What did you do for your Terminator today?

P49Y-CY

fomocomofo
Established Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
11,217
Location
southwest
I think this is the silliest argument against larger blowers. I made 685rwhp/605rwtq on pump 91 octane with a 3.4L Whipple pullied with a 3.5"/6.55" lower. (It was 17psi at 3400ft elevation, sea level would have been 20-21psi) It never felt lazy and trapped 134mph at 3400ft elevation. With my big bore motor its showing 15psi now on the same pulley combo.

It would be way better on E85, but the big blowers aren't lazy down low!

If you don't have easy access to E85 it will be fine on lower boost.

This is interesting to me because I know I would never use anything but 91 octane pump gas. I want to be able to drive cross country without thinking about it.
 

c6zhombre

E85 NutSwinger
Established Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
5,430
Location
League City, TX
I think this is the silliest argument against larger blowers. I made 685rwhp/605rwtq on pump 91 octane with a 3.4L Whipple pullied with a 3.5"/6.55" lower. (It was 17psi at 3400ft elevation, sea level would have been 20-21psi) It never felt lazy and trapped 134mph at 3400ft elevation. With my big bore motor its showing 15psi now on the same pulley combo.

It would be way better on E85, but the big blowers aren't lazy down low!

If you don't have easy access to E85 it will be fine on lower boost.


Some will argue the smaller 2.3 blowers....even the factory eaton....are "snappier" off idle and thru the mid range when strapped with pump gas versus E85.

I'd take it further and say ALL blowers are lazy down low versus the same blower pullied and timed for ethanol. You need a reference point to make comparisons.....so that means one needs to have experienced the car under both fuel type configurations. If you haven't .... then it's impossible to understand what the "lazy" comment means. It makes perfect sense once you've actually driven the car both ways.
 

cj428mach

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
7,609
Location
Kansas
I think this is the silliest argument against larger blowers. I made 685rwhp/605rwtq on pump 91 octane with a 3.4L Whipple pullied with a 3.5"/6.55" lower. (It was 17psi at 3400ft elevation, sea level would have been 20-21psi) It never felt lazy and trapped 134mph at 3400ft elevation. With my big bore motor its showing 15psi now on the same pulley combo.

It would be way better on E85, but the big blowers aren't lazy down low!

If you don't have easy access to E85 it will be fine on lower boost.

Have you had both? I know Malcolmv8 has had both, his 2.9 crusher was in the 27-30PSI range on a built motor with e85 vs around 24psi on a built motor with a 2.3L TVS. He said the 2.3 is a night and day difference in the low to midrange vs the 2.9. The 2.9 really shined in the upper RPM's and in boiling the intercooler fluid.
 

Bdubbs

u even lift bro?
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
16,039
Location
MN
I'll never go into boost ever again on 92 octane. Currently running 92 while I'm breaking in my clutch.

I have half a tank left of that crap, then I'll be switching to e85.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 

c6zhombre

E85 NutSwinger
Established Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
5,430
Location
League City, TX
I'll never go into boost ever again on 92 octane. Currently running 92 while I'm breaking in my clutch.

I have half a tank left of that crap, then I'll be switching to e85.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using the svtperformance.com mobile app

Didn't you store it with pump gas and fuel "additive".....and it still went bad come spring?!?

F that crap....store it with E85. Bet it would have fired right up!
 

cj428mach

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
7,609
Location
Kansas
Also i went from the 2.3 tvs to a 2.65. I can feel a loss of low end power but the 2.65 doesnt run out of steam at high rpm like the 2.3 did. This was on e85, the bigger 2.65 would suffer more on gasoline with lower boost down low.
 

01yellercobra

AKA slo984now
Established Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
21,126
Location
Cali
This is interesting to me because I know I would never use anything but 91 octane pump gas. I want to be able to drive cross country without thinking about it.

Given that you've had your cars forever and are still happy with the stock eaton you'll probably never need more than what a 2.3 can do. I went with the 2.9 as I have the same idea of looking towards the future. I don't want to have to swap blowers again so I went big. Will it be a dog on pump gas while I work on the tune? Maybe to some. But I've never considered over 600hp a dog by any means. Personally I prefer a bigger blower turned a little slower to hit the same amount of boost. That's why my last set up had an F1A instead of a D1.
 

04torchred

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
2,901
Location
Calgary AB Canada
Put on straight street tires, no R compound that is the difference lol. You are right though spun harder everything will feel stronger as it should making more power and especially more torque down low. I believe I was gaining 15-20rwhp/rwtq per 1* of timing when I first tested my combo. So from 18-22* is going to feel a lot different.

