Big difference in the two. . .
1) The Whipple is a real Supercharger as it compresses the air internally.
This allows the Whipple to generate and hold much
higher Pressure Ratios then the Magnuson can.

2) The Magnusun is simply a larger version of the Eaton TVS
'Roots Style' Blower that comes on our cars.

These Roots Blowers don't internally compress the air.

They simply act like a big 'Fan' that 'Blows' the air
into the intake manifold.

They won't hold nearly as high an Pressure Ratio as
will the Whipple, which is a 'Twin Screw' compressor.

Cheers

 

Thanks for the detailed response. This def cleared things up for me and helped me my decision! Whipple it is !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

neither of those would be my choice. a tvs 2650 and it will produce more air than your car can support.

 

Twins.

 

No issues with my Whipple 2.9. I'd love to turbo the car but there are only a hand full of turbo V3s that aren't spending more time and money chasing running issues. The fastest V3 in the world is here in Houston, Jesus is his name with the red V3 you see all over the net and he's going twins as we speak, but dude has more money then most.

 

You should do the eforce 2650 over the whipple! I've had both on my car and the 2650 performs better and has been way more reliable for me.

 

What kind of boost did you see with the 2650?
Do you have any info regarding the IAT's between the two?

100% Volumetric Efficiency of a 376 cid at 7000 rpm's. . .
=> (376 * 7000 / 3456)= 762 cfm

Roots blowers are not worth a 'Shit' beyond ~2.1 -ABS- Pressure Ratio.

They become very inefficient.

The pressurized air in the manifold leaks back through
the gap between the blowers vanes and case.

So if we take the 2.1 ABS ratio and multiply it into the 762 cfm
we arrive at. . .
=> (2.1 * 762)= 1600 cfm.

If everything is working correctly and using the generally accepted
conversion from cfm to hp of 1.5, we find that the potential HP would be. . .
=> ((1600 / 1.5)= 1067 fwHP.
*** I am not saying the blower won't make 1067 fwHP.
*** I am saying it won't 'in a guaranteed sense' under the
above conditions, when compared against a good 'Twin Screw'.

But that's not what is going to happen, as the blower won't
supply 1600 cfm of air at a Pr of 2.1, with an acceptable
efficiency and, the 'Density Ratio' will be far less than one
would generally see with a good 'Twin Screw' at the same Pr
. . . Under the 'Same' conditions!

This all goes back to the ability of the Twin Screw being able
to hold a much higher pressure ratio then 'Any' Roots Blower
while staying efficient.

Centrifugal and Twin Screw 'Superchargers', as well as
Turbo's, all use a very different technology to compress
the air, in order to increase mass flow, over any unit of
time, versus a Roots Blower.

A Direct Drive _ Positive Displacement Roots Style Blower
works very, very well at low rpm's, to help fill the cylinders
while the engine is operating with 'Some' low rpm range.

This provides for exceptional low rpm Torque,
but they are not known for producing Horsepower
at higher blower rpm's, or for their ability to hold
higher 'Pressure Ratios' as do the real Superchargers
I spoke off earlier.

Now, while the above is technically correct, I am happy to hear
that you are happy with your 2650 and 'Respect' your thoughts.

Different Strokes for Different Folks..

---------------------------------------------------------------

I would add to the above; the thing (other than reliability..lol) you
most likely are enjoying, is the 'Torque' that the Roots Blower
is supplying at lower engine rpm's.

Frankly, that's what I enjoy about my CTSV.. . .

Cheers

 

Great points Rubber Duck and I'm 100% with you. I wish the whipple had been reliable for me but after 4 different failures requiring the blower to come off, I wasn't about to put it back on my car. To clarify my earlier comment, the 2650 is performing better for ME on MY car, and not just in terms of reliability. We were close to maxing out the whipple on my car (warranty rpm). Looking at a bunch of old logs, it was holding 21-21.5 psi with spikes to 22. With the eforce 2650, my logs are showing it doesn't drop below 21.1 with a peak of 22.x and riding closer to 22psi at the top of each gear. At the same boost levels on my car, the eforce made 15 more peak hp and 60 ft lbs more peak torque. As you mentioned, the 2650 is making a lot more torque in the lower rpm range. At EVERY point in the graph, the eforce is making the same or more hp and torque.

The car has a chiller system on it so I've never had heat issues with either blower and can do back to back pulls without any IAT retard. The dual pass intercooler design of the eforce is interesting to me and I'm hoping someone does real world comparisons against the whipple. I assume the whipple would run cooler but who knows. I tried sifting through a number of logs but I'm having trouble finding 2 that closely match in ambient air temps and starting IATs/MAT values.

The whipple has been out a while and I don't think I've seen even one 1000whp build on the LT4. The 2650 hasn't been out long for the LT4 and I've seen several breaking 1000whp like it is nothing.

