Whipple or Kenne Bell??????????

[20-COBRA-03]

What do you mean new eatons??^^ I'm making tons of TQ out of this steggy port... bumped 1 deg. timing im betting we're at 550+rwtq right now but i felt it needed a tad bit more kick... The new whipple should be here this comin up week :banana:

 

[stangfreak]

whippleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

[Potentn2o]

Like a lot of people, I was loosing my mind trying to decide between the KB and the Whipple. Here is some reasons why I chose the KB 2.4

First of all, I have to say that I do like the looks of the Whipple a ton more than the KB. Everything about the Whipple right down to the pulley, looks better in my opinion.

Second. Let me say that I really believe that both blowers are pretty good and I don't think you can go wrong with either one. Everybody has an opinion. Sometimes it's just comes down to doing your own research and making up your own mind.

When I was going to take the plunge, Whipple was having trouble getting the components to assemble their blowers therefor they were backordered for some months. I guess this might have made the decision a little easier for me.

When I was doing the research, I found a ton of information on KB's website. Granted, it might all have a little slant towards KB, but it was good reading non the lass. Whipple really didn't have much technical information that I found.

After reading all of the information that I could find, I came to the conclusion that both units are of similar design if not the same design. Of the two blowers, the KB seemed to be the industrial, heavy duty version. The case is made of billet, bearings are larger, drive gears are larger, rotor/ screw shafts are larger etc.

When I decided to go the KB route, I then needed to decide which one I would get. After checking into both, the 2.4 was only like two hundred bucks more than the 2.2 When your spending over three grand, what's a couple hundred bucks more.

The main reason I went with the 2.4 is that the 2.4 makes four pounds more boost than the 2.2 both being driven at the same speed. With the stock lower pulley and a 3.5" pulley on the blower, the 2.2 makes roughly twelve pounds and the 2.4 makes sixteen. With a 3.25" on both, the 2.2 makes roughly fourteen pounds and the 2.4 makes eighteen.

I figured that with the 2.4, I wouldn't have to work it as hard. I knew that I would probably never go over twenty pounds of boost. Therefor, I thought that with the 2.4 I could get there with a slower blower speed than the 2.2 Another point is that I could use a larger pulley on the 2.4 thus maybe helping out with belt slippage a bit.

To date, these are the parts that I have.

KB 2.4 w/ KB single blade throttle body.
K & N FIPK
SCT BA2400 MAF
SCT X-Cal 2
60 pound injectors
Focus pumps
AFCO dual pass heat exchanger
Borla #14858 cat-back

If it's not listed above, it's OEM

On a humid 96 degree day with the 3.5" pulley and sixteen pounds of boost it made 542 RWHP. With a 3.25" pulley and eighteen pounds of boost it made 568 RWHP. All runs were SAE correction. The tune consists of no more than twenty degrees of timing and the A/F was 11.5:1 I think this would be considered a "safe" tune.

One thing that I will add is that I have not had any issues with spewing oil. The blower has the vented pulley bolt.

The thing that I have to yet figure out is where all the torque is. With the 3.25" pulley and eighteen pounds of boost, I am making just a tic under 500 RWTQ. I am kind of disappointed in that. I'm kind of wondering that with the big blower, I have air volume making boost but don't have the velocity to make torque. Who knows.

Hope this helps a bit.

 

[geo2000gt]

I voted KB for two reasons. First when I was looking around, Whipples were backordered a few months, and the second that after I drove my friends whippled cobra I had no doubt in my mind that I was buying a KB since the whipple was very quiet. I used to own a 2000 GT w/t a Procharger on it and I used to love the way the blower was screaming on high rpms. Screaming is very important to me and whopple is not doing it for me.

 

[SVT04]

Take a look at the new whipple....it will change your mind about the KB...I will be going Whipple all the way....

 

[stangfreak]

Like a lot of people, I was loosing my mind trying to decide between the KB and the Whipple. Here is some reasons why I chose the KB 2.4

First of all, I have to say that I do like the looks of the Whipple a ton more than the KB. Everything about the Whipple right down to the pulley, looks better in my opinion.

Second. Let me say that I really believe that both blowers are pretty good and I don't think you can go wrong with either one. Everybody has an opinion. Sometimes it's just comes down to doing your own research and making up your own mind.

When I was going to take the plunge, Whipple was having trouble getting the components to assemble their blowers therefor they were backordered for some months. I guess this might have made the decision a little easier for me.

When I was doing the research, I found a ton of information on KB's website. Granted, it might all have a little slant towards KB, but it was good reading non the lass. Whipple really didn't have much technical information that I found.

After reading all of the information that I could find, I came to the conclusion that both units are of similar design if not the same design. Of the two blowers, the KB seemed to be the industrial, heavy duty version. The case is made of billet, bearings are larger, drive gears are larger, rotor/ screw shafts are larger etc.

When I decided to go the KB route, I then needed to decide which one I would get. After checking into both, the 2.4 was only like two hundred bucks more than the 2.2 When your spending over three grand, what's a couple hundred bucks more.

