Sir those #'s can't be right. The ported Trinity was clearly not ported enough, and is the almighty of TVS's. 
oke:
oke:
Trinity VS GEN2 data???
- Thread starter 1320 Junkie
- Start date
Well I for one basically want to see the data as well. The majority of people running TVS are doing a upper(2.4) with a TB of choice, and a 123 CAI in most cases. A few run the lower 10%. Now from what I have read and seen, it would seem that the GEN II gain more boost on the 2.4, to the tune of 3~4 more PSI. It would also seem that the 2.4 on a GEN II in the test was boosting well over 20psi which I know I do not want to do on pump gas alone.
On the test with the 2010 that made 698, I would like to see more info on this. What pulley ? What boost ? How much timing ? What fuel ? Is it using a boost-a-pump ? Surely when you put numbers out, there will be a few who wants to know how you achieved those numbers. I ran a VMP Gen 1. I know what it could do. I am currently running a Trinity, and I know what was gain. I also know how I gained it.
The Trinity's blowers have been proven. Some of the fastest track times have been done with a Trinity blower on the car. That should not be in question. The GEN2 would have not been derived if the GEN1 numbers were such a wash against the Trinity. Whether people want to admit that or not, its simple truth. VMP looked to forward a proven product in the TVS, they looked at what the Gen 1 was, were to improve it, and move forward. Any engineer or person who actually understands the true numbers, not just a final spit out of a dyno, will want to see the info and compare to what the king of the heap currently is. This is why you have conversations about these things. Why you compared to Whipple and KB blower as well. In truth I want to see that information as well.
There are people who simply go with what's out there. There are people who want to make a informed decision about what they want to do. Then there are those who want to wring every drop they can get from the car. When you put a product out, people want to see the numbers. In this case where the numbers came quick for the Gen 1 to Gen 2 comparo, it would seem that the rest of the info should follow in the same pace as well. When you do not see that info, some will assume, as it is human nature, that the data is not where you want it to be or something else is going on. Whether or not this is the case, its just the way it is. All one needs to do is look at the debacle that is the 15's power and weight discussion.
There are people who will buy no matter what. There are people who will follow the flock. There are people who will not buy unless they know every single piece of information there is. The quicker the info come the better it is for all to make sound decision and so the discussion can begin. IMO it best for all. Otherwise well you get what you see now.
On the test with the 2010 that made 698, I would like to see more info on this. What pulley ? What boost ? How much timing ? What fuel ? Is it using a boost-a-pump ? Surely when you put numbers out, there will be a few who wants to know how you achieved those numbers. I ran a VMP Gen 1. I know what it could do. I am currently running a Trinity, and I know what was gain. I also know how I gained it.
The Trinity's blowers have been proven. Some of the fastest track times have been done with a Trinity blower on the car. That should not be in question. The GEN2 would have not been derived if the GEN1 numbers were such a wash against the Trinity. Whether people want to admit that or not, its simple truth. VMP looked to forward a proven product in the TVS, they looked at what the Gen 1 was, were to improve it, and move forward. Any engineer or person who actually understands the true numbers, not just a final spit out of a dyno, will want to see the info and compare to what the king of the heap currently is. This is why you have conversations about these things. Why you compared to Whipple and KB blower as well. In truth I want to see that information as well.
There are people who simply go with what's out there. There are people who want to make a informed decision about what they want to do. Then there are those who want to wring every drop they can get from the car. When you put a product out, people want to see the numbers. In this case where the numbers came quick for the Gen 1 to Gen 2 comparo, it would seem that the rest of the info should follow in the same pace as well. When you do not see that info, some will assume, as it is human nature, that the data is not where you want it to be or something else is going on. Whether or not this is the case, its just the way it is. All one needs to do is look at the debacle that is the 15's power and weight discussion.
There are people who will buy no matter what. There are people who will follow the flock. There are people who will not buy unless they know every single piece of information there is. The quicker the info come the better it is for all to make sound decision and so the discussion can begin. IMO it best for all. Otherwise well you get what you see now.
This man gets it ↑ ......thank you JESUS !!!!