 

Nice post my friend. . .

If, as you say, this Eforce 2650 will produce that much boost,
even with the Chiller system (which I applaud you for installing)
to hold down the temps, then it might be that we finally have a
'Roots Style' blower that can provide for 1000 HP, albeit seemingly
with the requirement of E85 and the 'Chiller'. . . No Big Deal!

Again. . . 'Nice Post', as it contains good info from the 'Field',
also called 'Empirical' data that helps to connect the dots..

Cheers

 

on paper the whipple may shine , but from past history . The TVS blowers are more reliable . i dont think anyone will argue that. How many TVS blower failures caused catastrophic damage? most blowers get way over spun and when they fail, its usually a bearing or two that is a simple repair . Look at the hellcat guys with twin screws. seen a few of those blowers really come apart when being spun harder.

Now If duck can put reliability in an equation .......

 

Chase,
I saw your first post and decided not to post, as I did not
desire to seem argumentative.

Went through the same thought process with Houdini, but
decided to post while 'attempting' to not appear to be argumentative..lol

I believe the 'Twin Screws' are a better Supercharger.
I outlined my technical argument earlier for all to read.

Houdini's post, and now yours brings up the Whipple reliability issues.

I think the issues 'Might (?)' surround the use of the smaller
Whipple's that are being spun to hard.

I say 'I Think (?)' because I am simply attempting to connect
dots from the field that make some sort of reasonable sense.

Others should feel invited to also give their comments / experiences
regarding their experiences with either the smaller, or larger Whipple's.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Jesse / Random 84 purchased Ali's 400 cid engine.

Ali ran a larger volume (I think it was a 3.3L?) 'Twin Screw'
on that engine and to my knowledge did not have any of
these issues. . . ????

The above comments are not written in an attempt to 'Sway'
anyone against the Eforce 2650, as Houdini has put forth
a considerable argument for that blower.

Just wanted to comment on how I am 'Viewing' the Whipple issues.

Take care Chase..

 

This thread makes me happy. I'm probably going to pull the trigger on an under-hood 2650 once it's available. I don't plan on running 20+ PSI, but 15-16 sounds good and that should get me in the 1,000 WHP range with a 108mm TB.

 

That might make a good combo for you. . .

(1000 hp * 1.5)= 1500 cfm required.
108 mm TB should provide for 14.22 Sq." of 'Flow Area'.

That amounts to. . .
(1500 / 14.22)= 105.48 cfm / Sq."

Velocity would be. . .
(105.48 * 2.4)= 253 fps <= Slightly high, but still ok..

If your 'Static' compression ratio is close to 10.0:1,
your engine should make about 835 lbs. ft
to 865 lbs. ft, at 2-BAR Absolute Pressure Ratio,
on a 'Quality' Gasoline.

That number will also be related to the engines
Volumetric Efficiency, or VE% at the peak torque rpm.

That's the first thing you want to look at on a Dyno.
If the torque number is off, then the Dyno is 'Crap'. . . .

Cheers

 

Here is some interesting info on the Magnuson 2650 Blower as
related to NHRA and the COPO Camaro.

https://www.dragzine.com/tech-stori...ch-stories/chevrolet-performances-supercharged-350-copo-engine-is-new-for-2019/


And here is some info from the Kenne Belle site:
Superchargers Are Better When Smaller - MYTH! | Kenne Bell

At 25 psi and 1300 cfm, the 2.8 beats the 2.3 by 59 HP in power consumption/parasitic loss.

In reality, the smaller supercharger with a 20% smaller displacement has to spin 20% higher to achieve the same cfm rating and boost figures as the 2.8T supercharger. That is not good. Higher rpm equates to higher heat and increases in air and oil friction. This requires the engine to waste more HP to drive the supercharger.

To put a figure on how much frictional power consumption (PC) is lost, we tested both superchargers on our dyno. In our testing, when comparing the 2.3TVS to the new KB 2.8T at 25 psi and 1300cfm, the power consumption LOSS of the 2.3 was 59 horsepower more than the 2.8.

Cheers

 

Something up with the Whipples, Notice them up 4 sale often on HC’s and the CTS V


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yeah the V2 guys struggle with the hood decision. I'm glad the eforce 2650 fits under the stock hood on my V3.

 

Rumor is that one was installed in a V2 which will be running in Battle Creek Speedfest this weekend. We will see how fast he is and what his hood setup is like


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I'm going M2650. Just had another whipple come back to my local shop that had ground itself up. Whipple does nothing other then replace/repair the blower. What about all the shavings in the engine? Also, their warranty is 1 year vs 3 years. I'd rather take a little less boost with a little more insurance IMO.

 

Dyno numbers aside. What blower is quicker down the track