3.6 KB vs VMP Gen3R test

Robert M

800 HORSE FUN!!
Established Member
Joined
May 15, 2003
Messages
9,157
Location
Sunny, Fla.
He was just referring to the BIGUN rear inlet needing the cowl cut. I am not sure about the new 4.9 but I haven't looked into it yet.

Ok, but originally, the 4.0 and 4.2 KB's with the standard install inlet required a cowl lip cut also, I was wondering if that is still the case?

R
 

Justin@VMP

Authorized Vendor
Authorized Vendor
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
1,133
Location
Orlando, FL
Unless you've read KB's propaganda, you can't see the irony in this. The KB blower is over 1/3 larger by displacement. Good thing Eaton doesn't make a larger rotor pack.

:D that made me laugh.

In all seriousness though, that 3.6L KB is a bad mo-fo. I was quite impressed by it. As a GT500 owner I would say the biggest downside is hood clearance.

There is really no RPM limit on the 2650...at least I haven't found it yet. We've seen 26,000-27,000rpm based on pulley size calculations.

The real limit is boost...none of this PD stuff can take 30-40psi like a turbo...too much rotor deflection and heat generation. Keep them under 30psi, preferably low-mid 20s and they are very happy. If you do say 25psi with a VMP TVS we just want to see the car have a good intercooler system with a high volume pump that can move at least 10-12GPM.

Regarding the overlay, after many dyno pulls, the torque converter clutch began to not hold very well at low RPM. A little slip skewed the TQ reading lower with the TVS. On a setup like this it is almost to be expected. HP is calculated from straight roller RPM vs time so we know that part is extremely accurate.

Temp rise was good on both configurations.
 

mlackke

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
153
Location
Finland
Good video, BUT :D...

It would nice to see honest comparision:
buck-by-buck
displacement-by-displacement
 

merkyworks

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
980
Location
Houston
Maybe this is a moot point but I don't think I've heard anyone mention how much HP it takes to turn each SC unit. Lots of talk about rotor RPM and flow etc. but what about the amount of HP needed to turn a 3.6 Vs 2.65 TVS.
 

Oiljunkie

Adrenaline junkie
Established Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
601
Location
Mountain View
Maybe this is a moot point but I don't think I've heard anyone mention how much HP it takes to turn each SC unit. Lots of talk about rotor RPM and flow etc. but what about the amount of HP needed to turn a 3.6 Vs 2.65 TVS.
That is implied in the video, the rotating mass difference between the 2, but as he says it’s not scientific cause he wasn’t able the weight the rotor pack from the KB.
 

Kenne Bell

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
1,024
Location
Southern California
There is really no RPM limit on the 2650...at least I haven't found it yet. We've seen 26,000-27,000rpm based on pulley size calculations.

The real limit is boost...none of this PD stuff can take 30-40psi like a turbo...too much rotor deflection and heat generation. Keep them under 30psi, preferably low-mid 20s and they are very happy. If you do say 25psi with a VMP TVS we just want to see the car have a good intercooler system with a high volume pump that can move at least 10-12GPM.

Justin, I believe you are confusing the undersized 2.65 you use in your kits with the KB Liquid Cooled Patented 3.2, 3.6, 4.2, 4.7 and 4.9 displacement superchargers. If you are going to continue to hype without data, you should know that:

1). KB superchargers do not need to be kept under 30 psi and preferably in the 20's

2). KB superchargers can run 30-40 psi

We run 35-38 psi on Mark Meiering's 1652RWHP Record Holding 6 second Shelby GT500 and 32 psi on JLP's 1500HP 5.0. Have you ever measured the temps on our 3L and 4L superchargers?

3). Too much rotor deflection? You can measure this? I own the company and am not aware of any "rotor deflection" that causes any issues.

