Cadillac CTS-V Forum banner

Kong 2650 for the LSA / LS9

207K views 701 replies 67 participants last post by  Hotsoss 
#1 ·
Saw it on Facebook: looks like "kongperformance" has come up with a 2650 case that accepts LSA / LS9 lids, up to 112mm throttle body and even has o-ring ports.

I'll be waiting for reviews but it looks pretty cool. Hopefully it lasts as good as it looks (pricing TBD)!

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
#3 · (Edited)
Would that presumably make fitting it under the hood possible?

If so my only concern would be enough cooling from the stock lid/brick.
Timeslips will have to prove it works as a package before I would try it over the more proven blowers on this platform.

The 2650 rotor pack is super impressive but not if the case won’t flow well or iats are crazy.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#4 ·
Yes I believe they claim it will fit.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
#8 ·
#9 ·
Please report back with any details - including if they give you any ballpark "gains" over a 2.3L.
 
#10 ·
Interesting, it looks like they are machining the case to fit the 2650 internals. It also looks like they are cutting/welding the snout flange to fit the new larger 112mm TB setup???

I thought I read that Duck posted something about the exducer needs to match the rotor pack size? The 2300 above looks untouched though if it has 2650 guts... I would imagine a bit more engineering is required vs stuffing the case with bigger and longer rotors but I'm interested to see the results nonetheless.

I don't also see why a 1900 couldn't be fitted with a 2300 rotor pack if this is the implementation path and so on.
 
#13 · (Edited)
Interesting, it looks like they are machining the case to fit the 2650 internals. It also looks like they are cutting/welding the snout flange to fit the new larger 112mm TB setup???

I thought I read that Duck posted something about the exducer needs to match the rotor pack size? The 2300 above looks untouched though if it has 2650 guts... I would imagine a bit more engineering is required vs stuffing the case with bigger and longer rotors but I'm interested to see the results nonetheless.

I don't also see why a 1900 couldn't be fitted with a 2300 rotor pack if this is the implementation path and so on.
What we have found is the 1.9L has an exducer of ~7.15 Sq." of flow area.
While the 2.3L has an exducer of ~9.48".

If we increase the 'Rotor Pack' in attempt to generate more flow / pressure,
and if the exducer retains the same area / flow area, then 'Velocity Choke'
will occur across that flow area / cross sectional area sooner than it should,
thereby limiting the flow through the orifice, or exducer in this case.

Here is some useful math to help those interested:

FPS = ( Flow_CFM * 2.4 ) / Average_CSA <= Below we will simply use 1-Sq."
thereby eliminating the need to divide with the 'Total Area'


Flow_CFM = Average_CSA * FPS * .4166667

Average_CSA = ( Flow_CFM * 2.4) / FPS

Where;
CSA is Circular Square Area
CFM is Cubic Feet per Minute
FPS is Velocity / Feet Per Second

The value of 2.4 converts CFM per Sq." to Velocity.
2.4 = ( 144 Sq.Inches / 60 Seconds )

-let's reduce this down to something simple-
So if (?) the 1.9L exducer flowed 100 cfm per Sq."
The velocity then would be 240 fps.

260 fps to 280 fps is a good number to shoot for, as
they produce both good torque, as well as good fwHP.

Having 9.48 Sq." of flow area, we would then simply
multiply the 100 cfm / Sq." by 9.48 and, if the above
were true, the 1.9L would flow 948 cfm.

The above then would provide for ~635 fwHP.

The above math makes many assumptions, as I
have simply generated a simple scenario here in
order to help the forum members understand.

The above also does not include for the increase
in the density ratio / mass flow when calculating
the absolute flow and fwHP of a supercharged
application.

I am thinking that with the difference in the sizes of
the rotor packs, that the exducer should also see
a proportionate incremental value, as we saw with
the differences in the 1.9L vs. 2.3L.

Cheers
 
#12 ·
Well I'd not be convinced your SOL yet. I like the innovation- but it's very much unproven at this point and, let's face it: it wouldn't be the first time a Hot New Thing didnt pan out as advertised....

This is a hacked up case with bigger rotors - but is it balanced? What kind of RPM limit will it have? How much heat from that undersized transducer? What kind of pre-rotor flow will we get from that hogged out snout - and will it feed both sides equally?

Lots of questions - but I'm still looking forward to see how it does!

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
#17 ·
I figure the price has to be more than the standard 2650 because of all the extra effort. Not cheap, but pretty badass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I V and random84
#33 ·
For being a new case, it is eerily similar to a factory 1.9 case...

I fuckin hate Facebook, but am very tempted to make an account and see if we can find out more about this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: V_Wagon
#26 ·
Does Cal still have a 427 in the V? Those are some pretty good numbers blower only. How “race” is it?
 
#21 ·
Unless you have ported heads and what not, this isn't for us mere mortals...correct?
 
#22 ·
Stock heads = 1.9L hands down.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
#25 · (Edited)
Let's also look at this from the perspective that Superflow does
per the original work of Bernoulli.

The 'Most' air one can flow on a bench is equivalent to
146 cfm per 'Each' Sq." of flow area.

