KB 3.6 vs Whipple 4.5 data comparison coming

[1320 Junkie]

Dyno vid:


http://s3.photobucket.com/user/blwn03/media/20150814_002052_001.15secs_zpsfmp0vrvz.mp4.html

 

[1320 Junkie]

Jay

It's all good. The thing about the 3.6 is that with a 10% OD and 3" Upper Pulley with some corn in the tank you can literally make well over 1,000 to 1,100 RWHP at the 3.6 maximum efficiency range.

Now depending on the heads, cams and exhaust you can pulley that same engine up to a 4" supercharger pulley and make 17-18 PSI of boost and run pump gas. One of the beauties of the 3.6 IMO. And we've seen that on other customer cars with the other contributing manifold pressure reducing factors.

Only way you could do that with a KB 4.2, KB 4.7 or Whipple 4.5 would be to put a frisbee size pulley on the blower to really slow it down. LOL

Like I mentioned it's been a fun read and I hope you are getting it dialed in.

That was the interesting thing that we asked Mark Duber to do. Same day, same dyno, same boost KB 4.2 vs. KB 4.7. That was a great experiment that could only be done on the same day for accuracy.

Similar to what we did on my car back in 2010 at the Spring Break NMRA Event. Dyno'd the car with the KB 2.8 and then swapped it out for the 3.6 same day, same dyno. Built motor C-16 and a KB Dual 75 with FGT Cams and 9.5:1 Compression on 21 PSI Boost the car made 911 RWHP. With the 2.8 at the same boost, timing and everything it made 823 RWHP. The 3.6 is just a super efficient supercharger that works both ways as you have seen.

Cool thing about data, we all get to evaluate and extract what we wish.

Have a good night and I hope Bill gets to feeling better.

Van

I just saw this Van.....I appreciate all the testing you have done with the KB's ...I HATED kenne bell blowers until I seen the 3.6 data then Dubers car....that is the ABSOLUTE only reason I went with the 3.6 so I thank you guys for that.

The car did what it did...977 corrected and out of meter 140mm cj and out of injector/ ID1300's....we will address those things and get back at it over the winter.

 

[Van@RevanRacing]

All things being "unequal". LOL. I think you really have to look at your cam timing. Your set up will probably make 1,000 on a dyno jet. The reason I bring up can timing is the one constant between Duber and Mitchell. BES Engines. I can say with confidence that Tony knows how to properly degree DOHC's into a 4 Valve.

The slightest advance or retard on intake and exhaust is lost power and the farther you push the engine the less power if any additional it will create. I experienced this first hand on the original Texas Mile Super Snake.

When we built my motor and had the FGT cams properly degree'd the car made almost 800 RWHP at 17 psi on pump gas. Valve train and can timing are uber important the higher the boost.

Enjoy your car for the remainder of the year and take a good look at that cam profile, degree and valve train.

Later

Van

 

[Bad Company]

so the 4.5 Whipple made 986 @6750 and the kb made 936 @ 6300 so a solid 50rwhp at 450 more rpm i do like the fact that the whipples tq comes in earlier but im surprised it made less tq than the kb as we seen earlier with Marks vs pauls graph looked like the whipple made more tq.


Great numbers solid gain

This is a common problem and has been noted by others in the past when swapping to a larger SC without a major boost change input to the engine. I have a theory as to why this happens, because it is never discussed by the SC manufacturers. Why would they want to discuss? It is a loss and that again isn't good for brand image

The larger SC has more rotating mass of the rotors. All dyno tests are taken during acceleration of the engine from a baseline RPM that is below the peak torque of the engine to the max RPM of the engine at peak Hp. This RPM sweep goes through the peak torque of the engine.

Here is a question and thought to ponder.

Over the years everybody says it takes torque to get an object moving, but that it takes HP to keep it moving.


With the larger rotor mass(weight) of the larger SC being accelerated through the peak torque of the engine during the dyno sweep of the engine. What would be being used to accelerate those rotors from the baseline of the test to max Hp RPM of the engine?

This is my theory. The SC is requiring more torque from the engine to accelerate through the peal torque of the engine at a given RPM per second acceleration rate. That torque is coming off of the front of the crankshaft. So it is being lost off the rear of the crankshaft and the net dyno test results show a torque loss of the engine, with everything else in the engine dyno test being equal to the earlier smaller SC dyno's results.

Now again to prove this we would need Jim Bell to say that with their Supercharger dyno testing equipment that it does take more torque to accelerate a given SC and a given acceleration rate when comparing two different SCs of different sizes at a given CFM airflow output. Otherwise we as a consumer need to build our million dollar plus testing facility to prove this theory of mine. Again because of brand image, none of the SC manufacturers are going to admit that this is a problem when comparing two SC of different displacement sizes against each other at the same CFM output and acceleration rates of those SCs.

again this is my theory and has no scientific support, so take it for what you think it is

 

[Bad Company]

Jay.......I'm waiting on my T-shirt guy. His employees screwed up yesterday and didn't get them done. I'm supposed to be able to pick them up at 8:30 this morning.

PS:I'll have a little something for you to try. It is called "White Lightening", I think you'll like this version of this E85 product to try with the car. It has an unusual smell though, it smells like peaches. LOL

 

[1320 Junkie]

Jay.......I'm waiting on my T-shirt guy. His employees screwed up yesterday and didn't get them done. I'm supposed to be able to pick them up at 8:30 this morning.

PS:I'll have a little something for you to try. It is called "White Lightening", I think you'll like this version of this E85 product to try with the car. It has an unusual smell though, it smells like peaches. LOL

Kurt...ABSOLUTELY awesome speaking with you today at the show...and thank you for my "gift" . It truly is awesome when you get to put faces to screen names.

Also got to meet SGallo as well and shoot the breeze.

 

[1320 Junkie]

All things being "unequal". LOL. I think you really have to look at your cam timing. Your set up will probably make 1,000 on a dyno jet. The reason I bring up can timing is the one constant between Duber and Mitchell. BES Engines. I can say with confidence that Tony knows how to properly degree DOHC's into a 4 Valve.

The slightest advance or retard on intake and exhaust is lost power and the farther you push the engine the less power if any additional it will create. I experienced this first hand on the original Texas Mile Super Snake.

When we built my motor and had the FGT cams properly degree'd the car made almost 800 RWHP at 17 psi on pump gas. Valve train and can timing are uber important the higher the boost.

Enjoy your car for the remainder of the year and take a good look at that cam profile, degree and valve train.

Later

Van

We are 100% degreeing my cams in this next motor...they were installed straight up in this current motor but I do know the next build will have all adjustable cam gears for dialing them in....appreciate the insight though...definately a worth while adjustment.

 

[Bad Company]

Kurt...ABSOLUTELY awesome speaking with you today at the show...and thank you for my "gift" . It truly is awesome when you get to put faces to screen names.

Also got to meet SGallo as well and shoot the breeze.

I enjoyed the time with you and your wife, yes it is great to meet people in person, versus a personality on the Internet. I believe a lot of people think I'm a hard person to get along with from the forums, when in reality I'm actually fairly easy going. I had no idea how big that show is and I doubt that I looked at more than 30% of the cars there. My feet are still screaming at me LOL

 

[1320 Junkie]

I enjoyed the time with you and your wife, yes it is great to meet people in person, versus a personality on the Internet. I believe a lot of people think I'm a hard person to get along with from the forums, when in reality I'm actually fairly easy going. I had no idea how big that show is and I doubt that I looked at more than 30% of the cars there. My feet are still screaming at me LOL

Haha....same here pal. I won't be going out in the sun for a few days that's for sure lol.

 

[Bad Company]

Haha....same here pal. I won't be going out in the sun for a few days that's for sure lol.

The Sun didn't get me too bad. I had a lot of people ask me about the T-shirt and that slowed me down a lot while trying to see the cars, but that was the reason I was there. To promote LOL

 

[2010 Red&white]

This is a common problem and has been noted by others in the past when swapping to a larger SC without a major boost change input to the engine. I have a theory as to why this happens, because it is never discussed by the SC manufacturers. Why would they want to discuss? It is a loss and that again isn't good for brand image

The larger SC has more rotating mass of the rotors. All dyno tests are taken during acceleration of the engine from a baseline RPM that is below the peak torque of the engine to the max RPM of the engine at peak Hp. This RPM sweep goes through the peak torque of the engine.

Here is a question and thought to ponder.

Over the years everybody says it takes torque to get an object moving, but that it takes HP to keep it moving.


With the larger rotor mass(weight) of the larger SC being accelerated through the peak torque of the engine during the dyno sweep of the engine. What would be being used to accelerate those rotors from the baseline of the test to max Hp RPM of the engine?

This is my theory. The SC is requiring more torque from the engine to accelerate through the peal torque of the engine at a given RPM per second acceleration rate. That torque is coming off of the front of the crankshaft. So it is being lost off the rear of the crankshaft and the net dyno test results show a torque loss of the engine, with everything else in the engine dyno test being equal to the earlier smaller SC dyno's results.

Now again to prove this we would need Jim Bell to say that with their Supercharger dyno testing equipment that it does take more torque to accelerate a given SC and a given acceleration rate when comparing two different SCs of different sizes at a given CFM airflow output. Otherwise we as a consumer need to build our million dollar plus testing facility to prove this theory of mine. Again because of brand image, none of the SC manufacturers are going to admit that this is a problem when comparing two SC of different displacement sizes against each other at the same CFM output and acceleration rates of those SCs.

again this is my theory and has no scientific support, so take it for what you think it is

I don't know exactly why either , but my 2.9L dyno chart vs the 4.5L shows just as You say !

 

[1320 Junkie]

Well after porting the whipple 4.5's inlet in the same fashion I ported the 3.6's inlet we made a corrected 1033hp and 1078 uncorrected. For a total gain of 134hp ported 3.6 vs ported 4.5 at same boost level.

 

[1320 Junkie]

Watch "1000hp gt500" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/DhAANsw1ebU

 

[TexasMile1]

Enlightening thanks for all the info 1320.
Scott

 

[1320 Junkie]

Enlightening thanks for all the info 1320.
Scott

No problem bud.