Both cars I listed were within 5-7hp of each other stock...ive modded both cars myself from stock so I have been to all their dyno tunes as they are both good friends of mine. 1-2% difference is a none factor in skewing the results I seen....ill grab the dyno sheets tonight as my car will be going on the same dyno for testing this evening.
Last edited:
I would like to see same boost/timing/and fuel on the gen 2 and the ported Trinity same car, same dyno and same day .
Run it on 93 octane and boost and timing levels that 90% of this cars will see.
This is the only true way to determine.......two many variables with different cars and different dynos.
Run it on 93 octane and boost and timing levels that 90% of this cars will see.
This is the only true way to determine.......two many variables with different cars and different dynos.
-
This is exactly what I was trying to say last week just not as well as you did. IMO To me not doing this and holding on to info or releasing only bits and pieces of info except what people asked for makes me not as comfortable with the results and only hurts future sales .Its makes people think that there is something to hide. IMO I feel like we are getting some smoke and mirror answers . I hope im wrong and would love to buy a Gen2 over a 13-14 Trinity if it is the better piece .I am loosing my patience though and should just go buy a 3.6lc and be done .LOL And I know my opinion dont mean shit but I am in the market for a super charger
This is exactly what I was trying to say last week just not as well as you did. IMO To me not doing this and holding on to info or releasing only bits and pieces of info except what people asked for makes me not as comfortable with the results and only hurts future sales .Its makes people think that there is something to hide. IMO I feel like we are getting some smoke and mirror answers . I hope im wrong and would love to buy a Gen2 over a 13-14 Trinity if it is the better piece .I am loosing my patience though and should just go buy a 3.6lc and be done .LOL And I know my opinion dont mean shit but I am in the market for a super charger
Last edited:
David, the full config on the 10 has been on our FB page for days. 2.40, 17psi, etc. Its our 800hp kit. We put a little Torco in the 93 as insurance, not to up the spark. I'm out and don't have the direct link but it's there. Have a great weekend.
Understood and I went there to see the pull when I read about it on Gt500. Com. Understand I can count on one hand how many times I go to FB.
What I was commenting about is the rest of the data. As I said in the rocket ship thread those are great numbers for someone who is stock...it's phenomenal actually. I think what people want to see is how it matches up to what most run now. A 2.4 or 2.6 upper, no lower, for pp 65 tb and JLT 123 cai trinity.
That is the info most are waiting on. And I commented because people will just start to post crazy stuff in one view or the other without knowing the actual facts.
When it comes to info this is where I look. Personally fb is the last place I would look.
Sent from the Shadows on my Note 3
What I was commenting about is the rest of the data. As I said in the rocket ship thread those are great numbers for someone who is stock...it's phenomenal actually. I think what people want to see is how it matches up to what most run now. A 2.4 or 2.6 upper, no lower, for pp 65 tb and JLT 123 cai trinity.
That is the info most are waiting on. And I commented because people will just start to post crazy stuff in one view or the other without knowing the actual facts.
When it comes to info this is where I look. Personally fb is the last place I would look.
Sent from the Shadows on my Note 3
Last edited:
We don't live life in a vacuum, we need other people's help and assistance. SVT Performance's new Editor Steve Turner was kind enough to cover these upgrades and make them front page news on his website, for that, he gets first dibs at the story. It will be on the front page Monday morning.
I think the biggest problem with this thread is that everyone has their own axe to grind. We're happy to answer all the questions and give you all the data. The level of testing, tuning, and R&D we do is second to none. However, you have to ask those questions first, not say "well you should have done it on a Tuesday during a full moon with only cars that Blown04cobra personally knows the owner of". I'll be happy to explain reasoning and testing methodology for the way things are done. You also can't start making up your own test criteria that has no basis in industry standards. Though I hear Jay may be the new Underwriters Laboratories soon
I think both your testing and Jay's testing hold some validity. Jay is testing max effort stuff. You guys are class limited on blower RPM (pulley size) and throttle body size.
As blower tech has evolved even larger throttle bodies are required. There was a time years ago when a monoblade made the same power on the original TVS as a dual 65mm, but thats definitely not the case any more.