The main reason I went with the 2.4 is that the 2.4 makes four pounds more boost than the 2.2 both being driven at the same speed. With the stock lower pulley and a 3.5" pulley on the blower, the 2.2 makes roughly twelve pounds and the 2.4 makes sixteen. With a 3.25" on both, the 2.2 makes roughly fourteen pounds and the 2.4 makes eighteen.

I figured that with the 2.4, I wouldn't have to work it as hard. I knew that I would probably never go over twenty pounds of boost. Therefor, I thought that with the 2.4 I could get there with a slower blower speed than the 2.2 Another point is that I could use a larger pulley on the 2.4 thus maybe helping out with belt slippage a bit.

To date, these are the parts that I have.

KB 2.4 w/ KB single blade throttle body.
K & N FIPK
SCT BA2400 MAF
SCT X-Cal 2
60 pound injectors
Focus pumps
AFCO dual pass heat exchanger
Borla #14858 cat-back

If it's not listed above, it's OEM

On a humid 96 degree day with the 3.5" pulley and sixteen pounds of boost it made 542 RWHP. With a 3.25" pulley and eighteen pounds of boost it made 568 RWHP. All runs were SAE correction. The tune consists of no more than twenty degrees of timing and the A/F was 11.5:1 I think this would be considered a "safe" tune.

One thing that I will add is that I have not had any issues with spewing oil. The blower has the vented pulley bolt.

The thing that I have to yet figure out is where all the torque is. With the 3.25" pulley and eighteen pounds of boost, I am making just a tic under 500 RWTQ. I am kind of disappointed in that. I'm kind of wondering that with the big blower, I have air volume making boost but don't have the velocity to make torque. Who knows.

Hope this helps a bit.

i understand your point on the money issue, but if your not going to spin that 2.4 over 23lbs of boost its a waste. even you said you were disappointed in the tq numbers. if knew what i know now i would have got the 2.2

i took my 2.4 kb off. i was one of the first guys to get one when they came out. never again will i get a kb blower

 

[Potentn2o]

Well. Like I stated before, my thinking was that with the larger blower making four more pounds of boost than the little one, I wouldn't have to work the blower as hard. I figured that if I was only going to make around twenty pounds, I could reach that with a lower blower speed and a larger pulley.

I have to agree though, that there are some things that I didn't expect. First of all let me say that I personally like a big hit in power. I own a two-stroke Banshee. Like most two strokes, it has nothing down low but like a flip of a switch, tears your head off up high. I own a couple of sport bikes that are kind of the same way. From idle to eight grand there dead. From eight grand to fifteen, it's on. I have a 91 LX with a windsor. From idle to six grand, you could walk faster. From six grand to ninty-eight hundred, ooh shit. This is kind of what I am used to.

The Kenne Bell in my application, is not like that. The power is so flat. Looking at the dyno graph, you couldn't have drawn the power curve straighter if you used a ruler. There is no hit in it anywhere. riding in the car, you would never guess it's making close to six hundred. It just feels like a seven hundred inch motor.

The cool thing about it is that the power never drops off. It pulls right to sixty-five hundred. Peak power is at sixty-five hundred. Peak boost is the same. Eighteen pounds at sixty-five hundred. People riding in the car think you are short shifting it cause the power never falls off or noses over.

I am concerned about the torque though. I keep seeing a lot of cars on the board where the HP and TQ numbers are closer together. I am just taking a stab that the problem is the large blower and slow blower speed. I was thinking that maybe with the larger blower, I am moving volume but that the slow speed was costing me velocity and torque. Who knows. Maybe with the 2.2 spinning at a faster speed, I still would have eighteen pounds but would also have the air speed to make more torque.

Don't get me wrong though. I do like the 2.4 a lot. It was just not what I expected. Maybe the whole twin-screw thing is not for me. Maybe I should have ridden in a twin-screw Cobra before hand, which I never did. Maybe a centri. blower would have better suited my taste. I know that a turbo would have, but then there is that money issue.

I don't want to sound all down beat about it. The 2.4 is a ton of fun and it is worlds better than the Eaton. There is also the arguement that the flat power curve (or whatever you want to call it) is easier to drive fast, easier on the drivetrain etc.

All in all. I am happy with it.

 

[Oh Three Cobra]

Im wondering if your stock h-pipe is killing your torque? I didn't see one listed in your mods.

 

[Potentn2o]

You are right. I do have stock manifolds and H-pipe. I do feel that with a good set of headers and X-pipe, ar at least the X-pipe, I might be able to hit the six hundred horsepower mark.

 

[adamjg2]

I think by new eaton he meant the new one on the shelby, supposed to be the next generation from them.
Adam

 

[DSG2003SVT]

Does Whipple have an 11# (3.75") pulley? I would like to do a 6# lower and that would put me at 17psi (93 oct. pump gas friendly). This way I would have a lot of contact area for the belt to sit on so I wouldn't have to worry as much about slip in the high RPMs. The cams that I have are going to put my shift points around 7000, so belt slip is going to be likely.

 

[DSG2003SVT]

Also, what all is improved on the "new" whipples?

 

[Black2003Cobra]

Potentn2o - For “modest” boost levels, neither a KB or Whipple will make equal peak torque and power because boost pressure, and hence torque, are nearly constant. Remember that HP = TQ*RPM/5252. Therefore, if TQ is flat, (i.e., nearly constant w/ rpm), once you’re above 5252 rpm, HP will exceed TQ. Hence, except for the guys running really high boost, peak power is higher than peak tq with the twin screws.

The reason the Eatons tend to make closer numbers for peak power and torque is because boost drops off at higher rpm, which is why torque drops off at higher rpm, which also means peak power is lower than it otherwise would have been had boost and torque “held up”. This is especially true for those guys spinning the crap out of the Eaton. You make huge torque down low where the supercharger’s volumetric efficiency is still holding up, but then VEsc tanks as you get to higher rpm. Lower VEsc => lower boost => lower tq and hp at higher rpm.

Does that explanation help?

 

[Black2003Cobra]

DSG2003SVT - reportedly, their adiabatic and volumetric efficiencies have been improved. That translates to more power and torque.

 

[DSG2003SVT]

DSG2003SVT - reportedly, their adiabatic and volumetric efficiencies have been improved. That translates to more power and torque.

Thanks for the help, even though all I understood was more hp and tq, lol. That's all that really matters anyway, right? Do you know if they make a 3.75" upper?

 

[Black2003Cobra]

N/P. Lower IAT2s are always nice, too! (Those drop due to the higher adiabatic efficiency.) Not sure if they make a 3.75", no. I know they offer a 3.5" (13psi) pulley though.

 

[adamjg2]

that new eaton is only for the new 5.4 block though, isnt it? At least that is the impression I was under.
Adam

 

[terminator04]

new whipple for sure. i just ordered one!

 

[03BADSTANG]

Well. Like I stated before, my thinking was that with the larger blower making four more pounds of boost than the little one, I wouldn't have to work the blower as hard. I figured that if I was only going to make around twenty pounds, I could reach that with a lower blower speed and a larger pulley.

I have to agree though, that there are some things that I didn't expect. First of all let me say that I personally like a big hit in power. I own a two-stroke Banshee. Like most two strokes, it has nothing down low but like a flip of a switch, tears your head off up high. I own a couple of sport bikes that are kind of the same way. From idle to eight grand there dead. From eight grand to fifteen, it's on. I have a 91 LX with a windsor. From idle to six grand, you could walk faster. From six grand to ninty-eight hundred, ooh shit. This is kind of what I am used to.

The Kenne Bell in my application, is not like that. The power is so flat. Looking at the dyno graph, you couldn't have drawn the power curve straighter if you used a ruler. There is no hit in it anywhere. riding in the car, you would never guess it's making close to six hundred. It just feels like a seven hundred inch motor.

The cool thing about it is that the power never drops off. It pulls right to sixty-five hundred. Peak power is at sixty-five hundred. Peak boost is the same. Eighteen pounds at sixty-five hundred. People riding in the car think you are short shifting it cause the power never falls off or noses over.

I am concerned about the torque though. I keep seeing a lot of cars on the board where the HP and TQ numbers are closer together. I am just taking a stab that the problem is the large blower and slow blower speed. I was thinking that maybe with the larger blower, I am moving volume but that the slow speed was costing me velocity and torque. Who knows. Maybe with the 2.2 spinning at a faster speed, I still would have eighteen pounds but would also have the air speed to make more torque.

Don't get me wrong though. I do like the 2.4 a lot. It was just not what I expected. Maybe the whole twin-screw thing is not for me. Maybe I should have ridden in a twin-screw Cobra before hand, which I never did. Maybe a centri. blower would have better suited my taste. I know that a turbo would have, but then there is that money issue.

I don't want to sound all down beat about it. The 2.4 is a ton of fun and it is worlds better than the Eaton. There is also the arguement that the flat power curve (or whatever you want to call it) is easier to drive fast, easier on the drivetrain etc.

All in all. I am happy with it.

This is what I made with a RWTD tune on my 2.4 and a 3.5" pulley. These are not my final numbers with the 3.5" pulley either, as I would guess I was closer to 580rwhp/500rwtq with my final tune for this combo. I am getting dyno tuned with a 3.2" pulley here very shortly, and hope to put down some nice numbers, and might even go with a 3" pulley :uh oh: The thing that I am most curious about is how my torque numbers are going to respond.

 

[mike69440]

This is what I made with a RWTD tune on my 2.4 and a 3.5" pulley. These are not my final numbers with the 3.5" pulley either, as I would guess I was closer to 580rwhp/500rwtq with my final tune for this combo. I am getting dyno tuned with a 3.2" pulley here very shortly, and hope to put down some nice numbers, and might even go with a 3" pulley :uh oh: The thing that I am most curious about is how my torque numbers are going to respond.

Looks a lot like my power curve with a Whipple and 2 LB lower and 3.5 upper.

I now run a 4 LB old style lower (8.5" dia.) and that is good enough for me.

I have not dynoed this combo. The shape of the power curve is what is sweet. Guys with just as fast Eaton's do not appreciate the feeling of fast with less strain.

Next week the car goes back on road after winter hibernation!