Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Considering Whipple 2.9
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Catmonkey" data-source="post: 16262307" data-attributes="member: 124025"><p>That's my point. To get the larger supercharger to operate more efficiently, you need to spin it harder to get to it's adiabatic efficiency range. Adiabatic efficiency has more to do with how efficiently the blower is compressing the air, as opposed to just how much air it moves. The problem with running 21 psi on pump gas is how much ignition timing you're going to have to back out to keep the engine from detonating. Boost adds power, decreased timing takes it away. You can do it, I just think most people believe it's safer to run 17-18 psi on pump gas and time it accordingly.</p><p></p><p>Let's look at it this way. Take that graph I posted, 2.3 and 2.8 are the number of liters of air the supercharger moves with one revolution of the drive rotor. I know the TVS has a 2.4" upper pulley. Given that, the TVS should theoretically be moving something like 1,441 cfm of air at 6,000 engine rpm. I'm going to assume the KB had a 3" upper pulley, since that is what KB sells for 93 pump gas applications. They sell them in 1/4" increments, so it's a safe bet. Given that upper pulley size, the KB would be moving 1,403 cfm of theoretical airflow at the same 6,000 rpm range. Granted the TVS has a ~2% edge on theoretical airflow, but they're closely matched in terms of how much air they theoretically move at similar rpm. Now look at the boost each makes throughout the rpm ranges. The reason the TVS is making more boost at all rpm ranges below 6,500 is it has better adiabatic efficiency than the KB <strong>in that range</strong>. 4 psi more boost is pretty significant from 3,000 to 4,000 rpm and it clearly shows the KB is outside of its efficiency range. Either it's not effectively compressogn air and/or using too much power to drive the supercharger. After 6,000 rpm, the TVS has fallen out of its adiabatic efficiency and the KB is just getting into its effective range. If you didn't have an engine limitation at 6,500 rpm, you'd see that gap get further apart. </p><p></p><p>I can assure you a 2.9 Whipple isn't going to act a whole lot different. The results just get more bizarre, the bigger the blower. If anyone is following the dynos on the 2.65 Gen 3 TVS on pump, you'll notice a drop in boost in the lower rpm range for that blower over the 2.3. There's a reason the bigger blower manufacturers only focus on "peak" horsepower. The KB made 29 more hp at the peak than the TVS, but the TVS made 26 more average horsepower between 4,000 and 6,500 rpm. The TVS made over 60 more hp at 3,000 to 4,500 rpm than the KB. Now, that's power you're going to notice on the street. So if you only focus on peak, the KB would seem to be the better blower for an otherwise stock application on pump gas. Now let me emphasize that these were different dynos on different days. All I can guaranty is that they both occurred in Florida, so the altitudes weren't that different. </p><p></p><p>Now if you want to throw more octane into the mix and/or more cam timing to increase the engine's ability to utilize greater quantities of airflow, you will need to spin both blowers higher to push the limits of boost and/or octane, which will leave the little 2.3 further behind and that adiabatic efficiency will occur much lower in the power band. By the same token, it will push the KB further into the territory where it's using more of its adiabatic efficiency. If you follow [USER=7795]@biminiLX[/USER]'s engine build with his ported 2.3 blower, you'll really see what happens to the little 2.3 when you step up the engine's power and airflow capabilities.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Catmonkey, post: 16262307, member: 124025"] That's my point. To get the larger supercharger to operate more efficiently, you need to spin it harder to get to it's adiabatic efficiency range. Adiabatic efficiency has more to do with how efficiently the blower is compressing the air, as opposed to just how much air it moves. The problem with running 21 psi on pump gas is how much ignition timing you're going to have to back out to keep the engine from detonating. Boost adds power, decreased timing takes it away. You can do it, I just think most people believe it's safer to run 17-18 psi on pump gas and time it accordingly. Let's look at it this way. Take that graph I posted, 2.3 and 2.8 are the number of liters of air the supercharger moves with one revolution of the drive rotor. I know the TVS has a 2.4" upper pulley. Given that, the TVS should theoretically be moving something like 1,441 cfm of air at 6,000 engine rpm. I'm going to assume the KB had a 3" upper pulley, since that is what KB sells for 93 pump gas applications. They sell them in 1/4" increments, so it's a safe bet. Given that upper pulley size, the KB would be moving 1,403 cfm of theoretical airflow at the same 6,000 rpm range. Granted the TVS has a ~2% edge on theoretical airflow, but they're closely matched in terms of how much air they theoretically move at similar rpm. Now look at the boost each makes throughout the rpm ranges. The reason the TVS is making more boost at all rpm ranges below 6,500 is it has better adiabatic efficiency than the KB [b]in that range[/b]. 4 psi more boost is pretty significant from 3,000 to 4,000 rpm and it clearly shows the KB is outside of its efficiency range. Either it's not effectively compressogn air and/or using too much power to drive the supercharger. After 6,000 rpm, the TVS has fallen out of its adiabatic efficiency and the KB is just getting into its effective range. If you didn't have an engine limitation at 6,500 rpm, you'd see that gap get further apart. I can assure you a 2.9 Whipple isn't going to act a whole lot different. The results just get more bizarre, the bigger the blower. If anyone is following the dynos on the 2.65 Gen 3 TVS on pump, you'll notice a drop in boost in the lower rpm range for that blower over the 2.3. There's a reason the bigger blower manufacturers only focus on "peak" horsepower. The KB made 29 more hp at the peak than the TVS, but the TVS made 26 more average horsepower between 4,000 and 6,500 rpm. The TVS made over 60 more hp at 3,000 to 4,500 rpm than the KB. Now, that's power you're going to notice on the street. So if you only focus on peak, the KB would seem to be the better blower for an otherwise stock application on pump gas. Now let me emphasize that these were different dynos on different days. All I can guaranty is that they both occurred in Florida, so the altitudes weren't that different. Now if you want to throw more octane into the mix and/or more cam timing to increase the engine's ability to utilize greater quantities of airflow, you will need to spin both blowers higher to push the limits of boost and/or octane, which will leave the little 2.3 further behind and that adiabatic efficiency will occur much lower in the power band. By the same token, it will push the KB further into the territory where it's using more of its adiabatic efficiency. If you follow [USER=7795]@biminiLX[/USER]'s engine build with his ported 2.3 blower, you'll really see what happens to the little 2.3 when you step up the engine's power and airflow capabilities. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Considering Whipple 2.9
Top