General Supercharger Thread

I wonder what the improvements are in HP/TQ and efficiency if it's merely just a new wrapper to keep up with the competition, the TVS1900 should be chheeeaaaappp now and no one could argue a good reason NOT to be boosted...

 

Imma have to lower the price on my Maggy kit...

 

Hahahaha, shhhhh, I won't tell anyone of Maggy's new model

 

Why did you have did you have to replace and which ones are HDs? You got a link for them?

 

Wonder if they offer a trade up program....

 

Questions

larger injectors?
80mm pulley?
Canned tune?

I’m close to those numbers and had to do the above

 

I blew by the numbers. I'm 2x hp under and 13 lbs over that.

Lol

 

Who even cares about the numbers IMO. It’s all bologna. Crank vs Wheel HP, hub vs roller dyno, cool day vs hot day, low elevation vs high elevation blah blah blah. Too many factors. Either A, show me the stock vs after power delta, or B show me the dragy. If following this thread has taught me anything I think it’s that at the end of the day all the blowers are gonna give similar results unless you’re going all out with a full built engine running them at their max rpm. The main argument to be made for the larger blowers is cooler intake air which may aid power production, but should more so probably help with engine longevity/tight ring gaps/detonation.

 

Looks cool

 

Yea @reywcms WHERE'S YOUR DRAGGY RESULTS

 

In the sheet from the only run I've done so far haha. Will get more when I fix the evap canister and tune it. Think it did 5.3 with roll out? I can't remember

 

if I was on my computer, I’d post ricola meme

 

It does look nice, it's making about the same power as the Harrop , but I agree. Unless you have a built engine, no point in getting a bigger blower.

 

Unless you want twin screw efficiency lol

 

In what form does this extra efficiency make its appearance? Cause I’ve not seen it in the form of horsepower and torque on any Whipple tundra dyno sheets or dragys!…or even a compressor map for that matter.

 

I wonder why it says only years 19-21 on their site.

 

Well judging by the more efficient mileage we’ve recently logged that’s one. But feel free to watch twin screw vs roots from Richard holdener on the you tube. There’s a reason why all the roots blower are looking more like twin screws.. with rotor designs etc. I can tell less strain on my climbs and shifting and not even in boost. That’s not mentioned in those compressor maps etc but is present

 

We just disconnected the battery to reset the ECU. Is that enough or is it more in depth than that?

 

If you’re driving to get optimal fuel mileage you’re not in boost and the bypass is open anyway. If it’s not making boost, it’s not costing any fuel efficiency to spin. That’s the case for all of the blowers not just the Whipple. Driven gingerly you realistically won’t see a difference in fuel mileage between any of them based solely on the blower designs even if one was hypothetically more efficient. Different tunes for each setup might give you different fuel economy..maybe, which could be what you’re seeing. Or it’s just super anecdotal. Hand calculate mpg for every tank for 6 months and that would be more telling. My truck gets the same mileage it got NA if I drive it for mileage. I’ll grant you, the 1.9Lis a less efficient design than the newer 2.65L.

TVS rotor packs are far more efficient than the old Roots your referencing in said videos. If you want to read real comparisons between them don’t search “Roots vs twin screw” but search “TVS vs twin screw” and you’ll get more relevant modern comparisons. Most of what I read shows TVS is more efficient especially at boost levels any of us will ever run them at. That’s why a smaller displacement TVS still outperforms a larger displacement whipple. DAP, Prospeed, Matt Smith, and Mat Wilson have all made comments along the lines of the Whipple just doesn’t perform as well on these trucks unless maybe you’re going for a max PSI build. Whipple is always claiming to be the most efficient, yet they won’t even provide a compressor map. It seems to be they upsize the displacement of the blower to compete with the smaller TVS blowers that seem to make more power with less displacement. Not to get to nerdy with it all, but all of the sciency stuff in regards to superchargers is stuff I find super interesting. Also not trying to argue, but I would genuinely like to see evidence that a twin screw is more efficient than a TVS of a smaller displacement, let alone a TVS that’s the same size.

