Cadillac CTS-V Forum banner

1 - 20 of 379 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,275 Posts
Discussion Starter #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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,989 Posts
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
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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,275 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Yes I believe they claim it will fit.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,461 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,275 Posts
Discussion Starter #8

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,275 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I'm waiting on Greg to get me pricing. I have an LS9 build this might make it for.
Please report back with any details - including if they give you any ballpark "gains" over a 2.3L.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,275 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Just sent my LS9 blower off for porting a few weeks ago... so much for good timing.
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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,062 Posts
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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,062 Posts
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
With the LS9 exducer having a flow area of 9.48 Sq."
and assuming the flow is only 100 cfm / Sq.", as well
as a 1.4142 Dr. which is calculated simply as the
Square Root of the Absolute Pressure Ratio (ABS),
we can assume that the LS9 blower, particularly
ported and modified such as your is, should provide
for how many cfm. . .
=> Sqrt (2.0)=1.4142
=> (9.48 * 100 * 1.41)= 1337 CFM.

Using the generally accepted math that it takes 1.5 cfm
to produce 1.0 fwHP, that puts you right about where
we thought it would. . . (1337 / 1.5)= 891 fwHP.

Now we all know that many LS9's produce ~900 HP.

So the empirical has been quantified using the appropriate
math, and that is why I feel it is tough to beat a well prepared
LS9 / 2.3L TVS Eaton. . .

To meet those flow demands one also requires the correct
cylinder head as well as the proper camshaft.

The mean head flow would be (1337 / 4)= ~334 cfm.
The peak head flow would be (891 / 2.4)= ~371 cfm.
**Note; this 2.4, does is not representative of the 2.4 above.

Your cylinder heads pretty much meet those demands, as
those demands are generated at or around 0.025", to no
more than 0.050" above convergence valve lift, as related
to this engine platforms cylinder heads.

Using the above cylinder head values, and as I recall your
camshaft has about 236° of intake duration, your HP
should 'Theoretically' peak at around ~7,004 rpm's.

I am going to guess at what the Minimum Circular Square Area
within your cylinder head is, and would calculate peak torque
at about 5,835 rpm's.

Sometimes my calculation overshoots peak hp by a
couple hundred rpm's on NA Applications. On
boosted applications, the peak torque 'RPM' usually
will be lower, sometimes substantially, and the
peak hp will also drop a couple more rpm's
than do the NA Applications.

The comments just above are relative to 'Roots Style Blowers'!
An engines performance parameters react very differently, to say a Turbo.

Your 102mm TB has a flow area of 12.68 Sq."
So your going to be pulling slightly more than 100 cfm / Sq."
But not much. . .

=> 1337 / 12.68)= 108.55 cfm / Sq."

Velocity then will be ~(108.55 * 2.4)= 260 fps.

While 240 fps would be better at the inlet,
260 fps should not cause any issues assuming the
inlet profile does not have any sharp turns. . .

But here, in your case. . . .
Anything smaller could cause the velocity to increase
above 280 fps and potentially cause InFlow losses.

280 fps on the bench is equal to ~560 fps on an live engine.
Speed travels at ~1116 fps under live engine conditions.

So your Mach# would be (560 / 1116)= 0.50.
So you would be moving into a velocity choked condition.

At any rate;
Should make for a pretty nice Daily Driver..:cool:

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
With the LS9 exducer having a flow area of 9.48 Sq."
and assuming the flow is only 100 cfm / Sq.", as well
as a 1.4142 Dr. which is calculated simply as the
Square Root of the Absolute Pressure Ratio (ABS),
we can assume that the LS9 blower, particularly
ported and modified such as your is, should provide
for how many cfm. . .
=> Sqrt (2.0)=1.4142
=> (9.48 * 100 * 1.41)= 1337 CFM.

Using the generally accepted math that it takes 1.5 cfm
to produce 1.0 fwHP, that puts you right about where
we thought it would. . . (1337 / 1.5)= 891 fwHP.

Now we all know that many LS9's produce ~900 HP.

So the empirical has been quantified using the appropriate
math, and that is why I feel it is tough to beat a well prepared
LS9 / 2.3L TVS Eaton. . .

To meet those flow demands one also requires the correct
cylinder head as well as the proper camshaft.

The mean head flow would be (1337 / 4)= ~334 cfm.
The peak head flow would be (891 / 2.4)= ~371 cfm.
**Note; this 2.4, does is not representative of the 2.4 above.

Your cylinder heads pretty much meet those demands, as
those demands are generated at or around 0.025", to no
more than 0.050" above convergence valve lift, as related
to this engine platforms cylinder heads.

Using the above cylinder head values, and as I recall your
camshaft has about 236° of intake duration, your HP
should 'Theoretically' peak at around ~7,004 rpm's.

I am going to guess at what the Minimum Circular Square Area
within your cylinder head is, and would calculate peak torque
at about 5,835 rpm's.

Sometimes my calculation overshoots peak hp by a
couple hundred rpm's on NA Applications. On
boosted applications, the peak torque 'RPM' usually
will be lower, sometimes substantially, and the
peak hp will also drop a couple more rpm's
than do the NA Applications.

The comments just above are relative to 'Roots Style Blowers'!
An engines performance parameters react very differently, to say a Turbo.

Your 102mm TB has a flow area of 12.68 Sq."
So your going to be pulling slightly more than 100 cfm / Sq."
But not much. . .

=> 1337 / 12.68)= 108.55 cfm / Sq."

Velocity then will be ~(108.55 * 2.4)= 260 fps.

While 240 fps would be better at the inlet,
260 fps should not cause any issues assuming the
inlet profile does not have any sharp turns. . .

But here, in your case. . . .
Anything smaller could cause the velocity to increase
above 280 fps and potentially cause InFlow losses.

280 fps on the bench is equal to ~560 fps on an live engine.
Speed travels at ~1116 fps under live engine conditions.

So your Mach# would be (560 / 1116)= 0.50.
So you would be moving into a velocity choked condition.

At any rate;
Should make for a pretty nice Daily Driver..:cool:

Cheers
Duck do you know of a way to convert MAF hz to velocity?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
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
What if someone opened up the exducer on 1.9 or 2.3 , would it make sense that it will flow better than having higher velocity ?

The reason I asked is that I've witnessed a comparison between two well known port works on LSA and one of them had the exducer smoothed out a bit which out perform the one with non touched outlet , not sure if the port work was the reason behind this but both were well ported , another thing that I remember someone claimed the 2.3 heartbeat has a larger exducer than the ls9 so either the factory cast just have some more meat or aftermarket R&D have a different point of view .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
I figure the price has to be more than the standard 2650 because of all the extra effort. Not cheap, but pretty badass.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,995 Posts
From my understanding, it's a new case Greg had made and not a LSA or LS9 blower case.
 
1 - 20 of 379 Posts
Top