Now to your comments about the 2.65. "No RPM limit on the 2650?" Really? Enough of this B.S. When tested, the 2.65R on our supercharger dyno (at a much lower 23,000 RPM and 22 psi), we were forced to lower the oil level 50%. And even then it burned the paint off the front cover and destroyed the drive. The 2.65 Shelby kit supercharger completely melted and dissolved the front plastic coupler at the same 22 psi. The remnants destroyed all the bearing and scuffed the abradable rotors and internal case. Air charge temps were 380 degrees or a big 55 degrees hotter than the 3.6 at the same boost.

This is data from our own dedicated supercharger dyno. You may want to consider purchasing a supercharger dyno as testing on a chassis dyno does not in any way provide all the necessary data for supercharger development.

vmp1.jpg
vmp2.jpg
vmp3.jpeg
 

4VandHemiKiller

Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
245
Location
AFRICA
Justin, I believe you are confusing the undersized 2.65 you use in your kits with the KB Liquid Cooled Patented 3.2, 3.6, 4.2, 4.7 and 4.9 displacement superchargers. If you are going to continue to hype without data, you should know that:

1). KB superchargers do not need to be kept under 30 psi and preferably in the 20's

2). KB superchargers can run 30-40 psi

We run 35-38 psi on Mark Meiering's 1652RWHP Record Holding 6 second Shelby GT500 and 32 psi on JLP's 1500HP 5.0. Have you ever measured the temps on our 3L and 4L superchargers?

3). Too much rotor deflection? You can measure this? I own the company and am not aware of any "rotor deflection" that causes any issues.

Now to your comments about the 2.65. "No RPM limit on the 2650?" Really? Enough of this B.S. When tested, the 2.65R on our supercharger dyno (at a much lower 23,000 RPM and 22 psi), we were forced to lower the oil level 50%. And even then it burned the paint off the front cover and destroyed the drive. The 2.65 Shelby kit supercharger completely melted and dissolved the front plastic coupler at the same 22 psi. The remnants destroyed all the bearing and scuffed the abradable rotors and internal case. Air charge temps were 380 degrees or a big 55 degrees hotter than the 3.6 at the same boost.

This is data from our own dedicated supercharger dyno. You may want to consider purchasing a supercharger dyno as testing on a chassis dyno does not in any way provide all the necessary data for supercharger development.

View attachment 1615157 View attachment 1615158 View attachment 1615159

What they forgot to mention was the TVS was pumping 22 psi of wet cement for those parasitic drag numbers.
 

gimmie11s

I Race Pontiacs
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
18,488
Location
la la land
Justin, I believe you are confusing the undersized 2.65 you use in your kits with the KB Liquid Cooled Patented 3.2, 3.6, 4.2, 4.7 and 4.9 displacement superchargers. If you are going to continue to hype without data, you should know that:

1). KB superchargers do not need to be kept under 30 psi and preferably in the 20's

2). KB superchargers can run 30-40 psi

We run 35-38 psi on Mark Meiering's 1652RWHP Record Holding 6 second Shelby GT500 and 32 psi on JLP's 1500HP 5.0. Have you ever measured the temps on our 3L and 4L superchargers?

3). Too much rotor deflection? You can measure this? I own the company and am not aware of any "rotor deflection" that causes any issues.

Now to your comments about the 2.65. "No RPM limit on the 2650?" Really? Enough of this B.S. When tested, the 2.65R on our supercharger dyno (at a much lower 23,000 RPM and 22 psi), we were forced to lower the oil level 50%. And even then it burned the paint off the front cover and destroyed the drive. The 2.65 Shelby kit supercharger completely melted and dissolved the front plastic coupler at the same 22 psi. The remnants destroyed all the bearing and scuffed the abradable rotors and internal case. Air charge temps were 380 degrees or a big 55 degrees hotter than the 3.6 at the same boost.

This is data from our own dedicated supercharger dyno. You may want to consider purchasing a supercharger dyno as testing on a chassis dyno does not in any way provide all the necessary data for supercharger development.


Oh daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn!!!


1-CE9073-C-4966-4-AE0-B1-DD-3-A1-C045-AA0-B3.gif



Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top