I don't get the lazy comment with a PD blower. Centri or turbo I can get on board with a car being "lazy".

I haven't had a 2.3 on my car, but driven friends cobras with them and I will take my similar boosted 3.4 over a 2.3.

I would not choose a 2.3L Whipple over a 2.9L in any capacity.

Some will argue the smaller 2.3 blowers....even the factory eaton....are "snappier" off idle and thru the mid range when strapped with pump gas versus E85.

I'd take it further and say ALL blowers are lazy down low versus the same blower pullied and timed for ethanol. You need a reference point to make comparisons.....so that means one needs to have experienced the car under both fuel type configurations. If you haven't .... then it's impossible to understand what the "lazy" comment means. It makes perfect sense once you've actually driven the car both ways.
 
Last edited:

04torchred

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
2,901
Location
Calgary AB Canada
No I haven't on my own car. I have driven 2.3L whipple cars though.

I believe his motors were different as well, he has more compression in his 2.3 TVS then the whipple combo did. That will account for a much stronger feeling setup as well.

Lazy isn't a quantifiable term. Does that mean 50-100rwtq less on a dyno, 2-5mph at the track or just simply that throttle response seems less?

Have you had both? I know Malcolmv8 has had both, his 2.9 crusher was in the 27-30PSI range on a built motor with e85 vs around 24psi on a built motor with a 2.3L TVS. He said the 2.3 is a night and day difference in the low to midrange vs the 2.9. The 2.9 really shined in the upper RPM's and in boiling the intercooler fluid.
 

04torchred

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
2,901
Location
Calgary AB Canada
I am curious if you have dyno or track times to show the loss of torque. Be interesting to see if its just a perceived loss.

Also i went from the 2.3 tvs to a 2.65. I can feel a loss of low end power but the 2.65 doesnt run out of steam at high rpm like the 2.3 did. This was on e85, the bigger 2.65 would suffer more on gasoline with lower boost down low.
 

94 Cobra R

Same Ol Same Ol
Established Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
1,119
Location
Gainesville, FL
I actually tested this theory and mine was exactly the same.


I tested volts at the battery and checked what the aeroforce gauge was reading. Most said it would be about .5 different.
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using the svtperformance.com mobile app

I literally just checked it again this past weekend....anywhere from .5-.8 difference! LOL...wonder what determines it and if there’s a way to make it more accurate?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

*Jay*

Tweeker by trade
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,839
Location
North East OH
I literally just checked it again this past weekend....anywhere from .5-.8 difference! LOL...wonder what determines it and if there’s a way to make it more accurate?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Every single connection from the cig lighter socket to the battery is the culprit. If all the connections are tight and clean you will get a better reading, any looseness, corrossion and wire junction add resistance on that current path and you drop some voltage at each point. It all adds up and there is your difference.
 

94 Cobra R

Same Ol Same Ol
Established Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
1,119
Location
Gainesville, FL
Every single connection from the cig lighter socket to the battery is the culprit. If all the connections are tight and clean you will get a better reading, any looseness, corrossion and wire junction add resistance on that current path and you drop some voltage at each point. It all adds up and there is your difference.

Never even thought about it that way...great and valid point!
 

cj428mach

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
7,609
Location
Kansas
No I haven't on my own car. I have driven 2.3L whipple cars though.

I believe his motors were different as well, he has more compression in his 2.3 TVS then the whipple combo did. That will account for a much stronger feeling setup as well.

Lazy isn't a quantifiable term. Does that mean 50-100rwtq less on a dyno, 2-5mph at the track or just simply that throttle response seems less?

Malcolms 2.3 tvs vs 2.9 crusher was on the same motor. I only dynoed my 2.65 but the difference was a noticeable sotp loss in low end torque, this is with the 2.65 having an extra lb of boost.

You also hear similar things when people use to compare ported high boost eatons vs similar boost 2.3 cars. Believe it, don't believe it. If a bigger blower was better at lower boost they wouldn't offer small blowers.
 

01yellercobra

AKA slo984now
Established Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
21,126
Location
Cali
You also hear similar things when people use to compare ported high boost eatons vs similar boost 2.3 cars. Believe it, don't believe it. If a bigger blower was better at lower boost they wouldn't offer small blowers.

Doesn't VMP prove this point though since they don't offer the 2.3 anymore? For the Cobra at least.

I think either way they'd offer the smaller blowers just because of price. Some people will want the upgraded blower, but not want to pay the big blower price.

Just my thoughts.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top