Ok, Who wants a 3.3L whipple kit, even if it needs a cowl hood?
Who would place a deposit if the cost of the complete kit was known?
Who would place a deposit if the cost of the complete kit was known?
Who wants a 3.3L whipple and who will put a deposit on one?
- Thread starter Evil SS
- Start date
I don't think the hood clearance will be an issue - I think the case is longer - not taller, so firewall clearance might be the main problem if there is one.
evil ss, i see you really want this 3.3 eh?? so do I lol i dont blame you. my blower swap was going to be in the future, but a 3.3 is hard to pass up. i am really interested in what a 3.3 blower can do on our cars. i really do hope they make one.
I feel your pain man... I'll take the 2.3L or the 3.3L...I just wish they would tell us when it's going to finished. I don't care if it is in the summer or fall... just give us a date and stick to it. this "two weeks" shit is getting really old.:cuss:
:lol: :lol: lol @ 2 weeks. man i hear ya. thats all they have been saying for the past.......... i dont even know how long.
I have trying to contact Whipple for a couple weeks now, with no luck, to get info on the upgrade kits.
I want a 3.3L but I don't have deep enough pockets to do development work. I'll some of you rich folk do all the development and debugging then I'll plunk down my $X,000. Pricing would also be another issue. I would put down a deposit if I new how the kits were going to cost.
I want a 3.3L but I don't have deep enough pockets to do development work. I'll some of you rich folk do all the development and debugging then I'll plunk down my $X,000. Pricing would also be another issue. I would put down a deposit if I new how the kits were going to cost.
Personally I would be hard pressed to drop money on a kit with no numbers to back it up. If its a 3.3L it prolly has larger screws and likely more parasitic loss than than the KB even though it flows more air at a given RPM. Too many variable to go into it blind if ya ask me.
The 3.3 liter will have a greater adiabatic efficiency than the smaller 2.2 and 2.3 liter units. The capability for the blower to generate the boost at a much lower RPM (and lower outlet temperature) will far outweigh any disadvantage that the rotating mass of the rotors may have. (which would be neglible at best)
Count me in.
Let me know what else you find out.
Dana
Let me know what else you find out.
Dana
Right size at 2.3 L
Not Me
The 3.3l blower is excessive for even a built 5.4 4V, never mind a stock Block 03. The parasitic and adiabatic losses would be more. I expect so would blow-by for a given volume at the same compression.
Also the compromises in the inlet and the associated inlet losses making that sharp 135 degrees bend would hurt.
Then there is that that big embarrassing bulge in the pants, err, I meant hood.
Mike69440
Not Me
The 3.3l blower is excessive for even a built 5.4 4V, never mind a stock Block 03. The parasitic and adiabatic losses would be more. I expect so would blow-by for a given volume at the same compression.
Also the compromises in the inlet and the associated inlet losses making that sharp 135 degrees bend would hurt.
Then there is that that big embarrassing bulge in the pants, err, I meant hood.
Mike69440
Last edited:
While I agree that blow-by may be an issue due to slow rotating speeds, the adiabatics cannot help but be increased. Boost is a basic function of three things, simply stated and then overcomplicated from there, but still... displacement of the blower, displacement of the engine, and the speed at which the unit is turned. By effectively decreasing the speed of the blower per pound of boost created, the air will not be as heated and the subsequent result will be better adiabatics. 
adiabatics
Lets assume that the design of the 2.3 and 3.3 L blowers follow geometric modeling scale design, then in that case the adiabatic efficiency sould be about the same.
Same amount of energy is generated if you compress 1/2 Cubic feet of air in 1/2 second twice as compressing 1 cf of air in 1 sec.
You will get more heat transfer to the ambient with the bigger case so that may make the case cooler, but the blowby would be greater with the larger blower, so you would have to for example compress 1.1 cf of air to get 1 cf in the engine.
I'd still think the 2.3 L would be the best match.
The roots blower has such poor eff. because pf the pressure pluses it generates to make a given amont of boost.
In any case the Whipple is better in a high boost situation. At very low boost a roots is fairly efficient.
Lets assume that the design of the 2.3 and 3.3 L blowers follow geometric modeling scale design, then in that case the adiabatic efficiency sould be about the same.
Same amount of energy is generated if you compress 1/2 Cubic feet of air in 1/2 second twice as compressing 1 cf of air in 1 sec.
You will get more heat transfer to the ambient with the bigger case so that may make the case cooler, but the blowby would be greater with the larger blower, so you would have to for example compress 1.1 cf of air to get 1 cf in the engine.
I'd still think the 2.3 L would be the best match.
The roots blower has such poor eff. because pf the pressure pluses it generates to make a given amont of boost.
In any case the Whipple is better in a high boost situation. At very low boost a roots is fairly efficient.
I agree with you there, without knowing the V.E. of the two units we are comparing at given RPM levels we could speculate on this for days. For boost levels below 20 PSI I do not see the benefit of running the larger unit, however, as the boundaries of this engine are explored (read overboosted and subsequently broken) I feel that the 3.3L is a very viable future option which should not be overlooked, especially in maximmum effort engines.
The 2.3 L blower will not make 20psi on a heads and cams COBRA if it does it will be overspun. I want to do a H/C 3.3l o3 Cobra. When a turn my bottom end into a very exspensive flower put for 8 Ill do a 5.2L stoker alm. block bottom end. I want a twin Scre race kit. BTW- guys put the 3.3l whipple on h/c built Stock disp ls1 GTO's and make great power 10-15 lbs of boost on 91 pump.
The 2.3 liter unit should put out a respectable adiabatic percentage at 20 PSI in an application where we are trying to raise pressure in only 281 cubic inches of space per two crankshaft revoloutions (one camshaft revolution, or in this case, complete valve events) If we increase that displacement of 281 by almost twenty percent to 346 cubic inches (i.e. LS-1) the viabilty of the larger unit starts to play a role.
That is why you see them in use in the applications you stated in your post.
It's all in application, but without V.E. figures from whipple, and their own R&D conclusions, it is pure speculation at this point.
That is why you see them in use in the applications you stated in your post.
It's all in application, but without V.E. figures from whipple, and their own R&D conclusions, it is pure speculation at this point.
Last edited:
Speculation aside, if Whipple could just give us a bone to chew on, that would be nice.
If the numbers are comparable or only slightly better than a KB, then its all price$ from there.
Hell, next thing you know Apten will offer a ported KB.
If the numbers are comparable or only slightly better than a KB, then its all price$ from there.
Hell, next thing you know Apten will offer a ported KB.
Users who are viewing this thread