It was stated at one point that the blower should be slowed down for better track performance, to put it more in the efficiency range. I disagree with that. Every compressor is more efficient at lower RPM/boost, but moving more air is the name of the game when it comes to making HP.
The TVS is actually more volumetrically efficient than a twin screw of the same displacement, I had the original TVS put on an SAE flow stand years ago. The slight hit you take in thermal efficiency is mitigated by the intercooler. This is evident by what Ford did on the 13-14 GT500, that was the most boost out of the factory for any OE blower, ever, a 2.63 pulley, greater than 2:1 ratio. What did they do? throw a MUCH bigger heat exchanger under the front bumper, upgrade the intercooler pump, and slightly improve the HE under the blower. Now this car has to go WOT for several miles to reach 200 so this is part of why they did all of that, your average GT500 owner doesn't shoot for 200, he just wants more for 10-20 seconds at a time, and an upgraded front HE is enough for most peoples needs.
The TVS is actually more volumetrically efficient than a twin screw of the same displacement, I had the original TVS put on an SAE flow stand years ago. The slight hit you take in thermal efficiency is mitigated by the intercooler. This is evident by what Ford did on the 13-14 GT500, that was the most boost out of the factory for any OE blower, ever, a 2.63 pulley, greater than 2:1 ratio. What did they do? throw a MUCH bigger heat exchanger under the front bumper, upgrade the intercooler pump, and slightly improve the HE under the blower. Now this car has to go WOT for several miles to reach 200 so this is part of why they did all of that, your average GT500 owner doesn't shoot for 200, he just wants more for 10-20 seconds at a time, and an upgraded front HE is enough for most peoples needs.
TVS 2.3 > 2.8 & 2.9 Twin screws !!!
Thank you Justin .Thats the answer I need to hear and I respect that Steve gets 1st dibs on the 14 info. I wish that was said instead of results coming out on tuesday . I have NO AXE to grind .I only want to make a purchase soon and I need more info to do so. As I said in a previous post I like to race my car for money on the streets of Mexico once in a while. I want the better unit thats all. I hope the results live up to the hype and then my decision should be easy.
What I have been focusing on are the torque numbers. Peak horsepower is one thing, but rarely do you see high peak horsepower values equalling torque. I see lots of peak horsepower numbers with Kenne Belle, but the torque numbers are not in the same ballpark as the TVS. Torque is a function of horsepower and rpm. Essentially you're seeking higher horsepower throughout the rpm range, not just the top end. If you're still on the sidelines wondering what's the best option, just be patient. VMP just shipped its first pallet of blowers this week. Lots of information to make a decision is coming. They're not going to run out of blowers. That money is not going to burn a hole in your wallet either. There's going to be a flood of affordable TVS superchargers getting dumped on the market for those of you that couldn't make the jump before. Mine included. Likely, if you already have a Trinity blower, it will be tough call to make, but I've yet to see the '14 article on that part of the equation.
On Tuesdays with a full moon and with Nitrous you will find they make the most TQ :-/
The data will come out guys. It's not vmp's responsibility to compare their new supercharger to every supercharger on the planet. If you want to compare one to all these superchargers buy one and go nuts.
It is pretty easy to spot who is on team trinity/bps by their responses to every gen 2 thread...
I would also like to see some tests against a stock Trinity take off and a ported Trinity TVS vs. gen 2. What I mean by ported TVS is the kind that 99% of customers that bought the ported TVS run. Not the 3 or 4 prototype, cut, welded, ported, etc., TVS's the purpose built race cars run on built engines. I am sure in time the comparisons will come out.
I would also like to see some tests against a stock Trinity take off and a ported Trinity TVS vs. gen 2. What I mean by ported TVS is the kind that 99% of customers that bought the ported TVS run. Not the 3 or 4 prototype, cut, welded, ported, etc., TVS's the purpose built race cars run on built engines. I am sure in time the comparisons will come out.
I'm not really sure why there are "sides". It's like people are attacking VMP. They aren't hiding anything the thing just came out. Everyone should be thanking them for bringing out new products.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
