ill be on e85. Like OP I know I'm going to build the motor in the future likely a sleeved block with power goals in the 1100-1200rwhp range more if possible. Which is why I opted for the larger blower to accommodate goals down the road and only having to buy a head unit once. I guess it all depends on what power goals you want to reach, under 1000rwhp you probably wouldn't need anything more than the 2.65 or the 2.9

MelloStang2010 said:

I went with the 3.4L whipple, have yet finished the install but I know on stock long block the larger blower will leave some power on the table at stock longblock power levels even though ill be on e85. Like OP I know I'm going to build the motor in the future likely a sleeved block with power goals in the 1100-1200rwhp range more if possible. Which is why I opted for the larger blower to accommodate goals down the road and only having to buy a head unit once. I guess it all depends on what power goals you want to reach, under 1000rwhp you probably wouldn't need anything more than the 2.65 or the 2.9

Click to expand...

Under 1000 R is plenty. 1000-1100 2650/2.9/3.4

4VandHemiKiller said:

... With a GT500 that retains a stock (or CJ) crankshaft...

Click to expand...

It's one and the same on the '07-'12 GT500.

GT Premi said:

It's one and the same on the '07-'12 GT500.

Click to expand...

I think he and many say CJ as FRPP sold them as such and some early CJ had dual key ways.
I had JDM add dual keys to my new crank and it's a wise upgrade.
As for the Whipple debate, I believe pushing a small blower hard usually outruns a lazy big blower combo and average torque is important for our applications.
Just don't run into someone pushing a big blower
I don't know too many guys that made 965rwhp SAE with the 2R, but I intend to push the Gen 3 just as hard. I can already see the rear plenum can be improved (it gives up some room available on an S197 to fit S550 applications).
Still, if you can actually use 1000rwhp you're in for a full build on the entire car.
99% on here with street cars will do well and save money with a maxed TVS build.
My build did run out of blower but it still performed well and it'll be interesting how the 2650 rotor pack responds, but I feel anything past TVS2650 needs a sleeved block and billet crank and you need to rethink goals.
For my goals, a maximized 2650 TVS should do well, if not Whipple 4.0
-J

Whipple - looks sexier too

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

VMP IIr all the way. I'll sell you mine.

So a gen 3 with a 2.4 upper 15% lower will it or will it not spun fast enough compared to say the trinity blower to make good power 800+? With all the supporting mods and e85. Or is the trinity blower capable of hitting those same numbers? But which of the two will be more efficient

Much lower IAT2 with the 2.9 Whipple. I am running a 10% lower and plenty of low end torque at 18-19 lbs of boost. BJ (who used to be at VMP) pulled off his Gen IIr and put on a Gen3 2.9 Whipple if that any indication of how good they are.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Bluestallion said:

Much lower IAT2 with the 2.9 Whipple. I am running a 10% lower and plenty of low end torque at 18-19 lbs of boost. BJ (who used to be at VMP) pulled off his Gen IIr and put on a Gen3 2.9 Whipple if that any indication of how good they are.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Not sure if that's a good example.
And prove much lower IAT2s.
-J

MTSWAP"D said:

So a gen 3 with a 2.4 upper 15% lower will it or will it not spun fast enough compared to say the trinity blower to make good power 800+? With all the supporting mods and e85. Or is the trinity blower capable of hitting those same numbers? But which of the two will be more efficient

Click to expand...

What do you mean by Gen 3?
Whipple 2.9 Gen 3 or VMP Gen 3 TVS2650?
I only used a 2.5 upper with a 15% lower on my Gen 2R to make over 950rwhp, that pulley combo on a TVS2650 will definitely require a built motor.
With 2 maxed 5.8 E85 combos, the ported/welded Trinity made 930rwhp and the ported 2R made 965rwhp.
Like all the best builds you have to think of the whole combo.
-J

Lol. Are you saying BJ gets paid to change blowers?

biminiLX said:

Not sure if that's a good example.
And prove much lower IAT2s.
-J

Click to expand...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Bluestallion said:

Lol. Are you saying BJ gets paid to change blowers?


