[nick_casper]

My Whipple with stock tune will be on a dyno 8/5. I don't have a before tune to compare with but it is a dyno day so I'll have a handful of Hellcats and a Maggie Camaro with smaller pulley and long tubes / intake to compare with. She pulled 520 whp on the Maggie before the additional mods.

[Goohead]

You went from a Maggie to a whipple? Any reason why?

Yeah man pls post up details, interested to see what your a/f looks like

[laynlo15]

The Magnuson Camaro made 730 with stock internals and stock exhaust as a few others have. All make good power but you still have to get them down the track, no matter what the dyno says. Dyno's fib a little, track times don't.

[Goohead]

Laynlo thanks, yeah I would not consider the muggy setup due to the size of the blower.

I'm sure that car can make those numbers, but at 2.3L at 11.5:1 with cast piston and powder Rod, the setup is not built for longevity. Seems like you would have to over rev the blower, running a higher psi, adding in a lot of supporting mods and still pushing beyond the limits of reliable for the stock rotating assembly.

Would be cheaper in the long run to go with a bigger displacement/trim blower and drop in forged parts or swap to a lt4 and sell the lt1. 700whp+ on stock compression, I'm just not confortable doing.

I'm new to the ls scene, all of my experience has been mostly import and turbos

[toohighpsi]

The 2.3 Maggie and 2.9L Whipple are actually very comparable sized units. Whipple 2.9 has a max speed of 18,000 RPM and the TVS2300 is happy up about 23,000 RPM.

Remember due to the 5/3 lobe arrangement of the Whipple the male rotor is spinning at 30,000 RPM with a 18,000 RPM pulley speed, much higher than the Magnuson's 23,000 RPM to move the same amount of air.

I continually hear about the 2300's inability to provide enough airflow for these LT engines, but have been unable to find the proof. I have yet to see any combination in an LT1 with the same mods run as fast as the Magnuson. While our best pass with the stock engine/transmission/exhaust has been 9.9 @ 140 on 109 octane, two weeks ago we ran the same combination on pump gas and went 10.3 @ 135 MPH at Orlando dragway.

I had an original goal of running into the single digits with a stock engine and SC - that ended up to easier than I had guessed. The Camaro is coming apart in August to receive the necessary safety equipment for running in the single digits along with a 416 stroker, cam, heads, and headers to fully exploit the capability of the TVS2300 before switching to the larger TVS2650 later this year.

If you are really concerned about absolute performance of the SC, you might as well wait a couple months for the Magnuson TVS2650. I don't think it will be the first one to market for the LT1/LT4, but it will be one of the most serious PD SC in this market with 2500 CFM and 1600+ HP capability.

See you at the track!

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by Goohead

Ted thanks, I know it's not all about peak #s but I figure the power and torque curves would be very similar with the same blower, I'm assuming those 91 #s are your own tune on the dyno and not their canned tune? Do you know what the kit puts out with the stock canned tune? Definitely will be hitting you up when it comes time for a tune I hear great things about your shop

Nick let me know, yeah from other platforms I used the whipple canned tunes were always a little more aggressive than the competition, curious to see if the same applies.

Layno- yeah I would be hesitant to push past 600 on the stock compression and internals. everything I seen points to otherwise.

My goal and timeline was to
Run a stock tune with the blower
Later (3-6 month of daily driving) pull the block and upgrade internals and cam, and tc
Then tune/upgrade fuel and pulley for lower compression higher boost

Dustin Whipple has a Gen6 and has been working on the tuning for quite some time so he really has it dialed in on 91 octane, you can expect about 540-560 RWHP on a M6 car.

The fuel system will limit you long before the tune or the blower.

Ted.

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by toohighpsi

The 2.3 Maggie and 2.9L Whipple are actually very comparable sized units. Whipple 2.9 has a max speed of 18,000 RPM and the TVS2300 is happy up about 23,000 RPM.

Remember due to the 5/3 lobe arrangement of the Whipple the male rotor is spinning at 30,000 RPM with a 18,000 RPM pulley speed, much higher than the Magnuson's 23,000 RPM to move the same amount of air.

I continually hear about the 2300's inability to provide enough airflow for these LT engines, but have been unable to find the proof. I have yet to see any combination in an LT1 with the same mods run as fast as the Magnuson. While our best pass with the stock engine/transmission/exhaust has been 9.9 @ 140 on 109 octane, two weeks ago we ran the same combination on pump gas and went 10.3 @ 135 MPH at Orlando dragway.

I had an original goal of running into the single digits with a stock engine and SC - that ended up to easier than I had guessed. The Camaro is coming apart in August to receive the necessary safety equipment for running in the single digits along with a 416 stroker, cam, heads, and headers to fully exploit the capability of the TVS2300 before switching to the larger TVS2650 later this year.

If you are really concerned about absolute performance of the SC, you might as well wait a couple months for the Magnuson TVS2650. I don't think it will be the first one to market for the LT1/LT4, but it will be one of the most serious PD SC in this market with 2500 CFM and 1600+ HP capability.

See you at the track!

I have made 850 RWHP with the Heartbeat on a 416 without spinning it to max rpm so your in for a hell of a ride when you make the changes.

With this LT platform I wouldn't be surprised if you could make 900 RWHP.

Ted.

[ProCharger]

Originally Posted by Cdflyer

The ProCharger tune with the P1SC is VERY conservative. There's a lot of room left. It's great for the average guy, but those of us that race them in any way shape or form will be wondering where the rest is. Lol

We set ours up a bit soft for........"just in case"

These cars haven't had the most consistent in fuel system parts.
(Not saying that is bad, just saying they have variance)

So could we put a touch more boost into them? possibly
could we put a bit more timing in them? sure

BUT, what we currently have is a rock solid tune that has had ZERO failures of any sort, and hasn't since we started boosting these LT-1's almost 3 years ago starting with the Corvette.

We set them up for people to enjoy at least 550rwhp on good quality fuel, and some people will get lucky and sneak out nearly 600 rwhp (depending on elevation and dyno)


How much is left on the table?
Well, for some people not much at all... others will really good gas, they can add a few ponies.



Thanks all!

[Darth Martel]

The real question, in my mind anyhow, is which supercharger performs the best and is the better value?

I know prochargers don't add very much under 3500rpm but, once it kicks in, it has amazing boost. My preference would be to have available power boost down low as well as high but, you're also facing traction issues with that much power at launch. So, is having that much power available down low really advantageous or more of a hindrance? I would think that a driver learns how their car performs and would be able to feather into the launch so they're not just roasting tires. The other question I have is where do each of these superchargers start to fall off on the power curve? It seems most people are going with the procharger with the belief that they are making the most power out of these superchargers. I'm just not sure if that belief is accurate or not and really if it's even relevant. I value Ted's opinion in this discussion more than most because he's not a fanboy of any one company or kit. What is your recommendation Ted? I'll obviously consider other opinions on the matter but, if you do add yours, please give supporting evidence.

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by Darth Martel

The real question, in my mind anyhow, is which supercharger performs the best and is the better value?

I know prochargers don't add very much under 3500rpm but, once it kicks in, it has amazing boost. My preference would be to have available power boost down low as well as high but, you're also facing traction issues with that much power at launch. So, is having that much power available down low really advantageous or more of a hindrance? I would think that a driver learns how their car performs and would be able to feather into the launch so they're not just roasting tires. The other question I have is where do each of these superchargers start to fall off on the power curve? It seems most people are going with the procharger with the belief that they are making the most power out of these superchargers. I'm just not sure if that belief is accurate or not and really if it's even relevant. I value Ted's opinion in this discussion more than most because he's not a fanboy of any one company or kit. What is your recommendation Ted? I'll obviously consider other opinions on the matter but, if you do add yours, please give supporting evidence.

The type of supercharger is really a personal preference, along with the type of use, and overall expected experience involving noise, throttle response, and where you want the added power.

I understand everyones decision making is more difficult than ever since all the superchargers available are SO DAMN GOOD.

You can not narrow it down by any one attribute like a HP number.

9 PSI boost is going to make very similar power at Peak engine RPM.

The PD blowers are very very strong at 2K where we spend the majority of our daily driving.

The blowers don't fall off, the engine does based on the cam profile, cylinder heads, intake exhaust etc.

In the case of a Centrifugal supercharger they will typically raise the Peak power RPM because boost continues to rise past peak engine power rpm.

We will see peak HP rpm about 2-300 RPM higher with a Centrifugal vs NA or PD blower.

I Hope this Helps.

[Goohead]

Great healthy discussion

Mike - didn't know about the new blower, seems like it was put out to compete with all its marketing vs a 2.9L. I think I will still stick with the bigger displacement due to being able to run less boost or more efficiently at the same level, and the displacement should help with iat temps. Thanks though.

Ted thanks for the #s yeah fuel is definitely in the future when I'm ready to build the motor

[1968ss350]

Originally Posted by Goohead

Great healthy discussion

Mike - didn't know about the new blower, seems like it was put out to compete with all its marketing vs a 2.9L. I think I will still stick with the bigger displacement due to being able to run less boost or more efficiently at the same level, and the displacement should help with iat temps. Thanks though.

Ted thanks for the #s yeah fuel is definitely in the future when I'm ready to build the motor

I think what mike was trying to tell you is that one rotor spins faster than the other on the twin screw resulting in a HIGHER RPM than the Maggie..

[Atomic Ed]

Originally Posted by Goohead

Great healthy discussion

Mike - didn't know about the new blower, seems like it was put out to compete with all its marketing vs a 2.9L. I think I will still stick with the bigger displacement due to being able to run less boost or more efficiently at the same level, and the displacement should help with iat temps. Thanks though.

Ted thanks for the #s yeah fuel is definitely in the future when I'm ready to build the motor

Keep in mind its the air mass moved per unit time, not the boost number or liter displacement of the rotor assembly that's important to us end users. While they seem to be directly comparable, a roots style assembly compresses air differently than a twin screw in that that the roots compresses to the outside of the assembly verses a twin screw which compresses down the center of the rotor pack and does slip some air by during compression. The best I can derive from studying both the TVS2300 and the twin screw 2.9L is that they deliver about the same amount of air mass up to their respective max spin speeds.

Sorry for the lecture if you already known this, but a lot of folks looking at FI systems for the first time don't.

While its true the older style roots systems weren't nearly as efficient as the twin screws in the past, the modern (TVS) roots blower is very efficient with its twisted rotors design.

Not trying to start (another) roots vs. twin screw battle here, but comparing a twin screw to a roots is like comparing peaches to apricots, a lot alike, but still different in their execution. In the end, both designs work very, very well for our application. But is one substantially better than the other? Not really.

[laynlo15]

Goohead, come over to Gateway Saturday and you can see mine run. It has very few mods and if the air is good enough I might see some 10.60's, hope so anyway. If not I usually run 10.70's with ease.