So with the 1.9L we have 7.15 Sq." of flow area.
If we multiply 7.15 by 146, we arrive at a flow rate of 1,044 cfm.
The above does not include the increase in the mass flow / density ratio.

With the 2.3L the exducer has 9.48 Sq." of flow area.
This then would give a flow rate of 1,384 cfm.

The difference in flow rates amounts to 340 cfm.

The potential fwHP would be equivalent to. . .
=> (340 / 1.5)= 226.72 fwHP on Gasoline.

To further quantify this, all one would have to do
is take a 'Junk' manifold, cut it up, mount it on
a flow bench and find out how much the
exducer actually flows.

The exducers are triangular in shape.
Triangular shapes flow well. . . .

=================================

Finally; if we multiply 146 cfm by the value of 2.4 as I
did within my post with Random / Jesse, we find that
the velocity would be (146 * 2.4)= 350 fps.

Per Bernoulli, this is justified by the following formula when flowing at 28" of water:
=> Sqrt ((28) * 66.2)= 350.2975 fps.

And if we divide the value of 350 fps by 2.4, we get the value of 146 cfm.

But on a 'Live' engine the velocity is doubled from the value given on a bench.

That is the basic / fundamental reason for using 28" of water on an bench,
as the 'Engine' velocity can easily be calculated in your head.

So if we double the value of 350 we arrive at 700 fps.

Air travels in an engine at ~1116 fps.
If we divide 700 by 1116 we arrive at a Mach number of 0.62.

For any engine component to flow at Mach .62 it has to
be a well developed component.

NHRA Pro Stock heads will flow 146 cfm, or Mach .62
through the valve seat. The Pro Stock heads I have
had experience with have an area at the valve seat
of 4.37 Sq."

So they would flow. . .
=> (4.37 * 146)= 638 cfm.

That would then translate to a potential fwHP of. . .

=> (638 * 2.4)= 1,531 fwHP on a 500 cid NA Engine.
**** Above the value of 2.4 denotes how many fwHp
a well flowing / refined cylinder head will make per cfm flowed.


But those highly refined cylinder heads are made
at a cost of about $500,000..:eek:

Our heads cost a lot less and also flow a lot less per Sq."
And one can purchase a very, very good blower for less money..LOL

Cheers
 
#28 ·
And could you please inform me what all went into the RCR 1900? Assuming it’s just a modified stock blower by Rick Crawford...
 
#31 · (Edited)
Bruce, how are those numbers even feasible with a 1900, modified or not, even on a 429!?

That’s damn near 1200 at the flywheel, considering a 15% loss...
 
#32 · (Edited)
As I indicated in my last post;
I had heard(?) Cal had moved over to Meth.
Also, Cal is an experienced racer who is also a professional tuner.

And from what I have been told Rick is an expert on air flow, albeit
his profession is not air flow with IC Engines. . . From what i have been told(?).

Finally;
If an NHRA NA 500 cid Pro Stock engine can make 3-HP per CID,
why can't a Supercharged 429 running Meth (if that's true)
make 3-HP per CID.

=> (429 * 3)= 1287 fwHP.

Remember; any oxygenated fuel will be delivered to the
engine *Around* the blower inlet. . . .

So the richer you run the AFR (within reason), the more HP your going to make.


Cheers
 
#40 ·
It has to be a new case.

I've seen a picture somewhere of the 1.9L rotor pack next to the 2650 rotor pack. There is now way anyone is machining out a 1.9 case and installing the 2650 rotors. The rotors themselves are larger in diameter. That means center to center on the shafts is farther apart. That right there would be impossible with the 1.9 case.
 
#46 ·
If it is a 427 now, then he changed from the 429 which I have records of.
It was an RHS Block with a 4.130" bore, using a Callies Crank with a 4" stroke.
 
#49 ·
I'd like to see some dyno numbers, track performance and pricing. I'd love to feed my 427 with this blower...….but......the intercooler limitations have me concerned. I'd lean towards the heartbeat before I bought this 2650....so far. Only time will tell. Hopefully Magnuson realizes they should make a LS3/LSA/LS9 2650 that fits under our hoods. Their intercooler brick design for the LT4 2650 is hot...or rather.....cool. They are making insane power with that beast already.

Per forum rules, I've dished out the correct pressure ratio of likes throughout this thread, per the norm. Great discussion BTW!
 
#51 ·
Me reading this thread:





It just keeps getting better. Well fuck.
 
#53 · (Edited)
Well, if I ever blow up my SBE, I now have a roadmap for where I’d want to go next... a 427, with forged internals, and this blower!

I’m thinking you could easily reach 1000 rwhp on blower only (no meth, no nitrous) on 93, with high durability, reliability and good street drivability.

I’m really looking forward to seeing how upcoming builds with this blower work out in the real world.
 
#56 · (Edited)
They responded to that on Facebook. It could with some work. It’s going to use the LS9 seals that run lengthwise on the blower. The LSA blower doesn’t have the groove machined to hold those seals but it has material in the right place to machine them.

Grooves are on each side next to the runner area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cav454
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top