 

I’d venture the recent trip from towing where the old man did Multiple blasts over 110mph and still calculated 15mpg is telling. Now again this would be over the maggy 1.9 which we know is and older design. But at the same boost level how would a smaller blower flow more than a larger blower the physics don’t add up? Obviously a larger blower spun harder will flow more again yes? Now I can’t say my times are faster because of the Whipple alone since yes I’m running more boost than the old setup. The blower still has to spin the bypass valve is irrelevant. The engine still has to spin the rotors and the air still gets compressed. I’m on the same tune from the maggy and the same morning drive takes less engine rpm and gear changes. That’s gotta be less parasitic usage.


According to the old KB data you’re seeing 10* plus higher Iat per lb of boost so let’s say the new roots are maybe 5-8* cooler that’s still a significant difference per lb of boost. And at the end of the day what matters is Mass flow. Cooler temps better mass flow. I’m also curious whys it taken so long for roots to get to 2650 size? Twinscrews have been large forever. There has to be an engineering limiting factor. Bottom line is the path the air takes in roots up around etc is less efficient then a twin screw straight from the rotors and down.

https://kennebell.net/mustang-gt500-supercharger-tests-twin-screw-vs-tvs-by-richard-holdener/


https://www.challengertalk.com/thre...er-vs-kenne-bell-back-to-back-same-car.44330/

 

Weird. I see it listed as 2007-2018 gas and 2010-2018 flex, but you're right once you click into it the years then show as 19-21.

 

I think they’re still fixing the site their social shows the correct years.

 

Which years are correct?

 

07-21

 

https://youtu.be/sfv2_M2mGQU

Recent build posted with the new Maggie. Love for the 6.5ft bed too. The inlet for the new 2650 looks way bigger than the stock throttle body of 76mm, aka immediately slap a RCF TB on there then.

 

Nice they’re offering the upgrade kit also

 

Once again these are comparing the older and smaller 2.3 TVS to a 2.8 screw. I wouldn’t call a study by Kenne Bell an independent and unbiased source. Find a 2.3 screw outperforming a 2.3 TVS though.

As far as fuel economy, a supercharger that is parasitic in nature is likely not going to get you better fuel economy than the truck was getting NA. You can’t get blood from a stone. I think you’re really just noticing less engine RPM/throttle and gear changes from flowing more air sooner on the smaller pulley (your 3.5” on the Whipple is equivalent to a 2.3” on a Maggie) I think you would have had similar results with a 2.3 pulley on the 1.9 liter.

A smaller blower flowing similar volume obviously all comes down to the pulley size. A 1.9 blower spun up with a 2.3” pulley flows the same as a 2.9 blower with a 3.5” pulley. Sure, the 1.9 will be less efficient at the top of its rpm range compared to a larger blower operating in its sweet spot, but it will mostly operate within its peak efficiency. If anything the 2.9 Whipple never gets close to reaching its peak efficiency range because it is too large of displacement so you are forced to run it at a slower RPM below it’s peak efficiency range in order to keep it at a safe peak boost level. Putting a smaller pulley on your magnuson would have netted you similar results unless your cranking that bigger blower to produce over 12psi. Much beyond a 2.3 pulley the 1.9 liter will be running inefficiently and it’s time for a bigger blower for peak power(where the 2650 shines), but most of us here aren’t flowing that much as it requires a built motor much beyond that.
I also think the question isn’t why are TVS blowers usually smaller displacement, but why are twin screws so much larger? I think the answer is they started to upsize the rotor pack substantially over the competition to compete from a performance standpoint. I read when Eaton developed the 2300, Kenne Bell dropped all development on their 2300 and went right to the 2800. IMO liter for liter the TVS is just more potent.

 

It would be nice to compare the maps. Also the 1900 and 2650 have a higher efficiency rating vs the 2300

 

Emailed asking how much just for the SC.

 

FYI. In the new Magnuson in the video they talk about a new air intake box and new pipe which is much bigger to handle the air flow and take care of the MAF so folks that want the bigger pipe and all that I bet those parts could be had from Magnuson. This would solve some issues with the pipe angle dangle and that dang MAF

they talk about the new box and piping in the video above