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Not for me to disclose but you might be surprised.
-J

MTSWAP"D said:

So a gen 3 with a 2.4 upper 15% lower will it or will it not spun fast enough compared to say the trinity blower to make good power 800+? With all the supporting mods and e85. Or is the trinity blower capable of hitting those same numbers? But which of the two will be more efficient

Click to expand...

Of course it will. Do you understand that the size of a blower is how much air it moves with one revolution of the rotors? Eaton states the 2650 moves 18% more volume than the 2300 spun at the same rpm. If a 2300 with a 15% lower and 2.4" upper is making 24 psi, a similar pulley setup should be making 28 psi. You're going to need a well built engine running e85 and healthy cams to bleed down boost to pull that off. Here's video with the TVS 2650 on a built 2013 with a 10% lower and 2.4" upper.

biminiLX said:

Not for me to disclose but you might be surprised.
-J

Click to expand...

Please. Disclose to your heart's desire.

The answer to the question IAT2 question on my particular car is the Whipple 2.9L runs a consistent 9-11 degrees cooler at 22psi than my GEN2R did.

I have never gotten into "superiority" comparisons between the two but yes, the Whipple produces less heat at the same ambient and boost.

The most surprising thing for me was the torque production of the new Whipple with the 3rd generation rotorpack. I had never seen a twin screw produce as much bottom end as a tvs. This one eclipses the tvs.

I have no experience with a 2650 but from every dyno sheet I have seen thus far (gt500 only) it appears as though the results are that when compared to the 2.3L, the torque curve is less dramatic. Looks like a previous generation twin screw. Ramps up rather that unleashing it all at the hit. More peak power, but less bottom.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

That would be an awesome gig, huh?

Bluestallion said:

Lol. Are you saying BJ gets paid to change blowers?


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

VNMOUS1 said:

Please. Disclose to your heart's desire.

The answer to the question IAT2 question on my particular car is the Whipple 2.9L runs a consistent 9-11 degrees cooler at 22psi than my GEN2R did.

I have never gotten into "superiority" comparisons between the two but yes, the Whipple produces less heat at the same ambient and boost.

The most surprising thing for me was the torque production of the new Whipple with the 3rd generation rotorpack. I had never seen a twin screw produce as much bottom end as a tvs. This one eclipses the tvs.

I have no experience with a 2650 but from every dyno sheet I have seen thus far (gt500 only) it appears as though the results are that when compared to the 2.3L, the torque curve is less dramatic. Looks like a previous generation twin screw. Ramps up rather that unleashing it all at the hit. More peak power, but less bottom.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Post a dyno overlay of your Whipple 2.9 and Gen2R, please.

I have a $100, that same day (pulley to pulley/same ambient temp), a 2650 picks up 10-20 hp over your Gen 3 2.9 and makes more through the curve.

Also, a hard spun Gen 2 Whipple 2.9 has always made excellent torque.
It's lazily spun 2.9s that sacrifice torque and average power.
Gen 2 vs Gen 3 Whipple really hasn't changed this simple fact, the Gen 3 just is slightly more efficient but it behaves largely similar as far as shape of the power band/average power and the correlation with rotor speed are concerned.

4VandHemiKiller said:

Post a dyno overlay of your Whipple 2.9 and Gen2R, please.

I have a $100, that same day (pulley to pulley/same ambient temp), a 2650 picks up 10-20 hp over your Gen 3 2.9 and makes more through the curve.

Also, a hard spun Gen 2 Whipple 2.9 has always made excellent torque.
It's lazily spun 2.9s that sacrifice torque and average power.
Gen 2 vs Gen 3 Whipple really hasn't changed this simple fact, the Gen 3 just is slightly more efficient but it behaves largely similar as far as shape of the power band/average power and the correlation with rotor speed are concerned.

Click to expand...

Swapping to a Gen 3 Whipple 2.9 directly from Gen 2 Whipple 2.9 w same pulley setup netted my 13’ combo 48rwhp/26rwtq AVERAGE from 3300rpms - 7000rpms. The Gen 3 made the car feel like I swapped rear gears..much lighter, more responsive, faster revving. Overall just a higher quality powerband. No idea how that would compare to a VMP 2650 but I imagine relatively similar all else being equal. If it’s 10hp - 20hp more as you hypothesize that’s hardly material given variations in combos that may work better or worse w a given blowers characteristics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk