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
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
The Blower Bistro
KB vs. Whipple superchargers.
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="TECH@KB" data-source="post: 1811084" data-attributes="member: 18817"><p><strong>Accusations, Misrepresentations</strong></p><p></p><p>We know everyone is a little tired of the salvos going back and forth between Dustin Whipple and Kenne Bell. Frankly, we think some of the subjects brought up by Dustin have little to no merit to the members as well. But when a situation arises wherein there are ongoing accusations and product misrepresentations, we have no choice but to respond.</p><p></p><p>Jim Bell asked me to post this:</p><p></p><p>I’ve cautioned Dustin Whipple before about defaming Kenne Bell, Autorotor, or me personally, but he refuses to let it go. He continues to accuse us of false advertising and confusing our facts. So let’s compare and check out some of Dustin’s “facts” he’s always touting. In particular, his misleading and false comments and advertising claims regarding our ‘03 Cobra inlet manifold vs. the Whipple. The following are some of Dustin’s comments / claims from his posts and from Whipple literature.</p><p></p><p>* “When comparing superchargers, you also need to compare kits. Our Cobra inlet is far better designed, it offers almost 11" sq. inches throughout the casting. The Bell necks down to nearly 4.75"....Whipple have never gone after a ‘blower war’ but I’m so sick of the false Bell propaganda. Jim Bell is a very intelligent person and has made some incredible products, he’s a very likable character, but we need to keep the facts straight.”[1]</p><p></p><p>* “Other companies make false claims and inaccurate judgements regarding supercharger efficiency and kits.”[2]</p><p></p><p>* “The Whipple supercharger inlet is nearly 35% larger than other companies inlet which offers a much lower possibility for starving the compressor for air at high power levels.”[2]</p><p></p><p>* “CAD designed air inlet for maximum air flow, almost twice the airflow capability as competitors.”[2]</p><p></p><p>[1] taken from a post by Dustin Whipple on the SVTPerformance website 10-15-2004.</p><p>[2] taken from actual Whipple website advertising as of 01/13/2004.</p><p></p><p>We realize how someone inexperienced in inlet component design might just redesign a particular manifold, make it “bigger” in some areas, and wrongly conclude that “bigger is better”, without flow testing and dyno testing the component. The end result would be false and misleading claims such as “almost twice the airflow capability as competitors” that are based solely on a simple size observation. </p><p></p><p>Really? “...twice the airflow...” of a Kenne Bell 1035 cfm Cobra inlet manifold? 2070 cfm? That’s laughable. Anyone the least bit knowledgeable in inlet and exhaust tract and port flow knows “bigger is not always better”. So you want comparisons? The flow test results on the big Superflow #1020 flowbench are as follows for the big oval throttle body manifolds:</p><p></p><p>Kenne Bell - 1035 cfm</p><p>Whipple - 983 cfm</p><p></p><p>That is 5% less, not 200% more than the Kenne Bell. The flow numbers for the dual throttle body manifolds were identical - both flowed 903 cfm. NOT 200% more, but equal. Maybe Whipple should get a new CAD program, or at least a flow bench before making claims like they have been. We have flow bench and dyno tested our Kenne Bell 1125 cfm Cobra prototype manifold, but even at 700 rwhp, there were no gains. This prototype Kenne Bell manifold was tested on both 4V and 2V engines. In fact, we have the flow data on all 25 of the manifolds we’ve designed. Our tests prove the Kenne Bell 1125, 1035, and even the Whipple 983 cfm manifolds are all 3 more than adequate for 700 rwhp.</p><p></p><p>So, we’re not bashing the Whipple or even claiming our manifold makes more power, just getting “...the facts straight” using accurate test data. We have also dyno tested the Whipple Cobra kit, and know exactly how much it makes compared to our 2.2 and 2.4 kits with all the manifolds. We have the facts. In no way does a Whipple kit make more power than ours. No way! </p><p></p><p>At Kenne Bell, we take a lot of pride in our own kit designs. We flow test all the prototype and final components on both the flowbench and the dyno. Each of the various inlet pieces (filter, hose, MAF meter, screen, inlet tube, throttle body and inlet manifold) are tested individually and as assemblies (more on this in a future post). That way, we can better determine exactly where the restrictions are if any. The inlet manifold must be able to flow enough air to support the potential of the entire inlet tract.</p><p></p><p style="text-align: center"><a href="http://www.kennebell.net" target="_blank"> <img src="http://www.kennebell.net/FORUM_PICS/TOTAL_INLET_LESS_FILTER_HOSE_MAF_ADAPT_MAF_TBTUBE_TB_W_ST_MANIF.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </a></p><p></p><p>Subsequently, considerable time was spent shaping and contouring the ‘03/’04 Cobra inlet to support very high hp levels. Rest assured, the Kenne Bell inlet will not be “...starving the compressor for air at high power levels.” The gentle, smooth contours of the Kenne Bell manifold weren’t guessed at, so we’ll disagree with Dustin when he states “Our Cobra inlet is far better designed...”. Furthermore, our sources assure us the Whipple Cobra manifold never saw a flowbench. We know how it was designed.</p><p></p><p>Let’s chalk this up to inexperience and move on. Whether it be the Kenne Bell 1035, Whipple 983 cfm, Kenne Bell 1125 cfm - or someone else’s hypothetical 1250 cfm, etc.. manifold, don’t expect to see any gains in an inlet manifold. All of the above mentioned are perfectly adequate. It’s sort of like a big 6" x 12" filter. A bigger 6" x 14" or 8" x 16", etc. filter won’t make any more power if it’s not a restriction in the first place. A good example of a “restriction” worth addressing is the stock 90mm MAF screen. It restricts the flow by a whopping 100 cfm - with any manifold (but beware, before you simply remove it, this can cause idle instability, driveability issues, and even change the air/fuel ratio at WOT).</p><p></p><p>Also, according to all our flowbench data and dyno testing, the 90mm MAF itself is the worst restriction in the system, and offers the greatest potential gain in hp. It is too small. The MAF size should be more like 125mm (a full 5 inches), than even a 101, 110mm etc...</p><p></p><p>Hopefully, this serves to clear up any confusion regarding the inlet manifolds.</p><p></p><p>Sincerely,</p><p></p><p>Jim Bell</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TECH@KB, post: 1811084, member: 18817"] [b]Accusations, Misrepresentations[/b] We know everyone is a little tired of the salvos going back and forth between Dustin Whipple and Kenne Bell. Frankly, we think some of the subjects brought up by Dustin have little to no merit to the members as well. But when a situation arises wherein there are ongoing accusations and product misrepresentations, we have no choice but to respond. Jim Bell asked me to post this: I’ve cautioned Dustin Whipple before about defaming Kenne Bell, Autorotor, or me personally, but he refuses to let it go. He continues to accuse us of false advertising and confusing our facts. So let’s compare and check out some of Dustin’s “facts” he’s always touting. In particular, his misleading and false comments and advertising claims regarding our ‘03 Cobra inlet manifold vs. the Whipple. The following are some of Dustin’s comments / claims from his posts and from Whipple literature. * “When comparing superchargers, you also need to compare kits. Our Cobra inlet is far better designed, it offers almost 11" sq. inches throughout the casting. The Bell necks down to nearly 4.75"....Whipple have never gone after a ‘blower war’ but I’m so sick of the false Bell propaganda. Jim Bell is a very intelligent person and has made some incredible products, he’s a very likable character, but we need to keep the facts straight.”[1] * “Other companies make false claims and inaccurate judgements regarding supercharger efficiency and kits.”[2] * “The Whipple supercharger inlet is nearly 35% larger than other companies inlet which offers a much lower possibility for starving the compressor for air at high power levels.”[2] * “CAD designed air inlet for maximum air flow, almost twice the airflow capability as competitors.”[2] [1] taken from a post by Dustin Whipple on the SVTPerformance website 10-15-2004. [2] taken from actual Whipple website advertising as of 01/13/2004. We realize how someone inexperienced in inlet component design might just redesign a particular manifold, make it “bigger” in some areas, and wrongly conclude that “bigger is better”, without flow testing and dyno testing the component. The end result would be false and misleading claims such as “almost twice the airflow capability as competitors” that are based solely on a simple size observation. Really? “...twice the airflow...” of a Kenne Bell 1035 cfm Cobra inlet manifold? 2070 cfm? That’s laughable. Anyone the least bit knowledgeable in inlet and exhaust tract and port flow knows “bigger is not always better”. So you want comparisons? The flow test results on the big Superflow #1020 flowbench are as follows for the big oval throttle body manifolds: Kenne Bell - 1035 cfm Whipple - 983 cfm That is 5% less, not 200% more than the Kenne Bell. The flow numbers for the dual throttle body manifolds were identical - both flowed 903 cfm. NOT 200% more, but equal. Maybe Whipple should get a new CAD program, or at least a flow bench before making claims like they have been. We have flow bench and dyno tested our Kenne Bell 1125 cfm Cobra prototype manifold, but even at 700 rwhp, there were no gains. This prototype Kenne Bell manifold was tested on both 4V and 2V engines. In fact, we have the flow data on all 25 of the manifolds we’ve designed. Our tests prove the Kenne Bell 1125, 1035, and even the Whipple 983 cfm manifolds are all 3 more than adequate for 700 rwhp. So, we’re not bashing the Whipple or even claiming our manifold makes more power, just getting “...the facts straight” using accurate test data. We have also dyno tested the Whipple Cobra kit, and know exactly how much it makes compared to our 2.2 and 2.4 kits with all the manifolds. We have the facts. In no way does a Whipple kit make more power than ours. No way! At Kenne Bell, we take a lot of pride in our own kit designs. We flow test all the prototype and final components on both the flowbench and the dyno. Each of the various inlet pieces (filter, hose, MAF meter, screen, inlet tube, throttle body and inlet manifold) are tested individually and as assemblies (more on this in a future post). That way, we can better determine exactly where the restrictions are if any. The inlet manifold must be able to flow enough air to support the potential of the entire inlet tract. [center][url=http://www.kennebell.net] [img]http://www.kennebell.net/FORUM_PICS/TOTAL_INLET_LESS_FILTER_HOSE_MAF_ADAPT_MAF_TBTUBE_TB_W_ST_MANIF.jpg[/img] [/url][/center] Subsequently, considerable time was spent shaping and contouring the ‘03/’04 Cobra inlet to support very high hp levels. Rest assured, the Kenne Bell inlet will not be “...starving the compressor for air at high power levels.” The gentle, smooth contours of the Kenne Bell manifold weren’t guessed at, so we’ll disagree with Dustin when he states “Our Cobra inlet is far better designed...”. Furthermore, our sources assure us the Whipple Cobra manifold never saw a flowbench. We know how it was designed. Let’s chalk this up to inexperience and move on. Whether it be the Kenne Bell 1035, Whipple 983 cfm, Kenne Bell 1125 cfm - or someone else’s hypothetical 1250 cfm, etc.. manifold, don’t expect to see any gains in an inlet manifold. All of the above mentioned are perfectly adequate. It’s sort of like a big 6" x 12" filter. A bigger 6" x 14" or 8" x 16", etc. filter won’t make any more power if it’s not a restriction in the first place. A good example of a “restriction” worth addressing is the stock 90mm MAF screen. It restricts the flow by a whopping 100 cfm - with any manifold (but beware, before you simply remove it, this can cause idle instability, driveability issues, and even change the air/fuel ratio at WOT). Also, according to all our flowbench data and dyno testing, the 90mm MAF itself is the worst restriction in the system, and offers the greatest potential gain in hp. It is too small. The MAF size should be more like 125mm (a full 5 inches), than even a 101, 110mm etc... Hopefully, this serves to clear up any confusion regarding the inlet manifolds. Sincerely, Jim Bell [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
The Blower Bistro
KB vs. Whipple superchargers.
Top